PDA

View Full Version : My fearless Chiefs first round prediction:


Frankie
03-21-2008, 03:21 PM
OLT Ryan Clady.

This is how it will go down:

The Rams will take jake long (breaking my heart). The falcons having piled up a couple of 2nds will pass on QB Matt Ryan and go with either Dorsey or Ellis in the hopes that using those 2nds they could trade back into the mid to late first round and Grab QB Brohm. That leaves Matt Ryan ripe for the picking by KC, and we all know that the Chiefs showed a lot of interest in the Ryan Pro day. Not so fast though! KC is playing poker with Baltimore who is sitting at 8 hoping Ryan will fall to them. We will switch our 5th position (1700 points) with their 8th (1400 points). For the difference of 300 points we will get their 3rd rounder (245 points), their 5th (39.5 points) and their 7th (13.5 points). Essentially we will give them 1700 and will get back 1698 points. Two meager points short but 3 extra draft picks for late round draft pick crap shoot that seemingly Herm's pretty good at.

With the 8th pick of the draft, Kansas City Chiefs select LT RYAN CLADY.

And I'll be in high heaven.

keg in kc
03-21-2008, 03:26 PM
I might be okay if we took Clady at 18. Or 28 would be more like it.

There has to be somebody better at 8.

Hog Farmer
03-21-2008, 03:34 PM
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen posted in the history of the internet!!!

keg in kc
03-21-2008, 03:36 PM
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen posted in the history of the internet!!!Oh, I don't know, I've seen a few things that might be even dumber.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=204150

(zing!)

BigMeatballDave
03-21-2008, 03:45 PM
8 is way too high for Clady.

the Talking Can
03-21-2008, 03:47 PM
and I will shoot myself in the face

and Gretz will write a column titled, "Clady: He might be good, he might not be good"

Rain Man
03-21-2008, 03:50 PM
Where do I keep my neg rep? I know it's around here somewhere. (Rummage, rummage.)

Brock
03-21-2008, 03:51 PM
You could have just said "we will reach for need".

the Talking Can
03-21-2008, 03:52 PM
or "why our team sucks"

BigMeatballDave
03-21-2008, 04:00 PM
and I will shoot myself in the face

LMAO The joy of being a Chiefs fan...

Direckshun
03-21-2008, 04:02 PM
Clady would be a decent pick at #8. There's a couple other guys I'd rather take but you have a bonafide LT for the next 10 years in Clady.

KCChiefsMan
03-21-2008, 04:06 PM
thats a horrible idea, there will be better players at #8.

BigMeatballDave
03-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Clady would be a decent pick at #8. Absolutely not.

Frankie
03-21-2008, 04:24 PM
I might be okay if we took Clady at 18. Or 28 would be more like it.

There has to be somebody better at 8.

Dude, are you drunk?

Frankie
03-21-2008, 04:25 PM
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen posted in the history of the internet!!!

Back that up please? I'm curious.

Frankie
03-21-2008, 04:27 PM
Clady would be a decent pick at #8. There's a couple other guys I'd rather take but you have a bonafide LT for the next 10 years in Clady.

The first smart reply to this topic. :thumb:

Frankie
03-21-2008, 04:30 PM
Ryan Clady is supposedly more talented than even Long albeit a little more raw. If you think Clady is not a top ten pick your information is outdated.

Spectre
03-21-2008, 04:32 PM
OLT Ryan Clady.

This is how it will go down:

The Rams will take jake long (breaking my heart). The falcons having piled up a couple of 2nds will pass on QB Matt Ryan and go with either Dorsey or Ellis in the hopes that using those 2nds they could trade back into the mid to late first round and Grab QB Brohm. That leaves Matt Ryan ripe for the picking by KC, and we all know that the Chiefs showed a lot of interest in the Ryan Pro day. Not so fast though! KC is playing poker with Baltimore who is sitting at 8 hoping Ryan will fall to them. We will switch our 5th position (1700 points) with their 8th (1400 points). For the difference of 300 points we will get their 3rd rounder (245 points), their 5th (39.5 points) and their 7th (13.5 points). Essentially we will give them 1700 and will get back 1698 points. Two meager points short but 3 extra draft picks for late round draft pick crap shoot that seemingly Herm's pretty good at.

With the 8th pick of the draft, Kansas City Chiefs select LT RYAN CLADY.

And I'll be in high heaven.

And then comes the holdout, right?

keg in kc
03-21-2008, 04:33 PM
Dude, are you drunk?No, but I did just finish hitting golf balls.

Can't seem to focus on work today.

el borracho
03-21-2008, 05:01 PM
Why would I take less value in trade? If we trade down out of the top 5 we had better be raping the other team in value.

Frankie
03-21-2008, 05:19 PM
Why would I take less value in trade? If we trade down out of the top 5 we had better be raping the other team in value.
We take the less value to encourage them not to think Brohm. It appears they covet Ryan, but who knows if Brohm is a plan B for them or not. As for raping another team in a trade we never do. That's a given. Their 7th rounder is worth (I believe) 2.5 points. If it makes you happy we can demand that too.

