PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Peter King: The Chiefs will never take a safety that high


Pages : [1] 2

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:17 AM
I hope that fucknut is wrong but I am sure I will be disappointed if Berry is there and they pass unless they decide to draft Clausen.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/

I noticed last night SI's Peter King was tweeting up a storm at his Twitter account about all things football for a few hours. One very interesting observation came out of him that I think would surprise a lot of us here.
Someone suggested the Chiefs trade with the Dolphins, who are in need of a playmaking safety. King, who agreed with a Miami/Kansas City trade scenario, had this to say (http://twitter.com/SI_PeterKing/status/10551420495): "And KC would never take [safety] that high."
Now, King's one of the best in the business when it comes to sports reporting, especially the NFL and that sounds like a pretty definitive statement.

With that said, I see his logic. Scott Pioli has always struck me as a guy who's more likely to build from the inside out meaning the focus is on the offensive and defensive lines.

Just something to keep in mind as we inch toward April.

Von Dumbass
03-16-2010, 10:18 AM
I saw that posted on his twitter last night. I didn't want to post it here though because I don't want to be the bearer of the ultimate bad news for Chiefs Planet.

Sure-Oz
03-16-2010, 10:18 AM
We don't need playmakers we need cogs

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:20 AM
The Kansas City Royal Chiefs.

Get ready for t-shirt Sundays and Andre Rison bobbleheads. And remember to stick around for fireworks after the game.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-16-2010, 10:21 AM
I will cut a bitch.

Deberg_1990
03-16-2010, 10:22 AM
Considering Pioli's draft history....hes most likely correct.

LaChapelle
03-16-2010, 10:23 AM
Liver and onions tuesday
gotta replace that iron

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:23 AM
The Kansas City Royal Chiefs.

Get ready for t-shirt Sundays and Andre Rison bobbleheads. And remember to stick around for fireworks after the game.

Does that mean there will be $8 cheap seats?

Brock
03-16-2010, 10:23 AM
Either take the QB or trade down.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:25 AM
Does that mean there will be $8 cheap seats?

The trade off is that you'll be closer to the Lil' Arrowhead, which is where the real ass whoopins happen.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:26 AM
Either take the QB or trade down.

I don't mind taking Clausen but if Berry is there no way should we trade down.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:27 AM
Clausen
Berry






Next guy. Drop down enough and Williams makes a lot of sense.

Brock
03-16-2010, 10:28 AM
I don't mind taking Clausen but if Berry is there no way should we trade down.

There's a lot of groupthink going on about this guy, similar to Derrick Johnson. I'm betting the other way.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:28 AM
the thread title should read "The Chiefs Will Never Draft a Playmaker"

I can't recall the last playmaker the Chiefs drafted (sorry true fans, I don't consider TG a playmaker. Or the TE position in general)

CaliforniaChief
03-16-2010, 10:28 AM
I just hope we don't get punked by the media again like we did last year when Lombardi "announced" that Cassel had a new contract, when in fact he didn't...which all but ended any thought that we might take Sanchez. The result of that was that the Jets traded with Cleveland instead of with us, IMO.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 10:29 AM
the thread title should read "The Chiefs Will Never Draft a Playmaker"

I can't recall the last playmaker the Chiefs drafted (sorry true fans, I don't consider TG a playmaker. Or the TE position in general)

Jared Allen, who they fell backasswards into - they drafted him to be a long snapper.

Derrick Thomas.

20 years of fail.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:30 AM
Jared Allen, who they fell backasswards into - they drafted him to be a long snapper.

Derrick Thomas.

20 years of fail.

Allen...yep. I spaced that one. and good point about him being drafted as a LS. JFC...this team drives me nuts.

yeah, after DT, I can't recall any.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:31 AM
There's a lot of groupthink going on about this guy, similar to Derrick Johnson. I'm betting the other way.

Taking the field is assures you of the best odds, no doubt, but it's tough to argue against the empirical evidence amassed in Berry's college career.

And he does NOT have the type of shortcoming that trailed Johnson out of Texas.

Not saying the kid is perfect--I agree the hype is getting too large--but he's a legit, elite prospect for sure.

Deberg_1990
03-16-2010, 10:32 AM
3 years in a row of top 5 picks

0 playmakers Incredible...

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:34 AM
There's a lot of groupthink going on about this guy, similar to Derrick Johnson. I'm betting the other way.

We are in desperate need of playmakers and to pass one up I think is crazy.

DaneMcCloud
03-16-2010, 10:34 AM
I've been saying this for weeks and have been lambasted by a few members here.

Pioli doesn't covet playmakers before lineman. Until his lines are "in place", they'll continue to pull guys off the scrap heap to play WR, RB, QB & safety.

We're just lucky that Flowers & Carr were already in place. Look at Pioli's fourth round pick in Donald Washington last year.

Washington made Bartee look like a perennial All-Pro.

Jerm
03-16-2010, 10:34 AM
I've already resigned myself to Berry falling to us at #5...I get excited...the commish reads BRYAN BULAGA or some other shit...night ruined.

Ugh.
Posted via Mobile Device

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:35 AM
Jared Allen, who they fell backasswards into - they drafted him to be a long snapper.

Derrick Thomas.

20 years of fail.

Gonzo has to be in the discussion.

I don't care that he was a TE. He was used more similarly to that of a possession WR, and the dude consistently moved the chains on third down, the most critical *plays* in a drive.

Now, do I think that the TE, even a transcendent one like Gonzo, should be a cornerstone? No. But that's a different debate entirely.

Bottom line is that Gonzo had a profound impact on games, and I think too often the best players are undervalued because of larger issues of incompetency in the organization.

KCUnited
03-16-2010, 10:36 AM
Wife flew to Orlando on Sunday for business, so I promptly grabbed some bbq and rewatched the KC/Denver game from Jan. I had forgotten that our starting safety John McGraw was forced from the game in the 1st quarter, his back up? Ricky Price, inserted into the game. If that doesn't scream safety at 5 I don't know what does.

jAZ
03-16-2010, 10:36 AM
Either take the QB or trade down.

How rarely we agree. But in this case, 100%.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:36 AM
LJ, for a very brief period of time, was absolutely a playmaker.

Reerun_KC
03-16-2010, 10:37 AM
Wife flew to Orlando on Sunday for business, so I promptly grabbed some bbq and rewatched the KC/Denver game from Jan. I had forgotten that our starting safety John McGraw was forced from the game in the 1st quarter, his back up? Ricky Price, inserted into the game. If that doesn't scream safety at 5 I don't know what does.

I sure would like to have a copy of that. My son and I were talking how we would like to watch that in HD...

jAZ
03-16-2010, 10:38 AM
Wife flew to Orlando on Sunday for business, so I promptly grabbed some bbq and rewatched the KC/Denver game from Jan. I had forgotten that our starting safety John McGraw was forced from the game in the 1st quarter, his back up? Ricky Price, inserted into the game. If that doesn't scream safety at 5 I don't know what does.

That we won that game with some dude named Ricky Price at safety says a lot about how easy it is to get back without a #5 overall safety.

Coogs
03-16-2010, 10:39 AM
77 people in another thread on the front page have said our 2nd round pick from last year is going to be a playmaker. Going to take us to the bowl and win.

KCUnited
03-16-2010, 10:39 AM
That we won that game with some dude named Ricky Price at safety says a lot about how easy it is to get back without a #5 overall safety.
Gaffney went for 215 by himself.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 10:39 AM
3 years in a row of top 5 picks

0 playmakers Incredible...

We'll see what happens.

But if we end up passing on Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez AND Jimmy Clausen, we deserve exactly what we get.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:40 AM
Gonzo has to be in the discussion.

I don't care that he was a TE. He was used more similarly to that of a possession WR, and the dude consistently moved the chains on third down, the most critical *plays* in a drive.

Now, do I think that the TE, even a transcendent one like Gonzo, should be a cornerstone? No. But that's a different debate entirely.

Bottom line is that Gonzo had a profound impact on games, and I think too often the best players are undervalued because of larger issues of incompetency in the organization.


I agree he was a great player; but I just have a slightly different view on what a playmaker is. For me a playmaker is someone who can impact/win the game on a single play. TG was great, but aside from snagging a tough 3rd down catch, or a TD pass in the red zone....
I dunno. playmaker to me has that *boom* factor; where you're watchign the game and BOOM; he breaks it/intercepts it/ sacks anf forces fumble / launches a perfect 40yd pass in tight coverage etc.

Good point about the cornerstone issue; you're right. that's a whole other bal of wax.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:40 AM
Gonzo has to be in the discussion.

I don't care that he was a TE. He was used more similarly to that of a possession WR, and the dude consistently moved the chains on third down, the most critical *plays* in a drive.

Now, do I think that the TE, even a transcendent one like Gonzo, should be a cornerstone? No. But that's a different debate entirely.

Bottom line is that Gonzo had a profound impact on games, and I think too often the best players are undervalued because of larger issues of incompetency in the organization.

Totally agree. Tony wasn't your prototypical TE. I also would consider a guy like Shannon Sharpe a playmaker.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 10:41 AM
Gonzo has to be in the discussion.

I don't care that he was a TE. He was used more similarly to that of a possession WR, and the dude consistently moved the chains on third down, the most critical *plays* in a drive.

Now, do I think that the TE, even a transcendent one like Gonzo, should be a cornerstone? No. But that's a different debate entirely.

Bottom line is that Gonzo had a profound impact on games, and I think too often the best players are undervalued because of larger issues of incompetency in the organization.

I made the point about playmakers in the past 20 years, and I included him.

Sadly, that he makes 3. In 20 years.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 10:42 AM
LJ, for a very brief period of time, was absolutely a playmaker.

Too short a period of time to consider, IMO.

He had what, two good seasons?

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:42 AM
LJ, for a very brief period of time, was absolutely a playmaker.

So was Sly Mo

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:43 AM
...ok..the more I think about it. I could categorize TG as a playmaker.

Deberg_1990
03-16-2010, 10:44 AM
But if we end up passing on Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez AND Jimmy Clausen, we deserve exactly what we get.

Perhaps the smartest post you have ever made on this board.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-16-2010, 10:44 AM
We'll see what happens.

But if we end up passing on Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez AND Jimmy Clausen, we deserve exactly what we get.

:clap:

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:44 AM
I agree he was a great player; but I just have a slightly different view on what a playmaker is. For me a playmaker is someone who can impact/win the game on a single play. TG was great, but aside from snagging a tough 3rd down catch, or a TD pass in the red zone....
I dunno. playmaker to me has that *boom* factor; where you're watchign the game and BOOM; he breaks it/intercepts it/ sacks anf forces fumble / launches a perfect 40yd pass in tight coverage etc.

Good point about the cornerstone issue; you're right. that's a whole other bal of wax.

While I understand, too much importance is being paid to the home run.

Example, what's the difference between a guy like Reed intercepting a pass, taking a knee, thus icing the game, or a guy like Gonzo going over the middle, making a difficult catch in traffic, moving the chains, buring more time, thus icing the game?

Playmaker to me = enormous impact. Not a facilitator. Which is why we don't ever talk about playmaking LTs. They're "franchise" LTs. Important distinction.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:45 AM
I say take a QB at 5.

it won't happen.

so, if Berry is there; take him.

They won't.
they'll take a OL; or trade back and still take OL.

....and we still have Cassel.

Brock
03-16-2010, 10:46 AM
I say take a QB at 5.

it won't happen.

so, if Berry is there; take him.

They won't.
they'll take a OL; or trade back and still take OL.

....and we still have Cassel.

This is pretty much what's going to happen.

DTHOF
03-16-2010, 10:46 AM
the thread title should read "The Chiefs Will Never Draft a Playmaker"

I can't recall the last playmaker the Chiefs drafted (sorry true fans, I don't consider TG a playmaker. Or the TE position in general)

Haven't drafted a playmaker since the first round in 1989

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:46 AM
I made the point about playmakers in the past 20 years, and I included him.

