PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs If you are satisfied the Chiefs have a QB they can rely on..........


Logical
11-11-2008, 11:58 PM
..... Would you draft a QB in the first round? If not who would you draft?

Tribal Warfare
11-11-2008, 11:59 PM
Yes, I'd draft Stafford and let them compete for the job.

Guru
11-12-2008, 12:01 AM
I think they should go with a QB but with Detroit getting the first pick that screws thing up.

Logical
11-12-2008, 12:07 AM
Yes, I'd draft Stafford and let them compete for the job.That would be a good situation, unless Detroit finds a way to lose he is not likely to be available. Who is your second choice?

Mr Luzcious
11-12-2008, 12:10 AM
If Thigpen plays out the rest of the season this well, then I don't have a problem with holding off on drafting a qb. Especially if Detroit does wind up with the first pick.

Guru
11-12-2008, 12:12 AM
That would be a good situation, unless Detroit finds a way to lose he is not likely to be available. Who is your second choice?If Detroit finds a way to lose? Aren't they perfect in that regard right now? :D

Logical
11-12-2008, 12:30 AM
If Detroit finds a way to lose? Aren't they perfect in that regard right now? :DYou got me, they are really excelling right now.

TrickyNicky
11-12-2008, 12:33 AM
So if Thigpen fleshes out, does that mean that KC actually developed a QB? Or does it not count since he was a PS'er.

Tribal Warfare
11-12-2008, 01:10 AM
That would be a good situation, unless Detroit finds a way to lose he is not likely to be available. Who is your second choice?

I still like Bradford, but if we are talking 3rd to 5th round prospects then it's John Parker Wilson

Logical
11-12-2008, 01:11 AM
So if Thigpen fleshes out, does that mean that KC actually developed a QB? Or does it not count since he was a PS'er.I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves. He has not really won a game on his own yet.

TrickyNicky
11-12-2008, 01:13 AM
And yet the topic of your thread assumes we are satisfied with a QB. Would that not imply that he has won a game and the starting job?

dj56dt58
11-12-2008, 01:19 AM
So if Thigpen fleshes out, does that mean that KC actually developed a QB? Or does it not count since he was a PS'er.

if he pans out..they developed him, nobody else

Gravedigger
11-12-2008, 01:21 AM
Stafford or bust.

Guru
11-12-2008, 01:39 AM
Stafford or bust.Hope you are ready for disappointment then. Oh, I guess you already know about that. heh

btlook1
11-12-2008, 01:39 AM
Draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th. Let them compete if the new guy has promise that's if Thiggy plays out the rest of year good. Let's fill some of our other needs. We could sign a free agent QB to get us by if Thiggy fails next year or go with the new guy.
We need a pass rush badly! We also need a MLB, RT. and a center/guard type if he's available. We got lots of cap room so we can fill in with a few free agents for back ups also!
Is Leftwich a free agent next year? He would make a great back up if Thiggy fails or gets hurt.

KCChiefsMan
11-12-2008, 02:29 AM
maybe 2nd or 3rd round. But you have to keep going with Thigpen, I don't care if it is the spread or not, it's working.

DaneMcCloud
11-12-2008, 02:31 AM
So if Thigpen fleshes out, does that mean that KC actually developed a QB? Or does it not count since he was a PS'er.

He was never on the Chief practice squad

JuicesFlowing
11-12-2008, 02:39 AM
You can never have enough QB's.

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 02:41 AM
I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves. He has not really won a game on his own yet.

You can thank the long snapper for that.

chiefs1111
11-12-2008, 02:41 AM
..... Would you draft a QB in the first round? If not who would you draft?

If they don't look at a QB in round 1,I think DE is where they should go. Knowing Herm though,he will take a kicker or a long snapper......

JuicesFlowing
11-12-2008, 02:42 AM
You can thank the long snapper for that.

And coaching (against the Jets.)

CrazyPhuD
11-12-2008, 02:46 AM
If thiggy does well for the rest of the season then I think you draft BPA. If the best player is QB you still draft the QB. If thiggy flounders then there may be more push for a QB, but still we shouldn't reach. Trade down if the player we want isn't there.

PhillyChiefFan
11-12-2008, 06:27 AM
If Thigpen plays well throughout the end of the year, I would like to see them draft Brian Orakpo or Michael Johnson as a solid pass rusher.

Then in the 2nd either Josh Freeman or a good RT to get MacIndouche off the line. Line blows huge holes through defenses next year, and Thiggy throws for 300+ and 3 touches a game. And our defense mauls olines and ferociously attacks QB's in the backfield before a pass can escape their grip. If they run Glenn Dorsey and Orakpo split the runner in half forcing a fumble on their way to being the top defensive scoring team in the country...

Print em. :D

milkman
11-12-2008, 06:55 AM
Thigpen has been a pleasant surprise, but I want Stafford.

King_Chief_Fan
11-12-2008, 07:16 AM
I am satisfied only if the Croyle experiment is over. If it is, Thigpen has the job to lose competing with whoever is added to the QB roster.

Red Beans
11-12-2008, 07:30 AM
Draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th. Let them compete if the new guy has promise that's if Thiggy plays out the rest of year good. Let's fill some of our other needs. We could sign a free agent QB to get us by if Thiggy fails next year or go with the new guy.
We need a pass rush badly! We also need a MLB, RT. and a center/guard type if he's available. We got lots of cap room so we can fill in with a few free agents for back ups also!
Is Leftwich a free agent next year? He would make a great back up if Thiggy fails or gets hurt.

Bingo

PRIEST
11-12-2008, 08:03 AM
Thigpen has been a pleasant surprise, but I want Stafford.



Ditto.This has been the Chiefs achilles heel for a long time,need a franchise QB,not someone's bad experiment.Coaching has to be addressed also (Dick Curl is no Fuc#king QB coach)I do not care if he slept in a Holiday inn.

Kerberos
11-12-2008, 08:16 AM
But...But...But....JWhit says we need Nate Davis from Ball State?

You guys wouldn't question JWhits eye for talent would you? :spock:

ROFL

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 08:29 AM
Yes, I'd draft Stafford and let them compete for the job.

That never happens.

If Stafford is drafted, there will be enormous pressure from the fans, media, and front office (who has to justify paying $70 m to a backup) to start him. I have rarely seen a situation where a top 10 QB didn't eventually weasel his way into a starting lineup, regardless of if he actually earned the job.

That's why I don't like the idea of drafting stafford. A true QB competition would be bringing in a 2nd round pick who makes minimal money the opportunity to COMPETE to win a starting job. Not a competition in which a top 10 QB is guaranteed a starting job in the next 1 or 2 years regardless of how well Thigpen plays.

You might say that the Chiefs should be smart enough to avoid that conflict, but we saw how much Peterson babied LJ to ensure that he didn't screw up on the pick.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 08:37 AM
But...But...But....JWhit says we need Nate Davis from Ball State?

You guys wouldn't question JWhits eye for talent would you? :spock:

ROFL

I often disagree with Whitlock, but Nate Davis is an intriguing prospect, especially if the top guys are gone.

The kid has some talent, and I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him go on the first day. His biggest downfall, IMO is his footwork, but that can be easily remedied.

Nebraska fans remember him, that's for sure.

400+ yards, 3 TD and 0 INT in Lincoln as a true sophomore. Came within 2 points of upsetting the Huskers last year.

I wouldn't have a problem with him as a "Plan B".

mlyonsd
11-12-2008, 08:41 AM
This is a great question but is being asked too early IMO. Let's see what happens the rest of the season. Right now I'm liking Thigpen and hope we can hold out on a QB in the draft until the 3rd or 4th round.

Brock
11-12-2008, 08:41 AM
We're going to get a DE, IMO.

StcChief
11-12-2008, 08:43 AM
Detriot schedule doesn't look like any W's are in it... but never know.
Chiefs likely get 1 or 2 more Ws. so consider Stafford GONE.

If Thiggy continues to play well.... our pressing needs elsewhere say 2nd rounder for QB.

John_Wayne
11-12-2008, 08:50 AM
..... Would you draft a QB in the first round? If not who would you draft?

Thiggy as QBotF

then..........

RT or DE in the 1st
DE or LB in the 2nd
QB in the 3rd

milkman
11-12-2008, 08:50 AM
Detriot schedule doesn't look like any W's are in it... but never know.
Chiefs likely get 1 or 2 more Ws. so consider Stafford GONE.

If Thiggy continues to play well.... our pressing needs elsewhere say 2nd rounder for QB.

If Thiggy continues to play well, and Detroit lands the first pick and they take Stafford, then the lack of another high draft prospect at QB dictates addressing another pressing need.

I can't comment on a couple of guys, like Nate Davis, that I haven't seen, but of the QBs that I have seen, I don't see a second round prospect.

Frosty
11-12-2008, 09:07 AM
I often disagree with Whitlock, but Nate Davis is an intriguing prospect, especially if the top guys are gone.

The kid has some talent, and I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him go on the first day. His biggest downfall, IMO is his footwork, but that can be easily remedied.

I have watched parts of BSU's last two games and have been impressed with Davis. The only thing is that he doesn't look very tall.

Fish
11-12-2008, 09:12 AM
BPA always always always......

BigChiefFan
11-12-2008, 09:22 AM
Yes, lets' put all of our eggs in one basket, like we have for twenty plus years. That way when Thigpen starts to struggle or gets injured we can have NOBODY to count on- sounds like a Carl plan to me.

Brock
11-12-2008, 09:30 AM
Yes, lets' put all of our eggs in one basket, like we have for twenty plus years. That way when Thigpen starts to struggle or gets injured we can have NOBODY to count on- sounds like a Carl plan to me.

What was your idea again?

BigChiefFan
11-12-2008, 09:31 AM
What was your idea again?I'd tell you, but you'd just find something to bash about it.:D

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 09:32 AM
You take a QB, either Stafford or Bradford and let them two battle it out.... No way do we just sit on our asses and let one of these guys go by...

PastorMikH
11-12-2008, 09:38 AM
If Thiggy keeps playing at this level I may not draft a 1st round QB, but I would be drafting a first day QB as well as signing a competent older veteran in the off season to serve as a backup (Let him and Huard compete for the backup spot). At this point, as much as I was pulling for Croyle, his injuries are a real problem, you don't cut a first day pick QB, and if we are competitive next season, the veteran backup is important, so that would leave Croyle at #4 in my book on the Chiefs roster. The only way I could see keeping him is if his knee is still rehabing and he could be on the PUP or IR list next season.

If Thiggy keeps playing like he has the last three games, here's my QB rotation next year...

