PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Meet With Otah


Pages : [1] 2

KC4EVER
03-27-2008, 07:51 PM
Chiefs | Team meets with Otah
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:13 -0700

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Kansas City Chiefs met with University of Pittsburgh OT Jeff Otah Monday, March 24.

I think the chiefs hope they can grab him in the second, wich is considerable since we pick early in most rounds.

Deberg_1990
03-27-2008, 07:54 PM
Ryan in the 1st, Otah in the 2nd..

Or BPA in the 1st, and QB in the 2nd.


Im now convinced the Chiefs will draft a QB in one of the first two rounds.

KC4EVER
03-27-2008, 08:01 PM
Ryan in the 1st, Otah in the 2nd..

Or BPA in the 1st, and QB in the 2nd.


Im now convinced the Chiefs will draft a QB in one of the first two rounds.

BPA in the 1st, OT in 2nd & QB in 3rd.

RustShack
03-27-2008, 08:15 PM
How about BPA in the 1st through the 7th?

BigVE
03-27-2008, 08:39 PM
I see us TRYING to trade down about 5-10 spots and picking Otah in rd. 1 if both the Long's and Dorsey and Ellis are gone.

Buehler445
03-27-2008, 08:39 PM
How about BPA in the 1st through the 7th?

I'm on board.

GoTrav
03-27-2008, 08:43 PM
I see us TRYING to trade down about 5-10 spots and picking Otah in rd. 1 if both the Long's and Dorsey and Ellis are gone.

Isn't Otah a top 6 overall player now on some boards? Last I followed had him going around the 12 range.


All I've been getting spammed with lately have been Ryan to Chefs emails...

Simply Red
03-27-2008, 08:56 PM
Ryan in the 1st, Otah in the 2nd..

Or BPA in the 1st, and QB in the 2nd.


Im now convinced the Chiefs will draft a QB in one of the first two rounds.

Now that would help us look more interesting for nx. seas. IMO

Simply Red
03-27-2008, 08:58 PM
What QB do you all see us looking for in the second? Curious.

BigVE
03-27-2008, 09:03 PM
Isn't Otah a top 6 overall player now on some boards? Last I followed had him going around the 12 range.


All I've been getting spammed with lately have been Ryan to Chefs emails...



Your right about some of the projections...nobody f'n knows for sure of course until the actual draft. Speculation and guess work is part of the fun.

GoTrav
03-27-2008, 09:19 PM
What QB do you all see us looking for in the second? Curious.

hopefully none

SBK
03-28-2008, 12:51 AM
What QB do you all see us looking for in the second? Curious.

Hopefully people are thinking Brohm, but who knows. Probably some guy that's not even going to be drafted.

RustShack
03-28-2008, 01:05 AM
2nd round QB's would probably be Brohm or Flacco... If we were to draft one in the first day I would just assume get Ryan in the first, otherwise there should be a very good OT, OG, CB, and/or WR in the 2nd round, and later than that also.

wazu
03-28-2008, 01:17 AM
Clady, Otah. Let's do it.

Direckshun
03-28-2008, 02:00 AM
What QB do you all see us looking for in the second? Curious.
I think we'd take Brohm in a heartbeat if he fell that far, but he won't make it out of the 1st.

The only QB anybody would consider that soon would be Flacco, I'd say. But I really despise the idea of drafting Flacco in the 2nd at all, much less that early, and even much less the Chiefs.

blueballs
03-28-2008, 02:03 AM
There is four more weeks to find out some of these kids
have some fatal to their NFL careers tongue fungus

Brock
03-28-2008, 08:26 AM
who did they meet with last year and how many of those players did they draft?

StcChief
03-28-2008, 09:09 AM
BPA and get the line rebuilt forget QB.

Simply Red
03-28-2008, 09:11 AM
Yeah, I like Flacco. He may be a solid choice. Kinda a guessing-game on how well they perform on the next level. Obviously, as you all know.

Zouk
03-28-2008, 09:22 AM
who did they meet with last year and how many of those players did they draft?

Turk and Tank both visited Arrowhead before the draft last year. I don't think Bowe did, but I'm not 100% sure. On the Redzone podcast Gunther talked about how important the visit is in evaluating players and he mentioned Turk and Tank specifically.

The information on who visits is very valuable and teams try to protect it. Each team asks the players "which other teams are you visiting?". The agents often leak the info to the press though to build interest. The Dallas reporter, for example, already knows 29 of the 30 players the Cowboys had for visits (http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/story/549654.html). We don't know anything because Teicher is lazy.

Deberg_1990
03-28-2008, 09:40 AM
What QB do you all see us looking for in the second? Curious.

Brohm if hes there.

xbarretx
03-28-2008, 09:43 AM
How about BPA in the 1st through the 7th?

oh now your just being unrealistic ;) LMAO BPA in the CP house is a four letter word :p

Frankie
03-28-2008, 09:57 AM
Ryan in the 1st, Otah in the 2nd..

Or BPA in the 1st, and QB in the 2nd.


Im now convinced the Chiefs will draft a QB in one of the first two rounds.

We are just strategizing a trade-down in the first in case Jake Long is not available at 5. But this tells me we are more interested in Otah than Clady as a trade down target.

DenverChief
03-28-2008, 09:59 AM
We are just strategizing a trade-down in the first in case Jake Long is not available at 5. But this tells me we are more interested in Otah than Clady as a trade down target.



we are not going to trade down bank on that

Frankie
03-28-2008, 09:59 AM
Yeah, I like Flacco. He may be a solid choice.

He's never been a captain on his college team. What does that tell you about his leadership? Can you say....GRBAC?

boogblaster
03-28-2008, 10:09 AM
OTs a must or another season bust .....

Frankie
03-28-2008, 10:13 AM
OTs a must or another season bust .....

AAAAAAAAAAMEN!

Tribal Warfare
03-28-2008, 10:15 AM
OTs a must or another season bust .....




Another road to 8-8 bandwagon member, OT or bust!!!!!!!!!

Chiefnj2
03-28-2008, 10:20 AM
If the Chiefs take Otah at 5, it'll be a Planet meltdown to tell the grandkids about.

Brock
03-28-2008, 10:36 AM
OTs a must or another season bust .....

Let's draft tackles so we can win 5 games instead of 4. YAAAAYYY!!

R&GHomer
03-28-2008, 10:51 AM
If the Chiefs take Otah at 5, it'll be a Planet meltdown to tell the grandkids about.

Of biblical proportions

tyton75
03-28-2008, 10:53 AM
I really wouldn't be upset if we took Flacco in the 2nd

Sure-Oz
03-28-2008, 11:14 AM
We better not pick him at #5 like some douch on nfl network thinks

Sure-Oz
03-28-2008, 11:14 AM
I really wouldn't be upset if we took Flacco in the 2nd

Do you want Brohm or another pos.

stlchiefs
03-28-2008, 11:48 AM
The Dallas reporter, for example, already knows 29 of the 30 players the Cowboys had for visits (http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/story/549654.html). We don't know anything because Teicher is lazy.

I'd rather stay in the dark and let the Chiefs keep their draft strategy from the other teams than know the info and blow any "strategy" Carl and Herm might have.

BigChiefFan
03-28-2008, 12:11 PM
The OT or bust is a dipshit philosophy. I'm sorry, but I can't keep my mouth shut anymore. Have you seen this team? How in the Hell is one LT , a rookie, no less, going to be the saviour of this team? Answer:he won't. Jake Long won't be there. Take the BPA. Why reach and get less value?

melbar
03-28-2008, 12:13 PM
Let's draft tackles so we can win 5 games instead of 4. YAAAAYYY!!

We will have to win more games at some point you know? If we can develop our talent hopefully that will translate to more wins. Why does everyone act like winning more than 4 games before we get to the playoffs is a sin?:shake:

Deberg_1990
03-28-2008, 12:15 PM
The OT or bust is a dipshit philosophy. I'm sorry, but I can't keep my mouth shut anymore. Have you seen this team? How in the Hell is one LT , a rookie, no less, going to be the saviour of this team? Answer:he won't. Jake Long won't be there. Take the BPA. Why reach and get less value?


Mecca and I have been saying the same things for months. Its no use trying to persuade some of the guys on here.

Honestly, no matter who we draft, this teams NOT going to win more than 6 or 7 games next year tops.

This team is at the rock bottom. Ask yourself this: What do most teams do when they reach rock bottom? They draft a franchise QB.

Micjones
03-28-2008, 12:18 PM
Ryan in the 1st, Otah in the 2nd..

Or BPA in the 1st, and QB in the 2nd.


Im now convinced the Chiefs will draft a QB in one of the first two rounds.

I'd go for that.

Brock
03-28-2008, 12:20 PM
We will have to win more games at some point you know? If we can develop our talent hopefully that will translate to more wins. Why does everyone act like winning more than 4 games before we get to the playoffs is a sin?:shake:

Why can't people understand that winning 8 games next year isn't the goal, and that you shouldn't base your draft on that?

suds79
03-28-2008, 12:22 PM
Man that could be sweet if we nab Otah in the 2nd but I don't think it'll happen.

I'm actually more interested in 2nd round OTs now. I was a Long fan but I don't think he'll be there and even so, there are some other guys you have to seriously consider at 5.

Anyways, I think it's more realistic that we'll take a an OT in the 2nd. Now who will that be? Otah? Cherilus? (at RT), Nicks?, Anthony Collins?

I can't wait for this draft to finally happen.

Chiefnj2
03-28-2008, 12:31 PM
Why can't people understand that winning 8 games next year isn't the goal, and that you shouldn't base your draft on that?

Why do people assume that if someone wants to draft a tackle that their goal is to win 8 games?

Brock
03-28-2008, 12:33 PM
Why do people assume that if someone wants to draft a tackle that their goal is to win 8 games?

It's the only reason I can think of to bypass better players for short term gain.

melbar
03-28-2008, 12:40 PM
Why can't people understand that winning 8 games next year isn't the goal, and that you shouldn't base your draft on that?

I'm saying we have to get better before we get good. We're not going to the playoffs next year, but if we can improve to 7-8 wins we'll be in a position to make a move the year after. Its not the end game, but if we only win 4 games again next year, we're moving in the wrong direction and are that much farther away from being a playoff team. The goal should be to get better. I think doubling our win total would be fantastic for this team.

melbar
03-28-2008, 12:42 PM
It's the only reason I can think of to bypass better players for short term gain.

Drafting a player who will be an anchor for 10 years over a flashier "sexier" player isnt a short term fix.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 12:44 PM
Drafting a player who will be an anchor for 10 years over a flashier "sexier" player isnt a short term fix.

True.

Brock
03-28-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm saying we have to get better before we get good. We're not going to the playoffs next year, but if we can improve to 7-8 wins we'll be in a position to make a move the year after. Its not the end game, but if we only win 4 games again next year, we're moving in the wrong direction and are that much farther away from being a playoff team. The goal should be to get better. I think doubling our win total would be fantastic for this team.

No, the goal shouldn't be to get better immediately. It should be to let a whole bunch of young players learn how to play. Not for Larry Johnson to get his 1500 yards, and for Carl to get all his home victories. Personally, I don't care about any of that.

Brock
03-28-2008, 12:45 PM
Drafting a player who will be an anchor for 10 years over a flashier "sexier" player isnt a short term fix.

It is if you missed out on a better player.

melbar
03-28-2008, 12:45 PM
Man that could be sweet if we nab Otah in the 2nd but I don't think it'll happen.

I'm actually more interested in 2nd round OTs now. I was a Long fan but I don't think he'll be there and even so, there are some other guys you have to seriously consider at 5.

Anyways, I think it's more realistic that we'll take a an OT in the 2nd. Now who will that be? Otah? Cherilus? (at RT), Nicks?, Anthony Collins?

I can't wait for this draft to finally happen.

