PDA

View Full Version : Jason Smith to Visit KC


Woodrow Call
03-19-2009, 11:38 AM
http://stl.scout.com/a.z?s=124&p=9&c=2&cid=848475&nid=3934900&fhn=1

Since the Scouting Combine, a source confirmed with Scout.com that Smith has met or will meet with four of the teams selecting in the top-five. Smith flew to Detroit to visit with the Lions on March 9th, and had private workouts with the St. Louis Rams on March 12th and the Cleveland Browns on March 17th. He’s also expected to visit the Kansas City Chiefs during the first week of April.

DaneMcCloud
03-19-2009, 11:39 AM
Due diligence

Frosty
03-19-2009, 12:50 PM
He’s also expected to visit the Kansas City Chiefs during the first week of April.

So is he "expected" to go to KC because they actually know something or because he went to the other four of the top 5?

RustShack
03-19-2009, 04:40 PM
Have the Chiefs worked out anyone that will be drafted at the top?

KCrockaholic
03-20-2009, 12:06 AM
Very interesting. Maybe they do want to move Albert to LG and have Jason become our LT if possible. Then Waters could either be the center or RG. But in the end, our RT still sucks.

DaneMcCloud
03-20-2009, 12:08 AM
Very interesting. Maybe they do want to move Albert to LG and have Jason become our LT if possible. Then Waters could either be the center or RG. But in the end, our RT still sucks.

Puleeeeeessssssssssssse

KCrockaholic
03-20-2009, 12:23 AM
Puleeeeeessssssssssssse

sounds like a good O-line to me.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 11:31 AM
Good oline.

And a horrible waste of our best pick in 20 years.

Deberg_1990
03-20-2009, 11:34 AM
Good oline.

And a horrible waste of our best pick in 20 years.


A potential STUD LT for 10 years would be a waste??

RustShack
03-20-2009, 12:04 PM
A potential STUD LT for 10 years would be a waste??

Since we drafted one last year, yes.

DaneMcCloud
03-20-2009, 12:09 PM
A potential STUD LT for 10 years would be a waste??

Are you implying that Albert isn't a stud left tackle?

DJ's left nut
03-20-2009, 12:13 PM
Good oline.

And a horrible waste of our best pick in 20 years.

Whatever pick we make at 3 will be a waste. There's simply nobody there worth taking that high.

I'm not in favor of taking Smith, but I also recognize that there's not going to be an ideal solution here. There's no QB, no pass rusher, not even a DT, CB or WR that's worth taking that high (though I think Crabtree is close).

DeezNutz
03-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Whatever pick we make at 3 will be a waste. There's simply nobody there worth taking that high.

I'm not in favor of taking Smith, but I also recognize that there's not going to be an ideal solution here. There's no QB, no pass rusher, not even a DT, CB or WR that's worth taking that high (though I think Crabtree is close).

Raji would justify the selection, and Maclin is more worthy of the spot than Crabtree. And I'm in no way suggesting that Maclin would be a good pick at this point in the draft.

BigChiefFan
03-20-2009, 12:45 PM
The pick will be D-line, O-line, or QB.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 12:57 PM
A potential STUD LT for 10 years would be a waste??

We already have a STUD LT, no "potential" about it. It's not broke so don't try to fix it.

RustShack
03-20-2009, 02:23 PM
Raji would justify the selection, and Maclin is more worthy of the spot than Crabtree. And I'm in no way suggesting that Maclin would be a good pick at this point in the draft.

Crabtree would fit our offense a lot better than Maclin would... but I'm assuming your a Mizzou fan since they are the only ones dumb enough to say that so I wont argue.

Kyle DeLexus
03-20-2009, 02:49 PM
Crabtree would fit our offense a lot better than Maclin would... but I'm assuming your a Mizzou fan since they are the only ones dumb enough to say that so I wont argue.

I'm not a Mizzou fan, but I disagree. We have Bowe who is the same mold as Crabs is, we need a speed guy to compliment him. I like DHB more than Maclin, but neither warrent a top 5 selection.

RustShack
03-20-2009, 04:10 PM
I'm not a Mizzou fan, but I disagree. We have Bowe who is the same mold as Crabs is, we need a speed guy to compliment him. I like DHB more than Maclin, but neither warrent a top 5 selection.

We have a speed guy in Bradley and we don't really need a speed guy with a QB like Cassel and an offense that is going to rely on short-medium passes. Also Crabtree is fast on the field, I could care less about how fast he is on the track. If the Chiefs start entering track meets then yeah lets grab Maclin and hope he stays healthy. Also, I'm not going to pretend to have watched a lot of his games, but the few I did watch he got hurt in or was already hurt.

Direckshun
03-21-2009, 02:43 AM
I swear to god if we draft Curry, he better redefine the LB position.

At this point, I'm in Raji's corner.