Sadly, that he makes 3. In 20 years.

Missed that.

I clearly Piolied up.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:47 AM
While I understand, too much importance is being paid to the home run.

Example, what's the difference between a guy like Reed intercepting a pass, taking a knee, thus icing the game, or a guy like Gonzo going over the middle, making a difficult catch in traffic, moving the chains, buring more time, thus icing the game?

Playmaker to me = enormous impact. Not a facilitator. Which is why we don't ever talk about playmaking LT. They're "franchise" LT. Important distinction.

good points.
I would agree with that.

what's even more sad is I'm not sure we have even the 'smart' playmakers on this team (ie Bowe runing out of bounds when we needed to burn clock). ...
Maybe Flowers and Charles - about the only 2 I could think of.

Fish
03-16-2010, 10:48 AM
I say take a QB at 5.

it won't happen.

so, if Berry is there; take him.

They won't.
they'll take a OL; or trade back and still take OL.

....and we still have Cassel.

Hi. Thanks for today's alcoholism inducing post. :BLVD: :banghead:

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:48 AM
I say take a QB at 5.

it won't happen.

so, if Berry is there; take him.

They won't.
they'll take a OL; or trade back and still take OL.

....and we still have Cassel.

I am trying to be positive and optimistic and you aren't helping any.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:54 AM
:D


Sorry guys. hopefully you guys aren't taking part in the 90 Day Sobriety Challenge.


I'm amazed at each year the Chiefs draft; they're either in no-man's land, or they reach take the safe pick.

or, someone in front of just by one spots pulls off a great trade (ie Dallas trading with Cleveland a few years back; Dallas was just in front of us).

...we always get boned either by circumstance, or by the Chiefs FO.

Brock
03-16-2010, 10:56 AM
Just look at where safeties have been drafted over the past 20 years. You'll see it's not very likely Berry's going to end up here, not with that pick.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 10:57 AM
If this is true, then they won't draft a guy like AJ Green or Michael Floyd next year, either.

Sanchez, Berry, and Green

or

Jackson, Bulaga, and some cocksucking bum to be named later?

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:58 AM
Just look at where safeties have been drafted over the past 20 years. You'll see it's not very likely Berry's going to end up here, not with that pick.

this would be the 'circumstance' I alluded to.
Chiefs won't spend a 5 on him; won't be able to trade back.

therefore miss out on Berry; a QB (because we're too chicken sh*t to take one)....thus we're left with the usual OL/DL pick.

nychief
03-16-2010, 10:58 AM
i love how the "playmaker" moniker is thrown around here....

Dayze
03-16-2010, 10:58 AM
If this is true, then they won't draft a guy like AJ Green or Michael Floyd next year, either.

Sanchez, Berry, and Green

or

Jackson, Bulaga, and some cocksucking bum to be named later?

:clap:

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 10:59 AM
i love how the "playmaker" moniker is thrown around here....

Yeah, no one has provided a cogent definition of the term.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 10:59 AM
Just look at where safeties have been drafted over the past 20 years. You'll see it's not very likely Berry's going to end up here, not with that pick.

Well, people don't draft non-passrushing ends in the top 3, so we have that going for us.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 11:00 AM
If this is true, then they won't draft a guy like AJ Green or Michael Floyd next year, either.

Sanchez, Berry, and Green

or

Jackson, Bulaga, and some cocksucking bum to be named later?

If we just isolate these examples, Pioli might start to make a strong case for himself as one of the more impressively hapless GMs in some time.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:00 AM
Well, people don't draft non-passrushing ends in the top 3, so we have that going for us.

I watched the nFL replay of the Chiefs Ravens game over the weekend and nearly spit out my beer in laughter when the announcer made reference to Jackson, followed by 'the speed rushing DE from LSU"

nychief
03-16-2010, 11:00 AM
Yeah, no one has provided a cogent definition of the term.

I assume it means anybody with a reasonable chance to touching the ball? Obviously nobody considers any type of lineman a playmaker...

Woodrow Call
03-16-2010, 11:01 AM
So four straight high 1st round picks on the "trenches". Got my Bulaga jersey ready to go, can't hardly control my excitement.

THIS IS AWESOME

:cuss:

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:02 AM
I assume it means anybody with a reasonable chance to touching the ball? Obviously nobody considers any type of lineman a playmaker...

Someone with a chance to change a game with one play.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:02 AM
I assume it means anybody with a reasonable chance to touching the ball? Obviously nobody considers any type of lineman a playmaker...

Playmaker - somone who can single handedly effect the outcome of a game on a hand ful of plays.

so....some DL playmakers? Sure.
OL...not so much.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 11:02 AM
So four straight high 1st round picks on the "trenches". Got my Bulaga jersey ready to go, can't hardly control my excitement.

THIS IS AWESOME

:cuss:

That's how you build a winnar/True Fans

Deberg_1990
03-16-2010, 11:03 AM
Yeah, no one has provided a cogent definition of the term.

Playmaker = skill position player. Someone who creates TD's, scores TD's or creates turnovers or forces them.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 11:03 AM
Missed that.

I clearly Piolied up.

Eh, it was in another thread a few weeks back.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:03 AM
the good news is we pick at #5.

and, as we all know, the number '5' is in the number '53'.

we're 1/2 way there.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:04 AM
actually...Jackson was at #3

we should be there by now!

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 11:06 AM
Here's the funny thing:

Even if Pioli makes the dumbest fucking pick possible (LT), we're still going to win 7 games next year just based on the schedule alone.

People will begin to sing his praises when the reality is that he will have fucked this franchise for 5+ years with his first two draft picks.

Pants
03-16-2010, 11:07 AM
Can we please wait till next year to draft a QB, though? Please?

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:07 AM
the thread title should read "The Chiefs Will Never Draft a Playmaker"

I can't recall the last playmaker the Chiefs drafted (sorry true fans, I don't consider TG a playmaker. Or the TE position in general)

Dwayne Bowe?

Brandon Flowers?

Jamaal Charles?

Derrick Johnson?

Even Dorsey, while playing at a DT position, was supposed to be a Warren Sapp level disruptor.

What's your definition of "playmaker" if the aforementioned guys aren't?

Micjones
03-16-2010, 11:08 AM
Dwayne Bowe?

Brandon Flowers?

Jamaal Charles?

Derrick Johnson?

Even Dorsey, while playing at a DT position, was supposed to be a Warren Sapp level disruptor.

What's your definition of "playmaker" if the aforementioned guys aren't?

Glad somebody said it.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:09 AM
the good news is we pick at #5.

and, as we all know, the number '5' is in the number '53'.

we're 1/2 way there.

We picked #3 last year. We are there.

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:10 AM
Dwayne Bowe?

Brandon Flowers?

Jamaal Charles?

Derrick Johnson?

Even Dorsey, while playing at a DT position, was supposed to be a Warren Sapp level disruptor.

What's your definition of "playmaker" if the aforementioned guys aren't?

Mostly drafted by Herm Edwards.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:12 AM
Dwayne Bowe?

Brandon Flowers?

Jamaal Charles?

Derrick Johnson?

Even Dorsey, while playing at a DT position, was supposed to be a Warren Sapp level disruptor.

What's your definition of "playmaker" if the aforementioned guys aren't?

I would say Charles and Flowers might be. FLowers, certainly, is looking like he can.

The others, I would say no. But, don't get me wong - just because i don't think they're playmakers doesn't mean I don't think they're good players.
The only person listed above that I think could go to a playoff caliber team and still play at a exceptional level is probably Flowers. Perhaps Dorsey in the right scheme.

Bowe, Johnson,....would be role players on most other teams.

Charles...I'm not sure yet. I like him; he has the potential to have the 'boom' factor.

nychief
03-16-2010, 11:13 AM
Playmaker - somone who can single handedly effect the outcome of a game on a hand ful of plays.

so....some DL playmakers? Sure.
OL...not so much.

that is a myopic view of the game and the especially line play... feels to me that half the people bitching about drafting lineman on this board do so because they are ignorant, they just clamor to see guys with the ball in their hands.... look i get it... Spiller, Clausen or Berry would be more "exciting," but having watched good teams I can say this... playmakers don't make plays without good lines... period. "playmaking" safeties and linebackers don't cause chaos without clogging linemen, running backs and quarterbacks don't make plays without protection. it's not sexy, but it's the game. having watched this team the last four seasons, i can't believe anybody thinks we are in good shape line wise.

Fish
03-16-2010, 11:14 AM
Here's the funny thing:

Even if Pioli makes the dumbest fucking pick possible (LT), we're still going to win 7 games next year just based on the schedule alone.

People will begin to sing his praises when the reality is that he will have fucked this franchise for 5+ years with his first two draft picks.

Yes. I fear this greatly. We'll win just enough that fans will pile back on the wagon and cling to hope. Cassel will likely only allow us to be mediocre at best, but it will be enough to garner idiot fan support. Experienced fans who have dealt with this shit for years will be frustrated and appear to be hateful and bitter to the otherwise encouraged Truefans™. They'll hang on to Cassel as long as possible, because next year is all we'll need to get the missing pieces to get us over the top. Only next year we'll need another imaginary piece of the puzzle, and the cycle will start over. This will continue on and on. And there goes another decade of shit.

nychief
03-16-2010, 11:14 AM
'boom' factor.

ROFL

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:15 AM
that is a myopic view of the game and the especially line play... feels to me that half the people bitching about drafting lineman on this board do so because they are ignorant, they just clamor to see guys with the ball in their hands.... look i get it... Spiller, Clausen or Berry would be more "exciting," but having watched good teams I can say this... playmakers don't make plays without good lines... period. "playmaking" safeties and linebackers don't cause chaos without clogging linemen, running backs and quarterbacks don't make plays without protection. it's not sexy, but it's the game. having watched this team the last four seasons, i can't believe anybody thinks we are in good shape line wise.

And has been pointed out ad nauseum, the better teams around the league build their offensive lines with later draft picks.

suds79
03-16-2010, 11:15 AM
Well even if we do pass on Berry, I'm pretty sure that Clausen will be there and I think the possibility of trading down certainly is feasible.

I'd still like us to take Berry at 5 but I won't cry if it doesn't happen. I'll only be really upset if we take a freaking LT with that pick.

It's just wrong on so many levels.

- We need help at Center & RG. Not LT.
- People just assume that this new guy will play LT better than Brandon and that Brandon will pay LG better than Waters, etc. It's shuffling around the entire O-line.
- And we would then have a #15 (if I remember right) overall pick playing Guard. A position that is routinely filled with mid to late picks by good teams. It's a last resort. That folks means he's a bust.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:15 AM
that is a myopic view of the game and the especially line play... feels to me that half the people bitching about drafting lineman on this board do so because they are ignorant, they just clamor to see guys with the ball in their hands.... look i get it... Spiller, Clausen or Berry would be more "exciting," but having watched good teams I can say this... playmakers don't make plays without good lines... period. "playmaking" safeties and linebackers don't cause chaos without clogging linemen, running backs and quarterbacks don't make plays without protection. it's not sexy, but it's the game. having watched this team the last four seasons, i can't believe anybody thinks we are in good shape line wise.

I don't think we're in good shape. but that doesn't mean I want to spend a top 5 pick on OL. We definitely need OL/DL, but not that hight IMO.

Indy & New Orelans had 1 offensive lineman drafted in the 1st if I recall. combined.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:17 AM
Tamba Hali was also a rush defensive end for the 4-3 that led the country in sacks coming out of college. He's led the NFL in forced fumbles for the past four seasons. He's led the Chiefs in sacks the past two seasons.

Playmaker.

