PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs And with the #3 pick the KC Chiefs take... B.J. Raji


T-post Tom
03-20-2009, 04:35 AM
Raji would make a lot of sense considering true 3-4 NTs are difficult to find.

Riser: Boston College's Raji a big man in draft class

Posted: March 19, 2009
War Room scouts
Sporting News


More than 20 teams spent quality time with Boston College defensive lineman B.J. Raji at the NFL Scouting Combine, and apparently that wasn't enough to satisfy their craving for the best nose tackle in the 2009 draft.

No wonder Raji is seen as a riser in April's draft. Offseason auditions including the Senior Bowl, Combine and on-campus workouts have yet to expose any skeletons in Raji's closet -- except those he collected while ransacking B.C. opponents.


War Room scouts join in the praise for Raji, a 6-1, 330-pound monster who would fit in the middle of many NFL defenses. That's why in their latest mock draft, scouts project Raji as the third overall pick, going to the Kansas City Chiefs.

Here's what they say about Raji: "The Chiefs debate between LB Aaron Curry and Raji. But to make the switch to a 3-4 defense, finding a nose tackle is much more important than a linebacker."

The Denver Broncos are scheduled to meet with Raji on Friday at Boston College. The Detroit Lions played host to Raji this week. And with the Broncos and quarterback Jay Cutler at odds, these meetings could add smoke to rumors of a Cutler-to-Lions deal.

War Room scouts still project Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford as the first player taken -- by the Lions, if they keep the pick, or the Broncos if they trade Cutler to get it.

Denver's first pick for now is No. 12, so Raji will be long gone by the time the Broncos make that selection.

Lions coach Jim Schwartz told Detroit reporters his team was doing its due diligence in meeting this week with Raji and Oklahoma State's Brandon Pettigrew, the top tight end in this draft class.

Raji is viewed as a rock on the defensive line, able to hold his ground against running plays. He also has the quickness to be an effective pass rusher.

He was academically ineligible for the 2007 season but made up for that in 2008. He bolstered his stock with an outstanding week at the Senior Bowl.

It appears he put the year off to good use. Raji told Scout.com that he made some of his biggest strides in performance during his senior year because of the progress he made in understanding the mental aspects of playing his position.

"I understood the game a lot more than I did in previous years," Raji said. "I better understood how I was going to be attacked, at pre-snap I was able to get some good reads, whether it was going to be a double-team or how a player was going to block me. So that helped me choose what moves to use."

War Room Scouts' latest mock draft is available online, with two full rounds of picks and analysis. Visit SN's Pro Football War Room for information and analysis on more than 400 draft prospects. Also, pick up a copy of Sporting News' 2009 Draft Guide, available online or at retailers.

This week's Top 10 picks

1. Detroit Lions
Matt Stafford, QB, Georgia
2. St. Louis Rams
Eugene Monroe, T, Virginia
3. Kansas City Chiefs
B.J. Raji, NT, Boston College
4. Seattle Seahawks
Aaron Curry, OLB, Wake Forest
5. Cleveland Browns
Brian Orakpo, DE/OLB, Texas
6. Cincinnati Bengals
Jason Smith, T, Baylor
7. Oakland Raiders
Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech
8. Jacksonville Jaguars
Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland
9. Green Bay Packers
Everette Brown, DE/OLB, Florida State
10. San Francisco 49ers
Rey Maualuga, MLB, Southern Cal

Pioli Zombie
03-20-2009, 04:44 AM
This is what I think will happen and what I think should happen
Posted via Mobile Device

2bikemike
03-20-2009, 04:53 AM
I am extremely anxious for the draft. All this waiting and speculating is driving me nuts. Things are probably compounded by the fact that I have a lot of personal things going on in my life that I am waiting to unfold. Everything seems like its just around the corner.

T-post Tom
03-20-2009, 05:11 AM
This is what I think will happen and what I think should happen
Posted via Mobile Device


I think that I have converted to this line of thinking. Raji is like a 7 ft center in basketball: you just don't have that many humans walking around with that body type. Add in the facts that he's considered a stud player by most and that the Chiefs are moving to a 3-4 scheme... I'm sold.

T-post Tom
03-20-2009, 05:12 AM
I am extremely anxious for the draft. All this waiting and speculating is driving me nuts. Things are probably compounded by the fact that I have a lot of personal things going on in my life that I am waiting to unfold. Everything seems like its just around the corner.

God bless you brother. Take a deep breath and have a beer. :D

skky man
03-20-2009, 05:52 AM
I think that I have converted to this line of thinking. Raji is like a 7 ft center in basketball: you just don't have that many humans walking around with that body type. Add in the facts that he's considered a stud player by most and that the Chiefs are moving to a 3-4 scheme... I'm sold.

It sounds good but I've seen to many draft picks on DL over the last several years that seem like wasted picks to want to go down that road with such a high pick this year!:spock:

wazimo
03-20-2009, 07:10 AM
How about we draft Raji and trade Dorsey to Gunther for their 20th overall and possibly their 3rd rounder? Detroit are in need of a DT after losing Rogers and that guy to GB. We could then possibly move up to take Oher as our RT, or stay at 20 for one of the many hybrid LB/DE's? I like Dorsey but not in the 3-4 (if we go to that scheme). Just a thought.

MOhillbilly
03-20-2009, 07:15 AM
im ready for some football. cant wait to see the new look Chiefs hit the gridiron come fall.