RustShack
03-21-2009, 02:44 AM
I swear to god if we draft Curry, he better redefine the LB position.

At this point, I'm in Raji's corner.

I don't really like Raji as a 3-4 NT. I think he would be an unreal 4-3 NT though, especially with Dorsey at UT.

bdeg
03-21-2009, 01:21 PM
I don't really like Raji as a 3-4 NT. I think he would be an unreal 4-3 NT though, especially with Dorsey at UT.

That would be a an amazing 4-3 DT combo, probably best in the league in a year or two. But damn, with 2 top-5 picks it had better be.

htismaqe
03-21-2009, 01:38 PM
I have little doubt that the long-term plan for the defense is the 3-4, so we either need to move Dorsey or not draft Raji.

At this point, I'd rather have Curry than Raji I think, but that's worst-case scenario.

Everette Brown or trade down for me.

Hog Farmer
03-21-2009, 01:55 PM
The beat writer for the Detroit Lions just said onNFL Network he is expecting the Lions to take Jason Smith #1 as their intention is to rebuild the team from the core. He also stated that the Lions were dead Last in Defense the last two years and Aaron Curry is also a possibility but he really expects it to be Smith.

htismaqe
03-21-2009, 01:57 PM
The beat writer for the Detroit Lions just said onNFL Network he is expecting the Lions to take Jason Smith #1 as their intention is to rebuild the team from the core. He also stated that the Lions were dead Last in Defense the last two years and Aaron Curry is also a possibility but he really expects it to be Smith.

It's setting up for Stafford to fall to us, which hopefully gives us a chance to trade down.

bdeg
03-21-2009, 03:53 PM
It's setting up for Stafford to fall to us, which hopefully gives us a chance to trade down.

With the depth at OT in this draft, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Stl takes Stafford if he falls. I hope you're right, though. We need them to fall in love with the tackles and/or not be that impressed with Stafford.

Also, I read that report and it wasn't very convincing. Just because a coach believes in strong line play doesn't mean he's going to neglect the QB position. Schwartz is a stats guy, and the stats say go QB if you think he's the guy.

KCrockaholic
03-21-2009, 08:04 PM
If we draft Raji I hope we stay in the 4-3. It would be pointless to switch to a 3-4 with Dorsey nowhere to go. But I wont pout if we draft Raji and stay in the 43. That would be incredible.

Mr. Krab
03-21-2009, 08:16 PM
Have the Chiefs worked out anyone that will be drafted at the top?hmmm ... Jason Smith might be the first pick of the draft? Is that high enough?

milkman
03-21-2009, 08:20 PM
hmmm ... Jason Smith might be the first pick of the draft? Is that high enough?

The answer is no, then.

They will be, acccording to this report, however, they haven't worked out Smith yet.

DeezNutz
03-21-2009, 08:34 PM
Crabtree would fit our offense a lot better than Maclin would... but I'm assuming your a Mizzou fan since they are the only ones dumb enough to say that so I wont argue.

LMAO

Yeah, why on earth would the Chiefs think about adding a dynamic receiver who can actually run, with some speed mind you? Stretching the field is overrated.

Plus, we have Bradley. (had a hard time even typing that)

As I said, no way in **** is Maclin worth the #3 spot, but the truth is that he's more justifiable in this spot than Crabtree.

Mr. Krab
03-21-2009, 08:51 PM
I swear to god if we draft Curry, he better redefine the LB position.

At this point, I'm in Raji's corner.
You have been listening to the Mecca patrol waaaaaay too much.

bdeg
03-21-2009, 08:53 PM
You have been listening to the Mecca patrol waaaaaay too much.

Direckshun makes his own opinions.

Mr. Krab
03-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Direckshun makes his own opinions.
and speaks for himself

bdeg
03-21-2009, 09:59 PM
I'll defend a good poster any time you're as far off as you are.

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2009, 10:03 PM
You have been listening to the Mecca patrol waaaaaay too much.

You're out of your mind.

If a linebacker is taken at #3, he'd better do more than just have a lot of tackles and play well in coverage. He'd better be Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor - a big time game changer.

If he's just a "solid" linebacker, well, there are plenty of those in the draft and personally, I don't see "much" difference between Curry and Cushing.

Except that Cushing played at USC and is projected to go in the late teens/early twenties.

philfree
03-21-2009, 10:15 PM
You're out of your mind.

If a linebacker is taken at #3, he'd better do more than just have a lot of tackles and play well in coverage. He'd better be Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor - a big time game changer.

If he's just a "solid" linebacker, well, there are plenty of those in the draft and personally, I don't see "much" difference between Curry and Cushing.

Except that Cushing played at USC and is projected to go in the late teens/early twenties.

I heard Mayock say that Cushing is just a two down LB. He said the same thing about Mauluaga.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2009, 10:21 PM
I heard Mayock say that Cushing is just a two down LB. He said the same thing about Mauluaga.