Spectre
03-21-2008, 05:29 PM
Why would I take less value in trade? If we trade down out of the top 5 we had better be raping the other team in value.

Remember, Carl Peterson is your GM. The only thing he rapes is the fanbase.

LiL stumppy
03-21-2008, 05:34 PM
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen posted in the history of the internet!!!

Not really. That was kind of an oxymoron type thing eh?

Fish
03-21-2008, 06:24 PM
We take the less value to encourage them not to think Brohm. It appears they covet Ryan, but who knows if Brohm is a plan B for them or not. As for raping another team in a trade we never do. That's a given. Their 7th rounder is worth (I believe) 2.5 points. If it makes you happy we can demand that too.

Wow. We take less value to "encourage" another team?

They would have to approach us for a trade, we wouldn't ask them, that's not how it works. Why on earth would we then take a crappy deal that favors them and reach at the same time?

After a decade of mediocrity we finally have a top five pick, and a few just want to trade it away for peanuts or reach for need or both..... I just don't get it.....

SBK
03-21-2008, 06:58 PM
The only way I would like this type of deal....









Is if the Raiders or Broncos did it.

ChiefsCountry
03-21-2008, 07:22 PM
Left Tackle or Bust!!!!!!!!!!

TEX
03-21-2008, 09:16 PM
OLT Ryan Clady.

This is how it will go down:

The Rams will take jake long (breaking my heart). The falcons having piled up a couple of 2nds will pass on QB Matt Ryan and go with either Dorsey or Ellis in the hopes that using those 2nds they could trade back into the mid to late first round and Grab QB Brohm. That leaves Matt Ryan ripe for the picking by KC, and we all know that the Chiefs showed a lot of interest in the Ryan Pro day. Not so fast though! KC is playing poker with Baltimore who is sitting at 8 hoping Ryan will fall to them. We will switch our 5th position (1700 points) with their 8th (1400 points). For the difference of 300 points we will get their 3rd rounder (245 points), their 5th (39.5 points) and their 7th (13.5 points). Essentially we will give them 1700 and will get back 1698 points. Two meager points short but 3 extra draft picks for late round draft pick crap shoot that seemingly Herm's pretty good at.

With the 8th pick of the draft, Kansas City Chiefs select LT RYAN CLADY.

And I'll be in high heaven.

And IMO we will have reached for him at # 8. I have no problem with Clady - just PLEASE NOT at #8!:eek:

Frankie
03-21-2008, 11:21 PM
Wow. We take less value to "encourage" another team?

They would have to approach us for a trade, we wouldn't ask them, that's not how it works. Why on earth would we then take a crappy deal that favors them and reach at the same time?

After a decade of mediocrity we finally have a top five pick, and a few just want to trade it away for peanuts or reach for need or both..... I just don't get it.....

Originally I thought of Clady as a 12th or 13th. But more and more he is predicted to go around 7-9 range. Yes there are some goofy mocks out there, but let's face it, they don't know any less than you and I know about the players. Some of them even know more. So if something begins to look like a consensus, chances are there is something there than transcends our biases. Your bias is that we should go BPA no matter if it leaves a gaping hole un-addressed and overloads another position. That's usually OK if the holes are not so wide and deep as we have this year. My bias is that we desperately need a stud LT out of this draft and we should either get Long at 5 or Clady or Otah were they are worth the pick. 8th is increasingly becoming Clady's value. I am suggesting we get an OLT comparable to the one we would most likely get at 5 if available, and in the process come up with additional high 3, 5 and 7 picks. I personally would LOVE that scenario.

L.A. Chieffan
03-21-2008, 11:24 PM
Remember, Carl Peterson is your GM. The only thing he rapes is the fanbase.

You post on imdb too?

Delano
03-21-2008, 11:28 PM
Originally I thought of Clady as a 12th or 13th. But more and more he is predicted to go around 7-9 range. Yes there are some goofy mocks out there, but let's face it, they don't know any less than you and I know about the players. Some of them even know more. So if something begins to look like a consensus, chances are there is something there than transcends our biases. Your bias is that we should go BPA no matter if it leaves a gaping hole un-addressed and overloads another position. That's usually OK if the holes are not so wide and deep as we have this year. My bias is that we desperately need a stud LT out of this draft and we should either get Long at 5 or Clady or Otah were they are worth the pick. 8th is increasingly becoming Clady's value. I am suggesting we get an OLT comparable to the one we would most likely get at 5 if available, and in the process come up with additional high 3, 5 and 7 picks. I personally would LOVE that scenario.

I'd say that there are bigger holes in the KC offensive line than LT. Like every position right of Brian Waters. If Jake Long were to make it to the five spot, and the Chiefs feel comfortable paying him big money, then I am OK with the pick. Trading down for questionable value in a draft where the elite talent is pretty damn thin and all defense, you must take the elite defender at fifth. Adding Ellis, Dorsey, or Gholston does not overload any position. It makes the Chief defensive line (on paper) ELITE, which makes the rest of the defense better.

Rausch
03-21-2008, 11:29 PM
This is the first year I have no favorite and I'm glad I have no hand in the decision process.

