KCDC
04-17-2010, 03:26 PM
One more thread on this pick? I know. But many of you are as starved as me to analysze an important pick in the final days leading up to the pick. I've been reading most every thread here about the draft, as well as content elsewhere, and my view has come to evolve.
I must confess I have no secret sources inside Arrowhead, unless you count being on BRC's email list. I have not met any coaches while out shopping with the wife, so I missed the chance to probe their favorites, or even gain a wink, let alone a photo op.
Positional Analysis
We've all heard it before. A top five pick needs to be one of the following positions to justify the pick: QB, LT, DT, or rushbacker. So, I've thought about each position.
QB
Hamas and others are correct, IMO, that a Super Bowl team needs a "franchise QB." The Ravens and Bucs were flukes in recent years. The Redskins won with mediocre QBs in the 80s. It *is* possible to win it all without a high caliber QB, but not probable.
Of course, having one (e.g. Dan Marino) is no assurance of a Super Bowl victory either. Still, no one should deny their importance.
As many on the Planet have realized, under normal circumstances, it would be almost impossible that Pioli selects one of the two top QBs this year. He comes from an organization that did not like burning early round choices for one, it would be an admission of his failure in trading for Cassel (JW's ego point brought forward), Cassel deserves another year to prove himself (after Pioli being witness to a good year Cassel had in 2008), etc.
Two things could raise the odds of drafting a QB at #5 from zero to a slim chance. First, either Bradford or Clausen were can't miss QBOTFs, or Charlie Weis changes the mind of Pioli and Haley.
Distilling dozens of threads, articles and mocks into a simple sentence ... neither Bradford nor Clausen are sure bets. Next year, Jake Locker might be one. I don't want to start a debate here on this point, but there have been fair questions raised about both, even though both promise to project better than Cassel. Either involves a moderate risk. Pioli confesses he is not a risk taker by nature -- especially with big contracts. So, I think the odds of drafting a QB at #5 go from zero to maybe less than 5% on the basis of the talent available.
The other wild card is Charlie Weis. If there is one man in the world that knows the risk profile of Jimmy Clausen, it is him. Thus, if Weis (a man respected by both Pioli and Haley) assures that Clausen is as close to can't miss, that removes the risk element that would prevent Pioli from pulling the trigger.
The question is how badly does Weis want Clausen. In front of the cameras and with the press, he has to say wonderful things about him. A coach owes that to his QB. What does he say privately? One bit of faint praise from Weis behind closed doors and the chance of choosing a QB at #5 returns to less than 5% again. Conversely, if he is frothing at the mouth over him, suddenly Clausen becomes a real possibility.
If the Chiefs were going to draft Clausen, would Pioli not be shopping Cassel or Croyle privately? One of them would need to go, at least. We've heard nothing (in a world where information leaks badly). Maybe Pioli is smart to not tip his hand. Those of us who prefer to play psychological games to show intent could fashion an argument as follows: Pioli is a well-trained tactician. If he wanted Clausen, he would profess no interest, shop no current QBs, field no questions about a QB at #5, and encourage mockers to focus on the OL. This he has done.
If he did not want Clausen, he would want to signal Cleveland, Buffalo, SF, and other potential trade partners that he was being considered. He would shop Croyle to Buffalo for a 5th rounder, he would privately express surprise to major mockers that they did not include the possibility of a QB at #5, etc. It would be designed to create rumors that would raise the value of the number 5 pick to these same trade partners (and, vicariously, raise the value of Washington's #4 pick for those wanting to get in front of the Chiefs).
So, where do I stand on QB? If Bradford falls to us (5% chance), Pioli has better leverage to trade down and will do so. If Clausen falls to us (90% chance), it will all be on the shoulders of Weis. Pioli will not want to draft him, and CW will have to bear a heavy burden of persuasion. Given the silence about QB to the Chiefs so far, I think this is a possibility -- a glimmer -- but a possibility.
I'd be happy if the Chiefs selected Clausen at #5, because it will have meant that, even with heavy natural reluctance, Pioli was convinced that Clausen represented little risk.
Offensive Lineman
I started this off-season where Saccapoo and most major mockers were. Our OL sucked. The best chance to get a great LT is at the top of the draft. An LT is always justified with a top five pick. It is a safe pick. Pioli plays it safe.
Over time, I am now becoming convinced that the liklihood of selecting a LT is falling from probable to something like 25%. Here's why.
I have been persuaded by the leaders on this board that Albert did not do poorly, what we really need is a RT, and Albert does not translate well there. He is not the prototypical road grader. So, that means, if you select Bulaga, you have to move Albert to LG. We have Waters at LG. He had an off year, but has a couple of more seasons in him. It still does not address the need for a RT. So, stop and think about it. Pioli is not a fool (even though he did draft T-Jax at #3 last year). From a business sense, it doesn't make sense to use that pick except to address an area of obvious need. Our area of obvious need is RT. If Albert was a prototypical RT, then this would make business sense (other than paying Albert too much to be a RT). But, if Albert will not be a great RT, then what have you accomplished other than selecting a replacement for Brian Waters, essentially, with a #5 pick? That just makes no sense.
