PDA

View Full Version : King Carl on Petro's Show


DeezNutz
04-25-2007, 01:39 PM
Anyone else catch this interview? Not a lot of highlights. Some of the usual pre-draft answers. But Peterson did say something about our draft philosophy that has me a bit worried going into Sat. He wants to take the BPA...at a position of need. Sweet. Bill Koohair-ik runs around saying we're taking BPA, but this wasn't Carl's take this afternoon.

DaWolf
04-25-2007, 01:43 PM
Considering pretty much every position is one of need for us, shouldn't be an issue...

Valiant
04-25-2007, 01:44 PM
Should be who ever can come in and start for us in the 1st...

DeezNutz
04-25-2007, 01:51 PM
struck me as one of the dumbest things I've heard a GM say, though. No, no, we're going to turn over every rock to make sure we get the third best OT. It's either BPA or not...

keg in kc
04-25-2007, 01:52 PM
Good, BPA is how you build a good team over the long term. We're not building 2007's team in the draft, we're building 2009's.

DeezNutz
04-25-2007, 01:55 PM
Good, BPA is how you build a good team over the long term. We're not building 2007's team in the draft, we're building 2009's.

Not really what he said, though. BPA, great. Most everyone would agree with this. BPA at position of need, to me, means a greater possibility of more spit hoods, etc. I'm all for best player, period. I know the Holmes thing was out there, but this is how we can up with Johnson in the first place.

GoTrav
04-25-2007, 02:19 PM
Anyone else catch this interview? Not a lot of highlights. Some of the usual pre-draft answers. But Peterson did say something about our draft philosophy that has me a bit worried going into Sat. He wants to take the BPA...at a position of need. Sweet. Bill Koohair-ik runs around saying we're taking BPA, but this wasn't Carl's take this afternoon.

that's more reassuring than taking a weaker player at a postion based on need. As someone mentioned, I don't think we can go wrong by selecting BPA.

Messier
04-25-2007, 02:24 PM
Not really what he said, though. BPA, great. Most everyone would agree with this. BPA at position of need, to me, means a greater possibility of more spit hoods, etc. I'm all for best player, period. I know the Holmes thing was out there, but this is how we can up with Johnson in the first place.


I don't see how BPA at position of need = bad guy With the spit hood comment I assume you mean players like Siavii. That was 100% vermeil project pick.

DeezNutz
04-25-2007, 02:28 PM
I don't see how BPA at position of need = bad guy With the spit hood comment I assume you mean players like Siavii. That was 100% vermeil project pick.

Yes, Siavii is the spit hood. Don't care what kind of guy he is, but I do care that he's (was) a terrible football player.

Best I know, there are two philosophies: take the BPA, or draft based on need. Carl's comments indicate that we're going to do the latter. Everyone who drafts a position of need tries to take the BPA at that position; that's a given. Now, if you claim that the Chiefs need just about everything, then we have a moot point.

Back to my original comment. If he'd said only, BPA, I would have been happy, but that wasn't the case.