You whiny bitches have been getting playmakers damn near every fucking draft.

However, the "True Fans" have been getting screwed. ONE offensive lineman picked in the first three rounds over the last TEN years. ONE.

And when someone mentions that we won't draft a safety with a top five pick - that's right A SAFETY WITH A TOP FIVE PICK, which is bordering on stupid insane, you have a conniption saying we've never picked "playmakers" and it's always been "true fan" drafts. We'll, I'll tell you straight up, with the exception of Carl's penchant for draft defensive tackles that never pan out, he primarily focused on WR, RB, CB, S, DE for the high picks. There's your playmakers at playmaker positions. If they actually built from the inside out, like smart teams do, we would have been a lot better off. However, Carl had to placate his inner Drafturbator, and kept drafting "playmakers" in the top three rounds every single year. That's how you destroy/ruin a franchise, and it's easily proven by looking at the stupid teams that did that every single year such as the Chiefs and the Lions.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:17 AM
ROFL

what's so funny?:cuss::D

you laugh, but that's what I say when I'm wathcing TV and something big happens in a game. :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 11:18 AM
Yes. I fear this greatly. We'll win just enough that fans will pile back on the wagon and cling to hope. Cassel will likely only allow us to be mediocre at best, but it will be enough to garner idiot fan support. Experienced fans who have dealt with this shit for years will be frustrated and appear to be hateful and bitter to the otherwise encouraged Truefans™. They'll hang on to Cassel as long as possible, because next year is all we'll need to get the missing pieces to get us over the top. Only next year we'll need another imaginary piece of the puzzle, and the cycle will start over. This will continue on and on. And there goes another decade of shit.

It's sad when you can see the writing on the wall and there's nothing you can do about it.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:18 AM
I would say Charles and Flowers might be. FLowers, certainly, is looking like he can.

The others, I would say no. But, don't get me wong - just because i don't think they're playmakers doesn't mean I don't think they're good players.
The only person listed above that I think could go to a playoff caliber team and still play at a exceptional level is probably Flowers. Perhaps Dorsey in the right scheme.

Bowe, Johnson,....would be role players on most other teams.

Charles...I'm not sure yet. I like him; he has the potential to have the 'boom' factor.

Oh, so they have to pan out as playmakers versus being drafted at a playmaking position and without regard to their playmaking status in the college ranks. So if Berry ends up busting, in two years, he won't be a playmaker by your concept, correct?

Woodrow Call
03-16-2010, 11:20 AM
I remember back when we were stuck in our 7-9, 10-6 decade long rut I would dream of the day when the Chiefs would bottom out, get some top 10 talent at the skill positions and finally have a nucleus to build around. Now I'm finally here and I get to sit back and watch us pass on a franshise QBs, Reed-type safeties, etc for 3-4 ends and right tackles.

Maybe I should just watch the draft from the 2nd round on and try to save my sanity.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:22 AM
Oh, so they have to pan out as playmakers versus being drafted at a playmaking position and without regard to their playmaking status in the college ranks. So if Berry ends up busting, in two years, he won't be a playmaker by your concept, correct?

Correct.he will be a bust who was originally labled as a playmaker.

no one can gaurantee what they're going to get.
but if you never draft someone with that potential/label as a playmaker, you'll never get it.

we've drafted for it, and whiffed thanks to our stellar scouting department.
not just in terms of identifying potential playmakers, but every other position on the field - regardless of where they were drafted.

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:22 AM
He's led the Chiefs in sacks the past two seasons.

Pretty much says it all right there.

suds79
03-16-2010, 11:23 AM
However, the "True Fans" have been getting screwed. ONE offensive lineman picked in the first three rounds over the last TEN years. ONE.

Yes. We spent that 1 pick on a LT and he's coming into his 3rd year. So lets not give up on him just because he had bad moments at LT last year.

That's how it's done. You spend the $ and high pick on a LT, the rest of the scrubs can be filled out later in the draft. They're so much lower in importance.

It's not like I'm anti O-line. I just don't understand why we can't address those interior positions (the biggest problem last year) later on. Like in the 3rd as you suggested. Just don't do it with our top pick at a position that we might be okay at.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:23 AM
And has been pointed out ad nauseum, the better teams around the league build their offensive lines with later draft picks.

What do you think of the Jets? Did they do okay last year? Do you think that they have a good team with Super Bowl potential?

And as has been pointed out damn near ad nausem, there are actually five positions on the offensive line. They all don't need to be first round picks. In the heyday of the Chief's offensive explosion of the early 2000's, they only had two first round draft picks on the offensive line. How many do we currently have? And of those current first round picks on the Chiefs offensive line, how many were picked by Herm? (Because, Brock, if you can use that excuse for the defensive or "playmaking" positions, it certainly can apply to Herm/Carl taking a college guard in the first round and projecting him to LT in the pros also as an excuse.)

However, to remind you, we have TWO first round picks on our defensive line. We have TWO first round picks at the linebacker position.

Red Beans
03-16-2010, 11:25 AM
*Sigh* I liked Peter King until today. Not for saying something that doesn't sound like it could fundamentally happen, but for most likely being right. Damn you Peter King for throwing what very well could be the truth back in my face.:cuss:

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 11:27 AM
However, to remind you, we have TWO first round picks on our defensive line. We have TWO first round picks at the linebacker position.

LMAO.

CoMoChief
03-16-2010, 11:28 AM
The Kansas City Royal Chiefs.

Get ready for t-shirt Sundays and Andre Rison bobbleheads. And remember to stick around for fireworks after the game.

Don't forget the pedophile-looking Lion mascot that runs around groping little children.

Oh wait. We already have a wolf that looks like he has down syndrome. ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 11:32 AM
Tamba Hali was also a rush defensive end for the 4-3 that led the country in sacks coming out of college. He's led the NFL in forced fumbles for the past four seasons. He's led the Chiefs in sacks the past two seasons.

Playmaker.

You whiny bitches have been getting playmakers damn near every fucking draft.

However, the "True Fans" have been getting screwed. ONE offensive lineman picked in the first three rounds over the last TEN years. ONE.

And when someone mentions that we won't draft a safety with a top five pick - that's right A SAFETY WITH A TOP FIVE PICK, which is bordering on stupid insane, you have a conniption saying we've never picked "playmakers" and it's always been "true fan" drafts. We'll, I'll tell you straight up, with the exception of Carl's penchant for draft defensive tackles that never pan out, he primarily focused on WR, RB, CB, S, DE for the high picks. There's your playmakers at playmaker positions. If they actually built from the inside out, like smart teams do, we would have been a lot better off. However, Carl had to placate his inner Drafturbator, and kept drafting "playmakers" in the top three rounds every single year. That's how you destroy/ruin a franchise, and it's easily proven by looking at the stupid teams that did that every single year such as the Chiefs and the Lions.

I forgot how many 1st round picks the Saints, Colts, Cardinals, and Steelers spent on their OL.

Of their starters in the SB? 1, a bust (Levi Brown).

At the skill positions:

1st round picks:

Colts: WR: Wayne, Gonzalez
TE: Dallas Clark
RB: Donald Brown, Addai
QB: Manning
DE: Freeney

Saints: WR: Meachem
RB: Bush
CB: Jenkins
DT: Ellis
QB: (Brees was taken with what is now a 1st rounder)
TE: Shockey


Steelers:

WR: Santonio Holmes
TE: Heath Miller
QB: Roethlisberger
S: Polamalu
DT: Hampton

Cardinals:

CB: DRC
S: Rolle
WR: Fitzgerald
DE: Calvin Pace

lostcause
03-16-2010, 11:33 AM
The Kansas City Royal Chiefs.

Get ready for t-shirt Sundays and Andre Rison bobbleheads. And remember to stick around for fireworks after the game.

I want an Andre Rison bobble head.

the Talking Can
03-16-2010, 11:35 AM
3 years in a row of top 5 picks

0 playmakers Incredible...



0 QBs


basically sets the franchise back a decade and makes all the losing to this point absolutely pointless...

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:35 AM
Arizona - 1 OL taken in the 1st since 2000
New Orleans - 1 OL taken in the 1st since (no 1st rounders on SB winning team/offense)
Indy - no OL taken since 2000 (break down since 2000 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 DE, 1 TE, 1 CB)
Pitt - 2 OL taken in 1st since 1996 (Faneca '98 at #26, and Kendall Simmons in '02 at #30)
Giants - no OL taken in 1st 1988
Pats - 2 OL taken in 1st since 1999 (Center '99, and Mankins in 2005 at #32 overall)

go bowe
03-16-2010, 11:35 AM
We don't need playmakers we need cogswhat position does cogs play?

can he play corner?

how 'bout right tackle?

the Talking Can
03-16-2010, 11:36 AM
Tamba Hali was also a rush defensive end for the 4-3 that led the country in sacks coming out of college. He's led the NFL in forced fumbles for the past four seasons. He's led the Chiefs in sacks the past two seasons.

Playmaker.

You whiny bitches have been getting playmakers damn near every ****ing draft.

However, the "True Fans" have been getting screwed. ONE offensive lineman picked in the first three rounds over the last TEN years. ONE.

And when someone mentions that we won't draft a safety with a top five pick - that's right A SAFETY WITH A TOP FIVE PICK, which is bordering on stupid insane, you have a conniption saying we've never picked "playmakers" and it's always been "true fan" drafts. We'll, I'll tell you straight up, with the exception of Carl's penchant for draft defensive tackles that never pan out, he primarily focused on WR, RB, CB, S, DE for the high picks. There's your playmakers at playmaker positions. If they actually built from the inside out, like smart teams do, we would have been a lot better off. However, Carl had to placate his inner Drafturbator, and kept drafting "playmakers" in the top three rounds every single year. That's how you destroy/ruin a franchise, and it's easily proven by looking at the stupid teams that did that every single year such as the Chiefs and the Lions.

your so dumb that leaves me speechless...and the thing is, you're even more dishonest....

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:37 AM
I agree the line needs to be fixed, but no way do I spend a 5 on OL; hell, even 1st round.

teams that have been to and won the SB have consistently spent 1st round picks on DT, DE, WR, CB, TE, RB

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:37 AM
Can we please wait till next year to draft a QB, though? Please?

This.

The problem here Metro is that people have this kneejerk reaction to ANY quarterback in the draft at this point because the Chiefs haven't drafted one in the first round. They think that, unlike premier left tackles, who can be found in the sixth round and beyond, franchise level quarterbacks can only be picked in the top of the first round of the draft.

So what if Clausen had 40 less career touchdowns as Brady Quinn in the same system? So what if Clausen is less mobile than Drew Bledsoe at half the size? So what if his arms and hands are smaller than a Lilliputianesque Munchkin?

He's a quarterback. That played in a "pro style" offensive scheme. That's all that matters.

Who cares if guys like Jake Locker, Ryan Mallett and Blaine Gabbert are going to be available in the coming years? As long as we secure a quarterback from one of the two remaining big name schools that run a "pro style" set (Notre Dame - this year only though because who knows what they will be running next year, and USC) is all that matters.

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:38 AM
Arizona - 1 OL taken in the 1st since 2000
New Orleans - 1 OL taken in the 1st since (no 1st rounders on SB winning team/offense)
Indy - no OL taken since 2000 (break down since 2000 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 DE, 1 TE, 1 CB)
Pitt - no OL taken in 1st since 1996
Giants - no OL taken in 1st 1988
Pats - no OL taken in 1st since 1999 (Center)

Indy took a 1st round tackle a few years ago.

Chiefnj2
03-16-2010, 11:40 AM
You need to build a solid line. If you can do it with late round draft picks fine. If you cant', which KC hasn't been able to, then you need to use some earlier picks. I don't care how other teams do it, I don't care how KC does it, it just needs to be done.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:40 AM
that is a myopic view of the game and the especially line play... feels to me that half the people bitching about drafting lineman on this board do so because they are ignorant, they just clamor to see guys with the ball in their hands....

