PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs LT Eugene Monroe in round 1? Pioli-Haley-Groh-Albert-Monroe


T-post Tom
04-10-2009, 02:11 AM
Holy six degrees of separation Batman. So Charlie Casserly thinks the Chiefs are going with E. Monroe out of Virgina. I know some of you despise that idea, but I'm just repeating what he said. His theory on why Monroe makes sense:

1) Monroe has value at #3. Stud player. (Awesome Pro Day & Combine.)
2) Continuity as Albert/Monroe played together at UVA.
3) Albert/Monroe = bookends to to protect Cassel (& big $$ investment).
4) Pioli, Haley & Groh (HC at Virgina) all coached at Jets together. Groh loves Monroe. Pioli/Haley respect Groh's opinion & will listen.
5) Chiefs might be able to trade down a position or so and still get Monroe while picking up an extra pick(s).

My apologies in advance if this is a repost.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 02:20 AM
How is there any continuity if Albert isn't playing guard?

Then there's the money issue.

T-post Tom
04-10-2009, 02:23 AM
How is there any continuity if Albert isn't playing guard?

Then there's the money issue.

The offensive line plays as a unit. All offensive linemen will wax poetic about the importance of playing with the same guys over time. We heard it here in KC for so many years as we consistently had one of the best lines in the NFL.

Money? There's no money issue. Come on bro, quit throwing rocks.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 02:41 AM
The offensive line plays as a unit. All offensive linemen will wax poetic about the importance of playing with the same guys over time.

Yes, but we're talking about continuity.

Albert played left guard with Monroe at left tackle at Virginia.

There's ZERO continuity ON THE FIELD if that is changed up.


Money? There's no money issue. Come on bro, quit throwing rocks.There most definitely is a money issue. Monroe is going to want top 10 money. Albert signed a sizable contract last year as the #18 (?) pick. He's already proven he can play left tackle. He's going to want left tackle money for his next contract.

Too much money and too many draft resources tied up in two tackle spots.

It's just a bad idea. A good personnel department can find a right tackle anywhere. Free agency, later in the draft, a trade.

Bad ones (Carl) don't, and make fans think you have to spend another first-round pick on another tackle.

Ultra Peanut
04-10-2009, 02:48 AM
what

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-10-2009, 03:12 AM
Hey Casserly

http://i41.tinypic.com/2lbcbap.jpg

KCDC
04-10-2009, 03:24 AM
I agree with T-Post, for what its worth. Claythan (and others) has done a good job explaining why a LB should not be a top 5 pick. Curry is good and would be a good pick, but LBs are available later in the draft. A franchise LT is available to a team once per generation (unless you are the Rams or Lions and will suck for years to come).

We lucked out and may have gotten one last year. We have a rare chance to get another if we can't trade the pick. Bookend tackles allow every kind of offensive play calling, and allow even mediocre recievers to get open and runners to have good seasons. If Mike Shanahan taught us one thing, it is that if you have a great OL, any mediocre RB can look like a star. Joe Gibbs taught that to the NFL with the "Hogs" in the 80s.

Also, what happens if Albert is injured for a few games, or is having a tough time with a particular DE in a game. Imagine the luxury of swapping Monroe in (or vice versa) and not missing a beat. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can pick up RTs later in the draft. You can get a younger version of McIntosh. Then, when Albert is hurt, don't come moaning that the season is over because we have to play a McIntosh Jr. at LT.

A team can survive without one of its 3 or 4 LBs. It can't without a QB or a top quality LT. That is why these are money positions and are the most common positions drafted in the first three picks. We have our QB and we have half of an OL. Let's lock up the other half (so that Albert and Monroe can be interchangeable at LT or RT. Albert should not become a guard. Excellent guards are available in FA, or late in the draft. We got Goff for no draft picks, and he'll be very solid at guard. Put McIntosh in as RG and let Albert play RT.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 03:58 AM
We lucked out and may have gotten one last year. We have a rare chance to get another if we can't trade the pick. Bookend tackles allow every kind of offensive play calling, and allow even mediocre recievers to get open and runners to have good seasons. If Mike Shanahan taught us one thing, it is that if you have a great OL, any mediocre RB can look like a star. Joe Gibbs taught that to the NFL with the "Hogs" in the 80s.You can HAVE bookend tackles without committing $100 million in contracts and two first-round draft picks to the position.

The Colts have Ryan Diem - 4th round

The GREATEST PASSING OFFENSE EVER - the 1999 Rams - featured 5th rounder Fred Miller at RT.

Do you know where the Bills got Howard Ballard? THE 11TH FUCKING ROUND! THEY HAD THE TOP RANKED OFFENSE IN 1993!

Guess where they drafted their left tackle? Where you draft left tackles. THE FIRST ROUND.

Get a right tackle someplace else. They are spare parts. You give one $50 million and you're wasting money.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 04:00 AM
Also, what happens if Albert is injured for a few games, or is having a tough time with a particular DE in a game.Herb Taylor is more than adequate as a backup left tackle.

The league is too talent-thin for any team to have a first-round backup left tackle. That's ridiculous.

so that Albert and Monroe can be interchangeable at LT or RTIt doesn't work this way unless they are both Hall of Famers, like Will Shields, who played 3 or 4 positions on the line if memory serves and never missed a beat.

But the best argument is we have too many holes elsewhere.

Put McIntosh in as RG

Great idea. Let's play Hali at DT. Equally retarded.

the Talking Can
04-10-2009, 05:17 AM
zombie ideas won't die

imagine spending two consecutive top 5 picks on LTs....has any franchise ever been that fucking stupid, or had a fanbase so fucking stupid that they thought it was a great idea?

Pioli Zombie
04-10-2009, 06:01 AM
zombie ideas won't die

imagine spending two consecutive top 5 picks on LTs....has any franchise ever been that fucking stupid, or had a fanbase so fucking stupid that they thought it was a great idea?
Hope you don't mean me. I want Raji or a trade down.
Posted via Mobile Device

Coach
04-10-2009, 06:04 AM
Yes, let's draft a LT because our current LT sucks ass, even though they're blindly ignoring that he missed the majority of training camp, and missed one game, yet he only gave up 4.5 sacks during his rookie year, and IIRC, had one false start penalty, who's potentional could be as good as a Willie Roaf.

Brilliant fucking logic.

Ralphy Boy
04-10-2009, 06:43 AM
zombie ideas won't die

imagine spending two consecutive top 5 picks on LTs....has any franchise ever been that ****ing stupid, or had a fanbase so ****ing stupid that they thought it was a great idea?
Our top 5 pick last year was Dorsey, not Albert.

Who's ****ing stupid?

DaKCMan AP
04-10-2009, 06:52 AM
A franchise LT is available to a team once per generation (unless you are the Rams or Lions and will suck for years to come).

We lucked out and may have gotten one last year. We have a rare chance to get another if we can't trade the pick.

You don't need two LT's and you don't spend a top-5 pick on a RT. (Even if Monroe plays LT and Albert is moved to RT, you're essentially spending a top-5 pick on a RT) :spock:

DaKCMan AP
04-10-2009, 06:53 AM
Who's ****ing stupid?

You?

tmax63
04-10-2009, 06:55 AM
I know everyone here thinks you can pick a good RT later or in FA but before you claim that again, stop and think how long have we been b!tching about the RT spot and saying that we need a RT? I'm not an advocate of a RT at #3 but I do think it needs to be a priority to get another OL that will step in and start like Albert did last year. IMHO I'm not sure who to take at #3, would greatly prefer trading down 3-6 spots and getting another pick, but OL has been a problem for a couple of years and will continue to be until they spend some money and picks to get quality players instead of relying on finding diamonds in the late rounds to get by.

EyePod
04-10-2009, 06:59 AM
You can HAVE bookend tackles without committing $100 million in contracts and two first-round draft picks to the position.

The Colts have Ryan Diem - 4th round

The GREATEST PASSING OFFENSE EVER - the 1999 Rams - featured 5th rounder Fred Miller at RT.

Do you know where the Bills got Howard Ballard? THE 11TH ****ING ROUND! THEY HAD THE TOP RANKED OFFENSE IN 1993!

Guess where they drafted their left tackle? Where you draft left tackles. THE FIRST ROUND.

Get a right tackle someplace else. They are spare parts. You give one $50 million and you're wasting money.

LOL, I agree with you but I want to play devil's advocate... what about last year's arizona cardinals? Levi Brown... 5th pick.... lol I still can't believe they picked him there and that he's finally starting to become serviceable now (and that's just serviceable, he's not good yet).

the Talking Can
04-10-2009, 07:14 AM
Our top 5 pick last year was Dorsey, not Albert.

Who's ****ing stupid?

eh, amend it to first round


silly noobs

SenselessChiefsFan
04-10-2009, 07:23 AM
Holy six degrees of separation Batman. So Charlie Casserly thinks the Chiefs are going with E. Monroe out of Virgina. I know some of you despise that idea, but I'm just repeating what he said. His theory on why Monroe makes sense:

1) Monroe has value at #3. Stud player. (Awesome Pro Day & Combine.)
2) Continuity as Albert/Monroe played together at UVA.
3) Albert/Monroe = bookends to to protect Cassel (& big $$ investment).
4) Pioli, Haley & Groh (HC at Virgina) all coached at Jets together. Groh loves Monroe. Pioli/Haley respect Groh's opinion & will listen.
5) Chiefs might be able to trade down a position or so and still get Monroe while picking up an extra pick(s).

My apologies in advance if this is a repost.


Unlike the fans, Scott Pioli will be looking for the best player that fits with the team.

Could Monroe be the pick? Absolutely. Would it excite me? No.

We can make an argument against ANY player that will be available.

If they took Monroe, the Chiefs suddenly have (at least on Paper) the best young bookend tackles in the NFL.

It isn't just about the starters either. If they draft Monroe, and Albert got hurt, they have another top level LT starter.

Again, I am not really in favor of this... but it isn't like they are talking about drafting a punter here.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-10-2009, 07:26 AM
I agree with T-Post, for what its worth. Claythan (and others) has done a good job explaining why a LB should not be a top 5 pick. Curry is good and would be a good pick, but LBs are available later in the draft. A franchise LT is available to a team once per generation (unless you are the Rams or Lions and will suck for years to come).

