PDA

View Full Version : Draft Defense...


Cannibal
12-14-2000, 08:02 PM
I know all of you fans would like to see a RB taken in round 1.

But the offense has not been the problem this year. With this team's passing a attack, which is now one of the league's best, I really don't think we need that great of a rushing attack. And no, I don't think we'd be playoff bound if we had Corey Dillon either.

This team's biggest needs are at Defensive Tackle, Outside Linebacker and Punt/Kick Returner.

If the Chiefs would've had a decent Defense this year, they would be in the playoffs. They have the ability to score with anybody right now, but they haven't stopped anyone.

IMO, they should draft a Fullback in the middle rounds to block for TRich and use the higher picks on Defense. They need to audition TRich these last two games. He played very well last week when given the carries.

They should look at drafting these players:

Dan Morgan - OLB (Nation's Best)
Moran Norris - FB (Nation's Best)
David Allen - KR (Nation's Best)

All of these players would fill needs and they are the best at their respective positions and the Chiefs will have the opportunity to draft all of them.

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-14-2000).]

Chiefnj
12-14-2000, 08:25 PM
We desperately need a HB. The problem is that KC sucks at developing halfbacks. We'd be wasting a draft pick. We need to pursue one through FA.

Like or not, Carl has invested too much money in Chester and Williams to drop them. The cap hit would be huge. They will be our DT's next year.

I think our biggest need is CB. Hasty will be gone. That leaves us with Dennis, Warfield and Bartee. I'm sorry, but Dennis has not shown me much improvement at all. Warfield can't even beat out Dennis, and Bartee can't beat out either of them. We need CB help bad.

I agree that we also need help at OLB and returns. I'm not sure I'd waste an early pick on a return guy.

Cannibal
12-14-2000, 08:35 PM
We wouldn't have to waste an early pick on a return guy. We could probably land David Allen in the 3rd or 4th round.

And with the luck we've had with return men, I think 3rd round pick would be well worth it.

I still disagree on the need for a HB. I think TRich can do the job capably. He's going to end up with over 1,000 combined yards running and receiving. He has a respectable yards per carry average. I believe he could be top 15 running back if given 80% of the carries.

I do agree that we will need a Corner though. I hope Hasty comes back for one more season.

Cannibal
12-14-2000, 08:41 PM
This team needs a FB that does nothing but block and block well. A crushing blocker with size and speed like Sam Gash. I like Moran Norris out of KU. He considered the best FB in the country right now.

A close second would be that huge 260 pounder out of A&M, I think his name is Tombs?

G_Man
12-14-2000, 08:42 PM
T-Rich isn't the answer at HB. I hope we can get Garner, but I wouldn't bet on it. I agree with your idea of drafting defense and a returnman though. A big time playmaker at LB would be the best IMO. I haven't followed college football too closely so i'll have to wait until after bowl games and all-star games to make any reccomendations. I think whether it's offense or defense, our team should just pick the best available talent. This team needs playmakers. Also, we need to draft some OLmen (preferably in the middle rounds) to rebuild in the middle.

Cannibal
12-14-2000, 08:43 PM
That would enable TRich to get the ball the vast majority of the time.

He CAN do it. He just get screwed over just like every other RB KC gets their hands on.

morphius
12-14-2000, 09:18 PM
Cannibal - I'm not sold on TRich as a HB just yet, and the Donx and Atlanta are not really good judges of a RB potential, not very good run D. I like him as a FB who can do both positions, so hand offs and him out in the flat as a threat is a good thing, you throw in a high quality RB and we will have a backfield that has to be game planned for. Of course I understand if your fear is that any other type of FB a Chiefs coach will try to use as a HB.

I say resign Lockett and use him as punt and kick returns, I like most of what he does back there.

We are going to need to draft some OL as well, shouldn't be a first round pick, both Riley and Tait have the ends covered.

I would like a FA RB, and if one exsists a great DT in the first round. That way we can drop either one of the oft injured DT's that we have now. Also sign Browning, he has done very well, he can spell anyone and now that he is healthy is one of the best lineman we have.<P>

G_Man
12-14-2000, 09:58 PM
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Browning's locked up for a while. I was one of the only ones (maybe THE only one) that thought this was a good move last offseason. That's when he still had the "injury-prone" tag.

morphius
12-14-2000, 10:02 PM
G_man - I thought they only signed him to a one year deal, but wouldn't stake my life on it. Did they give him an extension after last offseason?