PhilFree:arrow:

You're telling me that Mayock thinks that these two guys, both of whom are projected to go in the first round, can only play on two downs? If true, he's full of shit.

Cushing is fine in coverage. Did you watch the Senior Bowl? Any USC games?

He was drooling all over Cushing at the Senior Bowl, so I find this hard to believe.

philfree
03-21-2009, 10:28 PM
You're telling me that Mayock thinks that these two guys, both of whom are projected to go in the first round, can only play on two downs? If true, he's full of shit.

Cushing is fine in coverage. Did you watch the Senior Bowl? Any USC games?

He was drooling all over Cushing at the Senior Bowl, so I find this hard to believe.


He said Cushing came out of the game on third down alot at USC. I watched only a little of USC but I did watch the Sr Bowl. Doesn't matter what I did I'm just posting what I heard Mayock say on the NFL Network.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2009, 10:39 PM
He said Cushing came out of the game on third down alot at USC. I watched only a little of USC but I did watch the Sr Bowl. Doesn't matter what I did I'm just posting what I heard Mayock say on the NFL Network.


PhilFree:arrow:

I'm sorry, but I think you confused Cushing with someone else. This is directly from Mayock's blog:

USC’s Brian Cushing is — and yet isn’t — the No. 2 outside linebacker prospect in the 2009 NFL draft.

Allow me to explain.

If you include only players who primarily played outside ‘backer in college, then yeah, Cushing’s No. 2, behind consensus No. 1 Aaron Curry of Wake Forest.

But if you start including college defensive ends who project to 3-4 OLBs in the NFL, the rankings change.

And this:

Statistically, Cushing was among the nation's best players at one of the nation's best programs. In 13 games for the Trojans (including a Rose Bowl victory over Penn State), Cushing had 73 tackles, 10 1/2 for a loss, and three sacks. Although earlier seasons were interrupted by various injuries, his consistency as a senior, along with that of teammates Rey Maualuga and Clay Matthews, helped USC boast of the best linebacker corps in the country. All three are projected as first-round picks.


And this from Mayock's Top 20:


1. Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
2. Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State
3. Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
4. Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma State
5. Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
6. Brian Orakpo, DE/LB, Texas
7. Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
8. B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
9. Brian Cushing, LB, USC
10. Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU
11. Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss
12. Larry English, DE/LB, Northern Illinois
13. James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
14. William Moore, S, Missouri
15. Clint Sintim, LB, Virginia
16. Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest
17. Max Unger, OL, Oregon
18. Rashad Johnson, S, Alabama
19. Michael Johnson, DE, Georgia Tech
20. Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan


I have an extremely hard time believing that Mayock would list Cushing at #9 (and Rey at #7) overall if he truly thought he was a 2 down player.




<!--startclickprintinclude--> <!--endclickprintinclude--> <!-- End of the main story body. -->

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2009, 10:44 PM
And here, Mayock's got Cushing as the #3 outside linebacker in the draft, just behind Curry and Orapko:

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story?id=09000d5d80dff358&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

And Rey-Rey's the number one Inside 'Backer.

This was dated 3/17/2009.

You must have heard wrong because that statement makes no sense.

philfree
03-21-2009, 10:47 PM
I'm sorry, but I think you confused Cushing with someone else. This is directly from Mayock's blog:

USC’s Brian Cushing is — and yet isn’t — the No. 2 outside linebacker prospect in the 2009 NFL draft.

Allow me to explain.

If you include only players who primarily played outside ‘backer in college, then yeah, Cushing’s No. 2, behind consensus No. 1 Aaron Curry of Wake Forest.

But if you start including college defensive ends who project to 3-4 OLBs in the NFL, the rankings change.

And this:

Statistically, Cushing was among the nation's best players at one of the nation's best programs. In 13 games for the Trojans (including a Rose Bowl victory over Penn State), Cushing had 73 tackles, 10 1/2 for a loss, and three sacks. Although earlier seasons were interrupted by various injuries, his consistency as a senior, along with that of teammates Rey Maualuga and Clay Matthews, helped USC boast of the best linebacker corps in the country. All three are projected as first-round picks.


And this from Mayock's Top 20:


1. Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
2. Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State
3. Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
4. Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma State
5. Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
6. Brian Orakpo, DE/LB, Texas
7. Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
8. B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
9. Brian Cushing, LB, USC
10. Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU
11. Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss
12. Larry English, DE/LB, Northern Illinois
13. James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
14. William Moore, S, Missouri
15. Clint Sintim, LB, Virginia
16. Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest
17. Max Unger, OL, Oregon
18. Rashad Johnson, S, Alabama
19. Michael Johnson, DE, Georgia Tech
20. Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan


I have an extremely hard time believing that Mayock would list Cushing at #9 (and Rey at #7) overall if he truly thought he was a 2 down player.




