PDA

View Full Version : SportsCenter Mock Draft on ESPN Now


Michael Michigan
04-15-2005, 05:08 PM
This may be a replay--not sure.

Mel Kiper and Clayton are making the picks.

First ten are already done. Chiefs pick coming up after the break.

Bowser
04-15-2005, 05:10 PM
It will be that D Tackle out of Florida St.

:cuss:

Michael Michigan
04-15-2005, 05:11 PM
Kiper picks...

DeMarcus Ware DE Troy

Bowser
04-15-2005, 05:12 PM
Kiper picks...

DeMarcus Ware DE Troy

:shake:

Demonpenz
04-15-2005, 05:12 PM
man the chiefs don't need anymore hybrids or tweeners. Give me one guy that can play one position well. All our tweeners are like denverchief, they suck dick in all positions

Michael Michigan
04-15-2005, 05:13 PM
He calls him a hybird.

What is that--the new word for tweener?

OrlandoChief
04-15-2005, 05:16 PM
Boring pick.. I would rather trade down for that type of guy.

Tribal Warfare
04-15-2005, 05:17 PM
Derrick Johnson tradeup is what I prefer with a nice side order of Surtain for this years 4th and next years 2nd or 3rd rounder.

Michael Michigan
04-15-2005, 05:17 PM
Boring pick.. I would rather trade down for that type of guy.


ESPN goes to their "expert" panel to analyze picks 11-20 and they don't even mention this pick.

Hydrae
04-15-2005, 05:18 PM
Rogers and Clayton are both on the board and we pick another d-line tweener??? Good god, just say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

milkman
04-15-2005, 05:19 PM
If the Chiefs were to draft DeMarcus ware. I'd throw a brick through myneighbor's TV.

LiL stumppy
04-15-2005, 05:46 PM
We don't even need another DE.We need a OLB or CB.

CosmicPal
04-15-2005, 05:58 PM
We don't even need another DE.We need a OLB or CB.

Ware will be the OLB. Quick, explosive, and strong upside. He will be an outstanding OLB in the NFL.

As much as I think we should be getting a CB, I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we picked up Ware.

Bowser
04-15-2005, 06:00 PM
Ware will be the OLB. Quick, explosive, and strong upside. He will be an outstanding OLB in the NFL.

As much as I think we should be getting a CB, I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we picked up Ware.

You would take Ware if Carlos Rogers were still on the board (which he is in their mock)?

CosmicPal
04-15-2005, 06:06 PM
You would take Ware if Carlos Rogers were still on the board (which he is in their mock)?

No, I didn't say that. If Rogers was still on the board, I'd take him. I am just saying if KC picked up Ware at that spot, he'd still be a good pick-up. A great defense puts constant pressure on the QB, stops the run, and creates turnovers- and this usually comes from your DL and LB positions. They make the CB's job easier.

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 06:09 PM
No, I didn't say that. If Rogers was still on the board, I'd take him. I am just saying if KC picked up Ware at that spot, he'd still be a good pick-up. A great defense puts constant pressure on the QB, stops the run, and creates turnovers- and this usually comes from your DL and LB positions. They make the CB's job easier.

I am concerned with Ware being unrefined and taking time to adjust to the NFL.

chiefscafan
04-15-2005, 06:10 PM
I would pick ware over rodgers it's always a bad idea to pick a player just because of need. Many times when you do this you miss out on the potentially great players. I think when we drafted ryan sims that's what happened there were better players still on the board but we chose to pick him cause we needed a DT.

Now ware has major potential according to the draft sites many people are comparing him to terell suggs. Now I really wanted Suggs that year so I don't know if this is true but if it is wouldn't you want a major pass rushing LB reaking havoc?

I sure would.

Bowser
04-15-2005, 06:10 PM
I am concerned with Ware being unrefined and taking time to adjust to the NFL.

You could say that about most of the first rounders.

CosmicPal
04-15-2005, 06:12 PM
I am concerned with Ware being unrefined and taking time to adjust to the NFL.

If we were to get Surtain on or before draft day, I would not have an issue with getting Ware. I'd also be perfectly happy having him use his talents when we have Kendra Bell in the middle.

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 06:12 PM
You could say that about most of the first rounders.

From what I have read Ware more so then most. The only time I have actually seen him play is when Troy St. played Mizzou.

Bowser
04-15-2005, 06:14 PM
From what I have read Ware more so then most. The only time I have actually seen him play is when Troy St. played Mizzou.

Hell, that whole defense could be the '85 Bears, if you're basing your opinion from that game........

