PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft If Curry is gone at the 3 spot...who do we take or what do we do?


Pages : 1 [2]

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:13 PM
CAN YOU NOT ****ING READ?

This was about how Dorsey's value diminishes as DT as a result of a scheme change.

Albert's value as a LT does not diminish as a result of a scheme change, so he isn't moved to another position.

This has nothing to do with wether he has value as a RT.

This only has to do with his position not being affected as the result of a scheme change.

But teh fact is, if you insist on talking about moving him to RT, his value does diminish because a RT is not as valuable as a LT.

That's because the discussion has been about what we do if we're stuck at #3. Looking at the talent available and the positional needs, Monroe is the BPA who fits a need.

People have argued for Raji, and with sound logic, but it does EXACTLY what you're railing on: makes Dorsey a wasted #5 overall. Maybe he can play DE in a 3-4, maybe not. Chances are he becomes a backup/has no role at all and becomes trade fodder (good luck getting much value there when you consider where we took him).

You HAVE insinuated Albert's value is diminished.... when you talk about how RT is not as valuable. I disagree with that assessment! Our OL is in SERIOUS need at RT. If we are stuck at #3, cannot trade out, and don't wish to waste Dorsey, it is not inconceivable we draft Monroe and move Albert.

If we can trade down, all bets are off. Forget Monroe... the dude will be gone anyway, and we have many more needs. We can pick up a RT in later rounds.

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:16 PM
Because it's common knowledge that you put your best lineman at left tackle and you put a much lower-grade linemen on the right side. The left tackle has to have extremely quick feet because defenses always put their most explosive pass rusher on the blind side of the quarterback. That's why guys like Jonathan Ogden, Willie Roaf, Walter Jones, etc... are the ones who get the limelight and they all play left tackle. NO TEAM will put their best tackle on the right side. None. That's why teams use very high draft picks consistently on left tackles, but most tackles that grade out as right tackles at best always end up going around the late first at best.

It requires an entirely different skill set. Right tackles don't have to be outstanding because they usually have a tight end lined up next to them to provide them help. The left tackle, on the other hand, is almost always put on an island and has to go one-on-one with a pass rusher. And because they usually square up against the defense's second-best pass rusher, they usually don't have to be that quick. Most defenses will put up a bigger pass rusher against a RT because they know the DE will have to chip against both a RT and a TE. The point being that a player as talented as Albert would be wasted in a RT role because that's a position that usually gets a lot of help from the TEs and usually lines up against inferior pass rushers anyway. In a guard role, it's even a bigger waste of his talents because guards simply are not as important as tackles.

Bolded is the key. If our scouts do not believe Monroe would be a BETTER LT than Albert, whom we already know can play well at many positions along the line, then no worries, right? Monroe would not even be in consideration at #3.

How do they rate Monroe -v- Albert? We'll find outif we are stuck at #3.

The Buddha
03-01-2009, 06:17 PM
3-4 easier to find players. You guys are on crack if you think that. There is reason why were ever Parcells goes he takes the same guys around with him.

I always though it was because he gets annoyed at having to teach new players his style.

I am confused, though. What's the difference between a 3-4 MLB and a 4-3 ILB? Do you look for different things? Also, what about the difference between a 3-4 OLB and a 3-4 ILB. Do the outside guys really rush more than the inside guys, cause it seems like when I watch NE, you never know which of the LBs are gonna blitz. It looks very even to me.

sedated
03-01-2009, 06:17 PM
.You HAVE insinuated Albert's value is diminished.... when you talk about how RT is not as valuable. I disagree with that assessment! Our OL is in SERIOUS need at RT.


We can pick up a RT in later rounds.

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:19 PM
.

You ignored the key component: whether we're stuck at #3 or can trade down.

Willful ignorance = stupidity ;)

sedated
03-01-2009, 06:21 PM
People have argued for Raji, and with sound logic, but it does EXACTLY what you're railing on: makes Dorsey a wasted #5 overall.

the current front office did not draft Dorsey.

it makes more sense for them to say "he's not our guy, sorry, we are going in a different direction", than to say "the former regime drafted this guy pretty high, he's been a disappointment so far, but let's mold our future around him, no matter what it takes, even though it differs from our natural philosophy."

