View Full Version : I look into my crystal ball and see....

keg in kc
03-15-2001, 04:03 PM
...the Chiefs about to make a big move, but not until 2002.

First of all, the division looks to be very strong, and we have to play the toughest teams of the NFC East next season, Washington, NYG and Philly. No real "pushovers" on the 2001 schedule except for Arizona, and, again, we don't have the benefit of an easy schedule which can facilitate upwards movement (i.e. the Rams playing a last place schedule in the weakened NFC West when they won the title, the Titans and Ravens getting the benefit of four "gimmies" with Cinci and Cleveland, so on and so forth). Denver and Oakland will be dueling for the division next season, Seattle will be very tough to beat and San Diego looks to be on the right track, IMO - we may well be delegated to the division's cellar for a year, which would actually be very good for a run at the title in 2002...

Second, as I step back and take an objective look at our team, I see:

O-line: We'll have a good O-line, but are adding, in all likelihood, two starters in the middle. It will take some time for the line to meld.

TE: Tony G may be the best ever, and I expect to see continued improvement from him - he's not going to plateau quite yet, in my opinion.

WR: Alexander had an impressive year statistically, but (again, IMO) still lacks focus and maybe motivation; he drops entirely too many catchable passes. Morris played well, but there are some questions he needs to answer with his play in 2001. We don't have a legitimate #3 WR for this system, IMO, and that includes Lockett if we keep him. Ricks is a wild card, at this point.

RB: Richardson, Moreau and/or Cloud. Maybe Holmes. Maybe a rookie. Who knows? Another wildcard...

QB: ????

And on defense:

DE: We have two good, young ends, but how is our depth, especially if Browning is moved to starting DT?

DT: We have an obvious hole here, be it depth or a starter.

LB: This is, in my opinion, another wild card. I don't think, contrary to popular belief, that Maslowski is our new MLB. I think he's our new strong side backer, and I think we have a hole on the inside right now, because I think Patton has lost a step. I think getting someone to play inside is a must, and in addition, depth is a question with the cutting of Ron George.

CB: Can the sophmores hack it?? Do we want them to have to?

S: Feel pretty good about this, but will Wesley suffer the soph slump? Was Woods' play held back by the soft zone (I expected more from him in '00).

As you can see, in my opinion at least, there are a hell of a lot of questions going into the 2001 season, far, far more than just the QB position, and I'm not expecting much improvement in our record from last season. I am looking for improvement in the Chiefs as a team, and I can't wait to see what sort of new system we'll see on both sides of the ball. And I think things will fall into place for a real run in 2002 and 2003. We have the core talent in place for many of our starting positions, and if the right moves continue to be made (I think we've done well so far this off-season), I think we'll be in the frey very soon.

Just my view. Cautiously optimistic, but not expecting a whole lot in the Win column in 2001.

Thoughts? Your predictions?

03-15-2001, 04:27 PM
I do like what they seem to be doing in fa, keeping it as young as fa can be, and going straight to need. However, the draft should be the best available played not position dependent.

I do not have the slightest idea of where we are on defense. Lb, cb, dt, and depth look ??? to me. The Chiefs are obviously working on the offense first and I am surprised no cbs have been looked over.

Good summary!

03-15-2001, 04:40 PM
keg - I can't find much to argue with in your assessment. With or without Green, I can see a higher draft pick next year than this one. And though I believe he would bring more to the immediate table, I believe it will not do much for the future. With him, we may end up fourth, over the Chargers. That is the main reason I am against giving up anymore than we have. It is also the reason, if we are going to do it, do it now, and clean everything up this season. This maybe after the draft BS, is killing me.

03-15-2001, 08:57 PM

OL: We still need a starting LG. Blackshear will be a nice backup; fine in pass protection, but not as impressive in run blocking. The addition of Wiegmann not only addresses the OC position, it gives us an emergency backup Guard. The specter of Shields playing LT last season haunts me still. Hopefully, we will see what Alford can do this season. We still need a LG. Although Hutchinson is supposed to be the best Guard to come along in years, I do not expect Carl to take an OLineman with the #12 pick. The Green Homers would tear him to pieces.

