View Full Version : Defensive homers: Vermeil wanted to move up in the 3rd and draft...
keg in kc
04-23-2001, 06:18 PM
I posted this this morning in another message, but I don't think anyone caught it...
Vermeil on 810 this morning talked about two trades he tried to make on draft day:
1) Chris Chambers - we all knew about this one, but we didn't know the reasoning behind it. The Chiefs staff had him graded as first round talent and one of the top WRs in the draft, and thought that he had slid so far that they should take a shot at him - the entire warroom agreed on this, and it wasn't just Vermeil. I can understand trying to make that deal from that perspective...
2) Vermeil wanted to move up in the third round and take *GASP!* a linebacker - Sedrick Hodge from North Carolina. He campaigned to try and convince the staff that Hodge was a guy we wanted, but he couldn't get a concensus, so they didn't go for it. Just thought it might make you other "D" homers (a club which I am a member, btw) might take a little heart in the fact that Vermeil wasn't entirely focused on the offense...
04-23-2001, 10:07 PM
It's a damn shame that didn't happen with Hodge...After Morgan this was the LB that I liked best....He is huge with great speed, he was the fastest LB in the draft, and put up fat numbers at UNC....
I would have loved this pick....I would gladly give Downing and Minnis for Hodge even up....
keg in kc
04-23-2001, 10:14 PM
Listening to Chuck Cook (KC director of college scouting) earlier, apparently we actually did try to trade up to Hodge, but no teams would bite on the trade offer.
As for your last comment, "I would have loved this pick....I would gladly give Downing and Minnis for Hodge even up...." I'd advise that you step back from that a little bit. The team seems very, very upbeat about the addition of both players, again according to Cook. Let's let this play out, and not doom these guys to failure before they even play the field. There's easily as much chance that they'll be big-time contributors to the Chiefs as there is a chance that Hodge would have been.
If it turns out that Hodge is the next Seau, and we look back a few years from now and say "man I wish we'd drafted him instead of that WR and DT - what were their names again..." that's one thing, but to say that right now is kind of ridiculous IMHO.
04-23-2001, 10:40 PM
That's the difference between me and most people...Most people wait to make their claims after the fact when everything is obvious and try to sell their BS as if they knew it all along...I have the balls to make statements and prediction ahead of time and most importantly I am usually the first person to step up and eat my crow when I am wrong...So you call it ridiculous and I call it having testicular fortitude....
As for Minnis, he has proven to be a big time player maker at a big time program...That much I like. But I personally would never draft a guy like Minnis with a valuable pick like a 3rd rounder in a million years....Why you ask....
I don't want a guy on my team that doesn't have the ability to assess the important things in life and take the steps to make those important things happen. For him to become academically ineligible for the biggest game of his life to that point is inexcusable and makes a large statement about his character...
First off all kids should take education somewhat seriously but lets not even go into that...Bottom line is that the academic standards to remain eligible are set extremely low, it takes very little effort to stay above that level...He could very well have cost his teammates a National Championship just because he was too lazy and irresponsible to meet minimum standards...I only want guys that are willing to do whatever it takes to win for themselves and for their teammates....I want no part of a guy who cares so little that he want even do the bare minimum....
keg in kc
04-23-2001, 11:01 PM
The point I'm making is that you've given up on these guys before they even hit the preseason mini-camps, and I think that's silly...
But, hell, if you want claims, I'll make mine, since I'm not one to hedge, either.
Our draft this year will turn out to be excellent, believe it or not, and will be better than any draft we've had in years.
Both Minnis and Downing will be strong contributors in 2001, but not until a bit into the season, say the 4th - 6th week. Layne will be a stud FB, but not until 2003. Breisel will not get much of a shot, barring injury, but will be a terrific player down the road. Sulfstead will be a stud at guard, starting about the 10th week of this season. Harts and Baber will be tremendous special teams players, but little more. Terdell Sands will be the best player we drafted, and will be a dominating defensive tackle for years, but we won't see much of him in 2001, not quite yet...
Blaylock, I'm afraid, will be a bust, as much as everyone (including me) wanted him (one player has to be a bust, and I picked Blaylock).
Those are my prognostications.
Odd for me to be so optimistic, it's just not like me.
Sure, tell me that Vermeil almost got me fillet mignon when I am gnawing on beef jerky.
Thanks, that makes me feel a lot better…
Reduced to begging for scraps.
04-24-2001, 08:13 AM
Nicely put Gaz. I wonder what our offer was, a sixth and seventh. After watching the endless hours of Taco Bell commercials, I find it hard to believe, we just couldn't get some trades done. Squeezed in between all those, uno, dos, zesty things, I witnessed numerous moves, up, down, this year, next year type deals, that tells me, trader Carl, wanted to really stick it to someone, or not make a trade. Not knocking him, but finding some of this rhetoric, unpalatable.
04-24-2001, 08:56 PM
Tell me something.