We lucked out and may have gotten one last year. We have a rare chance to get another if we can't trade the pick. Bookend tackles allow every kind of offensive play calling, and allow even mediocre recievers to get open and runners to have good seasons. If Mike Shanahan taught us one thing, it is that if you have a great OL, any mediocre RB can look like a star. Joe Gibbs taught that to the NFL with the "Hogs" in the 80s.

Also, what happens if Albert is injured for a few games, or is having a tough time with a particular DE in a game. Imagine the luxury of swapping Monroe in (or vice versa) and not missing a beat. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can pick up RTs later in the draft. You can get a younger version of McIntosh. Then, when Albert is hurt, don't come moaning that the season is over because we have to play a McIntosh Jr. at LT.

A team can survive without one of its 3 or 4 LBs. It can't without a QB or a top quality LT. That is why these are money positions and are the most common positions drafted in the first three picks. We have our QB and we have half of an OL. Let's lock up the other half (so that Albert and Monroe can be interchangeable at LT or RT. Albert should not become a guard. Excellent guards are available in FA, or late in the draft. We got Goff for no draft picks, and he'll be very solid at guard. Put McIntosh in as RG and let Albert play RT.

I agree about the injury thing, but never, at any time would I want my OT's to switch positions in a game.

KCUnited
04-10-2009, 07:29 AM
LOL, I agree with you but I want to play devil's advocate... what about last year's arizona cardinals? Levi Brown... 5th pick.... lol I still can't believe they picked him there and that he's finally starting to become serviceable now (and that's just serviceable, he's not good yet).

Levi Brown was picked as a left tackle. Right tackle protecting a left handed qb.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-10-2009, 07:36 AM
Herb Taylor is more than adequate as a backup left tackle.

The league is too talent-thin for any team to have a first-round backup left tackle. That's ridiculous.

It doesn't work this way unless they are both Hall of Famers, like Will Shields, who played 3 or 4 positions on the line if memory serves and never missed a beat.

But the best argument is we have too many holes elsewhere.



Great idea. Let's play Hali at DT. Equally retarded.

While the pick isn't my favorite, you are foolish not to see the value of having two premier tackles. Clearly, I don't think that you draft a pure backup in the first round. But, a guy that will be a starter, and would be able to fill in at LT without missing much of a beat has at least some value.

I would prefer the Chiefs trade down. But, you aren't even considering the fact that the Chiefs would have two legit LT's.

I actually would prefer Curry here, because he fills a bigger hole. But, you can find linebackers late. You can find ANY position late. There is someone at every single position that has made pro bowls that has been drafted past the fifth round, or even undrafted.

The reality is that you should set up your draft board according to the demands of the offense and defense that you want to use.

DV's offense worked a lot better when they had Roaf and Tait in there.

What so many in here fail to realize is that most RT's get help for most of the game. And, most offenses are fine doing that.

But, imagine how much better the offense becomes if you can get one more guy out in a pattern. (without worrying about your QB getting killed)

Again, so that we are clear, I would prefer to trade down and work on our linebackers first. But, to act like there is no reasonable side to this argument is foolish.

LaChapelle
04-10-2009, 08:03 AM
Runs with scissors.

htismaqe
04-10-2009, 08:17 AM
While the pick isn't my favorite, you are foolish not to see the value of having two premier tackles. Clearly, I don't think that you draft a pure backup in the first round. But, a guy that will be a starter, and would be able to fill in at LT without missing much of a beat has at least some value.

I would prefer the Chiefs trade down. But, you aren't even considering the fact that the Chiefs would have two legit LT's.

I actually would prefer Curry here, because he fills a bigger hole. But, you can find linebackers late. You can find ANY position late. There is someone at every single position that has made pro bowls that has been drafted past the fifth round, or even undrafted.

The reality is that you should set up your draft board according to the demands of the offense and defense that you want to use.

DV's offense worked a lot better when they had Roaf and Tait in there.

What so many in here fail to realize is that most RT's get help for most of the game. And, most offenses are fine doing that.

But, imagine how much better the offense becomes if you can get one more guy out in a pattern. (without worrying about your QB getting killed)

Again, so that we are clear, I would prefer to trade down and work on our linebackers first. But, to act like there is no reasonable side to this argument is foolish.

There is no value in having two premiere left tackles unless you're suggesting we're going to win the Super Bowl in the next 24 months.

A championship team doesn't build that way, EVER.

We went through this yesterday, and not only could nobody name a Super Bowl team with 2 1st-round left tackles, we ended up producing a list of teams that were LOADED on the offensive line and couldn't combine to win ONE PLAYOFF GAME.

There is no reasonable side to the argument, unless you're more concerned with 9-7 than winning it all.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-10-2009, 08:31 AM
There is no value in having two premiere left tackles unless you're suggesting we're going to win the Super Bowl in the next 24 months.

A championship team doesn't build that way, EVER.

We went through this yesterday, and not only could nobody name a Super Bowl team with 2 1st-round left tackles, we ended up producing a list of teams that were LOADED on the offensive line and couldn't combine to win ONE PLAYOFF GAME.

There is no reasonable side to the argument, unless you're more concerned with 9-7 than winning it all.

Well, lets say five years since the Chiefs would have them both under contract for about the next five years.

As far as what Championship teams do.... this kind of makes me laugh.

While I understand the point, every year is different. And, just because it 'hasn't' happened, doesn't mean that it won't.

I am sure that when 'most' of these teams were drafting, there were other players that were as good as the OT's availalble.

And, other than maybe Curry, I don't see anyone as good as Monroe. Do you?

Again, this isn't my 'favorite' option. This isn't something that I desperately want to do, but I don't think it is 'foolish' as some have claimed.

We can sit here and say drafting a RT is stupid. Drafting a LB is stupid.

But who has ever built a championship trading away a second round pick for a QB and then drafting one in the top five?

At some point, we have to concede that this is not the ideal situation for the Chiefs with the needs they currently have.

So then, it becomes who is worth the pick? Not what position is worth the pick, but what PLAYER is worth the pick.

And, the Chiefs will likely take a player that doesn't fit from a positional value perspective. I have come to accept that. But, I don't think there will be someone there that fits as a top five pick talent, in a positon that the Chiefs need and at a position that typically gets drafted top five.

I try not to convince myself that a player is better than he is merely to justify taking a player at a certain position. That is why I have never been a huge Sanchez or Raji supporter.

Now, I could be totally wrong on both of those guys. But, I think that the majority of the fans in here are 'justifying' players that will be available at positions they want, rather than looking at actual talent.

htismaqe
04-10-2009, 08:34 AM
Well, lets say five years since the Chiefs would have them both under contract for about the next five years.

I didn't read beyond this. Albert isn't under contract for the next five years. And if we replace him one offseason after he played better than any other rookie left tackle, he might posture to leave before his contract is up.

Drafting a LT is dumb on so many levels it's not even worth talking about.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-10-2009, 08:36 AM
The combined record of teams that had more than 1 first round pick on their offensive line last year was 56-72. Those teams had 0 playoff wins.

Would you want the Royals to spend a top flight draft pick on a middle reliever?

Drafting a guy and paying him LT money is fucking retarded when we already have someone on the roster who is, for all intents and purposes, the same age, and who has proven he can play the position at a very high level when the other hasn't.

King_Chief_Fan
04-10-2009, 08:39 AM
Levi Brown was picked as a left tackle. Right tackle protecting a left handed qb.

How hard is it really for a guy to switch from one side to the other? LTvs.RT? I know McInsuck did terrible on both sides. Can't a good LT be a good RT?

TheGuardian
04-10-2009, 08:42 AM
My second ever post here -

Haley already said that "Branden Albert is not one of the problems on this football team."

We are not drafting a left tackle with the #3 pick overall. Period. Write it down.

The defense just set an NFL record for fewest sacks in a season, gave up 300+ yards rushing in a game and set other inept records against the run, and has possibly the worst overall front 7 in the league.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea or ever was a good idea to take another left tackle, especially in the first round when we don't have a second round pick, is galactically stupid and should remove the ability from their body to discuss football related topics via some kind of surgery.

First off, Albert is a franchise left tackle. The guy missed most of camp, then gave up 4.5 sacks all season and owned some very good pass rushers along the way. He's only going to get better if you just leave him out there. Yet some would be ok with taking him and moving him to a lesser position at right tackle, where his footwork and initial sets would completely change and he would have a learning curve all over again? Not to mention, Albert is not a typical mauling right tackle. He might actually not be that great there for a lot of reasons.

Having bookend tackles is not required for having a great offense. The right tackle position can be handled by an average without much thought. Most Chief fans just love to find them some players they can hate on, but after about midseason McIntosh was actually pretty solid at RT once his footwork became more natural to him. I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at RT, but switching Albert to RT is incredibly stupid. The offense was good enough at times near the end of the season to win games but the defense couldn't stop the run or pass, and some people think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a left tackle? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

This team should take no less than 5 defensive players in this draft.

Zeke
04-10-2009, 08:43 AM
We need a DE. Too bad this years DE Crop is not worth a top 10 pick.

Luck of the draw. Unfortunately we drew facing the wrong direction this year.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-10-2009, 08:44 AM
My second ever post here -

Haley already said that "Branden Albert is not one of the problems on this football team."

We are not drafting a left tackle with the #3 pick overall. Period. Write it down.

The defense just set an NFL record for fewest sacks in a season, gave up 300+ yards rushing in a game and set other inept records against the run, and has possibly the worst overall front 7 in the league.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea or ever was a good idea to take another left tackle, especially in the first round when we don't have a second round pick, is galactically stupid and should remove the ability from their body to discuss football related topics via some kind of surgery.

First off, Albert is a franchise left tackle. The guy missed most of camp, then gave up 4.5 sacks all season and owned some very good pass rushers along the way. He's only going to get better if you just leave him out there. Yet some would be ok with taking him and moving him to a lesser position at right tackle, where his footwork and initial sets would completely change and he would have a learning curve all over again? Not to mention, Albert is not a typical mauling right tackle. He might actually not be that great there for a lot of reasons.

Having bookend tackles is not required for having a great offense. The right tackle position can be handled by an average without much thought. Most Chief fans just love to find them some players they can hate on, but after about midseason McIntosh was actually pretty solid at RT once his footwork became more natural to him. I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at RT, but switching Albert to RT is incredibly stupid. The offense was good enough at times near the end of the season to win games but the defense couldn't stop the run or pass, and some people think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a left tackle? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

This team should take no less than 5 defensive players in this draft.

