PDA

View Full Version : Are the Chiefs Really That Bad at Drafting?


jspchief
04-17-2006, 07:56 AM
A little perspective.

Number of current starters drafted since 2000:
NFC East
Cowboys: 10
Giants: 9
Eagles: 11
Redskins: 5

NFC North
Bears: 13
Lions: 12
Packers: 11
Vikings: 7

NFC South
Falcons: 12
Panthers: 9
Saints: 9
Buccaneers: 7

NFC West
Cardinals: 9
Rams: 9
49ers: 13
Seattle: 12

AFC East
Bills: 10
Dolphins: 7
Patriots: 14
Jets: 15

AFC North
Ravens: 11
Bengals: 13
Browns: 8
Steelers: 11

AFC South
Texans: 13
Colts: 9
Jaguars: 13
Titans: 12

AFC West
Broncos: 8
Chiefs: 9
Raiders: 11
Chargers: 12
Six teams have had worse success drafting starters, two of which made the play-offs last year (DEN, WAS) 7 teams including the Chiefs had 9 drafted starters, 3 of which made the play-offs (NYG, CAR, IND) 19 teams had more success drafting starters with 7 of them making the play-offs The worst team (WAS) made the play-offs in '05 The best team (Herm's Jets) did not make the play-offs in '05 Obviously, you can't read too much into this. Drafting starters isn't an automatic key to success, as evidenced by some bad teams that have a lot of drafted starters. There are also some play-off teams that are on the low end of the spectrum. And it also doesn't take into account how good or bad those starters might be (for instance, the Ravens drafted Boller, he's a starter, but not exactly what I would consider a success).

The one thing that is clear is that the Chiefs are in the lower half of the spectrum, and a little below league average. Probably not as bad as some people around here like to think, but bad enough that it definately points out flaws in Rufus and Gretz articles about how we should build through the draft.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 08:00 AM
Well you should build through the draft while using FA to plug the glaring holes. Problem is when you're reaching for needs in the draft, which the Chiefs tend to do, especially in Vermiels time here. You're not going to get any players to build your team around which you should be looking for on the first day of drafts.

The first days of drafts is where you build the core of your team, our team has been reaching to fill holes instead. Hence our problem.

jspchief
04-17-2006, 08:04 AM
Well you should build through the draft while using FA to plug the glaring holes. Problem is when you're reaching for needs in the draft, which the Chiefs tend to do, especially in Vermiels time here. You're not going to get any players to build your team around which you should be looking for on the first day of drafts.

The first days of drafts is where you build the core of your team, our team has been reaching to fill holes instead. Hence our problem.I disagree that Vermeil reached for needs. He did the exact opposite. He drafted projects, and I believe he did it because he had no intention of putting many rookies on the field. They were still reaches, but I don't think it was done in an effort to fill needs.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 08:09 AM
Every DT we drafted was an absolute reach for a need........even the one who wasn't suppose to be a reach got picked because Vermiel believed his buddy John Bunting.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 08:13 AM
2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
3 75 Eric Downing DT Syracuse
3 77 Marvin Minnis WR Florida State
4 107 Monty Beisel ILB Kansas State
4 108 George Layne RB Texas Christian
5 141 Billy Baber TE Virginia
5 150 Derrick Blaylock RB Stephen F. Austin
6 176 Alex Sulfsted G Miami, O.
7 212 Shaunard Harts FS Boise State
7 243 Terdell Sands NT Tenn.-Chattanooga

2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 6 Ryan Sims DT North Carolina
2 43 Eddie Freeman DE Ala.-Birmingham
4 107 Omar Easy FB Penn State
5 143 Scott Fujita OLB California
7 221 Maurice Rodriguez LB Fresno State

2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State
2 47 Kawika Mitchell MLB South Florida
3 92 Julian Battle CB Tennessee
4 113 Brett Williams T Florida State
5 153 Jordan Black T Notre Dame
6 189 Jimmy Wilkerson DE Oklahoma
7 230 Montique Sharpe DT Wake Forest
7 252 Willie Pile FS Virginia Tech

2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
2 36 Junior Siavii DT Oregon
2 61 Kris Wilson TE Pittsburgh
3 93 Keyaron Fox OLB Georgia Tech
4 105 Samie Parker WR Oregon
4 126 Jared Allen DE Idaho State
6 195 Jeris McIntyre WR Auburn
7 231 Kevin Sampson T Syracuse

2005
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 15 Derrick Johnson OLB Texas
3 99 Dustin Colquitt P Tennessee
4 116 Craphonso Thorpe WR Florida State
5 138 Boomer Grigsby MLB Illinois State
5 147 Alphonso Hodge CB Miami, O.
6 187 Will Svitek T Stanford
6 199 Khari Long DE Baylor
7 229 James Kilian QB Tulsa
7 238 Jeremy Parquet T Southern Mississippi

Those are some ugly drafts........to bad our front office wanted to trade down and take Siavii instead of move up the 2 spots to take Chris Gamble........