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:22 PM
the current front office did not draft Dorsey.

it makes more sense for them to say "he's not our guy, sorry, we are going in a different direction", than to say "the former regime drafted this guy pretty high, he's been a disappointment so far, but let's mold our future around him, no matter what it takes, even though it differs from our natural philosophy."

A disappointment? Really? Have you looked at his numbers?

I think expectations are too high around here.

sedated
03-01-2009, 06:24 PM
You ignored the key component: whether we're stuck at #3 or can trade down.

that wasn't the key component in my mind. You argue that Albert's value won't diminish by moving him to RT, but then later in the same post you admit that a quality RT can be had later in the draft.

But I'm glad you took the easy way out and went with the "you're stupid" smack.

The Buddha
03-01-2009, 06:25 PM
A disappointment? Really? Have you looked at his numbers?

I think expectations are too high around here.

DTs can't be measured in stats very well. I thought he was good. Anything near 40 tackles for an interior lineman is fine by me.

Besides, with the people on his line, I'd say he held his own, especially for this being his first year.

chiefzilla1501
03-01-2009, 06:28 PM
3-4 easier to find players. You guys are on crack if you think that. There is reason why were ever Parcells goes he takes the same guys around with him.

I'm not on crack. Do some reading on it and tell me what you find. Almost every source you read will tell you that the reason teams like the 3-4 is because finding 2 stud DEs on both sides of the line has become extremely difficult. Finding even one is difficult. That's considering that these days, the best 4-3 defenses have not 2 but 3 solid pass rushers. It's impossible to find an every-down DE who is explosive enough to rush the passer, but also big enough to shed blockers and win in the trenches. You have light 255 lb edge rushers who get dominated against the run and you have 280 lb every down DEs who are usually half as explosive as a speed rusher. You also need to find stud LBs who are capable of doing everything--they can't just be good in pass coverage, they also have to be big enough to stop the run and shed blockers, and have the instinct to see the entire field. You also need two DTs who are capable of both engaging blockers, but also being explosive enough to rush the passer. Building a 4-3 is really, really difficult.

In a 3-4, it's significantly easier for several reasons. Because players play roles, they don't have to be versatile. You don't have to find a LB who's quick AND big; who can move in coverage AND can shed blockers in the running game. Why do you think Kendrell Bell was such a disaster in KC? In Pittsburgh, his role was purely to be a bowling ball and to shed blockers like a machine. It didn't matter that he was horrendous in pass coverage. It didn't matter that he wasn't intelligent. He was told to attack, attack, attack. That was his role. Vrabel and Bruschi would probably never make it in a 4-3. They have smaller zones to cover and because they have specific roles, they have less responsibilities. On the DE/OLB side, they're a hell of a lot easier to find than DEs because there is a surplus of "tweeners" coming out of college. These are guys who are too small to play every down on the NFL level, but too big to play LB. And there are a ton of them. It's like this: what do you think is easier to find? A person who's really good at math? A person who's really good at art? Or a person who's really good at math AND art? That's an easy question--many artists don't know jackshit about math and many mathematicians couldn't draw their way out of a paper bag.

The DEs are also easier to find because their role is really defined. They don't have to be outstanding pass rushers. They only have to be very good at occupying blockers. That's why standard DTs usually excel in a 3-4 defense. Case-in-point... Turk McBride is a so-so player in a 4-3 because he not only has to occupy blockers, but also have the speed to get to the QB. In a 3-4, he only has to occupy blockers. The only major challenging position to fill in a 3-4 versus a 4-3 is the nose tackle position. But I would argue that finding one nose tackle is a hell of a lot easier than finding 2 DEs, 2 solid DTs, and a versatile MLB.

The goal of a 3-4 is to have 3 linemen down low who are basically occupying blockers. These linemen then open up lanes and gaps for LBs and Safeties to attack the QB or ball carrier from unexpected directions. Arguably, the coaching is more important than the personnel, as it doesn't matter how talented your players as much as it matters how good your coach is at surprising offenses with interesting blitz packages.

