PDA

View Full Version : Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3?


jAZ
02-12-2009, 10:37 PM
We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

OnTheWarpath58
02-12-2009, 10:40 PM
They are saying that because to people that understand positional value, the only OL position worth taking in the top half of the 1st round is a LT.

We already have our LT in Albert, so it would be a terrible value pick to take one of these guys and play him on the right side, or to take one of these guys and move Albert.

We definitely have a need for a RT, but that is a position that is generally filled in the middle or later rounds of the draft.

Ebolapox
02-12-2009, 10:46 PM
smart gms don't tie up 100 mill into a 'two-player' position, for the most part. if you draft a LT, he gets 50 mill. to play RT (dumb move). then, after albert's rookie contract is up, he wants to be paid like a top LT. so, there's your 100 mill.

same goes for a top 3 DT. you drafted dorsey last year, gave him a ton of money, and some here want to draft a DT again. so, that would be 100 mill.

NickAthanFan
02-12-2009, 11:20 PM
Either this is a requisite football post or someone knows even less about football than he does about policy.

the Talking Can
02-13-2009, 04:11 AM
you don't spend consecutive top 5 picks on tackles....

does that really require explanation?

Demonpenz
02-13-2009, 06:30 AM
I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't mind it if it did happen. Best player out there thx

blaise
02-13-2009, 07:06 AM
Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.

the Talking Can
02-13-2009, 07:24 AM
Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.

correct...but i'd amend my comment to consecutive first rounders...it still doesn't make any sense and is not necessary to build a championship team

Brock
02-13-2009, 08:21 AM
How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

Pestilence
02-13-2009, 08:24 AM
They are saying that because to people that understand positional value, the only OL position worth taking in the top half of the 1st round is a LT.

We already have our LT in Albert, so it would be a terrible value pick to take one of these guys and play him on the right side, or to take one of these guys and move Albert.

We definitely have a need for a RT, but that is a position that is generally filled in the middle or later rounds of the draft.

smart gms don't tie up 100 mill into a 'two-player' position, for the most part. if you draft a LT, he gets 50 mill. to play RT (dumb move). then, after albert's rookie contract is up, he wants to be paid like a top LT. so, there's your 100 mill.

same goes for a top 3 DT. you drafted dorsey last year, gave him a ton of money, and some here want to draft a DT again. so, that would be 100 mill.

These.

We were lucky enough to find our LToTF with the 15th pick. It would be dumb to either move him and draft another LT or draft a RT with the #3 pick. You can easily fix your line and get more value of it with two moves.

FA - Jason Brown C Ravens
Draft - Kraig Urbik OT Wisconsin in the 3rd round

Leave Albert at LT
Leave Waters at LG
Brown moves to C
Niswanger moves to RG
Urbik starts at RT

Pestilence
02-13-2009, 08:25 AM
How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

There are some teams that don't have ANY first round picks on their line.

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 08:44 AM
We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

:spock:

BigCatDaddy
02-13-2009, 08:56 AM
I wouldn't totally rule it out. Carolina would have more $ invested in OT's this year then we would assuming we draft tackle and they were a top 5 team this year. So a case can be made.

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 09:22 AM
I wouldn't totally rule it out. Carolina would have more $ invested in OT's this year then we would assuming we draft tackle and they were a top 5 team this year. So a case can be made.

No it can't be made. It's stupid.

BigCatDaddy
02-13-2009, 09:45 AM
No it can't be made. It's stupid.

Sure it can. These days a RT is about as important as a LT, especially with all the team running a 3-4 and moving the best pass rushed around to find the weak sport(Like Atlanta did against us). I don't know if I would do it, but I think it makes more sense then Crabtree.

philfree
02-13-2009, 09:58 AM
Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
02-13-2009, 10:05 AM
Drafting another first round tackle would be epic fail.

DeezNutz
02-13-2009, 10:10 AM
Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

You "want to" what to all-world tackles? :whackit:?

:D

oldandslow
02-13-2009, 12:30 PM
Drafting another first round tackle would be epic fail.

Not if Stafford and Sanchez go 1, 2 and we cannot trade down.

I would rather have the top OT (smith, I guess) than crabtree.

However, if either Stafford or Sanchez are on the board at 3, then you are correct.

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 12:34 PM
Sure it can. These days a RT is about as important as a LT, especially with all the team running a 3-4 and moving the best pass rushed around to find the weak sport(Like Atlanta did against us). I don't know if I would do it, but I think it makes more sense then Crabtree.

No, it can't. You're wrong.

Brock
02-13-2009, 12:34 PM
Not if Stafford and Sanchez go 1, 2 and we cannot trade down.

I would rather have the top OT (smith, I guess) than crabtree.

However, if either Stafford or Sanchez are on the board at 3, then you are correct.

Nope. If that happens, then the best choice is probably Malcolm Jenkins.

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 12:34 PM
Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.


PhilFree:arrow:

That's beyond retarded. You want to run the Chiefs as a farm team like the Royals? :spock:

philfree
02-13-2009, 01:50 PM
That's beyond retarded. You want to run the Chiefs as a farm team like the Royals? :spock:

No. And for you to get that out of my post is beyond retarded. What I'm saying is if we can't resign Albert at a reasonable price then there are ways to handle it and in the end if we have to we can get something in retrurn if Albert signs else where. None the less the Chiefs will have a great O Line. Now I'm not really sure that taking Curry or Crabtree is bad either but it seems the draftniks around here think those are bad moves so I presented an alternative. In the end why take player who isn't worth the 3rd when you could get one that is. I mean why have just another "wasted pick".

PhilFree:arrow:

keg in kc
02-13-2009, 02:04 PM
Betcha they'd have taken Albert at 5 if Dorsey hadn't been there.

LT is done. You don't draft a right tackle at 5.

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 02:04 PM
No. And for you to get that out of my post is beyond retarded. What I'm saying is if we can't resign Albert at a reasonable price then there are ways to handle it and in the end if we have to we can get something in retrurn if Albert signs else where. None the less the Chiefs will have a great O Line. Now I'm not really sure that taking Curry or Crabtree is bad either but it seems the draftniks around here think those are bad moves so I presented an alternative. In the end why take player who isn't worth the 3rd when you could get one that is. I mean why have just another "wasted pick".

PhilFree:arrow:

Please explain why you think Curry is worth a Top 3 pick.

Have you formed your own opinion by watching him, or are you just taking what a couple of mocks say (in early February, no less) and taking it as gospel?

When you're done with that, let us know who was the last LB that wasn't a pass rush specialist taken in the Top 3.

philfree
02-13-2009, 02:17 PM
Please explain why you think Curry is worth a Top 3 pick.

Have you formed your own opinion by watching him, or are you just taking what a couple of mocks say (in early February, no less) and taking it as gospel?

When you're done with that, let us know who was the last LB that wasn't a pass rush specialist taken in the Top 3.

Who the last LB taken at #3 doesn't matter. That's silly. As far as Curry i've only watched video of the guy. Of course the videos I get to see are to make players look good. He did look good. So there's that and then there are the draft gurus who seem to like him an awful lot. I've been studying this draft since about week 5 of the 2008 season so I guess I've done more than look at a few mock drafts.

Are you scout? Do you get to watch the same video as the NFL scouts do? That'd be cool. If you can get those type of videos you should share them with us.


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
02-13-2009, 02:27 PM
Who the last LB taken at #3 doesn't matter.

Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 02:32 PM
Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

Exactly.

Nor should he.

blaise
02-13-2009, 02:34 PM
Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?

philfree
02-13-2009, 02:36 PM
Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the players in the 2009 draft. Could be used as an indicator for what i'll call a soft rule but it ain't fool proof. If the guy is The Best Player On The Board why would you pick a lesser player and let another team have the better player? Because you just don't take LBs that high? There are times when it's O.K. to deviate from these unwritten rules.

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
02-13-2009, 02:40 PM
It has absolutely nothing to do with the players in the 2009 draft. Could be used as an indicator for what i'll call a soft rule but it ain't fool proof. If the guy is The Best Player On The Board why would you pick a lesser player and let another team have the better player? Because you just don't take LBs that high? There are times when it's O.K. to deviate from these unwritten rules.

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.


PhilFree:arrow:

If the QBs are gone the most valuable player on the board is probably Malcolm Jenkins, at the risk of repeating myself. There is no way a non-rushing LB goes that high. None.

blaise
02-13-2009, 02:43 PM
If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.