jidar
04-17-2006, 08:24 AM
We've seen these threads before, and while they don't always use the same methods the conclusion has been uniform. The Chiefs are slightly below average drafting.

jspchief
04-17-2006, 08:28 AM
Every DT we drafted was an absolute reach for a need........even the one who wasn't suppose to be a reach got picked because Vermiel believed his buddy John Bunting.I don't entirely agree. I don't know how you can call Sims a reach when he was arguably the best DT in the draft (before hindsight) and was projected to go in the top ten. Maybe Bunting fooled Vermeil, but he fooled a lot of other people too. Sims looked like a legit prospect coming out of college. I guess you could say we didn't need to move up to get him, because at least one of the other two highly touted DTs would have still been there. But overall, I don't see that as a reach as much as just a bust pick.


It's also not over-reaching to expect a top ten pick to fill an immediate need.


Siavii may have been a reach, but it's not because we were trying to fill an immediate need. Vermeil said from the start that he was raw and was a project. They never intended him to come in right away and compete for a starting DT spot.

jspchief
04-17-2006, 08:38 AM
Unfortunately, there's no easy way to take into account draft picks traded for players. With guys like Green and Surtain, and Welbourne to a lesser extent, KC does have some other starters that have been obtained via draft picks.

Like Jidar said, at best the Chiefs are slightly below average.

The next time a Chiefs mouthpiece tells me we should model ourselves after New England and Pittsburgh, I think they should take note that we aren't capable of drafting like they do. It's one thing to say we should copy the best. It's something entirely different to actually successfully do it.

Chiefnj
04-17-2006, 08:40 AM
Eddie Freeman was rated as a 2nd round pick and wasn't a reach either.

Even the Panthers who seem to know a bunch about DL play picked the guy up thinking he might develop.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 08:54 AM
I just think the Chiefs past drafts show more than anything sitting around going "we have to take this position" isn't how you have a good draft. The Chiefs shouldn't have a problem with DT if you look at those drafts but they do. You can't just randomly pick guys at positions and think it's going to work. That's what I'll say to people who get on here and go "Dline, Dline, Dline", if that Dlineman is the 35th rated player while the 15th ranked corner is there picking a Dlineman isn't a good idea.

As far as Sims goes, no it wasn't a "reach" and yes it was really stupid to trade up. Numerous people had those DT's all rated differently. Personally I wanted John Henderson, now hindsight is 20/20 on that but I thought he was a much safer pick he'd produced his entire college career. I just think the Chiefs and namely Vermiel bought way to much into what Bunting was telling them. If your picking top 10 the guy you pick should start right away because if you suck bad enough to pick top 10 most anyone going top 10 is going to be good enough to start.

We do draft way to many projects, there shouldn't be any projects taken on day 1. Your first 3 picks should all be able to start by year 2. If the Chiefs had drafted on day 1 like you should and those players were what they should have been. This team wouldn't have had to sign Kendrell Bell and we wouldn't have any need for DT's.

It hurt too when Vermiel basically wouldn't play any of the younger players. Theoretically if it's done right, you should get 3 new starters every year. Your first 2 picks and your 3rd rounder from the year before, and if you're lucky on day 2 maybe more than that.

Now with the way this team has been built, the collective age of this team and where we stand in general. The Chiefs can't go into the draft with the idea of "oh we need this position". The Chiefs need to get some cornerstones for the future, right now I'd say we have 3. We need to take the best player available in the first 3 rounds regardless of position other than say RB or TE, unless of course Vernon Davis fell. The next 3 drafts are extremely important to this teams future, if we go in reaching for needs we're just going to have another old team built through free agency that doesn't last long.

Chiefnj
04-17-2006, 09:26 AM
I just think the Chiefs past drafts show more than anything sitting around going "we have to take this position" isn't how you have a good draft. The Chiefs shouldn't have a problem with DT if you look at those drafts but they do. You can't just randomly pick guys at positions and think it's going to work. That's what I'll say to people who get on here and go "Dline, Dline, Dline", if that Dlineman is the 35th rated player while the 15th ranked corner is there picking a Dlineman isn't a good idea.

As far as Sims goes, no it wasn't a "reach" and yes it was really stupid to trade up. Numerous people had those DT's all rated differently. Personally I wanted John Henderson, now hindsight is 20/20 on that but I thought he was a much safer pick he'd produced his entire college career. I just think the Chiefs and namely Vermiel bought way to much into what Bunting was telling them. If your picking top 10 the guy you pick should start right away because if you suck bad enough to pick top 10 most anyone going top 10 is going to be good enough to start.


Hindsight is 20-20, but it was not stupid for KC to trade up to grab Sims. He was the #1 guy on their board and they went and got him. The Vikings were going to take him if KC didn't move up.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 09:29 AM
Hindsight is 20-20, but it was not stupid for KC to trade up to grab Sims. He was the #1 guy on their board and they went and got him. The Vikings were going to take him if KC didn't move up.

