PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs The Monroe Doctrine - THE FINAL WORD ON EUGENE M'FING MONROE


Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 08:34 PM
Godspeed, True Fans.

http://kan.scout.com/2/855502.html

<table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">In 1823, the United States of America introduced a new policy. The Monroe Doctrine (named for President James Monroe) stated, essentially, that any further interference by European powers in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere would be interpreted as acts of aggression.
</td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="3">
What does this have to do with the Kansas City Chiefs? Really, nothing, because any parallels one might draw between a 200-year old political policy and modern professional sports is a reach, at best. However, it is worth noting that the Monroe Doctrine served a worthwhile purpose in helping a fledgling nation of the west establish itself against powers to the east Ė Spain, Britain, France.

To that end, Kansas City needs its own Monroe Doctrine. Here we have a fledgling football franchise of the AFC West, struggling to establish itself against the NFLís powers to the east Ė New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh.

If the Chiefs are to compete with these franchises, they must build through the draft. With the third overall pick, this year there is an opportunity to do just that.

So why waste it on Eugene Monroe (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3934892)?

Monroe, of course, is arguably the premier offensive tackle of this Aprilís draft class. Heís been compared to Seattleís Walter Jones (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3565289), a nine-time Pro Bowler who has manned the left tackle spot for the Seahawks for 12 seasons.

Thereís no question Monroe has the potential to be a great NFL left tackle. Heís worthy of a high draft choice. Most likely, he will be picked with one of the first five selections. But that doesnít mean the Chiefs should draft him.

We know the Chiefs already have a great, young left tackle on their hands in Branden Albert (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3542598), the 15th overall pick in last yearís draft. Despite injuries during training camp and the regular season, Albert was arguably KCís best offensive lineman, even as a rookie, allowing only 4.5 sacks and committing only one penalty all year.

But despite Albertís clear success, there are Chiefs fans who want to replace him with Monroe, and stick Albert at right tackle. They claim this will give Kansas City an offensive line to be reckoned with, ushering in a glorious new era of scoring that might rival the days when Willie Roaf (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=2475254) and Will Shields blocked for Priest Holmes and Trent Green (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3943217).

Certainly, there is at least some merit to this desire. If Monroe is who scouts believe him to be, and Albert can make a successful transition to right tackle, the Chiefs would obviously have a pair of bookends the envy of the entire league. Forget Dwayne Bowe (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3698848), Bobby Engram (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3564449) and Tony Gonzalez (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3698854). Matt Cassel (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4210794) could set records throwing to Sean LaChappelle, Snoop Minnis and Devard Darling (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3263025) with that sort of protection. <table width="225" align="right" cellspacing="7"><tbody><tr><td>http://media.scout.com/media/image/66/666104.jpg
Would James Monroe have drafted Eugene Monroe?
Gilbert Stuart </td></tr></tbody></table> Unfortunately, a fruitless experience with Dick Vermeil and Al Saunders appears to have convinced legions of Chiefs fans that you absolutely, positively must have the leagueís most dominant offensive line to win a Super Bowl. The engine that drove the Greatest Show on Grass (Roaf, Brian Waters (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3698880), Casey Wiegmann (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4249804), Shields, John Tait (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3630273)) has all but vanished, and by Jove, the Chiefs have to get it back. Itís the only way to win a Lombardi Trophy, and it starts with Monroe in red and gold, allowing Albert to take over at right tackle.

That might be true if Carl Peterson were still running the show at Arrowhead. We know that after Tait left for Chicago, the Chiefs never could find another right tackle to solidify the line. They went through John Welbourn, Kevin Sampson (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=2394919), Jordan Black, Kyle Turley, Chris Terry and Damion McIntosh (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3698866), and none of them stuck.

Peterson failed horribly, wasting draft picks on Welbourn, Sampson and Black, and free-agent dollars on Turley, Terry and McIntosh. All were a gigantic waste of time and resources, save a handful of quality games from Welbourn.

But, as we will see, good general managers and head coaches can find a right tackle anywhere. They know that committing too many resources to a complementary position means neglecting other, more important positions. And letís be honest, the Chiefs have neglected a lot of important positions over the years. Currently, with the likely implementation of a 3-4 defensive scheme, the front seven rests in tatters. Itís so bad that Monty Beisel (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3628868) may be playing the Shawne "roidman" Merriman (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4189310) role this year.