PhilFree:arrow:

This is the question some people here don't like to answer. They have all their chips on Sanchez being there and the Chiefs liking him, and they're in denial that it might not happen.
I appreciate that Brock answered the question. Some people just start throwing "trade down" nonsense out there even though it's not going to happen.

philfree
02-13-2009, 02:44 PM
Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?

I was really just exploring the different possibilities if the QBs are both already picked. IMO this draft is not set up very well for the Chiefs and the 3rd pick if the QBs are gone. I mean what would truly be the best/right pick for the Chiefs. If the QBs are gone it very well could be an OT. We can' punt.


PhilFree:arrow:

ChiefsCountry
02-13-2009, 02:45 PM
This is the question some people here don't like to answer. They have all their chips on Sanchez being there and the Chiefs liking him, and they're in denial that it might not happen.
I appreciate that Brock answered the question. Some people just start throwing "trade down" nonsense out there even though it's not going to happen.

This has been answered a hundred times and the answer is Malcom Jenkins.

philfree
02-13-2009, 02:52 PM
If the QBs are gone the most valuable player on the board is probably Malcolm Jenkins, at the risk of repeating myself. There is no way a non-rushing LB goes that high. None.


Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
02-13-2009, 03:02 PM
Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?


PhilFree:arrow:

It appears to me that he's the best CB in this class, which is a pretty good class. It makes a lot more sense to replace Carr/Leggett than it does to replace Branden Albert.

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 03:03 PM
Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?


PhilFree:arrow:

No, Jenkins is not a safety. Teams wanting to move him to FS are crazy, IMO. It'd be a waste. Flowers played great but the others can move to nickle and dime. Corner is a position you can take top 5. RT is not.

philfree
02-13-2009, 03:14 PM
It appears to me that he's the best CB in this class, which is a pretty good class. It makes a lot more sense to replace Carr/Leggett than it does to replace Branden Albert.

Albert will still be on the field but so will both those CBs I would imagine. A team needs two starting CBs as well as two starting OTs. We have two starting CBs and it can be argued that we don't have two starting OTs.

IMO Pioli&Co are in a position to draft the BPA at #3. If we can't get the QB then I'm starting to lean that way and I won't care if the BPA is an OT, WR, LB or what ever. No a guard won't be the best player.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 03:19 PM
Albert will still be on the field but so will both those CBs I would imagine. A team needs two starting CBs as well as two starting OTs. We have two starting CBs and it can be argued that we don't have two starting OTs.

IMO Pioli&Co are in a position to draft the BPA at #3. If we can't get the QB then I'm starting to lean that way and I won't care if the BPA is an OT, WR, LB or what ever. No a guard won't be the best player.

PhilFree:arrow:

Clearly you don't understand positional value. You don't draft a RT in the 1st round, much less the top-5. You can get a RT later in the draft. You're a casual fan, it's ok.

philfree
02-13-2009, 03:27 PM
Clearly you don't understand positional value. You don't draft a RT in the 1st round, much less the top-5. You can get a RT later in the draft. You're a casual fan, it's ok.


I understand it. I just don't think it's absolute and with the way this draft seems to be setting up this might be a year where we deviate from what are considered to be the draft rules. Or we can reach for a player that might not get picked till five picks or more later.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaKCMan AP
02-13-2009, 03:28 PM
I understand it. I just don't think it's absolute and with the way this draft seems to be setting up this might be a year where we deviate from what are considered to be the draft rules. Or we can reach for a player that might not get picked till five picks or more later.


PhilFree:arrow:

Sorry, but no team is going to invest $25 million + guaranteed dollars in a rookie RT. It's just stupid.

Pestilence
02-13-2009, 03:30 PM
If Stafford and Sanchez are gone......then I'm all for having these 4 as our CBs.

Flowers, Jenkins, Carr, Leggett

All young and good CBs.

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 03:33 PM
This became a stupid argument.

There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone.

This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.

philfree
02-13-2009, 03:36 PM
Sorry, but no team is going to invest $25 million + guaranteed dollars in a rookie RT. It's just stupid.

He's really a LT but he could play RT for a year or so. Or Pioli and Haley could move Albert to RT. Now remember this isn't what I want first and foremost. It's an alternative.

I do think since we have a new regime that something like drafting an OT is a possibility.


PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
02-13-2009, 03:38 PM
This became a stupid argument.

There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone.

This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.

That's not true.

And yeah there's a good chance that one of the QBs will be there and both could be. I doubt both though.


PhilFree:arrow:

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-13-2009, 04:02 PM
NO!! FUCK NO!!

WHAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

DaneMcCloud
02-13-2009, 04:12 PM
He's really a LT but he could play RT for a year or so. Or Pioli and Haley could move Albert to RT. Now remember this isn't what I want first and foremost. It's an alternative.

I do think since we have a new regime that something like drafting an OT is a possibility.


PhilFree:arrow:

Albert's NOT a right tackle. He plays in space very well. Ideally, your right tackle should be 6'5 to 6'6 and around 325 pounds He should also be a freaking road grader. The right side is your power side and is not suited for finesse players.

Furthermore, the Chiefs would be fucking idiots to have $75 MILLION dollars wrapped in TWO left tackles. Fucking dumb. Is this what you think of Pioli and Hunt? Two fucking morons?

I swear, if an unbelievable kicker was sitting at the #3 overall pick, there would be a large portion of the fan base screaming for the Chiefs to draft a kicker at number 3.

Bank on it.

Pestilence
02-13-2009, 04:20 PM
Albert's NOT a right tackle. He plays in space very well. Ideally, your right tackle should be 6'5 to 6'6 and around 325 pounds He should also be a freaking road grader. The right side is your power side and is not suited for finesse players.

Furthermore, the Chiefs would be fucking idiots to have $75 MILLION dollars wrapped in TWO left tackles. Fucking dumb. Is this what you think of Pioli and Hunt? Two fucking morons?

I swear, if an unbelievable kicker was sitting at the #3 overall pick, there would be a large portion of the fan base screaming for the Chiefs to draft a kicker at number 3.

Bank on it.

Our entire line could be set for the next 10 years (minus Brian Waters) and people would want to draft a LT at #3 and move Albert to LG. I don't get it.

cdcox
02-13-2009, 04:22 PM
How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

Counting backups?

Brock
02-13-2009, 04:24 PM
Counting backups?

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
02-13-2009, 04:25 PM
Our entire line could be set for the next 10 years (minus Brian Waters) and people would want to draft a LT at #3 and move Albert to LG. I don't get it.

I expect Herb Taylor to step right in when Waters is injured or retires without missing a beat.

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 04:26 PM
Counting backups?

LMAO

Awesome.

Rain Man
02-13-2009, 04:57 PM
I don't think anyone should pass a guy over solely on position. Is a QB more valuable? Heck, yeah. If the prospects are both projected to be very good, take the QB. But if the best QB projects out to be an average NFL QB and the best RT projects out to be Thor the god of thunder, I'd take the RT.

philfree
02-13-2009, 06:26 PM
Albert's NOT a right tackle. He plays in space very well. Ideally, your right tackle should be 6'5 to 6'6 and around 325 pounds He should also be a freaking road grader. The right side is your power side and is not suited for finesse players.

Furthermore, the Chiefs would be ****ing idiots to have $75 MILLION dollars wrapped in TWO left tackles. ****ing dumb. Is this what you think of Pioli and Hunt? Two ****ing morons?

I swear, if an unbelievable kicker was sitting at the #3 overall pick, there would be a large portion of the fan base screaming for the Chiefs to draft a kicker at number 3.

Bank on it.

I have no idea what the Chiefs are gonna do but I'm sure if they don't do what you think they should you'll be the first to call them "fucking idiots". Now I never said I wanted to draft an OT what I said is that it may be more of an option then alot of people think if the QBs are gone. Sling all the F bombs you want though.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
02-13-2009, 06:30 PM
I have no idea what the Chiefs are gonna do but I'm sure if they don't do what you think they should you'll be the first to call them "fucking idiots". Now I never said I wanted to draft an OT what I said is that it may be more of an option then alot of people think if the QBs are gone. Sling all the F bombs you want though.

PhilFree:arrow:

Thanks, I will.

If the Chiefs draft a Left Tackle with the number three overall pick, I'll go absolutely ballistic.

And I hardly doubt I'd be the only one.

Mecca
02-13-2009, 06:33 PM
Malcolm Jenkins has the realistic probability of being significantly better than any of the CB's currently on the Chiefs, you'd be pretty hard pressed to get a rookie OT to play better than Albert did last year.

philfree
02-13-2009, 06:40 PM
Thanks, I will.