I'd say this is the highest round we've had in the worst talent pool. I'm just not convinced on any argument, position, or player.

I'd trade down just on the fact I can't identify a single sure-as-shit-as-I'm-standing-rule-all rock of an athlete stud as the no 1.

It's just a muddy ****ing draft...

Frankie
03-22-2008, 02:55 PM
I'd say that there are bigger holes in the KC offensive line than LT. Like every position right of Brian Waters.

Protecting the QB's blind side makes the LT hole the most crucial to fill. You draft your LT in the 1st. Good OG and OC can be found in the 3rd or even 4th. We took Shields in the 3rd. Roaf was a 1st rounder. Moving McIntosh to RT solves that position (for now). Plus we have a couple of young guys with some potential, but none that we can rely on as a good-great LT. I say LT is our biggest offensive priority. Bigger than WR. We are rebuilding. That means we have another year to play and test Tank and Turk. If they don't pan out, we can always go high DT next year. Meanwhile our QB would still be alive. I don't know how this is not clear to most of my fellow CPers! :shrug:

milkman
03-22-2008, 03:15 PM
Protecting the QB's blind side makes the LT whole the most crucial to fill. You draft your LT in the 1st. Good OG and OC can be found in the 3rd or even 4th. We took Shields in the 3rd. Roaf was a 1st rounder. Movint McIntosh to RT solves that position (for now). Plus we have a couple of young guys with some potential, but none that we can rely on as a good-great LT. I say LT is our biggest offensive priorities. Bigger than WR. We are rebuilding. That means we have another year to play and test Tank and Turk. If they don't pan out, we can always go high DT next year. Meanwhile our QB would still be alive. I don't know how this is not clear to most of my fellow CPers! :shrug:

Matt Light
Jason Peters
Marcus McNeill

Der Flöprer
03-22-2008, 03:29 PM
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen posted in the history of the internet!!!

Actually, it was on this thread.

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4537425#post4537425

And it was this post.


Happy James Earl Ray day !

OnTheWarpath58
03-22-2008, 03:33 PM
Do the people that want a LT at all costs actually WATCH this team?

McIntosh was NOT the problem last year. When healthy, he was more than serviceable. It was the RIGHT side of the line that caused the majority of the problems.

Moving McIntosh to RT is a HORRIBLE idea. He's not the mauling run-blocker you need at that position. He's much more of a finesse pass blocker.

For the eleventy-billionth time:

This is going to be at least a 3 year fix. We will NOT fill all of our perceived needs in THIS draft. There is no reason to set the rebuilding process back further by reaching for a player based on need.

alanm
03-22-2008, 04:48 PM
Ryan Clady is supposedly more talented than even Long albeit a little more raw. If you think Clady is not a top ten pick your information is outdated.
You just blew your entire argument out of the water when you mentioned supposedly. :shake:

alanm
03-22-2008, 04:52 PM
Do the people that want a LT at all costs actually WATCH this team?

McIntosh was NOT the problem last year. When healthy, he was more than serviceable. It was the RIGHT side of the line that caused the majority of the problems.

Moving McIntosh to RT is a HORRIBLE idea. He's not the mauling run-blocker you need at that position. He's much more of a finesse pass blocker.

For the eleventy-billionth time:

This is going to be at least a 3 year fix. We will NOT fill all of our perceived needs in THIS draft. There is no reason to set the rebuilding process back further by reaching for a player based on need.That's why I like Carl Nicks in the 2nd. He can play both Left and RT.

keg in kc
03-22-2008, 04:59 PM
That's why I like Carl Nicks in the 2nd. He can play both Left and RT.I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Both left and RT though? I mean, that'll make the blocking scheme easier, but we have enough trouble blocking 5 on 4, do we really want to drop down to 4 o-linemen. Although maybe herm would like an extra RB.

Sully
03-22-2008, 04:59 PM
I LOVES ME SOME 8-8!!!!!!

alanm
03-22-2008, 05:45 PM
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Both left and RT though? I mean, that'll make the blocking scheme easier, but we have enough trouble blocking 5 on 4, do we really want to drop down to 4 o-linemen. Although maybe herm would like an extra RB.
He is a Husker after all.
BTW don't be a smartass. :D

keg in kc
03-22-2008, 05:46 PM
BTW don't be a smartass. But then I'd be nothing at all!

Fish
03-22-2008, 06:22 PM
Do the people that want a LT at all costs actually WATCH this team?

McIntosh was NOT the problem last year. When healthy, he was more than serviceable. It was the RIGHT side of the line that caused the majority of the problems.

Moving McIntosh to RT is a HORRIBLE idea. He's not the mauling run-blocker you need at that position. He's much more of a finesse pass blocker.

For the eleventy-billionth time:

This is going to be at least a 3 year fix. We will NOT fill all of our perceived needs in THIS draft. There is no reason to set the rebuilding process back further by reaching for a player based on need.

Exactly.