Offensive lineman don't really shine when they play Madden. Imagine the possibilities of what Berry's stats might be as a rookie in Madden '11!!!! He'll be the Michael Vick of the defense and he might really give the Madden Chiefs a legit chance to do big things!

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:41 AM
I posted this in another thread:

since 1990, there have been 6 teams that was won a SB with a QB they did not draft:
Ravens (Dilfer), Rams (Warner), Bucs (Johnson), Saints (Brees), Niners (Young), Packers (Favre)

of those, Dilfer, Young were 1st Rd picks (Brees was 32 overall; Favre 33rd overall).

the other 14 Super Bowl winners that drafted a QB, only 2 were not 1st Round picks: Brady & Rypien.


So, of the last 20 SB winners, only 6 were not 1st Round picks.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Indy took a 1st round tackle a few years ago.

1997 Tarik Glen?
or someone else I might have missed?

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:42 AM
1997 Tarik Glen?
or someone else I might have missed?

Sorry, it was a high second round pick. Ugoh.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:43 AM
- And we would then have a #15 (if I remember right) overall pick playing Guard. A position that is routinely filled with mid to late picks by good teams. It's a last resort. That folks means he's a bust.

Seems to me that we used the #15 pick on a guy that played guard.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:43 AM
Sorry, it was a high second round pick. Ugoh.

oh yeah.I thought he was a 1st too until I double checked.

L.A. Chieffan
03-16-2010, 11:44 AM
I like Clausen, but it is INSANE to think that the Chiefs would draft him at #5. And King is probably right about a safety as well. Just not safe enough. Whether or not that is the reality, it is the perception.

Get over it people, we're drafting a OL

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:46 AM
I remember back when we were stuck in our 7-9, 10-6 decade long rut I would dream of the day when the Chiefs would bottom out, get some top 10 talent at the skill positions and finally have a nucleus to build around.

That's right. Good teams build around the skill positions. Outside in is the only way to do it. That's how all the top teams did it.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:48 AM
That's right. Good teams build around the skill positions. Outside in is the only way to do it. That's how all the top teams did it.

yep.
Indy
2009 27 Donald Brown RB Connecticut
2008 No Pick --
2007 32 Anthony Gonzalez WR Ohio State
2006 30 Joseph Addai RB Louisiana State
2005 29 Marlin Jackson DB Michigan
2004 No Pick --
2003 24 Dallas Clark TE Iowa
2002 11 Dwight Freeney DE Syracuse
2001 30 Reggie Wayne WR Miami (Fla.)
2000 28 Rob Morris LB Brigham Young
1999 4 Edgerrin James RB Miami (Fla.)
1998 1 Peyton Manning QB Tennessee

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 11:48 AM
I posted this in another thread:

since 1990, there have been 6 teams that was won a SB with a QB they did not draft:
Ravens (Dilfer), Rams (Warner), Bucs (Johnson), Saints (Brees), Niners (Young), Packers (Favre)

of those, Dilfer, Young were 1st Rd picks (Brees was 32 overall; Favre 33rd overall).

the other 14 Super Bowl winners that drafted a QB, only 2 were not 1st Round picks: Brady & Rypien.


So, of the last 20 SB winners, only 6 were not 1st Round picks.

The 9ers and Packers traded 1st round picks for Young and Favre.

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:49 AM
yep.
Indy
2009 27 Donald Brown RB Connecticut
2008 No Pick --
2007 32 Anthony Gonzalez WR Ohio State
2006 30 Joseph Addai RB Louisiana State
2005 29 Marlin Jackson DB Michigan
2004 No Pick --
2003 24 Dallas Clark TE Iowa
2002 11 Dwight Freeney DE Syracuse
2001 30 Reggie Wayne WR Miami (Fla.)
2000 28 Rob Morris LB Brigham Young
1999 4 Edgerrin James RB Miami (Fla.)
1998 1 Peyton Manning QB Tennessee

OOPS

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:50 AM
The 9ers and Packers traded 1st round picks for Young and Favre.

Affirmative.

L.A. Chieffan
03-16-2010, 11:50 AM
Colts dont count though

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:50 AM
I forgot how many 1st round picks the Saints, Colts, Cardinals, and Steelers spent on their OL.

Of their starters in the SB? 1, a bust (Levi Brown).

At the skill positions:

1st round picks:

Colts: WR: Wayne, Gonzalez
TE: Dallas Clark
RB: Donald Brown, Addai
QB: Manning
DE: Freeney

Saints: WR: Meachem
RB: Bush
CB: Jenkins
DT: Ellis
QB: (Brees was taken with what is now a 1st rounder)
TE: Shockey


Steelers:

WR: Santonio Holmes
TE: Heath Miller
QB: Roethlisberger
S: Polamalu
DT: Hampton

Cardinals:

CB: DRC
S: Rolle
WR: Fitzgerald
DE: Calvin Pace

So, you'd be okay if we draft Jermaine Gresham with our first rounder, because the theme I see here is that the majority of these teams have a high quality tight end. And you yourself just said that the TE position was a play making position. So you'd be happy with Jermaine Gresham then, because I think that a tight end is going to do more for this team than a safety if you are looking at getting the best at each/either position.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 11:51 AM
Haha, Saccowned.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 11:53 AM
Arizona - 1 OL taken in the 1st since 2000
New Orleans - 1 OL taken in the 1st since (no 1st rounders on SB winning team/offense)
Indy - no OL taken since 2000 (break down since 2000 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 DE, 1 TE, 1 CB)
Pitt - no OL taken in 1st since 1996
Giants - no OL taken in 1st 1988
Pats - no OL taken in 1st since 1999 (Center)

However, if you look at the top three rounds of the draft over the past ten years:

Pittsburgh: 5 offensive linemen taken.
New England: 6 offensive linemen taken.
Saints: 4 offensive linemen taken.
NYG: 4 offensive linemen taken.
Indy: 2 offensive linemen taken.

Chiefs: 1 offensive linemen taken.

Brock
03-16-2010, 11:54 AM
So, you'd be okay if we draft Jermaine Gresham with our first rounder, because the theme I see here is that the majority of these teams have a high quality tight end. And you yourself just said that the TE position was a play making position. So you'd be happy with Jermaine Gresham then, because I think that a tight end is going to do more for this team than a safety if you are looking at getting the best at each/either position.

Way to change the subject after getting your ass handed to you. :clap:

SNR
03-16-2010, 11:54 AM
We all know Badfat wants to draft Terrence Cody. He's the biggest cog in this entire draft. The biggest, gooiest, fattest, slowest, squishiest cog. He's perfect for Badfat's draft philosophy.

L.A. Chieffan
03-16-2010, 11:56 AM
Sacs argument is basically just because the good teams do it doesnt make it right

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 11:56 AM
However, if you look at the top three rounds of the draft over the past ten years:

Pittsburgh: 5 offensive linemen taken.
New England: 6 offensive linemen taken.
Saints: 4 offensive linemen taken.
NYG: 4 offensive linemen taken.
Indy: 2 offensive linemen taken.

Chiefs: 1 offensive linemen taken.

And who here is arguing NOT to take a talented offensive lineman (or 2!!!) in the second or third rounds?

Stay still!

http://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/ImagesProducts/1400sm.gif

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:57 AM
Lots of OL in the 1st for the Pats too.


2008 10 Jerod Mayo ILB Tennessee
2007 24 Brandon Meriweather DB Miami (Fla.)
2006 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota
2005 32 Logan Mankins G Fresno State
2004 21 Vince Wilfork NT Miami (Fla.)
2004 32 Benjamin Watson TE Georgia
2003 13 Ty Warren DE Texas A&M
2002 21 Daniel Graham TE Colorado
2001 6 Richard Seymour DT Georgia
2000 No Pick --
1999 17 Damien Woody C Boston College
1999 28 Andy Katzenmoyer MLB Ohio State
1998 18 Robert Edwards RB Georgia
1998 22 Tebucky Jones DB Syracuse
1997 29 Chris Canty DB Kansas State
1996 7 Terry Glenn WR Ohio State
1995 23 Ty Law CB Michigan
1994 4 Willie McGinest OLB USC
1993 1 Drew Bledsoe QB Washington State

Dayze
03-16-2010, 11:58 AM
However, if you look at the top three rounds of the draft over the past ten years:

Pittsburgh: 5 offensive linemen taken.
New England: 6 offensive linemen taken.
Saints: 4 offensive linemen taken.
NYG: 4 offensive linemen taken.
Indy: 2 offensive linemen taken.

Chiefs: 1 offensive linemen taken.

Sac I edited my original post; Pats have taken 2 OL since 99 (i initially had them at 1); the other was Mankins at #32 in '05.

L.A. Chieffan
03-16-2010, 11:59 AM
Yes but those teams are good on a yearly basis therefore they consistently pick in the later half of the draft meaning by then all the elite OL are already gone. DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ANYTHING??!

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:00 PM
Yes but those teams are good on a yearly basis therefore they consistently pick in the later half of the draft meaning by then all the elite OL are already gone. DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ANYTHING??!

Pretty sure you plagiarized this post because it sounds like a likely rebuttal.

the Talking Can
03-16-2010, 12:00 PM
this turned into a saccofbats beat down



this pleases me

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:01 PM
your so dumb that leaves me speechless...and the thing is, you're even more dishonest....

How am I dishonest?

I stated that Carl focused on the playmaker positions. Which he did.

Here's how he drafted by position:

Wide Receiver: 25 picks
Running Back: 20 picks
Corner Back: 19 picks
Linebacker: 16 picks
Offensive Tackle: 16 picks
Defensive Tackle: 14 picks
Defensive End: 9 picks
Safety: 8 picks
Tight End: 8 picks
Quarterback: 6 picks
Center: 6 picks
Guard: 5 picks
Kicker/Punter: 2 picks

keg in kc
03-16-2010, 12:01 PM
Maybe somebody has covered this, I'm not going to read the whole thread, but I think saying that they will never take a safety that high is just making an assumption, because the reality is that they've never been in a position to do it. First, they didn't actually have the need for it when they were building the program, because they had a strong secondary led by Lawyer Milloy at strong safety and Ty Law at corner, both good players at that time. Beyond that, they only had one top-10 pick in NE, in '01, and there was nobody like Berry on the board that year; the highest DB taken that year was Adam Archuleta at 20.

Quentin Jammer and Roy Williams (and Philip Buchanon) were off the board before they picked Danial Graham in '02. This was the Ed Reed draft (he went at 24). But, again, Milloy was still on the team.

As I recall (I think this is the way it worked out, but I'm a little rusty on the details), they released Lawyer Milloy prior to start of the 2003 season, but they'd taken Eugene Wilson relatively early that year, with the 4th pick of the second round. They took Ty Warren at 13 with Polamalu on the board (he went to Pittsburgh with #16). That was a strong year for defensive backs, as memory serves, so maybe that's some indication of how they'd approach it in 2010 with KC, although, again, at the time of the draft, I believe Lawyer Milloy was still on the roster, and had been a pro bowler in 2002. Come to think of it, I believe that was also the same year they picked up Rodney Harrison from San Diego.

They also took Brandon Meriweather with their first round pick (24) in 2007.

In the end I think there actually is some indication that they might take a safety, if the need and the situation arises.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 12:05 PM
So, you'd be okay if we draft Jermaine Gresham with our first rounder, because the theme I see here is that the majority of these teams have a high quality tight end. And you yourself just said that the TE position was a play making position. So you'd be happy with Jermaine Gresham then, because I think that a tight end is going to do more for this team than a safety if you are looking at getting the best at each/either position.