If the Chiefs draft a Left Tackle with the number three overall pick, I'll go absolutely ballistic.

And I hardly doubt I'd be the only one.


So who's the best pick if it's not a QB?And remember I want a QB. My posts on this thread are about if one isn't available.



PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
02-13-2009, 06:43 PM
So who's the best pick if it's not a QB?And remember I want a QB. My posts on this thread are about if one isn't available.



PhilFree:arrow:

I think it's been covered several times now.

philfree
02-13-2009, 06:43 PM
Malcolm Jenkins has the realistic probability of being significantly better than any of the CB's currently on the Chiefs, you'd be pretty hard pressed to get a rookie OT to play better than Albert did last year.

So is Jenkins worthy of the 3rd pick in your not so humble opinion?


PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
02-13-2009, 06:44 PM
I think it's been covered several times now.

That was specific for Dane. So you think it's Jenkins?


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
02-13-2009, 06:45 PM
If it's not a QB Jenkins is really the only other player you can justify based on team and positional value.

DaneMcCloud
02-13-2009, 06:56 PM
That was specific for Dane. So you think it's Jenkins?


PhilFree:arrow:

At this point in time (before the Combines), I'd agree with Mecca.

You have to admit, our secondary would rival the secondary of the 80's with Jenkins back there.

philfree
02-13-2009, 07:00 PM
If it's not a QB Jenkins is really the only other player you can justify based on team and positional value.

I'm not against that. Jenkins never really was mentioned the few times I watched Ohio State play. That don't mean anything though.


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
02-13-2009, 07:12 PM
I'm not against that. Jenkins never really was mentioned the few times I watched Ohio State play. That don't mean anything though.


PhilFree:arrow:

You should have seen him when they played Purdue he was the only reason they won...

B_Ambuehl
02-13-2009, 07:43 PM
Maybe not a tackle at #3 due to what you'll have to pay him at that spot, but if you can take that pick and trade down to the 10-15 range and pick up an extra 1st or 2nd rounder there's no reason you wouldn't look at a tackle with one of those picks. Hell, Carolina spent 2 first rounders last year on Otah and they already had a franchise left tackle.

I would have no problem at all with this ball club trading down into the teens and picking up someone like a Michael Oher to play right tackle, providing they get at least another 2nd rounder out of the deal.

Mecca
02-13-2009, 07:46 PM
Ah yes because trading out of the top 5 is easy...uh huh.

And if you'd drop 10 spots for just a 2nd rounder...I don't have words for the tardedness of that.

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 07:46 PM
Maybe not a tackle at #3 due to what you'll have to pay him at that spot, but if you can take that pick and trade down to the 10-15 range and pick up an extra 1st or 2nd rounder there's no reason you wouldn't look at a tackle with one of those picks. Hell, Carolina spent 2 first rounders last year on Otah and they already had a franchise left tackle.

I would have no problem at all with this ball club trading down into the teens and picking up someone like a Michael Oher to play right tackle, providing they get at least another 2nd rounder out of the deal.

If they trade down 10+ spots and only get a 2nd in return, things will get ugly around here.

I mean, they're only leaving 1700 points on the table. (equal to the 5th overall pick)

Mecca
02-13-2009, 07:47 PM
If they trade down 10+ spots and only get a 2nd in return, things will get ugly around here.

I mean, they're only leaving 1700 points on the table. (equal to the 5th overall pick)

Why is is so god damn hard for people to understand if you trade out of 3 and drop more than 2 spots what you get back should be a ridiculous haul?

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 07:53 PM
Why is is so god damn hard for people to understand if you trade out of 3 and drop more than 2 spots what you get back should be a ridiculous haul?

It comes back to not understanding the draft.

A lot of people don't understand value of picks.

A lot of people don't understand positional value.

People play too much Madden.

People just aren't knowledgeable about it, but want to fit in and act like they are. Instead of reading and learning, they can't resist jumping into the fray.

It would be like me going to a math forum and trying to act like I know the first goddamn thing about sine, cosine and tangent.

After 5 minutes of that act, some math geek would probably tell me to walk into an AIDS tree...

Mecca
02-13-2009, 07:55 PM
It comes back to not understanding the draft.

A lot of people don't understand value of picks.

A lot of people don't understand positional value.

People play too much Madden.

People just aren't knowledgeable about it, but want to fit in and act like they are. Instead of reading and learning, they can't resist jumping into the fray.

It would be like me going to a math forum and trying to act like I know the first goddamn thing about sine, cosine and tangent.

After 5 minutes of that act, some math geek would probably tell me to walk into an AIDS tree...

You'd then tell them that their math chart is dumb.

OnTheWarpath58
02-13-2009, 08:00 PM
You'd then tell them that their math chart is dumb.

ROFL

Pythagoras is an idiot. Let ME tell you how you should do this.

MIAdragon
02-13-2009, 08:13 PM
If it's not a QB Jenkins is really the only other player you can justify based on team and positional value.

Is he that much better than Vonte Davis?

blaise
02-13-2009, 10:09 PM
It comes back to not understanding the draft.

A lot of people don't understand value of picks.

A lot of people don't understand positional value.

People play too much Madden.

People just aren't knowledgeable about it, but want to fit in and act like they are. Instead of reading and learning, they can't resist jumping into the fray.

It would be like me going to a math forum and trying to act like I know the first goddamn thing about sine, cosine and tangent.

After 5 minutes of that act, some math geek would probably tell me to walk into an AIDS tree...

The difference is - math is useful.

Saccopoo
02-14-2009, 12:33 AM
Again, I will ask why it's okay to consider a cornerback a legitimate "value" in the Top 5 in a draft, and a linebacker is not?

Cornerbacks, even the best, are only successful approximately 30% of the time, are usually not asked to support in run coverage and have shit for hands (it why they are playing defense instead of being a wide receiver). As well, because of the rules favoring the offense, a good quarterback is going to beat a great cornerback every time if given enough time. A linebacker, and more importantly a strong side linebacker, is responsible for pass coverage, run support, rushing the quarterback, etc. At least to me, it seems that the linebacker would have a higher priority than a cornerback for a defense and when selecting one in the draft.

Why is it okay for the Chiefs to select Jenkins at #3 (especially if the two quarterbacks are off the board) instead of someone like Curry, who our resident draft experts think would be a complete waste at #3 because of his position.

The "experts" here say that unless he's DT or LT, you don't pick a LB at that spot, but it seems to me that the best cornerback of the last ten years, Champ Bailey, hasn't done shit in terms winning playoff games or getting his team to the Super Bowl. I mean, if you are Mike Shanahan, then perhaps cornerbacks mean something because his ego was so incredibly enormous that he thought that if he got two Pro Bowl corners, that would let him beat Indy or New England and win the Super Bowl, but he didn't seem to realize that a cornerback doesn't win you jack squat.

Mecca
02-14-2009, 12:44 AM
Physically no Jenkins isn't that much better if at all...but Davis has character concerns and he's Vernon Davis brother...Jenkins is off the charts with intangibles and leadership and knowing how to play his position.

A CB is much more valuable than a LB is...who gets bigger contracts CB's or LB's...there ya go. A top notch CB is very valuable because he opens the rest of your defense even the very best LB is playing a role.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-14-2009, 01:25 AM
Again, I will ask why it's okay to consider a cornerback a legitimate "value" in the Top 5 in a draft, and a linebacker is not?

Cornerbacks, even the best, are only successful approximately 30% of the time, are usually not asked to support in run coverage and have shit for hands (it why they are playing defense instead of being a wide receiver). As well, because of the rules favoring the offense, a good quarterback is going to beat a great cornerback every time if given enough time. A linebacker, and more importantly a strong side linebacker, is responsible for pass coverage, run support, rushing the quarterback, etc. At least to me, it seems that the linebacker would have a higher priority than a cornerback for a defense and when selecting one in the draft.

Why is it okay for the Chiefs to select Jenkins at #3 (especially if the two quarterbacks are off the board) instead of someone like Curry, who our resident draft experts think would be a complete waste at #3 because of his position.

The "experts" here say that unless he's DT or LT, you don't pick a LB at that spot, but it seems to me that the best cornerback of the last ten years, Champ Bailey, hasn't done shit in terms winning playoff games or getting his team to the Super Bowl. I mean, if you are Mike Shanahan, then perhaps cornerbacks mean something because his ego was so incredibly enormous that he thought that if he got two Pro Bowl corners, that would let him beat Indy or New England and win the Super Bowl, but he didn't seem to realize that a cornerback doesn't win you jack squat.