:D

milkman
04-15-2005, 06:14 PM
I would pick ware over rodgers it's always a bad idea to pick a player just because of need. Many times when you do this you miss out on the potentially great players. I think when we drafted ryan sims that's what happened there were better players still on the board but we chose to pick him cause we needed a DT.

Now ware has major potential according to the draft sites many people are comparing him to terell suggs. Now I really wanted Suggs that year so I don't know if this is true but if it is wouldn't you want a major pass rushing LB reaking havoc?

I sure would.

The thing about Ware, for me, is that he shot up the draft boards after the season ended.

He played well, aparently, in the Senior Bowl, then really shot up because of the combines and school workouts.

I want guys that made their marks playing the games, not combine stars.

TEX
04-15-2005, 06:20 PM
If we were to get Surtain on or before draft day, I would not have an issue with getting Ware. I'd also be perfectly happy having him use his talents when we have Kendra Bell in the middle.

Ding ...ding...ding! :thumb:

I agree, Ware just might be the better pick in the long run. He might be an outstanding OLB at the next level. It happens with so called "tweeners." The guy can rush the QB!

Problem is, if we don't trade for Surtain, we're so desperate for a CB that we really don't have the luxury of taking any other defensive position except CB if one of the "big 3" is still on the board. And as others have said, sometimes when you pick for need out of desporation,you lose out on better talent. Still, I'd be tempted to take Ware anyway.

FWIW, had the CHIEFS listened to Mel Kiper in recent years, they'd be MUCH better off... :hmmm:

TEX
04-15-2005, 06:23 PM
I am concerned with Ware being unrefined and taking time to adjust to the NFL.

I agree and that also holds true especially for CB's. Like I said, IF we trade for Surtain, than give me Ware over Rogers.

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 06:24 PM
I would rather trade down and pick up Burnett/Marlin Jackson and another pick then draft Ware. You guys won't trick me!

Tribal Warfare
04-15-2005, 06:26 PM
I agree and that also holds true especially for CB's. Like I said, IF we trade for Surtain, than give me Ware over Rogers.


F*ck Ware if we get Surtain for this years 4th and next years 2nd or 3rd we can trade up and get DJ

TEX
04-15-2005, 06:28 PM
F*ck Ware if we get Surtain for this years 4th and next years 2nd or 3rd we can trade up and get DJ

Yeah, if that's the case, then I'm with you 100%! If not, and we have to give up a 2nd this year for Surtain, then Ware's my guy at # 15. Just my opinion.

alanm
04-15-2005, 06:29 PM
Ware will be the OLB. Quick, explosive, and strong upside. He will be an outstanding OLB in the NFL.

As much as I think we should be getting a CB, I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we picked up Ware.
I'd rather they draft another RB than another tweener on defense.

milkman
04-15-2005, 06:29 PM
F*ck Ware if we get Surtain for this years 4th and next years 2nd or 3rd we can trade up and get DJ

Keep pimping DJ, Tribal, you converted me.
I'm sure ther are others than can be convinced.

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 06:29 PM
Great pick!

...if we played a 3-4 or needed a 207th "rushbacker" on the roster.

TEX
04-15-2005, 06:30 PM
I'd rather they draft another RB than another tweener on defense.

Another tweener? Who do we currently have that fits the mold now? :hmmm:

redsurfer11
04-15-2005, 06:57 PM
No, I didn't say that. If Rogers was still on the board, I'd take him. I am just saying if KC picked up Ware at that spot, he'd still be a good pick-up. A great defense puts constant pressure on the QB, stops the run, and creates turnovers- and this usually comes from your DL and LB positions. They make the CB's job easier.


If you think that sacks are created by defensive lines and linebackers,you have limited football knowledge.Teams that have large sack totals have great cornerbacks. They are called coverage sacks. They are created when the first quaterback option is covered and the QB is looking elsewhere. The time difference of getting a sack, and not getting a sack is about 1 second. If the cornerback is doing his job, the Qb has to look for his second option or hold the ball longer in hopes his first option can break free. Thus resulting in a sack for the defense.
Chiefs cornerbacks nave been so bad the last few years, that opposing Qb's have had field days hitting their first options. Which has resulted in lower sack and turnover totals. Fix the cornerback position on the Chiefs, and you fix the defense.

redsurfer11
04-15-2005, 07:00 PM
Another tweener? Who do we currently have that fits the mold now? :hmmm:
Gary Stills, and last year we got rid of R-Cal Truluck. Oh, almost forgot Monty Beisell.

