PDA

View Full Version : Under what circumstances would you accept a WR being drafted in the 1st round?


Chiefs Pantalones
04-09-2005, 09:11 PM
:hmmm:

Would you be fine if we drafted one as it is right now?

Would we have to get another OLB in FA first, as well as Surtain?

jcroft
04-09-2005, 09:14 PM
Yes. For me, if we got Surtain and Shaper or another LB under the umbrella, then DV can get his WR in round one.

beer bacon
04-09-2005, 09:16 PM
Under no circumstances. I take that back. If we sign Surtain, Sharper, Simmons, and Foreman before the draft, then we can draft a WR. Then and only then.

Nightfyre
04-09-2005, 09:16 PM
Why would we draft WR in rd one? weve got like 15

jcroft
04-09-2005, 09:17 PM
Why would we draft WR in rd one? weve got like 15

Because the ones we have suck?

Count Zarth
04-09-2005, 09:18 PM
I'd take Mike Williams, Braylon Edwards or Mark Clayton.

beer bacon
04-09-2005, 09:18 PM
Why would we draft WR in rd one? weve got like 15

Why would we draft a WR when we our LB corps is decimated?

tk13
04-09-2005, 09:20 PM
That the calendar says "2006".

KCinNY
04-09-2005, 09:28 PM
Edwards or Williams, if either somehow fell to us.

If the Chiefs had a legit #1 WR, they'd score 40 points a game.

beer bacon
04-09-2005, 09:30 PM
Edwards or Williams, if either somehow fell to us.

If the Chiefs had a legit #1 WR, they'd score 40 points a game.

It will be a great when we get bounced out of the playoffs 45-42.

KCinNY
04-09-2005, 09:33 PM
It will be a great when we get bounced out of the playoffs 45-42.

I'd take that chance.

We shouldn't be expecting all that much out of Kennison or Morton.

Toad
04-09-2005, 09:43 PM
No news flash here, but we still need our starting OLB (maybe 2 with Fuj's status in limbo and our starting CB. But, all that is out the window if Braylon Edwards slips to 15.

Toad's can't miss top 2 players in this draft are B Edwards and D Johnson.

Chiefs Pantalones
04-09-2005, 09:44 PM
I think we should trade all our TEs and Hbacks and whatnot and get a true WR core...

Either that, or draft more HBacks, and get rid of our WRs...

Dave Lane
04-09-2005, 09:44 PM
We get both Ty Law and Surtain

Dave

SCTrojan
04-09-2005, 09:47 PM
Second option. Have to get Surtain/Law and an LB. Then a WR is perfectly acceptable.

Logical
04-09-2005, 09:51 PM
Assuming DJ is gone and we have picked up Surtain I could live with a WR in the first round if the top 3 CBs are gone (I do not consider PacMaa Jones in the top 3).

Two reasons:
Linebackers at the top of the draft other than DJ are more questionable than the WRs

DE talent seems to be a bad fit for a traditional 4-3 DE and better suited to support a 3-4 DE this year either that or they are tweeners. Just say no to tweeners Carl

Logical
04-09-2005, 09:53 PM
I'd take Mike Williams, Braylon Edwards or Mark Clayton.

I especially like Clayton for the Chiefs even more than the other two. Not that they are not better overall, but not a better fit for our offense. Clayton seems ideal.

Count Zarth
04-09-2005, 09:54 PM
I especially like Clayton for the Chiefs even more than the other two. Not that they are not better overall, but not a better fit for our offense. Clayton seems ideal.

I'm thinking about the future. We'd be set on O for years with Mike Williams/LJ/Gonzo

patteeu
04-09-2005, 09:57 PM
I'll be happy as long as it's not a reach pick. I'd be happy with a playmaker at almost any position, offense or defense (except RB, FB, or TE).

Chiefs Pantalones
04-09-2005, 10:21 PM
I'll be happy as long as it's not a reach pick. I'd be happy with a playmaker at almost any position, offense or defense (except RB, FB, or TE).

That's me too.

I'll be happy with any pick as long as it's not a project or a reach or whatever.

I want a playmaker, not some special project that Carl and company think will be a playmaker "down the road."