1. Thiggy
2. Older Veteran QB
3. First day Draft pick

If the game is a complete blowout either way, in the 4th I'd pull Thiggy and play the Draft Pick QB. If Draft Pick QB gets hurt, Thiggy and Old Vet are ineligible because Draft Pick QB came in, we'd run some direct snaps to the RB or let Brady throw the ball.

Pitt Gorilla
11-12-2008, 09:39 AM
We're going to get a DE, IMO.I hope so. We need a sure-fire pass-rusher.

duncan_idaho
11-12-2008, 09:40 AM
Josh Freeman is definitely not worth a second-round pick to the Chiefs.

I think the coaching he has received so far has seriously retarded his growth. He obviously has huge physical skill, but he is severely lacking in a lot of other areas (touch, accuracy, consistency). Freeman is a 2-4 year project before he's even ready to be a No. 2 qb. He could be an excellent second-round pick for a team that is able to sit him long enough to develop, but for a team with big needs? How do you wait that long on the second guy you pick?

The Chiefs have too many holes to take a long-term project at QB in round 2. Round 3, MAYBE, if you have multiple picks.

I never thought I'd back Whitlock up about a Ball State guy, but Nate Davis looks pretty legit. Great arm strength (only guy other than Ryan Mallet that I think can rival Stafford's), good accuracy, very good mobility, and a knack for making plays. He also knows when to throw his fastball and when to drop a pass in with great touch.

Ball State plays a lot of those MAC Tuesday games. I'd recommend catching Ball State in action to anyone who wants the Chiefs to draft a QB.

The only real question is whether Davis is really 6-2. I'm not sure he is, and that could hurt him.

Pitt Gorilla
11-12-2008, 09:41 AM
I realize I'm a homer, but it might be worth it to bring in a guy like Chase Patton. He's got a cannon for an arm and is incredibly bright.

Sully
11-12-2008, 09:44 AM
If it comes to our pick, and a QB is the best player available, you take him. If he's not, you take the BPA.

Demonpenz
11-12-2008, 09:45 AM
Tebow and if tebow isn't there a lineman

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 09:47 AM
If it comes to our pick, and a QB is the best player available, you take him. If he's not, you take the BPA.

:clap:

Good Idea, but hopefully we can pick up a franchise QB....

Sully
11-12-2008, 09:49 AM
:clap:

Good Idea, but hopefully we can pick up a franchise QB....

I'd love it.
But if that guy isn't there, you don't force the pick.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 09:51 AM
I'd love it.
But if that guy isn't there, you don't force the pick.

Agree 100%, we are still on pace to land either Stafford or Bradford.... If we can keep this up, we just might have a shot at drafting our very own franchise QB, This could very well be a historical event in Chiefs football...

duncan_idaho
11-12-2008, 09:57 AM
I realize I'm a homer, but it might be worth it to bring in a guy like Chase Patton. He's got a cannon for an arm and is incredibly bright.

He also would continue the outstanding tradition, started by Croyle, of Chiefs' QBs having extremely hot wives.

So he's got that going for him, which is nice...

Simply Red
11-12-2008, 10:00 AM
Hope you are ready for disappointment then. Oh, I guess you already know about that. heh

Not necessarily, but maybe.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:09 AM
Hope you are ready for disappointment then. Oh, I guess you already know about that. heh

Anymore, after 20 years of disappointment, I wouldnt be surprised to see the Chiefs draft a Center or MLB with the first pick, while both Stafford and Bradford are still on the board..

Then cut the pick 3 weeks into the new season for a simple fumbled exchanged or a missed takle at the goalline....

Hell if they cut for missed takles, we wouldnt even have a defense.. LMAO

Chiefs Pantalones
11-12-2008, 10:12 AM
I'd still draft a QB in the first round, yes.

L.A. Chieffan
11-12-2008, 10:19 AM
If Stafford is there take him, if not, 1st round QB in '10.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:19 AM
If Stafford is there take him, if not, 1st round QB in '10.

What about Bradford? Why not him? They both will grade out about the same....

L.A. Chieffan
11-12-2008, 10:23 AM
What about Bradford? Why not him? They both will grade out about the same....

From what I've heard and read he's not coming out. He's kinda got this Brokie Croyle thing bout him too.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:24 AM
From what I've heard and read he's not coming out. He's kinda got this Brokie Croyle thing bout him too.

Ah okay.... I live in OKC, there really isnt much talk on the local hacks sports radio about him leaving early....

Groves
11-12-2008, 10:25 AM
BPA always always always......

QFT

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 10:27 AM
If it comes to our pick, and a QB is the best player available, you take him. If he's not, you take the BPA.

Blindly taking BPA in the top 10 of the draft isn't good policy. It's exactly the kind of move that has Oakland taking BPA at a position they are already very deep at. THe top 10 pick is one that will almost certainly start for you the next 1 or 2 years and will likely make over $70 M. He better be more than just a role player. In the top 10, everyone's good enough to be a starter. So if you take BPA at a position you don't need, you pass up the opportunity to draft a surefire starter at a position you DO need.

I can understand some rumblings for Stafford. But if he's off the board, you don't take BPA. You do everything in your power to trade down, even if you're not wowed by the compensation you get in return. I'd rather draft at a lower spot, pay the first round draft pick $20 M less, and get a player in a position we badly need to fill than settle for a BPA tackle or CB or WR that is really far down on our priority list.

Trade down. At the #10-15 slot or wherever we land, take BPA among Orakpo, Maualuga, Mays, and Laurinitis. And then use that extra second round pick or whatever on a starting guard or center. I'd rather get two players at a position of need than a star player at a position we're already pretty good at.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:31 AM
Blindly taking BPA in the top 10 of the draft isn't good policy. It's exactly the kind of move that has Oakland taking BPA at a position they are already very deep at. THe top 10 pick is one that will almost certainly start for you the next 1 or 2 years and will likely make over $70 M. He better be more than just a role player. In the top 10, everyone's good enough to be a starter. So if you take BPA at a position you don't need, you pass up the opportunity to draft a surefire starter at a position you DO need.

I can understand some rumblings for Stafford. But if he's off the board, you don't take BPA. You do everything in your power to trade down, even if you're not wowed by the compensation you get in return. I'd rather draft at a lower spot, pay the first round draft pick $20 M less, and get a player in a position we badly need to fill than settle for a BPA tackle or CB or WR that is really far down on our priority list.

Trade down. At the #10-15 slot or wherever we land, take BPA among Orakpo, Maualuga, Mays, and Laurinitis. And then use that extra second round pick or whatever on a starting guard or center. I'd rather get two players at a position of need than a star player at a position we're already pretty good at.

Trading down costs more than you are giving it credit for.... There are formulas in place for that... Jumping from the mid round to a top 2-3 pick will cost a franchise dearly....

You damn sure better be wowed by the compenstation... You just dont drop top 3 picks just to say a measly 20 million.....

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Trading down costs more than you are giving it credit for.... There are formulas in place for that... Jumping from the mid round to a top 2-3 pick will cost a franchise dearly....

You damn sure better be wowed by the compenstation... You just dont drop top 3 picks just to say a measly 20 million.....

There are plenty of teams that would trade up for a franchise left tackle. Now more than ever, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find these guys in free agency.

Like I said, there are formulas in place for trade comp, but it's ridiculous that teams won't accept a trade unless it meets the chart. If KC moves down three or four spots and only gets a second rounder and maybe a 3rd or 4th rounder in return, that's a freaking steal.

WHo do you think makes a bigger impact on the Chiefs? Maualuga? Or Andre Smith or Michael Crabtree? That's pretty easy. But at spot #3, that's a ridiculous reach for Maualuga, but the BPA is Smith or Crabtree. You trade down, grab extra picks (even if it's not exactly what they draw out on the draft comp chart), and you pay the guy $10-20 million less. You end up getting the guy you really want instead of settling for someone else, you pay him less money, and you get some picks on the side.

Why do teams continue to stubbornly cling to picks for players that aren't on the top of their wish list? I don't know why the draft value chart has become some kind of a bible. If you don't think any of the BPA available fits your needs, then trade down and get the best compensation you can get.

Fish
11-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Blindly taking BPA in the top 10 of the draft isn't good policy. It's exactly the kind of move that has Oakland taking BPA at a position they are already very deep at. THe top 10 pick is one that will almost certainly start for you the next 1 or 2 years and will likely make over $70 M. He better be more than just a role player. In the top 10, everyone's good enough to be a starter. So if you take BPA at a position you don't need, you pass up the opportunity to draft a surefire starter at a position you DO need.

I can understand some rumblings for Stafford. But if he's off the board, you don't take BPA. You do everything in your power to trade down, even if you're not wowed by the compensation you get in return. I'd rather draft at a lower spot, pay the first round draft pick $20 M less, and get a player in a position we badly need to fill than settle for a BPA tackle or CB or WR that is really far down on our priority list.

Trade down. At the #10-15 slot or wherever we land, take BPA among Orakpo, Maualuga, Mays, and Laurinitis. And then use that extra second round pick or whatever on a starting guard or center. I'd rather get two players at a position of need than a star player at a position we're already pretty good at.

Going in with the goal that "if Player X isn't there, then trade down", is a recipe for disaster. Trading down is not easy at all. You can't just trade down because you want to, it doesn't work that way.

And there are very few positions, if any, that we couldn't use a guaranteed starter. With a team with this many holes, BPA is the only way to go.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Going in with the goal that "if Player X isn't there, then trade down", is a recipe for disaster. Trading down is not easy at all. You can't just trade down because you want to, it doesn't work that way.

And there are very few positions, if any, that we couldn't use a guaranteed starter. With a team with this many holes, BPA is the only way to go.

QFT

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:44 AM
There are plenty of teams that would trade up for a franchise left tackle. Now more than ever, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find these guys in free agency.

Like I said, there are formulas in place for trade comp, but it's ridiculous that teams won't accept a trade unless it meets the chart. If KC moves down three or four spots and only gets a second rounder and maybe a 3rd or 4th rounder in return, that's a freaking steal.

WHo do you think makes a bigger impact on the Chiefs? Maualuga? Or Andre Smith or Michael Crabtree? That's pretty easy. But at spot #3, that's a ridiculous reach for Maualuga, but the BPA is Smith or Crabtree. You trade down, grab extra picks (even if it's not exactly what they draw out on the draft comp chart), and you pay the guy $10-20 million less. You end up getting the guy you really want instead of settling for someone else, you pay him less money, and you get some picks on the side.