Much has been bandied about the 1999 Rams defense, even though they played most of the season with a 20 point lead by halftime and played the #31 toughest NFL schedule that year. Some people point to the NFC championship game where the Rams 'held' rookie QN Shaun King to 6 points. My question for you is:
Will you REALLY be satisfied with a defense like the '99 Rams or do you hunger for a Ravenish, '85 Bearish, '69 Chiefsish D that can take on ANYBODY, ANYWHERE?
To me, the '99 Rams D was like a kid who could beat up most anybody in the neighborhood as long as they were 50 pounds smaller and the bully's buddies were allowed to hold them down.
Dartboard for the new regime
keg in kc
04-24-2001, 09:17 PM
You know John, for someone who supposedly doesn't want to have anything to do with the Rams you sure seem to have an unhealthy fixation with them. Nowhere do I see anyone here discussing that team in any context, including the defense, so why exactly are you bringing this up?
04-24-2001, 10:47 PM
What was Vermeil going to use to trade up in the third round? Its kind of hard to wheel and deal when your first and second round picks are spoken for. Unless Vermeil wanted to trade one of his coaches to move up.
keg in kc
04-25-2001, 12:15 AM
Well, peckerfan, we must've had something, because we had a deal worked out but the other party backed-out at the last minute.
04-25-2001, 08:25 AM
We had multiple 3rd's, 4th's, 5'ths & 7th's and one 6th. We were in good position to offer value to some team in order to move up
~amazed at the stupidity of this Chief's, err Packer's know-it-all
04-25-2001, 11:49 PM
As far as taking "Snoop"(a name I've never really said with any enthusiasm), I hear that he's not lazy or immature, just stupid. Actually, I shouldn't say that, I hear he's just a slow learner. From another big 'Noles fan who's from florida the popular(not always true) rumor is that he's a little "slow" but has a great heart...NOt sidetracked by popularity or misplaced priorities, he honestly had problems...
Like a malnurished Incredible Hulk with tape worm....
The Bad Guy
04-26-2001, 12:59 AM
Another thought out intelligent reply.
Since when in the history of the NFL has a team offered a first rounder to trade up in the third round?
Normally how the draft works, as I can tell your just learning this, is when you want to move up in some of the later rounds , you offer multiple picks in those rounds to compensate for the move.
I find it pretty funny that a Packers fan is coming over here telling us how to run a team when his hasn't done anything since the 1996 season.
You keep preaching that great teams build through the draft, but you didn't get your starting QB, or RB through the draft did you?
Nope, you traded for them.
When your team actually does something again, then you can start talking junk. 1996 was a long time ago, noone cares about the past, all we care about is the 2001 season.
I'm still willing to bet the Chiefs finish higher than your Packers. Put up or shut up Ken.
04-26-2001, 06:23 AM
Me obsessed with the Rams?
My comments are relevant, friend.
The Chiefs are going to use the Rams coaches, players, coordinators and playbook in KC. They have invested heavily on offense and minimally on defense. They have hired a DC and DBs coach who have a record of fielding adequate Ds that look awesome when playing behind a 20 pt lead.
I am not the one obsessed with the Rams; it is your savior Dick Vermiel.
Obsessed with the KC Chiefs
keg in kc
04-26-2001, 06:27 AM
Your comments were completely irrelevant to the discussion here and there is no question that you are completely obsessed with trying to prove that the '99 Rams defense sucked, which obviously is not true if you consider the facts of the situation, which you continually refuse to do. I don't know if it's jealousy, envy or what, but enough is enough.
I tire of talking about St. Louis and the past. I'd much rather talk about Kansas City and the present/future.
And you don't have to call me keg, you're welcome to call me "Kyle" - keg's just my initials.
04-26-2001, 06:32 AM
Nowhere in my posts will you find the word 'sucks.'
I merely pointed out that the '99 Rams had a good defense that looked spectacular playing against the league's weakest opponents (#31) and most often with a 20 point cushion. That same year, the Chiefs had the #8 toughest schedule and had the second most takeaways in the NFL, second most scoring defense, etc...
I am sorry, but the Rams are relevant to this discussion. The Chiefs 2 top draft pix were spent on Rams players/coach. Isn't the topic draft/defense?
keg in kc
04-26-2001, 06:40 AM
The topic was that Vermeil was trying to move up to take Sedrick Hodge, and it was given to try, apparently in vain, to give some folks upset about DV not caring about the defense a little bit of a better feeling. I was actually and truly posting this to try to make some folks feel better and/or more comfortable. That's all.
I don't see how a discussion of the '99 Rams defense fits, but somehow we got there...
So, in that vein, saying they played the 31st rated schedule is not particularly relevant in this discussion, by the way. We should concern ourselves only with what is important, and that is what the Rams opponents' offenses were rated (I don't know any figures for this...). Their schedule was likely rated so easy because so many teams they played, especially in their own division, had horrible defenses and thus were often outscored. It doesn't tell us, however, how potent the offenses were.
I could be wrong of course.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.