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpg

BryanBusby
03-16-2010, 12:05 PM
9 pages for a Peter King quote lol

The dude is a huge Patriots fangirl and he can't predict what they're going to do worth a shit. I wouldn't get wrapped up over what he says.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:06 PM
http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpg

LMAO

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:06 PM
I agree the line needs to be fixed, but no way do I spend a 5 on OL; hell, even 1st round.

teams that have been to and won the SB have consistently spent 1st round picks on DT, DE, WR, CB, TE, RB

By your argument, we should be winning the Super Bowl every year.

Since 2000, the Chiefs have selected the following positions with their first 1st Round pick:

DT: 2
DE: 2
WR: 2
RB: 1
LB: 1

How's that been working out for us? Did we win the Super Bowl and no one told me?

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:06 PM
The dude is a huge Patriots fangirl.

No shit?

I didn't know King posted here.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:07 PM
By your argument, we should be winning the Super Bowl every year.


LMAO.

Impressive analytical fail.

suds79
03-16-2010, 12:08 PM
Yes but those teams are good on a yearly basis therefore they consistently pick in the later half of the draft meaning by then all the elite OL are already gone. DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ANYTHING??!

Only the elite LTs are gone buy then. They could all choose to have typically the best Guard or Center in the class by the time they draft in the late first. But a lot of times they pass. Why? Because honestly Guards and Centers just aren't that big of a deal.

The very same position that Brandon Albert, our mid first round pick, would be shifted to.

And we still don't know if he'll make it at LT or not. After how he ended the season, I think we need more time to tell.

BryanBusby
03-16-2010, 12:08 PM
No shit?

I didn't know King posted here.

He's a true fan

Brock
03-16-2010, 12:08 PM
By your argument, we should be winning the Super Bowl every year.

Since 2000, the Chiefs have selected the following positions with their first 1st Round pick:

DT: 2
DE: 2
WR: 2
RB: 1
LB: 1

How's that been working out for us? Did we win the Super Bowl and no one told me?

We certainly didn't win one when we had THE GREATEST OFFENSIVE LINE IN FOOTBALL HISTORY.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:10 PM
By your argument, we should be winning the Super Bowl every year.

Since 2000, the Chiefs have selected the following positions with their first 1st Round pick:

DT: 2
DE: 2
WR: 2
RB: 1
LB: 1

How's that been working out for us? Did we win the Super Bowl and no one told me?


no, we didnt' win.
but, i'll take my chances following the same / similar strategy as the teams who have won the last 10 Super Bowls.
I wouldn't spend a 1st on a OL unless I was at #20 or beyond AND it filled an immediate need along an already established/good OL.


and, my argument you're referencing isn't correct. this isn't a logic puzzle ("all zeebs are zobs. All zobs are zopes. Therefore all zopes are zeebs. true/false").
My opinion is simply the statistics don't lie.

It applies with the OL and 1st round draft pick correlation, and 1st Round QBs.
There will be exceptions, but the percentage is very small. Therefore, I'll play the better percentages.

Chiefnj2
03-16-2010, 12:10 PM
We certainly didn't win one when we had THE GREATEST OFFENSIVE LINE IN FOOTBALL HISTORY.

We didn't win one with Joe Montana, Neil Smith, DT, Ross, Albert, Cherry, TG, either. We probably shouldn't address those positions early.

Von Dumbass
03-16-2010, 12:12 PM
Since 1991 only 2 teams that drafted a safety in the first round have won the SB. The Pittsburgh Steelers with Troy Polamalu and the Denver Broncos with Steve Atwater.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 12:12 PM
We didn't win one with Joe Montana, Neil Smith, DT, Ross, Albert, Cherry, TG, either. We probably shouldn't address those positions early.

We got the closest with a great D and a franchise quarterback.

We haven't won a single playoff game since we lacked those two elements.

Surely it's just coincidental.

Brock
03-16-2010, 12:12 PM
We didn't win one with Joe Montana, Neil Smith, DT, Ross, Albert, Cherry, TG, either. We probably shouldn't address those positions early.

We didn't draft Joe Montana. If we had, maybe things would have turned out differently.

Chocolate Hog
03-16-2010, 12:13 PM
I'll walk away from this team if they draft Dan fucking Williams over Eric Berry.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:14 PM
We didn't win one with Joe Montana, Neil Smith, DT, Ross, Albert, Cherry, TG, either. We probably shouldn't address those positions early.

???

What position haven't we addressed early in the draft?

Maybe we should try that approach?

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:16 PM
???

What position haven't we addressed early in the draft?

Maybe we should try that approach?

:clap:
Crazy thinking.

Brock
03-16-2010, 12:18 PM
???

What position haven't we addressed early in the draft?

Maybe we should try that approach?

But but we traded a first round pick for Joe doesn't that count

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 12:20 PM
I hope the server can handle draft day. This is going to be awesome.

Chiefnj2
03-16-2010, 12:21 PM
???

What position haven't we addressed early in the draft?

Maybe we should try that approach?

You really want to reach for Clausen?

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:22 PM
sorry...I should rephrase..

if you were in a position where you couldn't trade down and you were basically in a spot where you would be reaching no matter what:
would you rather reach for a QB?
or reach for a 5tech?

where would Jackson fallen to?
where will Clausen fall to?
how much of a reach for Clausen?

If he's rated at #8 on their board; it's not much of a reach considering the position.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:23 PM
Way to change the subject after getting your ass handed to you. :clap:

Since I was responding to a post that was two pages prior to the Colts example, which wasn't even posted when I responded to Hamas' post, I hardly see how it would be "changing the subject." You're not very perceptive, are you.

However, if the Colts get beat by the Jets this next year, will I be vindicated?

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:26 PM
You really want to reach for Clausen?

You really want to reach for (insert name of available, talented QB here)?

Clausen would be worthy of the draft position. You don't like him? Fine.

Last year, Sanchez was worthy of the draft position. Some didn't like him. Fine. (When it looked like it would be Stafford, people hated him, too.)

Year before, Flacco was worthy of the draft position (#15). Some didn't like him. Fine. (When it looked like it would be Ryan, people hated him, too.)

I'm sure somewhere in Indy, many moons ago, some True Fans were asking, "You really want to reach for Manning?"

Every QB. Every fucking year.

We're going to have to take the risk. And, if we miss...gasp...we're going to having to fucking take the risk, AGAIN.

We won't win anything meaningful without a franchise QB.

Chiefnj2
03-16-2010, 12:27 PM
would you rather reach for a QB?
or reach for a 5tech?

This has nothing to do with Tyson Jackson.

Do you want Clausen or Berry?

the Talking Can
03-16-2010, 12:27 PM
the one position we haven't drafted in the first round in 20 years is QB


it's also the most important position on and off the field to a franchise...nothing else is close


is it really so impossible to figure out why we suck and haven't sniffed a superbowl since like forever?



but hey, let's spend YET ANOTHER FIRST ROUND PICK ON LT....just 2 YEARS removed from the last one...


brilliant


just fucking brilliant

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:28 PM
Since I was responding to a post that was two pages prior to the Colts example, which wasn't even posted when I responded to Hamas' post, I hardly see how it would be "changing the subject." You're not very perceptive, are you.

However, if the Colts get beat by the Jets this next year, will I be vindicated?

no; Jets can't beat the Colts in a SB. :)

BFD if they beat them in regular season. I'm done with 'regular season'.

I'm about The Main Thing

Chiefnj2
03-16-2010, 12:29 PM
You really want to reach for (insert name of available, talented QB here)?

Clausen would be worthy of the draft position. You don't like him? Fine.

Last year, Sanchez was worthy of the draft position. Some didn't like him. Fine. (When it looked like it would be Stafford, people hated him, too.)

Year before, Flacco was worthy of the draft position (#15). Some didn't like him. Fine. (When it looked like it would be Ryan, people hated him, too.)

I'm sure somewhere in Indy, many moons ago, some True Fans were asking, "You really want to reach for Manning?"

Every QB. Every ****ing year.

We're going to have to take the risk. And, if we miss...gasp...we're going to having to ****ing take the risk, AGAIN.

We won't win anything meaningful without a franchise QB.

Then make a move for the better QB, Bradford.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:29 PM
This has nothing to do with Tyson Jackson.

Do you want Clausen or Berry?

oh, I see. My bad.

personally, I'd take Clausen even if he were a slight reach by a few spots.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:30 PM
You really want to reach for (insert name of available, talented QB here)?

Clausen would be worthy of the draft position. You don't like him? Fine.

Last year, Sanchez was worthy of the draft position. Some didn't like him. Fine. (When it looked like it would be Stafford, people hated him, too.)

Year before, Flacco was worthy of the draft position (#15). Some didn't like him. Fine. (When it looked like it would be Ryan, people hated him, too.)

I'm sure somewhere in Indy, many moons ago, some True Fans were asking, "You really want to reach for Manning?"

Every QB. Every fucking year.

We're going to have to take the risk. And, if we miss...gasp...we're going to having to fucking take the risk, AGAIN.

We won't win anything meaningful without a franchise QB.

Excellent Post.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:31 PM
Then make a move for the better QB, Bradford.

Ok, fine, if that's your guy. If you think he's going to be a franchise QB, you absolutely make that move.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:33 PM
I really wish the Chiefs weren't deathly afraid of taking a QB.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 12:34 PM
I really wish the Chiefs weren't deathly afraid of taking a QB.

I'm not opposed to drafting a QB, I just think that:

A. He should be a sure thing
B. We should build the line first.

Love,
True Fan

Dayze
03-16-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm not opposed to drafting a QB, I just think that:

A. He should be a sure thing
B. We should build the line first.

Love,
True Fan

ahh, yes. the elusive "Sure thing".:D

don't forget, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:42 PM
is it really so impossible to figure out why we suck and haven't sniffed a superbowl since like forever?

Nope. It's pretty easy to figure out.

http://www.blogcdn.com/nfl.fanhouse.com/media/2008/12/carlpetersonresignsfromchiefs.jpg

but hey, let's spend YET ANOTHER FIRST ROUND PICK ON LT....just 2 YEARS removed from the last one...

I hate to reiterate, but we didn't take a left tackle in the 2008 draft. We took a guard. Albert had never played left tackle in his entire football career. In looking back at the draft, it seems he was the highest drafted guard since 1997.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy or a bad player. I'm saying he was a guard. Had always been a guard. Until Herm thought it would b a good idea to try him out at left tackle. If you are happy supporting Herm's vision, that's your prerogative.

I'd like to see what he could do in terms of playing his natural position of LG - the one he played so effectively that it garnered him a first round selection in the 2008 draft. Although, one has to wonder if this was one of those classic Carl Peterson associative draft picks like Ryan Sims and Junior Siavii. Albert did happen to play next to D'brickashaw Fergusson and Eugene Monroe for his entire college career, much like Sims next to Julius Peppers and Sivaii next to Olshansky. But if you are one of those eternal optimists that think that the third time is a charm, then I think that's great, and I hope Albert does work out for you.

However, based on historical Peterson drafting perspectives, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:46 PM
I'm not opposed to drafting a QB, I just think that:

A. He should be a sure thing
B. We should build the line first.

Love,
True Fan

I'm not opposed to drafting a QB, I just think that:

A. He should have shit tons of potential.
B. Make sure we draft the QB position before giving him a solid line to work behind.

Love,
Drafturbators

(This post was approved of by the David Carr Fan Club)

Fish
03-16-2010, 12:46 PM
JFC... SaccoOkung thinks he's a guard, so by God, he's a guard. Nevermind the past two seasons in the NFL as a LT.....

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 12:47 PM
It wasn't Herm's vision that Albert was a left tackle. It was the vision of MANY well-informed football people including ANDY REID because the Eagles wanted to draft Albert in the first round.