Why do teams continue to stubbornly cling to picks for players that aren't on the top of their wish list? I don't know why the draft value chart has become some kind of a bible. If you don't think any of the BPA available fits your needs, then trade down and get the best compensation you can get.

If you trade down, you better get thier number 1 next year and a 2nd or third as well as a 2nd and 3rd this year... Trading from the top 3 is not a good idea at any level of sports. You have a chance to draft an immediate impact player, you better draft him and change your plans to feature him. We have so many holes that a franchise player in the top 3 spots can fill...

I see your reasoning, but with this team at this state, you need an impact player from the top 3...

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 10:50 AM
Going in with the goal that "if Player X isn't there, then trade down", is a recipe for disaster. Trading down is not easy at all. You can't just trade down because you want to, it doesn't work that way.

And there are very few positions, if any, that we couldn't use a guaranteed starter. With a team with this many holes, BPA is the only way to go.

Trading down isn't hard if teams wouldn't so stubbornly cling to some stupid draft chart that's supposed to serve as a guide, and not the law. The draft chart does not account, for example, for the fact that some draft years are deeper than others. It assumes that a trade for Alex Smith has the same value as a trade for Eli Manning.

There will be teams on the phone for our pick. I can guarantee it. And if KC can sack up and accept a deal, even if it's slightly lower than the draft chart, they can do it.

Like I said... Maualuga, Mays, Laurinitis, these are guys that would be tremendous upgrades for KC in positions they sorely need. Crabtree, Andre Smith, Michael Oher... these are the guys that will probably be BPA when we draft.

So again... forget about draft spot. Forget about draft rankings. Forget about where these guys are supposed to be drafted. Who makes the biggest impact on the Chiefs? The answer is Maualuga. Isn't it outrageous that teams for teams not on the top of their wish list because they don't want to reach for him? And why? Because your trading partner wants to offer a 4th round pick instead of a 3rd rounder?

Sully
11-12-2008, 10:50 AM
Blindly taking BPA in the top 10 of the draft isn't good policy. It's exactly the kind of move that has Oakland taking BPA at a position they are already very deep at. THe top 10 pick is one that will almost certainly start for you the next 1 or 2 years and will likely make over $70 M. He better be more than just a role player. In the top 10, everyone's good enough to be a starter. So if you take BPA at a position you don't need, you pass up the opportunity to draft a surefire starter at a position you DO need.

I can understand some rumblings for Stafford. But if he's off the board, you don't take BPA. You do everything in your power to trade down, even if you're not wowed by the compensation you get in return. I'd rather draft at a lower spot, pay the first round draft pick $20 M less, and get a player in a position we badly need to fill than settle for a BPA tackle or CB or WR that is really far down on our priority list.

Trade down. At the #10-15 slot or wherever we land, take BPA among Orakpo, Maualuga, Mays, and Laurinitis. And then use that extra second round pick or whatever on a starting guard or center. I'd rather get two players at a position of need than a star player at a position we're already pretty good at.

A) I disagree. You live by BPA. Not going BPA gets you players like Akili Smith.
B) Everyone always wants to talk about trading down...as if there is always that option.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:51 AM
Trading down isn't hard if teams wouldn't so stubbornly cling to some stupid draft chart that's supposed to serve as a guide, and not the law. The draft chart does not account, for example, for the fact that some draft years are deeper than others. It assumes that a trade for Alex Smith has the same value as a trade for Eli Manning.

There will be teams on the phone for our pick. I can guarantee it. And if KC can sack up and accept a deal, even if it's slightly lower than the draft chart, they can do it.

Like I said... Maualuga, Mays, Laurinitis, these are guys that would be tremendous upgrades for KC in positions they sorely need. Crabtree, Andre Smith, Michael Oher... these are the guys that will probably be BPA when we draft.

So again... forget about draft spot. Forget about draft rankings. Forget about where these guys are supposed to be drafted. Who makes the biggest impact on the Chiefs? The answer is Maualuga. Isn't it outrageous that teams for teams not on the top of their wish list because they don't want to reach for him? And why? Because your trading partner wants to offer a 4th round pick instead of a 3rd rounder?

I think you have to remember who is in charge Chiefzilla....

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 10:52 AM
A) I disagree. You live by BPA. Not going BPA gets you players like Akili Smith.
B) Everyone always wants to talk about trading down...as if there is always that option.

Teams are always going to trade up either... The compensation is to great...

You get the most for your pick you can, either in compensation of the best impact player avaliable. That is just the way it is, this isnt Madden....

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 10:56 AM
If you trade down, you better get thier number 1 next year and a 2nd or third as well as a 2nd and 3rd this year... Trading from the top 3 is not a good idea at any level of sports. You have a chance to draft an immediate impact player, you better draft him and change your plans to feature him. We have so many holes that a franchise player in the top 3 spots can fill...

I see your reasoning, but with this team at this state, you need an impact player from the top 3...

Let me ask again, who makes a bigger impact for the Chiefs?
Maualuga/Mays/Laurinitis or Crabtree/Albert Smith/Michael Oher?

Let's ask this question again with the way you phrased it. Who makes a bigger impact for the Chiefs?
Maualuga/Laurinitis/Mays or forcing Albert Smith at a RT position we have no idea what to expect out of... or Oher at LT forcing Albert to RT having no idea what to expect from him at that position?

The choice is pretty simple:
You trade down, you could land one impact player in Maualuga/Laurinitis/Mays. You also could easily land a second round pick, which is a perfect spot to land a key OLB, Center, or Guard who will likely start for you right away.

You stay in place and you either reach and overpay for a player, or you force a very good player to play out of position.

We get two immediate starters (maybe more on a tradedown) vs. only one if we stay put. For a team that has a lot of holes, this seems like the better approach to me.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 10:58 AM
Teams are always going to trade up either... The compensation is to great...

You get the most for your pick you can, either in compensation of the best impact player avaliable. That is just the way it is, this isnt Madden....

To move up a few spots, you could easily convince a team to also give away a second rounder and probably another pick on the side. The compensation is not that outrageous, if teams were willing to be flexible.

I recognize who is in charge and that CP is too bullheaded to do it. But that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 11:01 AM
Let me ask again, who makes a bigger impact for the Chiefs?
Maualuga/Mays/Laurinitis or Crabtree/Albert Smith/Michael Oher?

Let's ask this question again with the way you phrased it. Who makes a bigger impact for the Chiefs?
Maualuga/Laurinitis/Mays or forcing Albert Smith at a RT position we have no idea what to expect out of... or Oher at LT forcing Albert to RT having no idea what to expect from him at that position?

The choice is pretty simple:
You trade down, you could land one impact player in Maualuga/Laurinitis/Mays. You also could easily land a second round pick, which is a perfect spot to land a key OLB, Center, or Guard who will likely start for you right away.

You stay in place and you either reach and overpay for a player, or you force a very good player to play out of position.

We get two immediate starters (maybe more on a tradedown) vs. only one if we stay put. For a team that has a lot of holes, this seems like the better approach to me.

Trading down is fine, as long as you get the proper compensation for the pick.... I am not opposed to it, especially if we cant land Stafford. But we better get their next years #1 as well.... And alot depends on where you are trading to and from....

I see what your saying, but you dont trade just to trade with minimal compensation for the trade value...

Reerun_KC
11-12-2008, 11:02 AM
To move up a few spots, you could easily convince a team to also give away a second rounder and probably another pick on the side. The compensation is not that outrageous, if teams were willing to be flexible.

I recognize who is in charge and that CP is too bullheaded to do it. But that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

No it doesnt mean its wrong, but you dont want to short your team just for the reason of trading down and getting more picks..

You have to look at the over all value of those said picks, and the value of the players on the board when those said picks come up. There is alot more to it than just trading down... I know you understand that....

Plus alot of it depends on the distance between your pick and the team that is trading picks with you. YOU have to know the value....

Fish
11-12-2008, 11:07 AM
Trading down isn't hard if teams wouldn't so stubbornly cling to some stupid draft chart that's supposed to serve as a guide, and not the law. The draft chart does not account, for example, for the fact that some draft years are deeper than others. It assumes that a trade for Alex Smith has the same value as a trade for Eli Manning.

There will be teams on the phone for our pick. I can guarantee it. And if KC can sack up and accept a deal, even if it's slightly lower than the draft chart, they can do it.

Like I said... Maualuga, Mays, Laurinitis, these are guys that would be tremendous upgrades for KC in positions they sorely need. Crabtree, Andre Smith, Michael Oher... these are the guys that will probably be BPA when we draft.

So again... forget about draft spot. Forget about draft rankings. Forget about where these guys are supposed to be drafted. Who makes the biggest impact on the Chiefs? The answer is Maualuga. Isn't it outrageous that teams for teams not on the top of their wish list because they don't want to reach for him? And why? Because your trading partner wants to offer a 4th round pick instead of a 3rd rounder?

Again... trading down is a luxury. Not a plan. And teams will stubbornly stick to the draft chart. It's a frickin business. We can't make them trade just because we want to. And we won't take a lesser deal just because we want Player X. We play by the draft rules, one teams doesn't make the rules.

And we're not in the situation where we can afford to give a 3rd when a 4th would have been fair compensation. We have too many holes to fill. That 3rd instead of a 4th could add another quality player. And adding another quality player is better for us than sweetening a deal for a specific target player. We still need quantity just as much as quality right now.

Extra Point
11-12-2008, 11:10 AM
I like the idea of picking a O or D lineman in the first. It doesn't look like the first round will have Stafford, Tebow, Bradford, Davis, and Harrell picked.

Does anyone think that Carl trading down will lower ticket/parking prices? I thought so.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 11:10 AM
A) I disagree. You live by BPA. Not going BPA gets you players like Akili Smith.
B) Everyone always wants to talk about trading down...as if there is always that option.

The Akili Smith is a horrible example and one you only used to conveniently fit your argument. BPA also has the Raiders taking Darren McFadden, when they have Fargas and Michael Bush. It has the Lions taking Calvin Johnson when they could have taken Joe Thomas or Brady Quinn and Mike WIlliams instead of taking Ware or Merriman. For years, the Lions have been sticking strictly to a BPA philosophy and because of that, they have a history of drafting WR after WR after WR! You don't draft players you don't need! You think the Lions don't regret not having taken Merriman, Ware, Joe Thomas, and Brady Quinn? You think the Raiders won't regret not taking Dorsey?

The Pats, on the other hand, recognized that they didn't need the BPA (Sedrick Ellis), they traded down, got Jerod Mayo and guess what... the kid has 65 tackles for that team as a rookie. You know what the Saints gave up? Only a 3rd rounder. The Pats knew the guy they needed, traded down to get him, and now they have a potential rookie pro bowler.