Is neglecting all of that really worth having the best offensive tackle tandem in the league? Not if Scott Pioli (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3933332) can find Albertís bookend under a rotten log in the fifth round, or in free agency, or via trade. If Pioli is the GM Clark Hunt believes him to be, thatís what heíll do.

Thatís exactly what legendary general manager Bill Polian did in Buffalo over 20 years ago. He found right tackle Howard Ballard in the 11th round of the 1987 draft. A rotten log, indeed. Ballard started every game for five consecutive seasons with the Bills.

Polian did it again years later, in Indianapolis. Did Peyton Manning (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4217520) require a swarm of first-rounders in front of him? Not remotely. Ryan Diem (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4217498), a fourth-round pick in 2001, has protected Manning from the right tackle position for six straight seasons. Guess what? He started out as a guard.

Do you think Mike Holmgren knows a few things about offense? As Seahawks coach, he located himself a fine right tackle in Sean Locklear (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3616220) via the third round of the 2004 draft. Years earlier, in Green Bay, Holmgren protected Brett Favre (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3887896) with another third-rounder Ė Earl Dotson, good enough to start 15 games at right tackle for the 1996 Super Bowl Champions.

Heck, arguably the greatest passing offense of all time featured a fifth-round pick at right tackle. Fred Miller (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=1200076), another converted guard, started all 16 games for the 1999 St. Louis Rams. Dick Vermeil knew where to locate a competent right tackle. He was already on the roster. There were no thoughts of moving Orlando Pace (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4279173) to right tackle, no need to go hunting for another tackle in the draft, especially not in the first round. <table width="225" align="left" cellspacing="7"><tbody><tr><td>http://media.scout.com/media/image/66/666105.jpg
Would Eugene Monroe have voted for James Monroe?
Kevin C. Cox - Getty </td></tr></tbody></table> Hereís the real kicker Ė we already know Scott Pioli can grab a right tackle without overpaying for one, or blowing a first-round pick. In New England, he picked up Nick Kaczur (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3694730) in the third round of the 2005 draft, who later would start 15 games at right tackle for arguably the greatest offense in NFL history with the 2007 Patriots. Maybe you want to credit Bill Belichick instead of Pioli, but all that does is make for a stronger point.

What do Ballard, Diem, Locklear, Dotson, Miller and Kaczur all have in common?

They all started either 15 or 16 games for top-ranked scoring offenses at some point throughout their careers. They all played in, or won, the Super Bowl.

They were good enough in pass protection for great quarterbacks, and in some cases, Hall of Fame quarterbacks: Jim Kelly (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=1187163), Peyton Manning, Matt Hasselbeck (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3564466), Brett Favre, Kurt Warner (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4249542) and Tom Brady (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3694702).

They were good enough in the running game for great running backs, and in some cases, Hall of Fame running backs: Thurman Thomas, Edgerrin James (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4249445), Shaun Alexander, Dorsey Levens, Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon.

They were also, for the most part, completely overshadowed by their left tackle counterparts: Will Wolford, Tarik Glenn, Walter Jones, Ross Verba, Orlando Pace, Matt Light (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=3694732).

They were comparative afterthoughts amongst lethal offensive arsenals. They combined for two Pro Bowl appearances. Their jerseys did not sell. They did not earn record-setting contracts. They did not make commercials, hold press conferences, or even throw helmets.

What held true for Polian with the Bills and Colts still holds true in 2009. Look at the top 10 offenses from last season. Their right tackles came far and wide from everywhere but the first round, save two instances.

From the Falcons (10th) to the Saints (1st), the following were featured at right tackle: a converted guard, a free-agent right tackle, a third-round pick, a first-round pick, a free-agent right tackle, a seventh-round pick, a first-round pick, a third-round pick, a sixth-round pick, and a second-round pick (For the sake of this argument, we should note that one of those first-round right tackles, Levi Brown (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4249287), was picked to be the left-handed Matt Leinart (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4249477)ís blindside protection).

Clearly, history says you can find a right tackle anywhere if your personnel department is up to the task. The third overall pick in the draft is not required, and a $50 million contract is just absurd (almost as absurd as producing a 1,490-word policy concerning NFL right tackles). Itís simply not good football sense, particularly when you have major problems elsewhere, and youíre trying to compete with powers to the east.