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 07:18 PM
So every sack is a coverage sack? Wow, I never realized that.

And only teams with great corners have high sack totals?

So that's why Atlanta led the league in sacks? Not because of their front 7, but because they had DeAngelo Hall, Jason Webster and Kevin Mathis? Philly was second because of Dexter Wynn, Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard? Tampa was third because of Brian Kelly and Rhonde Barber? Buffalo was fourth because of Terrence McGee, Nate Clements and Kevin Thomas? The Patriots were fifth because of Asante Samuel, Earthwind Moreland and Troy Brown? The Colts were sixth because of Nick Harper and Jason David? The Steelers were seventh because of Willie Williams and Deshea Townsend?

Where are all the great corners, again?

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 07:21 PM
So every sack is a coverage sack? Wow, I never realized that.

And only teams with great corners have high sack totals?

So that's why Atlanta led the league in sacks? Not because of their front 7, but because they had DeAngelo Hall, Jason Webster and Kevin Mathis? Philly was second because of Dexter Wynn, Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard? Tampa was third because of Brian Kelly and Rhonde Barber? Buffalo was fourth because of Terrence McGee, Nate Clements and Kevin Thomas? The Patriots were fifth because of Asante Samuel, Earthwind Moreland and Troy Brown? The Colts were sixth because of Nick Harper and Jason David? The Steelers were seventh because of Willie Williams and Deshea Townsend?

Where are all the great corners, again?

We certainly would have more sacks last year with CBs that could actually cover.

milkman
04-15-2005, 07:22 PM
If you think that sacks are created by defensive lines and linebackers,you have limited football knowledge.Teams that have large sack totals have great cornerbacks. They are called coverage sacks. They are created when the first quaterback option is covered and the QB is looking elsewhere. The time difference of getting a sack, and not getting a sack is about 1 second. If the cornerback is doing his job, the Qb has to look for his second option or hold the ball longer in hopes his first option can break free. Thus resulting in a sack for the defense.
Chiefs cornerbacks nave been so bad the last few years, that opposing Qb's have had field days hitting their first options. Which has resulted in lower sack and turnover totals. Fix the cornerback position on the Chiefs, and you fix the defense.

I keep reading on this board that the Chiefs were among the top ten in sacks last season, or something close to that.

Wow, we have some pretty damn good corners!

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 07:23 PM
I keep reading on this board that the Chiefs were among the top ten in sacks last season, or something close to that.

Wow, we have some pretty damn good corners!

The longer your corners can cover the WRs, the longer you have to sack the QB. Is it that hard to understand?

milkman
04-15-2005, 07:30 PM
The longer your corners can cover the WRs, the longer you have to sack the QB. Is it that hard to understand?

No it's not hard to undersatnd.

However, if you have a front seven that can get to the QB, then you take pressure off the CB.

I don't care if you're Rod Woodson, James Hasty, and Neon all rolled into one, if the QB gets time to find a receiver, a receiver will come open, especially with the contact rules being so tightly called.

There are fewer coverage sacks than there are passes completed because the QB had time make a play.

We need better corners who can hold coverage just a little longer, but we also need people that can get to the QB just a little quicker.

They go hand in hand.

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 07:30 PM
We certainly would have more sacks last year with CBs that could actually cover.No doubt about that.

My point is that it's complete BS to say that only teams with great corners can sack the quarterback. Good defenses are virtually always built around a solid front seven and the best have great corners in addition to that. The idea isn't to pick one or the other; you want to be solid in both positional units.

Our problem is that we have neither. There aren't more than a couple of positions on the roster that couldn't use an upgrade...

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 07:33 PM
No it's not hard to undersatnd.

However, if you have a front seven that can get to the QB, then you take pressure off the CB.

I don't care if you're Rod Woodson, James Hasty, and Neon all rolled into one, if the QB gets time to find a receiver, a receiver will come open, especially with the contact rules being so tightly called.

There are fewer coverage sacks than there are pases completed because the QB had time make a play.

We need better corners who can hold coverage just a little longer, but we also need people that can get to the QB just a little quicker.

They go hand in hand.

I would argue that since our corners were completely and utterly horrible that the greater need is for quality corners. If there was a statistic for the number of times a team got a QB pressure, but still completed the pass due to the #2 and 3 CB being completely inept, I bet we would be #1.

No doubt about that.

My point is that it's complete BS to say that only teams with great corners can sack the quarterback. Good defenses are virtually always built around a solid front seven and the best have great corners in addition to that. The idea isn't to pick one or the other; you want to be solid in both positional units.