QB: Whomever our starting QB is this season, be it Beuerlein or Aikman or Dilfer or [insert XFL or arena QB name here], he is a stopgap. We will spend a #3 pick on our QBOTF. We should hope that he is ready very quickly to take over the starting job, because it looks like QB will be the weakest spot in the O. A sharp departure from last season.

RB: I like Richardson. He is fast, powerful, has great hands and can pick up the blitz. I might take a HB in the 3rd or 4th Round, but Richardson would be my starting HB, with Moreau as backup. If we have the cap room and can pick up Holmes, so much the better. A new OC gives me faith that the RB will be properly used and that will elevate the play of whomever gets the featured back job.

TE: I look forward to seeing Gonzalez take over the Winslow role in Chargers Midwest. Our strongest Offensive position. He will be the workhorse of the new Offense. It should be exciting to watch.

WR: An up-tempo Offense should take advantage of Alexander’s YAC ability. Perhaps our new OC and QB will hit him in stride and let him run. I am holding out hope that Morris will be much better after a full camp. He certainly showed some ability at times, but disappeared at others. Sadly, I see no real role for Lockett beyond 3rd down possession receiver. He has great hands, but lacks speed and strength. A speedy #3 WR should be on our draft/FA list.

The most exciting thing about the Offense is the negative Stooge space. I truly believe that Raye hurt our Offense more than the lack of a featured HB or any of Grbac’s mental mistakes. An OC who understands mismatches, is willing to attack the Defense and has even just a bit of unpredictability to his play calling should improve our Offense by an order of magnitude.

I do not see us being Rams Lite. We lack the speed. But I do see us implementing a variation of the Chargers Offense. We have all the tools, except for the QB and the #3 WR, both of which we should be able to obtain in the off-season. Our Offense will not longer have to rely solely on the QBs arm, and we will not see as many 80-yard bomb plays. We can diversify and attack from many directions. Although I liked Maulball, it is dead and I eagerly anticipate watching its successor.

expecting a more dependable and diverse Offense.

03-15-2001, 09:13 PM

DL: Our DL crushed some QBs last season, but the also left huge gaping holes through which RBs and QBs alike ran for serious yardage. Our DL must pressure the backfield, but must do it with discipline. They did not converge on the QB so much as they just blasted up field. A run-stuffing DT would be a powerful addition and should be a priority in the draft.

LB: A huge disappointment last season. To be fair, the Stooge had them dropping back into coverage to protect the rookie secondary, but I expected great things from Edwards. Bush failed to live up to our expectations and Patton seemed to age halfway through the season. The shining light in the LB corps was the unleashing of Maslowski’s fire and passion. We have some depth at the LB position and must hope that a DC with a spine will use them properly. The LB corps should be the drummer of the team, providing the drive and power to the Defense.

CB: Rookies, rookies everywhere. And the seasoned veteran is not an impressive player. We will miss Hasty’s rock-solid presence very much. Hasty could take away half the field by himself. We no longer have that luxury. And we have no idea of Dennis, Bartee and Warfield can function in an attacking Defense. Although Fred Smoot is tempting, any action at the CB position should come in FA, with a veteran player already steeped in the professional game.

S: Wesley is everything you want in a Safety. Fast, athletic and he brings a full load when he hits. He is already poised to blow past Woods as the best Safety on the team. I am not terribly concerned about this position.

At the risk of being redundant, the most exciting thing about the Defense is the lack of Stooge input. No more stinking soft zone [although I would not be surprised to see some zone on the field]. No more protecting the rookies. And no more passive Defense. The thing I most admired about the Broncos D was Robinson’s willingness to attack and blitz. Sure, we will occasionally get burned for a long gainer, but if that is the price I pay for a return to the days when the Chiefs Defense dictated terms to the enemy Offense, then so be it. I pay that price willingly.