Nicks is a Monster and has had some off field issues. 6-5 345 lbs- He could be there in the 3rd and move to RT or Guard. Not just a fata-- either.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 12:49 PM
True.

What I meant to say is True, if it's JL at the 5 spot.

melbar
03-28-2008, 12:51 PM
It is if you missed out on a better player.

Most of the guys we're talking about are graded so close at #5 that it wont be a reach and any one of them would benefit us. Otah, no. but Clady is rated as a #7 or #8 overall player just 1 or 2 spots behind Ellis. Judgement call. If Long is there the only other consideration should be Dorsey or the other Long. If your drafting one of the top 3 guys left on your board especially this high, your not damaging your team. Your also not sacrificing Talent for need.

Brock
03-28-2008, 12:57 PM
Jesus, not this Clady nonsense again.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:02 PM
Let's draft tackles so we can win 5 games instead of 4. YAAAAYYY!!

We are talking "long term" not "next year." O line is the foundation of a great offense. You don't put the windows in without a foundation.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:04 PM
We are talking "long term" not "next year." O line is the foundation of a great offense. You don't put the windows in without a foundation.

yeah, this hasn't been discussed to death.

There are maybe 2 positions on this team that don't need upgraded, and even those are arguable. I'm not going to buy into your "draft offensive line even if we have to reach" theories.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:08 PM
The OT or bust is a dipshit philosophy. I'm sorry, but I can't keep my mouth shut anymore. Have you seen this team? How in the Hell is one LT , a rookie, no less, going to be the saviour of this team? Answer:he won't. Jake Long won't be there. Take the BPA. Why reach and get less value?

Nobody is seriously saying OT or Bust! We don't want a reach at 5. Clady and Otah are probably reaches at 5. But plan B should be a trade down to get one of them at the position of their worth. OLT is a key block for the foundation of a great 'O.' BPA should be considered but only as plan 'C.'

THAT IS ALL WE ARE SAYING!

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:09 PM
Nobody is seriously saying OT or Bust! We don't want a reach at 5. Clady and Otah are probably reaches at 5. But plan B should be a trade down to get one of them at the position of their worth. OLT is a key block for the foundation of a great 'O.' BPA should be considered but only as plan 'C.'

THAT IS ALL WE ARE SAYING![/COLOR]

Then what you are saying is WRONG. Fixating on any position with a team this bad is WRONG.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:10 PM
Why can't people understand that winning 8 games next year isn't the goal, and that you shouldn't base your draft on that?

WHO IS SAYING THAT?!! :banghead:

suds79
03-28-2008, 01:12 PM
yeah, this hasn't been discussed to death.

There are maybe 2 positions on this team that don't need upgraded, and even those are arguable. I'm not going to buy into your "draft offensive line even if we have to reach" theories.

You think some of the O-linemen are reaches the and some of the other posters don't think so. It's really as simple as that.

So who's right? Nobody can be fore sure. We'll know in 3 years.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:12 PM
Man that could be sweet if we nab Otah in the 2nd but I don't think it'll happen.

I'm actually more interested in 2nd round OTs now. I was a Long fan but I don't think he'll be there and even so, there are some other guys you have to seriously consider at 5.

Anyways, I think it's more realistic that we'll take a an OT in the 2nd. Now who will that be? Otah? Cherilus? (at RT), Nicks?, Anthony Collins?

I can't wait for this draft to finally happen.

Otah won't make it past the first round. I doubt he will make it past 20.

Micjones
03-28-2008, 01:12 PM
It's rather simple.
The Offensive Line is this team's achilles heel.
It stands to reason that we'd make it a priority in April.

Why everyone else can't understand that I don't know.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 01:14 PM
It's the only reason I can think of to bypass better players for short term gain.

Here's a reason for you.

We have an injury prone quarterback. How do we protect him?

BY FIXING THE ****ING OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!!!!

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:16 PM
Here's a reason for you.

We have an injury prone quarterback. How do we protect him?

BY FIXING THE ****ING OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!!!!

I don't care about Brodie Croyle. He is most likely just another turd Chiefs QB in a long line of them. Even if you drafted offensive linemen, he probably won't make it 6 games.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:19 PM
It's rather simple.
The Offensive Line is this team's achilles heel.
It stands to reason that we'd make it a priority in April.

Why everyone else can't understand that I don't know.

Because this team has 2 achilles heels.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:20 PM
It's rather simple.
The Offensive Line is this team's achilles heel.
It stands to reason that we'd make it a priority in April.

Why everyone else can't understand that I don't know.

Uh pretty much the entire team is an "achillies heel" start comparing the Chiefs talent at any position to good teams tell me where they compare, this entire team needs upgraded.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:20 PM
I'm saying we have to get better before we get good. We're not going to the playoffs next year, but if we can improve to 7-8 wins we'll be in a position to make a move the year after. Its not the end game, but if we only win 4 games again next year, we're moving in the wrong direction and are that much farther away from being a playoff team. The goal should be to get better. I think doubling our win total would be fantastic for this team.

You are trying to reason with people who want to have a "star" on the team and not nececessarily building blocks. That's all they mean by "BPA." they would love for Brodie to fail behind a crappy O-line because "there is Matt Ryan out there." Even if failing means getting beaten the piss out of him behind a crappy Oline. If the sniff-and-discard mentality of some fans were to be followed, the Chiefs would have been without TG, LJ and even Neil Smith.:shake:

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:22 PM
No, the goal shouldn't be to get better immediately. It should be to let a whole bunch of young players learn how to play. Not for Larry Johnson to get his 1500 yards, and for Carl to get all his home victories. Personally, I don't care about any of that.

How about for our QB to have a chance to show what he has behind reasonable protection?!

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:23 PM
Uh dude if you take a guy top 5 he better be a ****in star your you just blew your pick. The only guy you named there that was taken in the top 10 was Neil Smith and guess what, he was a ****in star.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:23 PM
Yeah, this team couldn't use any stars. Let's just keep trying to make chicken salad out of dog crap.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:24 PM
How about for our QB to have a chance to show what he has behind reasonable protection?!

Brodie Croyle will not last 6 games before he's injured this year, no matter who you draft. Bookmark this post.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:24 PM
Nicks is a Monster and has had some off field issues. 6-5 345 lbs- He could be there in the 3rd and move to RT or Guard. Not just a fata-- either.

3rd?!.... He is projected in the high 2nd most every place I've looked!

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:25 PM
It is if you missed out on a better player.

Don't you mean a skill player with "star" possibilities?

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:26 PM
Yeah, this team couldn't use any stars. Let's just keep trying to make chicken salad out of dog crap.

He wants a team that gets killed by good teams every year........you aren't gonna win shit with no stars.

Argue for Oline constantly but Frankie guess what, there are numerous good times that spent exactly 0 first round picks on Olinemen.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:27 PM
There are maybe 2 positions on this team that don't need upgraded, and even those are arguable. I'm not going to buy into your "draft offensive line even if we have to reach" theories.

Did you watch ANY of our games last year?

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:27 PM
Did you watch ANY of our games last year?

Did you?

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:28 PM
Don't you mean a skill player with "star" possibilities?

This means you don't really have much of an argument, I guess.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:29 PM
Did you?

He must be one of those guys that thinks the team is talented it just needs an Oline which is pretty laughable but I've seen it a few times around here...

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:30 PM
Then what you are saying is WRONG. Fixating on any position with a team this bad is WRONG.

Did you read my post? I'm talking abou having a plan 'A,' a plan 'B,' and a plan 'C.' You are the one who are insisting we are saying LT or bust. It's like I keep saying "It's a bull" and you keep saying "Then milk it."

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:30 PM
He must be one of those guys that thinks the team is talented it just needs an Oline which is pretty laughable but I've seen it a few times around here...

I think he, along with a few others, have bought into the WPI "We have a good defense" line of bullcrap.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:31 PM
I think he, along with a few others, have bought into the WPI "We have a good defense" line of bullcrap.

I'm honestly offended by his actual thinking of "I don't want any superstars on my team" it is honestly one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:32 PM
Did you read my post? I'm talking abou having a plan 'A,' a plan 'B,' and a plan 'C.' You are the one who are insisting we are saying LT or bust. It's like I keep saying "It's a bull" and you keep saying "Then milk it."

If plan A is draft a tackle, and plan B is trade down and draft a tackle, isn't that pretty much tackle or bust?

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:34 PM
Uh pretty much the entire team is an "achillies heel" start comparing the Chiefs talent at any position to good teams tell me where they compare, this entire team needs upgraded.

Wrong! It only looks that way because a weak-looking chain is only as strong as it's weakest links. Change those links and the chain will be strong. How is it that some teams are shitty one year and playoff contenders the next?

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:36 PM
Wrong! It only looks that way because a weak-looking chain is only as strong as it's weakest links. Change those links and the chain will be strong. How is it that some teams are shitty one year and playoff contenders the next?

I never do this but, son you're a moron.

This entire god damn team sucks ****in ass. This team has a couple of players nothing more. We are one of the absolute worst teams in the league all the way around it is not just the Oline.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:36 PM
Wrong! It only looks that way because a weak-looking chain is only as strong as it's weakest links. Change those links and the chain will be strong. How is it that some teams are shitty one year and playoff contenders the next?

Wow, yet another lame metaphor to explain why we should ignore everything else that's wrong with this team.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:37 PM
Uh dude if you take a guy top 5 he better be a ****in star your you just blew your pick. The only guy you named there that was taken in the top 10 was Neil Smith and guess what, he was a ****in star.

Neil Smith was NOT a star. Just a damn good DLineman. Very few linemen on either side of the ball will ever achieve "star" status. You want us to get a Peyton Manning or a Jerry Rice with our 5th.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:38 PM
We have a good defensive end, a good linebacker and a good running back. Also a great tight end. now look at that and tell me we won't be in the super bowl next year if we just draft a left tackle.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:38 PM
Neil Smith was NOT a star. Just a damn good DLineman. Very few linemen on either side of the ball will ever achieve "star" status. You want us to get a Peyton Manning or a Jerry Rice with our 5th.

Neil Smith not a star??? LOL, that explains why he's on the ring of honor.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:39 PM
Defensive ends that make the pro bowl consistently are stars.......

Frankie sometimes you annoy me because I honestly wonder if you have any idea what the hell you are talkin about. There are defensive stars all across the league yet in your mind the only stars are O players.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 01:39 PM
Uh pretty much the entire team is an "achillies heel" start comparing the Chiefs talent at any position to good teams tell me where they compare, this entire team needs upgraded.

Bull Shit Mecca. Even the best teams are made up of mostly above average role players. The league is too watered down for it to be any other way. The solid core players make the rest look, and perform a hell of a lot better.

I'm not saying anthing about who we should draft, that is a dead horse at this point.

We fill some of our gaping holes with solid starters, and we are a few "stars" away from contending about two to three seasons from now if we draft correctly. If we don't have the final pieces by then we'll have plenty of cash to buy them.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:40 PM
He wants a team that gets killed by good teams every year........you aren't gonna win shit with no stars.

Argue for Oline constantly but Frankie guess what, there are numerous good times that spent exactly 0 first round picks on Olinemen.

The first NE superbowl winning team was without "stars." The undefeated Dolphins had less "stars" than our Chiefs team has right now.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:40 PM
LOL.......well then I guess the Chiefs role players must be piss poor compared to most other teams..

Any marginally good team is basically better than the Chiefs across the board...

Chiefs major problem here is 2 of their highest paid players are at positions that arent that valued in RB and TE.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:41 PM
The first NE superbowl winning team was without "stars." The undefeated Dolphins had less "stars" than our Chiefs team has right now.

They also had great quarterbacks and great defenses.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 01:41 PM
Did you?

Moot question. I'm the one who is arguing for building the O-line first.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:41 PM
The first NE superbowl winning team was without "stars." The undefeated Dolphins had less "stars" than our Chiefs team has right now.