Just say no, to Eugene Monroe.

That is Kansas Cityís Monroe Doctrine. It was good enough for the United States of America as it developed into the most powerful nation in the world. It makes an immense amount of sense for the Chiefs as they attempt to become the most powerful football franchise in the world.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <script> var premiumFlag = 0; </script> <!--end STORY DISPLAY-->

DeezNutz
04-10-2009, 08:35 PM
Would James Monroe have drafted Eugene Monroe? lol.

Gravedigger
04-10-2009, 08:56 PM
Running out of material to talk about are ya?

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 08:59 PM
Running out of material to talk about are ya?

Not with True Fans running around.

but really i would think if we took monroe. i think we would move albert to guard. let them play side by side again. then we can do as you said an grab a rt in later rounds. this also allows us to trade waters which i think we should do.

Crush
04-10-2009, 09:02 PM
Claythan, please, do not encourage them.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 09:04 PM
Here's another good example, BTW.

The #1 1997 Broncos had Tony Jones at RT. They picked him up in a trade. YES they gave up a 2nd round pick for him. But you know what? You do that when you're f'ing stacked like the 1997 Broncos. WE cannot afford to do that.

BigRock
04-10-2009, 10:04 PM
Nick:

I agree! Let's take Jason Smith.

Redrum_69
04-10-2009, 10:13 PM
LOL

what a great literary piece that will be talked about for generations....

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 10:15 PM
Nick:

He did not. Did he say that?

Mecca
04-10-2009, 10:17 PM
I'm sure I could find people wishing the Chiefs to take a OT or Curry because you know you win titles with RT's and cover backers.

BigRock
04-10-2009, 10:18 PM
He did not. Did he say that?

Not yet, but give it time.

Saccopoo
04-10-2009, 10:19 PM
Claythan, please, do not encourage them.

If he wanted to encourage "them," he'd do a piece based on the rantings and ravings of the pro-Sanchez crowd. I'm patiently waiting for Claythan's next piece of drivel that supports a Sanchez pick with #3 because it's smart to hold the draft hostage...that right, I said HOSTAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Somebody better ring up Samuel L. Jackson, 'cause the rest of the league is going to need a negotiator 'cause we're holding St. Sanchez and the sommanabitchin' draft
HOSTAGE!!!!!!

Mecca
04-10-2009, 10:22 PM
I think you need professional help.

JohnnyV13
04-10-2009, 10:54 PM
Here's another good example, BTW.

The #1 1997 Broncos had Tony Jones at RT. They picked him up in a trade. YES they gave up a 2nd round pick for him. But you know what? You do that when you're f'ing stacked like the 1997 Broncos. WE cannot afford to do that.


As stacked as the '97 Broncos were, the Chiefs should have beat them. Not only was Marty dumb enough to start Grbac over Gannon, the refs also raped us that day.

Tony G caught a TD pass that was ruled out. We had silicone gate, we had a phantom holding penalty that cost us a field goal. Then we had Grbac panicking at the end. Sigh.

SBK
04-10-2009, 11:03 PM
As stacked as the '97 Broncos were, the Chiefs should have beat them. Not only was Marty dumb enough to start Grbac over Gannon, the refs also raped us that day.

Tony G caught a TD pass that was ruled out. We had silicone gate, we had a phantom holding penalty that cost us a field goal. Then we had Grbac panicking at the end. Sigh.

I cussed at the tv (while I was at church) that night.

shamwow
04-10-2009, 11:09 PM
This story was the straw that broke the cammels back for me. I joined WPI last year about this time and for this offseason the website has posted nothing but crap. I am ready to read something worth reading.

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 11:11 PM
This story was the straw that broke the cammels back for me. I joined WPI last year about this time and for this offseason the website has posted nothing but crap. I am ready to read something worth reading.

fakepost lol

Saccopoo
04-10-2009, 11:12 PM
This story was the straw that broke the cammels back for me. I joined WPI last year about this time and for this offseason the website has posted nothing but crap. I am ready to read something worth reading.

Dude, you've come to the right place. Head on over to Draft Planet for some of the most pithy, insightful and relevant discussions regarding the Chiefs and who they are planning to take. Best takes that you and subsequent generations will ever see.

