PDA

View Full Version : sick suspicion about carl peterson and the draft


elvomito
03-16-2005, 02:00 AM
I don't know what's going to unfold in the near future as far as player signings, but I just had a terrible thought about draft day: What if CP thinks he made enough defensive moves to pick a WR with the #1?

I totally expect this to be a 100% defensive draft at least the first two rounds. Anything less will be caca

keg in kc
03-16-2005, 02:06 AM
I think the fact that we're bringing in WRs, including several 'developmental' WRs is a sign we're probably not going to draft one.

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 02:26 AM
There is a solid group of people around here that want to draft WR in the 1st. I am not one of them really but I find it a bit suprising.

Alphaman
03-16-2005, 06:27 AM
I would suggest you get your head around the possibility of Mark Clayton or Troy Williamson in the first. CB or LB is a possibility as well.

patteeu
03-16-2005, 06:31 AM
I don't know what's going to unfold in the near future as far as player signings, but I just had a terrible thought about draft day: What if CP thinks he made enough defensive moves to pick a WR with the #1?

I totally expect this to be a 100% defensive draft at least the first two rounds. Anything less will be caca

I don't know whether your sick suspicion will come true, but if you expect a 100% defensive draft, you might as well start preparing your rant now.

I wouldn't have a problem with a WR in the first, and at the very least, I hope the Chiefs have a balanced draft. The offense needs some youth BEFORE it begins to crumble. If the likes of Parker and Black are the real deal, then the need isn't quite as great, but I don't think they can count on that at this point.

DaWolf
03-16-2005, 07:00 AM
If there is a stud reciever there, who is the better player between himself and the best defender available, then why not? This offense as it is will not be on top forever. And this defense is nowhere close to being a shutdown defense. So the Chiefs have to stay ahead of the curve offensively. And the hard facts are we need to find upgrades/young talents at wideout and at left tackle. Now if there is an outstanding defender there for us to take, I go D. But I do not advocate blindly choosing a defensive player just because we need defense if there is a reciever on the board who is head and shoulders a better football player and more of a "value" pick.

All that being said, I get the opposite feeling from Carl. He stated all offseason that his main mission was to improve the defense through FA and the draft and he's pretty much stuck to the plan. He's gotten the LB and safety, and would have gotten the CB already if the deal hadn't been botched. Despite whatever smokescreens they throw up there, I've got a pretty good feeling we'll be drafting D in round 1...

StcChief
03-16-2005, 07:04 AM
WR. ? Sammie Parker looked good enough to me. Send pillowbiter Morton packing.

milkman
03-16-2005, 07:10 AM
blindly choosing

What is "Carl's annual draft strategy" Alex.

Chan93lx50
03-16-2005, 07:32 AM
Were bringing in Kevin Johnson (Ravens) for a look see, and I think he would make a fine addition to our WR corps

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-16-2005, 07:33 AM
As long as we make the necessary improvements on defense in free agency first, I have no problem with drafting a stud WR first. We need one of those too.

the Talking Can
03-16-2005, 07:35 AM
we still need 2 CBs, an OLB, and a DE....CP got a lot of work to do before we starts yanking DV's schlong again...

milkman
03-16-2005, 07:37 AM
If the Chiefs get a CB and OLB in FA, then I'd like to see them get another CB and DE in the draft, but I'm not going to be upset with good selections to fill any positions, offense or defense.

I'd just like to see a draft where we get some actual NFL players for a change.

jAZ
03-16-2005, 07:42 AM
I won't be upset with WR &/or OLT in the first 2 rounds if we sign Law or trade for Surtain.

~Could go for an All-Offensive draft.

whoman69
03-16-2005, 07:57 AM
Last year we drafted a TE, 2 WR and a T. The year prior we drafted a G, T, and RB. 5 of those 6 were on the active roster last year. We need help on D now. Even if we get a CB in FA we still need one more in round one. We are weak at OLB and DE. We have plenty of young players on the offense but drafting perhaps 3 or 4 more this year would not hurt. Wait for day 2 unless we have our 2nd yet and gain a 3rd for Tait.

chop
03-16-2005, 08:11 AM
The same people that will complain about drafting an offensive guy this year will be the ones that complain that Carl didn't know what he was doing when he passed up that great WR and drafted an average cb/lb/de.