ChiefsCountry
04-09-2005, 10:24 PM
If DJ, Rolle, or Carlos Rogers has been taken. Then take Clayton at 15.

Tuckdaddy
04-09-2005, 11:16 PM
Sign Surtain and DV can have his precious WR as far as I'm concerned.

Tribal Warfare
04-09-2005, 11:32 PM
If DJ, Rolle, or Carlos Rogers has been taken. Then take Clayton at 15.


I agree with this especially if KC can't obtain either DJ or Surtain which in my mind could be feasable.

Woodrow Call
04-09-2005, 11:55 PM
Surtain has to be aboard and Rolle, Rodgers, and DJ have to be gone also. I believe that if Kevin Johnson is signed no receiver is needed.

Johnson
Kennison
Parker
Boerighter
Hall
Hill
Plus Horn is still around

Where would a rookie receiver fit unless Boerighter isn't in the teams plans or his knee is worse than I thought. I am a big Clayton fan but if the Big 3 are gone on draft day I hope they trade down and get Jackson, Miller, or Webster at CB and pick up either Blackstock or Burnett at OLB.

Jackson and Blackstock look better to me than Clayton IMO.

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 05:05 AM
Three things ABSOLUTELY have to happen for me to even remotely be ok with it.

1) We must sign Surtain.

2) We must sign a FA OLB to play on the weak side.

3) We MUST trade down and get more picks. There isn't a WR available at 15 that I want (no Mike Williams).

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 05:06 AM
If DJ, Rolle, or Carlos Rogers has been taken. Then take Clayton at 15.

No reason to take Clayton at 15 when he might last until the 2nd round...

Trade down to the very end of round 1 and get more picks.

Gaz
04-10-2005, 06:23 AM
FA OLB signed.
FA CB signed.
Derrick Johnson firmly out of reach.

xoxo~
Gaz
Will not see a WR taken at #15.

LiL stumppy
04-10-2005, 09:58 AM
I like Mark clayton,but I would still perfer to trade up and draft DJ,and trade for Surtain,I don't think it can happen but I wish it could.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 10:08 AM
if we get surtain and sharper ....


then we can consider a wide receiver IF a great prospect like Edwards and/or Williams.



if we trade down and recoup our 2nd THEN maybe we consider grabbing Clayton.



but only for a primo wideout ... i'd just as soon get defense in FA and on the first day of the draft.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 10:10 AM
FA:
Surtain
Sharper

Draft:
1st-Rogers
2nd - Roth


would be pretty the way i hope it goes

Bowser
04-10-2005, 10:13 AM
FA:
Surtain
Sharper

Draft:
1st-Rogers
2nd - Roth


would be pretty the way i hope it goes

I'll do a drunken craazy-happy dance if that happens! And I have less rhythm than your average white boy.....

whoman69
04-10-2005, 10:32 AM
I can think of no scenario where we should draft WR. At some point DV has to trust that his younger players can get the job done. If he didn't think they could, why did he draft them in the first place? Why not just trade all your draft picks like George Allen used to do?

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 10:35 AM
I'll do a drunken craazy-happy dance if that happens! And I have less rhythm than your average white boy.....
then i can expect your support when i announce my candidacy for Chiefs' GM in 2009, when the king retires?

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 10:49 AM
FA:
Surtain
Sharper

Draft:
1st-Rogers
2nd - Roth


would be pretty the way i hope it goes

Oh f*ck, if that happened, I'd probably die of a heart-attack.

That would definitely make this the best offseason ever...

Ninjaman
04-10-2005, 12:01 PM
I don't know if we take a corner in the first if we sign one from free agency.

I bet LB or D - end.

Hydrae
04-10-2005, 12:04 PM
Only if his name is Mike Williams (there is no way Edwards will still be on the board at 15). Even then, I would hesitate if we haven't gotten either Law or Surtain. I think Williams will be a stud WR for many years in this league.

CoMoChief
04-10-2005, 12:06 PM
We would need to sign an OLB and trade for Surtain and then we sign Matt Jones (Arkansas) with our first round pick.