<!--startclickprintinclude--> <!--endclickprintinclude--> <!-- End of the main story body. -->


I was trying to find a clip of it but I had no luck. I'll keep looking for it though.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2009, 10:56 PM
I was trying to find a clip of it but I had no luck. I'll keep looking for it though.

PhilFree:arrow:

http://searchmedia.patriots.com/m/video/21886433/nfl_network_mayock_top_5_olbs.htm


There's a video where he talks about all of the available outside LBer's in the draft. He's got Cushing at #3 and doesn't say ONE WORD about him being a 2 down player.

philfree
03-21-2009, 11:16 PM
http://searchmedia.patriots.com/m/video/21886433/nfl_network_mayock_top_5_olbs.htm


There's a video where he talks about all of the available outside LBer's in the draft. He's got Cushing at #3 and doesn't say ONE WORD about him being a 2 down player.

I found that clip...Maybe it was somebody else. I heard it. I know I did. I'm not really knocking those guys they're great LB prospects IMO. I've watched alot of video of those guys and Curry and IMO Curry is head and shoulders above those two. I'd be glad to have any of them on the Chiefs.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2009, 11:42 PM
I found that clip...Maybe it was somebody else. I heard it. I know I did. I'm not really knocking those guys they're great LB prospects IMO. I've watched alot of video of those guys and Curry and IMO Curry is head and shoulders above those two. I'd be glad to have any of them on the Chiefs.


PhilFree:arrow:

Well, that's where we disagree.

I don't think that Curry is "head and shoulders" above Cushing. If he stays healthy, Cushing is going to be an extremely good linebacker. Maybe even great.

And whoever stated that is flat-out wrong.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-22-2009, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry, but I think you confused Cushing with someone else. This is directly from Mayock's blog:

USC’s Brian Cushing is — and yet isn’t — the No. 2 outside linebacker prospect in the 2009 NFL draft.

Allow me to explain.

If you include only players who primarily played outside ‘backer in college, then yeah, Cushing’s No. 2, behind consensus No. 1 Aaron Curry of Wake Forest.

But if you start including college defensive ends who project to 3-4 OLBs in the NFL, the rankings change.

And this:

Statistically, Cushing was among the nation's best players at one of the nation's best programs. In 13 games for the Trojans (including a Rose Bowl victory over Penn State), Cushing had 73 tackles, 10 1/2 for a loss, and three sacks. Although earlier seasons were interrupted by various injuries, his consistency as a senior, along with that of teammates Rey Maualuga and Clay Matthews, helped USC boast of the best linebacker corps in the country. All three are projected as first-round picks.


And this from Mayock's Top 20:


1. Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
2. Malcolm Jenkins, CB, Ohio State
3. Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
4. Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma State
5. Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
6. Brian Orakpo, DE/LB, Texas
7. Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
8. B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
9. Brian Cushing, LB, USC
10. Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU
11. Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss
12. Larry English, DE/LB, Northern Illinois
13. James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
14. William Moore, S, Missouri
15. Clint Sintim, LB, Virginia
16. Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest
17. Max Unger, OL, Oregon
18. Rashad Johnson, S, Alabama
19. Michael Johnson, DE, Georgia Tech
20. Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan


I have an extremely hard time believing that Mayock would list Cushing at #9 (and Rey at #7) overall if he truly thought he was a 2 down player.




<!--startclickprintinclude--> <!--endclickprintinclude--> <!-- End of the main story body. -->

That appears to be a Seniors-only list.

mylittlepony
03-22-2009, 05:40 PM
I was trying to find a clip of it but I had no luck. I'll keep looking for it though.

PhilFree:arrow:

I think the clip you are referring to is the PTD: Risky business
07:09 on the NFL.com homepage.

I don't know how to link it though sorry. 5:17 Its Michael Lombardi that says it however so it might not be the clip you are thinking of.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 11:59 AM
Well, that's where we disagree.

I don't think that Curry is "head and shoulders" above Cushing. If he stays healthy, Cushing is going to be an extremely good linebacker. Maybe even great.

And whoever stated that is flat-out wrong.

Per some NFL network coverage I saw, they said Cushing was a 2 down linebacker at USC. 3rd and long - they took him off the field.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Per some NFL network coverage I saw, they said Cushing was a 2 down linebacker at USC. 3rd and long - they took him off the field.

Yeah, that's been discussed already. Mike Lombardi apparently made that comment.

I think it's bullshit, but whatever. I don't know how you can say the guy is a first rounder, yet only play on two downs. Stupid.

Deberg_1990
03-23-2009, 12:17 PM
Are you implying that Albert isn't a stud left tackle?

No, not at all.

I do believe you can never have enough good RB's or offensive linemen.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 12:19 PM
Yeah, that's been discussed already. Mike Lombardi apparently made that comment.

I think it's bullshit, but whatever. I don't know how you can say the guy is a first rounder, yet only play on two downs. Stupid.

For the long run I'd take Matthews before Cushing or Rey.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 12:24 PM
No, not at all.

