PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Rank our needs going into the draft!


cmh6476
04-23-2008, 08:54 AM
DE, OT, CB, WR, OG, DT, CB, PK, QB, S

???


:shrug:

markk
04-23-2008, 08:55 AM
"yes"

Sully
04-23-2008, 08:56 AM
GM
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

Molitoth
04-23-2008, 08:57 AM
DE > OT > OG > CB

Molitoth
04-23-2008, 08:58 AM
lol@ GM

DaKCMan AP
04-23-2008, 08:58 AM
Our needs = BPA

PhillyChiefFan
04-23-2008, 09:00 AM
GM
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

ROFL

Coogs
04-23-2008, 09:00 AM
We have a first round pick at DE in Hali. He was dinged up last season. DE is definately a need, but not our biggest need.

cmh6476
04-23-2008, 09:00 AM
Our needs = BPA



While that may be our best avenue in approaching this draft, that's not what I'm really asking here. I'm asking what positions are our weakest links on the team as it currently stands.

and yeah the GM inclusion was pretty clever :)

keg in kc
04-23-2008, 09:01 AM
1a: Everything
1b: Everything else

Chiefnj2
04-23-2008, 09:02 AM
I think it begins and ends with a new owner and new GM.

cmh6476
04-23-2008, 09:02 AM
We have a first round pick at DE in Hali. He was dinged up last season. DE is definately a need, but not our biggest need.

I think DL has to rank up there. Losing Allen makes our DL look pretty weak, I think Hali really benefited by having a player like Allen playing opposite him. DL has to be up there just as much if not more than the OL IMO.

Sully
04-23-2008, 09:04 AM
With the 5th pick in the 2008 NFL Draft (presented by Hummer) the Kansas City Chiefs select:

Bill Polian, Indianapolis, In

cmh6476
04-23-2008, 09:05 AM
GM
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

LB? We basically have 4 NFL starters on the roster, I think we have a lot more needs at other positions than at LB. Not saying we won't address LB in the draft with the talent pool, but I see that as probably our strongest position moving forward...

Coogs
04-23-2008, 09:06 AM
I think DL has to rank up there. Losing Allen makes our DL look pretty weak, I think Hali really benefited by having a player like Allen playing opposite him. DL has to be up there just as much if not more than the OL IMO.

Oh it is definately a need. But not necessarily our biggest need.

Sully
04-23-2008, 09:08 AM
LB? We basically have 4 NFL starters on the roster, I think we have a lot more needs at other positions than at LB. Not saying we won't address LB in the draft with the talent pool, but I see that as probably our strongest position moving forward...

1) How many productive years does Donnie Edwards have?
2) How good is Nap Harris? IMO, not very... Harris=Mitchell.
3) Why was WIlliams so easy to get? He had a good year in Atlanta, but he's not a star... and according to Herm, not even a starter.

KCFalcon59
04-23-2008, 09:11 AM
GM
HC
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

Fixed your post.

patteeu
04-23-2008, 09:16 AM
GM
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

I'll go with this list, minus the GM at the top. And I'd throw WR in there, probably ahead of LB.

Hoover
04-23-2008, 09:21 AM
1. OT
2. DT
3. CB
4. QB
5. OG
6. WR
7. OT2
8. OC
9. FB
10. DE
11. TE
12. K
13. DE2

tiptap
04-23-2008, 09:21 AM
I would go with OT

DT

DE

OG

LB

Hoover
04-23-2008, 09:22 AM
Carls Draft Board

LT
LG
C
RG
RT
TE
FB
HB
QB
WR1
WR2
K
KR

sedated
04-23-2008, 09:30 AM
1a: Everything
1b: Everything else

here here

cmh6476
04-23-2008, 09:40 AM
1) How many productive years does Donnie Edwards have?
2) How good is Nap Harris? IMO, not very... Harris=Mitchell.
3) Why was WIlliams so easy to get? He had a good year in Atlanta, but he's not a star... and according to Herm, not even a starter.

yeah, you're probably right. I guess that's the position that's the most locked down at this point I guess, but as far as talent you're probably right.

Sully
04-23-2008, 09:44 AM
I'll go with this list, minus the GM at the top. And I'd throw WR in there, probably ahead of LB.

The only reason I left WR off the list is because we are not going to throw the ball that much, so it's not a priority to find another #1 guy. A solid #2, which can be found further down the line would work fine. I'd love to find another star to put with Bowe, to really get defenses out of the box... but in the end I don't think it would matter, when it comes to teams seeing our offensive gameplan.

Brock
04-23-2008, 09:47 AM
With a team this shitty, the ranking of needs doesn't matter.

Mizzou_8541
04-23-2008, 09:51 AM
GM
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

ROFLROFLROFL

TrebMaxx
04-23-2008, 11:05 AM
IMO the only position I think is not a worry is the Punter. There are so many holes this team needs to fill they just need to take BPA this draft and will probably need to do the same in next years draft.

OnTheWarpath58
04-23-2008, 11:07 AM
Our needs = BPA

1a: Everything
1b: Everything else

With a team this shitty, the ranking of needs doesn't matter.

IMO the only position I think is not a worry is the Punter. There are so many holes this team needs to fill they just need to take BPA this draft and will probably need to do the same in next years draft.


These four posts pretty much sum it up.

alanm
04-23-2008, 11:08 AM
Is it too late to cut Carl's ass before he can do any more damage?

alanm
04-23-2008, 11:10 AM
I'll go with this list, minus the GM at the top. And I'd throw WR in there, probably ahead of LB.
Minus the GM? F*ck, Carl needs to go most of all.