SBK
04-10-2009, 11:13 PM
By the way Claythan, I like the way you tied the doctrines together--from a writing standpoint you've come a long way.

shamwow
04-10-2009, 11:14 PM
I have read every freaking article over there and it was all for nothing. Glad I never paid them to get "insider" information! D-bags!

SBK
04-10-2009, 11:15 PM
Shamwow-Frazod-Frazod-Shamwow

Count Alex's Losses
04-10-2009, 11:22 PM
By the way Claythan, I like the way you tied the doctrines together--from a writing standpoint you've come a long way.

I would hope so. I've been pounding the keyboard for three years now.

Pioli Zombie
04-11-2009, 12:24 AM
Chiefs Planet has had people make very compelling cases why the Chiefs shoulnt draft a
1. QB. You don't use both your 1st and 2nd round picks getting less than once in a generation qbs.
2. Left Tackle when you have a Left Tackle
3. Linebacker who doesn't have a lot of sacks

This has me convinced more than ever that if they can't trade down they must draft the position that nobody has made a case not to.

NT. Raji.
Posted via Mobile Device

shamwow
04-11-2009, 12:29 AM
I am open to this idea too. Before we signed 53086 wide receivers I was making a case for Maclin

SBK
04-11-2009, 12:32 AM
Chiefs Planet has had people make very compelling cases why the Chiefs shoulnt draft a
1. QB. You don't use both your 1st and 2nd round picks getting less than once in a generation qbs.
2. Left Tackle when you have a Left Tackle
3. Linebacker who doesn't have a lot of sacks

This has me convinced more than ever that if they can't trade down they must draft the position that nobody has made a case not to.

NT. Raji.
Posted via Mobile Device

If you draft a QB you're going to be trading one. If not this year, you'd be doing it next year.

Jack
04-11-2009, 10:03 AM
These are the types of threads I enjoy. I may not agree with everything Claytan writes/says but I think he is very good in presenting alternatives that read very well. "Monroe Doctrine". . . a great play on words and pretty original. Some just don't get it and choose to rap this guy just because of their dislike for him. But reckon this is how they build such enormous post counts.

He also has a lot thicker skin than most here.

milkman
04-11-2009, 10:05 AM
If he wanted to encourage "them," he'd do a piece based on the rantings and ravings of the pro-Sanchez crowd. I'm patiently waiting for Claythan's next piece of drivel that supports a Sanchez pick with #3 because it's smart to hold the draft hostage...that right, I said HOSTAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Somebody better ring up Samuel L. Jackson, 'cause the rest of the league is going to need a negotiator 'cause we're holding St. Sanchez and the sommanabitchin' draft
HOSTAGE!!!!!!

Against my better judgement, I'm going to ask you this.

If the Cheifs draft Mark Sanchez and the Donkeys take Josh Freeman, when the Bucs, who have been publicly trying to find a QB all offseason, came calling with the 19th pick and more, wouldn't it have been worth the pick at #3?

I'd rather trade Cassel, but I understand that Pioli and Haley have tied their wagon to him, so I'd take the Bucs 1st and 3rd, and Jeremy Zuttah for Sanchez.

milkman
04-11-2009, 10:07 AM
These are the types of threads I enjoy. I may not agree with everything Claytan writes/says but I think he is very good in presenting alternatives that read very well. "Monroe Doctrine". . . a great play on words and pretty original. Some just don't get it and choose to rap this guy just because of their dislike for him. But reckon this is how they build such enormous post counts.

He also has a lot thicker skin than most here.

I rap on Claythan, a lot, but when he deserves it.
I don't rap on him just to simply rap on him.

This article was well thought out and written.

bringbackmarty
04-11-2009, 11:22 AM
I think if we took monroe it would only be because we are gonna trade waters. No way albert starts @ RT if thats the scenario. He starts @ LG, with goff @ center. Niswanger moves over to the right guard and we use the pick we get from waters on a RT. Run LJ until he's dead behind that line next season. It buys our defense and offense some time to gel, and get some more pieces.

We take BPA, get younger and stronger where it counts.

bringbackmarty
04-11-2009, 11:24 AM
All things being equal, I really hope we trade down and grab everett brown, but if we can't, and for some reason we don't get curry, I think it's a reasonable plan.

milkman
04-11-2009, 11:26 AM
I think if we took monroe it would only be because we are gonna trade waters. No way albert starts @ RT if thats the scenario. He starts @ LG, with goff @ center. Niswanger moves over to the right guard and we use the pick we get from waters on a RT. Run LJ until he's dead behind that line next season. It buys our defense and offense some time to gel, and get some more pieces.