I do believe you can never have enough good RB's or offensive linemen.

Yeah but come on. Good offensive lineman and running backs can be found in rounds 2 through 5 and are found every year.

You don't need to spend the #3 overall pick just to get a good left tackle. Especially when you already have a good left tackle on the roster.

Furthermore, what makes you think that either Albert or Monroe would make great right tackles? The skill set is very different. I think too many people around here just don't understand that left tackle is a finesse position and right tackle is a road grader position.

Why take a guy out of his element and why invest $50 million in two left tackles?

DrRyan
03-23-2009, 12:25 PM
For the long run I'd take Matthews before Cushing or Rey.

I have seen at least one mock that has Matthews going after Rey Rey but before Cushing.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 12:56 PM
For the long run I'd take Matthews before Cushing or Rey.

I think it's highly ironic that people slam Sanchez for starting only 16 games, yet some of those same people would take a guy that started only 9 games over Cushing and Maualuga.

Bizarre.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 12:58 PM
I think it's highly ironic that people slam Sanchez for starting only 16 games, yet some of those same people would take a guy that started only 9 games over Cushing and Maualuga.

Bizarre.

I wouldn't take Matthews at #3 either.

CoMoChief
03-23-2009, 12:59 PM
We already have a STUD LT, no "potential" about it. It's not broke so don't try to fix it.

Well on the other hand, the rt side of the Oline sucks......a lot.

This coaching staff and new front office shouldnt have to worry about who was drafted where a year ago, and have that influence this draft as well..

IMO new blank slate, start over, draft the best #3 overall prospect. If its a tackle then its a tackle, and we will have a better Oline because of it.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 01:04 PM
Well on the other hand, the rt side of the Oline sucks......a lot.

This coaching staff and new front office shouldnt have to worry about who was drafted where a year ago, and have that influence this draft as well..

IMO new blank slate, start over, draft the best #3 overall prospect. If its a tackle then its a tackle, and we will have a better Oline because of it.

Horseshit.

There are plenty of guys in this draft that could start immediately at the right tackle position and be there for a 7 years or more. And they can be found in rounds 2-5, not with the #3 overall pick.

Furthermore, why invest upwards of $50 million dollars in TWO LEFT TACKLES? It's fucking stupid to even suggest it.

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Well on the other hand, the rt side of the Oline sucks......a lot.

This coaching staff and new front office shouldnt have to worry about who was drafted where a year ago, and have that influence this draft as well..

IMO new blank slate, start over, draft the best #3 overall prospect. If its a tackle then its a tackle, and we will have a better Oline because of it.

What are you going to do if Albert beats out Monroe for the LT spot? Everybody just assumes that they'll move Albert, but what if Monroe can't win the spot?

Monroe can't play multiple line positions like Albert can. If Monroe can't win the spot, then you're making a sacrifice at THE MOST IMPORTANT position on the line for the sake of shoring up the other side when you could shore up the other side in the later rounds or in free agency in June.

It's a dumb, dumb move.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 01:38 PM
Horseshit.

There are plenty of guys in this draft that could start immediately at the right tackle position and be there for a 7 years or more. And they can be found in rounds 2-5, not with the #3 overall pick.

Furthermore, why invest upwards of $50 million dollars in TWO LEFT TACKLES? It's ****ing stupid to even suggest it.

Dane, who is the can't miss right tackle you would take in the 3rd round? 4th round? 5th round?

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 01:40 PM
What are you going to do if Albert beats out Monroe for the LT spot? Everybody just assumes that they'll move Albert, but what if Monroe can't win the spot?

Monroe can't play multiple line positions like Albert can. If Monroe can't win the spot, then you're making a sacrifice at THE MOST IMPORTANT position on the line for the sake of shoring up the other side when you could shore up the other side in the later rounds or in free agency in June.

It's a dumb, dumb move.

It's speculation on your part that Monroe can't play multiple positions if need be. He played RG as a freshman.

Mecca
03-23-2009, 01:41 PM
KC Chiefs fans......RT's and ILB's are the shit forget those core positions.

doomy3
03-23-2009, 01:47 PM
KC Chiefs fans......RT's and ILB's are the shit forget those core positions.

I'm not sure I've heard you say who you want to draft now... I know it used to be Sanchez but who do you think the Chiefs should take at 3 now?

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 02:47 PM
For the long run I'd take Matthews before Cushing or Rey.

I'm sure you would.

Draft a guy with a Top 20 pick who's started 9 games in 5 years, who's name has more importance than his play on the field.

That sounds like what I know of you.

Matthews is Scott Fujita. A smart football player with limited athletic ability. He'll be a solid football player (barring injury) but he's not going to be a game changer.

He's a mid-third round pick at best but he'll go much higher due to name recognition.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 02:47 PM
Dane, who is the can't miss right tackle you would take in the 3rd round? 4th round? 5th round?