I have liked the way he has played at DT, better then DW and Chester. I wasn't sure he could make it through a season, but who knows.

Gaz
12-15-2000, 06:43 AM
Yes, draft Defense.

There is only one major hole in our Offense, and that is at HB. We should get our HB in FA. Move Riley to ORG and play Alford at ORT. Pick up a young OLG in the middle rounds and patch with FA veterans.

I agree with Morgan for our first pick. Maslowski at MLB, Edwards and Morgan at OLB. I like that crew.

I prefer to leave Richardson at FB and go after a FA HB [Dillon, Garner, Barber, so forth]. I particularly like Richardson and Barber as "Thunder" and "Lightning" in a split backfield.

If Gunther is retained as HC [AUGH!], then we will probably keep Richardson as HB. In that case, get a blocking FB in FA.

Draft OLB, DE [CRUSH that QB], KR/PR and then depth on the OL & DL. I originally wanted to draft a CB, but I think we would be better served with a veteran FA to bolster our rookies [assuming Hasty retires].

You can draft a "diamond in the rough" QB in the later rounds, if you feel like wasting a pick. Our staff is incapable of developing a QB, but hope doth spring eternal, dothent it?

xoxo~
gaz
stocking up on the D side.


[This message has been edited by Gaz (edited 12-15-2000).]

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 06:47 AM
I agree with you two about the need for interior lineman.

Are there any good free agents for the Guard and Cornerback positions.

One guy in the draft that will be a monster at DT, is Roland Seymour out of Georgia. He'll have the same type of impact that Corey Simon is having in Philly. That wouldn't be a bad move either. Put him in there with a rotation of Dan Williams and John Browning and you have a devastating combo at DT.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 06:52 AM
I must be the only Chiefs fan in the world that thinks TRich is a good Runningback.

People, he has good stats... very good stats considering his limited number of touches and not being allowed to get a in a groove like other RB's. He's excellent receiver out of the backfield.

If they use him these last two games the way they did vs. Carolina he's going to end up with over 1,200 yards from scrimmage. (despite being mis-used horribly)

kcred
12-15-2000, 07:02 AM
I just read that Morgan is listed as a MLB, and OLB, so it would make no difference. Another OLB to consider would be Polley, at Florida State. But irregardless, that is the position I would target in the first round. I agree with whomever said we will keep Chet and Dan because of cap considerations, so I would put off drafting a DT until at least next year. RB is maybe the riskiest draft of all. For every Edjarin James, there are 3 or 4 Kijana Carters, so this is applicable to all teams, save the Broncos, not just the Chiefs. The trouble there lies in the salary cap, I think too many people are saying well we will rework all these contracts, and still have the money to pony up for a big name FA. I don't believe this can happen. I just read a report on an AFC team, the Bills I think, that said they were 11 mil over for next year and in serious shape to sign anyone. What does that say about the 40 mil we are over. In closing, let me add, how sad is it, when we are talking off season moves with two weeks left in the season. Gunther and crew must GO. It is a long time until July.

Gaz
12-15-2000, 07:03 AM
Cannibal-

CB Gary Baxter and DE Karon Riley were also on my short list for first-round pick. They should be available when we draft.

I went with Morgan because that is our most urgent need on D, IMO. Bush did not pan out and Patton is showing some signs of age.

We still do not know what Dennis and Bartee can do in a true bump & run Defense [curses upon the Spineless Stooge and his stinking soft zone], so I would not draft another CB at this time. I would go for a veteran FA CB and see how the kids do next season. But I concede that we might be drafting a CB at #1 in '02.

I love crushed QBs, but I think Hicks and Clemons is a good pair. The addition of Riley at DE would not improve the DL as much as Morgan would improve the LBs, IMO.

xoxo~
gaz
wants the most bang from his buck.<BR>

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 07:04 AM
Morgan is an OLB, that was moved to the inside due to the loss of Miami's normal starter in the middle.

Morgan is the prototypical OLB and has led the 'Canes in tackles 3 out of the 4 years he's been there.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 07:08 AM
Sorry Gaz, you must have me mistaken.

I never said to draft a DE.

I did say that there will be a blue chip prospect at DT around where the Chiefs will be drafting.