We take BPA, get younger and stronger where it counts.

If you put a gun to my head and tell me I have a choice, Monroe and Curry, I take Curry.

Saccopoo
04-11-2009, 12:17 PM
[QUOTE]Against my better judgement, I'm going to ask you this.

If the Cheifs draft Mark Sanchez...

No.

and the Donkeys take Josh Freeman, when the Bucs, who have been publicly trying to find a QB all offseason, came calling with the 19th pick and more, wouldn't it have been worth the pick at #3?

I'd rather trade Cassel, but I understand that Pioli and Haley have tied their wagon to him, so I'd take the Bucs 1st and 3rd, and Jeremy Zuttah for Sanchez.

I'd take the Bucs 1st, 2nd and Zuttah for the #3 pick all day long. Not Sanchez, but the third pick in the draft. Once the Chiefs pick, there is no guarantee that the player selected will be the recipient of a trade. I'm all for trading the pick, not trading the player picked. As well, the Bucs third versus a second seems to be giving up too much, but I understand that the draft value chart is more a guide than actual guidelines. There will have to be some degree of flexibility, and the Chiefs might even get screwed out the potential trade by having the Rams move their pick. Draft day this year is going to be very interesting and I think it will be quite dynamic.

Edit - Maybe one more pick in addition to swapping ones, their second and Zuttah. A fifth might make it right.

milkman
04-11-2009, 12:45 PM
No.



I'd take the Bucs 1st, 2nd and Zuttah for the #3 pick all day long. Not Sanchez, but the third pick in the draft. Once the Chiefs pick, there is no guarantee that the player selected will be the recipient of a trade. I'm all for trading the pick, not trading the player picked. As well, the Bucs third versus a second seems to be giving up too much, but I understand that the draft value chart is more a guide than actual guidelines. There will have to be some degree of flexibility, and the Chiefs might even get screwed out the potential trade by having the Rams move their pick. Draft day this year is going to be very interesting and I think it will be quite dynamic.

Edit - Maybe one more pick in addition to swapping ones, their second and Zuttah. A fifth might make it right.

So, after you worked the phones and you are approaching the end of your alloted ten minutes and haven't gotten a deal in place, you're going to do the safe thing and selct Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe, rather than taking Sanchez and dangling him as trade bait to a QB hungry team later in the first round?

Saccopoo
04-11-2009, 12:54 PM
So, after you worked the phones and you are approaching the end of your alloted ten minutes and haven't gotten a deal in place, you're going to do the safe thing and selct Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe, rather than taking Sanchez and dangling him as trade bait to a QB hungry team later in the first round?

Yep. Because there is no way on God's green earth you pick a guy at the #3 spot in the hopes that you might get a trade later on in the draft or later for him. Not a single, solitary chance that that happens. You don't piss away a pick hoping for a trade, especially when your team has so many holes to fill. You either make the safest pick with the highest rated player on your board, or you make a reach for that guy who you have the greatest need for in terms of position, but you most definitely don't take a guy with the hopes of a possible trade later on. Not even a .000000000000000000000001% chance that it happens. There's a better chance of Selma Hayek showing up on your doorstep completely naked, holding a gift box containing a winning Powerball ticket, a coupon for free beer of your choice for life in one hand and a gallon of baby oil and the unabridged Kama Sutra in the other.

However, on an interesting note, I see that the KC Star has in their first mock, the Chiefs taking OT Jason Smith of Baylor, stating that unless it's Derrick Thomas, no one take a LB with the #3 pick, and that Smith would allow Albrt to slide to the RT and give the team Pro Bowl level bookend tackles for the next ten years. Strangely enough, they have Curry going at #4 though. I guess you can't take a LB at #3, but #4 is a whole different story. Weird.

