PDA

View Full Version : Draft: Top Guys for Us


Mr. Laz
01-04-2005, 10:17 AM
CB
Antrel Rolle CB 6-1, 200 Miami
Marlin Jackson CB 6-1, 200 Michigan
Carlos Rogers CB 6-1, 195 Auburn

if one of these cornerbacks is on the board, i don't see how we can pass them up. Its our weakest position.

LB
Derrick Johnson LB 6-4, 220 Texas
Ahmad Brooks LB 6-4, 250 Virginia

Our 2nd weakest position IMO ... linebackers tend to fall some, so having 1 or both of these guys around when we pick is possible.


DE
Mathias Kiwanuka DE 6-8, 250 Boston College
Erasmus James DE 6-4, 260 Wisconsin
Matt Roth DE 6-4, 270 Iowa
David Pollack DE 6-3, 275 Georgia

personally i think pollack is a little small and needs to be a rush LB in a 3-4. I had to put matt Roth on here or parker would have a coronary. :) i've never seen Roth play, so blame parker if he stinks.

WR
Braylon Edwards WR 6-3, 205 Michigan

ok.. i dont really want to take a WR, but if hell freezen over and Edwards falls to us then i think we would have to take him... he's a big time stud. Think Randy Moss without the fugged up attitude. :thumb:




10 players and we pick 15th, throw in the mandatory early QB picks etc, we should have more than a decent shot to get one of the guys from this list.

i don't see any reason that EACH ONE of these guys shouldn't be able to start for us, at their respective positions, in their first year given the proper chance.

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 10:21 AM
Ahmad Brooks LB 6-4, 250 Virginia

That's my choice. BIG, freakish speed, can <i>tackle</i>(at least we'll have ONE LB who can), and has good instincts.

At WR add Clayton, OU. That kid would be a perfect fit in this O IMO.

MGRS13
01-04-2005, 10:24 AM
We can't get Rolle picking 15th so I say we go with Erasmus James in the first and best CB availiable in the second. If we do this and sign E. Hartwell and ken lucas in the offseason plus find a posible saftey in the later rounds of the draft I think we can improve.

MGRS13
01-04-2005, 10:26 AM
At WR add Clayton, OU. That kid would be a perfect fit in this O IMO.
If clayton is still there in the second he would be hard to pass up......that being said I don't no how good of a corner he would make. :thumb:

ChiTown
01-04-2005, 10:29 AM
I want the kid out of Boston College. Dudes a freak, and very quick for his height.

Actually, we can't go wrong drafting any of those positions in the first round. We can only fook up if we take the wrong player..........

Scaga
01-04-2005, 10:30 AM
What????
No list of Safeties that can be converted to a Corner????

:banghead:

:cuss:

Manila-Chief
01-04-2005, 10:34 AM
Ahmad Brooks LB 6-4, 250 Virginia

That's my choice. BIG, freakish speed, can <i>tackle</i>(at least we'll have ONE LB who can), and has good instincts.

At WR add Clayton, OU. That kid would be a perfect fit in this O IMO.

Seems to me that LB would help our D the most for a draft choice. Seems like they may get on the field a little faster. But, it depends upon who the FA's are that we sign???

I'd love to have Antrel Rolle or Marlin Jackson but they may not be there when we pick.

MGRS13
01-04-2005, 10:36 AM
Rolle would be the best pick for us, but I believe come draft day he will be gone 2 hours before we pick.

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 10:38 AM
I think Rolle will be a playa.... I also think he'll be long gone by the time we select.

Carlos Rogers should be there... he's a damn fine CB prospect. We definitely need corners, so I wouldn't be upset with that selection.

Brooks is a frigging BEAST. That's what I want at Mike LB - a big, fast, mean SOB that can make tackles. I want a tackle machine with anattitude... IMO, that's Brooks.

Chiefnj
01-04-2005, 10:57 AM
People criticize Pollack for being undersized, but according to Laz's stats he's one of the bigger DE's (weight wise).

Chiefnj
01-04-2005, 11:14 AM
One more question for those in the Brooks camp.

Why do you like him? I watched their bowl game and he really didn't do much.

I looked at Virginia's run defense #'s and overall it was impressive; until you look a little deeper. They did very well against sub-par talent, but against good teams they got gouged by the run.