ChiefsCountry
03-01-2009, 06:29 PM
I always though it was because he gets annoyed at having to teach new players his style.

I am confused, though. What's the difference between a 3-4 MLB and a 4-3 ILB? Do you look for different things? Also, what about the difference between a 3-4 OLB and a 3-4 ILB. Do the outside guys really rush more than the inside guys, cause it seems like when I watch NE, you never know which of the LBs are gonna blitz. It looks very even to me.

Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

milkman
03-01-2009, 06:30 PM
That's because the discussion has been about what we do if we're stuck at #3. Looking at the talent available and the positional needs, Monroe is the BPA who fits a need.

People have argued for Raji, and with sound logic, but it does EXACTLY what you're railing on: makes Dorsey a wasted #5 overall. Maybe he can play DE in a 3-4, maybe not. Chances are he becomes a backup/has no role at all and becomes trade fodder (good luck getting much value there when you consider where we took him).

You HAVE insinuated Albert's value is diminished.... when you talk about how RT is not as valuable. I disagree with that assessment! Our OL is in SERIOUS need at RT. If we are stuck at #3, cannot trade out, and don't wish to waste Dorsey, it is not inconceivable we draft Monroe and move Albert.

If we can trade down, all bets are off. Forget Monroe... the dude will be gone anyway, and we have many more needs. We can pick up a RT in later rounds.

My post was specific.

You said we'd be bemoaning doing exactly the same thing with Albert if we drafted Monroe as we are doing to Dorsey by switching schemes.

But it isn't doing exactly the same thing.

We are not diminishing Dorsey's value because of who we draft, we are diminishing his value by switching schemes.

We could switch to any scheme on offense, it in no way would diminish Albert's value at LT.

We would, however, be diminishing Albert's value by who we draft, and regardless of need, a RT is not as valuable as LT.

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:32 PM
that wasn't the key component in my mind. You argue that Albert's value won't diminish by moving him to RT, but then later in the same post you admit that a quality RT can be had later in the draft.

But I'm glad you took the easy way out and went with the "you're stupid" smack.

No, you intentionally omitted key components of my take. You cherry-picked to make an invalid point. That WAS stupid.

If KC is stuck at #3 and they take the best player available, most likely Monroe, that means either he goes to RT (not likely for the #3 overall pick), or Albert gets moved there. The latter is not a stretch, considering he was the #16(?) overall. Not optimal, but a realistic scenario.

Trade down, no need to draft Monroe. No need to move Albert. The top at OT are off the board. You can then target an RT in later rounds.

chiefzilla1501
03-01-2009, 06:33 PM
Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

To some extent. Usually you have one who moves very well in coverage (aka, Zach Thomas in Dallas) and a guy who relentlessly attacks the line of scrimmage (aka Kendrell Bell in Pittsburgh). The coverage guy is a little lighter while the run guy is usually a little heavier. But not nearly as heavy as the OLBs in a 3-4, who usually weigh over 260 lbs.

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:36 PM
My post was specific.

You said we'd be bemoaning doing exactly the same thing with Albert if we drafted Monroe as we are doing to Dorsey by switching schemes.

But it isn't doing exactly the same thing.

We are not diminishing Dorsey's value because of who we draft, we are diminishing his value by switching schemes.

We could switch to any scheme on offense, it in no way would diminish Albert's value at LT.

We would, however, be diminishing Albert's value by who we draft, and regardless of need, a RT is not as valuable as LT.

Fair enough... I'm arguing positional specifics in relation to need & position in the draft, you're arguing positional specifics in regards to scheme changes. I see your point and agree that it is valid. :D


DTs can't be measured in stats very well. I thought he was good. Anything near 40 tackles for an interior lineman is fine by me.

Besides, with the people on his line, I'd say he held his own, especially for this being his first year.

Agreed. He had 46 tackles (32 solo), 1 sack, and 1 FF. Those numbers are very good, especially when you consider the variables: poor defensive scheme, poor coaching, poor surrounding talent, rookie season.

milkman
03-01-2009, 06:36 PM
No, you intentionally omitted key components of my take. You cherry-picked to make an invalid point. That WAS stupid.

