View Full Version : Chiefs decide to bypass RB in draft?

03-22-2001, 09:23 AM
I've been thinking and trying to get inside of Carl's mind (I know - both a waste of time). :)
The fact that Garner might be visiting this weekend and Holmes has already been offered a contract tells me that the Chiefs have either A. decided to use the 1st rounder for a trade for Green or Brunell or B. decided to use it to fill other needs.

03-22-2001, 09:36 AM
I read somewhere that Garner may be going to the traitors. Can anybody confirm this?

03-22-2001, 09:42 AM

The Raiders can offer more since the relocation costs will be cheaper:)

03-22-2001, 09:44 AM
Here comes the unpopular minority opinion again…

We don’t need a HB as much as we need a QB, DT or OLB. We have Richardson and he would be an adequate HB. We also have some good FA options at HB, which we do not have at DT or OLB.

Vick will be gone and Brees is not worth the #12, IMO. Therefore, we should not use our #12 for a QB.

With QB out of the way, the #12 pick should go for DT or LB.

Vermeil is on record as saying we do not need a LB, therefore, we should use not use that pick for Dan Morgan [sigh]

That leaves DT. We should be able to pick up Richard Seymour, Shaun Rogers or Marcus Stroud with #12.

Defense Homer, making the case for a Defensive Tackle [whouda thunk it?].

03-22-2001, 09:59 AM

Did you ever consider that the whole "don't need a LB" horn DV is tooting might be a ploy? What if we REALLY, REALLY lust after Morgan? Do you think he's going to shout it out?

03-22-2001, 10:01 AM

I would like to go after Kirkland and save the draft choice for RB or CB. We can use mad mike on the outside.

03-22-2001, 10:01 AM
IMO Garner will not go to the Raiders because he would be a back-up to Wheatley. That's obviously not what he wants. Garner will not be a Raider - his choice, not Raiders.
That's my opinion so take it for what it's worth, or take two aspirin and call me in the morning. :)

03-22-2001, 10:26 AM

03-22-2001, 10:33 AM
How stupid would Al Davis be if he signed Garner with one of the best RBs in the NFL laat year (Wheatley)?...of course no one said Davis was smart so....

Garner is visiting the Browns today and they have to money to pay him the 5 mil he wants...

TRich or Holmes is our man...and my gut tells me that DV really likes Holmes...hadn't heard about the offer but my guess is that Holmes will be Priest Chief next year...

03-22-2001, 01:46 PM

Ooooh, that would make me so mad...

would be furious at Morgan in R&G.

03-22-2001, 02:08 PM

Could you live with a FA DT like Ted Washington, Stubblefield, Traylor, Farr, or Agnew? Or a lower round DT (maybe Fatefehi)? That would leave the #12 for a LT, Duece, or Bennett. IMO, if we can only fill one need this year it should be HB. Adaquate and even pro-bowl DTs, CBs, and OGs can be found in FA or the lower rounds. Stud HBs are drafted early.

As a HB homer, I would be more disappointed with a Warren/Priest DT/HB combo than a Washington/Duece combo.

03-22-2001, 04:07 PM
Since the none of the Chiefs front office visited the Miami campus for workout day a couple of weeks ago, I don't think the they're interested in Morgan at all. I really hope that the Chiefs can find a partner in which to trade down in the first round and pick up a 2nd rounder. If so, I'd draft Shaun Rogers (or the best available DT), Andre Dyson (4.4 CB from Utah) in the 2nd, Stephen Blaylock, RB from Stephen F. Austin (4.3 40 - perfect 3rd down back; maybe more) and either McMahon, Booty or Palmer as the second 3rd round choice. If the Chiefs sign Priest Holmes, we'd have a nice RB corp, and the available cap money could either be allocated towards depth on defense and a one or two year deal for Aikman/Dilfer/Buerleine. I'd rather see the Chiefs draft a DT than sign an old, fat DT with little gas left in the tank.

03-22-2001, 09:23 PM
Gaz, I agree.... ain't nothing better than someone getting stuffed in the backfield. I remember Bell, Lynch, Lanier, Culp, Buchannan, Mays etc etc

03-23-2001, 12:42 PM

I will learn to live with it, as that is exactly what I expect to happen, although I do not hold out hopes for a quality FA DT.

Carl will take McAllister, Bennett, Tomlinson or Jordan with the #12 pick. It does not alter my opinion as to what should happen, but the handwriting is on the wall.