We have a LT on the team already . There is absolutely zero reason to see our first pick as LT at all cost. We don't have to find our franchise LT this year. If it happens, then great. But it's not a requirement to target LT this year. And there's certainly no need to reach for one. McIntosh would do fine holding the position till next year if need be.

keg in kc
03-22-2008, 06:32 PM
I think Warpath missed something important out of his own mouth when he said "When healthy, he was more than serviceable."

I'll just ignore the arguable "more than servicable" bit for the sake of brevity and focus on the integral qualifyer that he started with. "When healthy". McIntosh is 31 years old and he was hurt virtually all of last season. That's someone we want to pin any sort of reliance on?

Now, I won't argue that tunnel vision on a LT would be a bad thing, any more than I'd argue that focusing on any position over talent at #5 would probably be a mistake, but to use McIntosh as some sort of justification for why we don't need a LT? That just doesn't work. Again, he's the wrong side of 30, he's coming of a year plagued with injuries, and he's just not that good to start with.

I do think 3 years to rebuild is about right. But 2008 isn't year 1; it's year 2. There needs to be a sense of urgency rather than a nonchalant attitude. No "ah, we've got another year".

Anyway, take the best player. If that's a LT, great. If that's a QB, great. If that's a DT, works for me. K? Sure, that's be gre-oh, wait. Bad idea.

milkman
03-22-2008, 06:41 PM
I think Warpath missed something important out of his own mouth when he said "When healthy, he was more than serviceable."

I'll just ignore the arguable "more than servicable" bit for the sake of brevity and focus on the integral qualifyer that he started with. "When healthy". McIntosh is 31 years old and he was hurt virtually all of last season. That's someone we want to pin any sort of reliance on?

Now, I won't argue that tunnel vision on a LT would be a bad thing, any more than I'd argue that focusing on any position over talent at #5 would probably be a mistake, but to use McIntosh as some sort of justification for why we don't need a LT? That just doesn't work. Again, he's the wrong side of 30, he's coming of a year plagued with injuries, and he's just not that good to start with.

I do think 3 years to rebuild is about right. But 2008 isn't year 1; it's year 2. There needs to be a sense of urgency rather than a nonchalant attitude. No "ah, we've got another year".

Anyway, take the best player. If that's a LT, great. If that's a QB, great. If that's a DT, works for me. K? Sure, that's be gre-oh, wait. Bad idea.

I disagrre that it's year 2.

The Chiefs didn't commit to rebuilding until the season was well underway, and out of hand.

Even then they still didn't play guys like Tank and Turk.

beach tribe
03-22-2008, 06:44 PM
I understand you want a blocker on the left, and a mauler an the right. Correct?

Do you run different plays to the right, than to the left?

Was Willie a mauler? Yes, and a pass protector.

John Tait did better in the Right IMO.

So Please explain the logic behind this so called rule of thumb to me.

It's not that I dissagree. I would just like to hear the planet's take on it to see if there is a plausable reason for this train of thought.

chagrin
03-22-2008, 07:11 PM
That's horrible, and the point system is irrelevant in this round 1

OnTheWarpath58
03-22-2008, 07:18 PM
I disagrre that it's year 2.

The Chiefs didn't commit to rebuilding until the season was well underway, and out of hand.

Even then they still didn't play guys like Tank and Turk.

Exactly.

And I'm not using Mac as an excuse to NOT draft a tackle.

I'm simply saying that contrary to popular belief, LT is NOT our greatest need.

And even if it were, it doesn't justify taking an OT at any cost with the 5th pick, when we have significant needs at just about every position on the field.

Honestly, what position other than punter does anyone feel real good about going into 2008?

There is a roster full of questions that need to be answered in the next few years.

Der Flöprer
03-22-2008, 08:02 PM
Exactly.

And I'm not using Mac as an excuse to NOT draft a tackle.

I'm simply saying that contrary to popular belief, LT is NOT our greatest need.

And even if it were, it doesn't justify taking an OT at any cost with the 5th pick, when we have significant needs at just about every position on the field.

Honestly, what position other than punter does anyone feel real good about going into 2008?

There is a roster full of questions that need to be answered in the next few years.


I feel real good at RB. I think LJ is fine. I think Kolby is good if he's not. I know what you're saying, but there are a FEW positions that I'm pretty comfortable with. I don't think this team is HORRIBLE. I think they were 4-12 because they gave up. I think we could be significantly better this year with a good draft. Not competitive better, but 7-8 wins is entirely possible.

milkman
03-22-2008, 08:06 PM
I feel real good at RB. I think LJ is fine. I think Kolby is good if he's not. I know what you're saying, but there are a FEW positions that I'm pretty comfortable with. I don't think this team is HORRIBLE. I think they were 4-12 because they gave up. I think we could be significantly better this year with a good draft. Not competitive better, but 7-8 wins is entirely possible.

Without a great O-Line, LJ is just an average RB.

I am not advocating reaching for an O-Lineman, nor do I want to draft a RB with a high pick.

I'm just saying that I am not sold on LJ's greatness.