For the love of god do not compare 1972 to now, the league is completely different.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:42 PM
They also had great quarterbacks and great defenses.


Defensive stars don't count in Frankies mind.

melbar
03-28-2008, 01:42 PM
3rd?!.... He is projected in the high 2nd most every place I've looked!

I've just recently been seeing him drop because of questions about character being re-ignited because he was banned from Nebraskas pro-day for another character issue. Your probably right some team wont care...

Baby Lee
03-28-2008, 01:43 PM
He wants a team that gets killed by good teams every year........you aren't gonna win shit with no stars.

Argue for Oline constantly but Frankie guess what, there are numerous good times that spent exactly 0 first round picks on Olinemen.

You aren't gonna have any stars [at least on O] without QB protection.

And if there are teams that are good without high O-line picks, those same teams FOUND quality O-linemen somewhere. While there might be teams without high pick O-lineman, there aren't any with shitty O-lines.

Heck the difference between DV's offense and our present offense boils down more than ANYTHING to Roaf, with the degeneration of the rest of line a close second.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 01:47 PM
I think he, along with a few others, have bought into the WPI "We have a good defense" line of bullcrap.

This D is a Sedric Ellis away from kicking ass.

You would also be blown away with what they could do if we could implement an offensive gameplan so they weren't on the field for 45 min.

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:48 PM
Moot question. I'm the one who is arguing for building the O-line first.

Yes, potentially at the expense of getting something better.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 01:48 PM
You aren't gonna have any stars [at least on O] without QB protection.

And if there are teams that are good without high O-line picks, those same teams FOUND quality O-linemen somewhere. While there might be teams without high pick O-lineman, there aren't any with shitty O-lines.

Heck the difference between DV's offense and our present offense boils down more than ANYTHING to Roaf, with the degeneration of the rest of line a close second.

Can't argue with that.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 01:50 PM
This D is a Sedric Ellis away from kicking ass.

You would also be blown away with what they could do if we could implement an offensive gameplan so they weren't on the field for 45 min.

The D that needs an entire new list of CB's needs atleast 2 new LB's and may need atleast 1 more safety?

Brock
03-28-2008, 01:51 PM
This D is a Sadric away from kicking ass.

You would also be blown away with what they could do if we could implement an offensive gameplan so they weren't on the field for 45 min.

This team has one good linebacker and one good defensive lineman, and a bunch of question marks everywhere else. Wake up.

melbar
03-28-2008, 01:54 PM
This D is a Sedric Ellis away from kicking ass.

You would also be blown away with what they could do if we could implement an offensive gameplan so they weren't on the field for 45 min.

Whats funny is that Herm blamed the high powered offense for putting the D on the field too much. :shake:

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 01:54 PM
The D that needs an entire new list of CB's needs atleast 2 new LB's and may need atleast 1 more safety?

You would hope that Herm could spot these role players somewhere in two or three drafts.:hmmm: HOPE being the key word. If we can't then we were never destined to win shit anyway.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 01:58 PM
This team has one good linebacker and one good defensive lineman, and a bunch of question marks everywhere else. Wake up.

We have a lot of unspectaculars, but I believe with a few better players around them, they will be, if nothing else, solid starters.

melbar
03-28-2008, 01:59 PM
This team has one good linebacker and one good defensive lineman, and a bunch of question marks everywhere else. Wake up.

I count 3 very good D linemen and 2 good LB's. We have 1 good O-lineman.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Whats funny is that Herm blamed the high powered offense for putting the D on the field too much. :shake:

One of the dumbest things he's ever said, and that's saying a lot.

bowener
03-28-2008, 02:00 PM
I just ate the worlds best orange. It was ****ing delicious.

I didnt mean to interrupt this pissing match though, I am very entertained. Best sitcom I have seen in years!

So interesting being on the outside viewing this match of wits...

We seem to have a George W. Bush-esque argument going on now. "If you want 'A' you are (and) idiot and dont know anything and hate our team." And on the other side we just have a lot of talking but the points arent being made clear. I am not really making fun of either side, I know you think I am, it is just too fascinating and I had to comment.

Essentially, what it seems like is both sides are trapped by what they are arguing. Both want BPA at #5, the difference being an opinion, so who gives a **** if your BPA is DL and yours is OL? Our team is just going to **** it up anyway, why are you wasting time arguing over something you know wont matter anyway, they are going to **** this up 100%. Just think about it, you know it is a certainty. I mean for gods sake our HC announced 3 days prior that he was going to announce moving a practice to St Joe and something pointless about a youth camp.... how can this team improve??

Now make fun of me and stop arguing over something we have no control over and are going to wish we didnt witness anyway.

Brock
03-28-2008, 02:05 PM
I count 3 very good D linemen and 2 good LB's. We have 1 good O-lineman.

Then you need to recount. We have Jared Allen. We have Derrick Johnson. That's it. Those are the only two guys who have proven anything at all. Those are the only two defensive playmakers this team has.

Coogs
03-28-2008, 02:08 PM
Why do people assume that if someone wants to draft a tackle that their goal is to win 8 games?

Beats the heck out of me!?!? :shrug:

Coogs
03-28-2008, 02:09 PM
Then you need to recount. We have Jared Allen. We have Derrick Johnson. That's it. Those are the only two guys who have proven anything at all. Those are the only two defensive playmakers this team has.

And that statement right there is why Gun needs to be shown the door. :thumb:

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 02:37 PM
Then you need to recount. We have Jared Allen. We have Derrick Johnson. That's it. Those are the only two guys who have proven anything at all. Those are the only two defensive playmakers this team has.

What you, and mecca can't seem to grasp is that teams are not made up of JAs, and DJs, and LJs, and TGs. They are made up of a few "stars" and lots of role players.

Brock
03-28-2008, 02:42 PM
What you, and mecca can't seem to grasp is that teams are not made up of JAs, and DJs, and LJs, and TGs. They are made up of a few "stars" and lots of role players.

So in other words, 2 star players on either side of the ball is all we should be looking for. Thanks, Carl.

beach tribe
03-28-2008, 02:43 PM
So in other words, 2 star players on either side of the ball is all we should be looking for. Thanks, Carl.

Twist it however you want. That's not what i said. The whole team can't be studs. There's not one team in the league that is.

SBK
03-28-2008, 03:25 PM
I stand by my belief that we need a WR so I want Todd Blythe in the first. I don't care if he's the best player or not available, I want a WR and I want him now!!!!!!!

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:13 PM
Twist it however you want. That's not what i said. The whole team can't be studs. There's not one team in the league that is.

Maybe not what you said, but definitely what you implied.

And you don't have to go far to find a team with a ton of studs - they reside in our division.

Philip Rivers
LaDainian Tomlinson
Nick Hardwick
Marcus McNeill
Antonio Gates
Chris Chambers
Igor Olshansky
Jamal Williams
Luis Castillo
Shaun Phillips
Shawne Merriman
Antonio Cromartie

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:13 PM
He must be one of those guys that thinks the team is talented it just needs an Oline which is pretty laughable but I've seen it a few times around here...

No my friend. Only realistic. Unlike you I don't see things only in black or white. I have no illusions about this team being in need of talent. But I also don't think it is as untalented as you think. It's somewhere in the shades of gray.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:14 PM
I think he, along with a few others, have bought into the WPI "We have a good defense" line of bullcrap.

Ni. We believe we "don't have a bad defense." It is still a few players from being good.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 04:15 PM
We have a good defensive end, a good linebacker and a good running back. Also a great tight end. now look at that and tell me we won't be in the super bowl next year if we just draft a left tackle.

Your forgetting a good wide receiver.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:15 PM
Ni. We believe we "don't have a bad defense." It is still a few players from being good.

But we do have a bad defense. Very, very bad.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:16 PM
If plan A is draft a tackle, and plan B is trade down and draft a tackle, isn't that pretty much tackle or bust?

Covered in plan 'C.' Read the entire post.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:16 PM
Your forgetting a good wide receiver.

A guy who had a good year for a rookie.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:16 PM
No my friend. Only realistic. Unlike you I don't see things only in black or white. I have no illusions about this team being in need of talent. But I also don't think it is as untalented as you think. It's somewhere in the shades of gray.

Please, Frankie. Tell us where you see ACTUAL talent on this team.

Not "I think this guy MIGHT be talented," but TRUE talent.

Then tell us how many of those guys are age 28 or over.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:17 PM
Covered in plan 'C.' Read the entire post.

If BPA is your third option, that pretty much tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the draft.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:17 PM
I never do this but, son you're a moron.

This entire god damn team sucks ****in ass. This team has a couple of players nothing more. We are one of the absolute worst teams in the league all the way around it is not just the Oline.

Everything is black now then.:rolleyes:

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:18 PM
Your forgetting a good wide receiver.

Who's had one good year.

Let's see him do it this year, and in 2009, 2010, etc before we annoit him as the second coming of Jerry Rice.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 04:18 PM
The D that needs an entire new list of CB's needs atleast 2 new LB's and may need atleast 1 more safety?

2 new linebackers? Not every team is loaded at every position. Demorrio Williams/Donnie Edwards make for a very good option at the other OLB spot.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:20 PM
Wow, yet another lame metaphor to explain why we should ignore everything else that's wrong with this team.

Ignore? Who said that? We have a 10 pick draft coming up. I'm not saying draft LTs with all 10. That's what you insist on having me say.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:20 PM
It's become painfully obvious where the dividing line is in this argument.

There's the group who isn't thinking a day past December 31, 2008.

And then there's the group who is more concerned about 2010, 2011, etc.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:22 PM
We have a good defensive end, a good linebacker and a good running back. Also a great tight end. now look at that and tell me we won't be in the super bowl next year if we just draft a left tackle.

You are making my point for me. Thanks. We have some star quality players, but not any foundation to put them on.

Frankie
03-28-2008, 04:24 PM
Frankie sometimes you annoy me because I honestly wonder if you have any idea what the hell you are talkin about. There are defensive stars all across the league yet in your mind the only stars are O players.

The feeling is quite mutual. Show me when I said O players. Pay attention,.....son!

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:25 PM
Ignore? Who said that? We have a 10 pick draft coming up. I'm not saying draft LTs with all 10. That's what you insist on having me say.

No, you're just saying draft LT with the first draft pick regardless of what else is available. It's really stupid.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:26 PM
You are making my point for me. Thanks. We have some star quality players, but not any foundation to put them on.

Ha ha yeah. Just hold your breath waiting for that Lombardi to show up.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 04:26 PM
Who's had one good year.

Let's see him do it this year, and in 2009, 2010, etc before we annoit him as the second coming of Jerry Rice.

Give me a ****ing break. Nobody is appointing him the second coming of Jerry Rice. I simply claimed he is a good wide receiver. Is he not worthy of being called a good wide receiver? He is a building block of this team. For now he is a good wide receiver with the potential to be great.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:26 PM
2 new linebackers? Not every team is loaded at every position. Demorrio Williams/Donnie Edwards make for a very good option at the other OLB spot.

No, they don't. One is old, the other is not good.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:27 PM
You are making my point for me. Thanks. We have some star quality players, but not any foundation to put them on.

:spock:

Look at the list of players in post 115.

THAT'S a foundation.

Not a young LB, a young DE who's one strike away from a year-long vacation, a RB who's closer to the end of his career than the beginning of it, and a TE who won't be here when this team is actually competitive.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:27 PM
Give me a ****ing break. Nobody is appointing him the second coming of Jerry Rice. I simply claimed he is a good wide receiver. Is he not worthy of being called a good wide receiver? He is a building block of this team. For now he is a good wide receiver with the potential to be great.

He MAY be a good receiver. At this point, he's a young guy who is still a question mark, but you can feel somewhat optimistic about him.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 04:33 PM
So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this. This scenario probably wouldn't happen but humor me and go along with it.