Brock
11-12-2008, 11:12 AM
The Lions and Raiders are poor examples of what you're calling BPA. Very poor.

KCUnited
11-12-2008, 11:13 AM
Let me ask again, who makes a bigger impact for the Chiefs?
Maualuga/Mays/Laurinitis or Crabtree/Albert Smith/Michael Oher?


A franchise DE available when the Chiefs pick will have a bigger impact than any of those players.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 11:15 AM
Again... trading down is a luxury. Not a plan. And teams will stubbornly stick to the draft chart. It's a frickin business. We can't make them trade just because we want to. And we won't take a lesser deal just because we want Player X. We play by the draft rules, one teams doesn't make the rules.

And we're not in the situation where we can afford to give a 3rd when a 4th would have been fair compensation. We have too many holes to fill. That 3rd instead of a 4th could add another quality player. And adding another quality player is better for us than sweetening a deal for a specific target player. We still need quantity just as much as quality right now.

If we have the #3 pick, to trade down a few spots, all it would take is a second round pick. To trade down all the way to #10, it would probably take 2 second round picks or next year's first. It's not that much to ask for.

And yes, teams SHOULD stop adhering to the draft chart. Like I said, draft classes differ every year in talent level. THere is no reason that the same chart should be used in the 2008 draft as the 2006 draft.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 11:15 AM
The Lions and Raiders are poor examples of what you're calling BPA. Very poor.

Calvin Johnson, McFadden, Mike Williams were all BPA when they were drafted.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 11:17 AM
Again... trading down is a luxury. Not a plan. And teams will stubbornly stick to the draft chart. It's a frickin business. We can't make them trade just because we want to. And we won't take a lesser deal just because we want Player X. We play by the draft rules, one teams doesn't make the rules.

And we're not in the situation where we can afford to give a 3rd when a 4th would have been fair compensation. We have too many holes to fill. That 3rd instead of a 4th could add another quality player. And adding another quality player is better for us than sweetening a deal for a specific target player. We still need quantity just as much as quality right now.

I swear to God.

People that use "Trade Down" as a legitmate draft strategy should be fucking perma-banned or neg-repped into the fucking stone ages. These people apparently have no concept of how the draft really works.

When was the last time a team traded INTO the Top 5?

Hell, even trades INSIDE the Top 5 are rare. IIRC, it's happened twice in the last 8 years. (Vick/LT and Rivers/Manning - and you could argue that the Rivers/Manning trade was forced by Manning)

Teams in this day and age have no desire to move into the Top 5, for several reasons:

They take on WAY more salary than they would have at their original slot.

They give up WAY too much in regards to future picks as compensation.

Example:

Last year, people had mentioned trading up to grab Matt Ryan.

It would have taken our 1st round pick, (#5) our 2nd round pick, and TWO of our 3rd round picks. To move up THREE spots.

So if it cost that much to move from 5 to 2, what makes people think teams are going to be falling all over themselves to move up from even later in the draft?

IF, and I repeat - IF this was a draft class that was relatively weak, with just a handful of guys with elite grades - then MAYBE someone gets an itchy trigger finger and moves up for a guy. But in a draft class as deep as this one, with a TON of talent in the 1st, there's really no reason for anyone to give up the extra picks and extra money for ONE GUY.

Dear God, people. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard about something doesn't make it happen against all odds.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 11:19 AM
A franchise DE available when the Chiefs pick will have a bigger impact than any of those players.

They would be, but you have to assume there is one out there. Orakpo and Michael Johnson will need to prove big-time during the combines that they'll be anything more than one-dimensional pass rushers. Orakpo could become one, but I bet that there are many that question whether he can stop the run well enough to be an every-down DE. That's the only pick I could maybe justify sticking around for.

People don't realize that just because a player falls to the middle of the first round, that he has no ability to be an impact player. In fact, the best LBs are taken at that time. And I'd say that Patrick Willis and Jerod Mayo have proven to be huge impact players. And LB happens to be a position we need most.

So again... can someone please tell me how Crabtree/Oher/Smith make a bigger impact on the Chiefs than Maualuga? Keep in mind not only what the player contributes to the team, but whether he provides a big enough upgrade over what we have to justify that. With Crabtree/Oher/Smith we have a mild upgrade from already good players to a very good player (probably). With Maualuga, you have a very good player replacing a very bad player.

Fish
11-12-2008, 11:20 AM
If we have the #3 pick, to trade down a few spots, all it would take is a second round pick. To trade down all the way to #10, it would probably take 2 second round picks or next year's first. It's not that much to ask for.

And yes, teams SHOULD stop adhering to the draft chart. Like I said, draft classes differ every year in talent level. THere is no reason that the same chart should be used in the 2008 draft as the 2006 draft.

Well.... politicians SHOULD stop lying too... but they ain't going to because I want them to. It's just the way it is.

And about a hundred other factors go into trading down/up on draft day. It's never as easy as just calling up another team and trading. You don't trade down for peanuts, just because you don't want to pay the BPA the "slotted" contract.

Brock
11-12-2008, 11:22 AM
Calvin Johnson, McFadden, Mike Williams were all BPA when they were drafted.

Calvin Johnson was a no-brainer, regardless of what players they had at that point. Fargas and Bush are not valid arguments against McFadden, even though that's not who I would have taken. And Mike Williams was a player that most teams knew wasn't worth a first round pick. The Lions and Raiders problem isn't the BPA approach. It's the fact that they're run by tards.

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 11:22 AM
To move up a few spots, you could easily convince a team to also give away a second rounder and probably another pick on the side. The compensation is not that outrageous, if teams were willing to be flexible.

I recognize who is in charge and that CP is too bullheaded to do it. But that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

This is hard core business. If a team wants to move up, then there is a certain player that they want really bad. That means that they MUST pay you value for your pick. You cannot let them know that you don't want to pick that high. It's negotiating, you can't give away your hand.
You field calls, you don't call other teams, and ask them if they want your pick. So pretty much knoe that the team calling wants someone pretty bad, and better be ready to pay up for it. Can you negotiate on compensation, yeah, but it better be close to value.

JimNasium
11-12-2008, 11:22 AM
I'm all for drafting a QB on day one of the draft but obviously who we draft is highly dependent on who comes out early and what position we are drafting at. I would also love to see this team try to trade for someone like Matt Leinart or Alex Smith. Sometimes a guy just needs a change of scenery and that's a risk I'd like to see the front office take.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 11:28 AM
If we have the #3 pick, to trade down a few spots, all it would take is a second round pick. To trade down all the way to #10, it would probably take 2 second round picks or next year's first. It's not that much to ask for.

And yes, teams SHOULD stop adhering to the draft chart. Like I said, draft classes differ every year in talent level. THere is no reason that the same chart should be used in the 2008 draft as the 2006 draft.

You should send a letter to all NFL teams, and tell them that you think the value chart is stupid.

:rolleyes:

To move up 3 slots from 6 to 3 would cost 800 points, or the equivilent of the 21st pick in the draft. Since few teams actually hold an extra 1st round pick, your looking at multiple 2nd/3rd round picks to make up the difference. No one is going to give up their entire draft to pick one guy.

To move up from the 10th spot to the 3rd? Two second round picks? You're fucking nuts.

They'd have to both be in the first 5 picks of the round to be worth it. And to get a 1st the following year, it would have to be 17th or better to gain the appropriate value, PLUS moving that far back limits your options - you now have 7 fewer guys you have a chance at.

TommyHawk69
11-12-2008, 11:33 AM
At pick three which is where we are more than likely to be picking you have to pick from who is there. Lions take Stafford Raiders take Oher and Chiefs take Orakpo or Johnson. Defensive ends that can rush the passer are in way higher demand than linebackers. They are found in every round!!! Trading down is not even a valid choice if one of those two guys are still on the board. OMG

TommyHawk69
11-12-2008, 11:35 AM
I'm all for drafting a QB on day one of the draft but obviously who we draft is highly dependent on who comes out early and what position we are drafting at. I would also love to see this team try to trade for someone like Matt Leinart or Alex Smith. Sometimes a guy just needs a change of scenery and that's a risk I'd like to see the front office take.

I am curious to which first rounders you are talking about that a change of scenery helped?

Sure-Oz
11-12-2008, 11:36 AM
What if Stafford is taken before us and Bradford is part of the draft class? I still almost would rather have Orakpo, even though the draft board gurus think he's the next peyton

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 11:37 AM
You should send a letter to all NFL teams, and tell them that you think the value chart is stupid.

:rolleyes:

To move up 3 slots from 6 to 3 would cost 800 points, or the equivilent of the 21st pick in the draft. Since few teams actually hold an extra 1st round pick, your looking at multiple 2nd/3rd round picks to make up the difference. No one is going to give up their entire draft to pick one guy.

To move up from the 10th spot to the 3rd? Two second round picks? You're ****ing nuts.

They'd have to both be in the first 5 picks of the round to be worth it. And to get a 1st the following year, it would have to be 17th or better to gain the appropriate value, PLUS moving that far back limits your options - you now have 7 fewer guys you have a chance at.

What would be the cost to move from 10th to 6th as the Saints did last year. The Patriots let em do it for a 3rd.

EDIT: I could be down with doing something like that, but no way I'd trade out of the top 4. One of the guys we want will still be there.

Duck Dog
11-12-2008, 11:38 AM
If Thiggy continues to play at this level,his confidence will sky rocket. It's the same kind of groove Brady and Romo got into. If we address Oline and get back to the running powerhouse we used to be Thiggy will only get better. He has the tools and makes good decisions.

That being said, in the first round I wouldn't pass on either Stafford or Bradford. If both are gone then I address OL with Michael Oher or Andre Smith. Both are capable of starting immediately.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 11:48 AM
What would be the cost to move from 10th to 6th as the Saints did last year. The Patriots let em do it for a 3rd.

EDIT: I could be down with doing something like that, but no way I'd trade out of the top 4. One of the guys we want will still be there.

Moving up from 10 to 6 would cost 300 points, or the equivilent to the 60th pick in the draft. (Late 2nd)

They should have asked for more.

And as you said, if we have a Top 4 pick in this draft class, we'd be fucking retarded to even think about moving back, unless someone offered us something ridiculous.

milkman
11-12-2008, 11:50 AM
If Thiggy continues to play at this level,his confidence will sky rocket. It's the same kind of groove Brady and Romo got into. If we address Oline and get back to the running powerhouse we used to be Thiggy will only get better. He has the tools and makes good decisions.