Cornerbacks are better raw athletes than WRs because they don't know where the receiver is going. They have to react, they don't know that the receiver is running a 3 or a 7 route, so not only to they have to have more fluid hips, they generally have better straight line and make up speed.

You can ask Steve Young, who said that the '94 49ers won because of Deion.

He even said as much, "Deion made the difference in our defense."

No one here is equating a CB with a top flight tackle, end or QB, hell, even a DT, but a true lockdown corner changes the schemes that your D can run.

milkman
02-14-2009, 08:12 AM
Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.


PhilFree:arrow:

You're right, Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert, and they wouldn't give a rat's ass if Albert didn't play well.

Carl and Herman fucking Edwards would pass on a LT if they were still here if Albert didn't play well, because they would want to give him time to justify his selection.

But the fact is, Albert played exceptionally well, and Piloli and Haley will care about that.

They won't take another LT because it will be clear to them that we have a good one.

philfree
02-14-2009, 08:17 AM
You're right, Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert, and they wouldn't give a rat's ass if Albert didn't play well.

Carl and Herman ****ing Edwards would pass on a LT if they were still here if Albert didn't play well, because they would want to give him time to justify his selection.

But the fact is, Albert played exceptionally well, and Piloli and Haley will care about that.

They won't take another LT because it will be clear to them that we have a good one.

That's the best counter reply I've read.



PhilFree:arrow:

Saccopoo
02-14-2009, 11:05 AM
No one here is equating a CB with a top flight tackle, end or QB, hell, even a DT, but a true lockdown corner changes the schemes that your D can run.

One can make that argument with any position. A dominant player is going to make a difference regardless if they are a LB, CB, DE, DT, etc. My point is that with the changes and enforcement of pass interference rules since 2004, the overall impact a cornerback has on the game has been minimized to a certain degree.

As such, I would think that the days of the "shutdown" corner as an area of importance and "value" would be also minimized in terms of looking at a players relative value in the draft.

orange
02-14-2009, 12:44 PM
For those of you stressing the "positional value" of draft picks - not one Cornerback has been drafted earlier than pick 5 in the last ten years. The one who was picked fifth - Terence Newman - was a bit of a reach.

Explanation?


[addendum] My quick count shows only 8 total going in the top ten picks during that entire decade.

Saccopoo
02-14-2009, 01:22 PM
In fact, historically, the 2008 season was the highest in terms of yards per catch in NFL history. I think that we are in the middle of a transition in terms of how the game is played, coached, refereed, etc. Because of it's success on the college level, one is now seeing the influence of the spread type offense creeping into the NFL; the more stringent enforcement of pass interference rules (since the end of the 2003 season); a focus of more intricate offensive schemes involving multiple set offenses; an evolution of the tight end position from one of a primarily blocking responsibility to one of a multi-function receiving role; wildcat type formations, etc., I think that the "value" of a swiss-army knife linebacker would present a higher value than a cornerback in todays NFL. As such, and this is just my observation, a player with multiple skill sets at the linebacker position such as Curry would ultimately be viewed as having a greater value than a singular role type position such as corner back.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2009, 01:39 PM
As such, and this is just my observation, a player with multiple skill sets at the linebacker position such as Curry would ultimately be viewed as having a greater value than a singular role type position such as corner back.

Then please explain to me how teams like the Steelers routinely find linebackers in the 2nd round and later (or undrafted) but have had serious problems finding cornerbacks that stick.

They've gone through so many guys, free agents and draft choices, but have yet to find a true shutdown corner, let alone a guy with equal talent to their linebacker talent.

I don't buy that argument, at all.

Otherwise, guys like Asante Samuel wouldn't be so sought after in free-agency.

mylittlepony
02-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Our RT next year has to go up against the likes of:

Justin Tuck, Greg Ellis, Sean Phillips, Lamar Woodley, Jarret Johnson

Now Im not saying I'd go Tackle in the first round. But I'm starting to question alot more if this is a position that can be "had" in the later rounds. The current trend in the NFL is to focus more on rushing the passer. With LDE increasing in value, so should the value of RT. If the chiefs manage to get a Franchise QB they need to look hard at this position. Now RT isnt as important as LT because the QB can get rid of the ball when they see the rush. But Im willing to guess just a few of the boys listed above will still make that franchise QB pay for getting rid of it a smidge to late (welcome to the league rook).

Saccopoo
02-14-2009, 05:41 PM
Then please explain to me how teams like the Steelers routinely find linebackers in the 2nd round and later (or undrafted) but have had serious problems finding cornerbacks that stick.

They've gone through so many guys, free agents and draft choices, but have yet to find a true shutdown corner, let alone a guy with equal talent to their linebacker talent.

I don't buy that argument, at all.

Otherwise, guys like Asante Samuel wouldn't be so sought after in free-agency.

You don't have to buy the argument Dane - you are selling it for me.

The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the past four years without what people consider a "shutdown cornerback," and have based the focus of their defense on their linebacking corps.

Defensive player of the year this past season? LINEBACKER James Harrison.

When you talk about those Patriots teams that won Super Bowls, and reference their defense, are you talking about their cornerbacks or their linebackers? Ted Bruschi and Vrabel seem to get more airtime than Brady does.

Does anyone remember the names of the Bears cornerbacks from their Super Bowl team three seasons ago, or might it have been that their best defensive player was *gasp* a linebacker?

What position has won more NFL Defensive Player of the Year awards? By a large margin - the linebacker.

What we are talking about is perceived value in the draft. And by any consideration that I can think of, it is the cornerback position that is the most "over-valued," at least compared to the linebacker.

Look, I'd like the Chiefs to select a quarterback this draft. I think that they've got a chance to get one of two guys who look to be "franchise" level. But I believe that the original question was "What if those two were gone, and what would the Chiefs do in that particular scenario?"

I just couldn't possibly see Malcolm Jenkins being "the guy" in the situation. I'm sure he is a fine player, and seems to fit the bill for being a quality defensive back, but looking at the Chiefs, as well as looking at the importance of the various positions, I couldn't possibly envision Jenkins being a higher value pick to the Chiefs than someone like Aaron Curry.

Brock
02-14-2009, 05:51 PM
The fact you think Brian Urlacher is the best player on the Bears defense makes me chuckle.

HMc
02-14-2009, 05:58 PM
i heard roaf was coming back

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:04 PM
You don't have to buy the argument Dane - you are selling it for me.

The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the past four years without what people consider a "shutdown cornerback," and have based the focus of their defense on their linebacking corps.

Defensive player of the year this past season? LINEBACKER James Harrison.

When you talk about those Patriots teams that won Super Bowls, and reference their defense, are you talking about their cornerbacks or their linebackers? Ted Bruschi and Vrabel seem to get more airtime than Brady does.

Does anyone remember the names of the Bears cornerbacks from their Super Bowl team three seasons ago, or might it have been that their best defensive player was *gasp* a linebacker?

What position has won more NFL Defensive Player of the Year awards? By a large margin - the linebacker.

What we are talking about is perceived value in the draft. And by any consideration that I can think of, it is the cornerback position that is the most "over-valued," at least compared to the linebacker.

Look, I'd like the Chiefs to select a quarterback this draft. I think that they've got a chance to get one of two guys who look to be "franchise" level. But I believe that the original question was "What if those two were gone, and what would the Chiefs do in that particular scenario?"

I just couldn't possibly see Malcolm Jenkins being "the guy" in the situation. I'm sure he is a fine player, and seems to fit the bill for being a quality defensive back, but looking at the Chiefs, as well as looking at the importance of the various positions, I couldn't possibly envision Jenkins being a higher value pick to the Chiefs than someone like Aaron Curry.

Are you really this dense? Your dreamboy James Harrison was UNDRAFTED. Mike Vrabel was drafted in the THIRD ROUND. Teddy Bruschi was drafted in the THIRD ROUND.

I'd take Tommie Harris and/or Lance Briggs over Urlacher. By the way, Briggs was drafted in the THIRD ROUND.

:doh!:

Saccopoo
02-14-2009, 06:10 PM
The fact you think Brian Urlacher is the best player on the Bears defense makes me chuckle.

On their 2006 Super Bowl team he was.

orange
02-14-2009, 06:16 PM
Urlacher named AP Defensive Player of the Year

NEW YORK -- Brian Urlacher, the latest leader of the Monsters of the Midway, won The Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Year award Friday.