What happens if in the next 3 drafts for one reason or another the BPA in the first few rounds is never an offensive lineman? Do you simply keep ignoring a HUGE need? At what point do you finally say "our line is bad enough that we have no choice but to reach"?

I understand not wanting to reach in the 1st round. Getting a player like Ellis or Dorsey is probably more preferable to an Otah or Clady. But I am of the opinion that after the first round it gets more and more acceptable to reach for a need. But let's define the term "reach". There is the kind of reach where you have a need and you panic and take the best player at a position available. That is a mistake in my opinion. But what if you really like a player and feel he can help your team but he might be a slight reach at your spot? What if the Chiefs are really high on Sam Baker, just for an example. They feel he can be a very good offensive tackle for us. But they feel he is a mid to late 2nd round pick. Obviously, they probably don't think he would be there at our 3rd round pick. So if you want that player is it such a mistake to reach for him? Personally, I don't think it is. If you like a player and you think he can help you then you should draft him.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:40 PM
So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this. This scenario probably wouldn't happen but humor me and go along with it.

What happens if in the next 3 drafts for one reason or another the BPA in the first few rounds is never an offensive lineman? Do you simply keep ignoring a HUGE need? At what point do you finally say "our line is bad enough that we have no choice but to reach"?

I understand not wanting to reach in the 1st round. Getting a player like Ellis or Dorsey is probably more preferable to an Otah or Clady. But I am of the opinion that after the first round it gets more and more acceptable to reach for a need. But let's define the term "reach". There is the kind of reach where you have a need and you panic and take the best player at a position available. That is a mistake in my opinion. But what if you really like a player and feel he can help your team but he might be a slight reach at your spot? What if the Chiefs are really high on Sam Baker, just for an example. They feel he can be a very good offensive tackle for us. But they feel he is a mid to late 2nd round pick. Obviously, they probably don't think he would be there at our 3rd round pick. So if you want that player is it such a mistake to reach for him? Personally, I don't think it is. If you like a player and you think he can help you then you should draft him.

There's the problem.

It's being implied by many, and now stated by you, that not drafting an OL in the first 2 rounds is "ignoring a huge need."

The two staples of our great OL were a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA.

Brock
03-28-2008, 04:53 PM
So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this.

I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 04:59 PM
I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

Absolutely.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 05:14 PM
He MAY be a good receiver. At this point, he's a young guy who is still a question mark, but you can feel somewhat optimistic about him.

How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 05:16 PM
There's the problem.

It's being implied by many, and now stated by you, that not drafting an OL in the first 2 rounds is "ignoring a huge need."

The two staples of our great OL were a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA.

So it should just be assumed that we can continue building our offensive line with low round draft picks? Then why haven't guys like Brett Williams, Kevin Sampson, Tre' Stallings, Will Svitek, Jordan Black, etc. worked out?

And we had more invested in that line than just a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA. Roaf was a 1st round pick by New Orleans that ended up costing us a 3rd round pick. And ever since we lost 1st round pick Tait right tackle has been a revolving door.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 05:18 PM
I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

No team, absolutely NO team takes BPA in rounds 1-7. It just doesn't happen. At some point you have to reach for a need. Should we reach in the 1st round? No. But after that if you have a guy ranked slightly lower but you feel he can be a good player and you believe he won't be there in the next round by all means the team should use a draft pick on that player then.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 05:20 PM
How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

And what happens if he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years?

He's not so "solid" anymore, is he?

There's a saying:

Once may be an aberration, but twice is a trend.

Some of us would just like to see him develop that trend before we assume he's a cornerstone of the franchise.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 05:25 PM
So it should just be assumed that we can continue building our offensive line with low round draft picks? Then why haven't guys like Brett Williams, Kevin Sampson, Tre' Stallings, Will Svitek, Jordan Black, etc. worked out?

And we had more invested in that line than just a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA. Roaf was a 1st round pick by New Orleans that ended up costing us a 3rd round pick. And ever since we lost 1st round pick Tait right tackle has been a revolving door.

I'm not assuming anything. Every team in this league has starting offensive linemen that were 2nd day draft picks.

Not taking 1 in the 1st 2 rounds is not "ignoring" our needs.

And our past history has absolutely NOTHING to do with THIS year's draft.

Zeke Ziggle
03-28-2008, 05:26 PM
How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

Its not a point about him having a great season last year its about backing that up over multiple years. Michael Clayton had 1193 yards and 7 touchdowns in his rookie year and he was proclaimed a star. in the past three years he has 1029 yards and 1 touchdown. Bowe had a great rookie season and people should be optimistic about him however he needs more than a great rookie season to be called a star

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 05:28 PM
Its not a point about him having a great season last year its about backing that up over multiple years. Michael Clayton had 1193 yards and 7 touchdowns in his rookie year and he was proclaimed a star. in the past three years he has 1029 yards and 1 touchdown. Bowe had a great rookie season and people should be optimistic about him however he needs more than a great rookie season to be called a star

Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

Brock
03-28-2008, 05:29 PM
How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

WTF? Are you kidding? It means he HAD A GOOD YEAR. THAT IS ALL. Your dimestore psychoanalysis of me is duly noted. I'm guessing I've paid attention to this team for a while longer than you have and that's why I prefer to let them prove something before I go all homer about them.

Brock
03-28-2008, 05:30 PM
Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

I notice you avoid calling Michael Clayton a good receiver. Why is that?

Zeke Ziggle
03-28-2008, 05:32 PM
Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

My point remains he had a good year. great for a rookie but that doesn't mean that he keeps that up. For all of us i hope he does turn into Owens without the headcase issues. However there is still a chance that he will be jeff webb suck next year and the year after

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 05:42 PM
I'm not assuming anything. Every team in this league has starting offensive linemen that were 2nd day draft picks.

Not taking 1 in the 1st 2 rounds is not "ignoring" our needs.

And our past history has absolutely NOTHING to do with THIS year's draft.

Our past history has nothing to do with this years draft? Even when some of the same scouts, the same GM, and others involved in the draft process back then are still here?

The Chiefs have not taken an offensive line on the first day since 1999. I think it is pretty obvious that that relates directly to our current situation with the offensive line. So yes, I believe that if we go for the 10th straight year without taking an offensive lineman on the first day we are "ignoring" our needs.

And interestingly enough after a quick look the Chiefs and Bills are the only 2 teams in the NFL without a starting offensive lineman that was drafted by them in the first 3 rounds.

The vast majority of NFL teams have a starting left tackle drafted in the first 3 rounds, something like 28 of 32. The number is slightly lower but still high at around 23 of 32 drafted in the first 2 rounds. Yet we are going to fix the revolving doors we have at tackle by ignoring the position on the first day? Ridiculous.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 05:43 PM
And what happens if he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years?

He's not so "solid" anymore, is he?

There's a saying:

Once may be an aberration, but twice is a trend.

Some of us would just like to see him develop that trend before we assume he's a cornerstone of the franchise.

And again, nobody is saying he is a cornerstone. I called him a building block which really isn't too much to ask out of a young player on a rebuilding team.

If he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years? Then he won't be so good. But currently that hasn't happened so currently he is a good wide receiver.

Brock
03-28-2008, 05:44 PM
Homers. ROFL

Baby Lee
03-28-2008, 06:03 PM
It's become painfully obvious where the dividing line is in this argument.

There's the group who isn't thinking a day past December 31, 2008.

And then there's the group who is more concerned about 2010, 2011, etc.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you mean those in favor of a stud LT are looking short term, I posit that;
1) LTs have a longer NFL shelf life than most positions,
2) the overwhelming majority of successful teams have a stud LT as an underappreciated cornerstone.

So how in the hell is acquiring a foundational element that's more likely to be around for a long time than other positions shortsighted?

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 06:07 PM
Not sure what you mean by that.

If you mean those in favor of a stud LT are looking short term, I posit that;
1) LTs have a longer NFL shelf life than most positions,
2) the overwhelming majority of successful teams have a stud LT as an underappreciated cornerstone.

So how in the hell is acquiring a foundational element that's more likely to be around for a long time than other positions shortsighted?

I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

Micjones
03-28-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 06:14 PM
No team, absolutely NO team takes BPA in rounds 1-7. It just doesn't happen. At some point you have to reach for a need. Should we reach in the 1st round? No. But after that if you have a guy ranked slightly lower but you feel he can be a good player and you believe he won't be there in the next round by all means the team should use a draft pick on that player then.

This team isn't close to winning, that is why they should be taking the best player every round, anyone can help at any spot. We aren't the Colts or the Chargers or Pats with a very defined core team with a couple spots to fill in, we need to build our core.

And what he means by short term and longterm is if you want a LT above all else you are thinking about this next year because you perceive it as the teams greatest need and nothing more.

I think some people need to get a grip this team is years away, most of the players on the team that are any good are old which makes them about ready to also be replaced.

This is basically the first year of rebuilding with the draft, when you have picks this high you simply take the best players every round. You worry about needs when the majority of your core is built and you only have a few holes.

Everyone says look at Arizona they ignored their line yadda yadda, well guess what they got outstanding players now they are in a position to focus on that 1 spot. You think they'd trade having Fitzgerald or Boldin for a OL I don't...

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 06:15 PM
Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

This isn't about Jake Long. He's likely to be gone well before our pick.

This is about reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when there are better players on the board at our pick.

Brock
03-28-2008, 06:16 PM
Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

I'm okay with drafting Jake Long under certain circumstances. But if he's not there, I don't want to reach, and I don't want to trade down.

Baby Lee
03-28-2008, 06:20 PM
I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

So, does that extend all the way to where McFadden is the BPA? Really?

And the term BPA and QB shouldn't even be allowed in the same sentence in the first 20 or so picks. Not after the history of the past couple of decades. That's 'intelligent design' thinking right there.

I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocate. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.

OnTheWarpath58
03-28-2008, 06:25 PM
So, does that extend all the way to where McFadden is the BPA? Really?

And the term BPA and QB shouldn't even be allowed in the same sentence in the first 20 or so picks. Not after the history of the past couple of decades. That's 'intelligent design' thinking right there.

I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocatge. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.

If that camp exists, I'm not in it.

Brock
03-28-2008, 06:27 PM
I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocate. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.

Well, some people think this is a deep class of tackles with not that much difference between most of the candidates. And some people don't care about that even if it's true.

Mecca
03-28-2008, 06:38 PM
You also have to understand positional value with this.....I would never draft a RB with a top 5 pick unless I somehow had that pick and was a championship team with that as my only need.

To me unless he has 0 flaws a OT is not worth a top 5 pick.

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 07:30 PM
This team isn't close to winning, that is why they should be taking the best player every round, anyone can help at any spot. We aren't the Colts or the Chargers or Pats with a very defined core team with a couple spots to fill in, we need to build our core.

And what he means by short term and longterm is if you want a LT above all else you are thinking about this next year because you perceive it as the teams greatest need and nothing more.

I think some people need to get a grip this team is years away, most of the players on the team that are any good are old which makes them about ready to also be replaced.

This is basically the first year of rebuilding with the draft, when you have picks this high you simply take the best players every round. You worry about needs when the majority of your core is built and you only have a few holes.

Everyone says look at Arizona they ignored their line yadda yadda, well guess what they got outstanding players now they are in a position to focus on that 1 spot. You think they'd trade having Fitzgerald or Boldin for a OL I don't...

I find it hilarious that you mentioned Arizona ignoring their line and drafting great players yet just last year they reached for Levi Brown at about the same spot in the draft that we are currently in.

I am still of the opinion that if you have a player ranked somewhat close to where your pick is at but you don't want to risk him not being there the next round then you go ahead and take him. If you take a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round 10 or 15 spots higher then you think he should go I really don't think it is a big deal.

Again, what if 2008 rolls around and the way our picks go the best player available is not an offensive lineman? And again in 2009? At what point do you finally start taking the OL?