Mecca
03-20-2009, 08:08 AM
How about we draft Raji and trade Dorsey to Gunther for their 20th overall and possibly their 3rd rounder? Detroit are in need of a DT after losing Rogers and that guy to GB. We could then possibly move up to take Oher as our RT, or stay at 20 for one of the many hybrid LB/DE's? I like Dorsey but not in the 3-4 (if we go to that scheme). Just a thought.

If you wanna trade Dorsey start calling a team like Buffalo...they have a higher pick and it's kind of a no mans land pick for what they're going to be looking for.

Throw in Waters and you very well could get a 1 and a 3.

wazimo
03-20-2009, 08:32 AM
Mecca,

I would love to make the trade with Buffalo but would not like to lose Shields. If we traded with buffalo we wouldn't need another pick to trade up for Oher, as he should be there at 11. I also think that's a fair trade for Dorsey, as he is not worth the # 5 a year later. Both teams should love this trade.

reiko57
03-20-2009, 08:37 AM
I am extremely anxious for the draft. All this waiting and speculating is driving me nuts. Things are probably compounded by the fact that I have a lot of personal things going on in my life that I am waiting to unfold. Everything seems like its just around the corner.

lifes a waiting game

Buehler445
03-20-2009, 09:36 AM
Mecca,

I would love to make the trade with Buffalo but would not like to lose Shields. If we traded with buffalo we wouldn't need another pick to trade up for Oher, as he should be there at 11. I also think that's a fair trade for Dorsey, as he is not worth the # 5 a year later. Both teams should love this trade.

I think you mean Waters.
Posted via Mobile Device

Buehler445
03-20-2009, 09:37 AM
If you wanna trade Dorsey start calling a team like Buffalo...they have a higher pick and it's kind of a no mans land pick for what they're going to be looking for.

Throw in Waters and you very well could get a 1 and a 3.

I thought Buffalo was pretty decent of the Dline after getting rid of Krummy? Is that not the case?
Posted via Mobile Device

shammus
03-20-2009, 09:38 AM
Mecca,

I would love to make the trade with Buffalo but would not like to lose Shields. If we traded with buffalo we wouldn't need another pick to trade up for Oher, as he should be there at 11. I also think that's a fair trade for Dorsey, as he is not worth the # 5 a year later. Both teams should love this trade.



Shields??

wazimo
03-20-2009, 09:43 AM
Sorry, I am too busy looking at Financials at this time of year. Although losing Shields was a huge blow for this team. Yes, I meant Waters. It could have been worse I could of brought up the names Bam Morris, Vanover, Ryan Sims, Lake Dawson or some other bad memory.

El Jefe
03-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Mecca,

I would love to make the trade with Buffalo but would not like to lose Shields. If we traded with buffalo we wouldn't need another pick to trade up for Oher, as he should be there at 11. I also think that's a fair trade for Dorsey, as he is not worth the # 5 a year later. Both teams should love this trade.

You mean Waters?

vailpass
03-20-2009, 11:27 AM
This would be a very good pick for KC IMHO. Denver visisted Raji at his school earlier this week and I was hoping he would fall far enough for the Broncos to get him.
A 3-4 without a dominant middle man is teh suck.

Dark Horse
03-20-2009, 11:36 AM
Shields??

coming out of retirement only to be traded!

BigChiefFan
03-20-2009, 11:47 AM
I've been on the bandwagon for months. Raji improves our defense.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 11:50 AM
This would be a very good pick for KC IMHO. Denver visisted Raji at his school earlier this week and I was hoping he would fall far enough for the Broncos to get him.
A 3-4 without a dominant middle man is teh suck.

The word out of his pro-day is that he might not be best-suited for the 3-4 NT but rather as a 1-gap guy in a 4-3.

Dark Horse
03-20-2009, 11:52 AM
The word out of his pro-day is that he might not be best-suited for the 3-4 NT but rather as a 1-gap guy in a 4-3.

A 30 lb heavier less talented Glen Dorsey

kcsam07
03-20-2009, 11:59 AM
id rather have curry crabtree or stafford or even everett brown just my opinion

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 12:00 PM
A 30 lb heavier less talented Glen Dorsey

Essentially.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-20-2009, 12:05 PM
The word out of his pro-day is that he might not be best-suited for the 3-4 NT but rather as a 1-gap guy in a 4-3.

I thought that the article said that it's not that he'd be less suited for it, but that people felt it might be a waste of his talent given his explosiveness.

DeezNutz
03-20-2009, 12:08 PM
I thought that the article said that it's not that he'd be less suited for it, but that people felt it might be a waste of his talent given his explosiveness.

This was my interpretation, too. It wasn't a critique of Dorsey, but rather a reaffirmation about how surprisingly talented this fat sumbitch is.

Dark Horse
03-20-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm always skeptical about players who's stock takes a huge jump after the combine.

B_Ambuehl
03-20-2009, 12:16 PM
Strongly doubt this happens at #3. Raji is a player I've liked for a long time but you gotta be careful with defensive tackles that shoot up the boards once the season is over. Think back to when the last time (if ever) a D-tackle who wasn't at the top of everyones list during the season but shot up after workouts and combine amounted to much of anything. Raji went from a potential 1st round pick during the season and now he's being talked up as a top 5 guy. Those types are dangerous as hell. I think a guy like Ron Brace in a later round is a much stronger possibility.