Well, last year it was Carl Nicks in the 5th. This year it's probably Urbick, though there are others.

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2009, 03:19 PM
For me on the Defensive side it looks like KC's draft board could be targeting Brown, Cushing, or Barwin for a str round pick of course the last two involve a trade down, and hopefully Brown could be had on a trade down too.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 03:21 PM
For me on the Defensive side it looks like KC's draft board could be targeting Brown, Cushing, or Barwin for a str round pick of course the last two involve a trade down, and hopefully Brown could be had on a trade down too.

I guess I'm the only one but I fail to see why the Chiefs would be targeting defensive players in the 2009 draft when they just traded for a QB who would currently be lining up behind the worst offensive line in the NFL. Especially when the 2009 NFL draft is loaded with offensive lineman.

Now is the time for the offense. 2010 is the time for defense.

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2009, 03:24 PM
I guess I'm the only one but I fail to see why the Chiefs would be targeting defensive players in the 2009 draft when they just traded for a QB who would currently be lining up behind the worst offensive line in the NFL. Especially when the 2009 NFL draft is loaded with offensive lineman.

Now is the time for the offense. 2010 is the time for defense.

This is a deep year at OL especially at the OG andd Center spots with an eventual tradedown to get the 2nd round pick back KC is back in business.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 03:27 PM
This is a deep year at OL especially at the OG andd Center spots with an eventual tradedown to get the 2nd round pick back KC is back in business.

Right but since you need three new starters, if you're going to load up your offensive line, you're looking at spending the 2nd, 3rd and either 4th or 5th pick on offensive lineman. That really doesn't leave room for any impact defensive players.

So basically what I'm saying is that while the Chiefs should absolutely do their homework on each and every interesting player, they shouldn't be "targeting" defense.

aturnis
03-23-2009, 04:00 PM
Schwartz is a stats guy, and the stats say go QB if you think he's the guy.

If he's a stats guy, he'd probably be more likely to go LT wouldn't you think? The stats do say that a LT taken high is more likely to turn out well, that a QB taken high. I think with QB it's 50/50, and LT is probably a LOT better than that.

aturnis
03-23-2009, 04:11 PM
We have a speed guy in Bradley and we don't really need a speed guy with a QB like Cassel and an offense that is going to rely on short-medium passes. Also Crabtree is fast on the field, I could care less about how fast he is on the track. If the Chiefs start entering track meets then yeah lets grab Maclin and hope he stays healthy. Also, I'm not going to pretend to have watched a lot of his games, but the few I did watch he got hurt in or was already hurt.

Kind of fucking retarded that you're not willing to take Maclin(obviously not at #3 but if we traded down) b/c you think he's injury prone(even though he didn't miss too much playing time) yet you're willing to call Bradley "our speed guy" when he was injured most of the season he spent playing for us. That's just idiotic.

Also, Crabtree is NOT a better fit for KC, we do already have a slow receiver in Bowe. We don't need a slow receiver who is also small to compliment him. The speed guy WOULD be ideal. Speed guys don't just get open down field, fast guys like Welker, get open underneath, and make big yards after the catch.

That said...I LOVE DHB.

bdeg
03-23-2009, 04:13 PM
If he's a stats guy, he'd probably be more likely to go LT wouldn't you think? The stats do say that a LT taken high is more likely to turn out well, that a QB taken high. I think with QB it's 50/50, and LT is probably a LOT better than that.

LT has a better chance of working out to be a good player, but a good QB is statistically worth more than a good LT.

bdeg
03-23-2009, 04:15 PM
That said...I LOVE DHB.

You love what he's shown, or what he could be?

Very high ceiling, very high bust factor.

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2009, 04:31 PM
Right but since you need three new starters, if you're going to load up your offensive line, you're looking at spending the 2nd, 3rd and either 4th or 5th pick on offensive lineman. That really doesn't leave room for any impact defensive players.

So basically what I'm saying is that while the Chiefs should absolutely do their homework on each and every interesting player, they shouldn't be "targeting" defense.

Draft where the talent is slotted, If KC can get a solid OL out of this draft then I'm satisfied. If KC gets one elite level pass rusher too then I'm fucking amped.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 04:40 PM
Draft where the talent is slotted, If KC can get a solid OL out of this draft then I'm satisfied. If KC gets one elite level pass rusher too then I'm fucking amped.

I would be as well. I just don't think that one exists. That of course is my decision based on the knowledge that we have today. I just don't see a consistent 10 sack plus per year player at this time.

I know that others disagree.

aturnis
03-23-2009, 06:42 PM
I would be as well. I just don't think that one exists. That of course is my decision based on the knowledge that we have today. I just don't see a consistent 10 sack plus per year player at this time.

I know that others disagree.

I would definitely agree. No elite pass rushers this year. I'd take Brown with a mid first.