And it is certainly better than wasting that pick on Green.

will wait patiently for his DT.

03-23-2001, 02:06 PM

I agree with you on Green. I am not sure we pick a HB @12. While I would love Duece or LT with that pick, I would see the logic of a Hutchinson, Smoot, or any number of DTs and DEs.

03-23-2001, 02:30 PM

I like Richard Seymour, DT, at #12.

The thing I admired about Robinson’s Defense in Denver was the fearless “attack the QB” attitude. Sure, you get burned once in a while, but that’s the price you pay for relentlessly attacking the enemy. That is also what I liked about Gunther as DC. I am a firm believer that Defense starts in the enemy’s backfield, not in the secondary.

When I look at our DL, I do not see whence this pressure will come.

· DT: Williams, Martin, Browning.
· DE: Hicks, Clemons, Browning.

IMO, we need to spend that #12 on a run-stuffing, pocket-collapsing DT. I am content with our DE roster [though we need some more depth] but I do not see adequate power or speed at DT.

But that nagging little voice in my head says Carl is going to take a RB a #12…

learned to listen to the voices in his head.

03-23-2001, 02:41 PM

I am so damn tired of waiting for MY HB!
We have had good QB's we have had good LB's We have even had star DL's. We havn't done $hit in the playoffs, and it is High time we get a RB.

I would argue that Todd Collins is as capable of being a starting QB as ANY of our RBs are at their position.

I would rather have Collins & Duece "4.33-40 230lbs" Mcallister than Green & (insert you favorite 200yd season rusher that is already on the roster here) at HB.

If it Gets down to Bennet at 12 I saw forget RB & draft anything else. (We don't need another flyweight HB). I would much rather have Garner.

03-23-2001, 02:48 PM

As I said, I WANT a DT, but I EXPECT a RB.

Perhaps this is the year the HB Homers get to say “I told you so” to all us Defense Homers. Maybe we will draft McAllister or Tomlinson or Jordan and fairly explode on Offense.

Then again, perhaps our Defense will be so porous that even a stud RB cannot rack up enough yardage to eke out a win [REF Dillon and Cincinnatti].

This is another case where I hope I am wrong.

happy to take a few ITYS’s for the team.

03-23-2001, 02:53 PM
So Todd Collins is better prepared to step on the field and lead a complex, quick read, wide open passing attack after 3 succesive season holding a clipboard? More so than TRich EARNING 20-30 touches per game, who gained nearly 1200 all-purpose yards in 2000 averaging 13 touches per game?

Open your eyes svuba, your 1500 yd back(and don't give that BS 'BUT HE'S A FULLBACK!!') is already under a very nice and friendly contract, IN KC!!!

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2001, 02:53 PM
Let's be realistic, we all know that KC has needs in various positions and are borderline on others. Virtually any quality player will improve KC, players like Hutchinson,Seymour,Stroud, Moss,McAllister, Jordan, Bennett(shaky),Brees, Morgan, No CBs.

03-23-2001, 02:57 PM
You know What Gaz? at This point I don't even CARE what is the best for next years team. I just want to see our HB kicking Butt, Juking people, running over people, catching passes out of the backfield, etc, etc, etc.

Remember Okoye just killing people, now THAT was a thing of beauty!

I also realize that a strong Defense is every bit as important, and I loved watching Thomas & Smith Crushing QBs. I just want to get that HB to Build on, I know it won't solve all of our problems.

03-23-2001, 03:00 PM

If you loved Okoye, why so little consideration to TRich?

03-23-2001, 03:05 PM

I understand. I can hardly object to your need for a stud HB when I am not objective about QB-crushing.

not about to argue against that position.

03-23-2001, 03:21 PM

TRich has been impressive at times, and is a serviceable back.

I don't want a freaking "Serviceable Back" I want a Butt-Kickin HB.