Has anyone actually watched them play and saw Brooks stand out?

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 11:21 AM
One more question for those in the Brooks camp.

Why do you like him? I watched their bowl game and he really didn't do much.

I looked at Virginia's run defense #'s and overall it was impressive; until you look a little deeper. They did very well against sub-par talent, but against good teams they got gouged by the run.

Has anyone actually watched them play and saw Brooks stand out?

I've caught maybe 3 games w/ Brooks at MLB. What I liked about him was quick reaction to plays, proper angles, and the ability to make the tackle. I don't remember him DOMINATING a game.

HolmeZz
01-04-2005, 11:33 AM
One more question for those in the Brooks camp.

Why do you like him? I watched their bowl game and he really didn't do much.

I looked at Virginia's run defense #'s and overall it was impressive; until you look a little deeper. They did very well against sub-par talent, but against good teams they got gouged by the run.

Has anyone actually watched them play and saw Brooks stand out?

His height/weight combo is probably the main reason why he's coveted. I haven't seen him 'dominate' a game, but I've seen him play at a high level, where he's got his nose in every play. I think he's a playmaker at linebacker, but I don't think he'll be able to do it from Day 1 in the NFL. IMO and pretty much everyone elses, Derrick Johnson's a better linebacker and would be more effective early on in his career.

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 11:35 AM
Problem with Johnson is his size. He's actually better suited to play SS than OLB in the NFL.

Dave Lane
01-04-2005, 11:35 AM
I liked what I saw out of Rogers last night from Auburn definate attitude.

Dave

Mr. Laz
01-04-2005, 11:36 AM
People criticize Pollack for being undersized, but according to Laz's stats he's one of the bigger DE's (weight wise).

ya ... but look at him, unlike the others, he doesn't seem have room to add anymore weight.

dude is built like a linebacker


leonard little and dwight freeney are both undersized too... but both have blazing speed. i dont think Pollack has that.


maybe he can do it ... but seems like more of a 3-4 rush backer to me.

HolmeZz
01-04-2005, 11:38 AM
I'm not very high on Pollack as an NFL player, but he does have a hell of a motor. Sometimes that makes you outplay your actual talent.

penguinz
01-04-2005, 11:41 AM
Ahmad Brooks LB 6-4, 250 Virginia
and has good instincts.

This is the most ignorant comment anyone ever says in sports. No one has instincts for any sport. Sports are a learned behavior not an intinct.

HolmeZz
01-04-2005, 11:44 AM
This is the most ignorant comment anyone ever says in sports. No one has instincts for any sport. Sports are a learned behavior not an intinct.

Not really. I look at instincts as your ability to react quickly without having to think about what you're doing, and that's very much a part of being good at whatever sport you play.

Coogs
01-04-2005, 11:44 AM
Has anyone actually watched them play and saw Brooks stand out?

I watched them a couple of times. Virginia played a 3-4, and the only real times I saw him stand out is when the put him on the end of the defensive line and had him rush the passer on 3rd and long plays. He was damn good on those plays, but I didn't see much else from him at regular plays at his MLB spot.

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 11:45 AM
Pretty obvious 'penguinz' has never participated in a sport. :D

penguinz
01-04-2005, 11:49 AM
lol. That is funny. An instinct is an imborn behavior that is characteristic of a species. If playing football or any other sport was in instinct we all would be great at it.

Playing any sport is a skill. Not an instinct.

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 11:49 AM
Whatever you say, Poindexter :thumb:

HolmeZz
01-04-2005, 11:52 AM
lol. That is funny. An instinct is an imborn behavior that is characteristic of a species. If playing football or any other sport was in instinct we all would be great at it.

Playing any sport is a skill. Not an instinct.

You're confusing playing the sport with being successful at the sport.

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 11:54 AM
You're confusing playing the sport with being successful at the sport.

I think he's just confused, period.

FYI penguinz, instinct can also be defined as innate capability or aptitude. Go look it up, mr literal "I just took a science class so I think I know everything" :p

Chiefnj
01-04-2005, 11:55 AM
I just don't see Brooks as a good pick for the Chiefs if the Chiefs want an impact player in '05.