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:01 PM
Yep. Because there is no way on God's green earth you pick a guy at the #3 spot in the hopes that you might get a trade later on in the draft or later for him. Not a single, solitary chance that that happens. You don't piss away a pick hoping for a trade, especially when your team has so many holes to fill. You either make the safest pick with the highest rated player on your board, or you make a reach for that guy who you have the greatest need for in terms of position, but you most definitely don't take a guy with the hopes of a possible trade later on. Not even a .000000000000000000000001% chance that it happens. There's a better chance of Selma Hayek showing up on your doorstep completely naked, holding a gift box containing a winning Powerball ticket, a coupon for free beer of your choice for life in one hand and a gallon of baby oil and the unabridged Kama Sutra in the other.

I disagree.

Even if agreed with your assertion that it has almost no chance at other positions, a top QB prospect is another proposition altogether.

The fact is, other than the Eli Manning/Phillip Rivers situation, we've never seen a scenario like this before.

Teams have never really tried to pick a player that they had hopes of trading.

However, on an interesting note, I see that the KC Star has in their first mock, the Chiefs taking OT Jason Smith of Baylor, stating that unless it's Derrick Thomas, no one take a LB with the #3 pick, and that Smith would allow Albrt to slide to the RT and give the team Pro Bowl level bookend tackles for the next ten years. Strangely enough, they have Curry going at #4 though. I guess you can't take a LB at #3, but #4 is a whole different story. Weird.

Yeah, I don't read the KC Star, and this serves as one example of the reasons I don't.

KCDC
04-11-2009, 01:12 PM
Claythan, I liked the article. Well done. However, your other article about draft facts needs to be taken into account. If Scott can't trade down, the Chiefs have to take *somebody*

There is a great case to not take Curry as its crazy to take a non-pass rushing LB that early. There's a fine argument why you don't take Sanchez (who is less proven than either Cassel or Thigpen and we don't need anyway). You make a good argument why we should not take a LT, even though 4 of them may go in the top 10.

You can't make a good case to take Raji, Crabtree, Orakpo, or most anyone else that high. So, you have to take someone.

Those that take the "best player on the board" will have to take Curry or Monroe, regardless of the position of the pick. Since LB is more of a need than another LT, you take the worst of two evils and take Curry. That's not to say that Curry isn't a gifted athelete. He is. He will be a very good player for us I think.

If Curry is gone, then I think you have to take Monroe. Not only can we use him, but trade bait potential is great. Three or four teams are interested in a QB like Sanchez, but 10 or more teams could be interested in trading something very significant for Monroe or Albert.

Crush
04-11-2009, 01:24 PM
If he wanted to encourage "them," he'd do a piece based on the rantings and ravings of the pro-Sanchez crowd. I'm patiently waiting for Claythan's next piece of drivel that supports a Sanchez pick with #3 because it's smart to hold the draft hostage...that right, I said HOSTAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Somebody better ring up Samuel L. Jackson, 'cause the rest of the league is going to need a negotiator 'cause we're holding St. Sanchez and the sommanabitchin' draft
HOSTAGE!!!!!!


You do realize that Cassel is still not signed to a long term deal?

milkman
04-11-2009, 01:58 PM
Claythan, I liked the article. Well done. However, your other article about draft facts needs to be taken into account. If Scott can't trade down, the Chiefs have to take *somebody*

There is a great case to not take Curry as its crazy to take a non-pass rushing LB that early. There's a fine argument why you don't take Sanchez (who is less proven than either Cassel or Thigpen and we don't need anyway). You make a good argument why we should not take a LT, even though 4 of them may go in the top 10.

You can't make a good case to take Raji, Crabtree, Orakpo, or most anyone else that high. So, you have to take someone.

Those that take the "best player on the board" will have to take Curry or Monroe, regardless of the position of the pick. Since LB is more of a need than another LT, you take the worst of two evils and take Curry. That's not to say that Curry isn't a gifted athelete. He is. He will be a very good player for us I think.

If Curry is gone, then I think you have to take Monroe. Not only can we use him, but trade bait potential is great. Three or four teams are interested in a QB like Sanchez, but 10 or more teams could be interested in trading something very significant for Monroe or Albert.

10 or more teams?

Count Alex's Losses
04-11-2009, 02:00 PM
If Curry is gone, then I think you have to take Monroe. Not only can we use him, but trade bait potential is great. Three or four teams are interested in a QB like Sanchez, but 10 or more teams could be interested in trading something very significant for Monroe or Albert.

I don't disagree with this.

But I also think it won't come to this.