The guy lost so much weight that he's not gonna be nearly as effective at guard now. And he would have been a LEFT TACKLE in college had he not played with D'Brickashaw Ferguson. And by the way, he played two games in college at left tackle, so you're wrong, again.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:51 PM
JFC... SaccoOkung says he's a guard, so by God, he's a guard. Nevermind the past two seasons in the NFL as a LT.....

No, I said he WAS a guard. For his entire college career. That played right next to first round left tackles Fergusson and Monroe.

I fully understand that, after playing his entire career as a guard, that he has played at LT the past two seasons.

It's the same with Dorsey. He was a defensive tackle for his entire career. Now he's a defensive end.

I understand that positions can change based on team needs and personnel (or lack thereof). Such is the case with Albert and Dorsey. I'm sure they and the team are going to be just fine.

Fish
03-16-2010, 12:57 PM
I'll bet the Vikings reach for a DE this year too. That way they'll be able to move Allen back to long snapper, his more natural college position.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 12:57 PM
It wasn't Herm's vision that Albert was a left tackle. It was the vision of MANY well-informed football people including ANDY REID because the Eagles wanted to draft Albert in the first round.

The guy lost so much weight that he's not gonna be nearly as effective at guard now. And he would have been a LEFT TACKLE in college had he not played with D'Brickashaw Ferguson. And by the way, he played two games in college at left tackle, so you're wrong, again.

Like I said, if your happy with the switch to tackle and think that his performance is worthy of a first round selection and don't think that the position needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, fine. Then we should draft a safety with a top five pick rather than a left tackle and hope that we can get two quality guards, a center and a right tackle later in the draft.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm not opposed to drafting a QB, I just think that:

A. He should have shit tons of potential.
B. Make sure we draft the QB position before giving him a solid line to work behind.

Love,
Drafturbators

(This post was approved of by the David Carr Fan Club)

Because there are posts where "drafturbators" have said "B."

Oh, yeah, why did most "drafturbators" not like the Carr selection?

Dayze
03-16-2010, 01:02 PM
I'll bet the Vikings reach for a DE this year too. That way they'll be able to move Allen back to long snapper, his more natural college position.

LMAO:evil:

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 01:06 PM
Like I said, if your happy with the switch to tackle and think that his performance is worthy of a first round selection and don't think that the position needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, fine. Then we should draft a safety with a top five pick rather than a left tackle and hope that we can get two quality guards, a center and a right tackle later in the draft.

You want to rebuild the entire line in one draft. ROFL

You're hopeless.

Goldmember
03-16-2010, 01:07 PM
We'll see what happens.

But if we end up passing on Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez AND Jimmy Clausen, we deserve exactly what we get.

I think Flacco would have been shell shocked into oblivion by now with that crappy line, a crappy running game and avg receivers.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 01:09 PM
Oh, yeah, why did most "drafturbators" not like the Carr selection?

Probably because he didn't come from a BCS conference/school that ran a "pro style" set.

Personally, I don't know why you guys aren't pimping every player from Georgia Tech. Talk about running old school, true pro-style sets! The wishbone used to be the absolute bomb in the NFL!

I wonder what you Flat Earth Society members would have thought about the forward pass back in the day...

"You can't pick a ****ing QB from a school that is using that new fandangled forward pass bullshit! Those forward pass monkeys will never play in the NFL in a pro-style wishbone set! You are a ****ing idiot!"

the Talking Can
03-16-2010, 01:09 PM
it's pointless


that fact that we spent a first rounder on our LT just two years ago means nothing to saccofbats....he'll never admit it


the only way we can build a superbowl team is to spend another first round pick on the same exact position that is currently manned by a first round pick...because you have to have a first pick at LT, and just because we already have one doesn't mean we have one, and so we need to draft another one even though we have one, but don't really have one....get it?



but we can't draft a QB....ever..20 years and counting and it is never "safe" enough for the idiots that constitute our fanbase...

or a great player at a position of ACTUAL need...Berry


nope..we just have to keep burning our 1st round picks on LT until sackofbats thinks one is cute enough....

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 01:11 PM
I think Flacco would have been shell shocked into oblivion by now with that crappy line, a crappy running game and avg receivers.

So we should keep passing on quarterbacks until the rest of the team is awesome?

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 01:11 PM
Like I said, if your happy with the switch to tackle and think that his performance is worthy of a first round selection and don't think that the position needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, fine. Then we should draft a safety with a top five pick rather than a left tackle and hope that we can get two quality guards, a center and a right tackle later in the draft.

Picking Berry over Okung is a no-brainer IMO.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 01:12 PM
I wonder what you Flat Earth Society members would have thought about the forward pass back in the day...


I agree. Let's be revolutionary, cutting edge, exceptionally creative:

Okung (or any other LT)!

Irony, how I loveth thou so.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 01:14 PM
You want to rebuild the entire line in one draft. ROFL

You're hopeless.

Okay. Then I follow your lead and hope we get a good guard with one of our fifth round picks. We can pick up a center in free agency (Hey! Weigmann! Bingo!) and focus on the right tackle spot in 2011 with a sixth rounder. Brown is our RGOTF, and Albert will anchor this line for the next decade.

We'll focus on getting a pass rusher to back up Hali, an MLB/ILB to back up Belcher and Johnson, another safety to back up Page, a nose tackle to back up Smith and a punt returner.

Super Bowl, here we come!

Goldmember
03-16-2010, 01:17 PM
So we should keep passing on quarterbacks until the rest of the team is awesome?

The majority of highly touted QBs fail to hit it big in the NFL and become mediocre. They need support around them the first few years. The Chiefs were woeful in the support area on offense the last few years.

Look, I agree that we need a franchise QB. Cassel was a slight upgrade over thigpen and croyle imo. I trusted Pioli knew what he was doing when he brought him in, but then he drafted Tyson Jackson and I began to doubt his ability to judge talent.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 01:25 PM
The majority of highly touted QBs fail to hit it big in the NFL and become mediocre. They need support around them the first few years. The Chiefs were woeful in the support area on offense the last few years.

Look, I agree that we need a franchise QB. Cassel was a slight upgrade over thigpen and croyle imo. I trusted Pioli knew what he was doing when he brought him in, but then he drafted Tyson Jackson and I began to doubt his ability to judge talent.

but a majority of teams that win a SB do so with a franchise (ie 1st round ) pick.

IMO, that's the main thing.

at #5, there are really only a handful of positions worth of drafting that high.
QB, LT (already have one), DT (already have 2).
arguments can be made for Safety,WR, DB, and RB in some drafts. Of those, there are no top 5 picks in there with the exception of Berry.

so, for me; that leaves QB if you're at 5 and a QB is sitting there.

Goldmember
03-16-2010, 01:35 PM
but a majority of teams that win a SB do so with a franchise (ie 1st round ) pick.

IMO, that's the main thing.

at #5, there are really only a handful of positions worth of drafting that high.
QB, LT (already have one), DT (already have 2).
arguments can be made for Safety,WR, DB, and RB in some drafts. Of those, there are no top 5 picks in there with the exception of Berry.

so, for me; that leaves QB if you're at 5 and a QB is sitting there.

It's a high risk decision that CP and Pioli (somewhat understandable in his first year) didn't have the balls to make-

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/152574-drafting-a-quarterback-in-the-first-round-is-it-worth-the-risk

Twenty quarterbacks who entered the league between 1970 and 2006 have started for teams that won the Super Bowl, and of those 20, 11 were drafted in the first round. Of all quarterbacks drafted in the first round, 14 percent have started on the team that won the Super Bowl.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 01:37 PM
It's a high risk decision that CP and Pioli (somewhat understandable in his first year) didn't have the balls to make-

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/152574-drafting-a-quarterback-in-the-first-round-is-it-worth-the-risk

Twenty quarterbacks who entered the league between 1970 and 2006 have started for teams that won the Super Bowl, and of those 20, 11 were drafted in the first round. Of all quarterbacks drafted in the first round, 14 percent have started on the team that won the Super Bowl.

I should've quantified my post; I was mainly going off the last 10 year window of SB winning QBs etc. Moreover, the teams that drafted a QB in the first and built their OL in the mids.

Definitely high risk, I agree. But, IMO it's time for the risk.

Mecca
03-16-2010, 02:21 PM
Not surprised, Pioli values big fat bodies and there's probably a few reasons for that..

In his history with NE big fat bodies are basically 90% of his good picks, he is a big fat body himself and use to play a fat body position..

I've said for a long time I didn't think he'd have any interest in taking Berry.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 02:22 PM
Okay. Then I follow your lead and hope we get a good guard with one of our fifth round picks.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm in favor of the Chiefs spending any pick past the first round on the line this year. In fact, if they want to spend both 2nd rounders on linemen, fine by me.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 02:25 PM
or a great player at a position of ACTUAL need...Berry

Trent Williams has been considered the best right tackle for the past two years. I'd argue that right tackle has higher positional value than safety, and we have just as great a need at right tackle as we do free safety. Actually more if you consider we have Page at free safety versus Seamus O'Murphy at right tackle.

Would you be okay with drafting Trent Williams with the #5 pick based on your previous statement of "a great player at a position of ACTUAL need?"

nope..we just have to keep burning our 1st round picks on LT until sackofbats thinks one is cute enough...

I'd be more than happy to draft a quarterback with our first pick, when there is one that actually has the potential to be a NFL franchise level quarterback. Jake Locker, Ryan Mallett or potentially Blaine Gabbert would be more than acceptable as our first round selection in next years draft.

Mecca
03-16-2010, 02:27 PM
If the Chiefs take Trent Williams with a top 5 pick my head will fucking explode, you could trade down to like 13 and pick him, the first teams with interest in him will be SF/Seattle.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 02:32 PM
I'd argue that right tackle has higher positional value than safety

ROFL

Who has more value?

Ed Reed or Jon Stinchcomb?

PS - I can't pick another right tackle because NO OTHER RIGHT TACKLE MADE THE 2010 PRO BOWL.

Now, can you tell me why?

Mecca
03-16-2010, 02:33 PM
People need to get over this, the heavy passing league that the NFL has become has spiked the value of playmakers in the secondary.

Safety is no longer a position to hide guys or put guys that can't cover.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 02:34 PM
If the Chiefs take Trent Williams with a top 5 pick my head will ****ing explode, you could trade down to like 13 and pick him, the first teams with interest in him will be SF/Seattle.

I was posing a hypothetical situation based on the concept of drafting talent at a position of need as it relates to positional value.

I'd be a bit miffed as well if they picked Williams with the #5 pick, and agree that he'll most likely be there with a pick in the 10-13 range barring a possible selection by the Raiders, which actually might happen as he ran a nearly identical 40 yard dash to Campbell and had better measurables in most of the other Combine drills as well as having a better/more regarded college career in a better conference than Bruce.

At this point, I have a hard time thinking that the Raiders would pass on Williams with their first round pick.

Mecca
03-16-2010, 02:35 PM
The Raiders are going to take Pierre Paul.

B_Ambuehl
03-16-2010, 02:35 PM
Both Pioli and Haley are Parcells followers. I'd ask 2 questions:

A: What's the highest Parcells has ever drafted a safety?

B: How would Polamalu or Ed Reed do in a Parcells defense?


Parcells (and Crennels) D's are very conservative. They don't take chances and create opportunities for playmakers in the secondary.

Even if this football team did draft Berry 3/4 of the people would be bitching that he doesn't make plays in Crennel's scheme.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 02:36 PM
Who was more important to New Orleans' Super Bowl run, Darren Sharper or their magnificent Pro Bowl right tackle, Jon Stinchcomb?

Mecca
03-16-2010, 02:37 PM
Cleveland used a couple of 2's on safeties with Crennel there, Pioli I believe was part of the Eric Turner pick at 2, as was Belichick.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 02:41 PM
A: What's the highest Parcells has ever drafted a safety?