There were 2 other DT's that graded out basically the same......How do you give up a 3rd round pick to move up 1 spot when there are 2 other guys graded the same or atleast close to it? It just seems dumb to me, it's not worth it.

Chiefnj
04-17-2006, 09:50 AM
There were 2 other DT's that graded out basically the same......How do you give up a 3rd round pick to move up 1 spot when there are 2 other guys graded the same or atleast close to it? It just seems dumb to me, it's not worth it.

Because those other two guys did NOT grade the same to the Chiefs or Vikings. The Vikings didn't even go with a DT once Sims was off the board.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 09:52 AM
History has proven John Henderson and Albert Haynesworth shouldn't have been graded equal to Sims, they should have been graded higher by leaps and bounds.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-17-2006, 09:55 AM
I think the ? this thread poses could be answered in the same way if the title was, "Is Star Jones really that f*cking annoying?"

Of course!!

Mecca
04-17-2006, 09:57 AM
I think the ? this thread poses could be answered in the same way if the title was, "Is Star Jones really that f*cking annoying?"

Of course!!
:spock:

HC_Chief
04-17-2006, 09:59 AM
Yes

Cormac
04-17-2006, 10:18 AM
About the Sims pick....the Chiefs had 2 options:
1) trade up to be sure to get Sims
2) lose Sims to the Vikings and be left to pick somebody else or trade down

I admire them for going after the guy they wanted. It didn't work out well, but at least they executed their plan. And they have stuck to their plans well the last few years. Don't forget that in 2004 (?) they did a great job of trading down to land LJ and extra picks because they weren't enamoured with anybody else available. Trading down to get Siavii wasn't so hot, but again, they picked up some extra choices while making their best effort to fill a need.

Overall I think they do an OK job drafting. Definitely not great, but few can claim that.

CoMoChief
04-17-2006, 10:40 AM
Wow look at this guy. The guy needs to bulk up a lot though, hopefully he can do that without losing speed. Maybe hell be there in the 7th round??

WR Jamie Goodwin - Northern Iowa
6'9 170lbs 4.39 40yd dash.

Could anyone think of a DB in the NFL that could outjump this guy down field???

CoMoChief
04-17-2006, 10:42 AM
[QUOTE=Cormac]Trading down to get Siavii wasn't so hotQUOTE]

You're right. That was by far the worst use of a second round pick that I can remember. That was flat out retarded.

ct
04-17-2006, 10:44 AM
Wow look at this guy. The guy needs to bulk up a lot though, hopefully he can do that without losing speed. Maybe hell be there in the 7th round??

WR Jamie Goodwin - Northern Iowa
6'9 170lbs 4.39 40yd dash.

Could anyone think of a DB in the NFL that could outjump this guy down field???

No, but kick him in the shin and you won't have to leave your feet for the INT, and this stick man will be leaving on a stretcher with a compound fracture. I almost weigh that much nearly a foot shorter, and I'm skinny!!! :eek:

CoMoChief
04-17-2006, 10:48 AM
No, but kick him in the shin and you won't have to leave your feet for the INT

That's called pass interference.

So what, maybe he needs to gain lets say.................umm...............50 lbs or so.

Mecca
04-17-2006, 10:49 AM
You don't want anyone that tall, he likely has very poor agility and quickness. He probably comes out of breaks like a snail....despite his straight line speed.

Shootr
04-17-2006, 11:43 AM
How about starters that came from trading draft picks? I think that has to count for something also. Green, Roaf, Surtain, and Welbourne--all important guys acquired through the use of draft picks.

Ari Chi3fs
04-17-2006, 11:49 AM
I dont know how anyone can say that we HAVENT had shitty drafts.... come on. Terdell Sands, Craphonso Thorpe, Shitty McShit, Jeremy Asshole.

Sure, they have talent, but overall they are quite poopish.

chiefsfan1963
04-17-2006, 11:56 AM
Looking at the stats everyone is forgetting team position in the draft.

When have we had a top 5,10 or 15 pick during the years mentioned? Not many!

If you guys want to be cellar dwellers like San Diego and Detriot for the next 15 years then maybe we can be better at picking franchise players.

No thanks!

Cormac
04-17-2006, 12:20 PM
The thing that I find weird about the Chiefs drafting is the awful 2nd round record vs. the good late picks. We make lots of good picks in the 4th and 5th rounds like Dante, Blaylock, Fujita, Jared Allen, Lilja etc. Not to mention we probably get more good players out of the undrafted rookie pools than any other team. We just seem to get it back-asswards sometimes. Maybe it has to do with our scouting system???

ct
04-17-2006, 12:51 PM
The thing that I find weird about the Chiefs drafting is the awful 2nd round record vs. the good late picks. We make lots of good picks in the 4th and 5th rounds like Dante, Blaylock, Fujita, Jared Allen, Lilja etc. Not to mention we probably get more good players out of the undrafted rookie pools than any other team. We just seem to get it back-asswards sometimes. Maybe it has to do with our scouting system???

More the fact that our scouting reports are actually used on Day2, whereas the FO guys use thier own judgements on Day1.