:eek: I thought I'd never see it again. A n00b whose not a completely dumb sonofabitch.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-10-2009, 08:45 AM
How hard is it really for a guy to switch from one side to the other? LTvs.RT? I know McInsuck did terrible on both sides. Can't a good LT be a good RT?

Absolutely not. LT is a position that demands athleticism and technique. RT is a position that values brute strength and mauling. Your LT should be your best athlete on the line, and should have great feet. Your RT should be your biggest guy, and should be among the strongest and most physically violent on the line.

Garcia Bronco
04-10-2009, 08:49 AM
You can get all the ex-UVA linemen you want, but they get abused when they play real competition. That's why UVA sucks at football every year.

philfree
04-10-2009, 08:50 AM
If we go OT I'd rather have Andre Smith and his 330 plous pounds playing RT and leave Alberts at LT. Andre seems a little risky but at one point he was considered the best OT in the draft. I'm not saying I want to go OT but we really have no idea what pioli is gonna do. Our HC is from the offensive side of the ball though so I could see him wanting to get the O line in order to protect our new QB. With Cassel and a sound O line this offense will be ready to roll.


PhilFree:arrow:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-10-2009, 08:53 AM
You can get all the ex-UVA linemen you want, but they get abused when they play real competition. That's why UVA sucks at football every year.

Yeah. Branden Albert, Chris Long, and D'Brickashaw Ferguson have all proven to be complete fucking bums.

Coogs
04-10-2009, 08:54 AM
My second ever post here -

Haley already said that "Branden Albert is not one of the problems on this football team."

We are not drafting a left tackle with the #3 pick overall. Period. Write it down.

The defense just set an NFL record for fewest sacks in a season, gave up 300+ yards rushing in a game and set other inept records against the run, and has possibly the worst overall front 7 in the league.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea or ever was a good idea to take another left tackle, especially in the first round when we don't have a second round pick, is galactically stupid and should remove the ability from their body to discuss football related topics via some kind of surgery.

First off, Albert is a franchise left tackle. The guy missed most of camp, then gave up 4.5 sacks all season and owned some very good pass rushers along the way. He's only going to get better if you just leave him out there. Yet some would be ok with taking him and moving him to a lesser position at right tackle, where his footwork and initial sets would completely change and he would have a learning curve all over again? Not to mention, Albert is not a typical mauling right tackle. He might actually not be that great there for a lot of reasons.

Having bookend tackles is not required for having a great offense. The right tackle position can be handled by an average without much thought. Most Chief fans just love to find them some players they can hate on, but after about midseason McIntosh was actually pretty solid at RT once his footwork became more natural to him. I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at RT, but switching Albert to RT is incredibly stupid. The offense was good enough at times near the end of the season to win games but the defense couldn't stop the run or pass, and some people think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a left tackle? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

This team should take no less than 5 defensive players in this draft.


I was with you right up to the last sentence. If we trade down and pick up a boat load of picks, then I might go with you on 5 spots for the defense.

I know I am in the minority here, but without a trade down, I like either Sanchez or Crabtree at #3 in that order. Then in the 3rd and 4th right now, it looks like bolstering the O-line may be a better way to go than marginal defenders.

Next year is where the defense should be upgraded.

Now if we trade down... then it is a whole different draft board.

Coogs
04-10-2009, 08:55 AM
If we go OT I'd rather have Andre Smith and his 330 plous pounds playing RT and leave Alberts at LT. Andre seems a little risky but at one point he was considered the best OT in the draft. I'm not saying I want to go OT but we really have no idea what pioli is gonna do. Our HC is from the offensive side of the ball though so I could see him wanting to get the O line in order to protect our new QB. With Cassel and a sound O line this offense will be ready to roll.


PhilFree:arrow:

If we can muster a trade down, this makes a whole lot more sense than moving Albert. But it still wouldn't be my top choice even under a trade down scenario to grab a RT in round 1.

philfree
04-10-2009, 09:04 AM
If we can muster a trade down, this makes a whole lot more sense than moving Albert. But it still wouldn't be my top choice even under a trade down scenario to grab a RT in round 1.

It wouldn't be mine either but it might work out really well.


PhilFree:arrow:

Rooster
04-10-2009, 09:13 AM
If the first pick for Chiefs isn't on Sports Center every night then he sucks. -----Chiefs Planet Logic

T-post Tom
04-10-2009, 10:50 AM
You can HAVE bookend tackles without committing $100 million in contracts and two first-round draft picks to the position.

The Colts have Ryan Diem - 4th round

The GREATEST PASSING OFFENSE EVER - the 1999 Rams - featured 5th rounder Fred Miller at RT.

Do you know where the Bills got Howard Ballard? THE 11TH ****ING ROUND! THEY HAD THE TOP RANKED OFFENSE IN 1993!

Guess where they drafted their left tackle? Where you draft left tackles. THE FIRST ROUND.

Get a right tackle someplace else. They are spare parts. You give one $50 million and you're wasting money.

Have your manjuices backed up into your brain? Dude, I know a few gals that will help you out.

The Chiefs can easily budget another top flight tackle. Especially one that appears to be fit for instant duty. Give me a break.

RTs are spare fookin' parts? I have but four points to make:

1) Trezelle Jenkins
2) Jeff Criswell (Hwy 69)
3) Kyle Turley
4) Damien McIntosh

Case closed.

Dicky McElephant
04-10-2009, 10:52 AM
Have your manjuices backed up into your brain? Dude, I know a few gals that will help you out.

The Chiefs can easily budget another top flight tackle. Especially one that appears to be fit for instant duty. Give me a break.

RTs are spare fookin' parts? I have but four points to make:

1) Trezelle Jenkins
2) Jeff Criswell (Hwy 69)
3) Kyle Turley
4) Damien McIntosh

Case closed.

Just because we've sucked at it for the last 10 years.....doesn't make it true.

And we can easily budget for a top flight tackle....right now. Give it 4 years down the road when Brandon Albert wants to be paid as a LT...when he's playing another position....and you won't be able to spend that money on a position that's of actual need.

Brock
04-10-2009, 10:59 AM
I can definitely see this happening. I don't like it, but they haven't asked me.

kcsam07
04-10-2009, 11:07 AM
i dont know imo its either curry or everett brown at 3 or we trade down case closed imo

J Diddy
04-10-2009, 11:25 AM
I think the notion of moving albert to rt and putting a rookie in at lt is laughable at best. Albert held his own last year and the idea that we could get two rookie lts to do that back to back years is plain silly. We have a lt and won't get value at 3 to pick a rt. This team needs playmakers, be it offense or defense but they have to impact.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 11:34 AM
This team should take no less than 5 defensive players in this draft.

Bullshit.

This draft sucks for defensive talent. It would be a colossal mistake to take guys just to take guys.

2010 is the year for defense in the draft. Not 2009.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 11:35 AM
We heard it here in KC for so many years as we consistently had one of the best lines in the NFL.

Yeah, what did it get the Chiefs? Nothing. Not jackshit.

Money? There's no money issue. Come on bro, quit throwing rocks.

Yeah, let's go ahead and have $80 million dollars wrapped up in TWO left tackles. That way, when the Chiefs have to address other needs, they won't be able to because the majority of their cap is taken by two left tackles.

Brilliant.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 11:36 AM
RTs are spare fookin' parts? I have but four points to make:

1) Trezelle Jenkins
2) Jeff Criswell (Hwy 69)
3) Kyle Turley
4) Damien McIntosh

Case closed.

JFC.

Garcia Bronco
04-10-2009, 11:40 AM
Yeah. Branden Albert, Chris Long, and D'Brickashaw Ferguson have all proven to be complete ****ing bums.

Exactly.

MTG#10
04-10-2009, 11:50 AM
Hopefully the Lambs take him and we wont have to worry about it.

Deberg_1990
04-10-2009, 11:51 AM
Bullshit.

This draft sucks for defensive talent. It would be a colossal mistake to take guys just to take guys.

2010 is the year for defense in the draft. Not 2009.

It would be unpopular, but for the Chiefs to get the best value for their $$$ in this draft, they should take Stafford or Sanchez whoever is left at #3.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 11:52 AM
DV's offense worked a lot better when they had Roaf and Tait in there.

Tait was drafted BEFORE DV.

They traded for Roaf because he wasn't good enough to play LT for DV. He just HAPPENED to fit at RT.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 11:53 AM
How hard is it really for a guy to switch from one side to the other? LTvs.RT? I know McInsuck did terrible on both sides. Can't a good LT be a good RT?

It can work, but actually McIntosh was better at left tackle.

Saying "oh they can flip flop at any time!" is retarded. It's tough to make that switch during the middle of a season.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 11:59 AM
It would be unpopular, but for the Chiefs to get the best value for their $$$ in this draft, they should take Stafford or Sanchez whoever is left at #3.

I've been saying this for months.

Brock
04-10-2009, 12:01 PM
It would be unpopular, but for the Chiefs to get the best value for their $$$ in this draft, they should take Stafford or Sanchez whoever is left at #3.

I don't think it would be unpopular. It would mean the people in charge of this team finally understand football in the 21st century.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 12:06 PM
I don't think it would be unpopular. It would mean the people in charge of this team finally understand football in the 21st century.

Oh, I think all the dummies that actually listen to KK and his ilk for information wouldn't like it.

Fuck 'em.

Micjones
04-10-2009, 12:23 PM
Not on board with drafting Monroe at #3.

I hope they're able to trade down.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:29 PM
I don't think it would be unpopular. It would mean the people in charge of this team finally understand football in the 21st century.

Yeah, I think the people wanting immediate gratification would be deeply distraught.

How are we going to be 9-7 this season?!!!?

Soupnazi
04-10-2009, 12:30 PM
It would be unpopular, but for the Chiefs to get the best value for their $$$ in this draft, they should take Stafford or Sanchez whoever is left at #3.

It's probably the best move at 3, if they can't trade out of it.

suds79
04-10-2009, 12:35 PM
It would be unpopular, but for the Chiefs to get the best value for their $$$ in this draft, they should take Stafford or Sanchez whoever is left at #3.

Yep I agree.