I'm for drafting the best available player. If it's equal then you draft for need. I think it ends up biting you when you select purely for need and not get the best player. JMO

whoman69
03-16-2005, 08:23 AM
The same people that will complain about drafting an offensive guy this year will be the ones that complain that Carl didn't know what he was doing when he passed up that great WR and drafted an average cb/lb/de.

I'm for drafting the best available player. If it's equal then you draft for need. I think it ends up biting you when you select purely for need and not get the best player. JMO
In these days of FA, just about every team drafts for needs in rounds 1 and 2. If your need is ranked lower then you try to move down in the draft for someone who needs a player on the board. About the only example I can think of where teams went against drafting for needs early were to get Suggs and Trufant.

carlos3652
03-16-2005, 08:33 AM
I think we are drafting a nickel corner in the first round: Rodgers, Jones, Crowder - I dont think they want to see Bartee on the field on every other down, Mcleon will be gone by June 1st with Johnny Morton.

50/50 chance THEY WILL TRADE DOWN - I have a good feeling they will do this and pickup a few more draft picks on day 1 - another 2nd or 3rd.

If they use the 2nd for Surtain the chances go up 80/20 that they will trade that 15 and peobably pick in the 20-25 range.

I think in the second round and third round they will pickup the best player available that is still on the board in the following positions (WR/OT/DE/LB)

htismaqe
03-16-2005, 08:41 AM
Last year we drafted a TE, 2 WR and a T. The year prior we drafted a G, T, and RB. 5 of those 6 were on the active roster last year. We need help on D now. Even if we get a CB in FA we still need one more in round one. We are weak at OLB and DE. We have plenty of young players on the offense but drafting perhaps 3 or 4 more this year would not hurt. Wait for day 2 unless we have our 2nd yet and gain a 3rd for Tait.

Last year we draft a NT, OLB, and DE. The year prior we drafted MLB, CB, DE, DT, and FS. The year before that, we spent 4 out of 5 picks on defense. Two things are obvious, considering that 5 out of 6 of our OFFENSIVE picks were on the active roster:

1) We're pretty good at picking offensive players. We SUCK at picking defensive players.

2) We're very young on defense and still suck. We're very old on offense at key positions like QB, OT, and WR.

The inevitable outcome of drafting nothing but defense, considering these 2 facts, is that we'll come away with yet another worthless draft, loaded with young defensive players that can't contribute while our offense continues to age.

The best course of action here is to sign a top-tier CB like Patrick Surtain and then get as many of the Hall/Johnson/Holcombe/Adams guys as you can prior to the draft. Then we'll be able to spread picks around and try to fill multiple needs.

chiefsfolife
03-16-2005, 09:24 AM
I don't know whether your sick suspicion will come true, but if you expect a 100% defensive draft, you might as well start preparing your rant now.

I wouldn't have a problem with a WR in the first, and at the very least, I hope the Chiefs have a balanced draft. The offense needs some youth BEFORE it begins to crumble. If the likes of Parker and Black are the real deal, then the need isn't quite as great, but I don't think they can count on that at this point.


holy shit...you people are insane, noway we should draft a reciever in the first. boerigter back, parker is good, kris wilson is back, kennison is back. we need defense DEFENSE...i cant believe you people haven't realized that yet,

Cochise
03-16-2005, 09:29 AM
If we were to say, bring in Surtain, I would not object to a WR in the first if there is good value for the pick available.

Personally, I would try to get a CB or OLB at that spot but I'm not going to melt down about it if they pick a WR

chiefsfolife
03-16-2005, 09:30 AM
never never never is there a reason to bring in a reciever in the first...if we get surtain than we draft another cb or lb....never

Cochise
03-16-2005, 09:55 AM
never never never is there a reason to bring in a reciever in the first...

This is why we are dealing with the bowl of turds we currently have at receiver.

Think about it. Where do you people think top wideouts come from?