I see the Defense as the weakest part of the team this season. The loss of Hasty will hurt terribly. We will have to attack the backfield ferociously to avoid hanging our rookie secondary out to dry. I expect to see many an enemy WR pulled down from behind or hammered by Wesley after a long gainer. But as long as I see a return to aggressive, attacking Defense, I can endure that.

expecting a savage and oft-toasted Defense.

03-15-2001, 09:27 PM
Hey Gaz,

On Lockett, look no further than our receivers coach to see why Lockett can be a great 3rd receiver. Charlie Joiner, all they ever said about him was that he lacked the strength, speed, and size to be a great receiver. You might want to look up the number of receptions and yards that man has.

03-15-2001, 09:33 PM
Carl quietly made a couple of solid moves. P and C aren't exactly sexy positions, but those guys should help us win in the next few years. Peter King's latest article makes me a little more curious about Beuerlein, as he doesn't carry the health risks of Aikman, has actually had Pro Bowl caliber seasons unlike Green, and would require less of our draft than TG(if SB gets released, all the better). Every team has holes nowadays, even last year's Ravens, so with a little luck we're back in the postseason. Our strengths: O (playmakers at last to go with a good OL), pretty good front seven, solid safeties, give us a good foundation. If we can just fill those pesky holes at QB and RB--stop-gap will do for one, hopefully a youngster at RB through the draft--there's reason for optimism. A corner's a necessity also, obviously.

[Edited by 1punkyQB on 03-15-2001 at 09:42 PM]

03-15-2001, 09:37 PM
I don't have too much too add to the thorough job Gaz and Keg did but I do have a strong suspicion that we draft a RB with the number 12 this year.

My reasoning you ask:

I think to a point, Carl feels he's losing the fans of KC. We’re beginning to doubt his judgement and his ability to take the Chiefs to the super bowl, and rightfully so I might add. Drafting a feature RB would be the greatest PR move Carl could make right now. It would give the fans hope for the future and something to talk about through what looks to be another season of mediocrity.

Voila, instant credibility.

The above compounded by the fact that our draft position gives us the ability to get a stud RB and we’re desperately in need of one also boosts my confidence in drafting an RB first round.

I’m not saying this is the best move we can make but I think it’s the one that’s going to be made to please the masses.

keg in kc
03-15-2001, 09:45 PM
I'd agree with you Otter except at this point in time I don't think we'll be picking at #12 (I think we'll have Green, hopefully getting the #20 pick) and even if we do there won't be a first-round calibre RB left to draft. I think McAlister, Tomlinson and Bennett will all be gone in the first 11 picks.

Punky, I completely agree with your statements about the P and C, although I am very slightly worried about how our punter will perform with every game outdoors.

I think we're going to sign Priest Holmes to cover RB because of our draft position, but, on the other hand, I wouldn't mind very much if some of our FA money went toward some defensive guys.

03-16-2001, 08:41 AM

If we don't get a HB in FA, you are probably right. Although I think Seymour [DT] or Hutchinson [OG] would provide more bang for our buck, linemen do not generate excitement [well, the Chaplain and I were pretty pumped when Tait fell into our laps, but among the general horde, linemen are not sexy].

Carl needs some good, sexy PR, particularly after the Grbac/Green fiasco. A stud HB like Bennett is sexy. Picking him would calm some of the more frantic Chiefs fans, even though it is not the most efficient use of the pick, IMO.

That is the reason I hope we pick up Holmes in FA. I would be perfectly content with Richardson as the featured back, but Carl needs that blockbuster pick. If we get Holmes in FA, that will distract the HB Homers and allow Carl to draft a lineman at #12.

willing to take Holmes in order to get Seymour or Hutchinson.

03-16-2001, 08:45 AM
Gaz: I shudder to think of wasting another #1 on a lineman that could be aptly filled with a #3-7 pick.