Imagine if they drafted Sanchez at #3. You know they'd be able to deal him for a 1st and some change (what other picks I don't know) to somebody. And if we don't get exactly equal value in terms of the chart? Who cares. We'll still get a 1st and probably our 2nd back. Just need more picks.

With the salary structure now a days, it's a curse to be drafting this high. Not a blessing and that's messed up.

RustShack
04-10-2009, 12:39 PM
I really don't care anymore, Albert was one of the best OG prospects to come out, he proved he can be a great LT so I'm assuming he can be an even better guard(I'd rather him play guard than RT). His contract isn't too big to play OG or RT, while he was a first round pick he wasn't a top 10 pick. This is really like Curry for me, not my top choice.

philfree
04-10-2009, 12:40 PM
It's probably the best move at 3, if they can't trade out of it.


I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree:arrow:

aturnis
04-10-2009, 12:40 PM
You don't need two LT's and you don't spend a top-5 pick on a RT. (Even if Monroe plays LT and Albert is moved to RT, you're essentially spending a top-5 pick on a RT) :spock:

This is the most retarded argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you fucking clones.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:42 PM
I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree:arrow:

Why not?

When will we be able to afford this risk?

20 years from now? We're currently at the midpoint?

KCDC
04-10-2009, 12:42 PM
The interesting thing I have noticed about the Planet is that there is absolutely no consensus. Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other retarded. Then, someone suggests a third approach, or a compromise ... and they tend to get labeled as retarded too. *lol*

Tough crowd, but fun. For the record, I encourage Scott to trade down and wheel and deal all day. I trust him completely to know how to get value. If we can't trade down, taking either Curry or the best LT is fine with me. Those of you attacking the best LT idea, that could allow Scott to trade that LT later in the first round when Philly realizes there are no stud tackles left by the time they pick and Scott dangles Monroe for them.

Some here would argue to take Sanchez and use him for trade bait. But, if no one bites, we have a huge contract for someone that won't be playing in 2009. At least with a stud LT, if no one will offer value for him later in Day One, he will play in 2009, and can be traded to a team for a boat load of picks in 2010 when someone's LT goes down for the season (e.g. Pace and Walter Jones alert here).

Brock
04-10-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree:arrow:

"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

philfree
04-10-2009, 12:51 PM
Why not?

When will we be able to afford this risk?

20 years from now? We're currently at the midpoint?


Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 12:53 PM
This is the most retarded argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you fucking clones.

What's the difference? You still have a shit ton of money wrapped up in TWO left tackles! Name a successful team that's drafted TWO left tackles in consecutive years, especially when the current left tackle played brilliantly in his first season?

The idea of drafting Monroe is so monumentally fucking stupid that only a fucking moron would support it.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:54 PM
Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.


PhilFree:arrow:

No. You're going in a different direction.

Why can't we afford to take this risk? When should we?

There's a huge chance anyone we select will bust, for one reason or another, so let's not even visit this line of argumentation

But back to the two questions above...

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 12:54 PM
Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.


PhilFree:arrow:

Phil, this is fucking dumbest argument you've made yet.

The only reason you think that Sanchez will bust is because of his "lack" of starts. You fail to recognize his poise in the pocket, his accuracy, leadership and football smarts.

Fucking stupid. As usual.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:55 PM
"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

Exactly. Implicit whenever someone references "most immediate impact."

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 12:56 PM
No. You're going in a different direction.

Why can't we afford to take this risk? When should we?

There's a huge chance anyone we select will bust, for one reason or another, so let's not even visit this line of argumentation

But back to the two questions above...

He's a moron.

What is "Huge" anyway? Is he stating that there's a 85% chance that Sanchez will be a total NFL failure?

That's just plain dumb.

philfree
04-10-2009, 12:56 PM
"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree:arrow:

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:56 PM
Phil, this is ****ing dumbest argument you've made yet.

The only reason you think that Sanchez will bust is because of his "lack" of starts. You fail to recognize his poise in the pocket, his accuracy, leadership and football smarts.

****ing stupid. As usual.

Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree:arrow:

So why can't we afford the risk?

When should we?

MTG#10
04-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other retarded.

Thats horrible. There may be someone related to a special needs child reading this.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 12:58 PM
Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree:arrow:

You clearly fail to realize that the reason that the Chiefs have been 6-26 the past two seasons is because the Chiefs rosters is nearly devoid of any talent.

Five shitty years of drafting under Vermeil utterly destroyed this football team. The Chiefs have to be extremely wise in rebuilding their roster for the future, not for the 2009 season.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 12:59 PM
The Chiefs have to be extremely wise in rebuilding their roster for the future, not for the 2009 season.

Now you're just talking fucking stupid.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

NFL starts > college starts

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 01:01 PM
NFL starts > college starts

Of course.

If Sanchez were worth a shit he would have skipped college.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 01:03 PM
I didn't read beyond this. Albert isn't under contract for the next five years. And if we replace him one offseason after he played better than any other rookie left tackle, he might posture to leave before his contract is up.

Drafting a LT is dumb on so many levels it's not even worth talking about.

This post is full of untruthiness. Albert is under contract until 2012, so not quite 5 years out yet, but certainly not 2 or 3 as you imply. Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT. Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

dj56dt58
04-10-2009, 01:05 PM
You can HAVE bookend tackles without committing $100 million in contracts and two first-round draft picks to the position.

The Colts have Ryan Diem - 4th round

The GREATEST PASSING OFFENSE EVER - the 1999 Rams - featured 5th rounder Fred Miller at RT.

Do you know where the Bills got Howard Ballard? THE 11TH FUCKING ROUND! THEY HAD THE TOP RANKED OFFENSE IN 1993!

Guess where they drafted their left tackle? Where you draft left tackles. THE FIRST ROUND.

Get a right tackle someplace else. They are spare parts. You give one $50 million and you're wasting money.

I agree with you. I'm going to go kill myself now

bringbackmarty
04-10-2009, 01:05 PM
what does albert's contract pay this year? I see he made over 9 mill in salary bonuses and incentives last year. Say we pay monroe somewhere around 14 to be our lt, trade waters for a pick, and our line could look like this. Granted it is a lot of money tied up in the line, but we have a lot to spend, and 2010 could end up being an uncapped year. Two years is a long time, a lot of things could happen.

Monroe, Albert, Goff (C), Niswanger (RG), 3rd round draft pick.

Spoken like a true fan I know...

I'd take that line and run larry right up denver, san diego and oakland's ass for the first half of the year while we figure out how to field a defense that can stop somebody. It will give Cassel some time back there with Bowe and Gonzalez learning the new playbook. Might even sneak into the playoffs and make a Zona style run peaking at the end of the season. I'm not saying we would go to the superbowl, but it's a good plan in a weak year for the defense. Especially with the cap room we have, which we routinely let go to waste.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 01:05 PM
This post is full of untruthiness. Albert is under contract until 2012, so not quite 5 years out yet, but certainly not 2 or 3 as you imply. Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT. Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

I know you're not alluding to Long...because that would be terribly inaccurate.

Clady, ok, worthy of debate. No one else.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 01:05 PM
Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT.

Bollocks.


Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

Yeah, a compensatory pick, maybe.

philfree
04-10-2009, 01:06 PM
No. You're going in a different direction.

Why can't we afford to take this risk? When should we?

There's a huge chance anyone we select will bust, for one reason or another, so let's not even visit this line of argumentation

But back to the two questions above...

The chances of Sanchex busting are far greater then that of the other top rated players in this draft. For one he's a QB and QBs are so highly valued that are over rated in the draft. That's why so many do bust. And also only have 16 starts increases the odds that he won't become a franchise QB. And we can't afford it because after he busts we will have essentially thrown away a #3 pick in the draft. That's a huge set back for a team rebuilding through the draft.

PhilFree:arrow:

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 01:10 PM
And we can't afford it because after he busts we will have essentially thrown away a #3 pick in the draft. That's a huge set back for a team rebuilding through the draft.

PhilFree:arrow:

High-round QB's who bust cripple franchises, like the Chargers.

If not now, when? When there's a "sure-fire lock," right? Like Peyton Manning, who was a slam-dunk, no debate, no question, #1 pick.

JohnnyV13
04-10-2009, 01:14 PM
What's the difference? You still have a shit ton of money wrapped up in TWO left tackles! Name a successful team that's drafted TWO left tackles in consecutive years, especially when the current left tackle played brilliantly in his first season?

The idea of drafting Monroe is so monumentally ****ing stupid that only a ****ing moron would support it.

Dane, right now we can afford it. And, Albert's contract is a mid first round contract. Its not so prohibitive that he can't be traded.

THAT is the true value. We can use the two LT's to build a great O line right now. (IF personnel people are right).

When we have too much $$$ tied up in LTs, we can then TRADE a young, in his prime, LT. Those guys almost NEVER hit the market and we could demand a bushel of picks. Something like a 1st and 2 2nds.

This move might be the best way to max value on the draft. It all depends on the exact terms of Albert's and the new LTs contracts and how our personnel people rate the talent.

Your thinking about budgeting is generally correct. The Chiefs, however, are in a somewhat unusual cap position and can contemplate unusual long term strategy.

philfree
04-10-2009, 01:16 PM
High-round QB's who bust cripple franchises, like the Chargers.

If not now, when? When there's a "sure-fire lock," right? Like Peyton Manning, who was a slam-dunk, no debate, no question, #1 pick.


If Stafford slips to #3 I'd take him.


PhilFree:arrow:

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 01:16 PM
When we have too much $$$ tied up in LTs, we can then TRADE a young, in his prime, LT. Those guys almost NEVER hit the market and we could demand a bushel of picks. Something like a 1st and 2 2nds.



This is the best argument so far (not surprising considering the source :)).

I still don't like it. We need defense. Trade down.

Pioli Zombie
04-10-2009, 01:19 PM
Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

It is if you take note that Cassels starts were in THE NFL!
Posted via Mobile Device

aturnis
04-10-2009, 01:20 PM
My second ever post here -

Haley already said that "Branden Albert is not one of the problems on this football team."

We are not drafting a left tackle with the #3 pick overall. Period. Write it down.

The defense just set an NFL record for fewest sacks in a season, gave up 300+ yards rushing in a game and set other inept records against the run, and has possibly the worst overall front 7 in the league.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea or ever was a good idea to take another left tackle, especially in the first round when we don't have a second round pick, is galactically stupid and should remove the ability from their body to discuss football related topics via some kind of surgery.