The Chicago Bears' star middle linebacker and the face of a ferocious defense that allowed the fewest points in the league this season, Urlacher adds the honor to his 2000 AP Defensive Rookie of the Year award.

Chicago's turnaround from the bottom of the NFC North pack to 11-5 and division winner was paced by the defense, which yielded 202 points, 45 fewer than Indianapolis, the next-stingiest team. He had 121 tackles, six sacks and a fumble recovery, but stats don't define Urlacher.

Full-field coverage, intimidating hits and big plays do.

"People are realizing we have some good players here," Urlacher said. "Anytime you lose, nothing really matters except winning. ... People realize that when you win, you obviously have some good players on your team."

Chicago has enough of them on defense to draw votes for four. Urlacher's 34 votes from a nationwide panel of 50 sports writers and broadcasters who cover the NFL gave him a runaway victory. Teammates Alex Brown at end, Lance Briggs at outside linebacker, and Nathan Vasher at cornerback each received one vote.

"Best player on the best defense. He should be the defensive MVP," Pro Bowl safety Mike Brown said. "He makes a lot of impact plays, but just him being on the field, teams have to scheme against us. They have to do different things to stay away from him. He's the leader of our team."

Second to Urlacher was Colts DE Dwight Freeney with four votes. Also receiving votes were Steelers safety Troy Polamalu (3), Cardinals safety Adrian Wilson (2), Giants end Osi Umenyiora (2), Broncos cornerback Champ Bailey (1) and Jaguars tackle Marcus Stroud (1).

But Urlacher was unchallenged.

"He's the best linebacker in the league," said Briggs, who plays next to Urlacher and had a breakout season himself. "He's making it happen all day, every day."

Added DE Adewale Ogunleye: "I don't think anyone in the league deserves that award more than him. "He's busted his tail inside and out. Everybody's saying he's overhyped and overrated. He really did everything he had to do to be a leader."

Chicago's defense had to be overwhelming for the Bears to become winners. The offense has been mediocre at best, inept at times.

So it was left to Urlacher and crew to carry the team. They did, allowing fewer than 14 points 10 times. At home, the Bears went 7-1 and yielded a mere 61 points in those games. Only Cincinnati, which beat the Bears 24-7 in Game 3, scored more than nine points at Soldier Field.

And guess where the Bears play their first playoff game next week.

"He runs all over the field," Briggs said. "He chases down guys like Michael Vick. He creates havoc."

The only other Bear to win the award was another great middle linebacker, Mike Singletary, in 1985 and '88.

Urlacher is the fifth player to win a top defensive rookie award and also the AP Defensive Player of the Year. Pittsburgh's Joe Greene was rookie of the year in 1969 and defensive player in '74. The Steelers Jack Lambert did it in 1974 and '76. Lawrence Taylor had the rarest double, winning both honors in 1981. He also was the top defensive player in 1982 and '86 for the Giants. San Francisco's Dana Stubblefield was top rookie in 1993 and No. 1 defensive player in '97.

Last year's winner was Baltimore safety Ed Reed.


But I'm sure random fans on a Chiefs site know better....

Brock
02-14-2009, 06:18 PM
On their 2006 Super Bowl team he was.

If that's true (it's not), it's only because Tommie Harris wasn't playing. I know casual fans of the game don't really notice what's really going on, so I won't waste anyone's time arguing with you about it.

Brock
02-14-2009, 06:20 PM
But I'm sure random fans on a Chiefs site know better....

Well, considering he was voted the second most overrated player in the league by the actual players in the league, I'll go with what they think.

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:22 PM
But I'm sure random fans on a Chiefs site know better....

:rolleyes:

WTF do you expect his teammates to say? "He didn't deserve it, I'm better. Without me Brian is shit."

orange
02-14-2009, 06:22 PM
I'll go with what his teammates think, myself.

Guys who played alongside both him and Harris.

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:24 PM
I'll go with what his teammates think, myself.

Guys who played alongside both him and Harris.

You can go with whatever you want, but you're wrong.

orange
02-14-2009, 06:25 PM
You can go with whatever you want, but you're wrong.

Me, Brown, Briggs, and Ogunleye. I'll take it.

Speaking of "wrong," anyone want to try answering why you would take a CB with the third pick - something NO team has done in at least a decade?


For those of you stressing the "positional value" of draft picks - not one Cornerback has been drafted earlier than pick 5 in the last ten years. The one who was picked fifth - Terence Newman - was a bit of a reach.

Explanation?


[addendum] My quick count shows only 8 total going in the top ten picks during that entire decade.

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:31 PM
Speaking of "wrong," anyone want to try answering why you would take a CB with the third pick - something NO team has done in at least a decade?

After you explain why you want to take a LB with the third pick - something NO team has done in over 20 years - and the only time one has recently been taken 3rd or earlier he turned out to be a BUST?

orange
02-14-2009, 06:34 PM
After you explain why you want to take a LB with the third pick - something NO team has done in over 20 years - and the only time one has recently been taken 3rd or earlier he turned out to be a BUST?
I'm actually not calling for a LB. I think they'll go DL - but NOT CB. Some of you are throwing Jenkins out as an alternative to Curry or a Tackle and it makes no sense.


p.s. 3-time All-Pro LaVar Arrington was a BUST? What does that make every player on the Chiefs?

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:37 PM
I'm actually not calling for a LB. I think they'll go DL - but NOT CB. Some of you are throwing Jenkins out as an alternative to Curry or a Tackle and it makes no sense.

Which defensive lineman in this draft do you think is worthy of the #3 overall selection?

orange
02-14-2009, 06:43 PM
Which defensive lineman in this draft do you think is worthy of the #3 overall selection?

Raji.

Maybe Everett Brown - he's a physical freak (incredible speed), needs to show some character and mental capacity at the combines to move up. Of course, he'll probably be a LB in the NFL.

Orakpo maybe.

Fact is, there are no standout candidates beyond Stafford, really - except for a couple OT's but that brings us back to the thread topic: "Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3?"

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:47 PM
Raji.

Maybe Everett Brown - he's a physical freak (incredible speed), needs to show some character and mental capacity at the combines to move up. Of course, he'll probably be a LB in the NFL.

Orakpo maybe.

Fact is, there are no standout candidates beyond Stafford, really - except for a couple OT's but that brings us back to the thread topic: "Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3?"

Which brings us back to the answer to the thread topic - because we already have a LT and you don't take a RT #3 overall.

orange
02-14-2009, 06:51 PM
About Curry - it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Chiefs take him. He may be the best FOOTBALL PLAYER in the draft, and that's what "the Patriots Way" has been all about. I realize he doesn't have sacks, but that may be due to how he was utilized. It doesn't mean he can't get them. As I pointed out on some other thread, Piolli/Belechick drafted Richard Seymour who had only 1.5 sacks as a senior (which is low, even for a DT, before someone chirps in). Sacks were never part of his package, but the Pats saw a football player there, and drafted him.

orange
02-14-2009, 06:52 PM
Which brings us back to the answer to the thread topic - because we already have a LT and you don't take a RT #3 overall.

And you also don't take a CB #3 overall - except when you do (applies to both positions and LB, too).

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 06:57 PM
p.s. 3-time All-Pro LaVar Arrington was a BUST? What does that make every player on the Chiefs?

Maybe bust is a little strong, but if you draft a guy #2 overall you should get more than 3 Pro Bowls and out of the league after 7 seasons. He never realized his massive amount of hype.

orange
02-14-2009, 06:59 PM
Maybe bust is a little strong, but if you draft a guy #2 overall you should get more than 3 Pro Bowls and out of the league after 7 seasons. He never realized his massive amount of hype.

Head issues. The talent is certainly there (still good, even, if not for the injuries). At least he's not as bad as Ryan Leaf.

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 07:02 PM
Head issues. The talent is certainly there (still good, even, if not for the injuries). At least he's not as bad as Ryan Leaf.

Absolutely had talent. Played very undisciplined and, IMO, dumb as rocks.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-14-2009, 08:03 PM
About Curry - it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Chiefs take him. He may be the best FOOTBALL PLAYER in the draft, and that's what "the Patriots Way" has been all about. I realize he doesn't have sacks, but that may be due to how he was utilized. It doesn't mean he can't get them. As I pointed out on some other thread, Piolli/Belechick drafted Richard Seymour who had only 1.5 sacks as a senior (which is low, even for a DT, before someone chirps in). Sacks were never part of his package, but the Pats saw a football player there, and drafted him.