TRich - 697 yard rushing last year

EJames - OVER 1700 - now THATS a butt kicker.
RSmith - 1521
EGeorge - 1509
MAnderson - 1500
CDillon - 1435
FTaylor - 1399
JLewis - 1340
J. Lewis, 1364
M. Faulk, 1359
J. Bettis, 1341
S. Davis, 1318
R. Watters, 1242
C. Martin, 1204
E. Smith, 1203

We are WAY TOO accustomed to sub 700 yard Rushers. - Notice that there are 14 names on my list, so basically 1/2 of the NFL teams have a 1200 YD rusher, We don't Even have a 700 yd Rusher. TRich would be able to put up better numbers If he were really the Feature Back, But I am not convinced he could hit 1200 yds rushing which is "average" by NFL starting back standards.

keg in kc
03-23-2001, 03:44 PM
E. James: 387 carries
R. Smith: 295 carries
E. George: 403 carries
M. Anderson: 297 carries
C. Dillon: 315 carries
F. Taylor: 292 carries
J. Lewis: 309 carries
M. Faulk: 253 carries
J. Bettis: 355 carries
S. Davis: 332 carries
R. Watters: 278 carries
C. Martin: 316 carries
E. Smith: 294 carries

Average of all 13: 317 carries.

T. Richardson: 147 carries.

Something tells me that T-Rich, with just under 700 yards in 147 carries wouldn't have much trouble gaining 500 more with 170 carries. I'm more concerned about his durability than his running ability.

There are other things I'd also worry about than his rushing yardage, like whether or not he can line up as a wide-out and run patterns. He's a good receiver out of the backfield, but almost exclusively in screens and swings.

But saying you don't like him because he didn't get 1200 yards in less than half the carries of your average 1200 yard rusher doesn't work for me...

That said, the only rookies I'd take to replace him are McAlister and Tomlinson. Bennett doesn't do anything for me, and Henry, Barlow and Jordan won't be around in the 3rd.

03-23-2001, 04:03 PM

You are right TRich didnt have the opportunity that the other backs did. and he may be the answer, but that is what we said last year, and the year before, and the year before. It always seems like we are trying to make do with a converted fullback, or sombody else who is already on the roster. What is wrong with going after a feature back? was it such a bad thing that STL traded to get Faulk? Also TRich is starting to get a bit long in the tooth.

I agree with you that Tomlinson, and McAlister are the only RBs I would want at #12, after that Gaz can have his DT.

keg in kc
03-23-2001, 04:12 PM
I'm not coryt ;)

Never said I had a problem with going after a feature back. The problem, though, as I see it, is who's available...


I don't like Garner. Age wise he's no improvement over T-Rich and has taken many more hits. I question his durability as well. He could work though, but probably only short-term.


Vermeil doesn't like Dillon, and he'd be too expensive cap-wise (IMO) even if he did.


Is he feature back calibre? Might be, might not be. He does have a year on either TR or Garner, though, so he could be slightly longer-term.

All in all, I don't think there's a long-term answer to the HB problem in FA right now. There isn't ever going to be another deal like the Faulk deal, either, so I wouldn't wait for that. What do we do?

Take our chances in the draft...

The problem there is that the guys I like probably won't last until 12...

Reminds me a lot of the QB issue we have right now: there's no really good solution.

03-23-2001, 04:12 PM
No, nothing wrong with going after a legit(or even high potential) stud HB, perse. My stance is where we are at several positions RIGHT NOW, as in assuming we get nobody else, then IMO, HB is low down the priority list.

Yeah, we've been sayin year after year, if only THIS guy or THAT guy would actually get the feature # of touches, they'd put up GREAT numbers!!! And I've been one of those people.

Call me Homer, but I actually believe our new regime may just give one guy the ball! Am I crazy?

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2001, 06:17 PM
RB Comparison at NFL Digest (http://nfldraftdigest.rivals.com/default.asp?sid=573&p=2&stid=8132225)

for those who are interested

keg in kc
03-23-2001, 08:02 PM
They seem to like Jordan...

Still say #12 is early for him, but draft day will tell. This is just my opinion on him, so not worth much, but I think with a little injection of work ethic he could develop into the second coming of Emmitt Smith.

Have to question their ratings on James Jackson, but there's a good chance he'll be available in 3rd/4th, especially following his performances in the Miami workouts.

All of this, of course, depends on what happens with Trent Green...

03-23-2001, 09:06 PM
Here is TSN's RB comparison:


all things considered, would rather have a DT.

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2001, 09:47 PM
Like I said from the beginning the STUD RB out of this draft will be LaMont Jordan. LJ's motivation issue, I believe this was influenced by the poor coaching and the lack of talent at Maryland.Being a one man show for a team can exasperate an individual.

Tribal Warfare
03-24-2001, 09:06 PM