First off, Albert is a franchise left tackle. The guy missed most of camp, then gave up 4.5 sacks all season and owned some very good pass rushers along the way. He's only going to get better if you just leave him out there. Yet some would be ok with taking him and moving him to a lesser position at right tackle, where his footwork and initial sets would completely change and he would have a learning curve all over again? Not to mention, Albert is not a typical mauling right tackle. He might actually not be that great there for a lot of reasons.

Having bookend tackles is not required for having a great offense. The right tackle position can be handled by an average without much thought. Most Chief fans just love to find them some players they can hate on, but after about midseason McIntosh was actually pretty solid at RT once his footwork became more natural to him. I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at RT, but switching Albert to RT is incredibly stupid. The offense was good enough at times near the end of the season to win games but the defense couldn't stop the run or pass, and some people think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a left tackle? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

This team should take no less than 5 defensive players in this draft.

Drop the last part and it's a good post noob. Next years the year for defense.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 01:23 PM
You must be reading my blog cause I wrote about this a few days ago.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 01:26 PM
This is the best argument so far (not surprising considering the source :)).

I still don't like it. We need defense. Trade down.

You're not going to get any impact defensive players in this draft.

The Chiefs need to rebuild their offense line and add a speed wide receiver. That can easily be accomplished in this draft, especially if the Chiefs can pick up additional draft choices with a trade down.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 01:27 PM
You're not going to get any impact defensive players in this draft.

Bullshit. If we could get Raji and Brown in rd 1, they BOTH have the potential to be impact players.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 01:27 PM
You're not going to get any impact defensive players in this draft.

The Chiefs need to rebuild their offense line and add a speed wide receiver. That can easily be accomplished in this draft, especially if the Chiefs can pick up additional draft choices with a trade down.

Stupidest post ever. Yea there are no good defensive players in this draft even at the #3 pick

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 01:27 PM
It is if you take note that Cassels starts were in THE NFL!
Posted via Mobile Device

Experience111

JohnnyV13
04-10-2009, 01:31 PM
This is the best argument so far (not surprising considering the source :)).

I still don't like it. We need defense. Trade down.

Oh, I still think that's what Pioli wants to do. I think he's hoping he can broker Stafford or Sanchez to a team that really wants him. But, its possible that he might not be able to pull off a deall. If a deal is close, but Pioli feels that other teams think they can get Stafford or Sanchez by trading for a slightly lower pick, then Pioli might just take the QB to force the trade. (Somewhat like the Chargers did with Eli Manning in 2004).

Drafting Monroe/Jason Smith might be an acceptable fall-back position. There are numerous possiblities and the Chiefs have so much cap room they have lots of room to manuever.

RustShack
04-10-2009, 01:33 PM
Monroe-Waters-Niswanger-Goff-Albert doesn't sound too bad to me...

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 01:34 PM
I can't believe I just read a post claiming that Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie OT last year.

Wait, this is ChiefsPlanet right?

Nevermind.

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 01:35 PM
I'm going to go ape shit if Albert is moved.

RustShack
04-10-2009, 01:35 PM
I can't believe I just read a post claiming that Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie OT last year.

Wait, this is ChiefsPlanet right?

Nevermind.

Most of the guys in the NFL agreed with that at this time last year, otherwise Albert wouldn't be on our team.

philfree
04-10-2009, 01:36 PM
Monroe-Waters-Niswanger-Goff-Albert doesn't sound too bad to me...


Alberts-Waters-Niswanger-Goff-Andre Smith(330 + Lbs)

PhilFree:arrow:

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 01:37 PM
Alberts-Waters-Niswanger-Goff-Andre Smith(330 + Lbs)

PhilFree:arrow:

And where are you drafting that big-titted bastard? Is this a trade-down scenario? Where in round 1?

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 01:38 PM
The only thing that annoys me more than people who want to draft Monroe are people who call him Branden Alberts.

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 01:39 PM
Most of the guys in the NFL agreed with that at this time last year, otherwise Albert wouldn't be on our team.

Yet another reason to take these so-called experts rankings with a grain of salt.

Albert played better than a guy that was taken 14 spots ahead of him.

Wouldn't be shocked to see the same thing happen at the ILB position in this draft.

Brock
04-10-2009, 01:40 PM
Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree:arrow:

Having the third pick in this draft allows us the opportunity to draft a franchise quarterback. So yeah, it's a great position to be in.

JohnnyV13
04-10-2009, 01:43 PM
I can't believe I just read a post claiming that Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie OT last year.

Wait, this is ChiefsPlanet right?

Nevermind.

Actually, Clady was VERY good last year and probably WAS better than Branden Albert. Then the argument breaks down to whether Jake Long was better than Albert.

Atlanta might want to say a word or two about Sam Baker. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. Albert definately showed star potential. Where he ranks among his draft class doesn't really matter.

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 01:46 PM
Actually, Clady was VERY good last year and probably WAS better than Branden Albert. Then the argument breaks down to whether Jake Long was better than Albert.

Atlanta might want to say a word or two about Sam Baker. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. Albert definately showed star potential. Where he ranks among his draft class doesn't really matter.

It does when someone is stupid enough to make that claim, and support moving him to bring in a guy that isn't appreciably better at the position.

No doubt, Clady was the best rookie last year.

Albert was easily the 2nd best, IMO.

Baker 3rd.

Bottom line: You don't waste the highest pick you've had in recent memory to move a kid with All-Pro potential, just to replace him with someone who isn't significantly better.

Brock
04-10-2009, 01:46 PM
You could have put Albert on either of those teams and he'd have done just as well. I would put Clady ahead of either of them at this point, but being on a great offense will make a good guy look great.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 01:48 PM
In College Monroe was a better LT than Albert. 2 stud tackles for a 14.5 million dollar QB would be good. Better then drafting Orakapo.

philfree
04-10-2009, 01:48 PM
And where are you drafting that big-titted bastard? Is this a trade-down scenario? Where in round 1?


I don't know. I'm not really pushing for an OT at #3 and taking a RT #3 is out of line with what usually happens. We'd be paying a lot for a RT. We can afford it though.

PhilFree:arrow:

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 01:49 PM
You could have put Albert on either of those teams and he'd have done just as well. I would put Clady ahead of either of them at this point, but being on a great offense will make a good guy look great.

Clady did play outstanding last year, no debate.

But any LT will look better when you're QB doesn't hold on to the ball. Cutler got rid of it quickly (much like P. Manning) and when he didn't, had the mobility to avoid sacks.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 01:50 PM
Stupidest post ever. Yea there are no good defensive players in this draft even at the #3 pick

Are there any defensive players worth the #3 pick?

LaChapelle
04-10-2009, 01:52 PM
Bringing up the Chiefs' draft tendencies and blunders of the past 20 years. Is no longer applicable. I know it's ingrained, let it go.

philfree
04-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

Another typo/misspelling... championship.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 01:58 PM
Stupidest post ever. Yea there are no good defensive players in this draft even at the #3 pick

Oh, it's nice to see that the biggest piece of shit to ever post on the 'Planet has returned.

Go fuck yourself.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 01:59 PM
Bullshit. If we could get Raji and Brown in rd 1, they BOTH have the potential to be impact players.

Sorry, I fully and completely disagree.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:00 PM
Are there any defensive players worth the #3 pick?

I don't know at #3 but to say theres no good defensive players in the draft is silly. I like Everette Brown & Tyson Jackson but at 3 they would be a reach. Though some say Mayo was a reach, I trust Pioli.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:00 PM
I can't believe I just read a post claiming that Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie OT last year.

Wait, this is ChiefsPlanet right?

Nevermind.

I swear, there are some of the dumbest motherfuckers in the world that post in this forum.

I think Keg said it best: I hope the Chiefs just draft left tackles with every draft pick this year.

That way, our offensive line would be awesome!

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:01 PM
In College Monroe was a better LT than Albert. 2 stud tackles for a 14.5 million dollar QB would be good. Better then drafting Orakapo.

Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Do you EVER know what the fuck you're talking about?

I'm guessing NO.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Alberts-Waters-Niswanger-Goff-Andre Smith(330 + Lbs)

PhilFree:arrow:

Hey, Dumbshit.

It's ALBERT.

Not Alberts.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:04 PM
Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Do you EVER know what the **** you're talking about?

I'm guessing NO.

You must not be getting enough at the bath houses in Cali. Are you saying Groh moved Albert from LT to Guard cause Monroe sucked and he wanted to play him at left tackle for shits and giggles?

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:06 PM
It does when someone is stupid enough to make that claim, and support moving him to bring in a guy that isn't appreciably better at the position.

No doubt, Clady was the best rookie last year.

Albert was easily the 2nd best, IMO.

Baker 3rd.

Bottom line: You don't waste the highest pick you've had in recent memory to move a kid with All-Pro potential, just to replace him with someone who isn't significantly better.

You, my friend, are the fucking idiot. You should hurry up and shut your fucking mouth. Quick. I said it. I never did though, support drafting a LT this year. Only playing devils advocate, if it were up to me, we would trade down, even for slightly less than fair value. If you want to call me stupid for that, go ahead.

Fact is, Clady proved to be the best ROOKIE LT. Will he be better than Albert next year? I personally don't think so, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? After that, it all comes down to whether or not Albert was better than Long and Baker. Long? Probably, he seemed to get a lot of help, so I'd say he can't really be considered better than Albert.

Baker though, played half a season and only gave up one sack. Whether or not he was better than Albert last season is based solely on opinion. So I can't say that Albert was the 2nd best LT and neither can you.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:06 PM
You must not be getting enough at the bath houses in Cali. Are you saying Groh moved Albert from LT to Guard cause Monroe sucked and he wanted to play him at left tackle for shits and giggles?

God, you're a dumbfuck. For someone who pretends to know what he's talking about, you don't know jackshit.

Albert was moved because he could move to guard; Monroe couldn't. Albert is more athletic and has better footwork than Monroe and Groh was wise to put his best offensive lineman on the field.

It would be absolutely fucking moronic for the Chiefs to draft Monroe when they can draft a right tackle in round three or later.

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 02:09 PM
God, you're a dumbfuck. For someone who pretends to know what he's talking about, you don't know jackshit.

Albert was moved because he could move to guard; Monroe couldn't. Albert is more athletic and has better footwork than Monroe and Groh was wise to put his best offensive lineman on the field.