CoMoChief
04-10-2005, 12:06 PM
im sorry, I meant DRAFT Matt Jones

Cochise
04-10-2005, 12:08 PM
It all depends on the situation when we come on the clock, who's there and who's gone. If we have Surtain, if Rolle/Jones/Rogers/Johnson are all gone, there really aren't any other defenders tnat would piss me off to miss if Mike Williams was still on the board, or something crazy like that.

CoMoChief
04-10-2005, 12:16 PM
Ty Law is not a good decision. If we sign him I will actually be pissed. I dont know why people are FOR signing him. Hes good dont get me wrong, but he wont recover from injury 100%, history will tell you that. Surtain has better numbers and is a work horse. We need to sign a OLB, Surtain, and then if we dont trade up for DJ we need to draft Matt Jones.

Woodrow Call
04-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Ty Law is not a good decision. If we sign him I will actually be pissed. I dont know why people are FOR signing him. Hes good dont get me wrong, but he wont recover from injury 100%, history will tell you that. Surtain has better numbers and is a work horse. We need to sign a OLB, Surtain, and then if we dont trade up for DJ we need to draft Matt Jones.

I think Law will recover and if he does he is the best CB in the league. I want Surtain right now since the Chiefs can't afford to gamble but if Law was healthy it would be a no brainer to get him IMO.

Matt Jones is the last thing the Chiefs need. He is one of the players that will cause me to throw a shit fit if the Chiefs draft him.

Not a true receiver
Not a QB
Not a H-Back

He could be a fun toy for Saunders but little else.

TRR
04-10-2005, 12:30 PM
If we get Surtain, I woudn't mind a WR in the first round. However, I would rather have Kevin Johnson, and draft an OLB or DE in the first. Mike Williams is the only possible WR that interests me in the 1st round.

Gaz
04-10-2005, 12:33 PM
I agree on Law. Avoid him.

I have to disagree on Jones. While I think Defense should be the #1 priority of every Chiefs fan, I can sympathize with the OffHo’s who want a WR. Under a specific set of circumstances, I could even accept that. But under those specific circumstances, I want a real WR. Not another jack of all trades who put up impressive numbers at a workout.

xoxo~
Gaz
Willing to compromise, but only up to a point.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 12:47 PM
We would need to sign an OLB and trade for Surtain and then we sign Matt Jones (Arkansas) with our first round pick.
hell no ... we will NOT use are first round draft pick on Matt Jones!!!

:cuss: :cuss:

HemiEd
04-10-2005, 01:03 PM
I actually do hope we draft one first because I think that is the only position that we can expect a Rookie to come in and help the 2005 push.
We will have Surtain, the rest of the draft can be used on Defense.

yoswif
04-10-2005, 01:39 PM
One of league's worst pass D's should concentrate on getting a better pass rush and better coverage. With KC's "12th man" aiding the D, an explosive edge pass rusher opposite Allen would be useful. Free agent LBs are available. With KC's home crowd, I think Merriman or Ware have added value as rookie edge rushers opposite Allen.

Tribal Warfare
04-10-2005, 01:44 PM
trade up for Derrick Johnson the kid is going to be a great player

ChiefsCountry
04-10-2005, 01:50 PM
Knowing Peterson I bet we draft DeMarcus Ware out of Troy.

Woodrow Call
04-10-2005, 01:52 PM
Knowing Peterson I bet we draft DeMarcus Ware out of Troy.

Would not surprise me either. :deevee:

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 02:11 PM
One of league's worst pass D's should concentrate on getting a better pass rush and better coverage. With KC's "12th man" aiding the D, an explosive edge pass rusher opposite Allen would be useful. Free agent LBs are available. With KC's home crowd, I think Merriman or Ware have added value as rookie edge rushers opposite Allen.

NO.

The Chiefs were 8th in the league in sacks last year.

WE NEED DEFENSIVE BACKS.

yoswif
04-10-2005, 02:45 PM
NO.

The Chiefs were 8th in the league in sacks last year.

WE NEED DEFENSIVE BACKS.

The # of times an opposing QB has all day to pick the Chiefs secondary apart is as important as sack total, imo. With KC's home field crowd, explosive pass rushers coming off both edges would make KC's pass D formidable like the 90's. I don't think anyone showed much opposite Allen last year. I don't think anything is harder on the KC home crowd than seeing the opposing QB have all day to complete a third and long. If Surtain is assured, I prefer improving the pass rush with the first pick. I thing

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 02:46 PM
NO.