Linemen can be had in the later rounds. The same cannot be said for a playmaker at a skill position.

Yes, we need DT's and OG, but you want to talk about a waste of a #1, that's it.

03-16-2001, 08:51 AM

Sadly, the Green deal is not yet ready to go on the cart.

As draft day approaches, the pressure on the Rams increases. They need to cut some players to make room for FAs to improve their D.

The pressure on the Chiefs also increases as we get closer and closer to the draft without a starting QB [sorry, Todd, I am willing to give you a chance, but the vast majority of the R&G horde are not]. The sickening thing is that Carl is generating the pressure. He should seriously court and sign a FA QB. That relieves the urgent need for a QB in R&G.

Any deal with the Rams works to our advantage if we are no longer under pressure to make the deal. Even if we signed a goober QB and vast numbers of the tribe were howling in despair over the choice, it would still change the focus from "who is our QB?" to "how badly do we want to upgrade the position?" That is a far superior bargaining position.

There is still a very good chance of a Green deal. And the chances improve the longer Carl fails to examine other possibilities. I approved of his stand when the Rams made their ridiculous demand, but I am becoming disenchanted with his lack of action to improve his bargaining position.

has the bubbly chilled, but is not popping the cork yet.

03-16-2001, 08:59 AM

Shudder away, my friend.

There is no comparison between Hutchinson and any Guard you might pick up in the later Rounds. There is no comparison between Seymour and any DT you might pick up in the later Rounds.

It is exactly that myopic view of "playmaker" that makes me sigh. I do not consider it a "waste" to get the best Guard to hit the draft for years. A guy who could be a rock in our OL for seasons to come and open holes for the sexy "playmaker" HB you covet.

I prefer Hutchinson and Henry to Gandy and Bennett any day.

not buying into the HB Homer party line.

03-16-2001, 09:08 AM
Gaz: If you re-read my post, you wont find the words "HB" or "Runningback" anywhere in that post. What you will find is 'playmaker' and 'skill position' which could be one of 3 or 4 positions on the team.

Looking into the past, you may want to note that Shields, was not a #12 pick or even a first round pick and I believe, he's turned out ok. You may also note that Szott was not a #12 pick or even a first round pick and I believe he also turned out ok.

Those two along with Grunhard made the interior line a 'rock in our OL for seasons to come'.

KC HAD an awesome OL, but their failures to draft playmakers in SKILL positions proved one thing--An awesome OL will not win you the SB or even a playoff game for that matter.

03-16-2001, 09:32 AM

If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I did not put any words in your mouth. I used a HB "playmaker" in my example because that is where I expect Carl to use that #12 pick. I did not use Vick as an example because there are a number of folks who think Vick is a NFL bust waiting to happen, so that would not have been a good example. And since we do not need a WR desperately, that "playmaker" example also would not have been useful.

Look into the past, yourself. What Round was Davis drafted? That sword cuts both ways bud.

And I beg to differ with your contention that failure to draft "playmakers" led to our destruction in the playoffs. IMO, our playoff failures were due primarily to Marty's über-conservative style in the post-season. If your contention were correct, we would not have reached the playoffs in the first place. I disagree with your "proof."

I believe that the team starts with the linemen. Allow me to post another example. Again, I will use HB because that is where our lack of "playmaker" talent has been most striking and consistent. I would rather have a great OL and mediocre talent in the backfield than a great HB and a mediocre line. I prefer Tait, Szott, Grunhard, Shields and Riley with Richardson to the nameless Cincinnatti OL and Dillon.

believes "playmakers" are guys who make plays.

03-16-2001, 09:49 AM
Gaz, I do apologize, I obviously must have misread this line: the sexy "playmaker" HB you covet. (emphasis added on the word that didnt taste good.)

While we're looking into the past with this double edged sword, I'll bet that if we looked closely, we would find that the probabilities of finding a 'playmaker' at a skill position vs. finding a solid OG are not even close.