The annals of football history are littered with elite teams led by a cover backer.

orange
02-14-2009, 08:10 PM
The annals of football history are littered with elite teams led by a cover backer.

Would you take Mike Singletary (19 sacks for his career)?

How about Ray Lewis (33.5 sacks... but over 13 seasons)?

DaKCMan AP
02-14-2009, 08:29 PM
Would you take Mike Singletary (19 sacks for his career)?

How about Ray Lewis (33.5 sacks... but over 13 seasons)?

Great example - guys not taken within the first 25 picks.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2009, 08:29 PM
You don't have to buy the argument Dane - you are selling it for me.

The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the past four years without what people consider a "shutdown cornerback," and have based the focus of their defense on their linebacking corps.

You're a fucking moron. Seriously. You're a fucking MORON.

They didn't draft a LB in the top 5. They didn't draft a LB in the 10. They didn't draft a LB in the top 15. They let Joey Porter walk (who's pissed off by the way that he didn't stay in Pittsburgh). Harrison is undrafted, Farrior was an UFRA and Woodley was a late 2nd rounder. If ANYTHING, this says "Don't spend the number 3 overall pick on a linebacker".

JFC.

Oh, there's a few other reasons why they won the Super Bowl in 2005 and 2008: Ben Rothlisberger and Troy Palumalu.

Without EITHER of those guys, they'd be just another football team.

orange
02-14-2009, 08:33 PM
Great example - guys not taken within the first 25 picks.

Just like Tom Brady and Kurt Warner and ... - let's not go there, okay?

The point isn't to find diamonds in the rough, it's who's the most likely diamond at #3. I just listed two LBs who were huge impact players even though they weren't pass-rushers.

If Curry projects out to potentially that kind of player on Piolli's board, why should he not take him?

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2009, 08:37 PM
Just like Tom Brady and Kurt Warner and ... - let's not go there, okay?

This is such a fucking stupid argument.

orange
02-14-2009, 08:45 PM
This is such a ****ing stupid argument.

Your wife beats you, doesn't she? So much anger over nothing...

Mecca
02-14-2009, 09:15 PM
Well Orange is a Bronco fan so of course he wants us to pick Curry he can then laugh at us for overdrafting a overhyped LB after his team did the samething with DJ Williams and hasn't gotten nearly the production for his selection spot.

orange
02-14-2009, 09:44 PM
Well Orange is a Bronco fan so of course he wants us to pick Curry he can then laugh at us for overdrafting a overhyped LB after his team did the samething with DJ Williams and hasn't gotten nearly the production for his selection spot.

Yes, you found me out! I post messages on ChiefsPlanet because I know Pioli will read them and be influenced!!

Damn, you're good.

Mecca
02-14-2009, 10:06 PM
Yes, you found me out! I post messages on ChiefsPlanet because I know Pioli will read them and be influenced!!

Damn, you're good.

LOL, you don't have any interest in the Chiefs being good so cmon now.

ChiefsCountry
02-14-2009, 10:07 PM
LOL, you don't have any interest in the Chiefs being good so cmon now.

No shit its like us dogging Cutler when we all would give our left nut to have him.

orange
02-14-2009, 10:10 PM
LOL, you don't have any interest in the Chiefs being good so cmon now.

Strangely enough, I do. They've been my #2 team from back in AFL days.

But let's say you're right and I wish them ill...

Your scenario still doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't I prefer them to draft Sanchez - which I've said would be a mistake - then have him suck so I can laugh at you guys and say "I told you so" for the next three years?

As it is, if the Chiefs draft Curry, I have to hope he works out so I don't have egg on my face.

Mecca
02-14-2009, 10:12 PM
Strangely enough, I do. They've been my #2 team from back in AFL days.

But let's say you're right and I wish them ill...

Your scenario still doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't I prefer them to draft Sanchez - which I've said would be a mistake - then have him suck so I can laugh at you guys and say "I told you so" for the next three years?

Ok let me ask you this question..

Why would you draft Curry 3 when that pick would mean you'd have to pay him more than you could get Dansby for in FA, hell if you take Curry 3 you might be able to get Dansby and Leroy Hill cheaper combined.

orange
02-14-2009, 10:16 PM
Ok let me ask you this question..

Why would you draft Curry 3 when that pick would mean you'd have to pay him more than you could get Dansby for in FA, hell if you take Curry 3 you might be able to get Dansby and Leroy Hill cheaper combined.

First, I'm not that high on Curry personally, but he IS the one guy everyone says is a can't miss prospect in this draft, so like I said above a couple pages, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Chiefs draft him.

Second, I don't think Dansby gets past the Broncos.

[edit] to save you having to dig back, I think the Chiefs will (and should*) take a DL.

*unless Stafford is there, but I don't see any way that happens.

Saccopoo
02-15-2009, 01:03 AM
You're a ****ing moron. Seriously. You're a ****ing MORON.

They didn't draft a LB in the top 5. They didn't draft a LB in the 10. They didn't draft a LB in the top 15. They let Joey Porter walk (who's pissed off by the way that he didn't stay in Pittsburgh). Harrison is undrafted, Farrior was an UFRA and Woodley was a late 2nd rounder. If ANYTHING, this says "Don't spend the number 3 overall pick on a linebacker".

JFC.

Oh, there's a few other reasons why they won the Super Bowl in 2005 and 2008: Ben Rothlisberger and Troy Palumalu.

Without EITHER of those guys, they'd be just another football team.

Oh, I'm sorry. Weren't you the dumbass touting the Steelers lack of defensive backs, specifically cornerbacks as to a primary reason why a team has to value a cornerback in the top three? Because they have won a Super Bowl two of the past four years? And they have a good quarterback? And that they have drafted good linebackers? And that their cornerback position has been de-valued because of said good linebackers?

Dumbass.

Seriously.

Read what you wrote.

I know it's Valentines, and you are sitting at home, alone, but there is no reason for you to get all pissy about stupid shit you have already penned.

philfree
02-15-2009, 10:09 AM
The annals of football history are littered with elite teams led by a cover backer.


He's alot more than that. You just like to try and devalue the guy to support your argument. The truth is he does it all and is a great LB prospect. The only place I see negative stuff about Curry is on Chiefs Planet. Most draft gurus say he's a legit top five pick and from what I've seen of the guy he is.


PhilFree:arrow:

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 10:13 AM
First, I'm not that high on Curry personally, but he IS the one guy everyone says is a can't miss prospect in this draft, so like I said above a couple pages, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Chiefs draft him.

Second, I don't think Dansby gets past the Broncos.

[edit] to save you having to dig back, I think the Chiefs will (and should*) take a DL.

*unless Stafford is there, but I don't see any way that happens.

THERE.IS.NO.SUCH.THING.AS.A.CAN'T.MISS.PROSPECT.IN.ANY.FUCKING.DRAFT.

funny slightly related/pointless anecdote? I remember when I was younger and I collected football cards hardcore. in the 1997 press pass football set there was in insert (with varying odds of pulling the cards)... it had six cards in the collection. they were cards of yatil green, warrick dunn, orlando pace, jim druckenmiller, peter bouleware and rae carruth. the 'can't miss' prospects of the 1997 draft. of all of those guys, you have a convicted murderer, an abject injury bust, a solid RB (but not all-world 'can't miss!'), a solid OLB/de (bouleware was never the feared sack-master you want in the top five), a qb who sucked (druckenmiller never lived up to the hype), and ONE guy who lived up to the billing (if you ignore his injury issues for the last several years)... orlando pace.

so the lesson? can't miss doesn't exist. there is no such thing as a safe pick. I don't want safe. I want the pick that will net us a lombardi or two my lifetime.

BTW: you can't truly be a broncos AND chiefs' fan. wtf is this 'second team' bullshit? pick one team and go with it.

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 10:14 AM
He's alot more than that. You just like to try and devalue the guy to support your argument. The truth is he does it all and is a great LB prospect. The only place I see negative stuff about Curry is on Chiefs Planet. Most draft gurus say he's a legit top five pick and from what I've seen of the guy he is.


PhilFree:arrow:

derrick johnson was a legitimate top five pick in draft evaluations too. oh wait, then real GMs stepped up and he fell outside of the top ten.

oops.

philfree
02-15-2009, 10:20 AM
derrick johnson was a legitimate top five pick in draft evaluations too. oh wait, then real GMs stepped up and he fell outside of the top ten.

oops.