BryanBusby
03-20-2009, 12:24 PM
I'll bet all of my casino cash that BJ Raji will not be going to the Chiefs as the #3 overall pick.

Chiefnj2
03-20-2009, 12:26 PM
Strongly doubt this happens at #3. Raji is a player I've liked for a long time but you gotta be careful with defensive tackles that shoot up the boards once the season is over. Think back to when the last time (if ever) a D-tackle who wasn't at the top of everyones list during the season but shot up after workouts and combine amounted to much of anything. Raji went from a potential 1st round pick during the season and now he's being talked up as a top 5 guy. Those types are dangerous as hell. I think a guy like Ron Brace in a later round is a much stronger possibility.

I would say there aren't any DT's in a similar factual situation as Raji. He was ineligible his entire junior year. I agree he is risky with a top 5 pick though.

kcbubb
03-20-2009, 12:46 PM
A 30 lb heavier less talented Glen Dorsey

I don't know if I can claim that Raji is less talented than Dorsey if Dorsey weighed 330 lbs, but they definitely have similar frames. Raji is 30 pounds heavier. I'm definitely thinking along the same lines as you here.

B_Ambuehl
03-20-2009, 12:47 PM
just about every year teams think their guy is going to be an exception due to some special circumstance. This ball club did it in 2003 with Ryan Sims. "Oh John Bunting knows defensive tackles and says this guy is great and look at how he dominated the Sr. bowl". The Texans did it with Amobe Okoye. "Oh he's only 19 just imagine how great he's going to be". What's the excuse now? "Oh he missed his Jr. year". If his Sr. tape were all that impressive he wouldn't have taken this long to be ranked where he is.

googlegoogle
03-20-2009, 01:05 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9UQ2YGE9SLM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9UQ2YGE9SLM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:09 PM
Drafting Raji instead of a 4-3 Cover linebacker like Curry would be a good pick

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:09 PM
Generally, if your team is truly terrible throughout, you want to build from the inside out. If you want to run a 3-4 defense, then the NG is the single most important postiion on the field. Without a decent NG, the rest of the defense is simply unworkable.

With a top 5 pick, you WILL pay the player an enormous amount of money. You must NOT miss. You don't absolutely have to get a Hall of FAmer, but you can't miss. The guy has to at least produce.

I think that if Pioli sees Raji as a very good NG and a solid performer with no personal issues, there's a good chance that he will be the pick.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:14 PM
Generally, if your team is truly terrible throughout, you want to build from the inside out. If you want to run a 3-4 defense, then the NG is the single most important postiion on the field. Without a decent NG, the rest of the defense is simply unworkable.

With a top 5 pick, you WILL pay the player an enormous amount of money. You must NOT miss. You don't absolutely have to get a Hall of FAmer, but you can't miss. The guy has to at least produce.

I think that if Pioli sees Raji as a very good NG and a solid performer with no personal issues, there's a good chance that he will be the pick.

The thing is, DT might be the riskiest position in all of football. The best 3-4 NT's are all later picks.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:16 PM
The word out of his pro-day is that he might not be best-suited for the 3-4 NT but rather as a 1-gap guy in a 4-3.

I don't watch any college football, but 6'1" and 330 is about the right body type.

It's all about the ass for a NG. If he's got stickly legs or whatever (hard to imagine at that height/weight) then forget it.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:17 PM
The thing is, DT might be the riskiest position in all of football. The best 3-4 NT's are all later picks.

What? DT is the riskiest position? In what way?

You're burnt by your Chiefs fandom. Patriots have hit home runs with all 3 Defensive LIne draft picks in the 1st round -- Seymour, Wilfork, Warren.

Seymour was #6, Warren at 13 and Wilfork at 21 in the first round.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:18 PM
The Pats drafted Seymour & Wilfork in the first round so the Chiefs will probably draft Raji. Who else could play the NG in the 3-4?

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:18 PM
I thought that the article said that it's not that he'd be less suited for it, but that people felt it might be a waste of his talent given his explosiveness.

Some said that about Wilfork, who is explosive.

They're wrong. Explosion is always good. Wilfork is great going laterally along the line to chase down RB and screen plays, and cannot be ignored in pass rush protection.

vailpass
03-20-2009, 01:18 PM
The word out of his pro-day is that he might not be best-suited for the 3-4 NT but rather as a 1-gap guy in a 4-3.

Really? F*ck all that.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:19 PM
I would say there aren't any DT's in a similar factual situation as Raji. He was ineligible his entire junior year. I agree he is risky with a top 5 pick though.

Patriots don't really take "risky" players high. They'd prefer to hit a double every time than go for a home run and risk a strikeout.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:20 PM
They said we're not going to play just the 3-4 so I think Raji would be a good for this defense

Chiefnj2
03-20-2009, 01:20 PM
Patriots don't really take "risky" players high. They'd prefer to hit a double every time than go for a home run and risk a strikeout.

Curry it is.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:20 PM
The Pats drafted Seymour & Wilfork in the first round so the Chiefs will probably draft Raji. Who else could play the NG in the 3-4?

They didn't draft either of them at #3 overall though.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:23 PM
They didn't draft either of them at #3 overall though.

They drafted Seymour in the top 10. What has more value a WR, RT, Coverage LB, or a Nose Guard in the 3-4?

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:23 PM
What? DT is the riskiest position? In what way?

You're burnt by your Chiefs fandom. Patriots have hit home runs with all 3 Defensive LIne draft picks in the 1st round -- Seymour, Wilfork, Warren.

Seymour was #6, Warren at 13 and Wilfork at 21 in the first round.

None of those guys was a top 5 pick.

Look at the history of high-profile DT's - both top 5 draft picks and top-dollar free agents - almost NONE of them ever amount to anything.

Yeah, I said riskiest, maybe I should have said "most likely to be a bust". I think for some reason the DT position is one of those where guys get by in college because of their unique combination of size and athleticism. They don't spend alot of time on technique (especially 2-gap guys) and because of that they don't have the drive to be "special" in the NFL.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:24 PM
They drafted Seymour in the top 10. What has more value a WR, RT, Coverage LB, or a Nose Guard in the 3-4?

Seymour isn't a NT.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Seymour isn't a NT.

He's a d-linemen. Answer the question though what positon has more value?

keg in kc
03-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Seymour isn't a NT.And they hadn't transitioned to the 3-4/hybrid yet when they drafted him.

T-post Tom
03-20-2009, 01:26 PM
Pioli might even be able to trade down a bit and still get Raji. I'm not saying it's likely, but it would be a nice turn of events. And the icing on the cake would be a frustrated Donks team not getting the NT they wanted. (Assuming some of the draft-niks are right & the Donks do want him.)

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:28 PM
He's a d-linemen. Answer the question though what positon has more value?

It doesn't matter what position he plays, he's not a 3-4 NT so he's irrelevant.

If you're talking generalities and not specifically about players in this draft, then the answer to your question is WR. In some seasons, there will be WR's worth a top 5 pick.

Conversely, a RT or coverage LB will NEVER have Top 5 value.

And I've already made my feelings known about drafting DT's that high.

ChiefsCountry
03-20-2009, 01:31 PM
Pioli might even be able to trade down a bit and still get Raji. I'm not saying it's likely, but it would be a nice turn of events. And the icing on the cake would be a frustrated Donks team not getting the NT they wanted. (Assuming some of the draft-niks are right & the Donks do want him.)

It would be tough - Packers are a new 3-4, 49ers could use him so could the Raiduhs.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:32 PM
It doesn't matter what position he plays, he's not a 3-4 NT so he's irrelevant.

If you're talking generalities and not specifically about players in this draft, then the answer to your question is WR. In some seasons, there will be WR's worth a top 5 pick.

Conversely, a RT or coverage LB will NEVER have Top 5 value.

And I've already made my feelings known about drafting DT's that high.

Why do you say he can't play the 3-4?

DeezNutz
03-20-2009, 01:32 PM
The thing is, DT might be the riskiest position in all of football. The best 3-4 NT's are all later picks.

Doesn't WR have the highest bust rate in the first round?

I believe so because this generated much discussion in the Bowe draft class, which was deep with WR talent.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:35 PM
The Pats drafted Seymour & Wilfork in the first round so the Chiefs will probably draft Raji. Who else could play the NG in the 3-4?

And Warren. Our entire DL starters are 1st rounders.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Why do you say he can't play the 3-4?

What?

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:36 PM
They didn't draft either of them at #3 overall though.

We haven't drafted ANYBODY in the top 5. You can't glean data from nothing. You might as well be saying the Chiefs won't take anybody at 3 because the Pats have never taken anybody at 3....

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:36 PM
And Warren. Our entire DL starters are 1st rounders.

Right, but Wilfork is the TRUE NT in the bunch and he was a late 1st-round pick.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:36 PM
They drafted Seymour in the top 10. What has more value a WR, RT, Coverage LB, or a Nose Guard in the 3-4?

Out of that list alone? Definitely NG.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:38 PM
None of those guys was a top 5 pick.

Look at the history of high-profile DT's - both top 5 draft picks and top-dollar free agents - almost NONE of them ever amount to anything.

Yeah, I said riskiest, maybe I should have said "most likely to be a bust". I think for some reason the DT position is one of those where guys get by in college because of their unique combination of size and athleticism. They don't spend alot of time on technique (especially 2-gap guys) and because of that they don't have the drive to be "special" in the NFL.

So if Seymour was taken at 3 instead of 6........

Your statement makes little sense to me, I must admit.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:38 PM
How do people think the Chiefs will play Dorsey-Tyler-Mcbride?

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:39 PM
Seymour isn't a NT.

Actually, while he's certainly not a full time NG, he's played NG in a 3-4 on pass plays with some frequency during his Pats career.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:39 PM
We haven't drafted ANYBODY in the top 5. You can't glean data from nothing. You might as well be saying the Chiefs won't take anybody at 3 because the Pats have never taken anybody at 3....

Um, you're missing the point.

I'm not saying anything about what the Chiefs will or won't do.

I'm talking about what they SHOULD do.

And you're right, they haven't drafted anybody in the top 5. But several teams have, and I don't at all like the idea of drafting a DT that high. The closest the Pats have come to a top 5 pick they took a dynamic guy that can play DE and rush the passer...

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:40 PM
And they hadn't transitioned to the 3-4/hybrid yet when they drafted him.

Right. He gives us flexibility as a DT in a 4-3 and DE in 3-4.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:40 PM
Out of that list alone? Definitely NG.

You're confusing importance with draft value.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:40 PM
So if Seymour was taken at 3 instead of 6........

Your statement makes little sense to me, I must admit.

Again, Seymour isn't the guy I'm talking about. He's not a DT.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:40 PM
Pioli might even be able to trade down a bit and still get Raji. I'm not saying it's likely, but it would be a nice turn of events. And the icing on the cake would be a frustrated Donks team not getting the NT they wanted. (Assuming some of the draft-niks are right & the Donks do want him.)

Problem is trading down. Very hard to move out of the top 5. Especially, frm what I'm hearing, this year.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:41 PM
How do people think the Chiefs will play Dorsey-Tyler-Mcbride?

Who said they were going to?

They could draft a DE and NT on the 2nd day of the draft for all we know.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Actually, while he's certainly not a full time NG, he's played NG in a 3-4 on pass plays with some frequency during his Pats career.

Exactly.

I'm talking about 2-gap widebodies.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Right, but Wilfork is the TRUE NT in the bunch and he was a late 1st-round pick.

Well, mid, at 21, and he slid surprisngly, thankyouverymuch.

raybec 4
03-20-2009, 01:41 PM
How do people think the Chiefs will play Dorsey-Tyler-Mcbride?

Mcbride is a huge turd that hopefully will never see the field in a Chiefs uni again.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:43 PM
Who said they were going to?

They could draft a DE and NT on the 2nd day of the draft for all we know.

How many good DE and NT are you going to draft in day 2? You're more likely to find a good DE or NT in the first round

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:43 PM
You're confusing importance with draft value.

errr...what?

You suggest that a position that is more important on the field may have a lower draft value?

bdeg
03-20-2009, 01:43 PM
It is kind of surprising the Pats DL was comprised of all first round picks. I always hear how 3-4 DE's aren't very highly valued and should be taken later, almost like a RT.

Here's a question Amnorix, rate these 3 positions in importance in a 3-4: DE, NT, rush backer

bdeg
03-20-2009, 01:44 PM
errr...what?

You suggest that a position that is more important on the field may have a lower draft value?

If prospects at a certain position generally have certain problems/issues when taken at the top of the draft, like htis proposed, yes.

None of those guys was a top 5 pick.

Look at the history of high-profile DT's - both top 5 draft picks and top-dollar free agents - almost NONE of them ever amount to anything.

Yeah, I said riskiest, maybe I should have said "most likely to be a bust". I think for some reason the DT position is one of those where guys get by in college because of their unique combination of size and athleticism. They don't spend alot of time on technique (especially 2-gap guys) and because of that they don't have the drive to be "special" in the NFL.

That makes perfect sense to me.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:45 PM
Well, mid, at 21, and he slid surprisngly, thankyouverymuch.

Casey Hampton was #19 overall. Jamal Williams was a 2nd-round supplemental guy.

The prototypical NT, Ted Washington - #25 overall.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:46 PM
errr...what?

You suggest that a position that is more important on the field may have a lower draft value?

Absolutely.

If the 3-4 NT is THE most important guy on the field, you absolutely have to make sure you have one.

Therefore, you need to take one where you have the BEST chance to get one that's GOOD.

The top 5 of the draft is not that place. Furthermore, it screws up your cap and sets the WHOLE team back if he's no good.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:47 PM
How many good DE and NT are you going to draft in day 2? You're more likely to find a good DE or NT in the first round

It doesn't matter.

Nobody suggested the Chiefs were going to go into the season with a starting line of McBride, Tyler, and Dorsey.

And I most certainly didn't suggest I WANT that to happen.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Exactly.

I'm talking about 2-gap widebodies.

Maybe we're talking past each other.

Let me put it this way -- if Pioli thinks that Raji is the next Wilfork, Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams, then he's going to take him. I dont' see any reason in the world why he wouldn't, unless, of course, he thinks Curry or whomever is the next Lawrence Taylor or whatever.

keg in kc
03-20-2009, 01:50 PM
I think we're going to be doing everything possible to trade down regardless of who's there.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:51 PM
Absolutely.

If the 3-4 NT is THE most important guy on the field, you absolutely have to make sure you have one.

Therefore, you need to take one where you have the BEST chance to get one that's GOOD.

The top 5 of the draft is not that place. Furthermore, it screws up your cap and sets the WHOLE team back if he's no good.

Right, but that rule applies no matter what position the guy plays. That's why I said he'd rather go for a definite double than shoot for a home run with a high risk of striking out.

I guess you are arguing that historically, good/great NGs in the NFL have not been taken very high. That's true, but it's not at all clear to me that that is much more than coincidence.

Simple exercise--let's say that Vince Wilfork is in this year's draft pool along with all these college kids. Where do you think he gets taken? 21?

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 01:51 PM
It doesn't matter.

Nobody suggested the Chiefs were going to go into the season with a starting line of McBride, Tyler, and Dorsey.

And I most certainly didn't suggest I WANT that to happen.

If we don't draft a DE or NG in the first round it's unlikely that our starters won't be Dorsey-Tyler-Mcbride. 2nd day draft picks don't start there first year usually.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:53 PM
I think we're going to be doing everything possible to trade down regardless of who's there.

I agree, but it may not be possible. Moving out of hte top 5 is EXTREMELY hard. LIsten to Belichick's interview, he says it flat out.

Nobody thinks you get good value with those top 5 picks.

He mentioned that Jake Long, after being drafted by the Dolphins, because THE HIGHEST paid tackel in the NFL. That's absurd, but that's our system. The guy hasn't even taken a single snap in the NFL, but he's the highest paid. He won't be worth that kind of money for several years into his career, if ever.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:54 PM
If we don't draft a DE or NG in the first round it's unlikely that our starters won't be Dorsey-Tyler-Mcbride. 2nd day draft picks don't start there first year usually.

Free agency is only a couple of weeks old and there will be cuts all the way into the first couple of weeks of the season.

While the likelihood increases that those 3 will start if we don't take guys high in the draft, it's NEVER a foregone conclusion.

Furthermore, drafting a 1st round DL doesn't mean that they WON'T start, either. Lots of 1st round linemen have limited impacts their rookie seasons.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 01:54 PM
If we don't draft a DE or NG in the first round it's unlikely that our starters won't be Dorsey-Tyler-Mcbride. 2nd day draft picks don't start there first year usually.

Don't forget -- you WILL NOT switch to 3-4 in the first year if you don't have the personnel. It may take several years to get the pieces in place to go full time 3-4.

keg in kc
03-20-2009, 01:55 PM
I don't think it will be possible to trade down, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up taking someone at 3 that everybody has projected at 8 or 10 or later. Like Brown or Raji.

T-post Tom
03-20-2009, 01:55 PM
It would be tough - Packers are a new 3-4, 49ers could use him so could the Raiduhs.

I believe you are right: it would probably have to be a trade with the Seahawks (unlikely); Browns; Bengals; Faiders (unlikely); or Jags. Depending on what the Lions & Rams do, it could still happen.

Then again, last year's results don't bode well for a top ten pick set adrift in the coaching maelstrom known as Krumrie...

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:56 PM
Maybe we're talking past each other.

Let me put it this way -- if Pioli thinks that Raji is the next Wilfork, Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams, then he's going to take him. I dont' see any reason in the world why he wouldn't, unless, of course, he thinks Curry or whomever is the next Lawrence Taylor or whatever.

I think we are.

Because what I'm saying is that taking Raji at #3 overall (considering the $$$ that come with it) makes it all the more difficult for him to be the next Wilfork/Hampton/Williams.

Kyle DeLexus
03-20-2009, 01:56 PM
I don't know if I can claim that Raji is less talented than Dorsey if Dorsey weighed 330 lbs, but they definitely have similar frames. Raji is 30 pounds heavier. I'm definitely thinking along the same lines as you here.

So you want to go to an all you can eat chinese buffet with Dorsey and Raji also?

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 01:58 PM
Right, but that rule applies no matter what position the guy plays. That's why I said he'd rather go for a definite double than shoot for a home run with a high risk of striking out.

I guess you are arguing that historically, good/great NGs in the NFL have not been taken very high. That's true, but it's not at all clear to me that that is much more than coincidence.

Simple exercise--let's say that Vince Wilfork is in this year's draft pool along with all these college kids. Where do you think he gets taken? 21?

Of course not. He'd be taken in the top 10. But only because he's proven to be a player at the NFL level, which is impossible for a draftee to do.

I would also contend that part of the reason he has excelled in the NFL is because he WASN'T a top draft pick. He didn't get $30M guaranteed and he might also have a chip on his shoulder because he slid the way he did.

By and large, top 5 DT's are lazy, fatasses who never amount to anything.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 02:00 PM
I think we are.

Because what I'm saying is that taking Raji at #3 overall (considering the $$$ that come with it) makes it all the more difficult for him to be the next Wilfork/Hampton/Williams.


eh? If Wilfork had been drafted at 3 instead of 21, he wouldn't be Wilfork at all?

Coogs
03-20-2009, 02:01 PM
I still think if the Lions trade #20 and #33 to the Broncos for Cutler, then we would have #12 and #48 from the Broncos in play for Cassel. They obviously value Cassel at a higher value than they do Cutler.

Then at #3 Stafford should/could be an option.

At #12, then we could have several options... including a trade down to aquire more picks. Depends on who is there at #12 obviously, and weather that person would be of greater interst to us (Brown, Orakpo, Maualuga) or somone right below the #12 pick (Sanchez, Smith, Oher).

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 02:02 PM
eh? If Wilfork had been drafted at 3 instead of 21, he wouldn't be Wilfork at all?

It's very possible. Big $$$ defensive tackles generally flame out/gain 50 pounds/disappear.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2009, 02:02 PM
Gross who would want Stafford instead of Cassel?

Coogs
03-20-2009, 02:04 PM
Gross who would want Stafford instead of Cassel?

Me for starters. I'd prefer Sanchez as well. And as my #3 choice I would actually prefer Leinart. Cassel would be my #4 choice. If it winds up being Cassel, I sure hope we don't wind up with the '83 scenario all over again where we passed on Marino and Kelley,it but wound up with Blackledge.

Damit Carl!

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 02:07 PM
Of course not. He'd be taken in the top 10. But only because he's proven to be a player at the NFL level, which is impossible for a draftee to do.

I would also contend that part of the reason he has excelled in the NFL is because he WASN'T a top draft pick. He didn't get $30M guaranteed and he might also have a chip on his shoulder because he slid the way he did.

By and large, top 5 DT's are lazy, fatasses who never amount to anything.

I think you're being a bit silly. Bruce Smith was #1 and Peppers #2.

It would be fair to say that the percentage of top 5 picsk that are complete washouts, REGARDLESS of position, or at least turn out to be mediocre NFL players, is shockingly high. Much higher than the typical NFL fan wants to give credit for.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 02:11 PM
It's very possible. Big $$$ defensive tackles generally flame out/gain 50 pounds/disappear.

Tony Mandarich, Blair Thomas, Ryan Leaf, Charles Rogers, the list goes on and on -- top five wipeouts. I don't think DL is much more prone to it than any other position.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 02:17 PM
I think you're being a bit silly. Bruce Smith was #1 and Peppers #2.

It would be fair to say that the percentage of top 5 picsk that are complete washouts, REGARDLESS of position, or at least turn out to be mediocre NFL players, is shockingly high. Much higher than the typical NFL fan wants to give credit for.

Smith and Peppers are game-changing DE's that sack QB's and create turnovers. That's certainly not the position I'm talking about.

Tony Mandarich, Blair Thomas, Ryan Leaf, Charles Rogers, the list goes on and on -- top five wipeouts. I don't think DL is much more prone to it than any other position.

Of course there's busts at every position. But for every guy you have on your list, there's Peyton Manning or Matt Ryan. Adrian Peterson.

The fact is, I can name Pro Bowl players that were taken in the top 5/top 10 at every position for which you listed a bust. But I can't think of a SINGLE INSTANCE for DT. There's only busts.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 02:25 PM
The fact is, I can name Pro Bowl players that were taken in the top 5/top 10 at every position for which you listed a bust. But I can't think of a SINGLE INSTANCE for DT. There's only busts.

I guess. I'm not a draftnik so I don't know for sure.

That said, I don't think interior DL get drafted in the top 5 much because they're not usually viewed as the best value. For years, it was all skill position players by and large. Then people learned that RBs are disposable, so now the trend is away from them.

NG in a 3-4 is an exception to the rule, however, but not many teams run it, and then you'd need to be in the top 5 and planning to run that system and have the need to even consider it.

If you put Wilfork in the 2009 draft, then the Chiefs take him at 3 if the Lions don't take him at 1. I view them much the same at OT. They might not be visibly highly impactful, but they're key players at a key position and if you DON'T have a good one, you end up with a complete disaster.

**IF** Pioli thinks Raji is the next Wilfork/Hampton/WIlliams, then I see no reason why he wouldn't take him.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 02:31 PM
That said, I don't think interior DL get drafted in the top 5 much because they're not usually viewed as the best value.

Yep. The whole point I've been trying to make. :)

NG in a 3-4 is an exception to the rule, however, but not many teams run it, and then you'd need to be in the top 5 and planning to run that system and have the need to even consider it.

Hard to say that 3-4 NG is an exception when none of the top 3-4 NG's in the league were drafted in the Top 5. It doesn't prove the converse either, but at best it's inconclusive.

If you put Wilfork in the 2009 draft, then the Chiefs take him at 3 if the Lions don't take him at 1. I view them much the same at OT. They might not be visibly highly impactful, but they're key players at a key position and if you DON'T have a good one, you end up with a complete disaster.

You could say that about alot of players. Hindsight is 20/20. But like the above, you can't say conclusively that what happened to Wilfork (sliding in the draft and losing out on MILLIONS of $$$) didn't impact the way he plays today. You can't say it did, but you can't rule it out.

**IF** Pioli thinks Raji is the next Wilfork/Hampton/WIlliams, then I see no reason why he wouldn't take him.

Because he can likely get a better one later.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 02:39 PM
Because he can likely get a better one later.


I agree with everything you said rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttt up to here. Since this makes very little sense, however, I can't agree with it. :p

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 02:48 PM
I agree with everything you said rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttt up to here. Since this makes very little sense, however, I can't agree with it. :p

Let me rephrase it.

Because he has a better chance of getting a productive 3-4 NT later in the draft.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 02:54 PM
Let me rephrase it.

Because he has a better chance of getting a productive 3-4 NT later in the draft.

mmmm...that still makes no sense.

If you want to say that he STILL has a good chance of getting a decent 3-4 NT later in the draft, so he doesn't have to bust his nut at 3 to get a NG, I'll go with that.

If you want to argue that:

GREAT [somethingelse] + [decent NG] > [Very Good NG] + [decent somethingelse]

then I won't argue. I don't know that it's right, but I also don't know that it's wrong.

The key is whether you think you can even GET a decent NG later in the draft. You have no 1s after the 3, and no 2s, right? So you're looking at early 3rd for your next pick. 60 picks after the 3 pick you go again.

And, of course, as I've said time and again, the Cheifs aren't forced to go 3-4, and maybe the idea is to go 4-3 until you get all the pieces to run the 3-4. If htere's no NG, then no 3-4 in 2009. Maybe you try to get Wilfork (FA after 2009 unless extended) or whomever after this year. I dunno.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 03:01 PM
If you want to say that he STILL has a good chance of getting a decent 3-4 NT later in the draft, so he doesn't have to bust his nut at 3 to get a NG, I'll go with that.

Yeah, that's true. But that's not really what I'm saying.

GREAT [somethingelse] + [decent NG] > [Very Good NG] + [decent somethingelse]

Not really what I'm saying either.

The key is whether you think you can even GET a decent NG later in the draft.

No, the key is whether you think you can get a decent NG at #3 overall AT ALL. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I don't know how else to say it - I think taking a NT that high is an almost guaranteed bust. I wanted to think different about Dorsey, but so far, he's proving it right, just like all those guys before him did.

You have no 1s after the 3, and no 2s, right? So you're looking at early 3rd for your next pick. 60 picks after the 3 pick you go again.

And therein lies the conundrum.

And, of course, as I've said time and again, the Cheifs aren't forced to go 3-4, and maybe the idea is to go 4-3 until you get all the pieces to run the 3-4. If htere's no NG, then no 3-4 in 2009. Maybe you try to get Wilfork (FA after 2009 unless extended) or whomever after this year. I dunno.

Absolutely true. It's just alot more thought-provoking to talk about the 3-4. Alot of us know what our options are with the 4-3.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 03:02 PM
No, the key is whether you think you can get a decent NG at #3 overall AT ALL. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I don't know how else to say it - I think taking a NT that high is an almost guaranteed bust. I wanted to think different about Dorsey, but so far, he's proving it right, just like all those guys before him did.


So you think you're more likely to get a good NG at 63 than 3.

Yeah, I can't agree. Sorry.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 03:05 PM
So you think you're more likely to get a good NG at 63 than 3.

Yeah, I can't agree. Sorry.

No, that's ok.

And for the record, a more accurate representation would be that you're more likely to get a good NT at #23 than #3.

My thoughts on defensive tackles, especially free agent ones, are pretty well-known around here. And for the most part, they've been born out on the field.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 03:09 PM
No, that's ok.

And for the record, a more accurate representation would be that you're more likely to get a good NT at #23 than #3.

My thoughts on defensive tackles, especially free agent ones, are pretty well-known around here. And for the most part, they've been born out on the field.


Ok, I guess. I don't know what your thoughts are, and won't ask you to repeat them here, but your thoughts are very, very odd.

Is there a sweet spot for other positions too? Are 6th round punters better than 4th round punters? Are 3rd round ILBs better than 2nds?


:p

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 03:12 PM
Ok, I guess. I don't know what your thoughts are, and won't ask you to repeat them here, but your thoughts are very, very odd.

Is there a sweet spot for other positions too? Are 6th round punters better than 4th round punters? Are 3rd round ILBs better than 2nds?


:p

I see where you're coming from, and it does sound strange.

But for what it's worth, it's FAR more about where NOT to get a DT than it is where to get them.

Amnorix
03-20-2009, 03:18 PM
I see where you're coming from, and it does sound strange.

But for what it's worth, it's FAR more about where NOT to get a DT than it is where to get them.

I think what you have is a statistical anomaly (lack of success of top 5 selected DTs) based on a very small sample size.

Look, Richard Seymour was selected SIXTH. One pick out of your top 5 box, and he's worked out great. He's really a 4-3 DT / 3-4 DE, but in no way is he an edge pass rusher type.

I really doubt that if we had had the #3 pick that year, and we took him with that pick, he would suck for us.

ncCHIEFfan
03-20-2009, 03:21 PM
I would luv to have Raji on the team but man it sucks to have to draft another D lineman on the first day. I hope our draft picks will start producing.

htismaqe
03-20-2009, 03:22 PM
I think what you have is a statistical anomaly (lack of success of top 5 selected DTs) based on a very small sample size.

Look, Richard Seymour was selected SIXTH. One pick out of your top 5 box, and he's worked out great. He's really a 4-3 DT / 3-4 DE, but in no way is he an edge pass rusher type.

I really doubt that if we had had the #3 pick that year, and we took him with that pick, he would suck for us.

That would depend on his mental makeup, because I'm inclined that work ethic is the biggest part of the problem. I also think the amount of money these guys get without ever playing a down has something to do with it to.

Richard Seymour just isn't the guy I'm talking about. He's a completely different kind of player.

As for the small sample size, it isn't small at all if you include free agent defensive tackles. The two are definitely related. The guys that are EXPECTED to be premier defensive tackles almost never pan out.

ncCHIEFfan
03-20-2009, 03:22 PM
I think what you have is a statistical anomaly (lack of success of top 5 selected DTs) based on a very small sample size.

Look, Richard Seymour was selected SIXTH. One pick out of your top 5 box, and he's worked out great. He's really a 4-3 DT / 3-4 DE, but in no way is he an edge pass rusher type.

I really doubt that if we had had the #3 pick that year, and we took him with that pick, he would suck for us.

Coaching makes a big difference

milkman
03-21-2009, 12:11 PM
How about we draft Raji and trade Dorsey to Gunther for their 20th overall and possibly their 3rd rounder? Detroit are in need of a DT after losing Rogers and that guy to GB. We could then possibly move up to take Oher as our RT, or stay at 20 for one of the many hybrid LB/DE's? I like Dorsey but not in the 3-4 (if we go to that scheme). Just a thought.

If a trade scenario with Detroit played out like that, I'd rather stay at 20 and just take Jamon Meredith.

That's probably a little high for him to most, But I like him as a RT prospect better than Eben Britton or William Beatty, but you could also stay at 20 and select either of those guys as well.

The fact is, trading up to 11 get Oher when you'd have three good prospects to pick from at 20 would be throwing away the other picks you have to give up to select at 11.