If KC is stuck at #3 and they take the best player available, most likely Monroe, that means either he goes to RT (not likely for the #3 overall pick), or Albert gets moved there. The latter is not a stretch, considering he was the #16(?) overall. Not optimal, but a realistic scenario.

Trade down, no need to draft Monroe. No need to move Albert. The top at OT are off the board. You can then target an RT in later rounds.

Whether he "cherry picked", he's right.

milkman
03-01-2009, 06:39 PM
The fact that Dorsey's value is going to be diminished is why some are pissed that we likely will be switching schemes.

I can't say I'm pissed, but it is dissappointing that we will have essentially wasted the pick, and he's a guy with huge upside.

craneref
03-01-2009, 06:45 PM
I would take Crabtree! Keep TG on the team and Cassel would have plenty of targets! This would also open up the running game. Drafting that high I think you need to take the BEST available athlete and not get caught up in drafting for need. I would be estatic for Curry or Crabtree, of course would not be disappointed if the CHIEFS moved down and picked up some good extra picks!

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:45 PM
Whether he "cherry picked", he's right.

:spock:

I must be typing in a different language.

It's not that complicated.

The key is being stuck at #3 overall. If that were to happen, a realistic scenario is KC drafting an OT. If an OT is drafted that high, it is typically a LT (RT if your QB is a southpaw).

If that were to happen, what happens to Albert? Now, does that "diminish" him as a player when he has proven he can play any position? No.

Now, you following me camera guy? We're going to do this in real time: if KC TRADES DOWN, the OT scenario odds are greatly diminished. The need for a RT still remains. What does that mean? Bueller? Bueller? It means KC can draft for another need, then address RT at another time. OR, if a stud RT is available when they DO pick, perhaps they take him then. Depends on the position and the player now, doesn't it?

I can draw you a picture if you like.

HMc
03-01-2009, 06:49 PM
This is mad, but I'd say if Sanchez is there you take him, then open up the phones to offers (for him or cassel).

DeezNutz
03-01-2009, 06:49 PM
:spock:

I must be typing in a different language.

It's not that complicated.

The key is being stuck at #3 overall. If that were to happen, a realistic scenario is KC drafting an OT. If an OT is drafted that high, it is typically a LT (RT if your QB is a southpaw).

If that were to happen, what happens to Albert? Now, does that "diminish" him as a player when he has proven he can play any position? No.

Now, you following me camera guy? We're going to do this in real time: if KC TRADES DOWN, the OT scenario odds are greatly diminished. The need for a RT still remains. What does that mean? Bueller? Bueller? It means KC can draft for another need, then address RT at another time. OR, if a stud RT is available when they DO pick, perhaps they take him then. Depends on the position and the player now, doesn't it?

I can draw you a picture if you like.

Let's draft a guy and hope he's as good as the second-year player we already have at the same position.

It would make more sense to draft Stafford/Sanchez.

I see neither scenario as realistic.

milkman
03-01-2009, 06:50 PM
:spock:

I must be typing in a different language.

It's not that complicated.

The key is being stuck at #3 overall. If that were to happen, a realistic scenario is KC drafting an OT. If an OT is drafted that high, it is typically a LT (RT if your QB is a southpaw).

If that were to happen, what happens to Albert? Now, does that "diminish" him as a player when he has proven he can play any position? No.

Now, you following me camera guy? We're going to do this in real time: if KC TRADES DOWN, the OT scenario odds are greatly diminished. The need for a RT still remains. What does that mean? Bueller? Bueller? It means KC can draft for another need, then address RT at another time. OR, if a stud RT is available when they DO pick, perhaps they take him then. Depends on the position and the player now, doesn't it?

I can draw you a picture if you like.

The point he makes is that you admitted that RT has less value than LT by stating we could find one (RT) later in the draft.