BigChiefFan
03-24-2009, 10:34 PM
There is an elite pass-rusher in the draft, when you consider his position is a DT.

Cornstock
03-25-2009, 12:41 AM
I really wish we still had a second round pick. Then we could get our RT and we would take something on defense at 3. Barring some pioli magic we will have to settle for a 3rd round RT. As deep as this class is at OL there is still a good chance we can get an opening day starter at RT in the 3rd IMO.

Cornstock
03-25-2009, 12:47 AM
Kind of ****ing retarded that you're not willing to take Maclin(obviously not at #3 but if we traded down) b/c you think he's injury prone(even though he didn't miss too much playing time) yet you're willing to call Bradley "our speed guy" when he was injured most of the season he spent playing for us. That's just idiotic.

Also, Crabtree is NOT a better fit for KC, we do already have a slow receiver in Bowe. We don't need a slow receiver who is also small to compliment him. The speed guy WOULD be ideal. Speed guys don't just get open down field, fast guys like Welker, get open underneath, and make big yards after the catch.

That said...I LOVE DHB.

Could it be said that Crabtree is the better talent but Maclin would fit in better in KC? I agree its kind of apples and oranges, even at the same position, because they are two completely different types of receivers.
I would say Crabtree, for most other teams in need of a WR, would warrant a 3rd overall pick, but Maclin would not. I don't think we should "reach" for Maclin.

Tribal Warfare
03-25-2009, 12:53 AM
I really wish we still had a second round pick.

Which also makes a tradedown more plausible.

milkman
03-25-2009, 05:46 AM
I really wish we still had a second round pick. Then we could get our RT and we would take something on defense at 3. Barring some pioli magic we will have to settle for a 3rd round RT. As deep as this class is at OL there is still a good chance we can get an opening day starter at RT in the 3rd IMO.

You do not ****ing draft RTs with the third overall pick in the draft.
That is nearly as ****ing stupid as drafting a guard with the third overall pick.

You can find RTs in the third round, in the fourth round, in the fifth round, etc. in every ****ing draft, not just this year.

Every ****ing year, and it doesn't take some mythical Pioli magic to find them.

JFC, average Chief fans are dumbasses.

Chiefs=Good
03-25-2009, 06:34 AM
You do not ****ing draft RTs with the third overall pick in the draft.
That is nearly as ****ing stupid as drafting a guard with the third overall pick.

You can find RTs in the third round, in the fourth round, in the fifth round, etc. in every ****ing draft, not just this year.

Every ****ing year, and it doesn't take some mythical Pioli magic to find them.

JFC, average Chief fans are dumbasses.

I think he meant the third as in the round.. But true none the less...

Chiefnj2
03-25-2009, 08:54 AM
I'm sure you would.

Draft a guy with a Top 20 pick who's started 9 games in 5 years, who's name has more importance than his play on the field.

That sounds like what I know of you.

Matthews is Scott Fujita. A smart football player with limited athletic ability. He'll be a solid football player (barring injury) but he's not going to be a game changer.

He's a mid-third round pick at best but he'll go much higher due to name recognition.

Matthews is more athletic than Cushing and Rey. He had the fastest 10 yard split of any defensive lineman or linebacker.

philfree
03-25-2009, 08:59 AM
I think he meant the third as in the round.. But true none the less...

LOL...really sucks when you call someone a fucking idiot after misreading what they posted. I so wanna be a not average Chiefs fan so I can be like the those guys.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-25-2009, 06:59 PM
Matthews is more athletic than Cushing and Rey. He had the fastest 10 yard split of any defensive lineman or linebacker.

That's why he started 9 games in five years at USC, right?

Chiefnj2
03-25-2009, 08:30 PM
That's why he started 9 games in five years at USC, right?

That's why with his meager 9 games he's worked his way into the first round. If people didn't see tons of talent he'd be a 6th round pick with his experience.

Tribal Warfare
03-25-2009, 08:36 PM
That's why with his meager 9 games he's worked his way into the first round. If people didn't see tons of talent he'd be a 6th round pick with his experience.

Mike Mamula

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 08:49 PM
Clay Matthews redefines the term "maxed out".

DaneMcCloud
03-25-2009, 10:31 PM
That's why with his meager 9 games he's worked his way into the first round. If people didn't see tons of talent he'd be a 6th round pick with his experience.

On name recognition alone.

If his name was Bob Smith, he'd be a 5th rounder at best.

KCwolf
03-25-2009, 11:18 PM
Whatever pick we make at 3 will be a waste. There's simply nobody there worth taking that high.

I'm not in favor of taking Smith, but I also recognize that there's not going to be an ideal solution here. There's no QB, no pass rusher, not even a DT, CB or WR that's worth taking that high (though I think Crabtree is close).


The BEST post of this thread....There is no clear cut winner here....

aturnis
03-26-2009, 06:21 AM
LT has a better chance of working out to be a good player, but a good QB is statistically worth more than a good LT.