I also think that if Sam Baker is there in the 2nd round then this whole argument is moot because I believe Baker is still a 1st round talent but his stock has dropped due to injuries. Would anybody really complain about us taking Baker in the 2nd round? Whether he is a left tackle or a right tackle it would still fill a huge need and it would help the offensive line.

aturnis
03-28-2008, 07:32 PM
http://www.czabe.com/backup/graphics/successory/idiots.jpg

Everyone, arguing w/ Mecca and Brock is a waste of finger strength...both are idiots. Mecca thinks he's an all world analyst, and all of his post are full of condecending tones, when all he really knows about anyone he writes his opinions on is what he's read somewhere else. If he really knew anything, someone would employ him for his opinion. Brock is a BPA or die guy, who would twist any comment you make to support his own argument. Reminds me of the guy who says you hate america because you oppose the war. Stupid logic. Arguing w/ them is just dumb.

Brock, all anyone is saying is that Long and Clady are not "reaches" at the #5 spot. Even if McFadden or Ryan or whoever it is you would like to draft is there, it would still be VERY smart to solidify the MOST IMPORTANT position on ANY football team first. The offensive line IS what hindered the offense so much this year, solidify it and production will go up. Also, Croyle needs a chance, would you like him to go 0-whatever next year, get cut, and go somewhere else and become a good QB? That's what happens when you don't give guys a chance, the Chiefs owe it to themselves to find out what they do or do not have. Not to find out would be dumb.

If Long is gone and we don't want Clady, trading down would be a VERY smart move. We will still get a first round quality player, albeit w/o all the glitz and glam, plus more early choices to help solidify this teams many needs. And you can't say "trading down's not that easy!" like all of your cronies either, if Mcfadden and Ryan are still there, or any other good guys, the possibility is always there, not definate, but the possibility is there just the same. Just like all the possibilities of the guys we all want being there for us to take.

Drafting a stud DT is not a bad idea either, it may instantly improve our defense, which is great. I'd be all for it. Although, our defensive unit does not suck as bad as you and Mecca would like to think. While their not great statistically, they only gave up what, 20 points per game? Not stellar but fairly servicable if you ask me. they gave up the run, gave up the pass, and the occasional long run or pass, but not typically a long run or pass for a TD. I think it's the first time in recent memory bend but don't break has worked in KC. Even if that is just happenstance and not our philosiphy.

If the Chiefs were to hold our opponents to 20 ppg next year, and raise our average from 14ppg, we will win more games, period. Possibly 8-8 or better. That's not a prediction, just a condecending remark aimed at those of you who oh so hate 8-8. Guess what?!?! WE ALL DO, but 8-8 IS, not an opinion, a fact, IS better that 4-12

You do make a good point though...a stud OT will not get us to the superbowl next year. Neither will any player you would like for the Chiefs to take. Just so happens our biggest need, is any teams biggest need, and you don't like it. If the Chiefs take "your guy" whoever that might be, good. Frankies, good. Great!

All I know is, for the first time in a LONG time, I know I will be comfortable w/ a very good portion of our draft. I always hated Vermeils illogical picks (I.E. Kris Wilson or Svitek) and always hated taking important positions in late rounds HOPING they would turn out b/c we would rather spend our early picks on pretty players. Taking linemen in late rounds CAN work out...sometimes. The last 5 or more years though, tell us that is hasn't for the Chiefs.

Herm has impressed me not only w/ his solid picks, but with his involvement, commitment and faith in scouting. Not just getting the prettiest player, but the right player, not the best player, but the best for us. His draft resume looks pretty good for the Chiefs so far, 4 of Herms 7 picks last year played ALOT, and played well. Medlock, we'll chalk up to stupid "loyalty", and Herb Taylor played a little bit and showed promise. What becomes of Michael Allen, I promise we'll see this season. Also, 5 of Herms 7 picks in 2006 have played substantial amounts of time, while I'm sure we'll see Marcus Maxey and Tre' Stalling get their shots in camp to compete for starting jobs, or they will probably make good/decent backups.

BPA is a luxury. Drafting BPA hasn't worked out too well for the year in and year out cellar dwellers has it? Too many costly mistakes made too high, b/c of hype. B/c of BPA a lot of cellar dweller have stayed cellar dwellers. BPA is a strategy I believe works best for teams w/ very few gaping holes in their roster. The attitude is "We don't NEED anyone, we'll just take whomever we like." BPA could result in the Chiefs having two good, highly paid runningbacks, or a good DE who will sit on the sidelines. Who's to say Long or Clady won't be a "star", or for that matter that Dorsey, Ellis, or Ryan will? Noone knows.

Fact is, I'll be happy w/ anything we take, even if it's not what I want. Sorry Brock if any of this came off as too condecending, but hey, at least I'm not Mecca.:D

____aturnis (wishing he was Mecca) :rolleyes:

kcchiefsus
03-28-2008, 07:38 PM
Well, some people think this is a deep class of tackles with not that much difference between most of the candidates. And some people don't care about that even if it's true.

Well there is great depth but most of those tackles are going to be gone before the 3rd round is over. IMO the top class of OT's consists of:

Jake Long
Ryan Clady
Jeff Otah
Chris Williams
Sam Baker
Anthony Collins
Gosder Cherilus
Duane Brown
Carl Nicks

Not necessarily in any particular order. After that the talent drops off significantly with guys like Oniel Cousins and John Greco being the next best tackles.

I am not necessarily in favor of taking a guy like Ryan Clady in the first round but I don't get why people say he is so raw. The guy started 3 years at tackle for Boise State, the last 2 at left tackle. Each year he improved his play based on being a first team Freshman All-American in 2005, a second team All-American in 2006, and a first team All-American in 2007. Would I prefer Dorsey or Ellis over Clady? Sure. But would I be upset with Clady in the 1st round? No, not really.

Brock
03-28-2008, 07:59 PM
http://www.czabe.com/backup/graphics/successory/idiots.jpg

Everyone, arguing w/ Mecca and Brock is a waste of finger strength...both are idiots. Mecca thinks he's an all world analyst, and all of his post are full of condecending tones, when all he really knows about anyone he writes his opinions on is what he's read somewhere else. If he really knew anything, someone would employ him for his opinion. Brock is a BPA or die guy, who would twist any comment you make to support his own argument. Reminds me of the guy who says you hate america because you oppose the war. Stupid logic. Arguing w/ them is just dumb.

Brock, all anyone is saying is that Long and Clady are not "reaches" at the #5 spot. Even if McFadden or Ryan or whoever it is you would like to draft is there, it would still be VERY smart to solidify the MOST IMPORTANT position on ANY football team first. The offensive line IS what hindered the offense so much this year, solidify it and production will go up. Also, Croyle needs a chance, would you like him to go 0-whatever next year, get cut, and go somewhere else and become a good QB? That's what happens when you don't give guys a chance, the Chiefs owe it to themselves to find out what they do or do not have. Not to find out would be dumb.

If Long is gone and we don't want Clady, trading down would be a VERY smart move. We will still get a first round quality player, albeit w/o all the glitz and glam, plus more early choices to help solidify this teams many needs. And you can't say "trading down's not that easy!" like all of your cronies either, if Mcfadden and Ryan are still there, or any other good guys, the possibility is always there, not definate, but the possibility is there just the same. Just like all the possibilities of the guys we all want being there for us to take.

Drafting a stud DT is not a bad idea either, it may instantly improve our defense, which is great. I'd be all for it. Although, our defensive unit does not suck as bad as you and Mecca would like to think. While their not great statistically, they only gave up what, 20 points per game? Not stellar but fairly servicable if you ask me. they gave up the run, gave up the pass, and the occasional long run or pass, but not typically a long run or pass for a TD. I think it's the first time in recent memory bend but don't break has worked in KC. Even if that is just happenstance and not our philosiphy.

If the Chiefs were to hold our opponents to 20 ppg next year, and raise our average from 14ppg, we will win more games, period. Possibly 8-8 or better. That's not a prediction, just a condecending remark aimed at those of you who oh so hate 8-8. Guess what?!?! WE ALL DO, but 8-8 IS, not an opinion, a fact, IS better that 4-12

You do make a good point though...a stud OT will not get us to the superbowl next year. Neither will any player you would like for the Chiefs to take. Just so happens our biggest need, is any teams biggest need, and you don't like it. If the Chiefs take "your guy" whoever that might be, good. Frankies, good. Great!

All I know is, for the first time in a LONG time, I know I will be comfortable w/ a very good portion of our draft. I always hated Vermeils illogical picks (I.E. Kris Wilson or Svitek) and always hated taking important positions in late rounds HOPING they would turn out b/c we would rather spend our early picks on pretty players. Taking linemen in late rounds CAN work out...sometimes. The last 5 or more years though, tell us that is hasn't for the Chiefs.

Herm has impressed me not only w/ his solid picks, but with his involvement, commitment and faith in scouting. Not just getting the prettiest player, but the right player, not the best player, but the best for us. His draft resume looks pretty good for the Chiefs so far, 4 of Herms 7 picks last year played ALOT, and played well. Medlock, we'll chalk up to stupid "loyalty", and Herb Taylor played a little bit and showed promise. What becomes of Michael Allen, I promise we'll see this season. Also, 5 of Herms 7 picks in 2006 have played substantial amounts of time, while I'm sure we'll see Marcus Maxey and Tre' Stalling get their shots in camp to compete for starting jobs, or they will probably make good/decent backups.

BPA is a luxury. Drafting BPA hasn't worked out too well for the year in and year out cellar dwellers has it? Too many costly mistakes made too high, b/c of hype. B/c of BPA a lot of cellar dweller have stayed cellar dwellers. BPA is a strategy I believe works best for teams w/ very few gaping holes in their roster. The attitude is "We don't NEED anyone, we'll just take whomever we like." BPA could result in the Chiefs having two good, highly paid runningbacks, or a good DE who will sit on the sidelines. Who's to say Long or Clady won't be a "star", or for that matter that Dorsey, Ellis, or Ryan will? Noone knows.

Fact is, I'll be happy w/ anything we take, even if it's not what I want. Sorry Brock if any of this came off as too condecending, but hey, at least I'm not Mecca.:D

____aturnis (wishing he was Mecca) :rolleyes:

Actually, there are quite a few decent people here who are in favor of best available player, so don't allow the fact that it is me or mecca in this particular case arguing for it color your thinking about what sort of person holds the opinion. Besides, I'm just arguing on the internet because that's what internet message boards are for. I've spun my opinions about most players out of whole cloth, just like every single other person on this site has. A few "I've seen him play 1000 times" guys aside. I'm not seriously trying to convince anyone of anything.

doomy3
03-28-2008, 08:25 PM
The "Best Player Available" theory is kind of funny. I agree with it in principle, I think, but what the Hell does it really mean. It's just funny to hear everyone say "draft the best player available no matter what" when those people probably have very different lists than each other.

Sure-Oz
03-28-2008, 08:26 PM
It would be nice if Glenn Dorsey just fell to us, kind've like DJ

bowener
03-28-2008, 08:41 PM
how many surgeries has dorsey had?

Shaid
03-28-2008, 09:19 PM
It would be nice if Glenn Dorsey just fell to us, kind've like DJ

I'm a bit concerned about the injury history. I think he'd be dominant but could potentially only be around for a few years. Not sure if it's worth the risk of a top 5 pick.

Tribal Warfare
03-28-2008, 09:21 PM
I'm a bit concerned about the injury history. I think he'd be dominant but could potentially only be around for a few years. Not sure if it's worth the risk of a top 5 pick.




That's why he's this year's Adrian Peterson, because of his injury history pushing him down the draft boards, but the payoff for taking such a risk could be tremendous

SBK
03-28-2008, 09:42 PM
The issue here is the reach or the trade down. When you suck you don't trade down, you take the best players you can get. If anything you trade up. You may trade a 2nd day pick to move up to the bottom of round 1 or 2 and pick a guy that has fallen but you don't think should have.