I agree that Marty's ultra conservative play was a main reason for the post season failure's but surely you're not going to sit there and tell me that a better QB or RB or Kicker wouldnt have made a difference in the outcomes?

Using your Cincinnati/Dillon example, who was it that set the NFL record for most rushing yards in a game? Was it Richardson behind our Superior OL or Dillon and the No-name OL? Also, was it Indy's OL or was it Edgerrin James that led to Edgerrin James rushing yardage?

03-16-2001, 10:26 AM

I think the error is mine. I can see where you got that impression from that line. The "you" was the generic "you who do not agree with me" [AKA: "the fools, the poor deluded fools"]

The where was "so and so taken in the draft" game is a never-ending spiral. I concede that a "playmaker" is more likely to be found in the earlier Rounds. But I think that an OG who consistently opens holes for a RB or a LB who prowls the middle or a CB who shuts down half the field or a DE who CRUSHES QBs is every bit as much a "playmaker" as a QB or RB or WR or TE. A "playmaker" is a guy who consistently makes plays for his team. DT was a playmaker, Hasty was a playmaker, Riley was a playmaker when he shut down the Freak.

Would a different QB or HB have changed Marty's philosophy? I dunno. An interesting What If, though…

Who set the record for yardage? Who cares? Did that record lead to a winning season? A playoff berth? Perhaps a Super Bowl appearance?

As far as James is concerned, I honestly do not know what the division of honor should be. It does seem clear to me that Indianapolis has a better rushing attack than Cincinnati. Is that because of James, or because the Colts have a more balanced attack? Dillon is a "playmaker" so one might therefore expect the Bengals Offense to be as good as the Colts. Yet it is not.

Clearly, the "playmaker" hypothesis fails the reasonableness test and does not rise to the level of a theory.

would prefer a "playmaker" in the trenches.

[Edited by Gaz on 03-16-2001 at 10:30 AM]

03-16-2001, 11:05 AM
A LB can be a playmaker, a CB can be a playmaker... a couple of good examples would be LT and Sanders (yuck!). They were difference makers in games. And yes, even a DT is a playmaker (Sapp).

I cannot recall one time where I found myself saying: 'that [insert fabulous OG play here] was so awesome it definately swung the momentum of the game'.

If we were to make a scale of 'playmakers' on a football team, OG would probably be at the bottom. They are important, but dont necessarily make the difference in the game.

03-16-2001, 11:23 AM
And that is the point at which we diverge. For my part, I would prefer to build a solid OL before I worry about QB or RB, so forth. I have often watched the game and admired a block that sprung the RB or a Guard pancaking an enemy lineman.

The good news is that you are far more likely to get your wish than I am [“even if I am right,” he muttered under his breath.]

accepts that he is in the minority on the “playmaker” debate.

03-16-2001, 12:00 PM
You CAN build a solid OL w/o spending 5 #1's to do it. That's MY point. Solid linemen can be found as Carl has demonstrated in the past outside the first round with greater ease than that QBOTF or HBOTF.

03-16-2001, 12:18 PM

And so we come full circle…

I quote myself:

I prefer Hutchinson and Henry to Gandy and Bennett any day.

You CAN build a solid OL with Gandy, but you can build a GREAT OL with Hutchinson.

There is no QB worth a 1st Round pick, unless you like Brees at #12. I do not.

The RBs worth a #12 pick will be gone by the time #12 rolls around.

We could get Hutchinson, the best Guard to hit the draft in years, at #12. We could also get Seymour, the second-best DT in the draft, at #12. We could get Morgan, a great LB at #12, if the RBs go in a clump up front. Any of those would be a good use of the #12 pick, even if they are not sexy “playmakers.”

beginning to suspect that KCTitus is not going to see the light.

03-16-2001, 12:24 PM
Right. By the time you get done assembling your 'GREAT' OL you have nothing but an OL, and when you concentrate on something besides OL, it's time to draft OL again.

If I had one wish, it would be that we quit procrastinating on getting offensive skill players that might be able to do something to help us win a game or two.