That being said, in the first round I wouldn't pass on either Stafford or Bradford. If both are gone then I address OL with Michael Oher or Andre Smith. Both are capable of starting immediately.

If the Chiefs take another LT with their first, I'm going to Arrowhead to start shooting people.

Taking a LT in back to back first rounds is ****ing stupid.

You people are ****ing dumbasses.

milkman
11-12-2008, 11:51 AM
What if Stafford is taken before us and Bradford is part of the draft class? I still almost would rather have Orakpo, even though the draft board gurus think he's the next peyton

I don't want to use a high first rounder on a guy who is, in all probability, system limited.

RustShack
11-12-2008, 11:52 AM
Some people would think having one of the best OG's to ever enter the draft play LT is pretty stupid too. But if thats so smart why wasn't Will Shields our starting LT whenever we lost Roaf?

Sure-Oz
11-12-2008, 11:52 AM
I don't want to use a high first rounder on a guy who is, in all probability, system limited.

I don't want to either, i'd thinke he'd fall to the teens. I'd rather take Orakpo or Johnson then

milkman
11-12-2008, 11:55 AM
Some people would think having one of the best OG's to ever enter the draft play LT is pretty stupid too. But if thats so smart why wasn't Will Shields our starting LT whenever we lost Roaf?

I called it long before anyone.

Albert was a LT in a guard's body.

Shields could have played LT capably, but he didn't have the same graceful and quick feet that Albert has.

milkman
11-12-2008, 11:55 AM
I called it long before anyone.

Albert was a LT in a guard's body.

Shields could have played LT capably, but he didn't have the same graceful and quick feet that Albert has.

Oh, and he also doesn't have the same wingspan.

Brock
11-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Shields has played left tackle for the Chiefs before, but he was 10 years younger.

Duck Dog
11-12-2008, 12:02 PM
You people are ****ing dumbasses.


Back at ya fuck face. Our Oline is the laughing stock of the NFL. A once powerful running game is now non existent. Anyone with a minimum amount of football knowledge knows that a running game is paramount. I really don't care if they address the Oline in the 1st 2nd or 3rd, as long as it's addressed.

Duck Dog
11-12-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm sure a LB/safety convert is more to your liking.

milkman
11-12-2008, 12:14 PM
Back at ya **** face. Our Oline is the laughing stock of the NFL. A once powerful running game is now non existent. Anyone with a minimum amount of football knowledge knows that a running game is paramount. I really don't care if they address the Oline in the 1st 2nd or 3rd, as long as it's addressed.

I just find it extremely frustrating to constantly see these posts for drafting another LT in the first round.

I agree the O-Line needs to be fixed, but it can be fixed with mid round players.

The Chiefs, when they had what was considerd the best line ever had only one first round pick invested in the line.

The Giants, who many consider to have the best in the league right now, don't have a single first round pick invested in their line.

There are a lot of good lineman to be had in the mid rounds.

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 12:14 PM
Some people would think having one of the best OG's to ever enter the draft play LT is pretty stupid too. But if thats so smart why wasn't Will Shields our starting LT whenever we lost Roaf?

Because WS is a gaurd. He's built like guard, and he better at guard. Albert was playing out of position in college to get the best players on the field. Albert projected as high as he did in the 1st because he was projected as a LEFT TACKLE, had anyone though he was going to play guard he would not have been picked that high.

duncan_idaho
11-12-2008, 12:19 PM
Because WS is a gaurd. He's built like guard, and he better at guard. Albert was playing out of position in college to get the best players on the field. Albert projected as high as he did in the 1st because he was projected as a LEFT TACKLE, had anyone though he was going to play guard he would not have been picked that high.

yeah, people forget that Albert played LG because of Monroe, who was the No. 1 LT recruit in his high school class.

Here's the real question: How did that team have such a terrible offense with two future NFL first-round picks playing side-by-side? You'd think they'd have at least been able to run the football to that side...

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Moving up from 10 to 6 would cost 300 points, or the equivilent to the 60th pick in the draft. (Late 2nd)

They should have asked for more.

And as you said, if we have a Top 4 pick in this draft class, we'd be ****ing retarded to even think about moving back, unless someone offered us something ridiculous.

Why should they have asked for more?

This is exactly the logic that blows my mind.

You're saying the Pats should have nixed a trade just because they didn't get the right trade comp. The Pats got the player they wanted and got an extra pick out of it. And now that player has 65 tackles.

By the logic of people here, it would have made more sense for the Pats to stay put and draft Ellis. Instead, they stupidly got an extra draft pick to draft the guy who might win DROY.

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 12:39 PM
Why should they have asked for more?

This is exactly the logic that blows my mind.

You're saying the Pats should have nixed a trade just because they didn't get the right trade comp. The Pats got the player they wanted and got an extra pick out of it. And now that player has 65 tackles.

By the logic of people here, it would have made more sense for the Pats to stay put and draft Ellis. Instead, they stupidly got an extra draft pick to draft the guy who might win DROY.

I think all he's saying was they probably COULD have gotten more. Not that they should have nixed the trade all together. N.O. WOULD have given up more to get Ellis. That I'm pretty sure of.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 12:41 PM
milkman, hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

People would rather draft a left tackle we don't need, move Albert to Right Guard, or move a guy like Smith to RT because they furiously defend this idea of BPA. Or they'd rather draft Crabtree, which would effectively bump Mark Bradley out of the starting lineup or into a far less important slot receiver role.

I can understand an argument for Stafford. But I'm amazed that there is so much pushback on drafting Maualuga or Laurinitis plus picks if we can work out a trade. I can accept that trading down will be difficult. But I would argue that teams too often turn down perfectly good trades because of this ridiculous notion of a draft chart.

The Chiefs shouldn't "settle" for a BPA. If Maualuga's the guy you want, then trade down as far as you can go and make him less of a reach. Better that than jamming a round peg into a square hole.

I just find it extremely frustrating to constantly see these posts for drafting another LT in the first round.

I agree the O-Line needs to be fixed, but it can be fixed with mid round players.

The Chiefs, when they had what was considerd the best line ever had only one first round pick invested in the line.

The Giants, who many consider to have the best in the league right now, don't have a single first round pick invested in their line.

There are a lot of good lineman to be had in the mid rounds.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 12:43 PM
I think all he's saying was they probably COULD have gotten more. Not that they should have nixed the trade all together. N.O. WOULD have given up more to get Ellis. That I'm pretty sure of.

My point is, there are so many here defending this ridiculous idea of a draft chart.

If you want a player, why are teams willing to reach because a team is only willing to offer a third rounder instead of a 2nd rounder? I just don't get it.

Picks are picks. If the Chiefs can field a competitive offer for a trade-down, they should do it, even if it doesn't match the draft value chart.

milkman
11-12-2008, 12:44 PM
milkman, hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

People would rather draft a left tackle we don't need, move Albert to Right Guard, or move a guy like Smith to RT because they furiously defend this idea of BPA. Or they'd rather draft Crabtree, which would effectively bump Mark Bradley out of the starting lineup or into a far less important slot receiver role.

I can understand an argument for Stafford. But I'm amazed that there is so much pushback on drafting Maualuga or Laurinitis plus picks if we can work out a trade. I can accept that trading down will be difficult. But I would argue that teams too often turn down perfectly good trades because of this ridiculous notion of a draft chart.

The Chiefs shouldn't "settle" for a BPA. If Maualuga's the guy you want, then trade down as far as you can go and make him less of a reach. Better that than jamming a round peg into a square hole.

While I agree with you on a couple of things here, I can't agree with you on taking less in a trade.

If a team is calling about a trade to get a player they covet, then you have the leverage.

You damn well better get the better part of that deal.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 12:49 PM
I think all he's saying was they probably COULD have gotten more. Not that they should have nixed the trade all together. N.O. WOULD have given up more to get Ellis. That I'm pretty sure of.

Exactly.

The Patriots left the equivilent of a mid-4th round pick on the table.

Would you rather have that pick, or just say, "eh, I'm feeling generous. I'm getting the player I want."

They were fully entitled to another pick, and passed. Color me crazy, but I'd rather have as many picks as I can get my hands on.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 12:50 PM
My point is, there are so many here defending this ridiculous idea of a draft chart.

If you want a player, why are teams willing to reach because a team is only willing to offer a third rounder instead of a 2nd rounder? I just don't get it.

Picks are picks. If the Chiefs can field a competitive offer for a trade-down, they should do it, even if it doesn't match the draft value chart.

It's only ridiculous to you.

I'm sure all 32 teams use this thing religiously just to piss you off...

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 12:51 PM
My point is, there are so many here defending this ridiculous idea of a draft chart.

If you want a player, why are teams willing to reach because a team is only willing to offer a third rounder instead of a 2nd rounder? I just don't get it.

Picks are picks. If the Chiefs can field a competitive offer for a trade-down, they should do it, even if it doesn't match the draft value chart.


Because you also run the risk of another team jumping up, grabbing the guy you want, and leaving you with a cleft asshole. You have to protect yourself with the proper compensation. There's no guarantee that guy your moving down to get will be there. Now you've missed out on the top prospects, your guy is gone, and there are abunch of 2nd tier guys available, at positions you don't need, AND no body else is calling to get into your spot.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 12:53 PM
While I agree with you on a couple of things here, I can't agree with you on taking less in a trade.

If a team is calling about a trade to get a player they covet, then you have the leverage.

You damn well better get the better part of that deal.

Exactly.

And trading back DOES NOT guarantee the player you're targeting will still be there.

That's why targeting a specific player is bad news.

This guy is advocating moving back, taking less compensation than entitled to, all to target a specific guy that MAY end up getting picked before our new selection slot.

Then what?

You've moved down, gotten less value in the deal, AND missed out on your target.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 12:53 PM
Because you also run the risk of another team jumping up, grabbing the guy you want, and leaving you with a cleft asshole. You have to protect yourself with the proper compensation. There's no guarantee that guy your moving down to get will be there. Now you've missed out on the top prospects, your guy is gone, and there are abunch of 2nd tier guys available, at positions you don't need, AND no body else is calling to get into your spot.

Beat me to it...

milkman
11-12-2008, 12:55 PM
Exactly.

And trading back DOES NOT guarantee the player you're targeting will still be there.

That's why targeting a specific player is bad news.

This guy is advocating moving back, taking less compensation than entitled to, all to target a specific guy that MAY end up getting picked before our new selection slot.

Then what?

You've moved down, gotten less value in the deal, AND missed out on your target.

See Igor Olshanski/Junior Siavii.