The Chiefs were 8th in the league in sacks last year.

WE NEED DEFENSIVE BACKS.
i think i'm going to pass out :eek: :eek:

Nightfyre
04-10-2005, 02:47 PM
The # of times an opposing QB has all day to pick the Chiefs secondary apart is as important as sack total, imo. With KC's home field crowd, explosive pass rushers coming off both edges would make KC's pass D formidable like the 90's. I don't think anyone showed much opposite Allen last year. I don't think anything is harder on the KC home crowd than seeing the opposing QB have all day to complete a third and long. If Surtain is assured, I prefer improving the pass rush with the first pick. I thing
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 02:50 PM
The # of times an opposing QB has all day to pick the Chiefs secondary apart is as important as sack total, imo
and part of the reason the opposing QB's had all day is because gunther had to try and protect our crap ass secondary

1. cornerbacks suck

pull back the safeties

2. safeties back

linebackers have to be back in short coverage zone

3. linebackers back in short zone coverage

dline had to play screens,swing passes,run etc all by themselves.

4. lineman playing all the various swings etc

defensive line had to hesitate before going after the QB full tilt.

DTLB58
04-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Under NO circumstances do we draft a offensive player. We need to draft DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!

The creation of this thread is making me :banghead: :cuss:

DTLB58
04-10-2005, 02:56 PM
I think Law will recover and if he does he is the best CB in the league. I want Surtain right now since the Chiefs can't afford to gamble but if Law was healthy it would be a no brainer to get him IMO.

Matt Jones is the last thing the Chiefs need. He is one of the players that will cause me to throw a shit fit if the Chiefs draft him.

Not a true receiver
Not a QB
Not a H-Back

He could be a fun toy for Saunders but little else.

Isn't that what Kris Wilson is supposed to be? :hmmm:

CHIEF4EVER
04-10-2005, 03:02 PM
:hmmm:

Would you be fine if we drafted one as it is right now?

Would we have to get another OLB in FA first, as well as Surtain?

I wouldn't be fine with a WR in the 1st round if we had 30 picks in this draft. :harumph:

Woodrow Call
04-10-2005, 03:04 PM
Isn't that what Kris Wilson is supposed to be? :hmmm:

Exactly

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 03:55 PM
The # of times an opposing QB has all day to pick the Chiefs secondary apart is as important as sack total, imo. With KC's home field crowd, explosive pass rushers coming off both edges would make KC's pass D formidable like the 90's. I don't think anyone showed much opposite Allen last year. I don't think anything is harder on the KC home crowd than seeing the opposing QB have all day to complete a third and long. If Surtain is assured, I prefer improving the pass rush with the first pick. I thing

You want a pass D like the 90's?

Get CB's like James Hasty and Dale Carter.

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 03:56 PM
and part of the reason the opposing QB's had all day is because gunther had to try and protect our crap ass secondary

1. cornerbacks suck

pull back the safeties

2. safeties back

linebackers have to be back in short coverage zone

3. linebackers back in short zone coverage

dline had to play screens,swing passes etc all by themselves.

4. lineman playing all the various swings etc

defensive line had to hesitant before going after the QB full tilt.

Bingo.

You can't send the kitchen sink if you have no faith in the people behind them to stop the dump-off or prevent a 75-yard run.

Mr. Kotter
04-10-2005, 04:03 PM
Simmons, Sharper, Law, and Surtain....ALL in Red 'n Gold?

GO ahead, draft a WR...heh. :p

whoman69
04-10-2005, 04:23 PM
NO.

The Chiefs were 8th in the league in sacks last year.

WE NEED DEFENSIVE BACKS.
While I agree with your ending statement, the Chiefs had so many sacks last year because we were force to blitz all out so often. By themselves the front four could not get to the QB. Gun knew that without a sack, our coverage could not reign them in.

yoswif
04-10-2005, 04:38 PM
You want a pass D like the 90's?

Get CB's like James Hasty and Dale Carter.


The 90s edge pass rushers were in KC before Hasty and Carter. Build the explosive pass rush for KC's home field advantage and the good cover corners will naturally appear, imo.