Maybe a top 10. OH wait......are you saying Hamas is a real GM?



PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
02-15-2009, 10:23 AM
I know it's Valentines, and you are sitting at home, alone, but there is no reason for you to get all pissy about stupid shit you have already penned.

GFY.

Maybe it'll make you smarter.

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Maybe a top 10. OH wait......are you saying Hamas is a real GM?



PhilFree:arrow:

nice deflection.

nope. he was considered one of the elite prospects of that draft. it's funny, really, that chiefs fans have that bad of a memory. would you pick derrick johnson third overall? because EVERYTHING that has been said about curry was said of johnson before the 2005 draft. as prospects, they're very similar. how has that worked out for us?

philfree
02-15-2009, 10:30 AM
nice deflection.

nope. he was considered one of the elite prospects of that draft. it's funny, really, that chiefs fans have that bad of a memory. would you pick derrick johnson third overall? because EVERYTHING that has been said about curry was said of johnson before the 2005 draft. as prospects, they're very similar. how has that worked out for us?


After watching both they're not really that much alike. The thing about where a guy gets picked has alot to do with the other players in the draft. This draft is not top heavy and there's a good chance that whoever is picked with the third pick won't be worth that pick. Now I'm not preaching draft Curry above all else I was pointing out that Curry is alot more then "a cover backer."


PhilFree:arrow:

DeezNutz
02-15-2009, 10:32 AM
derrick johnson was a legitimate top five pick in draft evaluations too. oh wait, then real GMs stepped up and he fell outside of the top ten.

oops.

Top 3 in most mocks at this time in his draft year.

Guess we know all too well why he fell to #15, and we would have been wise to let him keep falling, unfortunately.

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 10:40 AM
After watching both they're not really that much alike. The thing about where a guy gets picked has alot to do with the other players in the draft. This draft is not top heavy and there's a good chance that whoever is picked with the third pick won't be worth that pick. Now I'm not preaching draft Curry above all else I was pointing out that Curry is alot more then "a cover backer."


PhilFree:arrow:

god. looking back at the 2005 draft, some real juggernauts went above dj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

alex smith, cedric benson, pacman, troy williamson, mike williamson, I could go on and on.

and it's funny... who did DJ go after (LB wise)? ware and merriman (both rushbackers) AND thomas davis (meaning dj wasn't even the first cover backer taken).

so yeah--I don't give a shit HOW good a prospect the OLB (cover-backer) is... I'm not taking him top three.

milkman
02-15-2009, 10:41 AM
After watching both they're not really that much alike. The thing about where a guy gets picked has alot to do with the other players in the draft. This draft is not top heavy and there's a good chance that whoever is picked with the third pick won't be worth that pick. Now I'm not preaching draft Curry above all else I was pointing out that Curry is alot more then "a cover backer."


PhilFree:arrow:

9 1/2 sacks in his college career says, regardless of any other attribute, he is not a top 5 LB.

philfree
02-15-2009, 10:55 AM
9 1/2 sacks in his college career says, regardless of any other attribute, he is not a top 5 LB.

In most drafts I'd agree but 2009 I'm not 100% on that. He did have 45.5 tkfl though. I think he could have had more sacks but they didn't ask him to do that very much..What Curry does so well is shed blocks allowing him to get in space and make tackles/plays.


PhilFree:arrow:

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 11:10 AM
In most drafts I'd agree but 2009 I'm not 100% on that. He did have 45.5 tkfl though. I think he could have had more sacks but they didn't ask him to do that very much..What Curry does so well is shed blocks allowing him to get in space and make tackles/plays.


PhilFree:arrow:

let's see... DJ had 10.5 sacks in his college career (one more than aaron curry), 69 TFL (compared to 45.5 for curry).

man. I REALLY want to take him in the top three now, seeing as he can't live up to the disappointing results of DJ, who was better than he was in college:

:shake:

philfree
02-15-2009, 11:25 AM
let's see... DJ had 10.5 sacks in his college career (one more than aaron curry), 69 TFL (compared to 45.5 for curry).

man. I REALLY want to take him in the top three now, seeing as he can't live up to the disappointing results of DJ, who was better than he was in college:

:shake:

I want a QB but if it don't work out then the Chiefs are gonna have to pick somebody. As far as better in college I think Curry is a better player and a better pro prospect then DJ. That's my opinion though.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
02-15-2009, 11:35 AM
I want a QB but if it don't work out then the Chiefs are gonna have to pick somebody. As far as better in college I think Curry is a better player and a better pro prospect then DJ. That's my opinion though.


PhilFree:arrow:

Better than DJ?

He sure as hell better be a "better prospect" than DJ.

DJ is average at best. He was certainly not worth the #15 overall pick in the draft. Personally, I don't think he'll ever improve. If he was a fourth rounder, I'd be okay with him.

As it stands, total failure on the part of the "personnel team" in 2005.

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 11:42 AM
I want a QB but if it don't work out then the Chiefs are gonna have to pick somebody. As far as better in college I think Curry is a better player and a better pro prospect then DJ. That's my opinion though.


PhilFree:arrow:

you serious? do you even remember how much of a destructive force DJ was when he was at texas? he was a one-man wrecking machine. I'm not fully convinced that curry measures up to what DJ was at texas.

and dane, I hope you're wrong, but part of me worries that you're right. so many of our top round guys have gone bust. it can't all be our horrible draft record--the guys HAVE talent. part of me hopes that a new coaching staff can bring out the beast that was DJ at texas. but, he's been such a disappointment that it's anybody's guess.

philfree
02-15-2009, 11:49 AM
you serious? do you even remember how much of a destructive force DJ was when he was at texas? he was a one-man wrecking machine. I'm not fully convinced that curry measures up to what DJ was at texas.

and dane, I hope you're wrong, but part of me worries that you're right. so many of our top round guys have gone bust. it can't all be our horrible draft record--the guys HAVE talent. part of me hopes that a new coaching staff can bring out the beast that was DJ at texas. but, he's been such a disappointment that it's anybody's guess.


DJ was on a better team. So you think DJ was a better prospect then Curry?

Yeah all of our Top D picks have not lived up to their pick status. Coaching has to be a big part of that. Hopefully the new regime can change that.


PhilFree:arrow:

Ebolapox
02-15-2009, 11:56 AM
DJ was on a better team. So you think DJ was a better prospect then Curry?

Yeah all of our Top D picks have not lived up to their pick status. Coaching has to be a big part of that. Hopefully the new regime can change that.


PhilFree:arrow:

I'll put it this way... I'm not convinced that curry is a better prospect than dj was... seriously, go back and read over the pre-draft stuff of dj... he was a freaking monster, man. literally everything I've read about curry brings to mind exact things that were said about dj.

orange
02-15-2009, 12:01 PM
derrick johnson was a legitimate top five pick in draft evaluations too. oh wait, then real GMs stepped up and he fell outside of the top ten.

oops.

nice deflection.

nope. he was considered one of the elite prospects of that draft. it's funny, really, that chiefs fans have that bad of a memory. would you pick derrick johnson third overall? because EVERYTHING that has been said about curry was said of johnson before the 2005 draft. as prospects, they're very similar. how has that worked out for us?

and it's funny... who did DJ go after (LB wise)? ware and merriman (both rushbackers) AND thomas davis (meaning dj wasn't even the first cover backer taken).

so yeah--I don't give a shit HOW good a prospect the OLB (cover-backer) is... I'm not taking him top three.


Derrick Johnson obviously fell like a rock due to the evaluations made AFTER college - he fell so far that Thomas Davis A SAFETY was drafted before him as a project. What was funny is how Chiefs fans ignored this obvious fact and drank the koolaid without a second thought.

As for EVERYTHING that was said about Johnson being said about Curry, I don't think that's true. I never once heard DJ described as a smart player.

Besides, projecting DJ onto Curry is every bit as dumb as projecting Blackledge onto the QB of your choice.

orange
02-15-2009, 12:16 PM
... What was funny is how Chiefs fans ignored this obvious fact and drank the koolaid without a second thought.

A very similar thing happened with John Tait, who Chiefs fans thought was the second coming even though no one else nationally had such high regard for him.

Tait is a good cautionary tale. Like DJ, Tait was even considered a successful rookie at LT here - just like Branden Albert now. Why you guys are willing to declare Albert a success eludes me. The fact is it was impossible to grade him correctly for two reasons - the right side of the Chiefs line collapsed so fast you couldn't tell if Albert was holding up long enough; and the team spent most of the year in a gimmick offense that no one believes they're going to run again. I'd say the jury is still out on Albert at LT, and it wouldn't be a nonsensical pick if Pioli took a real LT.