I think that the difference between a guy like Clady and a guy like Baker isn't as big as the difference between where people want to pick them. Could anyone say Clady at 5 is a better value for the long term core of this team than Baker is in round 2?

What if you could get Baker in round 2, and then with that #5 you get Ellis, Dorsey or Ryan? Now you've improved 2 positions. And that guy you picked with your first is going to be far better than someone playing the same position you could get with your #2.

You'd think this is rocket science.

Bill S Preston
03-28-2008, 10:51 PM
I wouldn't think that anybody would have a problem with drafting an offensive lineman if he is the BPA, but a problem arises when people claim that the Chiefs should draft an offensive lineman, even when he isn't the BPA.

alanm
03-28-2008, 11:52 PM
I've just recently been seeing him drop because of questions about character being re-ignited because he was banned from Nebraskas pro-day for another character issue. Your probably right some team wont care...
It was pretty much ado about nothing. He was ticketed for failing to disperse after a party. But seeing as to how a couple other guys also were ticketed that weekend and another guy got in trouble at a bar Pelini brought the sledgehammer down. Banned players from going to certain bars and the like.

RedThat
03-28-2008, 11:55 PM
The way I see it,

There is more to it then the BPA. I think it really boils down to BPA combined with position of need. That's would be my way of drafting.

Would it make any sense if lets say Matt Ryan fell to NE and NE should draft him because he is the BPA at #7? Of course not! That would be stupid.

Let's make this clear, the key to success for any team in the NFL is having effective teams built inside the trenches on both sides of the ball. I know one thing, this Chiefs team lacks foundation. Do they have an offensive line? Nope. 1 good player is on that line in Waters that's it. Failing to draft OL in the top rounds after Roaf and Shields retired is showing.

I do feel more optmistic about the Defensive line. The positive signs I can think of there is that they do have some youth. Allen is a stud, Hali has work to do, but he is not that bad. He has a great motor, and decent passrush skills, he needs to work on his run defense. Tyler and McBride are still unknown at this time and played sparingly last year. Boone surprised me last year. But he is 31. Hopefully Tyler or McBride can pan out?

Regardless though, Chiefs pick at 5, if Jake Long is there, and Dorsey is gone, I'd be happy to take Long. He'd probably be the BPA with position of need at 5. If Dorsey is there, and Jake Long is gone, I'd be happy to take Dorsey. He'd probably be the BPA with position of need at 5. Who knows about Tyler or McBride? If Dorsey and Jake Long are gone, and Ellis is there, maybe Ellis is the best guy for the Chiefs to take? Who knows? But he could be the BPA with position of need at the time at 5?

Either way, Chiefs pick at 5, I say be happy because you're going to have a very good chance to pick a top prospect at 5. But either way, I just hope they don't ignore the foundation of the team. The pick should either be an offensive or defensive lineman no doubt about it.

kcchiefsus
03-29-2008, 12:11 AM
The way I see it,

There is more to it then the BPA. I think it really boils down to BPA combined with position of need. That's would be my way of drafting.

Would it make any sense if lets say Matt Ryan fell to NE and NE should draft him because he is the BPA at #7? Of course not! That would be stupid.

Let's make this clear, the key to success for any team in the NFL is having effective teams built inside the trenches on both sides of the ball. I know one thing, this Chiefs team lacks foundation. Do they have an offensive line? Nope. 1 good player is on that line in Waters that's it. Failing to draft OL in the top rounds after Roaf and Shields retired is showing.

I do feel more optmistic about the Defensive line. The positive signs I can think of there is that they do have some youth. Allen is a stud, Hali has work to do, but he is not that bad. He has a great motor, and decent passrush skills, he needs to work on his run defense. Tyler and McBride are still unknown at this time and played sparingly last year. Boone surprised me last year. But he is 31. Hopefully Tyler or McBride can pan out?

Regardless though, Chiefs pick at 5, if Jake Long is there, and Dorsey is gone, I'd be happy to take Long. He'd probably be the BPA with position of need at 5. If Dorsey is there, and Jake Long is gone, I'd be happy to take Dorsey. He'd probably be the BPA with position of need at 5. Who knows about Tyler or McBride? If Dorsey and Jake Long are gone, and Ellis is there, maybe Ellis is the best guy for the Chiefs to take? Who knows? But he could be the BPA with position of need at the time at 5?

Either way, Chiefs pick at 5, I say be happy because you're going to have a very good chance to pick a top prospect at 5. But either way, I just hope they don't ignore the foundation of the team. The pick should either be an offensive or defensive lineman no doubt about it.

We simply don't have enough players on the defensive line though. IMO the only players currently on our roster at DL who will be here opening day are DE's Jared Allen, Tamba Hali, and Turk McBride and DT's Tank Tyler, Alfonso Boone, and Tank Tyler. Besides the obvious lack of depth at both positions, two things come to mind.

1) Our defensive tackles are all nose tackle types. None of them can rush the passer very well from the interior. Even if Tank Tyler develops he will never be a Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris type. He is more along the lines of a Anthony McFarland/Pat Williams type. We need our Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris/Kevin Williams on the interior.

2) Turk McBride is IMO nothing more than a rotational player. He simply does not have what it takes to rush the passer from the outside. If either Allen or Hali go down for an extended period of time our pass rush goes to shit because we simply won't have any reliable backups at DE who can rush the passer.

Any thought that we are fine on the defensive line is absurd.

dj56dt58
03-29-2008, 12:37 AM
No team, absolutely NO team takes BPA in rounds 1-7. It just doesn't happen. At some point you have to reach for a need. Should we reach in the 1st round? No. But after that if you have a guy ranked slightly lower but you feel he can be a good player and you believe he won't be there in the next round by all means the team should use a draft pick on that player then.

no shit..I guess everyone 1-5, maybe further, is going to be "reaching" because Mcfadden is supposed to be the best player in the draft

RedThat
03-29-2008, 12:54 AM
We simply don't have enough players on the defensive line though. IMO the only players currently on our roster at DL who will be here opening day are DE's Jared Allen, Tamba Hali, and Turk McBride and DT's Tank Tyler, Alfonso Boone, and Tank Tyler. Besides the obvious lack of depth at both positions, two things come to mind.

1) Our defensive tackles are all nose tackle types. None of them can rush the passer very well from the interior. Even if Tank Tyler develops he will never be a Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris type. He is more along the lines of a Anthony McFarland/Pat Williams type. We need our Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris/Kevin Williams on the interior.

2) Turk McBride is IMO nothing more than a rotational player. He simply does not have what it takes to rush the passer from the outside. If either Allen or Hali go down for an extended period of time our pass rush goes to shit because we simply won't have any reliable backups at DE who can rush the passer.

Any thought that we are fine on the defensive line is absurd.

Not resigning Wilkerson upset me a bit, I thought he was good for depth.

Keep in my mind, McBride can also be lined up DE. He is a bit of both DE/DT. Hali can also be lined up at DT or DE. I don't know why they didn't run the option more often of lining him up on the inside to provide more pressure from the inside on passing down situations.

If Tyler can pan out and be a Pat Williams type player, I know thats a bit of a stretch, but that would be great. The teams weakness was stopping the run. Mainly because cover 2 scheme is not designed to stop the run, more a less to defend the pass, and not give up the big play deep. But the line did lack a run stuffing DT.

I wouldn't say this is an all-pro line, but I thought they showed last year they could play. They were plenty of times last year I saw pressure from the line. That's a great sign! The Chiefs were one of the top ranked teams in pass defense last year believe it or not? Allens play last year showed us he has something, hopefully it can continue.

That's why if Dorsey falls, and he is there at 5, I wouldn't complain if we take him? I personally think he is the best player in this draft. despite all the reports on injuries and stuff, this is a guy who started all his games the last 2 seasons at LSU, and even when he got hurt he still played. He brings character, heart, and talent to the table. and can do it all from a defensive standpoint imo.

I think the Defensive line has come a bit of a way over the past years. It's not a dominant line, obviously they lack a force in the middle, but it definately came a ways and improved. Drafting Dorsey would take this line from good to excellent. And when you have a cover 2 defense, an excellent defensive line makes sense.

alanm
03-29-2008, 01:08 AM
The "Best Player Available" theory is kind of funny. I agree with it in principle, I think, but what the Hell does it really mean. It's just funny to hear everyone say "draft the best player available no matter what" when those people probably have very different lists than each other.
The BPA fits well for this year because the Chiefs with whomever they pick for any position in whatever rnd will reasonably be in contention for a starting job.

Rausch
03-29-2008, 01:34 AM
Any thought that we are fine on the defensive line is absurd.

And even after those points argued we were still respectable on defense with a (admit it) dog$#it pair of DT's.

Our offense was bottom 5. Terrible. As bad as the defense was under DV.

We need huge helpings of help on offense and the biggest area of need is O line. We don't have to go there 1st round but we do have to go there early and very often.

milkman
03-29-2008, 08:30 AM
Chiefs | Team meets with Otah
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:13 -0700

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Kansas City Chiefs met with University of Pittsburgh OT Jeff Otah Monday, March 24.

I think the chiefs hope they can grab him in the second, wich is considerable since we pick early in most rounds.

22 posts in and no one has asked this obvious question

What the hell are you smoking?

Otah won't make it out of the top 15 picks, much less into the second round.

Coogs
03-29-2008, 08:44 AM
http://www.czabe.com/backup/graphics/successory/idiots.jpg

Everyone, arguing w/ Mecca and Brock is a waste of finger strength...both are idiots. Mecca thinks he's an all world analyst, and all of his post are full of condecending tones, when all he really knows about anyone he writes his opinions on is what he's read somewhere else. If he really knew anything, someone would employ him for his opinion. Brock is a BPA or die guy, who would twist any comment you make to support his own argument. Reminds me of the guy who says you hate america because you oppose the war. Stupid logic. Arguing w/ them is just dumb.

Brock, all anyone is saying is that Long and Clady are not "reaches" at the #5 spot. Even if McFadden or Ryan or whoever it is you would like to draft is there, it would still be VERY smart to solidify the MOST IMPORTANT position on ANY football team first. The offensive line IS what hindered the offense so much this year, solidify it and production will go up. Also, Croyle needs a chance, would you like him to go 0-whatever next year, get cut, and go somewhere else and become a good QB? That's what happens when you don't give guys a chance, the Chiefs owe it to themselves to find out what they do or do not have. Not to find out would be dumb.

If Long is gone and we don't want Clady, trading down would be a VERY smart move. We will still get a first round quality player, albeit w/o all the glitz and glam, plus more early choices to help solidify this teams many needs. And you can't say "trading down's not that easy!" like all of your cronies either, if Mcfadden and Ryan are still there, or any other good guys, the possibility is always there, not definate, but the possibility is there just the same. Just like all the possibilities of the guys we all want being there for us to take.

Drafting a stud DT is not a bad idea either, it may instantly improve our defense, which is great. I'd be all for it. Although, our defensive unit does not suck as bad as you and Mecca would like to think. While their not great statistically, they only gave up what, 20 points per game? Not stellar but fairly servicable if you ask me. they gave up the run, gave up the pass, and the occasional long run or pass, but not typically a long run or pass for a TD. I think it's the first time in recent memory bend but don't break has worked in KC. Even if that is just happenstance and not our philosiphy.

If the Chiefs were to hold our opponents to 20 ppg next year, and raise our average from 14ppg, we will win more games, period. Possibly 8-8 or better. That's not a prediction, just a condecending remark aimed at those of you who oh so hate 8-8. Guess what?!?! WE ALL DO, but 8-8 IS, not an opinion, a fact, IS better that 4-12

You do make a good point though...a stud OT will not get us to the superbowl next year. Neither will any player you would like for the Chiefs to take. Just so happens our biggest need, is any teams biggest need, and you don't like it. If the Chiefs take "your guy" whoever that might be, good. Frankies, good. Great!