Zeke Ziggle
03-22-2008, 09:34 PM
I feel real good at RB. I think LJ is fine. I think Kolby is good if he's not. I know what you're saying, but there are a FEW positions that I'm pretty comfortable with. I don't think this team is HORRIBLE. I think they were 4-12 because they gave up. I think we could be significantly better this year with a good draft. Not competitive better, but 7-8 wins is entirely possible.

Last years team was a 4 win team. sure they gave up at the end but there is very little difference in overall talent between us Atlanta, San Fransisco etc. There is really no position that the chiefs could say they are set at for the next few years. Kolbys been a backup most of his career and Tony G is getting older. For those who belive that it is LT or bust there are so many potential LT in this draft it's not funny Long, Clady, Otah, Williams, Baker could all become good starters for years. We don't have to reach for one in the first and we definitely don't need to trade down and reach for one.

Spectre
03-23-2008, 12:11 AM
I feel real good at RB. I think LJ is fine. I think Kolby is good if he's not. I know what you're saying, but there are a FEW positions that I'm pretty comfortable with. I don't think this team is HORRIBLE. I think they were 4-12 because they gave up. I think we could be significantly better this year with a good draft. Not competitive better, but 7-8 wins is entirely possible.

He sure didn't look that way last year. Such a shame he's been run into the ground in such a short period of time.

blueballs
03-23-2008, 12:15 AM
Pull the feta cheese out of your ass
and move on

Frankie
03-23-2008, 01:17 AM
Exactly.

We have a LT on the team already . There is absolutely zero reason to see our first pick as LT at all cost. We don't have to find our franchise LT this year. If it happens, then great. But it's not a requirement to target LT this year. And there's certainly no need to reach for one. McIntosh would do fine holding the position till next year if need be.

How bad should we plan to be in order to have a decent chance at Oher? Do you know for sure there'll be any legit LTs next year after Oher?. There are some this year and we better plan to get one.

Frankie
03-23-2008, 01:27 AM
For those who belive that it is LT or bust there are so many potential LT in this draft it's not funny Long, Clady, Otah, Williams, Baker could all become good starters for years. We don't have to reach for one in the first and we definitely don't need to trade down and reach for one.

This thread is NOT, I repeat NOT, about REACHING for an LT. It's about getting an LT in the position of worth. That would be Long at 5 or Clady at 8-10 or Otah at 10-15. The latter two would be a result of a profitable trade down for a team in desperate need of extra draft choices.

BTW, I prefer Nicks to both Williams and Baker.

Zeke Ziggle
03-23-2008, 02:14 AM
This thread is NOT, I repeat NOT, about REACHING for an LT. It's about getting an LT in the position of worth. That would be Long at 5 or Clady at 8-10 or Otah at 10-15. The latter two would be a result of a profitable trade down for a team in desperate need of extra draft choices.

BTW, I prefer Nicks to both Williams and Baker.

Just because clady will go 8-10 doesn't mean he is ranked as the 8-10 best player. If someone takes clady before that more fool them.

As a side note why nicks over williams?

HolmeZz
03-23-2008, 03:04 AM
Clady would be par for the course as far as this organization goes.

After a 4-12 season you have to take someone who'll give you a reason to feel good about next season and the direction the organization is going in. Reaching for an offensive tackle with second-round talent won't cut it.

blueballs
03-23-2008, 07:45 AM
Wonderlic Results...Quarterback's - Matt Ryan 32, Brian Brohm 32, Joe Flacco 27, Chad Henne 22

Offensive Tackles - Chris Williams 32, Jeff Otah 28, Sam Baker 27, Jake Long 26, Gosder Cherilus 25, Branden Albert 23

Ryan Clady 13....Linebackers - Jerod Mayo 26, Keith Rivers 16...Safeties - Kenny Phillips 16

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2008, 07:54 AM
This mock makes no sense. http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/mock_draft.htm
J. Long is there at 5 and we select McFadden? WTF?

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2008, 07:56 AM
Wonderlic Results...Quarterback's - Matt Ryan 32, Brian Brohm 32, Joe Flacco 27, Chad Henne 22

Offensive Tackles - Chris Williams 32, Jeff Otah 28, Sam Baker 27, Jake Long 26, Gosder Cherilus 25, Branden Albert 23

Ryan Clady 13....Linebackers - Jerod Mayo 26, Keith Rivers 16...Safeties - Kenny Phillips 16

ROFLROFLROFL

That sounds about right.....

Delano
03-23-2008, 07:57 AM
Wonderlic Results...Quarterback's - Matt Ryan 32, Brian Brohm 32, Joe Flacco 27, Chad Henne 22

Offensive Tackles - Chris Williams 32, Jeff Otah 28, Sam Baker 27, Jake Long 26, Gosder Cherilus 25, Branden Albert 23

Ryan Clady 13....Linebackers - Jerod Mayo 26, Keith Rivers 16...Safeties - Kenny Phillips 16

Do you have the source handy?

I fully expect Michael Oher to be in the 10-15 range as far as the wonderlic goes.