First pick of Parcells' coaching career was a safety. 1st round. Terry Kinard.

Lawyer Milloy w/Pats. 2nd round.

Interestingly enough it seems Parcells liked to take a lot of linemen and linebackers early. :doh!:

Maybe we can draft the next Bobby Carpenter.

DeezNutz
03-16-2010, 02:48 PM
RT > safety in the '10 NFL.

Sigh.

B_Ambuehl
03-16-2010, 02:54 PM
See now a Greg Williams scheme would be perfect for a guy like Berry. Those type of defenses need good safety's with range, athleticism, and great anticipation. Dick Lebeau and Rex Ryan both make good use of safety talent because of their zone pressures. What a lot of people don't realize is the parcells/pees/patriots 3-4 is one of the more conservative D's. Parcells was playing traditional cover 2 (just a little bit different than tampa 2) with the Giants back in the 80's. Pioli is most likely like McDouche in his thinking, who thought Mike Nolan blitzed too much and brought in a more conservative coach. These type of football coaches want to beat you with physicality up front, size and power at every position on the front 7, tackle the ball, and make you earn your way down the field trusting you'll eventually make a mistake. A Greg Williams, Rex Ryan, W. Phillips type of scheme wants to force you into mistakes knowing you're apt to get some big plays on them every now and then. A guy like Berry can be a good player in any scheme, but he's best suited to an agressive style.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 02:54 PM
ROFL

Who has more value?

Ed Reed or Jon Stinchcomb?

PS - I can't pick another right tackle because NO OTHER RIGHT TACKLE MADE THE 2010 PRO BOWL.

Now, can you tell me why?

Well, considering that Stinchcomb just won a Super Bowl, and Ed Reed hasn't even been to one, and the Ravens have only won two playoff games since he's been drafted, I'd say Stinchcomb.

Also, tell me how the Chiefs offensive line performed with John Welbourn at right tackle versus John Tait.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 02:55 PM
And guess where the Saints drafted Stinchcomb....THE SECOND ROUND.

AustinChief
03-16-2010, 02:58 PM
I don't relish the idea of passing on Berry... BUT with as many holes as we have.. if we got Miami's 2nd and 6th out of the deal... I would be hard pressed to not take it. Still LOADS of "playmakers" at #12 and the 2nd round this year is where the true value lies.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 02:59 PM
Well, considering that Stinchcomb just won a Super Bowl, and Ed Reed hasn't even been to one, and the Ravens have only won two playoff games since he's been drafted, I'd say Stinchcomb.
What the fuck? What kind of fucking reasoning is this? Are you also going to tell me linebacker has more positional value because Scott Fujita just won a Super Bowl? Christ almighty. Also, tell me how the Chiefs offensive line performed with John Welbourn at right tackle versus John Tait. They both played on top-ranked offenses. That's because neither offense was crucially dependent on the performance of the right fucking tackle.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 02:59 PM
The Raiders are going to take Pierre Paul.

Some dipshit will I'm sure. I can't imagine who though, and it's hard to see the Raiders taking him that high when they have a huge need at left tackle and two tackles available in this draft ran a 4.8 40.

Although, if Michael Johnson fell to the third round in last years draft, I don't see why JPP is a guaranteed first round lock.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 03:01 PM
What the fuck? What kind of fucking reasoning is this? Are you also going to tell me linebacker has more positional value because Scott Fujita just won a Super Bowl? Christ almighty. They both played on top-ranked offenses. That's because neither offense was crucially dependent on the performance of the right fucking tackle.

:clap:

if ever there were a time for the Tom Cruise laughter gif....



...

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 03:04 PM
Who was more important to New Orleans' Super Bowl run, Darren Sharper or their magnificent Pro Bowl right tackle, Jon Stinchcomb?

Stinchcomb.

Porter and Harper both outplayed Sharper in the playoffs.

Dayze
03-16-2010, 03:05 PM
Stinchcomb.

Porter and Harper both outplayed Sharper in the playoffs.

didn't Sharper have a critical interception or two?

(i'm not poking at you...seriuosly I can't remember).

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 03:30 PM
Stinchcomb.

Porter and Harper both outplayed Sharper in the playoffs. You are fucking nuts. Sharper had nine interceptions during the regular season and three fucking touchdowns! He had more passes defensed than ANY OTHER SAFETY IN THE LEAGUE and MOST of the cornerbacks. How the fuck is a right tackle going to compete with that?

Fish
03-16-2010, 03:37 PM
Stinchcomb.

Porter and Harper both outplayed Sharper in the playoffs.

ROFL

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 03:38 PM
I bet if I searched for posts by Saccopoo about Eugene Monroe I could end up punching my monitor. And by the way, he was fucking terrible last year.

Ari Chi3fs
03-16-2010, 03:45 PM
This is me teetering on the edge of not giving a fuck about the Chiefs....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TRcQCuP2b5A/S0q3mpy2OvI/AAAAAAAAJGw/OcHF4L2zuwM/s400/teetering+456.jpg

Ralphy Boy
03-16-2010, 03:47 PM
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. King is making a generalization based on his own assumptions, he has no real knowledge of how Pioli will draft.

He spent the #10 pick on a ILB in Mayo.
Fact is Pioli's "history" is that he has spent a higher draft pick on a safety (Merriweather #24) than he has on a o-linemen (Mankins #32).

That is unless you count his limited involvement with the Jonathan Ogden (4) pick in 1996 or the Steve Everitt (14) in 1993.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:02 PM
What the ****? What kind of ****ing reasoning is this? Are you also going to tell me linebacker has more positional value because Scott Fujita just won a Super Bowl? Christ almighty. They both played on top-ranked offenses. That's because neither offense was crucially dependent on the performance of the right ****ing tackle.

In a 3-4, yes, a linebacker has greater positional value than a free safety.

Especially the 3-4 that Crennel is going to run where the three down linemen are completely responsible for the gaps on the offensive line and the linebackers are required to be the "playmakers" of the defense.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 04:05 PM
I'd argue that right tackle has higher positional value than safety,

Perhaps the magnum opus of your Western canon of dumbassery.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:06 PM
You are ****ing nuts. Sharper had nine interceptions during the regular season and three ****ing touchdowns! He had more passes defensed than ANY OTHER SAFETY IN THE LEAGUE and MOST of the cornerbacks. How the **** is a right tackle going to compete with that?

You said the playoffs.

Sharper didn't have an interception in the playoffs and for the most part both Tracy Porter (who did have a very good playoff run and a TD for interception in the playoffs) and Roman Harper had more impact during the playoff stretch.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 04:07 PM
Perhaps the magnum opus of your Western canon of dumbassery.

LMAO

He's going to have to Google that, and get back to you.

DaneMcCloud
03-16-2010, 04:07 PM
See now a Greg Williams scheme would be perfect for a guy like Berry.

It's too bad that Greg Williams will never coach in KC

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:08 PM
I bet if I searched for posts by Saccopoo about Eugene Monroe I could end up punching my monitor. And by the way, he was ****ing terrible last year.

I liked Alex Mack and Michael Oher more than Monroe in last years draft.

raybec 4
03-16-2010, 04:09 PM
You said the playoffs.

Sharper didn't have an interception in the playoffs and for the most part both Tracy Porter (who did have a very good playoff run and a TD for interception in the playoffs) and Roman Harper had more impact during the playoff stretch.
FTR he said Superbowl run, not playoffs. Superbowl runs start way before the playoffs.

DaneMcCloud
03-16-2010, 04:09 PM
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. King is making a generalization based on his own assumptions, he has no real knowledge of how Pioli will draft.

He spent the #10 pick on a ILB in Mayo.
Fact is Pioli's "history" is that he has spent a higher draft pick on a safety (Merriweather #24) than he has on a o-linemen (Mankins #32).

That is unless you count his limited involvement with the Jonathan Ogden (4) pick in 1996 or the Steve Everitt (14) in 1993.

The issue here is that you are personally having a hard time believing that Pioli would pass on Berry. I've told you the same thing, yet you've tried to make a Federal Case as to why Pioli would take him.

Now Peter King comes along and agrees with my take from last week.

Pioli will pass on Berry.

Bwana
03-16-2010, 04:10 PM
I saw that posted on his twitter last night. I didn't want to post it here though because I don't want to be the bearer of the ultimate bad news for Chiefs Planet.

That's hardly the "ultimate bad news for Chiefs Planet." The "ultimate bad news for Chiefs Planet" would be word that you have reproduced.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 04:12 PM
Stinchcomb.

Porter and Harper both outplayed Sharper in the playoffs.

You really should have your rep nuked.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:12 PM
LMAO

He's going to have to Google that, and get back to you.

I doubt it.

Actually, that's why I like Hamas. He's one of the few people around here that employ a little bit of intelligence relating to associative social obscura and biting sarcasm in his responses.

He makes me laugh.

the Talking Can
03-16-2010, 04:12 PM
Well, considering that Stinchcomb just won a Super Bowl, and Ed Reed hasn't even been to one, and the Ravens have only won two playoff games since he's been drafted, I'd say Stinchcomb.


posts like this are make you dishonest as opposed to merely stupid

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:17 PM
Perhaps the magnum opus of your Western canon of dumbassery.

I wonder how society will view my Chief's Planet contributions from a historical perspective.

As you alluded to a magnum opus of western literary contributions, I kind of envision myself as the CP version of Herman Melville. Taken as a compendium, my contributions could be the sport board intrawebs Moby Dick. Never appreciated in their time, but in 30 years realized by history as the single greatest contribution to American sports literature.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 04:21 PM
I wonder how society will view my Chief's Planet contributions from a historical perspective.

As you alluded to a magnum opus of western literary contributions, I kind of envision myself as the CP version of Herman Melville. Taken as a compendium, my contributions could be the sport board intrawebs Moby Dick. Never appreciated in their time, but in 30 years realized by history as the single greatest contribution to American sports literature.

LMAO

Moby Dick?

More like this:

http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2007/10/Highlights-For-Unions.jpg

Fish
03-16-2010, 04:25 PM
I wonder how society will view my Chief's Planet contributions from a historical perspective.

As you alluded to a magnum opus of western literary contributions, I kind of envision myself as the CP version of Herman Melville. Taken as a compendium, my contributions could be the sport board intrawebs Moby Dick. Never appreciated in their time, but in 30 years realized by history as the single greatest contribution to American sports literature.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8348/43628321966.jpg

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 04:25 PM
You said the playoffs.

Sharper didn't have an interception in the playoffs and for the most part both Tracy Porter (who did have a very good playoff run and a TD for interception in the playoffs) and Roman Harper had more impact during the playoff stretch. I said "Super Bowl run." The regular season is a part of it. I'd go on debating with you but Darren Sharper is going to the Hall of Fucking Fame. Stinchcomb is going to go on the motivational speaking circuit.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:29 PM
You are ****ing nuts. Sharper had nine interceptions during the regular season and three ****ing touchdowns! He had more passes defensed than ANY OTHER SAFETY IN THE LEAGUE and MOST of the cornerbacks. How the **** is a right tackle going to compete with that?

Wow. An interception every two games resulting in a combined 18 points. And that's damn near the benchmark in terms of what a safety is going to be able to contribute to a team.

And considering that Sharper's role in the Saints 4-3 defense was just that - a free form ball hawk, his primary responsibility was to get interceptions. He didn't do anything above and beyond what other 4-3 free safeties were asked to do. Guys like Jarius Bryd, Nick Collins, Tanard Jackson all had similarly productive seasons.

If the Saints were so overly impressed with Sharpers mad safety skills that made him such a priceless commodity, why were they more than happy to let him test the free agent waters for a minimum amount of money?

Yeah, at this point, I'm pretty sure that the Saints place a higher priority on Stinchcomb than Sharper.