OnTheWarpath58
11-12-2008, 12:56 PM
See Igor Olshanski/Junior Siavii.

Headshot.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Because you also run the risk of another team jumping up, grabbing the guy you want, and leaving you with a cleft asshole. You have to protect yourself with the proper compensation. There's no guarantee that guy your moving down to get will be there. Now you've missed out on the top prospects, your guy is gone, and there are abunch of 2nd tier guys available, at positions you don't need, AND no body else is calling to get into your spot.

That's another illusion people have. That all the top prospects go in the top 5. That's simply not true. You can still get elite prospects from lower level positions. Maualuga, Laurinitis, Mays are still blue-chip prospects that will get taken in the bottom of the top 10 at the earliest.

It may be risky. But the reward is huge if you get draft picks plus the guy you wanted anyway. And the reward is still big if you have two guys you wanted, and you get the 2nd guy you want out of the two. It's a hell of a lot better than drafting a player you don't need and reaching for the player you want. It's even better when the Chiefs have not 1, not 2, but 3 players who could be blue-chip prospects in a trade-down.

the Talking Can
11-12-2008, 01:01 PM
maybe no one has noticed, but Albert is turning into a really, really good LT...considering he's a rookie, injured his elbow, and had never played the position, this is quite a feat...

why on earth do we want to draft another LT AND move Albert?

are we going for degree of difficulty points on this rebuild or what?

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 01:02 PM
See Igor Olshanski/Junior Siavii.

To my knowledge, Siavii was the chiefs' #1 target. I believe that was Gun's pick. They got the guy they wanted out of it.

milkman
11-12-2008, 01:07 PM
maybe no one has noticed, but Albert is turning into a really, really good LT...considering he's a rookie, injured his elbow, and had never played the position, this is quite a feat...

why on earth do we want to draft another LT AND move Albert?

are we going for degree of difficulty points on this rebuild or what?

It's really amaing, isn't it?

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 01:08 PM
We wouldn't be targeting a specific player. The best 5 players that fit the Chiefs' immediate and long-term needs are Stafford, Maualuga, Laurinitis, Mays, Orakpo. Stafford will be gone. And I think there's a very good chance that Orakpo projects to be a 3-4 OLB/DE rather than a pure DE, like Gholston was.

If that's the case, you have 3 guys who you really want who will last until the end of the top 10. Why wouldn't you at least trade down a few spots, and grab an extra pick.

Nobody has acknowledge that with a 2nd round pick, you can grab another starter. Guards, Centers, and LBs typically have very high success rates with that pick.

Exactly.

And trading back DOES NOT guarantee the player you're targeting will still be there.

That's why targeting a specific player is bad news.

This guy is advocating moving back, taking less compensation than entitled to, all to target a specific guy that MAY end up getting picked before our new selection slot.

Then what?

You've moved down, gotten less value in the deal, AND missed out on your target.

JimNasium
11-12-2008, 01:09 PM
I am curious to which first rounders you are talking about that a change of scenery helped?

Jim Plunkett comes to mind immediately.

**Edit** and so does Drew Brees (and I do realize that he was a second rounder).

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 01:11 PM
That's another illusion people have. That all the top prospects go in the top 5. That's simply not true. You can still get elite prospects from lower level positions. Maualuga, Laurinitis, Mays are still blue-chip prospects that will get taken in the bottom of the top 10 at the earliest.

It may be risky. But the reward is huge if you get draft picks plus the guy you wanted anyway. And the reward is still big if you have two guys you wanted, and you get the 2nd guy you want out of the two. It's a hell of a lot better than drafting a player you don't need and reaching for the player you want. It's even better when the Chiefs have not 1, not 2, but 3 players who could be blue-chip prospects in a trade-down.

Look dude, everyone has said it would be good to trade down, and get more picks, but you run a big risk of losing out on the guyS you want/need. No one even calls to move unless they are willing to give up what they are going to have to pay to make it happen. I don't even know if all these failed trades, that didn't happen because of the price was too high even transpired. These teams have an Idea of what they're gonna have to pay before they even make the call.

beach tribe
11-12-2008, 01:13 PM
To my knowledge, Siavii was the chiefs' #1 target. I believe that was Gun's pick. They got the guy they wanted out of it.

EERRRRRRR!!! Try Again.

milkman
11-12-2008, 01:15 PM
Jim Plunkett comes to mind immediately.

**Edit** and so does Drew Brees (and I do realize that he was a second rounder).

Drew Brees was on his way to becoming a really good QB in San Diego, so the change of scenery was really only a benefit to Phillip Rivers.

JimNasium
11-12-2008, 01:17 PM
Drew Brees was on his way to becoming a really good QB in San Diego, so the change of scenery was really only a benefit to Phillip Rivers.Drew didn't feel like he was wanted in San Diego. I think he blossomed in NOLA as a result. Sometimes a change of scenery is a good thing for a variety of reasons. YMMV.

milkman
11-12-2008, 01:18 PM
Drew didn't feel like he was wanted in San Diego. I think he blossomed in NOLA as a result. Sometimes a change of scenery is a good thing for a variety of reasons. YMMV.

YMMV?

JimNasium
11-12-2008, 01:18 PM
YMMV?

Your mileage may vary.

Brock
11-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Jim Plunkett comes to mind immediately.

**Edit** and so does Drew Brees (and I do realize that he was a second rounder).

I wouldn't throw Brees in there. But I would include Steve Young and maybe Vincent Testaverde.

Frankie
11-12-2008, 01:35 PM
..... Would you draft a QB in the first round? If not who would you draft?

If thiggy keeps playing like this, Freeman in the 2nd would be my strategy.

Tribal Warfare
11-12-2008, 03:03 PM
milkman, hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

People would rather draft a left tackle we don't need, move Albert to Right Guard, or move a guy like Smith to RT because they furiously defend this idea of BPA. .

Yeah, it really sucks to utilize the best players possible while solidifying the O-line if one has the chance.

Dicky McElephant
11-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Why wouldn't you at least trade down a few spots, and grab an extra pick.


Because there has to be someone that wants to trade up. It's not a given that you can always trade down.

Mecca
11-12-2008, 03:49 PM
Because there has to be someone that wants to trade up. It's not a given that you can always trade down.

Occasionally a team wants to trade up, but expecting it is expecting alot.

The thing is if a team is wanting to move its going to be likely for a QB or a DE..2 positions everyone would assume the Chiefs would be looking at, if the Chiefs finish behind Cincy with say the 3rd pick anyone wanting to move would likely want to get in front of the Chiefs...

Sfeihc
11-12-2008, 03:57 PM
Orakpo or Johnson and I'm good. We can get starting quality LB's and OL in the next few rounds.
How I'd like to see the Chiefs spend their seven draft picks. One each on a DE, CB and RB and two on LB's and OL.
QB Depth Chart
Thiggy
Gray
Croyle

Tell LJ to kick rocks.

chagrin
11-12-2008, 04:10 PM
" If you are satisfied the Chiefs have a QB they can rely on.........."

Since when does a few games (losing games) make a QB we can rely on exactly?


Oh yeah, when you are a silly, desperate fan. Get back to me after game 6 NEXT SEASON, assuming Tyler hasn't gone Derrick Anderson, Charlie Frye, Rob Johnson, etc. by then.

Frankie
11-12-2008, 06:01 PM
If they don't look at a QB in round 1,I think DE is where they should go. Knowing Herm though,he will take a kicker or a long snapper......

Oh, come on! I hate unfair posts. Like him or hate him, his drafts have been good.

Frankie
11-12-2008, 06:04 PM
I am satisfied only if the Croyle experiment is over. If it is, Thigpen has the job to lose competing with whoever is added to the QB roster.

The Croyle experiment is over. And I like the guy and have supported the experiment.

Frankie
11-12-2008, 06:10 PM
If Thiggy continues to play well, and Detroit lands the first pick and they take Stafford, then the lack of another high draft prospect at QB dictates addressing another pressing need.

I can't comment on a couple of guys, like Nate Davis, that I haven't seen, but of the QBs that I have seen, I don't see a second round prospect.

Freeman?

milkman
11-12-2008, 06:14 PM
Freeman?

Never seen him play.

I have commented on his measurables, but I can't comment on his play.

K-State doesn't get a lot of run on TV in Cal.

Mr. Laz
11-12-2008, 06:21 PM
If thiggy does well for the rest of the season then I think you draft BPA. If the best player is QB you still draft the QB. If thiggy flounders then there may be more push for a QB, but still we shouldn't reach. Trade down if the player we want isn't there.this

ChiefGator
11-12-2008, 06:35 PM
It's not so far-fetched to have a trade into a high draft spot, and there are MANY proposed trades each draft day which go unrealized. I'm not going to dig up the quote but Carl someone said several teams were calling about trading into the #5 spot just last year.

You can't under-reach for a trade down, but a partner coming to the table with near value, and if it makes sense on our draft board, should be seriously considered. We need quantity AND quality. And you can get an offensive lineman starter or linebacker with a 2nd rounder.

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 06:50 PM
Orakpo or Johnson and I'm good. We can get starting quality LB's and OL in the next few rounds.
How I'd like to see the Chiefs spend their seven draft picks. One each on a DE, CB and RB and two on LB's and OL.
QB Depth Chart
Thiggy
Gray
Croyle

Tell LJ to kick rocks.

Orakpo and Johnson are the only 2 I can see an argument for. But unless I see otherwise, I think Orakpo is either a Tamba Hali or a Gholston clone--I think he's going to have to really convince scouts that he's anything more than a 3-4 OLB/DE player. And Johnson, it sounds to me that people are more enamored with his size than his actual ability.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument about why Maualuga doesn't help this team in a very, very big way. Or even Taylor Mays or James Laurinitis. These are easily the best players for the Chiefs to take. Like I said, I can understand the argument that there may not be trade takers. But I don't buy into the idea that we need to reject offers that don't match the trade chart.

Here's what I think is really stupid about the trade chart. The talent of the draft class changes every year, and yet the chart is exactly the same. Am I the only one that sees the stupidity of this? The chart assumes that Alex Smith has the same trade value as Eli Manning. I can guarantee that the phones were ringing off the hook for Detroit when Calvin johnson was still on board and the saints when Bush was still on the board. And I bet you that both turned down decent trade offers that didn't match the ridiculously high compensation that the trade chart sets.