If we actually had the need for LT, would you suggest that we could simply trade down and find a LT later?

philfree
03-01-2009, 06:54 PM
The Chiefs had Tait at LT when DV became HC and what did he do? He went and got Roaf and moved Tait to RT building one of the best O lines ever as well as a great offense. I think there will be a better pick then another LT but I could see Pioli not valuing Chiefs past draft picks when building his team.

PhilFree:arrow:

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:54 PM
Let's draft a guy and hope he's as good as the second-year player we already have at the same position.

It would make more sense to draft Stafford/Sanchez.

I see neither scenario as realistic.

Again, key is how KC's scouting department/front office views Monroe. If they look at him & think "Albert's as good/better", then the scenario is moot anyway, right?

In that instance, assuming Curry is off the board (as indicated in the thread title), we'll probably grab a NT (as has been suggested ad nauseum in this thread), which relegates Dorsey to DE or trade bait.

Best case in all scenarios is KC trades down.

DeezNutz
03-01-2009, 06:57 PM
Best case in all scenarios is KC trades down.

This is what desperately needs to happen. Maybe an outside shot of it coming to fruition with one of the QB's left on the board.

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 06:58 PM
This is what desperately needs to happen. Maybe an outside shot of it coming to fruition with one of the QB's left on the board.

Problem is we traded for a QB, so our leverage is lessened. Teams know we aren't a threat to take Stafford/Sanchez, so why trade up that high for one of them?

bdeg
03-01-2009, 07:34 PM
Problem is we traded for a QB, so our leverage is lessened. Teams know we aren't a threat to take Stafford/Sanchez, so why trade up that high for one of them?

Because Seattle could take one at 4. If Stafford or Monroe fall there might be options as Seattle could take either.

HC_Chief
03-01-2009, 07:36 PM
Because Seattle could take one at 4. If Stafford or Monroe fall, there might be options as Seattle could take either.

Then here's to Pioli convincing some team that Seattle is DEFINITELY taking Stafford/Sanchez/Monroe and getting us the hell outta the #3 position!

milkman
03-01-2009, 08:07 PM
The Chiefs had Tait at LT when DV became HC and what did he do? He went and got Roaf and moved Tait to RT building one of the best O lines ever as well as a great offense. I think there will be a better pick then another LT but I could see Pioli not valuing Chiefs past draft picks when building his team.

PhilFree:arrow:

Tait didn't play up to his billing as the #13 pick in his rookie season, and trading for Roaf was initially designed to bring in a stop gap/mentor.

But Roaf played for longer than expected and Tait hated Carl, so it never worked out according to plan.

Mecca
03-01-2009, 09:45 PM
I see there is an Oline obsession going on again.

BigRedChief
03-01-2009, 10:34 PM
Best case in all scenarios is KC trades down.
Yeah, so thats what everyone says but how to pull it off? Whats going to be there at #3 that would entice another team to trade up?

philfree
03-01-2009, 10:45 PM
Tait didn't play up to his billing as the #13 pick in his rookie season, and trading for Roaf was initially designed to bring in a stop gap/mentor.

But Roaf played for longer than expected and Tait hated Carl, so it never worked out according to plan.

I don't know if all that's true. Holmes did rush for 1,500 yards behind Tait the first year DV was HC. DV still devalued a 1st round pick LT by bringing in another LT and moving him to RT. It worked out pretty good offensively speaking. I'm not saying it's what I want but I think it's a possibility looking at what's going on.


PhilFree:arrow:

DeezNutz
03-01-2009, 10:46 PM
Yeah, so thats what everyone says but how to pull it off? Whats going to be there at #3 that would entice another team to trade up?

Luckily the most valuable commodity, a QB.

philfree
03-01-2009, 10:48 PM
Luckily the most valuable commodity, a QB.

Yup! Excuse me...... But yes Stafford could still be on the board and that is trade bait.


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
03-01-2009, 10:49 PM
You could possibly bait Jacksonville who desperately wants an LT...

And even using the Roaf example the Chiefs did not use a 1st round pick to acquire him.

DeezNutz
03-01-2009, 10:52 PM
And factor in that Roaf is arguably one of, if not the, greatest LT's of all time.