It would be absolutely fucking moronic for the Chiefs to draft Monroe when they can draft a right tackle in round three or later.

I'm sure he's just playing devil's advocate.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:09 PM
In College Monroe was a better LT than Albert. 2 stud tackles for a 14.5 million dollar QB would be good. Better then drafting Orakapo.

Who said Monroe was a better LT in college? Everything I've heard is to the contrary. Only reason Monroe played LT over Albert is b/c Albert could play other positions better than Monroe.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:09 PM
You, my friend, are the fucking idiot.

JFC.

Baker though, played half a season and only gave up one sack. Whether or not he was better than Albert last season is based solely on opinion. So I can't say that Albert was the 2nd best LT and neither can you.

Baker was part of a very good offensive line that had a 1,500 yard rusher and a QB with a quick release. If I had a choice, I'd take Albert any day of the week over Baker.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:10 PM
Bullshit. If we could get Raji and Brown in rd 1, they BOTH have the potential to be impact players.

How do you suggest we get BOTH those players?

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:14 PM
God, you're a dumb****. For someone who pretends to know what he's talking about, you don't know jackshit.

Albert was moved because he could move to guard; Monroe couldn't. Albert is more athletic and has better footwork than Monroe and Groh was wise to put his best offensive lineman on the field.

It would be absolutely ****ing moronic for the Chiefs to draft Monroe when they can draft a right tackle in round three or later.

That's bullshit if Albert was better you'd play Albert at LT and Monroe at RT you fuckwit. Instead of pretending to be a scout you should stick to what you do best and thats sucking cawk for money.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Drafting a guy and paying him LT money is ****ing retarded when we already have someone on the roster who is, for all intents and purposes, the same age, and who has proven he can play the position at a very high level when the other hasn't.

This is the best argument made so far.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:16 PM
This is the best argument so far (not surprising considering the source :)).

I still don't like it. We need defense. Trade down.

Funny, I thought the best we could get for one of them is compensatory picks?

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 02:16 PM
This is the best argument made so far.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg

It's the same argument that has been made by no less than 10 of us every time this dumbass suggestion of moving Albert comes up.

This isn't anything new.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Baker was part of a very good offensive line that had a 1,500 yard rusher and a QB with a quick release. If I had a choice, I'd take Albert any day of the week over Baker.

Again, opinion.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:17 PM
That's bullshit if Albert was better you'd play Albert at LT and Monroe at RT you fuckwit. Instead of pretending to be a scout you should stick to what you do best and thats sucking cawk for money.

Go fuck yourself yourself, you stupid fucking fuck.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:18 PM
http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg

It's the same argument that has been made by no less than 10 of us every time this dumbass suggestion of moving Albert comes up.

This isn't anything new.

What does Mrs.Warparth think about you sucking off guys on a message board? Wait nobody is stupid enough to marry your dumbass.

googlegoogle
04-10-2009, 02:19 PM
The Alabama kid everyone is down on has a long wingspan and is strong. Dont understand why everyone is down on him.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:19 PM
Again, opinion.

It was also the opinion of the scouts.

Baker was projected to be a late first/early second round choice. He was by all accounts, "Maxed out". It was quite shocking that Atlanta gave up their 2009 first round choice for him but it did work out quite well for them.

I'd bet money that they would have preferred Albert.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:19 PM
Go **** yourself yourself, you stupid ****ing ****.

Thats a very informed opinon coming from someone whos never played football and pretends to be a millionare. Just cause you collect monopoly stamps from Mcdonalds doesn't mean your rich.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:19 PM
The Alabama kid everyone is down on has a long wingspan and is strong. Dont understand why everyone is down on him.

Do a google search

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Thats a very informed opinon coming from someone whos never played football and pretends to be a millionare. Just cause you collect monopoly stamps from Mcdonalds doesn't mean your rich.

ROFL

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:24 PM
http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg

It's the same argument that has been made by no less than 10 of us every time this dumbass suggestion of moving Albert comes up.

This isn't anything new.

Yeah well, there are a few good arguments made against LT, but not too many. I wouldn't want a LT, I think our goal is to move forward. We can make the same, if not more progress, by drafting a good RT later on.

I've also tried to point out the fact that the "drafting a LT at #3 is essentially drafting a RT at #3" is completely stupid. Albert would be the RT, drafted at #15.

eazyb81
04-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Meh, I guess it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have two elite tackles.

It's sad that this is what we're down to now - what an awful year to have a top 3 pick.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Yeah well, there are a few good arguments made against LT, but not too many. I wouldn't want a LT, I think our goal is to move forward. We can make the same, if not more progress, by drafting a good RT later on.

I've also tried to point out the fact that the "drafting a LT at #3 is essentially drafting a RT at #3" is completely stupid. Albert would be the RT, drafted at #15.

Why wouldn't you put Monroe at right tackle? Albert's already proven he's a solid if not spectacular left tackle.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:26 PM
ROFL

Yeah, it is pretty funny considering multiple people from this board have been to your crib.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:26 PM
Why wouldn't you put Monroe at right tackle? Albert's already proven he's a solid if not spectacular left tackle.

Why would you draft another T at #3?

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 02:27 PM
Meh, I guess it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have two elite tackles.

It's sad that this is what we're down to now - what an awful year to have a top 3 pick.

It's not an awful year to have a Top 3 pick.

There are 2 elite LT's and 2 elite QB's.

The problem is, we already have at least one of those positions covered, and depending on who you're talking to may have the other covered.

aturnis
04-10-2009, 02:28 PM
Billay, you're wrong. Get over it. Albert is the better LT of the two. His college coaches knew it, the NFL scouts know it, and luckily the Chiefs knew it.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 02:30 PM
How do you suggest we get BOTH those players?

You trade the third overall pick for two later picks in the first round.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 02:31 PM
Funny, I thought the best we could get for one of them is compensatory picks?

No. Read that post again.

If we lose Albert to free agency in a few years, because he's been moved to right tackle, and wants more money than we're willing to pay a right tackle, then the best we could hope to get for him in return is a compensatory pick.

Clear?

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:31 PM
Billay, you're wrong. Get over it. Albert is the better LT of the two. His college coaches knew it, the NFL scouts know it, and luckily the Chiefs knew it.

Right thats why Albert was drafted 15th in the Draft. You play your best player at LT its the most important position on the line. If Monroe sucked he wouldn't play LT he'd be at RT and Albert would play LT.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:32 PM
Why would you draft another T at #3?

Well, that's essentially what you're doing - drafting another left tackle.

My question is this: Albert's already proven to be a solid left tackle. Monroe hasn't played a down in the NFL. If he's your choice, why put him at left?

I know, this is a silly argument. I feel like I'm talking in circles. Personally, I'd take Stafford or Sanchez with the #3, if either are available.

A good right tackle can be found in the third round or later.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:34 PM
No. Read that post again.

If we lose Albert to free agency in a few years, because he's been moved to right tackle, and wants more money than we're willing to pay a right tackle, then the best we could hope to get for him in return is a compensatory pick.

Clear?

Few years? Few years?

He'll be with the Chiefs for at least 4 more years. If 2010 goes uncapped, it becomes 5 years (free agency won't kick in until after 6 full years of service).

Albert's not a right tackle. It's just a fucking stupid argument.

Brock
04-10-2009, 02:38 PM
Few years? Few years?

He'll be with the Chiefs for at least 4 more years. If 2010 goes uncapped, it becomes 5 years (free agency won't kick in until after 6 full years of service).

Albert's not a right tackle. It's just a ****ing stupid argument.

Yes. This is why I chuckle whenever someone brings up that argument. Don't not move Albert because you're afraid you'll make him mad, don't move him because there's no reason to move him.

Chocolate Hog
04-10-2009, 02:39 PM
Billay, you're wrong. Get over it. Albert is the better LT of the two. His college coaches knew it, the NFL scouts know it, and luckily the Chiefs knew it.


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1117437


"Many scouting departments labeled Monroe as a certain early first-round draft selection, especially based on his 2008 performance and ability to remain healthy throughout his senior year. Many of those experts feel that his strength, technique and hand placement is superior to former Virginia first-round offensive linemen, D'Brickashaw Ferguson (New York Jets) and Branden Albert (Kansas City)."

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 02:40 PM
Albert's not a right tackle. It's just a fucking stupid argument.

I agree.

The money issue makes it an even more fucking stupid argument!

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 02:47 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1117437


"Many scouting departments labeled Monroe as a certain early first-round draft selection, especially based on his 2008 performance and ability to remain healthy throughout his senior year. Many of those experts feel that his strength, technique and hand placement is superior to former Virginia first-round offensive linemen, D'Brickashaw Ferguson (New York Jets) and Branden Albert (Kansas City)."

Yay, some guy named Frank Cooney thinks Monroe will be better than Albert.

Big fucking deal.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-10-2009, 03:12 PM
Right thats why Albert was drafted 15th in the Draft. You play your best player at LT its the most important position on the line. If Monroe sucked he wouldn't play LT he'd be at RT and Albert would play LT.

The reality is that Monroe was an elite prospect coming out of HS. Many promises are made to those kind of players. Coaches don't want to break those promises because that hurts their future recruiting.

Additionally, when Albert got there, Brick was at LT and Monroe was playing RT. Albert had only been playing football for a couple years, maybe three. Tackles is the more technically difficult position. But, EVEN with his limited experience, he was able to secure a starting spot in his freshman year. That is very impressive.

When Brick moved on, they put Monroe over there and left Albert alone for continuity purposes.

They are both elite prospects. It would be hard to argue which one is better because they are both very good.

But, the position they played in college isn't a good basis for an argument to which was better.

Frankly, Monroe has always been very good, not great. I think Albert will be better long term. He has more athleticsm and in my opinion, better feet.

JMO.

T-post Tom
04-10-2009, 03:24 PM
Yeah, what did it get the Chiefs? Nothing. Not jackshit.



Yeah, let's go ahead and have $80 million dollars wrapped up in TWO left tackles. That way, when the Chiefs have to address other needs, they won't be able to because the majority of their cap is taken by two left tackles.

Brilliant.

Get your facts straight, Albert's salary was apt for a #15 pick, not a top five. GFC, pay attention.

Tribal Warfare
04-10-2009, 03:33 PM
Even at this stage Albert is a more complete OL with his skill set in comparison to Monroe, and has more potential to get better also.