His name is Roland Seymour out of Georgia.<P>

Gaz
12-15-2000, 07:10 AM
Cannibal-

As to Richardson. Granted, he is the best back on our roster, but I would keep him at FB and add a veteran FA at HB. I would then give Richardson tons of carries and swing passes. I am still an advocate of the split backfield, with Richardson able to go inside and catch those swing passes and a fast HB [Garner, Barber] who can make the corner and catch those swing passes.

xoxo~
gaz
likes TR at FB.<BR>

Gaz
12-15-2000, 07:13 AM
Cannibal-

I was showing my thought processes concerning OLB over DE. I didn't mean to imply that you wanted a DE.

I don't think we should draft a DT when we are probably stuck with McGlockton and Williams.

xoxo~
gaz
mumbles on occasion.<BR>

kcred
12-15-2000, 07:14 AM
Gaz, see my post 12, I still believe we are in a terrible cap situation. Hope you are right and I am wrong.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 07:16 AM
They need to do everything they can to be rid of at least one of those two underachieving cancers.

Their lazy attitude seems to permeate this Defense.<BR>

Gaz
12-15-2000, 07:26 AM
kcred-

Carl is a wizard at cap manipulation. Grbac will renegotiate. Shields and Lockett will go FA. We will loose some "underachievers" and aging players [Grey, Moon, Anders, Bennett, Cloud, so forth].

But it is true that we might not have the cap room to obtain a good FA HB. In that case, we take Cannibal's advice and make Richardson our HB and pick up a blocking FB in FA.

However, ANY improvement in our Offense depends on a new philosophy and scheme. That means a new OC and it also requires that Gunther leave the new OC the hell alone.

xoxo~
gaz
looking to the future.<BR>

morphius
12-15-2000, 07:29 AM
Cannibal - TR is an OK RB, and shows signs of being a threat back there. I think if we could utilize him as a FB then can come out of the backfield and also run the ball, that would just make any HB that much more successful behind him. The one thing about TR that bothers me right now is that instead of making the tackler miss he always tries to go through them instead, it looks cool but is not very productive. I like the idea of having two backs back there that can block (pass and run) and that can get open in the flat.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 07:41 AM
Gaz,

I disagree that Carl is a cap manipulation wizard. If he was, we wouldn't be 40 million over the cap right now. And we wouldn't be stuck with Chester and Dan either. He knew they both had shady past histories. You would think he would have signed them to contracts laced with incentive clauses and provisions that would allow us to be rid of them with only minor implications if they played the way they've been playing since they've been here.

When you're 40 million over the cap and you continue to restructure contracts, you're in some serious trouble. Eventually, you must pay the piper just like San Fran is doing right now. Whoever takes over for Carl [whenever that may be], is going to have a serious cap mess to clean up. If you think times are lean now, just wait till we pay the bill for all these contracts that keep getting put off by Carl.


[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

kcred
12-15-2000, 08:35 AM
This is so far fetched I hesitate to bring it up, but, could it be that Carl, or maybe his replacement if he bolts, no pun intended, to San Diego, just guts the team, starting with Elvis, and rebuilds from there. I don't think so, but that would be a quick 20 mil gone from the 40. I wonder what else would be in the offing. I wish there was a spot on the web, that could answer how, individually, each player counts against the cap, and how much to cut said player.

Gaz
12-15-2000, 09:02 AM
Cannibal-

Love him or loath him, Carl kept this team competitive throughout the 90's. Very few teams accomplished this. Usually, a team would surface, rise quickly to the top and then plummet to the cellar again. Carl's manipulation of the salary cap and cautious moves kept us at the bottom of the elite or the top of the also-rans, depending on your perspective.

We will find out just how good he is over the next few seasons. One of us is right. For the sake of our team, let's hope I am.

xoxo~
gaz
watching and waiting.<BR>

TEX
12-15-2000, 09:38 AM
Cannibal,
I strongly disagree with the post. The Chiefs need to get a GAME BREAKER at RB first and formost. Your point about the defense is a good one, but the flip side is that the Chiefs could have more games with a legit ground game also. The problem with a pass happy score quiclky offense is it can't run out the clock whaen it must. With a game breaker in the backfield this offense gets even better! This offense becomes complete. Super Bowls are won now with offense. With Kurt/Shaw GONE, the defense gets better also. We do NOT need anyone dismissing the importance of a STUD RB. That kind of thinking has gotten the Chiefs where they are today - a sub .500 football team.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 09:52 AM
Gaz,

It depends on your definition of competitive.

If he feel he kept the team comptetive in the regular season, I agree that he did manage that.