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:31 PM
FTR he said Superbowl run, not playoffs. Superbowl runs start way before the playoffs.

Oh, you are correct. I made the assumption that by saying "Superbowl Run" he meant the playoffs. I mean, the Chiefs started the season on a Superbowl Run by your definition, no?

Short Leash Hootie
03-16-2010, 04:33 PM
Jared Allen, who they fell backasswards into - they drafted him to be a long snapper.

Derrick Thomas.

20 years of fail.

ROFL

I love that statement right there.

I'm really sure that the Chiefs were SOOOOO incompetent they drafted Allen PURELY to be a long snapper in the 4th round of the NFL draft ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Hey...if you want to say they got lucky and drafted him...I'd agree 100%...

But the long snapper bullshit is hysterical.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 04:33 PM
I wonder how society will view my Chief's Planet contributions from a historical perspective.

As you alluded to a magnum opus of western literary contributions, I kind of envision myself as the CP version of Herman Melville. Taken as a compendium, my contributions could be the sport board intrawebs Moby Dick. Never appreciated in their time, but in 30 years realized by history as the single greatest contribution to American sports literature.

I was thinking more like Twilight. Celebrated by the stupid masses, completely vapid, detested by those who actually appreciate literature.

BossChief
03-16-2010, 04:33 PM
I kind of envision myself as the CP version of Herman Edwards

FYP

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:35 PM
posts like this are make you dishonest as opposed to merely stupid

I don't think you understand what you are saying when you use the word "dishonest." How is a persons opinion dishonest? He asked me who I thought was more important to their team - Stinchcomb or Reed. I said Stinchcomb. How is that dishonest?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 04:35 PM
ROFL

I love that statement right there.

I'm really sure that the Chiefs were SOOOOO incompetent they drafted Allen PURELY to be a long snapper in the 4th round of the NFL draft ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Hey...if you want to say they got lucky and drafted him...I'd agree 100%...

But the long snapper bullshit is hysterical.

That's exactly what Vermeil said, dumb fuck. Exactly.

"He was drafted to be a deep snapper,'' Cunningham said. "There are a lot of people taking credit for drafting Jared Allen.''

"Our head coach was Dick Vermeil, and he asked me to take a look at him (on film before the draft),'' Cunningham said. "Dick asked me if he could play, and I said, 'No doubt.' Dick said, 'Good, because I'm going to draft him as the deep snapper. I don't want to use that roster spot on game day and I'm going to get rid of the deep snapper and get Jared Allen.' "

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/11/lions_coordinators_have_histor.html

L.A. Chieffan
03-16-2010, 04:36 PM
If we're going to take a OT, the only one I'd be happy with would be Campbell

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 04:37 PM
That's exactly what Vermeil said, dumb fuck. Exactly.

"He was drafted to be a deep snapper,'' Cunningham said. "There are a lot of people taking credit for drafting Jared Allen.''

"Our head coach was Dick Vermeil, and he asked me to take a look at him (on film before the draft),'' Cunningham said. "Dick asked me if he could play, and I said, 'No doubt.' Dick said, 'Good, because I'm going to draft him as the deep snapper. I don't want to use that roster spot on game day and I'm going to get rid of the deep snapper and get Jared Allen.' "

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/11/lions_coordinators_have_histor.html

And boom goes the dynamite.

BossChief
03-16-2010, 04:46 PM
I cant find it, but I can remember reading how Dick wanted to draft Jared so bad that he got up on the table during the draft and basically demanded CP to draft him.

The other player I can remember Dick wanting bad was Tyler Brayton (who was his preference when CP drafted LJ the previous year)

Gun is full of shit I think. Kendall Gammon was kept here till 2006, so that stuff that Dick was gonna let go of the long snapper and draft Jared is BS.

Jared Allen had more sacks in college than any other player iirc, who cares what school?

The idea that Jared was drafted to strictly long snap is ridiculous.

Gun obviously has ill will for Dick Vermiel because he replaced him as HC back in the day and those statements he made were over 5 years after the fact.

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 04:47 PM
I cant find it, but I can remember reading how Dick wanted to draft Jared so bad that he got up on the table during the draft and basically demanded CP to draft him.

The other player I can remember Dick wanting bad was Tyler Brayton (who was his preference when CP drafted LJ the previous year)

Gun is full of shit I think. Kendall Gammon was kept here till 2006, so that stuff that Dick was gonna let go of the long snapper and draft Jared is BS.

Jared Allen had more sacks in college than any other player iirc, who cares what school?

The idea that Jared was drafted to strictly long snap is ridiculous.

Gun obviously has ill will for Dick Vermiel because he replaced him as HC back in the day and those statements he made were over 5 years after the fact.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e57/Thereaper16/2vjso51jpg.gif

Saccopoo
03-16-2010, 04:47 PM
I was thinking more like Twilight. Celebrated by the stupid masses, completely vapid, detested by those who actually appreciate literature.

I think you're wrong Hamas. As you can clearly see, the unwashed, proletariat masses here on the Chiefs Planet don't like me one bit.

Even the literary critics of my day, such as yourself, don't really appreciate and understand the depth and importance of my contributions.

I simply toil away, railed at, castigated and criticized by the vocal minority, while my insightful genius goes under appreciated.

Maybe William Burroughs...I'm just not sure.

Douche Baggins
03-16-2010, 04:49 PM
If the Saints were so overly impressed with Sharpers mad safety skills that made him such a priceless commodity, why were they more than happy to let him test the free agent waters for a minimum amount of money?

Because he's old, you dipshit. Did you ever hear of the concept of a gun for hire? The Saints just won the fucking Super Bowl. The last thing they are is desperate for a 37-year old. Especially because now he wants too much fucking money and he can't pass a physical (knee surgery) so NO SHIT HE HASN'T BEEN RE-SIGNED.

Here's the fucking point for you. The Chiefs have SHIT at safety (yes, including Page) and the league assraped them with the deep ball last year. Oh yeah, and our safeties are balls in run support. What do you think is more important? Fixing that shit or finding some fat fuck with relatively marginal athletic talent who can drive block and handle slow-ass left ends?

Here's your answer:

http://s3.tinypic.com/el2r6o_th.jpg

BossChief
03-16-2010, 04:53 PM
.

what part is wrong and Ill dig more. It may take me awhile to find it, but Im sure its out there. I just didnt want to try that hard.

If he was gonna take him to be a long snapper (when we had a probowl quality one) why did we keep Kendall around till after the 06 season?

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 04:55 PM
what part is wrong and Ill dig more. It may take me awhile to find it, but Im sure its out there. I just didnt want to try that hard.

If he was gonna take him to be a long snapper (when we had a probowl quality one) why did we keep Kendall around till after the 06 season?

I'm sure the 20 sacks Allen racked up in his first two seasons had NOTHING to do with why Jared wasn't long-snapping, and why Gammon stuck around.

Hell, why doesn't Minnesota let him long-snap? They could save a roster spot.

JASONSAUTO
03-16-2010, 05:01 PM
That's exactly what Vermeil said, dumb fuck. Exactly.

"He was drafted to be a deep snapper,'' Cunningham said. "There are a lot of people taking credit for drafting Jared Allen.''

"Our head coach was Dick Vermeil, and he asked me to take a look at him (on film before the draft),'' Cunningham said. "Dick asked me if he could play, and I said, 'No doubt.' Dick said, 'Good, because I'm going to draft him as the deep snapper. I don't want to use that roster spot on game day and I'm going to get rid of the deep snapper and get Jared Allen.' "

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/11/lions_coordinators_have_histor.html

I'm sure the 20 sacks Allen racked up in his first two seasons had NOTHING to do with why Jared wasn't long-snapping, and why Gammon stuck around.

Hell, why doesn't Minnesota let him long-snap? They could save a roster spot.


something doesnt add up here. hamas' quote says they were going to get rid of the snapper, you say that the 20 sacks in 2 years made them not do it. well IMO if they were going to get rid of gammon why didnt they just do it right off the bat?

BossChief
03-16-2010, 05:01 PM
I'm sure the 20 sacks Allen racked up in his first two seasons had NOTHING to do with why Jared wasn't long-snapping, and why Gammon stuck around.

Hell, why doesn't Minnesota let him long-snap? They could save a roster spot.

Yeah, and Im sure that him being the NCAA all time sack leader had no impact on him being drafted in the fourth round either.

child, please

OnTheWarpath58
03-16-2010, 05:05 PM
Yeah, and Im sure that him being the NCAA all time sack leader had no impact on him being drafted in the fourth round either.

child, please

No, that would be the fact that he played for Idaho fucking State and had numerous alcohol related incidents in college.

But please, continue to call Gunther a liar while having no evidence whatsoever to prove his claims false.

JASONSAUTO
03-16-2010, 05:13 PM
No, that would be the fact that he played for Idaho fucking State and had numerous alcohol related incidents in college.

But please, continue to call Gunther a liar while having no evidence whatsoever to prove his claims false.

i know that you cant see this but others can so....

this post makes NO sense. he said that being the ncaa leading sacker was the reason that he went in the fourth round. not because he would be a long snapper. then YOU say that he fell because he played for idaho state and had alcohol incidents.


SOOOOOOO do you or ANYONE else think that the chiefs or any other team would spend a fourth or earlier on an long snapper?

BossChief
03-16-2010, 05:15 PM
No, that would be the fact that he played for Idaho fucking State and had numerous alcohol related incidents in college.

But please, continue to call Gunther a liar while having no evidence whatsoever to prove his claims false.

well, Gun claimed that Dick was gonna take him and release Gammon...never happened so that would be strike one

"Dick asked Gun if Allen could play" so by this you think he had Gun watching special teams film or defensive film? Being he is a defensive coach, I would think he wouldn't be asking him to evaluate how well he could long snap. Strike two

care to strike out?

The thought that we took Jared Allen to mainly be the longsnapper is fucking ridiculous.

Did he have additional value -in addition to being a good pass rush prospect- in being able to long snap? SURE was that the main reason he was drafted in the fourth round? No, that would be beyond CP foolishness)

LaChapelle
03-16-2010, 05:37 PM
How much did Whitlock pay King to run that
are they done exchanging links and laughs

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2010, 06:14 PM
something doesnt add up here. hamas' quote says they were going to get rid of the snapper, you say that the 20 sacks in 2 years made them not do it. well IMO if they were going to get rid of gammon why didnt they just do it right off the bat?

Because they saw him whip ass in rookie camp, and training camp and Gunther and Karmelowicz said they were going to break his finger so he couldn't long snap--he was too valuable.

Classic case of ass over teakettle drafting.

Short Leash Hootie
03-16-2010, 06:25 PM
That's exactly what Vermeil said, dumb ****. Exactly.

"He was drafted to be a deep snapper,'' Cunningham said. "There are a lot of people taking credit for drafting Jared Allen.''

"Our head coach was Dick Vermeil, and he asked me to take a look at him (on film before the draft),'' Cunningham said. "Dick asked me if he could play, and I said, 'No doubt.' Dick said, 'Good, because I'm going to draft him as the deep snapper. I don't want to use that roster spot on game day and I'm going to get rid of the deep snapper and get Jared Allen.' "

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/11/lions_coordinators_have_histor.html

LMAO

I'm sure they used a 4th round pick on a deep snapper...

I think the context of that quote is...

"He can play? Well maybe...but either way at the very least we won't have to waste a roster spot on a deep snapper if he's a bust..."

And that's precisely what they did...

Wasn't Gammon on the roster that year?

Short Leash Hootie
03-16-2010, 06:26 PM
nobody wastes a 4th on a long snapper...

Idiots.

DaneMcCloud
03-16-2010, 06:28 PM
nobody wastes a 4th on a long snapper...

Idiots.

You really don't deal well with facts and reality, do you?