Only 2 years college experience, and please don't argue the military academy had a good program, plus he's been playing in a 3-4. It will be a huge adjustment to play MLB in a 4-3 in the NFL.

He might pan out down the road, but in year one, I doubt it. That's the problem with the Chiefs draft picks lately - they pick a lot of projects. Wilkerson had 3 years experience and was raw, Siavii limited experience and raw, Battle raw at corner. Players with limited experience at a particular position don't usually come into the NFL like a blue chip player.

penguinz
01-04-2005, 11:56 AM
Do you even know what an instinct is? An instict would be salmon knowing from birth that they need to swim downstream to the ocean to grow and then upstream to spawn. You are born with an instict. You 'learn' how to play football.

Coogs
01-04-2005, 11:57 AM
I just don't see Brooks as a good pick for the Chiefs if the Chiefs want an impact player in '05.


I concur. Which makes it pretty much official he will be our pick! :p

penguinz
01-04-2005, 11:58 AM
FYI penguinz, instinct can also be defined as innate capability or aptitude. Go look it up, mr literal "I just took a science class so I think I know everything" :p
lol. you just proved my point over yours. Innate is also a born with behavior and not learned.

DeepSouth
01-04-2005, 12:00 PM
I'd pick LB over CB if two equally talented players were on the board. I think the LBs are the weaker link. I think the safeties were so involved in stopping the run, they couldn't help with double teams on WRs like they should. I think they were so involved in stopping the run because the Chiefs Linebackers suck. Get some mean, playmaking linebackers and the safeties don't have to play so close to the box to stop the run.

Just my thoughts.......

HC_Chief
01-04-2005, 12:00 PM
nj - I don't know if we'll be able to get a guy like that at 15 overall. The "blue chip", "can't miss" types usually don't fall out of the top ten. Of course there are exceptions, but the top prospects go fast and early because they <i>are</i> the supposed "can't miss" guys.

If we want an immediate impact, FA is the way to go. IMO

penguinz - is English your second language? If so, let me be the first to inform you that words in the language can have more than one literal meaning. :D

HolmeZz
01-04-2005, 12:02 PM
Do you even know what an instinct is? An instict would be salmon knowing from birth that they need to swim downstream to the ocean to grow and then upstream to spawn. You are born with an instict. You 'learn' how to play football.

Yes, you learn the basic rules of the game, but if you knew anything about football you'd know it is a game of improvisation. You're not going to be good at reacting to improvisation without having good enough instincts.

penguinz
01-04-2005, 12:14 PM
That is called athleticism. That is still a bahavior that is leanred/developed. Not an instinct.

HolmeZz
01-04-2005, 12:32 PM
That is called athleticism. That is still a bahavior that is leanred/developed. Not an instinct.

Athleticism is what enables you to actually make a play. But if you don't know how to react to certain sitations, you won't be in position to use your athleticism.

Mr. Laz
01-04-2005, 02:57 PM
and i just like to take this time to express my profound gratitude to penquin and co for ruining a perfect good Draft thread with all the irrelevant bullchit.



:mad:










:p

Fairplay
01-04-2005, 03:04 PM
My instinct tells me this threads going sour. :hmmm:

Chiefnj
01-04-2005, 03:07 PM
I concur. Which makes it pretty much official he will be our pick! :p

What happened with Rod Davis?? You and I both thought he'd be a good MLB.

CanadaKC
01-04-2005, 03:38 PM
He might pan out down the road, but in year one, I doubt it. That's the problem with the Chiefs draft picks lately - they pick a lot of projects.

yeah but...we haven't drafted a player with thhis much natural ability at his position since Derrick Thomas and Tony Gonzalez...IMO. He has Brian Urlacher like ability. Nuff said.

htismaqe
01-04-2005, 04:00 PM
He might pan out down the road, but in year one, I doubt it. That's the problem with the Chiefs draft picks lately - they pick a lot of projects.

yeah but...we haven't drafted a player with thhis much natural ability at his position since Derrick Thomas and Tony Gonzalez...IMO. He has Brian Urlacher like ability. Nuff said.

Don't you read? Brian Urlacher is the most overrated LB in football. :d

2bikemike
01-04-2005, 04:01 PM
Canada KC your fugging up the scrolling.