All I know is, for the first time in a LONG time, I know I will be comfortable w/ a very good portion of our draft. I always hated Vermeils illogical picks (I.E. Kris Wilson or Svitek) and always hated taking important positions in late rounds HOPING they would turn out b/c we would rather spend our early picks on pretty players. Taking linemen in late rounds CAN work out...sometimes. The last 5 or more years though, tell us that is hasn't for the Chiefs.

Herm has impressed me not only w/ his solid picks, but with his involvement, commitment and faith in scouting. Not just getting the prettiest player, but the right player, not the best player, but the best for us. His draft resume looks pretty good for the Chiefs so far, 4 of Herms 7 picks last year played ALOT, and played well. Medlock, we'll chalk up to stupid "loyalty", and Herb Taylor played a little bit and showed promise. What becomes of Michael Allen, I promise we'll see this season. Also, 5 of Herms 7 picks in 2006 have played substantial amounts of time, while I'm sure we'll see Marcus Maxey and Tre' Stalling get their shots in camp to compete for starting jobs, or they will probably make good/decent backups.

BPA is a luxury. Drafting BPA hasn't worked out too well for the year in and year out cellar dwellers has it? Too many costly mistakes made too high, b/c of hype. B/c of BPA a lot of cellar dweller have stayed cellar dwellers. BPA is a strategy I believe works best for teams w/ very few gaping holes in their roster. The attitude is "We don't NEED anyone, we'll just take whomever we like." BPA could result in the Chiefs having two good, highly paid runningbacks, or a good DE who will sit on the sidelines. Who's to say Long or Clady won't be a "star", or for that matter that Dorsey, Ellis, or Ryan will? Noone knows.

Fact is, I'll be happy w/ anything we take, even if it's not what I want. Sorry Brock if any of this came off as too condecending, but hey, at least I'm not Mecca.:D

____aturnis (wishing he was Mecca) :rolleyes:


:thumb: Nice post!

milkman
03-29-2008, 09:18 AM
Would it make any sense if lets say Matt Ryan fell to NE and NE should draft him because he is the BPA at #7? Of course not! That would be stupid.

Actually, the Pats drafting Matt Ryan might be an excellent idea.

They could use some good young LBs, and corners, but who do they have backing up Brady.

Matt Cassell.

If Brady goes down, they're ****ed.

milkman
03-29-2008, 09:19 AM
:thumb: Nice post!

Really?

I thought it was a shitty post.

I fell asleep halfway through.

Brock
03-29-2008, 09:24 AM
It's several paragraphs worth of rationalization for simplistic thinking, but other than that, I liked it.

RedThat
03-29-2008, 10:26 AM
Actually, the Pats drafting Matt Ryan might be an excellent idea.

They could use some good young LBs, and corners, but who do they have backing up Brady.

Matt Cassell.

If Brady goes down, they're ****ed.

So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

milkman
03-29-2008, 10:39 AM
So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

Good move?

No.

I'm saying it isn't a suckass move that actually kind of makes sense.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 10:41 AM
So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

You really think Tom Brady is going to play until he's 41?

People forget that they guy turns 31 in August. He has 3 rings, a shit-ton of money and is the type to retire earlier in his career, not later.

RedThat
03-29-2008, 11:35 AM
You really think Tom Brady is going to play until he's 41?

People forget that they guy turns 31 in August. He has 3 rings, a shit-ton of money and is the type to retire earlier in his career, not later.

At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

Sure-Oz
03-29-2008, 11:38 AM
I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck till he got his brains beat in

milkman
03-29-2008, 11:40 AM
At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

But he did have an ankle injury in the AFC Championship that was underplayed
going into the SB.

One of the reasons that he takes so few hits is his pocket awareness and ability to slide away from pressure.

Watching him the SB, that bothered him a hell of a lot more than anyone is willing to admit.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 11:41 AM
At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck till he got his brains beat in

COULD he play until he's 41? Probably.

WILL he WANT to?

What else is there to play for?

I'd really be surprised if he plays more than 3-4 more years.

Sure-Oz
03-29-2008, 11:42 AM
COULD he play until he's 41? Probably.

WILL he WANT to?

What else is there to play for?

I'd really be surprised if he plays more than 3-4 more years.

He'll retire when the Pat's have no o-line and start coming back down to earth, so probably within a 3 or 4 year window you'd think?

Frankie
03-29-2008, 11:43 AM
Please, Frankie. Tell us where you see ACTUAL talent on this team.

Not "I think this guy MIGHT be talented," but TRUE talent.

Then tell us how many of those guys are age 28 or over.

You mean aside from TG, LJ, DJ, JA, Hali, Waters, Bowe, et al.? We also have players like Boone and McIntosh and Donny Edwards who are at least good for holding the fort while we are rebuilding. How about players who are developing who at least have a 50-50 chance to become solid? People like our two safeties, Croyle, Smith, Webb (yes, Webb), Tank and Turk. I'm pretty excited about seeing which ones will become contributors. Your cup is all empty. Mine is half full.

milkman
03-29-2008, 11:43 AM
I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck While Willie Roaf was here

FYP

Sure-Oz
03-29-2008, 11:44 AM
FYP

QFTLMAO

Frankie
03-29-2008, 11:46 AM
It's become painfully obvious where the dividing line is in this argument.

There's the group who isn't thinking a day past December 31, 2008.

And then there's the group who is more concerned about 2010, 2011, etc.

Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

milkman
03-29-2008, 11:49 AM
Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

No, cause going with a strategy that builds a team with a talent core, rather than addressing specific need, is clearly shortsighted.

Brock
03-29-2008, 11:51 AM
Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

Not if you're not getting the best possible player from the draft. And you probably aren't when you suffer from tunnel vision like some of you do.

Frankie
03-29-2008, 11:51 AM
No, you're just saying draft LT with the first draft pick regardless of what else is available. It's really stupid.

NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 11:52 AM
You mean aside from TG, LJ, DJ, JA, Hali, Waters, Bowe, et al.? We also have players like Boone and McIntosh who are at least good for holding the fort while we arte rebuilding. How about players who are developing who at least have a 50-50 chance to become solid? People like our two safeties, Croyle, Smith, Webb (yes, Webb), Tank and Turk. I'm pretty excited about seeing which ones will become contributors. Your cup is all empty. Mine is half full.

You just completely ignored my post.

ACTUAL TALENT. Not who you think has a CHANCE to be talented.

Being excited about who will become a contributor is great. I'm looking forward to that as well.

But as of 11:46am on March 29th, there is little TRUE talent on this team.

Gonzalez and Waters have maybe 2 years left. They won't be here when this team turns the corner.

We can only HOPE that LJ is the same after a foot injury last year and a 400+ carry season the year before.

Jared Allen is one mistake away from a year-long vacation.

Dwayne Bowe had an excellent rookie year. Now he needs to PROVE he can do it year after year.

Bowe, DJ and Hali are about the only talented players you can count on being here when the rebuild is over - building blocks.

The fact that you even mentioned Boone and McIntosh tells me your homer level. Through the roof.

You want to see talent? Young players that are the building block of an organization?


Philip Rivers
LaDainian Tomlinson
Nick Hardwick
Marcus McNeill
Antonio Gates
Chris Chambers
Igor Olshansky
Jamal Williams
Luis Castillo
Shaun Phillips
Shawne "roidman" "roidman" Merriman
Antonio Cromartie


THAT is talent you build around. Not a whopping 2-3 players.

milkman
03-29-2008, 11:55 AM
NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

If you feel you absolutely need to draft an OT early this year, wouldn't it be better to draft an elite level prospect at 5, then trade up into the late first round to get a shot at Sam Baker?

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 11:55 AM
Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

ROFLROFLROFL

Brock
03-29-2008, 11:58 AM
NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

No, there are tackles to be had later. And my guess is the Chiefs won't be drafting a LEFT tackle at all.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 12:01 PM
If you feel you absolutely need to draft an OT early this year, wouldn't it be better to draft an elite level prospect at 5, then trade up into the late first round to get a shot at Sam Baker?

This place should be a blast to be around on draft day.

The nervous posts saying "it's OK, we'll get an OT in the 2nd" when Jake Long is gone before we pick in R1.

The anticipation hoping Baker is there in the 2nd, and the ensuing calls for a reach for Collins if he's not.

I have a feeling people are going to be disappointed come Saturday night when we have ZERO offensive linemen through R2.

Then we'll be at DefCon 5 when we pass on an offensive linemen in the 3rd.



If Baker isn't there at #35, I'd be willing to bet we don't see an O-lineman drafted until R4 or later.

Brock
03-29-2008, 12:03 PM
This place should be a blast to be around on draft day.

The nervous posts saying "it's OK, we'll get an OT in the 2nd" when Jake Long is gone before we pick in R1.

The anticipation hoping Baker is there in the 2nd, and the ensuing calls for a reach for Collins if he's not.

I have a feeling people are going to be disappointed come Saturday night when we have ZERO offensive linemen through R2.

Then we'll be at DefCon 5 when we pass on an offensive linemen in the 3rd.



If Baker isn't there at #35, I'd be willing to bet we don't see an O-lineman drafted until R4 or later.

I predict I will be doing a lot of laughing at this board on draft weekend.

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

milkman
03-29-2008, 12:22 PM
Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

I'm going to qoute my post from another thread to address this post.

Here's the thing.

Tre Stallings started 48 games in college, Herb Taylor started in 48, and Rudy Niswanger started in 29.

Taylor and Niswanger showed pretty well in the games they played in last year, and appear to be ready to step in and play.

Fact is, if the Chiefs hadn't started off the season with the moronic belief that they were a playoff team and played these guys, along with Brodie Croyle, starting in game one, we might have found out that we have some OL building blocks in Niswanger and taylor.

The league is littered with players on the O-Line that started a lot of college games, were drafted on the seond day, and have become solid starters.

Our needs on the O-Line may not be as great as some/most think.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 12:27 PM
I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

First, you just advocated reaching based on need by taking Clady.

Second, Gholston wouldn't be a reach.

Third, 7 of the Top 10 players in this draft play defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.


I'm fine with taking Long IF he's there.

I'm not fine with reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when we'd be passing on some combination of Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, etc.

alanm
03-29-2008, 12:30 PM
I predict I will be doing a lot of laughing at this board on draft weekend.
I'm already planning out my snacking menu now. :D

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 12:31 PM
I'm already planning out my snacking menu now. :D

LMAO

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:32 PM
In the same breath Tank and Turk faded later in the year (spending most of every game on the field way to much) Still have great potential. Boone and Edwards were at least adequate.
Our needs on the D-line may not be as great as some/most might think.

Brock
03-29-2008, 12:37 PM
In the same breath Tank and Turk faded later in the year (spending most of every game on the field way to much) Still have great potential. Boone and Edwards were at least adequate.
Our needs on the D-line may not be as great as some/most might think.

Defensive linemen rotate. The Chiefs probably need one more in the middle and another end or two.

Tribal Warfare
03-29-2008, 12:37 PM
In the same breath Tank and Turk faded later in the year (spending most of every game on the field way to much) Still have great potential. Boone and Edwards were at least adequate.
Our needs on the D-line may not be as great as some/most might think.


It's not about need, it's about quality, if one has a chance to draft an elite player if it's not a position of "need" then select that player. It's like saying Would you want Warren Sapp or John Tait. One is a game changer, and the other is solid player nothing more.

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:38 PM
Gholston is a lazy game day guy who had a great workout. Clady is a 2-3 spot "reach". Gholston doesnt fit our Defense and would have to take time to learn to play the run while we hope he starts giving every play. I only hope the Raiders take him so we can run at him all day long and forget him by the 4th quarter. NOT and elite prospect. ONCE AGAIN 2-3 spots isnt a reach otherwise all the teams would just take the next guy on the overall players list.

milkman
03-29-2008, 12:38 PM
In the same breath Tank and Turk faded later in the year (spending most of every game on the field way to much) Still have great potential. Boone and Edwards were at least adequate.
Our needs on the D-line may not be as great as some/most might think.