I see the draft going like this:

1. Stafford
2. Monroe
3. Chiefs pick Sanchez and rape someone or Chiefs trade the pick outright

Hog Farmer
04-11-2009, 02:01 PM
I'm happy with any of these at #3

Monroe
Sanchez
Crabtree
Curry
Trade Down for more pics

Hog Farmer
04-11-2009, 02:03 PM
I would love to pic Sanchez just so the Donks don't get him and then deliver him to Tampa dressed in a bow. This would cap off the best Donkey destroying offseason EVER!

Count Alex's Losses
04-11-2009, 02:04 PM
I would love to pic Sanchez just so the Donks don't get him and then deliver him to Tampa dressed in a bow. This would cap off the best Donkey destroying offseason EVER!

How wonderful this post is.

This is why picking Sanchez makes sense. There ARE going to be multiple suitors for him. If we can get some team desperate enough we can RAPE them for picks/players.

KCDC
04-11-2009, 03:09 PM
Yes, I too would hate to see Sanchez go to Denver. But, I am fairly certain that Dan Snyder will be tempted to jump in front of #12 to take him. Campbell is not Zorn's kind of QB. Zorn, also, is not keen on Colt Brennan, even though the kid had a great pre-season last year.

Being a great QB himself, Zorn thinks it important to have a QB that is very coachable and can make good reads. For some reason, he thinks Campbell and Brennan incapable of this. So, he might find Sanchez to be a better pound of clay to mold.

Don't forget also that Dan is mad at Denver for leading him on and then doing the trade with Chicago. It would be good payback.

I can only hope that the Redskins would offer us their #13, second rounder, and maybe a late rounder this year for our #3, but I think they will more likely try and swap with Jacksonville at #8 for their third rounder.

Saccopoo
04-11-2009, 03:50 PM
How wonderful this post is.

This is why picking Sanchez makes sense. There ARE going to be multiple suitors for him. If we can get some team desperate enough we can RAPE them for picks/players.

Like I said:


HOLD THIS MOTHER TRUCKIN' DRAFT HOSTAGE!!!!!!!!!!


GIMME A H!
GIMME A O!
GIMME A S!
GIMME A T!
GIMME A A!
GIMME A G!
GIMME A E!

What's that spell?!

HOSTAGE!!!!!!!

Rausch
04-11-2009, 04:02 PM
I don't disagree with this.

But I also think it won't come to this.

I see the draft going like this:

1. Stafford
2. Monroe
3. Chiefs pick Sanchez and rape someone or Chiefs trade the pick outright

Preferably a trade down.

I won't flip if we don't get exact value. In a piss poor draft year I'll be tickled pink not to have to hand out an insane contract to perhaps the worst top 5 talent group in years...

Pioli Zombie
04-11-2009, 04:17 PM
And from the Cross the Lord looked down and said to the Quarterback He loved, Mark, this is your mother. And to His mother He said, Woman, this is the quarterback you love.
Posted via Mobile Device

Count Alex's Losses
04-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Preferably a trade down.

I won't flip if we don't get exact value. In a piss poor draft year I'll be tickled pink not to have to hand out an insane contract to perhaps the worst top 5 talent group in years...

Nope. I just want two first-round talents. Heck I might take a 1st and an early second (dunno if any team has this combo though) and a later round pick. Pioli make GOLD outta that lead.

Crush
04-11-2009, 06:32 PM
blah blah blah

Uh oh, we have angered the one true god, Aaron Curry.

Rain Man
04-11-2009, 07:52 PM
There's a better chance of Salma Hayek showing up on your doorstep completely naked, holding a gift box containing a winning Powerball ticket, a coupon for free beer of your choice for life in one hand and a gallon of baby oil and the unabridged Kama Sutra in the other.


So you're saying there's a nonzero chance of that?

JohnnyV13
04-12-2009, 12:35 PM
Yep. There's a better chance of Selma Hayek showing up on your doorstep completely naked, holding a gift box containing a winning Powerball ticket, a coupon for free beer of your choice for life in one hand and a gallon of baby oil and the unabridged Kama Sutra in the other.

.

Yeah, no chance of that happening. Megan Fox told me that the other day when she showed up on my door with the Kama Sutra and her BFF.

htismaqe
04-12-2009, 04:19 PM
You do realize that Cassel is still not signed to a long term deal?

He doesn't care.

It's Curry or bust.