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2008, 07:58 AM
Ryan Clady 13Jesus. The average for OT is 26. Yikes.

blueballs
03-23-2008, 08:01 AM
Most of KCs o-line comes off as having intelligence
with Grunhard being the exception /jk

blueballs
03-23-2008, 08:02 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080322-nfl-draft-wonderlic-test,1,4563566.story

milkman
03-23-2008, 08:07 AM
This mock makes no sense. http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/mock_draft.htm
J. Long is there at 5 and we select McFadden? WTF?

Yeah, that is pretty stupid, even dated as it is.

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2008, 08:07 AM
Do you have the source handy?

I fully expect Michael Oher to be in the 10-15 range as far as the wonderlic goes.

I'll go on record now and say he scores higher than Clady - remarkable considering he didn't start going to school until he was a junior in HS.

Mizzou_8541
03-23-2008, 08:25 AM
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen posted in the history of the internet!!!

Why is this the dumbest thing you have seen on the internet. Because of couple of Chiefs fans still have a bit of optimism? How about offering a suggestion instead of simply blasting everyone for voicing thier opinion.

milkman
03-23-2008, 08:33 AM
Why is this the dumbest thing you have seen on the internet. Because of couple of Chiefs fans still have a bit of optimism? How about offering a suggestion instead of simply blasting everyone for voicing thier opinion.

Sorry, we prefer to simply blast people for their opinions.

Mizzou_8541
03-23-2008, 08:45 AM
Sorry, we prefer to simply blast people for their opinions.

Ha Ha. Ok. Understood. Not trying to stir the pot.

Alphaman
03-23-2008, 08:48 AM
Just because clady will go 8-10 doesn't mean he is ranked as the 8-10 best player. If someone takes clady before that more fool them.

As a side note why nicks over williams?

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of Clady because I don't think he is physical enough and didn't play against top tier talent in college. That being said, those of you who are saying he is a reach at #8 are mistaken.

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/sub/rankings.html

The link above has a ranking of the top players in this draft. Oddly enough, Clady ranks...wait for it....#8.

Frankie, your trade down scenario is a pretty good one. I'm not a huge fan of Clady, but I'll trust Herm and his scouting crew.

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2008, 08:52 AM
Ha Ha. Ok. Understood. Not trying to stir the pot.Get with the program, n00b! :D

Welcome.

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2008, 08:55 AM
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of Clady because I don't think he is physical enough and didn't play against top tier talent in college. That being said, those of you who are saying he is a reach at #8 are mistaken.

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/sub/rankings.html

The link above has a ranking of the top players in this draft. Oddly enough, Clady ranks...wait for it....#8.

Frankie, your trade down scenario is a pretty good one. I'm not a huge fan of Clady, but I'll trust Herm and his scouting crew.

Oddly enough, that's where SCOTT WRIGHT ranks him.

Where each team has him on their draft boards is another story.

His lack of physicality, his lack of top-tier competition, and now his wonderlic score will, and should keep him out of the Top 10.

I personally wouldn't draft him ahead of Chris Williams, or maybe even Otah.

milkman
03-23-2008, 08:58 AM
Ha Ha. Ok. Understood. Not trying to stir the pot.

Seriously, this has been discussed ad nuseaum, and after awhile, some people grow weary of the same old debate.

Mizzou_8541
03-23-2008, 09:07 AM
Seriously, this has been discussed ad nuseaum, and after awhile, some people grow weary of the same old debate.

In that case, I will keep all administrative or non-chiefs comments to myself.

beach tribe
03-23-2008, 10:34 AM
I understand you want a blocker on the left, and a mauler an the right. Correct?

Do you run different plays to the right, than to the left?

Was Willie a mauler? Yes, and a pass protector.

John Tait did better in the Right IMO.

So Please explain the logic behind this so called rule of thumb to me.

It's not that I dissagree. I would just like to hear the planet's take on it to see if there is a plausable reason for this train of thought.

I didn't really expect anyone to give me answer that would make a lot of sense.

milkman
03-23-2008, 10:39 AM
I didn't really expect anyone to give me answer that would make a lot of sense.

You generally want a more athletic, agile guy on the left because they are matched up against the opposition's best pass rusher, who usually has more speed and quicks than the LDE.

The LDE is usually stronger and more stout against the run than the RDE.

Fish
03-23-2008, 10:52 AM
How bad should we plan to be in order to have a decent chance at Oher? Do you know for sure there'll be any legit LTs next year after Oher?. There are some this year and we better plan to get one.

How bad we are this year won't matter. You're looking at it like a franchise LT would be the difference between being bad and being good this year. It most certainly will not.

Going into the draft with a "we better plan to get one" attitude is what hurt this franchise in the past. And next year's availability doesn't matter, we don't revalue our picks based on what we think the draft will look like next year. That's impossible. It's hard enough as it is.....

beach tribe
03-23-2008, 10:54 AM
You generally want a more athletic, agile guy on the left because they are matched up against the opposition's best pass rusher, who usually has more speed and quicks than the LDE.

The LDE is usually stronger and more stout against the run than the RDE.

I agree that your best pass protector needs to be on the left for various reasons, but the thinking of a tackle not really being suited for the right ala MacIntosh is kind of weak considering the frequency of switching failed LTs to the right side because they can't be trusted as a pass protector.
I'm not saying that D Mac failed, just that people put too much emphasis on the criteria you have to meet to be a RT.