Im so sick of the 'We need linemen, we'll worry about [insert a player that is allowed to touch and therefore SCORE with the footall here] next year' song EVERY year.

03-16-2001, 12:43 PM

Not true. OLinemen can last for a long time. They can play for several years without a serious drop in production and are seldom snatched away for megabucks in FA. Our great OL lasted quite a while before age and injury claimed them.

Still, I understand your viewpoint, even though I do not agree with it.

BTW, if I had one wish, it would be that I hit the lottery [screw this football stuff!]

selfish, greedy and fickle Lineman Homer.

03-16-2001, 12:52 PM

You won't get either the HB or QBOTF in this years draft. Neither Michael Bennett or LT are HBOTF picks, IMO. I think both can be solid backs, but neither, IMO, will be probowl guys. If we are looking for serviceable backs, they can be found in rds. 2-4. With the #12, we can score a starting DL, which we so desperately need right now (subject to CP getting them signed and in camp:mad: )

I just think that a #12 on a RB will get wasted with this years draft, and certainly Brees is not worthy of a first rd pick. The Chiefs, IMO, should draft accordingly (with or current picks):

RD1 DL - Marcus Stroud
RD3 RB/CB - Travis Henry/Andre Dyson or Tay Cody
Rd4 QB/OLB- Mike McMahon/Marcus Steele
RD5 OG - Ray Redziniak
RD6 Return Man(WR) - Bobby Newcombe
RD7 PK - Jamie Rheem

03-16-2001, 01:05 PM
ChiTown: that's the second verse of the same song. Heard it, now, for 6 years since we started drafting linemen with #1's. I cant wait until next year, when we'll be able to get the best Center in the country to fill that hole at center with our top 5 pick.

That will be exciting wont it?

03-16-2001, 01:17 PM
I'll tell you what will be even more exciting, is watching Michael Bennet fall below Donnell Bennett's record of .9yds (or whatever the hell it was)/rush in a season.

Cloud/Bennett/Hill/blah/blah/blah/puke/snort/cough insert whomever you like and that's what we would probably be watching with the additon of a RB using the #12 pick. CP has shown that is not his fortay, and the talent available at that pick this year will only strengthen that tale.

I'm a realist. Get your RB/QB thru FAgency, and build the base of your team via the draft.

03-16-2001, 01:25 PM
I thought a realist would take a look at reality...

Behind out awsome OL (of course it wasnt 5 #1's, but it was one of the more stable OL's in the NFL) none of those RB's did squat. The only one that did ACTUALLY had some talent to get through the holes and convert those third and short.

I would have thought that, being a realist, you would realize that we have tried the Awesome OL w/No talent behind it and noticed that it doesnt work.

03-16-2001, 01:40 PM
I think we are getting to the same point, but from different angles. I agree that we have shown little in recent years with the excellent OL that we have had. I also agree that we have bypassed, to some degree, the effort of finding RB's in order to look at other positions. I think the reason we have done that has been two-fold: poor draft position and poor talent evaluation.
You can put the best offensive line in the world together, but if you don't have anyone to run the ball, you still suck. If you read my post, I said that we should take a pass on the skill positions with the #12 pick and try and find what we need in that capacity via FAgency.

Nowhere am I saying that we should take an OL with our number one. That is not a glaring need at this time. However, stopping teams from rushing down our throat is a need, and several excellent DT's exist at our #12 position. I am also saying it is a waste of our pick to take a RB of Bennett or LT's talent with the #12 pick, and especially since CP has not shown a propensity for drafting the nugget RB in the 1st rd.

Hope that's clear, and yes I'm still a realist.

03-16-2001, 02:23 PM
ChiTown: yes, I believe we are speaking the same language. I'm not so averse to a DT as I am to an OG at #12. I would say, however, that what our defense needed most was guys that could make a tackle moreso than a pass rush. I thought our pass rush was too good at times and usually wound up running right past the QB or RB.