Well duh. Of course, QB is the most important player on the field, and while LT is a VERY important position, in my opinion, it is a tiny bit overrated. Statistically though, the pick most likely to work out in your favor is LT, and that's something a brand new GM and Head Coach are looking for. They can't afford to fuck up their first important pick. LT is safe, and no one will clamor about it.

bdeg
03-26-2009, 10:38 AM
is that a joke? we already have an lt so you'd essentially be drafting a G or RT

RustShack
03-26-2009, 09:31 PM
is that a joke? we already have an lt so you'd essentially be drafting a G or RT

Really I don't know, but looking at the positives say we do draft a LT again and he is better than Albert... Albert was the best OG prospect in years and it shows by how well hes playing at LT. We could have our own young Roaf and Shields again. Now I'm not saying we should, but if it does happen it could end up really good, assuming the new LT is better than Albert which isn't guaranteed. No matter who we draft and where they wont be worth the pick and its going to be very risky.

RustShack
03-26-2009, 09:33 PM
Could it be said that Crabtree is the better talent but Maclin would fit in better in KC? I agree its kind of apples and oranges, even at the same position, because they are two completely different types of receivers.
I would say Crabtree, for most other teams in need of a WR, would warrant a 3rd overall pick, but Maclin would not. I don't think we should "reach" for Maclin.

I really don't see how Maclin would fit the offense better than Crabtree... sure hes faster but its not like Cassel is going to be launching them deep a lot...

bdeg
03-26-2009, 09:37 PM
Really I don't know, but looking at the positives say we do draft a LT again and he is better than Albert... Albert was the best OG prospect in years and it shows by how well hes playing at LT. We could have our own young Roaf and Shields again. Now I'm not saying we should, but if it does happen it could end up really good, assuming the new LT is better than Albert which isn't guaranteed. No matter who we draft and where they wont be worth the pick and its going to be very risky.
What makes Albert better than Ben Grubbs at G?

" No matter who we draft and where they wont be worth the pick and its going to be very risky."

Wow, be a little optimistic.

RustShack
03-26-2009, 09:55 PM
What makes Albert better than Ben Grubbs at G?

" No matter who we draft and where they wont be worth the pick and its going to be very risky."

Wow, be a little optimistic.

I don't know why I said where... I think I meant position wise and not draft number wise.

aturnis
03-26-2009, 11:50 PM
is that a joke? we already have an lt so you'd essentially be drafting a G or RT

Are you talking to me? If so, I would have followed our argument. I'm saying the Lions coach, being a statistics guy, would be better served taking a LT. Not the Chiefs.

aturnis
03-26-2009, 11:55 PM
I really don't see how Maclin would fit the offense better than Crabtree... sure hes faster but its not like Cassel is going to be launching them deep a lot...

I disagree. We already have enough big tough slow receivers. Adding Crabtree to the bunch would just clog up the short field, making all the receivers easy to cover. A fast receiver, can not only stretch the field, but get open short in a hurry and get yardage after the catch.

Chiefnj2
03-27-2009, 08:44 AM
It looks like KC is doing a lot of visits the first week of April.

LB Aaron Curry (6-1 7/8, 255) ran position drills and stood on all of his numbers from the combine. On Thursday, Curry worked out for the Seahawks, and he is expected to make a formal visit to Seattle on Monday. He plans to visit Kansas City on April 4.

bdeg
03-27-2009, 08:47 AM
Are you talking to me? If so, I would have followed our argument. I'm saying the Lions coach, being a statistics guy, would be better served taking a LT. Not the Chiefs.

My bad, the thread title(oh ya, and the whole "Roaf & Shields" thing) made me forget we were talking about the Lions' pick, not the Chiefs'. I think their pick is more about how they evaluate Stafford and Sanchez than anything else.

htismaqe
03-27-2009, 09:39 AM
LT is safe, and no one will clamor about it.

Bullshit.

A large portion of the fanbase is going to be ultra pissed if your highest pick in 20 years is an offensive lineman. The "average" fan doesn't like safe, they like SIZZLE.

Chiefnj2
03-27-2009, 09:54 AM
Bullshit.

A large portion of the fanbase is going to be ultra pissed if your highest pick in 20 years is an offensive lineman. The "average" fan doesn't like safe, they like SIZZLE.

Who cares? Do you think Pioli cares if fans are happy or upset with the 2009 draft? The proof will be in the wins and losses column 3 years down the road.

htismaqe
03-27-2009, 10:04 AM
Who cares? Do you think Pioli cares if fans are happy or upset with the 2009 draft? The proof will be in the wins and losses column 3 years down the road.

Um, did you READ what he posted?

I know Pioli doesn't care. I don't care either.

But he contended that the fanbase would be happy with a LT at #3 and they absolutely won't be. Hell, most fans hate offensive linemen high in the 1st even when they're NEEDED.