I think Monroe has all the talent in the world, but it's unrealistic to expect him to be Roaf, and this is why it would be foolhardy to move another young player who looks to have Pro-Bowl potential.

philfree
03-01-2009, 11:03 PM
And factor in that Roaf is arguably one of, if not the, greatest LT's of all time.

I think Monroe has all the talent in the world, but it's unrealistic to expect him to be Roaf, and this is why it would be foolhardy to move another young player who looks to have Pro-Bowl potential.


If Stafford is on the board and we can't work out a trade with some team then I'd pick him. And then I'd dangle him in front of the other teams to see what happened. If nothing happened then we have two QBs. Heck Stafford's only 20 years old so he can sit for a while. And he'll hold his value for a few years.



PhilFree:arrow:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-02-2009, 05:15 AM
Why is it shitty? Almost every team that runs it is a top 10 defense.

What's dumber is refusing to change your scheme when there is only one key player on your roster who doesn't fit into it. The Chiefs are practically at square 1 on defense. If there was ever a time in their history to consider moving to a 3-4, last year would have been perfect, but this year is just as good. I like Dorsey, but sorry, a 3-4 defense is a ton easier to build than a 4-3 and it will be worth sacrificing that #5 pick that was wasted, assuming that he doesn't find a role in this defense.

This is completely false in every regard.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-02-2009, 06:21 AM
Problem is we traded for a QB, so our leverage is lessened. Teams know we aren't a threat to take Stafford/Sanchez, so why trade up that high for one of them?

Every pick is in flux and EVERY pick risks being traded. Plus, Seattle is a possible taker for Sanchez or Stafford.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-02-2009, 06:26 AM
Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

This really isn't true. Look at the two ILB's in New England. 242lbs, 247lbs.

Look at the Steelers, 243lbs, 239lbs.

So, NO, the ILB's in a 3-4 AREN'T bigger. In FACT, they are typically smaller than a normal MLB, who plays around 255-260.

Brock
03-02-2009, 07:33 AM
There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.

chiefzilla1501
03-02-2009, 07:42 AM
This is completely false in every regard.

Sorry, pulled the trigger too quickly on the first point. But it does speak volumes that in spite of the fact that only 1/3 of the teams in the NFL run a 3-4, four of the top ten defenses are 3-4.

What's wrong about the second point? A 3-4 defense IS easier to build. If anything, the biggest obstacle is finding a nose tackle and a coach who can run it well. Finding LBs is significantly easier. Finding pass rushers is significantly easier because the defensive line does all the dirty work. Finding DEs is significantly easier because they're essentially DTs who don't have to worry too much about rushing the passer. You don't have to find versatile MLBS--you can just find role-playing LBs. This all points to the 3-4 being much easier to build.

Reaper16
03-02-2009, 07:45 AM
There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.
Hell yeah!

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-02-2009, 08:50 AM
Sorry, pulled the trigger too quickly on the first point. But it does speak volumes that in spite of the fact that only 1/3 of the teams in the NFL run a 3-4, four of the top ten defenses are 3-4.

What's wrong about the second point? A 3-4 defense IS easier to build. If anything, the biggest obstacle is finding a nose tackle and a coach who can run it well. Finding LBs is significantly easier. Finding pass rushers is significantly easier because the defensive line does all the dirty work. Finding DEs is significantly easier because they're essentially DTs who don't have to worry too much about rushing the passer. You don't have to find versatile MLBS--you can just find role-playing LBs. This all points to the 3-4 being much easier to build.

Do you realize that there are 5 good nose tackles in the entire league, at most?

Why the hell do you think Parcells took Jason Ferguson's ass from the Jets to the Cowboys to the Dolphins?

Here's the thing about the 3-4: You need two good rush backers (who can also cover the flats and tight ends), a sledgehammer MLB, a coverage MLB, a nose tackle (about as tough to find as a quarterback, and two ends that are 6'5" and 300 lbs.

Teams had a damned hard time finding this personnel when there were 5 teams running this scheme. What do you think it's going to be like when there are 12-15 teams and they don't get to monopolize talent, and people realize that you can steamroll a 3-4 without elite talent up front in the running game?