Red Till Dead
03-16-2001, 03:18 PM
Chiefs need play makers at many positions. Need them cheap through the draft. This draft is deep at DT, RB, and WR, three positions we need to upgrade.

Has anyone considered trading Tony Richardson to the Bills for a second rounder. Would they take the deal? Bills are looking for a Fullback that can block and catch. TR certainly fits the bill, and should be an All Pro Fullback.
We would get a pick in the middle of second round. Richardson is not a feature back and may not get on the field in our new offense!

If one of the top three RBs are not available at 12 offer to swap first rounders with the Ravens (Espeically if Morgan is still there since that is who the Ravens really want) If three backs get picked before the chiefs at 12 there is a possiblility he will still be available) Ravens also give us Chris Redman QB (3rd rounder priour year) and their very late 2nd round draft pick. Seems like a fair swap to move up 19 spots.

Sign Troy Aikman and have Chris Redman develop as our future starter. Troy played on a team last year that could not pass protect and had an XFL reciever crop. Believe with the chiefs he could be a short term answer in leadership and development of Chris Redman. Would not get hit as often waiting for our recievers to get open and may remain healthy. Accuracy and quick reads are key to this offense (IE Kurt Warner) and Aikman is certainly has those abilities. Redmans biggest knock was his speed and mobility. He can make all the throws, Warner is not the most mobile QB and has had success in this system.

Chiefs then have:

1st rnd 31st - Lamont Jordan RB, (All around back with size, power, moves, and speed, can also catch)
2nd rnd 15th - Best WR or DT on Board (probably WR with speed Morgan?)
2nd rnd 31st - Best WR or DT on Board (probably DT)
3rd rnd 12th - Steel OLB (could develop into all pro)
3rd rnd 14th - DB best available (Baxter - Tyson)
4th rnd 12th - Allen - Kick and Punt Returner
4th rnd 15th - Best OG available (Don't see as big a need, believe Alford should be our starter)

On down the line best available.
Just a thought!

03-17-2001, 03:00 PM

The hiring of Wiegmann eases some of my fears concerning the OL. We still need a good pulling Guard [though Blackshear can remain as backup], but we can get one in the draft. We also need some depth, but Alford is lurking in the wings and the draft awaits [provided we squander no more picks on coaches or players under contract].

To Green or not to Green? I remain firmly convinced that the best interests of the R&G lie in keeping those draft picks and passing on Green. It would be different if we were a QB away from a Super Bowl run. There are a number of good QBs coming in the '02 draft and the Rams will be far more amicable to a Green trade next season [nearly $4,000,000 due to Green]. In the meantime, sign a second-tier FA [or two] with an incentive-laden contract and draft a QB in the 4th Round or draft a QB and throw him into the fire. Hope you can swim, Mr. Weinke.

Is this where we use that #12 pick? IMO, that is not the best choice, but it is probably the move with the most PR value. After the Grbac and Green fiascos, Carl could use some good PR. McAllister or Bennett wearing a Chiefs hat and a big smile would sooth many of the ruffled R&G fans. The best move, again IMO, is to draft a RB in the 3rd Round [Henry, Jackson, Thomas, etc.] and go with Richardson as the featured back. Another possibility is a FA RB, but all the FAs have questions and Richardson is already on the roster.

We are blessed with Gonzalez. Keep either Dunn or Drayton.

We still need a speedy #WR. I could live with an FA signing of Hatchette or a draft player in the 3rd or 4th Round. Lockett would be a nice 3rd down receiver, but he wants to start, which will not happen with Alexander and Morris on the roster. I expect him gone via FA.

updating his analysis in the light of current events.

03-20-2001, 06:57 AM
There is no sense drafting a player at a position on need if he doesn't merit the pick (ie. a player drafted #15 that is really a high 2nd round pick). With that in mind:

1st rd (RB) if available, else trade down for picks
2nd rd (RB) or (DT)
3rd rd (OLB) or (RB)
4th rd on best athlete