Why are people so convinced that we have to adhere to the trade chart at all costs? If it's so hard to trade up from #3 to #1, did anyone stop to think that maybe that's because the trade chart isn't as good as we thought it was?

chiefzilla1501
11-12-2008, 07:10 PM
Let me frame this question this way because I can understand taking Stafford (sort of) and I can agree with taking Michael Johnson or Brian Orakpo if either grade high as 4-3 DEs:

Who makes the biggest impact for the Chiefs?
-Oher - OT
-Crabtree - WR
-Andre Smith - OT
-Eugene Monroe - OT
-Jason Smith - OT
-Sam Bradford - QB

or

Rey Maualuga - ILB
James Laurinitis - ILB
Taylor Mays - Safety

What kills me is that I know a lot of you want to say Maualuga but don't want to, because you don't want to reach.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2008, 07:57 PM
Let me frame this question this way because I can understand taking Stafford (sort of) and I can agree with taking Michael Johnson or Brian Orakpo if either grade high as 4-3 DEs:

Who makes the biggest impact for the Chiefs?
-Oher - OT
-Crabtree - WR
-Andre Smith - OT
-Eugene Monroe - OT
-Jason Smith - OT
-Sam Bradford - QB

or

Rey Maualuga - ILB
James Laurinitis - ILB
Taylor Mays - Safety

What kills me is that I know a lot of you want to say Maualuga but don't want to, because you don't want to reach.

:shake:

duncan_idaho
11-12-2008, 08:58 PM
Freeman?

Has all the physical talent in the world. Has received terrible coaching and hasn't picked up much on his own.

Consistently makes bad decisions (and makes the same bad decisions he made as a freshman).

Doesn't display good accuracy or touch.

Has bad mechanics.

Extremely inaccurate on the run.

His physical skill is impressive... if a team can wait 3-4 years for him to develop, he might be pretty good.

Can the Chiefs afford to do that? Maybe for a 4th round pick. I don't think they can spend a second on him... (And I don't think he'll deserve that sort of grade)

macdawg
11-12-2008, 08:59 PM
I think if we draft a QB in the top 5 you know mgmt is going to want to start him, so lets not imagine that a fair competition will exist in that scenario.

Tyler has progressed well and is a starting caliber QB, he will get better & is young and therefore has great upside. That is grounds for putting QB on hold to further develop the guy while addressing several of out other starting requirements, for starters I'd like a RT, RB (if Larry is done), WR (depends on our confidence in Franklin as Bradley & Bowe are good starters), DE, OLB, MLB, and secondary depth. I see these needs as more pressing than competition for Thiggy, and this is coming from his biggest critic. The guy is winning me over.

Tribal Warfare
11-12-2008, 09:04 PM
I think if we draft a QB in the top 5 you know mgmt is going to want to start him, so lets not imagine that a fair competition will exist in that scenario.

Tyler has progressed well and is a starting caliber QB, he will get better & is young and therefore has great upside. That is grounds for putting QB on hold to further develop the guy while addressing several of out other starting requirements, for starters I'd like a RT, RB (if Larry is done), WR (depends on our confidence in Franklin as Bradley & Bowe are good starters), DE, OLB, MLB, and secondary depth. I see these needs as more pressing than competition for Thiggy, and this is coming from his biggest critic. The guy is winning me over.

I've said this before being two deep at the QB position, indefinitely helps the success rate of any team especially when that player is the BPA.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2008, 09:15 PM
If we have two young stud qbs somebody will pay us a king's ransom for one of them.

alanm
11-12-2008, 09:54 PM
Thigpen has been a pleasant surprise, but I want Stafford.If by some divine intervention on the behalf of Detroit as in a few wins, you can pretty much figure that they will draft him.
In that case I want a DE.

alanm
11-12-2008, 09:58 PM
You take a QB, either Stafford or Bradford and let them two battle it out.... No way do we just sit on our asses and let one of these guys go by... I guarantee that Croyle will be a Chief come spring. And he will be Thigpen's backup.
That would indicate to me that QB will be down the totem pole as far as a pick in the 1st 3 rnds.

milkman
11-12-2008, 10:08 PM
Let me frame this question this way because I can understand taking Stafford (sort of) and I can agree with taking Michael Johnson or Brian Orakpo if either grade high as 4-3 DEs:

Who makes the biggest impact for the Chiefs?
-Oher - OT
-Crabtree - WR
-Andre Smith - OT
-Eugene Monroe - OT
-Jason Smith - OT
-Sam Bradford - QB

or

Rey Maualuga - ILB
James Laurinitis - ILB
Taylor Mays - Safety

What kills me is that I know a lot of you want to say Maualuga but don't want to, because you don't want to reach.

You make fair points.

The problem is that you are trying to make these points while at the same time trying to justify getting fucked in the ass in a trade down scenario.

No one wants to get fucked in the ass.

milkman
11-12-2008, 10:08 PM
If by some divine intervention on the behalf of Detroit as in a few wins, you can pretty much figure that they will draft him.
In that case I want a DE.

You are absolutely correct.

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:09 PM
Anymore, after 20 years of disappointment, I wouldnt be surprised to see the Chiefs draft a Center or MLB with the first pick, while both Stafford and Bradford are still on the board..

Then cut the pick 3 weeks into the new season for a simple fumbled exchanged or a missed takle at the goalline....

Hell if they cut for missed takles, we wouldnt even have a defense.. LMAO
I would personally drive to NY and stab a pencil in Carl's, Herm's and Bill Kuharic's forehead. :cuss:

milkman
11-12-2008, 10:09 PM
I've said this before being two deep at the QB position, indefinitely helps the success rate of any team especially when that player is the BPA.

You're like a broken record.

No one listens to a broken record.

Mecca
11-12-2008, 10:12 PM
I think as the draft approaches some of the threads will bring great entertainment.

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:13 PM
You are absolutely correct.
You know who everyone forgets about in the QB que is St. Louis and San Francisco.

Mecca
11-12-2008, 10:14 PM
You know who everyone forgets about in the QB que is St. Louis and San Francisco.

What..that post went over my head.

DeezNutz
11-12-2008, 10:16 PM
What..that post went over my head.

They also need QBs.

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:17 PM
I think as the draft approaches some of the threads will bring great entertainment.
Mecca, Who's the guy at South Florida who tore up Kansas earlier this year. Cumbrie or something like that? He's a DE isn't he?
THAT'S the guy I want.

milkman
11-12-2008, 10:18 PM
You know who everyone forgets about in the QB que is St. Louis and San Francisco.

They're (we are) assuming that the Chiefs will be picking ahead of the Rams and 9ers.

If Thigpen continues to play well, and Herman fucking Edwards gets thrown in a locker at halftime, it's entirely possible that the Chiefs could win a couple of games along the way, and one, or both of those teams finish with a worse record.

The Raiders are another team that could fall under the Chiefs.

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:19 PM
What..that post went over my head.
QB line. As in I expect St. Louis and San Fran if they are in position to look hard at Stafford if he's on the board if it's their pick.

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:21 PM
They're (we are) assuming that the Chiefs will be picking ahead of the Rams and 9ers.

If Thigpen continues to play well, and Herman ****ing Edwards gets thrown in a locker at halftime, it's entirely possible that the Chiefs could win a couple of games along the way, and one, or both of those teams finish with a worse record.

The Raiders are another team that could fall under the Chiefs. I hate to say this but I think the Chiefs will win a few more games this season. And it wouldn't bother me if they did.
I can't root for them to lose.

milkman
11-12-2008, 10:22 PM
Mecca, Who's the guy at South Florida who tore up Kansas earlier this year. Cumbrie or something like that? He's a DE isn't he?
THAT'S the guy I want.

You're talking about George Selvie?

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2008, 10:22 PM
Mecca, Who's the guy at South Florida who tore up Kansas earlier this year. Cumbrie or something like that? He's a DE isn't he?
THAT'S the guy I want.

Selvie?

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:25 PM
They're (we are) assuming that the Chiefs will be picking ahead of the Rams and 9ers.

If Thigpen continues to play well, and Herman ****ing Edwards gets thrown in a locker at halftime, it's entirely possible that the Chiefs could win a couple of games along the way, and one, or both of those teams finish with a worse record.

The Raiders are another team that could fall under the Chiefs.
The Raiders are done for the year. I'd be shocked if they won more than 1 of their remaining games. I've a feeling that Cincinnati and the Lion's will be fighting it out for the 1st pick.

alanm
11-12-2008, 10:26 PM
Selvie?Yeah.. That's the guy.

Darth CarlSatan
11-13-2008, 12:02 AM
He also would continue the outstanding tradition, started by Croyle, of Chiefs' QBs having extremely hot wives.

So he's got that going for him, which is nice...

Let The Sig Do The Talking.

Tribal Warfare
11-13-2008, 12:15 AM
Let The Sig Do The Talking.

and it says are you high? How in the hell is that going to happen with two USC guys that are suppose to be in the top 15, while we only have one pick in the 1st round?

Darth CarlSatan
11-13-2008, 12:27 AM
and it says are you high? How in the hell is that going to happen with two USC guys that are suppose to be in the top 15, while we only have one pick in the 1st round?

REY MAUALUGA ON: His style: "I want to become the player that the offense gameplans around, that the offense fears coming into the game."



It does not matter if Rey had this drilled in to his head by someone involved his development, or if he discovered it and adopted it for his own; we all know damn good and well who he is drawing it from, and it's high time that spirit came home. 1st-Round.



Sanchez is a fitting bonus, if at all possible.

Tribal Warfare
11-13-2008, 12:29 AM
REY MAUALUGA ON: His style: "I want to become the player that the offense gameplans around, that the offense fears coming into the game."



It does not matter if Rey had this drilled in to his head by someone involved his development, or if he discovered it and adopted it for his own; we all know damn good and well who he is drawing it from, and it's high time that spirit came home. 1st-Round.



Sanchez is a fitting bonus, if at all possible.


I like Rey, but how are we suppose to get both of them , while I still believe Stafford is real possibility since Detroit's O-line is dogshit

Darth CarlSatan
11-13-2008, 12:48 AM
I like Rey, but how are we suppose to get both of them , while I still believe Stafford is real possibility since Detroit's O-line is dogshit

Look; sometimes and not very often, the intangibles have to be weighed.
Example: the greatest Cornerback in Chiefs History goes to the Hall the same year we pick up a CB who in my opinion, will fill that role and surpass it.

I've already stated my opinion regarding the 'High Profile' positions on our current roster; with the exception of two premium Linebackers, those slots are filled to my satisfaction. And hell, maybe with even ONE LB-Supreme; the other guy's games step up. That's why I want Rey off the bat.

As far as getting both, it probably is impossible. Who else, besides Detroit, is in dire need? I think the best approach for the QB is to go "total Flowers"; work the room, work the opposition, and come out on top. To get both of those guys would be a major coup, but we've already shown we can do just that.
Let the cards fall.