DaKCMan AP
01-04-2005, 04:05 PM
I'd add DE Marcus Spears and CB Corey Webster from LSU to that list.

htismaqe
01-04-2005, 04:09 PM
I'd add DE Marcus Spears and CB Corey Webster from LSU to that list.

Neither of them looked worth a crap in the Capitol One Bowl. Especially Spears.

Plus Spears has an unreported biceps injury...

Thig Lyfe
01-04-2005, 04:17 PM
Ahmad Brooks LB 6-4, 250 Virginia

That's my choice. BIG, freakish speed, can <i>tackle</i>(at least we'll have ONE LB who can), and has good instincts.

At WR add Clayton, OU. That kid would be a perfect fit in this O IMO.
Brooks looks awesome. I just randomly pulled up his scouting report yesterday. Absolutely AMAZING comments on there. "Unlimited" potential. Wow.

He's a soph, but it will be a Fitzgerald situation. Would be an AWESOME pick.

Chiefnj
01-04-2005, 04:17 PM
Too bad he didn't show that natural ability in their Bowl game.

I just saw this scouting report on a guy:

"Great character and competitiveness. A coach’s dream. High-motor player who really seems to like the game. Has a thick, powerful body and can play in any type of defense, including a two-gap scheme. Uses hands well and does a nice job of controlling blockers. Very quick and flexible and has an explosive short-area burst. Can push the pocket and also get into a gap and come clean. Comes off the ball well and will often beat the blocker with his first move. Has been durable and played in every game during his career."

Sounds great doesn't it. It was Ryan Sims.

Chiefs Pantalones
01-04-2005, 04:27 PM
You can be a natural at the game of football. Yes, the game is learned, but once you play and know what you're doing, instincts are developed, you develop a feel of the game, you become one with it because you play so much, so yes, you can have instincts in the game of football, and basketball, and baseball, etc.

Although, you can play the game and not be good at it. You may be physically sound but not have the instincts needed to go to that next level (those instincts would have been developed while learning the game, but if not, then IMO, football just isn't in your gameplan of life, at least not a star, maybe a backup or something if you have the physical tools, but it all comes down to mental, emotional, instinctual skills, IMO).

Just my 2 cents...

the Talking Can
01-04-2005, 04:46 PM
Too bad he didn't show that natural ability in their Bowl game.

I just saw this scouting report on a guy:

"Great character and competitiveness. A coach’s dream. High-motor player who really seems to like the game. Has a thick, powerful body and can play in any type of defense, including a two-gap scheme. Uses hands well and does a nice job of controlling blockers. Very quick and flexible and has an explosive short-area burst. Can push the pocket and also get into a gap and come clean. Comes off the ball well and will often beat the blocker with his first move. Has been durable and played in every game during his career."

Sounds great doesn't it. It was Ryan Sims.

can we sue that guy for misrepresentation or something?

suds79
01-04-2005, 06:13 PM
I can't understand how some people are saying DE.

Yes I know we suck all over but You've got to admit CB & LB have got to come before DE.

Having said that, here's my draft board.

1 - Rolle (I have a problem with the fact we don't have any Miami defensive players on this team)
2 - Derrick Johnson (Best OLB to come out in years)
3 - Carlos Rogers (thorpe award winner and teams are scared to throw to him. He's really good)
4 - I suppose the Virginia guy if he's that good. Have to learn more about him.

JohnnyV13
01-05-2005, 07:08 PM
That is called athleticism. That is still a bahavior that is leanred/developed. Not an instinct.

Penguinz...as a guy that has an undergrad molecular biology degree, went to grad school and was involved in research that demonstrated a form of non-DNA inheritance in prokaryotes, GROW THE F UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are trying to apply a technical biological definition to colloquial football talk and say,"see...you drooling football fans are dumber than me the great scientist."

Technical terms developed in one field often take on a broader colloquial application when people draw analogies to the original use. What you must remember is to use your techical meaning when doing something in the proper field and then accept the commonl usage when interacting with others in another interest.

Ultimately, it comes down to you wanting to proclaim superior intellect over others, using scientific knowledge (presuming others here do not haive your training) as your means. If you want to impress people here, geez, why not try sharing your football insight.