If we're talking about competing for a championship, then I strongly disagree.

Most teams with the cap problems we have either are, or were competing for a championship.

KC-CHIEFS-FAN-TX,

I believe that our offense is now capable of winning a championship with a good defense and special teams.

Our Corners aren't very good with exception of Hasty. Woods is extremely overrated and is rarely in correct position to make plays on the ball. Both of our tackles are perennial underachievers that rarely have much of impact in the games and always commit horrible penalties and the worst possible time. We have a glaring hole at OLB, eventhough Carl "The Master Salary Cap Manipulator" [sorry Gaz :)]tried to fill it by giving Lew Bush 17.5 million dollars. And we have a desparate need for a Punt and Kick Returner.

A RB wouldn't have done much at all with the other problems this team has.

I don't like RBBC at all, but I think we have our RB on the roster currently and that's TRich.


[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

Mark M
12-15-2000, 09:57 AM
I'm going to have to agree with Cannibal on this one.

The Chiefs have never been able to develop an RB. Okoye was a complete surprise, but couldn't be taught how to catch the ball or pass block all that effectively. We need an RB from FA, not in the draft. A FB, however, would be a good choice if TR, Cloud or whomever, stays and actually starts and continues to play throughout the game. Otherwise, its purely academic who carries the ball—no one will get a true chance anyway.

Having a stud RB is great for running out the clock, but what good is a powerful offense if the defense can't stop the other team? To be cliche: Defense wins championships.

Hasty is a bit long in the tooth, and our CBs, as stated earlier, aren't quite the gamebreakers we thought. We need a sure-fire starter at CB, another quick, hard-hitting LB to accompany Edwards and Maz, and a DT that can actually earn what he's paid. Offensively, some OL depth in the later rounds (as if the Chiefs can go through a draft w/o picking an O-lineman) and perhaps the KR we need (although I think Lockett can do the job).

Just my 2¢

MM
~~Playing GM cuz I got nothing better to do today.

Gaz
12-15-2000, 10:01 AM
KC-CHIEFS-FAN-TX-

I beg to differ, my man. What has gotten the Chiefs to where they are today is a mockery of the strong Chiefs Defense of years past. Schottenheimer and his stinking soft zone is the reason we are below .500.

We do not require a "game breaker" in the backfield to evolve a more balanced Offense. We need a legitimate every-down HB and an OC with the brains to call a balanced, coherent game plan. The two changes would make our Offense balanced and unpredictable, which equates to successful and [dare I say] explosive.

While we would LIKE Dillon in the Chiefs backfield, we do not NEED Dillon in the backfield.

The Defense is broken. The Offense could be better. Fix the broken stuff before the upgrade the functioning stuff. And the first step to fixing the broken stuff is to fire Schottenheimer and get a quick, strong OLB.

xoxo~
gaz
focusing on the broken stuff.<BR>

TEX
12-15-2000, 10:28 AM
Gaz,
Lets just say that I have the same thing for "game breaker RB's" that you do for "QB CRUSHING DE's." *grin* My take is that said RB would make Raye look like a geneius. I agree that the defense is a problem but if Spirt and Shaw are fired, it will improve. My solution is simple - put the last piece of the offensive puzzle together with my STUD GAME BREAKER (via free agent) and draft defense!

Gaz
12-15-2000, 11:06 AM
KC-CHIEFS-FAN-TX-

My bad. I did not know that you had the same level of blind reverence for RBs that I have for QB-crushers.

I withdraw my objection.

xoxo~
gaz
not messin' with another fanatic.<BR>

alanm
12-15-2000, 11:20 AM
You mention David Allen, I counter with Bobby Newcombe as the return man. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

ChiTown
12-15-2000, 11:23 AM
I think an exceptional pick in the 2nd rd. would be Mario Fatefahi DT KSU. He is unbelievably quick at 6'2 - 305lbs. He had 8.5 sacks and 80 tackles (15 for losses!) this year. Constantly double teamed, but always had his hands on the ball carrier. Tremendous energy (Dan Salemua type), and zeal for the the game. He is a future pro bowl type, IMO, and something we desperately need for our interior line defense.

My top 3 picks per round assuming we are drafting 15 or better
1. Ladainian Tomlinson - RB TCU. Good speed (4.4), good cutback runner, nice hands
2. Fatefahi (see above)
3. Carlos Polk - LB Nebraska. Excellent speed (4.5), great athlete, nose for the ball.

mlyonsd
12-15-2000, 11:28 AM
My choice would be to pick the best available RB or LB, whichever is ranked higher at the time.