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 04:50 PM
While I agree with your ending statement, the Chiefs had so many sacks last year because we were force to blitz all out so often. By themselves the front four could not get to the QB. Gun knew that without a sack, our coverage could not reign them in.

26 of KC's 41 sacks came from defensive linemen. 2.5 more came from Gary Stills.

The data doesn't support your argument.

yoswif
04-10-2005, 05:10 PM
I don't think KC's pass rush was feared or even respected around the league despite having the 8th best sack total. When KC's defense was respected, KC's pass rush was feared.

Mr. Laz
04-10-2005, 05:15 PM
I don't think KC's pass rush was feared or even respected around the league despite having the 8th best sack total. When KC's defense was respected, KC's pass rush was feared.

ya ... and when the pass rush was feared we also had decent coverage behind it.

right now the QB can throw at will because they have receivers open all over.


there is no way to win this argument, it's like RB vrs offensive line. they work hand in hand.

we had the best offensive line for years but our running game wasn't feared without christian okoye and priest holmes.


our defense wasn't feared without derrick thomas and neil smith ... but at the same time we also had dale carter and james hasty.

whoman69
04-10-2005, 06:52 PM
26 of KC's 41 sacks came from defensive linemen. 2.5 more came from Gary Stills.

The data doesn't support your argument.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. I watched the games and so did you. Many times the only way we could put pressure on was to blitz. As the season went on, Gun went to the well more and more because he knew the line couldn't get there on their own.

htismaqe
04-10-2005, 07:31 PM
Lies, damn lies and statistics. I watched the games and so did you. Many times the only way we could put pressure on was to blitz. As the season went on, Gun went to the well more and more because he knew the line couldn't get there on their own.

I watched the games. I watched a QB with 2 guys in his face dump it off in the flat for 20-yard gains.

I watched a QB in the GRASP hit a wide-open target for a TD.

It all works together. With our LB's and CB's, you can get all the pass rush you want, the defense will still suck.

morphius
04-10-2005, 07:48 PM
It all works together. With our LB's and CB's, you can get all the pass rush you want, the defense will still suck.

Yup, you just see who is lined up at CB, if you get and pressure just toss the ball up in the air... Worked almost every time.

milkman
04-10-2005, 07:52 PM
The bottom line is, the 3 levels of our D are so bad, that spending a high draft pick on offense is a luxury we simply can't afford.

Toad
04-10-2005, 09:09 PM
and part of the reason the opposing QB's had all day is because gunther had to try and protect our crap ass secondary

1. cornerbacks suck

pull back the safeties

2. safeties back

linebackers have to be back in short coverage zone

3. linebackers back in short zone coverage

dline had to play screens,swing passes,run etc all by themselves.

4. lineman playing all the various swings etc

defensive line had to hesitate before going after the QB full tilt.

Well said. Thank You.

morphius
04-10-2005, 09:13 PM
If we draft any O player in the first round I well probably just sit there with my mouth hanging wondering why I bother. But then I well log in here, watch the heads completely explode, which well make me feel a bit more level headed and relaxed.

yoswif
04-11-2005, 06:12 AM
I don't see the KC home crowd helping a cover corner or LB the way the KC home crowd helps explosive pass rushers attacking from both ends. The Chiefs need the explosive pass rushers for the KC home crowd to help before the KC home crowd can have the impact it did in the 90s.

mcan
04-11-2005, 07:19 AM
I don't see the KC home crowd helping a cover corner or LB the way the KC home crowd helps explosive pass rushers attacking from both ends. The Chiefs need the explosive pass rushers for the KC home crowd to help before the KC home crowd can have the impact it did in the 90s.


Wow, just two sentances and I think you've set the record for using the phrase 'KC Home Crowd.'

htismaqe
04-11-2005, 07:22 AM
I don't see the KC home crowd helping a cover corner or LB the way the KC home crowd helps explosive pass rushers attacking from both ends. The Chiefs need the explosive pass rushers for the KC home crowd to help before the KC home crowd can have the impact it did in the 90s.

I think you're overestimating the effect that the crowd has on that one micro-aspect of the game.

The crowd helps disrupt an offense in many phases and really has nothing to do with the pass rush directly.