Bweb
04-23-2008, 11:37 AM
Oline & Dline - gotta solidify (as much as possible) the front lines! :harumph:

patteeu
04-23-2008, 12:04 PM
Minus the GM? F*ck, Carl needs to go most of all.

If there's one thing Carl's done well during his tenure as Chiefs' GM, it was building a solid team out of the ashes left to him by Jack Steadman. I dare say that he has more to work with this time around than he did back in 1989. And given that he's likely to retire soon, the Chiefs will be able to make a change by the time we need someone who can take us all the way to the top.

I think there's a lot of reason to be optimistic about this new era of Chiefs football. And I think it would be great if Carl could retire on his own terms after restocking the cupboards and setting the team up for a 1990's style rebirth for Clark Hunt. :)

Coogs
04-23-2008, 12:06 PM
If there's one thing Carl's done well during his tenure as Chiefs' GM, it was building a solid team out of the ashes left to him by Jack Steadman. I dare say that he has more to work with this time around than he did back in 1989. And given that he's likely to retire soon, the Chiefs will be able to make a change by the time we need someone who can take us all the way to the top.

I think there's a lot of reason to be optimistic about this new era of Chiefs football. And I think it would be great if Carl could retire on his own terms after restocking the cupboards and setting the team up for a 1990's style rebirth for Clark Hunt. :)

As long as the new guy doesn't come in and want to get rid of all the players from the CP era and start over with his own guys.

Brock
04-23-2008, 12:10 PM
If there's one thing Carl's done well during his tenure as Chiefs' GM, it was building a solid team out of the ashes left to him by Jack Steadman.

The Chiefs already had most of the defense in place when Peterson took over.

Frankie
04-23-2008, 12:15 PM
1a- DE (hopefully Chris Long)
1b- LOT (Hopefully Otah, because Clady and Alberts will be gone by 17)
2- CB (Hopefully not Flowers)
3a- OG (hopefully Rachal)
3b- DT (Will the Notre Dame guy last until this spot?)
3c- CB (I'm open for suggestions)
4- O-lineman (I'm open for suggestions)
5a- Best WR left or a FB.
5b- BPA
6a- BPA
6b- BPA
7a- BPA
7b- BPA

Frosty
04-23-2008, 12:25 PM
Needs order (not draft order)

DE (not even any bodies there now)
OG/C (depending on where they play Niswanger)
CB
ROT
C/OG
LOT
RB
S
K
every else, except punter

I think the O-line needs help but probably not as much as everyone thinks. I think a real offensive coordinator will make a huge difference and will be able to scheme to allow some of the young guys, like Taylor and Niswanger, to have some success.

Chief Wiggum
04-23-2008, 12:26 PM
All of these posts are pretty insightful. Here's my list:

OL (Barely nudges out DL)
DL
CB
QB
WR
K
TE
RB

I purposely didn't name individual positions for the lines, because I think we need to take the BPA per line. Just because we need an OT more than we need a G, if a better G is available, I think we need to take him first. (As long as it's not a reach)

I rated OL over DL (narrowly) because we are going to need to get those guys some reps together before our offense starts coming together which will probably be next year. DL is important, though, because if we want any chance of being in games this year, our D will need to show up and not having JA will take a serious toll on our D.

BIG_DADDY
04-23-2008, 12:35 PM
All of these posts are pretty insightful. Here's my list:

GM
HC
OL (Barely nudges out DL)
DL
CB
QB
WR
K
TE
RB

I purposely didn't name individual positions for the lines, because I think we need to take the BPA per line. Just because we need an OT more than we need a G, if a better G is available, I think we need to take him first. (As long as it's not a reach)

I rated OL over DL (narrowly) because we are going to need to get those guys some reps together before our offense starts coming together which will probably be next year. DL is important, though, because if we want any chance of being in games this year, our D will need to show up and not having JA will take a serious toll on our D.


Fixed it for ya

milkman
04-23-2008, 12:36 PM
The Chiefs already had most of the defense in place when Peterson took over.

And a pretty solid O-Line, as well.

DT was the player that lifted that defense to the top of the heap, and that really was a no brainer pick.

In the end, this team was competitive (in the regular season) with DT, and pretty sorry without him.

I think even Jack Steadman would have made that selection.

patteeu
04-23-2008, 01:04 PM
And a pretty solid O-Line, as well.

DT was the player that lifted that defense to the top of the heap, and that really was a no brainer pick.

In the end, this team was competitive (in the regular season) with DT, and pretty sorry without him.

I think even Jack Steadman would have made that selection.

Looking back, you guys are correct, but there weren't many people in KC in 1988 who believed that the franchise was 1 or 2 players away from being a real contender for the better part of a decade. But I stand corrected as to whether or not the cupboard was really bare.

KCChiefsMan
04-23-2008, 01:05 PM
at #5 you take the best player available on this team. If we were the Patriots and needed a safety or a LB then you could reach, but we need everything almost!

Frankie
04-23-2008, 01:06 PM
DT was the player that lifted that defense to the top of the heap, and that really was a no brainer pick.

Are you sure? I remember the Chiefs were pretty even about the two Thomases, Derrick and Brodrick. That we chose Derrick could very well have been a role performed by a coin.

plbrdude
04-23-2008, 01:29 PM
GM
OT
CB
DL
LB
OG
K

HC ok?

Sully
04-23-2008, 01:32 PM
HC ok?

HC can wait.

Get the players, then the coach. (AFTER the new GM is hired).

ChiefsCountry
04-23-2008, 01:34 PM
And a pretty solid O-Line, as well.


We had Alt but it was the 1990 draft that helped us for the rest of the decade when Grunhard and Szott were added.