No one is suggesting that D-Line is a great need.

We are saying that the D-Line can really become dominant with a rotation that includes a dominating DT, and one of those is very likely to be available when we are up at 5.

If Jake Long is gone, selecting Dorsey or Ellis over Ryan Clady is a no brainer.

I'd take them over Long, since I don't believe he's the elite LT prospect that others do, but I won't be pissed if he's there and the Chiefs take him.

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:39 PM
Defensive linemen rotate. The Chiefs probably need one more in the middle and another end or two.

O=linemen dont and we dont even have starters at most positions let alone solid backups

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 12:42 PM
In the same breath Tank and Turk faded later in the year (spending most of every game on the field way to much) Still have great potential. Boone and Edwards were at least adequate.
Our needs on the D-line may not be as great as some/most might think.

Wow.

The only other DT on the roster right now is TJ Jackson, if that tells you anthing about our lack of depth.

Boone is 32 and Edwards is 35. Tanks and Turk BETTER work out, because right now, they are all we have at DT for the future.

We're in even worse shape at DE.

Allen and Hali are the only DE's on the roster.

I'd say that DL is a pretty damn strong need.

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:44 PM
No one is suggesting that D-Line is a great need.

We are saying that the D-Line can really become dominant with a rotation that includes a dominating DT, and one of those is very likely to be available when we are up at 5.

If Jake Long is gone, selecting Dorsey or Ellis over Ryan Clady is a no brainer.

I'd take them over Long, since I don't believe he's the elite LT prospect that others do, but I won't be pissed if he's there and the Chiefs take him.

I agree. I'm not sure I'd take Ellis first, but I Think more of Long (see 1 penalty and 2 sacks his entire college career. But Dorsey, C. Long are dominant game changers who have the potential to be perennial Pro-Bowlers almost immediately.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 12:44 PM
Gholston is a lazy game day guy who had a great workout. Clady is a 2-3 spot "reach". Gholston doesnt fit our Defense and would have to take time to learn to play the run while we hope he starts giving every play. I only hope the Raiders take him so we can run at him all day long and forget him by the 4th quarter. NOT and elite prospect. ONCE AGAIN 2-3 spots isnt a reach otherwise all the teams would just take the next guy on the overall players list.

I notice you keep mentioning Gholston, but avoid mentioning Dorsey or Ellis.....

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 12:47 PM
I agree. I'm not sure I'd take Ellis first, but I Think more of Long (see 1 penalty and 2 sacks his entire college career. But Dorsey, C. Long are dominant game changers who have the potential to be perennial Pro-Bowlers almost immediately.

Not picking on you, but since you said it....

Why are people so hung up on Long's 1 penalty and 2 sacks?

If he got to play Michigan's schedule again this year, that might be of interest.

He has to play against 16 of the best DE's in the world. The best of the best.

Baby Lee
03-29-2008, 12:52 PM
perennial Pro-Bowlers almost immediately.
Isn't that by definition impossible? ;)

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:53 PM
Wow.

The only other DT on the roster right now is TJ Jackson, if that tells you anthing about our lack of depth.

Boone is 32 and Edwards is 35. Tanks and Turk BETTER work out, because right now, they are all we have at DT for the future.

We're in even worse shape at DE.

Allen and Hali are the only DE's on the roster.

I'd say that DL is a pretty damn strong need.

Your right we do need both. Like I said in my last post Dorsey especially would be understandable to choose over Long (I dont think there is a chance in Hell we have to deal with that decision). I dont think we're going to have many choices as we will choose the elite player that is left on the board, I just dont think that if we're taking a player who is not a top 5-6 player (depending on what we think of Ryan and McFadden) then I'd rather go for an OT who has the potential to be the best LT in this draft and I've never seen ranked lower than 2nd and would be on the field every play, over a workout warrier who is an incomplete player and is ranked from 2-8 at a position where he will be rotating with 2 better players on our roster.

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:54 PM
Isn't that by definition impossible? ;)

touche':hmmm:

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:56 PM
Not picking on you, but since you said it....

Why are people so hung up on Long's 1 penalty and 2 sacks?

If he got to play Michigan's schedule again this year, that might be of interest.

He has to play against 16 of the best DE's in the world. The best of the best.

It just shows where he is at his position. Joe Thomas didnt do that in college. It speaks to his readyness and ability. ---not saying he's a better all around T than Thomas...
But questions about his pass-blocking are greatly exagerrated.

melbar
03-29-2008, 12:58 PM
I notice you keep mentioning Gholston, but avoid mentioning Dorsey or Ellis.....

mentioned somewhere above.

Man its hard to keep up with the flying posts!:)

aturnis
03-29-2008, 01:09 PM
I'm not fine with reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when we'd be passing on some combination of Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, etc.

Not one single person on this board has even implied taking Otah at #5, not one, so drop that please. You've beat it to death. If anyone wants Otah, it's on a trade down scenario.

As for Clady, I guess if you consider that a reach, but whatever.

milkman
03-29-2008, 01:09 PM
It just shows where he is at his position. Joe Thomas didnt do that in college. It speaks to his readyness and ability. ---not saying he's a better all around T than Thomas...
But questions about his pass-blocking are greatly exagerrated.

Exaggerated?

His footwork is awkward.

When he has to go against Sean Phillips ot Dwight Freeny, that's going to be a big problem.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:09 PM
It just shows where he is at his position. Joe Thomas didnt do that in college. It speaks to his readyness and ability. ---not saying he's a better all around T than Thomas...
But questions about his pass-blocking are greatly exagerrated.

Joe Thomas is also more athletic and can handle speed rushers, there is serious debate as to whether Long can do that or not....

If Long can't handle speed rushers and ends up on the right side which is basically everything his game is, he becomes a wasted pick in the top 5.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:11 PM
Exaggerated?

His footwork is awkward.

When he has to go against Sean Phillips ot Dwight Freeny, that's going to be a big problem.


It's that whole people go "oh Gholston was 1 game" well in the NFL you face guys like him, even better every single week...a LT that struggles with speed rushers is a liability.

milkman
03-29-2008, 01:14 PM
Not one single person on this board has even implied taking Otah at #5, not one, so drop that please. You've beat it to death. If anyone wants Otah, it's on a trade down scenario.

As for Clady, I guess if you consider that a reach, but whatever.

Here's how I look at it.

There are elite prospects at the the top of the board.

The 2 Longs, Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, Mcfadden, and Ryan.

Clady is in the next level.

If you select a guy that isn't in that elite prospect category, then he absolutely is a reach.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 01:22 PM
Not one single person on this board has even implied taking Otah at #5, not one, so drop that please. You've beat it to death. If anyone wants Otah, it's on a trade down scenario.

As for Clady, I guess if you consider that a reach, but whatever.

You need to go read DraftPlanet if you actually believe no one is advocating taking Otah at 5.

After his name popped up on a mock draft at 5, people started trying to justify it.

And Clady IS a reach if Dorsey or Ellis ( or even Matt Ryan) are still on the board.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:25 PM
I'll give people a quick newsflash here......if you see Ryan Clady listed as the 8th,9th or 10th best player on a draft board and then say taking him at 5 isn't a reach, that makes you not very bright.

In the top 5 the difference in a reach and good value can be 1 pick, this isn't the difference in the 5th and 6th round.

Brock
03-29-2008, 01:27 PM
easyb said he'd take Otah and said he'd prefer a trade down. I'm not sure if that means he'd require a trade down or not.

Frankie
03-29-2008, 01:29 PM
I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

Do you consider Jake Long at 5, Clady at (say) 10 or Otah at (say) 17 reaches?

Frankie
03-29-2008, 01:31 PM
If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good.

Only if he played for another team than the Chiefs.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:31 PM
If you advocate trading out of 5 with a top 5 rated player on the board to take Clady at 10 just because he's an OT then yes, because it just placates position ahead of player.

Brock
03-29-2008, 01:33 PM
Do you consider Jake Long at 5, Clady at (say) 10 or Otah at (say) 17 reaches?

Not necessarily. They may not be the best players you could get at those spots though.

Brock
03-29-2008, 01:34 PM
Only if he played for another team than the Chiefs.

Or if he'd done it more than once.

Frankie
03-29-2008, 01:35 PM
So it should just be assumed that we can continue building our offensive line with low round draft picks? Then why haven't guys like Brett Williams, Kevin Sampson, Tre' Stallings, Will Svitek, Jordan Black, etc. worked out?

And we had more invested in that line than just a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA. Roaf was a 1st round pick by New Orleans that ended up costing us a 3rd round pick. And ever since we lost 1st round pick Tait right tackle has been a revolving door.

Excellent post.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 01:35 PM
Do you consider Jake Long at 5, Clady at (say) 10 or Otah at (say) 17 reaches?

I know this was directed at Brock, but here's my thoughts.

Long is not a reach at 5, but isn't going to be there.

Clady and Otah are both reaches at those positions IMO, because they aren't even the 2nd and 3rd best OT's in the draft.

I think Chris Williams should/could go around 12, Clady around 15 and Otah somewhere after 20.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:36 PM
I personally think Chris Williams has a better chance of succeeding as a LT in the league than Long does because speed rushers don't give him problems.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 01:38 PM
Excellent post.

Well, ****.

If we're basing our draft on history, the I guess we're REALLY limited as to who we can pick.

I mean, who's the last QB, OT, C, DT, MLB, or CB we've drafted that has "worked out?"

AVOID THEM ALL. CARL ****ED UP BACK IN (insert year here)......

Frankie
03-29-2008, 01:38 PM
No team, absolutely NO team takes BPA in rounds 1-7. It just doesn't happen. At some point you have to reach for a need. Should we reach in the 1st round? No. But after that if you have a guy ranked slightly lower but you feel he can be a good player and you believe he won't be there in the next round by all means the team should use a draft pick on that player then.

Siavii in the 2nd = reach
Getting a player in the position of need a couple of places earlier in a projected round = Good drafting. Not a reach.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:42 PM
Siavii in the 2nd = reach
Getting a player in the position of need a couple of places earlier in a projected round = Good drafting. Not a reach.

In the top ten that makes it a reach, like I said this isn't the 5th round a couple spots is a really big deal in the top 10, even more so in the top 5.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 01:42 PM
Siavii in the 2nd = reach
Getting a player in the position of need a couple of places earlier in a projected round = Good drafting. Not a reach.

:spock:

Go look at the past drafts of the Colts, Patriots and Chargers and tell me how they reached based on need.

I'll warn you, it's gonna take a while.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:43 PM
:spock:

Go look at the past drafts of the Colts, Patriots and Chargers and tell me how they reached based on need.

I'll warn you, it's gonna take a while.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Like when everyone was screaming that the Colts needed defense and they drafted, Dallas Clark, what a bunch of morons huh?

That Bill Polian he has no idea what he's doing by taking the best players, Frankie would hate him as GM despite him know what he's doing.

OnTheWarpath58
03-29-2008, 01:45 PM
Like when everyone was screaming that the Colts needed defense and they drafted, Dallas Clark, what a bunch of morons huh?

That Bill Polian he has no idea what he's doing by taking the best players, Frankie would hate him as GM despite him know what he's doing.

Yep, or Anthony Gonzalez last year.

Mecca
03-29-2008, 01:48 PM
Yep, or Anthony Gonzalez last year.

Some people here have been following this team way to long and have lost touch with how the guys who know what they are doing do things...

If you want to see contending teams built primarily through the draft...Indy and SD, you want to strive to be like them, how many times have they reached on players because of need?

Makes me laugh to see people around here talk shit on AJ Smith or the Chargers he's done an awesome job and built a hell of a team we should want to strive to be like them.