Tribal Warfare
11-13-2008, 12:52 AM
Look; sometimes and not very often, the intangibles have to be weighed.
Example: the greatest Cornerback in Chiefs History goes to the Hall the same year we pick up a CB who in my opinion, will fill that role and surpass it.

I've already stated my opinion regarding the 'High Profile' positions on our current roster; with the exception of two premium Linebackers, those slots are filled to my satisfaction. And hell, maybe with even ONE LB-Supreme; the other guy's games step up. That's why I want Rey off the bat.


I've already stated my value chart for the top 5, and Rey's damn good but I'd take Orkapo instead. The kid plays like Simeon Rice/Dwight Freeney.

Darth CarlSatan
11-13-2008, 01:07 AM
I've already stated my value chart for the top 5, and Rey's damn good but I'd take Orkapo instead. The kid plays like Simeon Rice/Dwight Freeney.

There's a lot of season left just yet in the NCAA; I say go with the flow and see what happens.
The only reservation I have with Rey, is the same reservation I have with Herm/Gun; where are we going with this defense? If we're sticking with attacking up the middle, we need a premium Middle LB.
If we're going back to the outside, the whole paradigm shifts. There's too much up in the air and unanswered at this point, but I think we'll both agree; we need to establish a direction and hit it just as hard as our offense has adapted to their changes and start producing results.

ChiefsCountry
11-13-2008, 03:11 AM
Let The Sig Do The Talking.

You really are dumber than I thought if you think we can get both of those guys. I wouldnt mind Rey Rey but no way in hell could we get both even trading down no freaking way.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-13-2008, 04:00 AM
I've already stated my value chart for the top 5, and Rey's damn good but I'd take Orkapo instead. The kid plays like Simeon Rice/Dwight Freeney.

Orakpo is a little bit of a different player than those guys. He's fast, and has great quickness, but he doesn't have ungodly straight line speed. He should run a 4.6 flat. Rice is more of a prototypical long DE, and Freeney is really just a situational pass rusher who happens to do it as well as anyone in the league.

I think Rak will be better against the run than those two guys (much better than Freeney), while not being quite as disruptive against the pass, but still near an elite level.

In some ways, I could see him being like a bigger Andre Tippett, which would allow him to play the DE spot.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-13-2008, 04:02 AM
QB line. As in I expect St. Louis and San Fran if they are in position to look hard at Stafford if he's on the board if it's their pick.

You have to remember that St. Louis, San Fran, and Seattle all still have games against one another. They aren't going to be in front of us on draft day, save for one of them, at best.

And, if you are a KU fan, you should really watch Orakpo closely when they play. If you think Selvie was a handful...well, you've got another thing coming.

beach tribe
11-13-2008, 06:34 AM
Mecca, Who's the guy at South Florida who tore up Kansas earlier this year. Cumbrie or something like that? He's a DE isn't he?
THAT'S the guy I want.

I was just about to ask about George Selvie. Haven't seen him on any of the draft boards lately. I know he racked up some awesome stats, and although a lot of them came against crappy schools, I think this guy could be a very good pass rusher. Maybe we could get him later in the draft, and make him a third/passing down RE.

TommyHawk69
11-13-2008, 07:07 AM
Jim Plunkett comes to mind immediately.

**Edit** and so does Drew Brees (and I do realize that he was a second rounder).

The thing about Brees was he panned out with his original team and was playing good.

TommyHawk69
11-13-2008, 07:09 AM
I was just about to ask about George Selvie. Haven't seen him on any of the draft boards lately. I know he racked up some awesome stats, and although a lot of them came against crappy schools, I think this guy could be a very good pass rusher. Maybe we could get him later in the draft, and make him a third/passing down RE.

Selvie is way to small for 4-3 DE he will for sure be a 3-4 outside backer.

beach tribe
11-13-2008, 07:16 AM
Selvie is way to small for 4-3 DE he will for sure be a 3-4 outside backer.

From what I recall, he wieghs about 260, and that's why I said he would be a good 3rd/passing situation pass rusher, not an every down DE. FWIW Orakpo weighs 260 as well. I don'r really think that he's too small, but that he's just not that strong, but he also looks like he can add weight, and that he's not maxed out. Tamba is 270, and is maxed out.

Darth CarlSatan
11-13-2008, 08:55 AM
You really are dumber than I thought if you think we can get both of those guys. I wouldnt mind Rey Rey but no way in hell could we get both even trading down no freaking way.

Hey, I said "if it's at all possible". I did not say that it was going to happen, nor did I suggest that he and Rey we're a package deal.

But at the end of the day, all that really matters is that contestant number one at the left side of my sig get's his blue and silver.

RustShack
11-13-2008, 10:56 AM
So since Jared Allen weighs 250lbs, was he too small to play DE for us too?

Sure-Oz
11-13-2008, 10:58 AM
So since Jared Allen weighs 250lbs, was he too small to play DE for us too?

No he was too busy drinking and driving and not showing up in 2nd halves fo us

beach tribe
11-13-2008, 11:03 AM
So since Jared Allen weighs 250lbs, was he too small to play DE for us too?

JA weighs 275 if I'm not mistaken.

EDIT: listed at 6'6 270

beach tribe
11-13-2008, 11:05 AM
The point ramains. Selvie IS big enough to play 4-3 DE, and I believe will be a pass rushing force in the NFL, but may need to come out on 1st downs, and could probably be had in the 2nd or later.

RustShack
11-13-2008, 11:13 AM
JA weighs 275 if I'm not mistaken.

EDIT: listed at 6'6 270

I'm pretty sure he was down to 250 at one point after he quit drinking.

RustShack
11-13-2008, 11:14 AM
The point ramains. Selvie IS big enough to play 4-3 DE, and I believe will be a pass rushing force in the NFL, but may need to come out on 1st downs, and could probably be had in the 2nd or later.

Selvie and Okrapo are both about 6'4" 260 lbs.

chiefzilla1501
11-13-2008, 11:29 AM
From what I recall, he wieghs about 260, and that's why I said he would be a good 3rd/passing situation pass rusher, not an every down DE. FWIW Orakpo weighs 260 as well. I don'r really think that he's too small, but that he's just not that strong, but he also looks like he can add weight, and that he's not maxed out. Tamba is 270, and is maxed out.

It boils down to wingspan. Allen and Freeney are small-ish (I think Allen dropped below 260 at one point after he quit drinking), but they have really long arms. You don't have to be strong at that point because you can use your long arms to shed blocks and disengage. Tamba Hali's short and he's got a big enough body for a DE. But the reason his draft stock slipped is because he has T-Rex arms. His arms are way too short.

The best DEs have speed, height, and wingspan. Power is important too, but I don't think it's nearly as important as the previous 3 points.

I don't have any info on Selvie and Orakpo in terms of wingspan, but that's going to really affect his draft stock, I would think.

Micjones
11-13-2008, 11:32 AM
If Chiefs brass is comfortable with Thigpen by season's end we need to look at another position with our #1 come April.

Too many other holes to fill.

beach tribe
11-13-2008, 11:33 AM
Selvie and Okrapo are both about 6'4" 260 lbs.

Selvie is not nearly as strong as Orakpo, and probably would not be as good against the run. I think if we did end up with Selvie, and not Orakpo, that Mcbride could play RE in obvios running situations, and Selvie could rotate as a pass rusher. I'd much rather just have Orakpo, but who knows what's gonna go down on draft day. Just a thought.

beach tribe
11-13-2008, 11:36 AM
It boils down to wingspan. Allen and Freeney are small-ish (I think Allen dropped below 260 at one point after he quit drinking), but they have really long arms. You don't have to be strong at that point because you can use your long arms to shed blocks and disengage. Tamba Hali's short and he's got a big enough body for a DE. But the reason his draft stock slipped is because he has T-Rex arms. His arms are way too short.

The best DEs have speed, height, and wingspan. Power is important too, but I don't think it's nearly as important as the previous 3 points.

I don't have any info on Selvie and Orakpo in terms of wingspan, but that's going to really affect his draft stock, I would think.


I don't think Allen ever dropped below 265. Selvie is a lanky guy. He looks wiry, and not very strong, but he is explosive, and fast.

I disagree about strength as well. You must be strong at the point or it wontmatter how long your arms are if your being driven 5 yrds off the ball.

chiefzilla1501
11-13-2008, 11:39 AM
I don't think Allen ever dropped below 265. Selvie is a lanky guy. He looks wiry, and not very strong, but he is explosive, and fast.

I disagree about strength as well. You must be strong at the point or it wontmatter how long your arms are if your being driven 5 yrds off the ball.

The Chiefs could use that kind of an edge rusher. If that's a guy we can get in the early second, that's a steal. I would like that a lot, in fact, because I'm hesitant to call Orakpo a top 5-10 DE just yet. I don't know if he has a complete enough game to earn that.

chiefzilla1501
11-13-2008, 11:43 AM
I don't think Allen ever dropped below 265. Selvie is a lanky guy. He looks wiry, and not very strong, but he is explosive, and fast.

I disagree about strength as well. You must be strong at the point or it wontmatter how long your arms are if your being driven 5 yrds off the ball.

I shouldn't have said strength isn't important.

But when we're talking about a RDE, you are generally talking about DEs who can't win on strength alone. Because LTs are so good at getting in front of you, that it really doesn't matter too much how strong you are. To beat out LTs, you have to have an explosive first step, quick acceleration and agility, or in guys like Allen's case, you have to have long arms which keep the blocker off your body. In run D, strength becomes more of a consideration, but I'd also argue that LTs usually aren't as strong and that as long as you can make good use of your long arms, you can sometimes get away with a little less power.

PhillyChiefFan
11-13-2008, 03:01 PM
I'm surprised that no one is talking about Michael Johnson anymore. Seems to be universal, any clue as to why?

Tribal Warfare
11-13-2008, 03:10 PM
I'm surprised that no one is talking about Michael Johnson anymore. Seems to be universal, any clue as to why?

Great athletic ability, but marginal production . he isn't the best DE on the GT line,Johnson gets manhandled often during one on one blocks .

Micjones
11-13-2008, 04:46 PM
I'm surprised that no one is talking about Michael Johnson anymore. Seems to be universal, any clue as to why?

I know it's still way early to judge, but I've seen mocks that have Johnson going in the Second Round.

That said, he'd be a real candidate for me to spend that #2 on.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-13-2008, 05:16 PM
If it comes to our pick, and a QB is the best player available, you take him. If he's not, you take the BPA.

This.