SBK
04-10-2009, 03:36 PM
I'm convinced most of the KC fanbase sits in front of the tv and drools during the games. No idea what's going on at all.

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 03:38 PM
I'm convinced most of the KC fanbase sits in front of the tv and drools during the games. No idea what's going on at all.

Some of these guys make Terri Schiavo look like a fucking MENSA member.

SBK
04-10-2009, 03:42 PM
Some of these guys make Terri Schiavo look like a ****ing MENSA member.

First you have the LT at all cost folks. They cannot be swayed. Then there's Curry's 12 disciples. They cannot be swayed.

Then there's the folks that tell you no QB in this draft is worth the #3 pick. AND they hope that one of them is available at 3 so some team will give up the farm to get em. Brilliant! Not worth the pick, hopefully someone will spend a fortune and give it to us to have em.

I think Mecca is right in saying fans here are scared of a QB. Even before we traded for Cassel you would get 1,000,000 arguments against drafting one, none of which were valid or logical.

T-post Tom
04-10-2009, 03:51 PM
A good right tackle can be found in the third round or later.

Top tackles hard to come by at No. 22


VikingUpdate.com
Posted Apr 10, 2009


Getting a solid offensive tackle in the bottom third of the first round might sound like an easy task, but draft history over the last decade would say otherwise. There haven’t been that many taken and even fewer that have become mainstay starters.

Is there something about getting offensive tackles late in the first round?

The numbers would appear to be against the Vikings if they intend to use their first-round pick (currently No. 22) to take an offensive tackle. Since it’s too early to pass judgment on the 2008 draft as to whether the picks late in the first round are successes or not, the past decade (1998-2007) has showed that trying to get an offensive tackle in the latter portions of the first round is not only a crapshoot, but not very likely.

In that span, the only offensive tackle taken at the 22nd pick was Chris McIntosh of the Seattle Seahawks in 2000. He lasted just three years in the league before recurring neck problems forced him to retire in 2003. The bad news doesn’t stop there.

From 2001-07, there were only three offensive tackles taken on the first round that were available when the team with the 22nd pick made its selection. The 49ers took Joe Staley with the 27th pick of the 2007 draft as well as Kwame Harris with the 26th pick of the 2003 draft, while Chicago took Marc Colombo with the 29th pick of the 2002 draft. The fact that one team has taken two of the players chosen doesn’t bode well for the availability of a top offensive tackle when the Vikings pick.

That isn’t to say, however, that talent hasn’t come close. In 2005, the St. Louis Rams took Alex Barron with the 19th pick. The year before that, thanks to flip-flopping with the Vikings, the Dolphins took Vernon Carey with the 19th pick of the draft. The Lions also fit in prominently to that mix as well. George Foster, who was recently released by the Lions after being traded from Denver as part of the Dre Bly trade two years ago, was taken by the Broncos in 2003 with the 20th overall pick. In 2001, the Lions took Jeff Backus with the 18th pick. The year before that, Detroit drafted Stockar McDougle with the 20th pick. Shockingly, in 1999 the Lions also drafted Aaron Gibson (No. 27 overall) to be their tackle of the future.

You have to go all the way back to 1998 to find a time when two offensive tackles went in the final 10 picks of the first round – Mo Collins to the Raiders and Victor Riley to Kansas City. Collins played six years in the league in made 64 career starts. Riley played eight years in the league with the Chiefs, Saints and Texans and made 93 career starts.

Although the draft class at offensive tackle looks to be deep and loaded with talent, finding that talent in the final third of the first round has proved to be difficult for NFL teams. If the Vikings want to guarantee a star player, they may have to move up, because history isn’t exactly on their side with this one.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Top tackles hard to come by at No. 22


VikingUpdate.com
Posted Apr 10, 2009




Look Dummy, I said RIGHT TACKLE.

And clearly, this writer didn't do any research because this draft is the deepest draft for offensive lineman in probably the history of the NFL.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 03:58 PM
Get your facts straight, Albert's salary was apt for a #15 pick, not a top five. GFC, pay attention.

Again, Dummy, does that make it okay to pay Monroe $50 million? So in the next four years, you're going to have upwards of $80 million invested in 2 left tackles?

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:05 PM
Look Dummy, I said RIGHT TACKLE.

And clearly, this writer didn't do any research because this draft is the deepest draft for offensive lineman in probably the history of the NFL.

:spock:

That's one of the dumbest statements I've read this entire offseason. Funny especially because it comes from someone trying to sound knowledgeable.

SBK
04-10-2009, 04:07 PM
:spock:

That's one of the dumbest statements I've read this entire offseason. Funny especially because it comes from someone trying to sound knowledgeable.

I'm sure you've been told before, but you picked the perfect name for yourself.

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:09 PM
I'm sure you've been told before, but you picked the perfect name for yourself.

Uhhhhh, good one, you twat.

Just keep piggy-backing idiots that don't have a clue.

"Deepest draft for OL in history." LMAO LMAO

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:09 PM
:spock:

That's one of the dumbest statements I've read this entire offseason. Funny especially because it comes from someone trying to sound knowledgeable.

What? What the fuck are you talking about, Stupid Cunt?

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Writing a fucking article.

Called the fucking Monroe Doctrine.

Fucking GOING TO BEAT IT INTO EVERY CHIEFS FAN'S HEAD.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:11 PM
Uhhhhh, good one, you twat.

Just keep piggy-backing idiots that don't have a clue.

"Deepest draft for OL in history." LMAO LMAO

Oh really?

Monroe, Smith, Unger, Mack, Caldwell, Luigs, Wood, Shipley and Urbick will immediately start and contribute.

And that's just off the top of my head.

You're a dumbfuck.

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:12 PM
What? What the **** are you talking about, Stupid ****?

I'll spell it out for you, dumbass: This is NOT close to being "the deepest draft for OL in NFL history." LMAO

It's regarded as a good year at the top for LTs and centers, but there's no guards worth a pile of dogshit and the depth at OT and OG is HORRIBLE.

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:15 PM
Oh really?

Monroe, Smith, Unger, Mack, Caldwell, Luigs, Wood, Shipley and Urbick will immediately start and contribute.

And that's just off the top of my head.


LMAO

Nine players = depth. Hahaha. And two of them are turds who won't "immediately start." But you already knew that ... you're just desperate.

You're a dumb****.

Aww, poor baby. Think you know everything and, in fact, know very little. Probably never put your hand in the dirt at anything higher than high school level, where you probably got your ass kicked down after down.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:15 PM
I'll spell it out for you, dumbass: This is NOT close to being "the deepest draft for OL in NFL history." LMAO

It's regarded as a good year at the top for LTs and centers, but there's no guards worth a pile of dogshit and the depth at OT and OG is HORRIBLE.

Well, why don't you just go ahead and tell us which year was the best for offensive lineman.

Cunt.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:16 PM
Aww, poor baby. Think you know everything and, in fact, know very little. Probably never put your hand in the dirt at anything higher than high school level, where you probably got your ass kicked down after down.

Oh, I didn't realize that I was in the presence of greatness.

Excuse me, Princess.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 04:18 PM
Well, why don't you just go ahead and tell us which year was the best for offensive lineman.

Cunt.

Damn! Dane is bringing the flamethrower today.

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:18 PM
Well, why don't you just go ahead and tell us which year was the best for offensive lineman.


Us? Who's us? You mean you? Or do you really need your buddies to match your asterick-attack in every thread?

There have been DEEPER classes this decade. As you LOVE to say, "Do your own research."

****.

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:20 PM
Us? Who's us? You mean you? Or do you really need your buddies to match your asterick-attack in every thread?

There have been DEEPER classes this decade. As you LOVE to say, "Do your own research."



LMAO

Go fuck yourself

SBK
04-10-2009, 04:20 PM
Uhhhhh, good one, you twat.

Just keep piggy-backing idiots that don't have a clue.

"Deepest draft for OL in history." LMAO LMAO

Since you know, what's the deepest draft in the history of the NFL for offensive lineman? And not which one turned out best, which was the deepest in value going into the draft? And then you can let us know why this may not be the deepest draft....

You strike me as the kind of guy that has someone read these posts to you while you're trying to figure out how many fingers you have.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 04:21 PM
Go fuck yourself

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2230/jacksonsp5.gif (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jacksonsp5.gif)

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Go **** yourself

Come on. That's it? I'm embarrassed for you at this point. I thought someone of your internet message board stature had better than that.

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:24 PM
There have been DEEPER classes this decade. As you LOVE to say, "Do your own research."


If you're going to dispute the claim, back it up, Motherfucker.

Otherwise, fuck off.

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:25 PM
If you're going to dispute the claim, back it up, Mother****er.

Nah, I love watching you squirm in your own pisspool.

"Deepest OL draft in history." LMAO


Otherwise, **** off.

:whackit:

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:26 PM
Nah, I love watching you squirm in your own pisspool.

"Deepest OL draft in history." LMAO



:whackit:


Oh, I get it now.

You're a pussy.

Gotcha.

CupidStunt
04-10-2009, 04:28 PM
****! *** *****!!!11!!

Come on, Dana. Keep having your aneurysm. It's fun.

DaneMcCloud
04-10-2009, 04:30 PM
****! *** *****!!!11!!

Come on, Dana. Keep having your aneurysm. It's fun.

Apparently, you have a much higher opinion of yourself than I do.

OnTheWarpath58
04-10-2009, 04:42 PM
First you have the LT at all cost folks. They cannot be swayed. Then there's Curry's 12 disciples. They cannot be swayed.

Then there's the folks that tell you no QB in this draft is worth the #3 pick. AND they hope that one of them is available at 3 so some team will give up the farm to get em. Brilliant! Not worth the pick, hopefully someone will spend a fortune and give it to us to have em.

I think Mecca is right in saying fans here are scared of a QB. Even before we traded for Cassel you would get 1,000,000 arguments against drafting one, none of which were valid or logical.

If you remember, this place was almost universally against trading for Cassel, but as soon as the trade was announced, people completely flip-flopped.

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:12 PM
:eek: I thought I'd never see it again. A n00b whose not a completely dumb sonofabitch.

Except for the part where he says we should take no fewer than 5 defensive players in this draft when it's relatively weak defensive draft and deep in O-Line, and next year's draft is deep defensively.

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:22 PM
This is the most retarded argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you ****ing clones.