Look at our D-Line. Who is better against the run RE or the LE?
It tells us where your best pass protector should be, but nothing about the run, because the Best DE on your team is usually better against the run, and the pass, as is, your Left tackle.

Frankie
03-23-2008, 01:34 PM
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of Clady because I don't think he is physical enough and didn't play against top tier talent in college. That being said, those of you who are saying he is a reach at #8 are mistaken.

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/sub/rankings.html

The link above has a ranking of the top players in this draft. Oddly enough, Clady ranks...wait for it....#8.

Frankie, your trade down scenario is a pretty good one. I'm not a huge fan of Clady, but I'll trust Herm and his scouting crew.

Thanks Alphaman. Intelligence is still alive and well here. :);)

Frankie
03-23-2008, 01:36 PM
Seriously, this has been discussed ad nuseaum, and after awhile, some people grow weary of the same old debate.

But this was not a "debate" thread. It was "my prediction" based on what I feel will happen.

Frankie
03-23-2008, 01:42 PM
How bad we are this year won't matter. You're looking at it like a franchise LT would be the difference between being bad and being good this year. It most certainly will not.

WRONG! I am actually talking about solving a long term problem THIS YEAR while the chance has presented itself. We can't see the future, but whose to say there won't be an OLT drought for the next 3 or 4 years were we will pick? This year there are a few scenario's by which we can have our long term LT. I say we better come up with one and not leave it to future uncertainties.

Brock
03-23-2008, 01:43 PM
I predict Clady isn't even the second tackle taken.

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2008, 01:46 PM
I predict Clady isn't even the second tackle taken.

I agree, and said so over a month ago.

Frankie is quick to point out the "uncertainty" of future drafts, but blatantly ignores the uncertainty of THIS draft.

Clady is FAR from a sure thing.

Reaching for need is bad enough.

Reaching for need and then that pick busts?

That mistake would set the franchise back ANOTHER 2-3 years.

milkman
03-23-2008, 01:48 PM
But this was not a "debate" thread. It was "my prediction" based on what I feel will happen.

Once you "predicted", you opened it up to further debate, or in Hog's case, ridicule.

The fact is, Clady lacks the physicality that Herman ****ing Edwards looks for in OT, so if they were to trade down, aside from the fact that I would throw my remote at the TV, they would more than liklely trade down to target Otah.

milkman
03-23-2008, 01:51 PM
I agree, and said so over a month ago.

Frankie is quick to point out the "uncertainty" of future drafts, but blatantly ignores the uncertainty of THIS draft.

Clady is FAR from a sure thing.

Reaching for need is bad enough.

Reaching for need and then that pick busts?

That mistake would set the franchise back ANOTHER 2-3 years.

In Frankie's defense, he is presenting a tradedown scenario, and where draft sites have him rated, Clady isn't a reach.

If you want to lambast him and tell him that trading down is a stupid ****ing idea, I'm right behind ya to pile on.

Frankie
03-23-2008, 02:54 PM
The fact is, Clady lacks the physicality that Herman ****ing Edwards looks for in OT, so if they were to trade down, aside from the fact that I would throw my remote at the TV, they would more than liklely trade down to target Otah.

If they can pull that off I'd be happy too. Depends on the trade down and what extra picks we get out of it.

Frankie
03-23-2008, 02:55 PM
I predict Clady isn't even the second tackle taken.

I don't think he'll get past Denver.

stonedstooge
03-23-2008, 03:24 PM
I wonder what Herm would score on the Wonderlic score. Under 5 would be my guess.

KCChiefsMan
03-24-2008, 02:55 PM
NFL | Clady scores 13 on Wonderlic test
Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:30:54 -0700

Dan Pompei, of the Chicago Tribune, reports Boise State OT Ryan Clady scored a 13 on his Wonderlic test.

Frankie
03-24-2008, 03:06 PM
Didn't Marino score real low too? And he was a QB.

Hog Farmer
03-24-2008, 03:19 PM
Why is this the dumbest thing you have seen on the internet. Because of couple of Chiefs fans still have a bit of optimism? How about offering a suggestion instead of simply blasting everyone for voicing thier opinion.



Jesus Christ!!!! This has to be the second dumbest thing I've ever seen in the history of the internet!!! Chiefs fans with optimism. Geez!

Hog Farmer
03-24-2008, 03:20 PM
Didn't Marino score real low too? And he was a QB.


And for the third dumbest!!!!:LOL:

Fish
03-24-2008, 03:34 PM
WRONG! I am actually talking about solving a long term problem THIS YEAR while the chance has presented itself. We can't see the future, but whose to say there won't be an OLT drought for the next 3 or 4 years were we will pick? This year there are a few scenario's by which we can have our long term LT. I say we better come up with one and not leave it to future uncertainties.

You're contradicting yourself then.