Under the conditions of course that Kurt is gone and somebody is added that knows how to create plays for a RB.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 11:29 AM
Chitown,

I totally agree with you about Fatafehi.

My first 4 picks would be:

1.) Dan Morgan - OLB - Miami
2.) Mario Fatafehi - DT - KSU
3.) David Allen - PR/KR - KSU
4.) Moran Norris - FB - KU

That's four holes filled right there with some of the best players in the country at their respective positions.

ChiTown
12-15-2000, 11:35 AM
Cannibal

Methinks David Allen will be available as a free agent due to his injury earlier in the season. I think his lack of P.T. in 2000 will kill any chance of him being drafted, IMO.

Because of his lack of ability to run between the tackles, he will strictly be viewed as a S.T.'er, and those guys don't usually get drafted (outside punter/kicker). He is an open field guy, and quite an impressive one at that.

[This message has been edited by ChiTown (edited 12-15-2000).]

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 11:38 AM
IMO, Allen will go before round 4 ends.

He's just too explosive to pass up on, even if he does just return punts and kicks.

That's all I want him to do with the Chiefs.

ChiTown
12-15-2000, 11:44 AM
Cannibal

I hope you are wrong on Allen and the Chiefs. I don't want to see the Chiefs waste a pick on a ST'er, unless it's a field goal kicker (Rheem would be nice).

This team has many more glaring needs to fill with their 3rd pick than a KR/PR. They should use rds. 3-7 to fill the holes on the OL, secondary and LB. We are going to be very weak with the absence of Hasty and Grunny.

Our return guy can be had in free agency.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 11:48 AM
Not having a good return man has killed this team more than almost anything else IMO.

3rd round may be a little high, but they better not pass Allen up.

The Chiefs are almost dead last in the league at return yardage.

ChiTown
12-15-2000, 11:50 AM
Poor defense and no running game has killed the Chiefs. The return game is a problem of the ST coach and his ****ty system, IMO, not the athletes.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 11:52 AM
I disagree, Cloud is one of the worst kick returners I've ever seen.

The defense has hurt us the most. But lack of returns is a close second IMO.

ChiTown
12-15-2000, 11:55 AM
Again, The coach picks who he wants back there returning the ball. I would have had DA returning every kickoff (how often does your return guy get hurt), and I would not change a thing with Lockett, other than he should have been in there the whole season.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 11:59 AM
The Giants put Sehorn back to return kicks and he ripped up his ACL on his first try.

I wouldn't sacrifice DA on kicks.

Lockett is not explosive enough for punt returns IMO. Besides, he's probably gone after the year is over.

We have an extra 4th round pick this year. I'd use it on Allen.

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

Chiefnj
12-15-2000, 12:26 PM
Anybody like the "take the best available athlete approach" for the first round?

If we don't resign Lockett we'll need to draft a receiver in one of the early rounds.

IMO, these are our greatest needs to fill through the draft:

1. CB. Especially without Hasty.
2. OLB.
3. WR (if we can't keep Lockett).
4. QB. We need to start grooming somebody.

ChiTown
12-15-2000, 12:52 PM
Chiefnj

You don't see a big gaping hole to fill at RB? I'm baffled by the number of people that don't have us needing a RB in either RD 1 or 2. This team has no talent, outside a very big hearted Tony Richardson, in the backfield.

Whomever we have in at QB will get killed in '01 without the presence of a bonafide run game.

htismaqe
12-15-2000, 12:56 PM
KC-CHIEFS-FAN-TX:

My take is that said RB would make Raye look like a genius

I respectfully disagree. Jimmy Raye has THE game-breaker during his stint with the Rams - Eric Dickerson...

He didn't look like a genius then, either...

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 01:48 PM
Carl Peterson simply cannot draft runningbacks [among other positions]. He's drafted bust after bust and failed. I don't want him trying it again. If we must have a RB, then we need to sign one via free agency.

Drafting one is not the answer.


[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 01:53 PM
How does Denver keep pluggin in these RB's and having them work out? I like Gary and Mike Anderson, and although I think they could both start for many teams, I don't think they're any better than Richardson.

What Denver has is a combination of excellent run blocking and a capable north-south runner, that has size and speed. We can have the same thing here without giving 25% of our salary cap to a free agent RB.