Our problem is that we have neither. There aren't more than a couple of positions on the roster that couldn't use an upgrade...

I felt like our D-line at least was pretty good last year, and was constantly screwed by horrible secondary play. We could certainly use upgrades in both areas, but I think the need for a few more quality CBs is more glaring.

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 07:36 PM
The longer your corners can cover the WRs, the longer you have to sack the QB. Is it that hard to understand?And conversely, the faster your front seven is able to get to the quarterback, the less time your corners are required to cover. Not to mention the greater likelihood of creating takeaways because the QB is harrassed. That's not hard to understand either.

What's hard to understand is why some people think it has to be one or the other. The idea is to have a front seven that can get to the quarterback *and* a secondary that can cover. Each will help the other. Pressure the quarterback, and have DBs with the ability to stick to receivers, defend good decisions and pick-off bad ones.

milkman
04-15-2005, 07:39 PM
I would argue that since our corners were completely and utterly horrible that the greater need is for quality corners. If there was a statistic for the number of times a team got a QB pressure, but still completed the pass due to the #2 and 3 CB being completely inept, I bet we would be #1.

I'm not sure how we even came to this debate.

I never suggested that corner wasn't a major priority.
That's why I want Surtain.

I only suggested that there are better LB picks than Ware, and that, contrary to redsurfer's contention, most sacks aren't coverage sacks, at least not the way he's implied.

Cochise
04-15-2005, 07:42 PM
I only suggested that there are better LB picks than Ware, and that, contrary to redsurfer's contention, most sacks aren't coverage sacks, at least not the way he's implied.

No, definitely not, most sacks are probably made when or before the QB probably gets even down to his second option. Either an unblocked rusher or a block quickly shed.

chiefscafan
04-15-2005, 07:43 PM
you have a point about cbs but watch the playoff indy game two years ago and look how much time peyton has to go through his options it's crazy. If we get a strong pass rush or cbs won't have to cover as long. Plus the d homer in me would love for our D to be feared again.

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 07:47 PM
I felt like our D-line at least was pretty good last year, and was constantly screwed by horrible secondary play.If your front seven is playing well, you don't give up 4.6 yards/carry, regardless of what your secondary is doing. We could certainly use upgrades in both areas, but I think the need for a few more quality CBs is more glaring.I'm not arguing that, at all. I hate the Ware pick the thread is based on, and I think it's a priority to sign both Surtain and a rookie nickel.

It's the bogus "CBs create sacks" stuff that I'm talking about, in a general sense. CBs can help with that, yes. They can not turn a poor front seven into a good one, however, any more than a good front seven can make bad corners look good.

Frankly, though, anybody who starts an argument with some sort of "anybody who doesn't agree with me don't know nothin' about football" kind of bullshit is going to set me off.

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 07:50 PM
If your front seven is playing well, you don't give up 4.6 yards/carry, regardless of what your secondary is doing. I'm not arguing that, at all. I hate the Ware pick the thread is based on, and I think it's a priority to sign both Surtain and a rookie nickel.

It's the bogus "CBs create sacks" stuff that I'm talking about, in a general sense. CBs can help with that, yes. They can not turn a poor front seven into a good one, however, any more than a good front seven can make bad corners look good.

Frankly, though, anybody who starts an argument with some sort of "anybody who doesn't agree with me don't know nothin' about football" kind of bullshit is going to set me off.

I don't really disagree with anything you are saying. It appears I just overreacted. I think I have just heard the "The Pats won the SuperBowl with crappy CBs. Therefore nobody needs good CBS!" line of thought too much this offseason.

TEX
04-15-2005, 07:52 PM
Gary Stills, and last year we got rid of R-Cal Truluck. Oh, almost forgot Monty Beisell.

I see your point, but none had first round talent or the talent that Ware has. And Beisell did successfully make the transition from D-line to LB. Stills switched from LB to DL which IMO never would have happened if it were not for the fact that the CHIEFS were in desperate need of a speed rush guy. I'll give you the Truluck argument, but again, none of those players had legit first round talent.

I look at Ware like a Suggs or Kearse type of player. Meaning the talent and speed are there. Just my take on things. I could be wrong. Such is life with a "tweener." But then again nothing is ever a certainty with draft picks of any kind. I mean Sims is no "tweener" and look at his situation. :hmmm:

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 07:59 PM
I look at Ware like a Suggs or Kearse type of player. Meaning the talent and speed are there. Just my take on things. I could be wrong.This is just my opinion, but in the overall picture, I think that kind of player is not a big priority right now. Allen played well as a rookie, and Hall's been brought in as either compeition or rotation. Kendrell Bell has a wicked burst from linebacker, as well, and Fujita has shown some ability to rush from the strong side. We have pass rush ability in the front seven right now.