Your thread starter mentions that missing J. Long would be bad, as you'd love to have him with the first pick. You continue to say it would be OK if we trade down and used our first pick on Clady. Then a few posts later you mention that "we better plan to get one", regarding left tackles. And in the post I just quoted, you express fear that there may be a OLT drought in the future... and "we better come up with one and not leave it to future uncertainties."

To me that sounds like you feel a desperate need to get a LT NOW.

If you realize that the rebuild won't happen in one year, you should also realize that we can't fill every position this year. And that may include LT this year.

We may very well have a plan for a long term LT, but keep in mind that it might not happen in the 1st round, 1st day, etc. And if that comes to pass it won't be the end of the world. We're not good enough to worry about 1 position....

Frankie
03-24-2008, 09:57 PM
You're contradicting yourself then.

Your thread starter mentions that missing J. Long would be bad, as you'd love to have him with the first pick. You continue to say it would be OK if we trade down and used our first pick on Clady. Then a few posts later you mention that "we better plan to get one", regarding left tackles. And in the post I just quoted, you express fear that there may be a OLT drought in the future... and "we better come up with one and not leave it to future uncertainties."

To me that sounds like you feel a desperate need to get a LT NOW.

If you realize that the rebuild won't happen in one year, you should also realize that we can't fill every position this year. And that may include LT this year.

We may very well have a plan for a long term LT, but keep in mind that it might not happen in the 1st round, 1st day, etc. And if that comes to pass it won't be the end of the world. We're not good enough to worry about 1 position....

I don't see how I contradict myself. You just summarized my reasoning and it's all consistent. As for "we are not good enough to worry about just one position" argument it does not make any sense. We are pretty set at some positions, ala DE. I say we are not good enough to have the luxury of loading up on positions we are somewhat set at. And when you build a team you better damn well start with the trenches. Just watch any of our last season's games and you should realize that O-line is most in need of immediate rebuilding. And the most key position there is LT. AND this year our high position in the draft coincides with several promising LTs available. We need to get one of them unless you enjoy watching Croyle bitchslapped on every play and eventually taken out on a stretcher. Remember, sacks hurt us and the teams chances to do something positive. That's what you and I see and cringe. But the QB feels every vicious hit even if it's not a sack.

Fish
03-24-2008, 10:22 PM
I don't see how I contradict myself. You just summarized my reasoning and it's all consistent. As for "we are not good enough to worry about just one position" argument it does not make any sense. We are pretty set at some positions, ala DE. I say we are not good enough to have the luxury of loading up on positions we are somewhat set at. And when you build a team you better damn well start with the trenches. Just watch any of our last season's games and you should realize that O-line is most in need of immediate rebuilding. And the most key position there is LT. AND this year our high position in the draft coincides with several promising LTs available. We need to get one of them unless you enjoy watching Croyle bitchslapped on every play and eventually taken out on a stretcher. Remember, sacks hurt us and the teams chances to do something positive. That's what you and I see and cringe. But the QB feels every vicious hit even if it's not a sack.

Every post you've made about this has literally stated "LT or else". I don't know what else to say. I'm trying to make a case that it's not necessary to target a LT with the first pick. We currently have a LT and LG on the roster. We don't have a C, RG, or RT. But yet you make no mention of that. You do mention that we don't have the luxury of loading up on positions we're somewhat set at. You don't think Damion McIntosh even qualifies as "somewhat set?" Why are you so insistent on focusing on one of the few positions we currently have a starter at? I mean he's no world beater, but doesn't he qualify as better than nothing?

It would be great if we could lock down LT with the first pick, but if an LT isn't BPA, it makes absolutely no sense to reach for one or trade down. And if Long is gone at #5, there will be a better player available than an OT.

Frankie
03-24-2008, 11:08 PM
Every post you've made about this has literally stated "LT or else". I don't know what else to say. I'm trying to make a case that it's not necessary to target a LT with the first pick. We currently have a LT and LG on the roster. We don't have a C, RG, or RT. But yet you make no mention of that. You do mention that we don't have the luxury of loading up on positions we're somewhat set at. You don't think Damion McIntosh even qualifies as "somewhat set?" Why are you so insistent on focusing on one of the few positions we currently have a starter at? I mean he's no world beater, but doesn't he qualify as better than nothing?

It would be great if we could lock down LT with the first pick, but if an LT isn't BPA, it makes absolutely no sense to reach for one or trade down. And if Long is gone at #5, there will be a better player available than an OT.

When it comes to O-line:

OC, OG =Silver
OLT=Gold

One is more rare than the other and more valuable. Pick your gold in the first or high second. You can get your silver in 3, 4 or even later.

Mecca
03-24-2008, 11:19 PM
Those 2 teams that played in the bowl sure used 1st round picks to build their lines...oh wait.

Frankie
03-25-2008, 09:39 AM
Those 2 teams that played in the bowl sure used 1st round picks to build their lines...oh wait.

That's BS. Take rarities and make them sound like the norm. Yeah, teams sometimes get lucky on a late rounder or two who blossom into solid linemen. But the fact is the higher you draft them the less the gamble. "oh wait," you are right. Let's wait until rounds 6 or 7 to address the most important position on the o-line.:rolleyes: