PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Taking LT Monroe at #3 - the one thing I haven't seen anybody mention...


htismaqe
03-23-2009, 01:36 PM
I posted this on a couple of threads but it seemed to get lost and I thought it's worthy of discussion.

I see alot of people suggesting that we just move Albert to OG or RT. Well, what are we going to do if Albert beats out Monroe for the LT spot?

Monroe is a pure LT. He's not suited for guard or RT. Albert CAN move, but why would you move him if he's the best LT on the roster? We'd be making a sacrifice at THE MOST IMPORTANT position on the line when we could just as easily (and MUCH less expensively) get an OG or RT later in the draft.

It's something to think about. Alot of the people suggesting we take Monroe are the same people that have a problem with drafting Stafford or Sanchez because Cassel is, in their mind, the starter.

Buehler445
03-23-2009, 01:40 PM
Good point htis. I am personally very much NOT in favor of moving Albert.
Posted via Mobile Device

alpha_omega
03-23-2009, 01:47 PM
We have our franchise left tackle....Albert! IMO, we should leave it that way.

Brock
03-23-2009, 01:53 PM
These types of ideas are mostly floated by the "anything but a QB" crowd.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 01:54 PM
Monroe beat out Albert for the LOT in college. He can likely do it at this level. Who's to say he can't play RT or G if need be?

Mecca
03-23-2009, 01:58 PM
Monroe beat out Albert for the LOT in college. He can likely do it at this level. Who's to say he can't play RT or G if need be?

Why are you offensive line obsessed?

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 01:58 PM
Monroe beat out Albert for the LOT in college. He can likely do it at this level. Who's to say he can't play RT or G if need be?

Monroe didn't beat out Albert. Albert was moved while Ferguson was still there. They left him there because Monroe couldn't play anywhere else.

Mr. Krab
03-23-2009, 02:04 PM
Might be a new one, create a thread so you can bitch at the people who want to do what your started the thread about.

kcbubb
03-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Monroe didn't beat out Albert. Albert was moved while Ferguson was still there. They left him there because Monroe couldn't play anywhere else.

that's funny. ROFL LT is the most difficult position to play. and with Monroe's feet, he could play anywhere on the line except center.

BigRock
03-23-2009, 02:09 PM
The idea of Albert "beating out" Monroe makes it sound like there would be a competition. If they were to draft an OT with the mindset of moving Albert, would there even be one? They would want Albert to get as much time at his new spot as possible, and ditto for the rookie getting as much time at LT as he can.

keg in kc
03-23-2009, 02:15 PM
that's funny. ROFL LT is the most difficult position to play. and with Monroe's feet, he could play anywhere on the line except center.It may be funny, but it's also true.

Hog Farmer
03-23-2009, 02:23 PM
Hmmm... Interesting question. I think I would take the chance on drafting Monroe. A solid line does wonders for a QB 's rating. And with Bradley hopefully being healthy next year you can figure that would give us 3 new starters minimum on O next year being Monroe Cassel and Bradley, all significant upgrades. Plus, if Monroe were to get injured, Albert would step into LT.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:24 PM
Monroe didn't beat out Albert. Albert was moved while Ferguson was still there. They left him there because Monroe couldn't play anywhere else.

They were both freshmen when Brick was starting at LOT. Monroe beat Albert out as the backup LOT. Albert played LG and Monroe RG that first year.

Maybe you'll take Scott Wright's word over mine:

"This guy was the reason Branden Albert was playing inside at guard rather than outside at left tackle ..."

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 02:26 PM
Might be a new one, create a thread so you can bitch at the people who want to do what your started the thread about.

I'm not bitching at anybody.

It warrants further discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, go elsewhere. It's pretty simple.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:26 PM
Why are you offensive line obsessed?

First, if you don't want to discuss OL then I would suggest you stay out of threads titled "Chiefs taking LT Monroe at #3".

Second, I'm not obsessed with OL. I happen to recognize that two of the top four prospects this year are LOTs and that makes them worthy of discussion when KC has the third pick in the draft.

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 02:27 PM
that's funny. ROFL LT is the most difficult position to play. and with Monroe's feet, he could play anywhere on the line except center.

Monroe doesn't have the strength or leverage to play OG or RT. Lacks lower body strength.

You wanna suggest Ryan Clady could play RT or guard?

bdeg
03-23-2009, 02:27 PM
Might be a new one, create a thread so you can bitch at the people who want to do what your started the thread about.

It's kinda sad when the only way to get a point through peoples' heads is to put it an a thread starter, huh?

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 02:28 PM
They were both freshmen when Brick was starting at LOT. Monroe beat Albert out as the backup LOT. Albert played LG and Monroe RG that first year.

Maybe you'll take Scott Wright's word over mine:

"This guy was the reason Branden Albert was playing inside at guard rather than outside at left tackle ..."

Albert is the starting LT right now and he's already proven he can play at an above adequate level. In order for the Chiefs to justify moving him, they surely have to believe they can UPGRADE. If they can't, why make the move? You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Monroe beat out Albert for the LOT in college. He can likely do it at this level. Who's to say he can't play RT or G if need be?

Albert played G because Monroe couldn't.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Albert is the starting LT right now and he's already proven he can play at an above adequate level. In order for the Chiefs to justify moving him, they surely have to believe they can UPGRADE. If they can't, why make the move? You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Correct. Who is to say they don't think Monroe is an upgrade?

bdeg
03-23-2009, 02:30 PM
They were both freshmen when Brick was starting at LOT. Monroe beat Albert out as the backup LOT. Albert played LG and Monroe RG that first year.

Maybe you'll take Scott Wright's word over mine:

"This guy was the reason Branden Albert was playing inside at guard rather than outside at left tackle ..."

Wright oversimplified.

I wish I could find a legit source to argue this.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:31 PM
Albert played G because Monroe couldn't.

That's never been proven. They both played guard their freshman year. Why wasn't Albert backing up Brick at LOT like Monroe was?

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:33 PM
They were both freshmen when Brick was starting at LOT. Monroe beat Albert out as the backup LOT. Albert played LG and Monroe RG that first year.

Maybe you'll take Scott Wright's word over mine:

"This guy was the reason Branden Albert was playing inside at guard rather than outside at left tackle ..."

This is wrong. Virginia's coach wanted the best players on the field. Albert, and Monroe were among those. Albert could play G, Monroe could not. So to keep Monroe on the field Albert had to play G.

DeezNutz
03-23-2009, 02:33 PM
The best possible scenario would be for KC to trade down, get back at least a second rounder, and take OL with their first 4 picks.

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:35 PM
That's never been proven. They both played guard their freshman year. Why wasn't Albert backing up Brick at LOT like Monroe was?
Because then they would have two backup LTs. Albert had to pplay G becuase Monroe did not have the makeup for it.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:37 PM
This is wrong. Virginia's coach wanted the best players on the field. Albert, and Monroe were among those. Albert could play G, Monroe could not. So to keep Monroe on the field Albert had to play G.

Monroe played RG his freshman year.

Your telling me a LOT who didn't let up a single sack one entire season couldn't play RT in college?

Sully
03-23-2009, 02:38 PM
Monroe played RG his freshman year.

Your telling me a LOT who didn't let up a single sack one entire season couldn't play RT in college?

It's about getting the best 5 on the line.

If you have a LT who is a 10, but also an 8 or 9 at LG.
And you also have a LT who is a 9 or 10, but a 5 or 6 at LG (or RT), how would you set that up?

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:42 PM
Monroe played RG his freshman year.

Your telling me a LOT who didn't let up a single sack one entire season couldn't play RT in college?

And Brian Waters was a TE. Your freshman year doesn't mean dick.

What part don't you understand?
He wanted the 5 best players on the field. If Monroe played RT(which he was not suited for), and Albert left, then where does the RT play?. He would have to playt LG which he was probably not suited for.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:42 PM
It's about getting the best 5 on the line.

If you have a LT who is a 10, but also an 8 or 9 at LG.
And you also have a LT who is a 9 or 10, but a 5 or 6 at LG (or RT), how would you set that up?

Don't you want your best player at LT? You mean to tell me Monroe couldn't handle RT or RG?

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:43 PM
It's about getting the best 5 on the line.

If you have a LT who is a 10, but also an 8 or 9 at LG.
And you also have a LT who is a 9 or 10, but a 5 or 6 at LG (or RT), how would you set that up?

Exactly.

Sully
03-23-2009, 02:43 PM
Don't you want your best player at LT? You mean to tell me Monroe couldn't handle RT or RG?

If you take a half a step down, but 2-3 steps up at guard at the same time, i think it's a move you make (putting the better LT somewhere else).

I don't mean to tell you anything.
But the people who have discussed this from Virginia mean to tell you exactly what I said.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 02:43 PM
Don't you want your best player at LT? You mean to tell me Monroe couldn't handle RT or RG?

Even IF he could (and I don't know that it's true), why spend the #3 overall pick on a fucking right guard?

JFC.

:rolleyes:

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:44 PM
Don't you want your best player at LT? You mean to tell me Monroe couldn't handle RT or RG?

Not if it means you have to take one of your 5 best o-linemen off the field.

dj56dt58
03-23-2009, 02:44 PM
drafting Monroe would be fucking stupid...that would mean we spent a first round pick on a guard last year..you can find guards and right tackles later in the draft.

beach tribe
03-23-2009, 02:46 PM
drafting Monroe would be ****ing stupid...that would mean we spent a first round pick on a guard last year..you can find guards and right tackles later in the draft.

Actually we already have a good LT, so it would mean we used the #3 overall pick to fill a G spot.

Sully
03-23-2009, 02:46 PM
This past year I had a guy who was going to be a great FS, but also could be a great OLB.

My backup FS was crap...
My backup OLB was decent, and knowing his strengths, I could work around his weaknesses.

So I played the first guy at FS.
He still would've been a better OLB than the guy I had playing there, even though that guy was pretty good. But it was my goal to get the best athletes ont he field.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2009, 02:46 PM
If you take a half a step down, but 2-3 steps up at guard at the same time, i think it's a move you make (putting the better LT somewhere else).

I don't mean to tell you anything.
But the people who have discussed this from Virginia mean to tell you exactly what I said.

I'd be happy to read an article from Virginia at the time this was going on that says what you are saying.

DeezNutz
03-23-2009, 02:47 PM
Even IF he could (and I don't know that it's true), why spend the #3 overall pick on a ****ing right guard?

JFC.

:rolleyes:

A QB must make the Pro-Bowl 8 times to equal the value of Will Shields.

raybec 4
03-23-2009, 02:48 PM
Even IF he could (and I don't know that it's true), why spend the #3 overall pick on a fucking right guard?

JFC.

:rolleyes:

If you were going to do that why not go completely ape shit and draft Mack or Unger #3.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 02:49 PM
If you were going to do that why not go completely ape shit and draft Mack or Unger #3.

Right

keg in kc
03-23-2009, 03:00 PM
Dane wants to bear sanchez's raiderbabies.

DeezNutz
03-23-2009, 03:07 PM
Dane wants to bear sanchez's raiderbabies.

Wants?

Too late. Mecca is the godfather.

bdeg
03-23-2009, 03:10 PM
I couldn't find what I was going to quote before I asked this question. Oh well.

Dane, who would you take at 3 if you can't trade down?

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 03:11 PM
I couldn't find what I was going to quote before I asked this question. Oh well.

Dane, who would you take at 3 if you can't trade down?

I guess it depends on who's there. Personally, I'd take one of the QB's if available. They tend to hold their value really well, even if they're sitting on the bench.

I think AJ Smith runs a smart ship down in San Diego but his single biggest mistake was not franchising Drew Brees. He could have gotten something for him.

keg in kc
03-23-2009, 03:13 PM
Wants?

Too late. Mecca is the godfather.I heard they're going to move to rural utah, and try some multi-man polygamy. My Three Dads.

RustShack
03-23-2009, 03:18 PM
Monroe beat out Albert for the LOT in college. He can likely do it at this level. Who's to say he can't play RT or G if need be?

Henson beat out Brady in college. Leihart beat our Cassel in college. Also you don't use a #3 pick on anything but LT when it comes to Oline.

Coach
03-23-2009, 03:29 PM
I just think financially, this doesn't make sense, since Albert is making LT money, and have to move him to play a different position....

And there's also this age-old rule. "If it ain't broken, don't fuck with it."

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 07:54 PM
It's about getting the best 5 on the line.

If you have a LT who is a 10, but also an 8 or 9 at LG.
And you also have a LT who is a 9 or 10, but a 5 or 6 at LG (or RT), how would you set that up?

Bingo.

Take it a step further. If we spend the #3 pick on Monroe, we'd be getting MAYBE a 10% improvement at the LT position. In turn, we could move Albert to say RT, where he'd be a 50-60% improvement over what we have.

Contrast that with taking Curry or Brown, both of which would instantly be a 100% improvement because they play positions where we have NOBODY.

htismaqe
03-23-2009, 07:56 PM
Don't you want your best player at LT? You mean to tell me Monroe couldn't handle RT or RG?

According to the scouts, no he couldn't.

KCrockaholic
03-23-2009, 08:26 PM
It would be interesting, but I would rather take my chances on another O-lineman in the 3rd or so.

Saul Good
03-23-2009, 08:27 PM
Actually we already have a good LT, so it would mean we used the #3 overall pick to fill a G spot.Hell, if you're going to do that, why not just trade Albert for an All-Pro Guard straight up? It would be a horrible trade, but it would save about $30 million, and it would have the same impact on your O-line.

wazu
03-23-2009, 08:42 PM
I'd be glad to get Monroe, and I am far from the "anything but a QB" crowd. I had been hoping we would somehow get Stafford until we effectively drafted Cassel in the second round. I don't think it's very realistic that we'll draft what is practically two QBs in the first round in the same year. I'll be okay if they draft a defensive guy, but most of the guys we're talking about sound like players that can be got in the mid-first round next year, whereas a top 5 tackle is a much rarer commodity.

penchief
03-23-2009, 09:05 PM
I'm not bitching at anybody.

It warrants further discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, go elsewhere. It's pretty simple.

I don't have an issue with drafting Stafford even though we have Cassell. I just think that Monroe is more of a sure bet at LT than Stafford is at QB. If we're going to spend that much money on the number three pick I think an elite LT with less risk of being a bust is not a bad way to do it. Everything starts in the trenches.

Mr. Krab
03-23-2009, 10:41 PM
It's kinda sad when the only way to get a point through peoples' heads is to put it an a thread starter, huh?
Defending another quality poster, mommy?

maybe you should post a "hands off" list.

bdeg
03-23-2009, 10:44 PM
Defending another quality poster, mommy?

maybe you should post a "hands off" list.

dude **** off

i was making an observation

its true, i'm so sick of repeating myself on here

You're very presumptuous in your posts, and I don't just mean this one.

DeezNutz
03-23-2009, 10:50 PM
I don't have an issue with drafting Stafford even though we have Cassell. I just think that Monroe is more of a sure bet at LT than Stafford is at QB. If we're going to spend that much money on the number three pick I think an elite LT with less risk of being a bust is not a bad way to do it. Everything starts in the trenches.

And not moving our own second-year LT, who looks like he has the potential to be one of the best in the game, would be less risky still.

smittysbar
03-23-2009, 11:24 PM
I remember an article on Albert last year stating just what people here have said, that he would have been better at the LT position but since he could play G they got to keep both on the field.

Which BTW is why he was drafted as an LT in the first round, that has to tell you something.

bdeg
03-23-2009, 11:25 PM
I remember an article on Albert last year stating just what people here have said, that he would have been better at the LT position but since he could play G they got to keep both on the field.

Which BTW is why he was drafted as an LT in the first round, that has to tell you something.

Not to mention the great season he put together without the benefit of some TC and preseason.

smittysbar
03-23-2009, 11:33 PM
I just can't wrap my mind around why anyone would want to move Albert.

We took care of our LT problem last year, and it has worked out great so far, why draft another LT that high, we can get people fix the rest of the line later. Just not a smart move IMO.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 11:36 PM
I just can't wrap my mind around why anyone would want to move Albert.



Because some people are ill-informed.

And some are just plain stupid.

SNR
03-23-2009, 11:39 PM
Defending another quality poster, mommy?

maybe you should post a "hands off" list.You need to fix your name.

Mr. Krab's. Mr. Krab's what? Mr. Krab owns something from your name. Or he is something. Or another contraction.

You mean Mr. Krabs. Get it fixed or get raped.

bdeg
03-23-2009, 11:42 PM
That's hilarious

here we go http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wnmC2Fejdv4/ST9ukN8bGmI/AAAAAAAAAAc/G2eY0GJEzxY/s1600/you-gonna-get-raped.jpg

DeezNutz
03-23-2009, 11:51 PM
I just can't wrap my mind around why anyone would want to move Albert.

We took care of our LT problem last year, and it has worked out great so far, why draft another LT that high, we can get people fix the rest of the line later. Just not a smart move IMO.

It really is dumbfounding. There should be some type of -ism coined to explain this affliction since so many Chiefs fans suffer under its wrath.

At the very least, Albert is going to be above average. At best, he looks like he could be All-Pro. Now, let's change the fucking subject.

DaneMcCloud
03-23-2009, 11:53 PM
It really is dumbfounding. There should be some type of -ism coined to explain this affliction since so many Chiefs fans suffer under its wrath.


Dumbfuckism

DeezNutz
03-24-2009, 12:02 AM
Dumb****ism

Yes. DFism for short.

I think I'm going to use this.

DaneMcCloud
03-24-2009, 12:17 AM
Yes. DFism for short.

I think I'm going to use this.

You Go Girl!

LMAO

DeezNutz
03-24-2009, 12:20 AM
You Go Girl!

LMAO

I just air smacked you from about 1500 miles away you sumbitch. ROFL

mikey23545
03-24-2009, 06:10 AM
Wants?

Too late. Mecca is the godfather.

I think it's more like surrogate mother...

BigRedChief
03-24-2009, 07:21 AM
I'm against taking a LT at the #3 pick. We have so many needs and it looks like we already have a LT for the next 10 years.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-24-2009, 08:13 AM
Monroe didn't beat out Albert. Albert was moved while Ferguson was still there. They left him there because Monroe couldn't play anywhere else.

Actually, Albert was never 'moved'. Albert was too good not to play. He started at guard and stayed there. Albert arrived when Ferguson was playing LT, and he was so good, he became a nearly imediate starter at the LG position.

Monroe was one of the top recruits coming ouf of High School. I believe he played his first year at RT, then moved to LT.

Now, some viewed this as Monroe being a better LT than Albert. However, in recruiting a lot of 'promises' get made. And, if you want to continue to be able to recruit at a certain school or in a certain area, you better keep your promises as best you can.

Plus, Albert was a beast at guard. With he and Monroe on the left side, the coaches could focus on the right side and send help to that side.

I do think that Monroe can play RT.... but, I really... REALLY... hope the Chiefs dont' take an OT.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:13 AM
So you guys want another bum from UVA. LOL

nychief
03-24-2009, 09:16 AM
we aren't drafting Monroe

htismaqe
03-24-2009, 09:36 AM
I don't have an issue with drafting Stafford even though we have Cassell. I just think that Monroe is more of a sure bet at LT than Stafford is at QB. If we're going to spend that much money on the number three pick I think an elite LT with less risk of being a bust is not a bad way to do it. Everything starts in the trenches.

We've played it safe for almost 30 years. When is enough enough?

htismaqe
03-24-2009, 09:38 AM
Not to mention the great season he put together without the benefit of some TC and preseason.

Yeah, people forget he was hurt and missed time.

Actually if you really break it down, what he did last year was downright fuggin REMARKABLE.

nychief
03-24-2009, 09:39 AM
We've played it safe for almost 30 years. When is enough enough?


Does anybody really think we are going to draft stafford or monroe? will we have the option? yes. but, lets look at this logically.

htismaqe
03-24-2009, 09:39 AM
Hell, if you're going to do that, why not just trade Albert for an All-Pro Guard straight up? It would be a horrible trade, but it would save about $30 million, and it would have the same impact on your O-line.

And not moving our own second-year LT, who looks like he has the potential to be one of the best in the game, would be less risky still.

I just can't wrap my mind around why anyone would want to move Albert.

We took care of our LT problem last year, and it has worked out great so far, why draft another LT that high, we can get people fix the rest of the line later. Just not a smart move IMO.

I'm against taking a LT at the #3 pick. We have so many needs and it looks like we already have a LT for the next 10 years.

Thank you!

htismaqe
03-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Does anybody really think we are going to draft stafford or monroe? will we have the option? yes. but, lets look at this logically.

I would think they're going to get a player at a bigger position of need, like Curry or Brown. That being said, I could see them eyeing Stafford simply because of the value of QB's and what happened with Matt Ryan last year. I would hope like hell they're not even considering Monroe.

All of that being said, the point of my "playing it safe" post had nothing really to do with any player, but more with the fact that he said he liked the thought of drafting Monroe because it was a "sure bet" and "less risk".

Brock
03-24-2009, 09:54 AM
Does anybody really think we are going to draft stafford or monroe? will we have the option? yes. but, lets look at this logically.

Stafford at 3 would be huge value. Yes, yes, yes.

keg in kc
03-24-2009, 10:47 AM
I'm starting to wonder if Stafford isn't going to be the annual QB in free-fall.

htismaqe
03-24-2009, 11:04 AM
I'm starting to wonder if Stafford isn't going to be the annual QB in free-fall.

If he drops to #3 and doesn't move at that spot, whether us or a trade, he definitely might. Could Sanchez be the 1st QB taken?

keg in kc
03-24-2009, 11:06 AM
I think it's possible. Who knows, though. A lot can change in the next month.

htismaqe
03-24-2009, 11:10 AM
I think it's possible. Who knows, though. A lot can change in the next month.

I can't wait.

bdeg
03-24-2009, 12:02 PM
Yeah, people forget he was hurt and missed time.

Actually if you really break it down, what he did last year was downright fuggin REMARKABLE.

Ya it was. NOONE makes that transition. And to do it while missing as much time as did really has got to be one of the most impressive, encouraging things I've seen from any Chiefs player ever.

Jethopper
05-19-2009, 03:47 AM
I think we will draft Tyson Jackson!

Pioli Zombie
05-19-2009, 05:50 AM
Claythan is that you?
Posted via Mobile Device

MoreLemonPledge
05-19-2009, 05:51 AM
I think we will draft Tyson Jackson!

No, Sanchez.

Pioli Zombie
05-19-2009, 05:54 AM
Raji. NT is crucial in a 3-4
Posted via Mobile Device

MoreLemonPledge
05-19-2009, 05:57 AM
I think we'll trade the 3 for the 21st and 28th, then trade the 21st for 2 second round picks, trade the 28th for a second round and two thirds, then trade all of those up to 7 to get Maclin.

Jethopper
05-19-2009, 06:04 AM
I think we'll trade the 3 for the 21st and 28th, then trade the 21st for 2 second round picks, trade the 28th for a second round and two thirds, then trade all of those up to 7 to get Maclin.

agreed

Pioli Zombie
05-19-2009, 06:06 AM
You don't draft a WR that high. I think they might draft a black bear.
Posted via Mobile Device