Back to DJ and Tait, some guys just get hyped beyond all proportion on fan boards for some reason. I believe that's the case with Mark Sanchez here this year.

DaneMcCloud
02-15-2009, 12:21 PM
A very similar thing happened with John Tait, who Chiefs fans thought was the second coming even though no one else nationally had such high regard for him.

Tait is a good cautionary tale. Like DJ, Tait was even considered a successful rookie at LT here - just like Branden Albert now. Why you guys are willing to declare Albert a success eludes me. The fact is it was impossible to grade him correctly for two reasons - the right side of the Chiefs line collapsed so fast you couldn't tell if Albert was holding up long enough; and the team spent most of the year in a gimmick offense that no one believes they're going to run again. I'd say the jury is still out on Albert at LT, and it wouldn't be a nonsensical pick if Pioli took a real LT.

Back to DJ and Tait, some guys just get hyped beyond all proportion on fan boards for some reason. I believe that's the case with Mark Sanchez here this year.

Wait...Can you hear that sound?

It's the sound of me not giving a flying fuck about what some Donko fan thinks of Chiefs fans.

Orange cocksucker.

CupidStunt
02-15-2009, 03:40 PM
Tait is a good cautionary tale. Like DJ, Tait was even considered a successful rookie at LT here - just like Branden Albert now. Why you guys are willing to declare Albert a success eludes me. The fact is it was impossible to grade him correctly for two reasons - the right side of the Chiefs line collapsed so fast you couldn't tell if Albert was holding up long enough; and the team spent most of the year in a gimmick offense that no one believes they're going to run again. I'd say the jury is still out on Albert at LT, and it wouldn't be a nonsensical pick if Pioli took a real LT.


LMAO

Nice try, prick. I'm sure you're spewing that garbage about Clady as well, right? The guy who's about as strong as you and only has to pass-block for a half-second so Cutler can look at Marshall on his bubble screen and bullet-pass it straight to him.

orange
02-15-2009, 06:08 PM
LMAO

Nice try, prick. I'm sure you're spewing that garbage about Clady as well, right? The guy who's about as strong as you and only has to pass-block for a half-second so Cutler can look at Marshall on his bubble screen and bullet-pass it straight to him.

Following Week 12 of the 2008 NFL season, Peter King of Sports Illustrated said Clady was the third-best rookie overall. On December 12, 2008, Clady won the Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week award, after his game against the Kansas City Chiefs. That was the first time all season that a lineman, both offensively and defensively, won the award.

Clady finished third in voting behind Matt Ryan and Chris Johnson for the 2008 NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year Award. He was the only offensive lineman to receive any votes. Clady started every game during the 2008 NFL season and gave up just a half of a sack while committing only three penalties. He was the only starting NFL offensive lineman to give up less than one sack for the entire season. He was named to the Associated Press NFL All-Pro Second Team behind Michael Roos and Jordan Gross.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Branden Albert was a Chief.

Branden Albert in the News
7/24/2008 9:38:04 AM - Chiefs Agree to Terms with T Branden Albert

http://www.kcchiefs.com/player/branden_albert/ (his page on his team's website)

B_Ambuehl
02-15-2009, 10:49 PM
I haven't heard the same things about Curry at this point in the draft process that were being said about DJ. DJ was hyped to the hilt back during the '04 season but it wasn't a week after the season when everybody was getting into film evaluations before every draft guru and there brother were saying UH OH!, he doesn't like to take on blocks. Not that I'd want Curry at #3 anyway, just sayin.

blaise
02-16-2009, 08:26 AM
There were negative reports on DJ right before the draft. People started saying that when you watched him tackle he didn't take on the ball carrier head on. They said he had a habit of letting the ball carrier get to his side and then try and tackle him from the side or from behind. That was one of the reasons he caused a lot of fumbles in college, because he came from behind and punched the ball out.
The concern was that he had a lot of skill but he was soft, and that he wasn't going to be blowing guys up at the line of scrimmage. I remember it well, I was living in Houston at the time and you basically get Texas talk on the radio all the time, and every UT grad down there wants the Texans to draft UT players.
But anyway, that was the knock on DJ- he wasn't a physical enough linebacker.

DaneMcCloud
02-16-2009, 10:39 AM
There were negative reports on DJ right before the draft. People started saying that when you watched him tackle he didn't take on the ball carrier head on. They said he had a habit of letting the ball carrier get to his side and then try and tackle him from the side or from behind. That was one of the reasons he caused a lot of fumbles in college, because he came from behind and punched the ball out.
The concern was that he had a lot of skill but he was soft, and that he wasn't going to be blowing guys up at the line of scrimmage. I remember it well, I was living in Houston at the time and you basically get Texas talk on the radio all the time, and every UT grad down there wants the Texans to draft UT players.
But anyway, that was the knock on DJ- he wasn't a physical enough linebacker.

I remember hearing all of that and that's why some people wanted Thomas Davis instead of DJ because Davis didn't have any questions about his toughness.

Davis is an ascending player in the NFC South (113 tackles, 95 solo in 2008) whereas Derrick Johnson has remained the same throughout his career (averaging around 85 tackles per season).

philfree
02-16-2009, 01:10 PM
I haven't heard the same things about Curry at this point in the draft process that were being said about DJ. DJ was hyped to the hilt back during the '04 season but it wasn't a week after the season when everybody was getting into film evaluations before every draft guru and there brother were saying UH OH!, he doesn't like to take on blocks. Not that I'd want Curry at #3 anyway, just sayin.

I've read where some people think that Curry will be a better pro then he was a college player. And as far as taking on blocks Curry does and is great at shedding them and making the play. Curry says his biggest fault is that he;s to agressive sometimes. LOL a LB to agressive? Our D needs some agression.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
02-16-2009, 01:12 PM
I've read where some people think that Curry will be a better pro then he was a college player. And as far as taking on blocks Curry does and is great at shedding them and making the play. Curry says his biggest fault is that he;s to agressive sometimes. LOL a LB to agressive? Our D needs some agression.


PhilFree:arrow:

We don't need our linebackers to over-pursue. THAT's what they're referring to, not "aggression".

philfree
02-16-2009, 01:19 PM
We don't need our linebackers to over-pursue. THAT's what they're referring to, not "aggression".

It's not "they're" referring to anything that's what Curry said about himself when asked what the weakness of his game was. Curry will end up being a pro bowl LB for some team in the NFL. He'll make plays that change games. IMO he's that kind of a LB.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
02-16-2009, 01:57 PM
It's not "they're" referring to anything that's what Curry said about himself when asked what the weakness of his game was. Curry will end up being a pro bowl LB for some team in the NFL. He'll make plays that change games. IMO he's that kind of a LB.

PhilFree:arrow:

Well, I disagree. He played in the ACC. If he goes to a team with an already strong defense, he might make some plays.

Otherwise, he's just another solid NFL player at best.

And he's certainly not worth the #3 overall draft spot.

NickAthanFan
02-16-2009, 04:13 PM
It amazes me that the one known as Assclown (me) can see how dumb one must be to think you take a cover LB in the top 3.

Curry will not be our pick at 3, periot.

Sully
02-16-2009, 04:43 PM
Did I really see someone legitimately buy into the Maddenesque (read:dumb) claim that CBs are CBs because they can't catch?

orange
02-16-2009, 08:53 PM
Mecca:

Ok let me ask you this question..

Why would you draft Curry 3 when that pick would mean you'd have to pay him more than you could get Dansby for in FA, hell if you take Curry 3 you might be able to get Dansby and Leroy Hill cheaper combined.


Second, I don't think Dansby gets past the Broncos.



It doesn't look like Dansby's going anywhere after all.

Arizona is expected to make Dansby its franchise player by Wednesday, meaning QB Kurt Warner will not receive the tag and can test the free-agent market if he doesn’t re-sign with the team before then... Ordinarily, the franchise tag entitles a player to earn the average of the five highest-paid players at his position or 20 percent more than last year’s salary — whichever is greater. The 20 percent rule for Dansby is greater, meaning his franchise tag with Arizona will be worth a cool $9.6 million. But it also will limit Dansby from signing with another team. http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/02/16/cardinals-expected-to-franchise-lb-dansby/


In any case - do you think the third pick will cost more than $9.6 million/year?