Here's all the ones with 1,000 yards last year:

M. Muhammad - 2nd
J. Horn - 5th
J. Walker - 1st
T. Holt - 1st
I. Bruce - 2nd
C. Johnson - 2nd
T. Owens - 3rd
D. Bennett - (undrafted)
M. Harrison - 1st
R. Wayne - 1st
D. Driver - 7th
M. Clayton - 1st
J. Smith - 2nd
A. Johnson - 1st
E. Kennison - 1st
A. Lelie - 1st
R. Smith- (undrafted)
B. Stokley - 4th
E. Moulds - 1st
N. Burleson - 3rd
H. Ward - 3rd

So, as anyone can see by simply looking at the numbers, you sometimes get a top wideout with a lower round pick, but the majority of them are 1st or 2nd rounders.

I don't know how people can expect Sammie Parker to turn into Marvin Harrison, or us to have decent WR's without ever drafting one.

Note: Joe Horn, T.O., Jimmy Smith, and E. Kennison are the only ones in that list who are not with the team that drafted them.

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 10:00 AM
I don't know how people can expect Sammie Parker to turn into Marvin Harrison, or us to have decent WR's without ever drafting one.

The same way they expect Mitchell or Sims or Siavii or Battle to start playing up to their post-draft hype. This team, and in a lot of cases its fans, cling to hope for longer than reality dictates.

Cochise
03-16-2005, 10:10 AM
The same way they expect Mitchell or Sims or Siavii or Battle to start playing up to their post-draft hype. This team, and in a lot of cases its fans, cling to hope for longer than reality dictates.

exactly...

Ebolapox
03-16-2005, 10:16 AM
I have a sick suspicion that you're a dumbass

-EB-

KCChiefsFan88
03-16-2005, 10:23 AM
Pete Prisco, on CBSSportsline.com has the Chiefs taking Mike Williams in his mock draft.

WR is a pretty significant need IMO, considering the age/inconsistencies of both Kennison and Morton. Other than possibly Kevin Johnson, I don't see any of these "developmental" WRs the Chiefs are bringing in having much of an impact if the Chiefs do sign them.

If Mike Williams falls to the Chiefs pick, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Wallcrawler
03-16-2005, 11:47 AM
If the Chiefs can stop the bleeding on defense through free agency and trades, then I wouldnt be opposed to them injecting some youth into the offense. Vermiel is much better at evaluating offense than he is defense.


Willie Roaf wont be around forever at Left Tackle, and Bober/Welbourne arent the long term answer at RT. If there is a good tackle available, they should take a look.

Also the QB situation needs looking at. Trent Green probably has 2-3 seasons left. The time is running out to draft a QB who can study under Trent, and be ready to step in when Trent calls it a career, or God forbid gets injured. Todd Collins is a one way ticket to the toilet for a season if he gets handed the reigns.


The Chiefs need D, but if they cant evaluate young defensive talent, and there arent any locks to be a solid pick, they might as well draft someone they know something about.

Dick Bull
03-16-2005, 11:52 AM
This is why we are dealing with the bowl of turds we currently have at receiver.

Think about it. Where do you people think top wideouts come from?

Here's all the ones with 1,000 yards last year:

M. Muhammad - 2nd
J. Horn - 5th
J. Walker - 1st
T. Holt - 1st
I. Bruce - 2nd
C. Johnson - 2nd
T. Owens - 3rd
D. Bennett - (undrafted)
M. Harrison - 1st
R. Wayne - 1st
D. Driver - 7th
M. Clayton - 1st
J. Smith - 2nd
A. Johnson - 1st
E. Kennison - 1st
A. Lelie - 1st
R. Smith- (undrafted)
B. Stokley - 4th
E. Moulds - 1st
N. Burleson - 3rd
H. Ward - 3rd

So, as anyone can see by simply looking at the numbers, you sometimes get a top wideout with a lower round pick, but the majority of them are 1st or 2nd rounders.

I don't know how people can expect Sammie Parker to turn into Marvin Harrison, or us to have decent WR's without ever drafting one.

Note: Joe Horn, T.O., Jimmy Smith, and E. Kennison are the only ones in that list who are not with the team that drafted them.

Thanks for pouring salt into that Joe Horn wound.

Hoover
03-16-2005, 11:55 AM
I really think we have to go Defense with the First pick. CB, LB or DE.

If we sign Law or trade for Surtain, we still "should" draft that way, but I might like to see us trade down in the first get a DE like Roth, and get back the 3rd we lost to Philly.