Where I see the weakness s the strongside end (Hicks, who doesn't rush the passer or play the run well right now) and weakside linebacker (Barber). So I think we need either a prototypical LDE (bigger guy who can stand up against the run but able to rush) or WLB (has to be able to cover backs out of the backfield). As well as cornerback, of course. So all in all, I think we have too many holes to fill to be spending a high pick on a player like Ware. That would be a luxury pick, and we just don't have that luxury...

TEX
04-15-2005, 08:05 PM
This is just my opinion, but in the overall picture, I think that kind of player is not a big priority right now. Allen played well as a rookie, and Hall's been brought in as either compeition or rotation. Kendrell Bell has a wicked burst from linebacker, as well, and Fujita has shown some ability to rush from the strong side. We have pass rush ability in the front seven right now.

Where I see the weakness s the strongside end (Hicks, who doesn't rush the passer or play the run well right now) and weakside linebacker (Barber). So I think we need either a prototypical LDE (bigger guy who can stand up against the run but able to rush) or WLB (has to be able to cover backs out of the backfield). As well as cornerback, of course. So all in all, I think we have too many holes to fill to be spending a high pick on a player like Ware. That would be a luxury pick, and we just don't have that luxury...


Well that whole "luxury" argument is what I said in my first post about Ware. I also said that I'd be tempted at taking him regardless. I see your point about team needs. So what's your take about trading down and possibly picking up an extra pick and selecting Kevin Burnett? Or if Rogers is available and we do trade our 2nd for Surtain, do we still take Rogers? :hmmm: FWIW, I think Rogers will be gone by the time we pick.

the Talking Can
04-15-2005, 08:10 PM
Great pick!

...if we played a 3-4 or needed a 207th "rushbacker" on the roster.

no shit, like we need to spend a #1 on another Stills....draft a proven player from big time college ball:

(in order)

DJ
Rogers
Pollack
Jackson
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Ware

tk13
04-15-2005, 08:16 PM
I don't really disagree with anything you are saying. It appears I just overreacted. I think I have just heard the "The Pats won the SuperBowl with crappy CBs. Therefore nobody needs good CBS!" line of thought too much this offseason.
Well I don't think that's really true, but on the other hand you look at the Broncos, their secondary might be one of the best in the league, and Indy shredded them up, because they didn't get to the QB. Obviously you want balance, but I think if forced to make a choice, I'd rather have a really strong front 7 than secondary. I think it's obvious we have to make secondary upgrades, I also think the FA market this year dictated that we go after the big name corners. If our front 7 doesn't do well, we won't get into the Super Bowl. I'd like to see the last team that even made the Super Bowl that wasn't very strong in the front 7... the Pats run, the Bucs, Ravens.... even the teams that lost, Eagles, Panthers, Rams, Giants.... all of them were very, very good in the front 7 and against the run.

nascher
04-15-2005, 08:16 PM
In 43 games with the Trojans, Ware started 34 times. He collected 195 tackles (126 solos) with 27 sacks for minus-236 yards, 57 stops for losses of 251 yards and 74 quarterback pressures. Only Charles Pickett (43, 1974-76) had more sacks in a career at Troy than Ware's 27. His 57 stops behind the line of scrimmage broke the old school career-record of 40 by Osi Umenyiora (1999-2002). He also recovered four fumbles, caused 10 others and deflected one pass.


http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/396106

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 08:19 PM
So what's your take about trading down and possibly picking up an extra pick and selecting Kevin Burnett? Or if Rogers is available and we do trade our 2nd for Surtain, do we still take Rogers? FWIW, I think Rogers will be gone by the time we pick.It depends on how the board falls. (I'm assuming we're going to get Surtain) If Rogers is on the board, I would be tempted to take him, although I'm not opposed to trading down. If he's not there, I don't really see anybody else at that spot that I want, so I'd field offers. After Rogers, Marlin Jackson's next on my list, and I'd keep an eye on defensive ends. I think linebacker is a position we should address later in the draft. I'm not into parting with a first or second for a linebacker unless he looks like the next Ray Lewis (and I don't see one this year, although Johnson's intriguing). It's a position where you can find strong players in the mid-rounds. I'd probably consider a WR before a LB on the first day of the draft.