[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

G_Man
12-15-2000, 02:31 PM
I don't watch Denver too much, but in the past their rushing success came largely because of the toss sweep with Davis, if I'm not mistaken. Davis would be able to hit the cutback lane and punish a defense's pursuit. That's one thing I haven't seen any KC back (besides Anders a few times) do; hit the cutback lane. We need a running back with some vision and lateral movement. T-Rich will only ever be an OK RB; he'll never be great. OK RBs don't win Super Bowls.

[This message has been edited by G_Man (edited 12-15-2000).]

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 02:42 PM
Mike Anderson is 3rd in the NFL in rushing right and he hasn't played as much as the other RB's. I think he's missed two games.

If he had played the same amount of games as the other backs he would be leading the league in rushing right now.

Do you think Mike Anderson is the best RB in the NFL?

Chiefnj
12-15-2000, 02:43 PM
Chitown,

I agree that we have a huge gaping hole at HB position. I also think Richardson should be kept at FB. However, as Cannibal noted, for whatever reason, we can't develop HB's.

I'm sick and tired of wasting draft picks on late round backs that we won't give playing time to and whom we can't coach to be decent. For that reason I would turn to FA for a HB. I was adamant about signing Dillon to an offer sheet with a poison pill for our 1st and 3rd round pick. I think Carl screwed up royally on that one. Now , we're still without a back and Dillon's price has risen.

G_Man
12-15-2000, 02:47 PM
I haven't watched Denver too much, so I can't really comment (even the KC game I had to listen to on radio). But I would assume he also has good vision, and is fairly talented. I don't see bennett equaling his performance. And it doesn't really matter since our OL isn't near the calibre of Denver's.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 02:48 PM
I think Mike Anderson is very good, but nowhere near the best back in the league and IMO, not better than TRich. Yet he's doing better statistically better than almost anyone in the league. That is because he has great blocking, good size and speed. TRich has the same attributes. All we need is better blocking schemes, [similar to the Donkey's].

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

G_Man
12-15-2000, 03:00 PM
Saying T-Rich is better than Anderson (rookie of the year candidate) is a huge stretch. He may have more size and speed (I'm not sure on this one, don't know the #s), but T-Rich is not a HB. I haven't seen much of Anderson, but I have seen T-Rich; and i haven't been too impressed. He runs with good power and effort, but he lacks instincts and I have never once seen him hit a cutback lane. He rarely makes anyone miss either. I assume with Anderson's #s that he actually has some talent. Sure he's benefitting from his OL, but I don't think T-Rich could put up similar #s. JMO. Ask any outsider who's better and you'll get laughed at. Some of the homers may agree though.

Tribal Warfare
12-15-2000, 03:16 PM
1) DT ( Shaun Rogers, Damione Lewis, Richard Seymour)

2)RB (Lamont Jordan,Travis Henry)

3)LB( Carlos Polk)

4) DT( Mario Fatafehi)

4) LB (Kendrad Bell)

5) BAA

6) BAA

7)BAA

7) BAA(compensatory pick)


BAA- Best Available Athlete

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 03:19 PM
I didn't say TRich is better. I said that they are about the same. I have watched both players numerous times this year, [I actually watch the games] and while Anderson gets great blocking and is *provided* cut back lanes, TRich gets to run straight up the middle everytime and gets very poor blocking. Not to mention the fact that Mike Anderson get 25+ carries and can get a groove, while TRich has to make something happen with 9 or 10 and gets taken out after a good run.

Yes, if TRich was a member of the Broncos he could put up very similar numbers. I believe that.

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

G_Man
12-15-2000, 03:22 PM
We'll see, but I'd bet T-Rich never pans out as a HB. Just like Bennett, Anders, etc. Sure he has good combine-type #s, but he's no HB. I may not have been able to see every game, but ,from what I have seen, he's nothing special. Ask any impartial source and they'll tell you the same. He is a great FB (maybe one of the best in the NFL), but as a HB he's not better than second team.

Cannibal
12-15-2000, 03:25 PM
I don't think he'll even get a shot to "pan out" as a HB so we'll never know. I'd bet TRich will only get about 18 or 19 carries the rest of the year [two games].

C_unther is going to destroy his career as a ball carrier just like so many other KC backs.



[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 12-15-2000).]

TEX
12-15-2000, 06:17 PM
htismaqe,
You GOT my attempt at sarcasim! That was EXACTLY my point. Kudos for bringing up Ray's stint with the Rams.