No, it is essentially using the #3 pick for a RT.

Albert is playing LT, and he played it at a high level.

You draft a LT at #3, and move Albert to RT, what position did you actually fill with that pick.

You didn't need a LT, but you did need a RT, so you drafted a LT so that you can fill the hole at RT.

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:26 PM
This post is full of untruthiness. Albert is under contract until 2012, so not quite 5 years out yet, but certainly not 2 or 3 as you imply. Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT. Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

Yeah, Jake Long went to a pro bowl.

Never mind that Albert didn't get help nearly as much in pass protection as Jake Long.

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:29 PM
If Stafford slips to #3 I'd take him.


PhilFree:arrow:

What I want to knwo is where were all of these Stafford supporters during the season?

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:44 PM
In College Monroe was a better LT than Albert. 2 stud tackles for a 14.5 million dollar QB would be good. Better then drafting Orakapo.

No he wasn't.

In college, Monroe wasn't as athletically gifted and versatile as Albert, so Al Groh was forced to move Albert to guard.

In the NFL, where the QB is the most important position on the field, you need your most athletically gifted lineman at LT.

Raised On Riots
04-11-2009, 03:02 PM
zombie ideas won't die

imagine spending two consecutive top 5 picks on LTs....has any franchise ever been that fucking stupid, or had a fanbase so fucking stupid that they thought it was a great idea?

ROFL

I think this recent post from across the hall might tie in to this somehow:
Our first Mock Draft

We'll be publishing the first of our three Mock Drafts in The Kansas City Star on Sunday.

We thought we'd give you a sneak peek today.

Unlike previous years, this is a hard one to handicap for a couple of reasons. One, there are no consensus, sure things at the top of the draft.

Secondly, there are new decision-makers at the top of the teams with the first three picks, so we don't have a track record on what they might do other than looking at how their previous clubs operated.

For instance, we could always count on Detroit's Matt Millen picking a wide receiver. Now, we're not sure what the Lions will do with the first pick.

So without further adieu, we'll let you in on the Top 10 picks of our first Mock Draft. I'm sure you're probably most interested in the third pick.

The entire verson will be in Sunday's paper and on our web page.

1 Detroit Lions … QB Matthew Stafford, Georgia

Stafford, a true junior, does not have to play right away. He can play behind Daunte Culpepper for a year just as Culpepper sat out his rookie season as an understudy at Minnsota.

2 St. Louis Rams … OT Eugene Monroe, Virginia

The Rams need to replace Orlando Pace at left tackle. They're going to try to move Alex Barron from the right side, but he was no great shakes there, either, and he's in the last year of his contract.

3 Kansas City Chiefs … OT Jason Smith, Baylor

I know, I know. LB Aaron Curry of Wake Forest is the popular choice here, and goodness knows the Chiefs need help at linebacker _ or anywhere on the front seven. And he'll be a solid player who would have a Donnie Edwards-like career. Nothing wrong with that.

But Curry, for all his ability, is not a pass rusher, and with the third pick, a linebacker has to be the second coming of Derrick Thomas. Especially when drafted by a team that had an NFL-record low 10 sacks a year ago.

Unfortunately, there is no pass rusher on the board worthy of that third pick. I fully expect the Chiefs to trade down a few spots, hoping there is a team coveting a player with that choice.

Then, the Chiefs can take a pass rusher with a later pick in the first round, and with a much-needed second-round pick acquired in the trade, choose an offensive tackle or one of the many linebackers who will be available.

But for this exercise _ I don't want to be making trades in a mock draft _ we'll match the best player with a glaring need.

Scott Pioli wants to build with big, fast and smart players. Smith, a converted tight end, is all three, and together with Branden Albert, can give the Chiefs bookend tackles for the next 10 years.

4 Seattle Seahawks … LB Aaron Curry, Wake Forest

He’s an ideal replacement for the traded Julian Peterson.

5 Cleveland Browns … WR Michael Crabtree, Texas Tech

Butter-fingered Braylon Edwards has one year left on his contract; Donte Stallworth faces legal issues stemming from his DUI wreck that killed a man.

6 Cincinnati Bengals … OT Andre Smith, Alabama

The Bengals need to find an heir to veteran left tackle Levi Jones has missed 18 games in the lat three years.

7 Oakland Raiders … WR Jeremy Maclin, Missouri

Al Davis loves collecting players with speed and play-making ability. Don't let Maclin's 40 time at the Combine fool you. He'll look good in Raiders' black.

8 Jacksonville Jaguars … DT B.J. Raji, Boston College
Raji is an ideal fit for the kind of defensive front Jacksonville plays. And he has the mean temperament coach Jack Del Rio loves.

9 Green Bay Packers …. OT Michael Oher, Ole Miss

Packers need to find protection for Aaron Rodgers, who was sacked 34 times last year.

10 San Francisco 49ers … DE Aaron Maybin, Penn State

Big 10 sack leader is one of the fastest risers on the draft board.

We'll offer an updated Mock Draft next week and put the finishing touches on our final version on Draft Day.
http://chiefsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/767

philfree
04-11-2009, 04:08 PM
What I want to knwo is where were all of these Stafford supporters during the season?

I've supported Stafford all along but then we got Cassel. I have discussed Curry way to much. We all have but that doesn't mean I was locked in on him as our only option. That's what sucks about Chiefs Planet. At this point if a person puts forth an idea they're just asking to be lamb basted or called names. And if you mention an idea people immediately think that's what you want to do in the draft. For example before we acquired Cassel I posted that if not Curry then who do we draft at #3? I brought up E. Brown and the next post after mine was Hamas and I bet you can guess what his reply was. "fucking idiot". There was a time I would tell people about Chiefs Planet and that they should visit. But now I wouldn't send anybody to the Planet because it's kind of a disgrace the way poeple treat others here.


PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack
04-11-2009, 06:39 PM
So its easier to play LT than OG?

Count Alex's Losses
04-11-2009, 06:59 PM
So its easier to play OG than LT?

It's less demanding. But it requires a different skillset. There are some left tackles who would get their ass destroyed at G. Like McIntosh.

Hog Farmer
04-11-2009, 07:09 PM
I've supported Stafford all along but then we got Cassel. I have discussed Curry way to much. We all have but that doesn't mean I was locked in on him as our only option. That's what sucks about Chiefs Planet. At this point if a person puts forth an idea they're just asking to be lamb basted or called names. And if you mention an idea people immediately think that's what you want to do in the draft. For example before we acquired Cassel I posted that if not Curry then who do we draft at #3? I brought up E. Brown and the next post after mine was Hamas and I bet you can guess what his reply was. "fucking idiot". There was a time I would tell people about Chiefs Planet and that they should visit. But now I wouldn't send anybody to the Planet because it's kind of a disgrace the way poeple treat others here.


PhilFree:arrow:

Thats not true you fucking retard!!!!

Count Alex's Losses
04-11-2009, 07:11 PM
There was a time I would tell people about Chiefs Planet and that they should visit. But now I wouldn't send anybody to the Planet because it's kind of a disgrace the way poeple treat others here.


Dude, the internet is like that. It's everywhere. And much worse on other sites. You don't know how good we have it here. I can tell people to fuck off and it doesn't result in total meltdowns.

T-post Tom
04-12-2009, 11:05 PM
Yeah, what did it get the Chiefs? Nothing. Not jackshit.
Brilliant.

The more you post, the more I realize how little you know about football.

Mecca
04-12-2009, 11:12 PM
Dane still knows more than most people that post here. Atleast his thoughts have logical reason behind them which is more than I can say for most...

That QB thing is also perpetuated by numerous things, being a fan of this team where I'm 28 years old and I can't recall the Chiefs drafting a QB in the 1st round I was to young..think about that. You grow up with that it's ingrained as something that shouldn't be done...ad in that you have ESPN, NFL Network so forth constantly saying if you miss on a QB you'll ruin your franchise for 100 years. With this fan base you have alot of people who loved the 90s that was enough for them so that's what they're thinking about. They don't want to take any sort of major risk that leaves the team bad longer...

Oh and of course for the Phil comment about how people are treated here. I don't really know what people expect. All I ask of posters is logical reason to what they say, if you consistently say really dumb things I am not going to be nice to you.

T-post Tom
04-12-2009, 11:16 PM
Dane still knows more than most people that post here. Atleast his thoughts have logical reason behind them which is more than I can say for most...

That QB thing is also perpetuated by numerous things, being a fan of this team where I'm 28 years old and I can't recall the Chiefs drafting a QB in the 1st round I was to young..think about that. You grow up with that it's ingrained as something that shouldn't be done...ad in that you have ESPN, NFL Network so forth constantly saying if you miss on a QB you'll ruin your franchise for 100 years. With this fan base you have alot of people who loved the 90s that was enough for them so that's what they're thinking about. They don't want to take any sort of major risk that leaves the team bad longer...

Oh and of course for the Phil comment about how people are treated here. I don't really know what people expect. All I ask of posters is logical reason to what they say, if you consistently say really dumb things I am not going to be nice to you.

Anyone that infers that a good offensive line isn't important to football doesn't know much about football. And I'm not impressed by anyone that punctuates every post with "JFC". Not exactly a debate tactic that I endorse.

Mecca
04-12-2009, 11:20 PM
Anyone that infers that a good offensive line isn't important to football doesn't know much about football. And I'm not impressed by anyone that punctuates every post with "JFC". Not exactly a debate tactic that I endorse.

There's a such thing as building a good line and overvaluing it to ridiculous levels. Dane usually only does that when it's a point that's been explained a million times it gets old having to re-explain stuff over and over again.

Watch I'll ask you this simple question, isn't it overkill to draft a OT top 5 when we already have a LT on the roster?

How many teams in the league start more than 1, 1st round draft pick on their OL's right now? How many of them have 2 of them as top 20 picks with one of them coming in the top 3?

That will give you a pretty good idea of the serious overkill that we're talking about.

Offensive line is value but it isn't so valuable that you go to ridiculous levels.

T-post Tom
04-12-2009, 11:34 PM
How many teams in the league start more than 1, 1st round draft pick on their OL's right now?

I don't know, but it is a premiere position. I'd rather trade out of the #3 spot, but I would be cool with Monroe at #3 if the Pioli braintrust went that way. You've got to protect QB in the NFL. How many NFL teams succeeded in the playoffs with a backup QB?