If, Pioli, were inclined to take an OL at #5, the only pick that has a certain logic to it would be Trent Williams. believe it or not. TW, like Oher, is supposedly capable of being a great LT or (even more importantly) RT. The theory would be that you select TW as a positional pick, casting him as a LT to compete with Albert in camp. If Albert plays well, TW is moved to the right side (thereby losing the positional advantage and overpaying a RT), but you have depth at the most important position, since TW could switch to LT.
Unfortuanately, one cannot switch easily between LT and RT. They require different skills and knowledge. It is a tough transition; but, could be done if Albert had a serious injury.
So, my conclusion is that it would be bad to take a LT at #5 unless you thought Albert was a failure at LT, or he was versatile enough to switch to RT and solve our problem there.
Defensive Tackle
Can we really afford another top 5 pick here? I think it was Gruden who explained why DTs are risky. Nevertheless, it has become accepted that DTs offer positional advantage sufficient to take them in the top 5. Suh and McCoy seem to be great atheletes. They seem to be safe picks in the top five. So, that has to suggest that Pioli would consider them.
However, there is a slim chance of one of them falling to us. It depends whether Detroit takes a LT and no one trades with the Redskins to move up to take the remaining one in front of us. Bottom line, they are not likely to be available to us; and, even if they were, neither is really the NT that we desperately need. So, you would be taking talent over position, which is not consistent with the Pioli philosophy that we have seen so far.
The only one to consider, really, is Dan Williams. He is a true NT. He is projected to be a mid-round pick. I know the common sentence uttered about Pioli is "if he reached to take T-Jax at #3, then why not do it again and reach down to take a mid-round talent to fill a positional need?" No one can say that is impossible to expect. I think if there were no questions about DW and he was the prototype stud NT, I would say there is a real chance that he would be the pick. Yet, the reviews I have read have been quite complimentary; but, stopping short of naming him a no-risk prototype NT. Still, I think there is a small chance Pioli takes him at #5 (maybe 10%)
Rushbacker
You can take one in the top five if he is a truly outstanding candidate to rush the passer. In a 3-4, we are obviously looking for a rushing OLB. None of the names I have seen are spoken of as the next Derrick Thomas. There is Graham, Kindle and Hughes. Maybe you add DEs Morgan and Pierre-Paul and convert them to OLB. All are projected in the 10-25 range. Would Pioli reach that far? See my argument about Pioli reaching above.
I think, if there was one that was clearly head and shoulders above the rest, there would be a fair chance that he could be our pick. But, since one or more of these names is likely to fall to our 2a pick, it lessens the liklihood that we go OLB at #5.
Value Analysis
This is the approach of taking a "playmaker" regardless of position. You take the best talent (whether it be Safety, WR, RT, or ILB) if the person is truly gifted. This is true even though you might wait until later in the first round to take a good player at this position.
The prototype for this is Eric Berry. He has been discussed ad nauseum on CP. No argument that he is truly gifted. The only counter argument is positional. How can you justify taking a safety that high? Answer: if he is truly that gifted. I find it interesting that mockers and pundits say that it would be a reach for the Chiefs to take him at #5, but they have no problem mocking him to Seattle at #6 or Cleveland at #7. I've not seen many mocks that have him fall out of the top 10 under any scenario envisioned. I think that says something powerful. If he is one of the top 3 talents in the draft, there is broad consensus that he is a top 7 pick (regardless of position) and it is an area of great need for the team, then why is it outlandish to have the Chiefs take him at #5? When you consider the fact that Touchdown Brown was not resigned, and Pioli has egg on his face from releasing Pollard, I think you have signals that they are actively seeking to select him. Couple that with his interview yesterday about positional value and safe picks, I think you have tangible evidence that he is not adverse to selecting Berry. The quote to Dimitroff is not determinative. I would put the odds of selecting Berry at about 50%
The other name you see bandied about is McClain. Though Mayock has him at #19, our own Mecca has mocked McClain to us at #5. Given Mecca's wealth of knowledge, it made me pause. ILB is obviously a position of need for us. But, I take the fact that he passed on Aaron Curry last year (when he was rated the #1 defensive talent on the board) as an indication that Pioli won't overrule his postion vs. talent balance. Curry did not set the world on fire last season, but several ILB taken late in the round did. That should be evidence enough to the front office to wait on an ILB.
Trade Scenarios
Here comes the fun. I know I have lost lots of potential readers because this post is already way too long; but, indulge me here. Like Ralphy Boy, many of us like imagining trades to get more picks. Getting an extra second round pick could be a coup. So, what are the most likely scenarios, in my mind?
Cleveland
They want either Berry or Clausen, same as us. Moving up two slots would not cost the Browns much, in theory. According to the value chart, it is 200 points (their 3rd rounder or 4th and something). I think they offer their 4th and a 5th, expecting that, even without the trade and if they lose Berry, Clausen will be there (expecting Carroll to go LT after the Whitehurst trade). They are probably right.
Do we take it? If we want Berry, no. If we want Clausen and they promise they are only taking Berry with the pick, yes. If we are planning to take Dan Williams, McClain, or a rushbacker, absolutely yes. If we are planning to take Trent Williams, we think about it a bit more (see my analysis about him above) because Seattle could take him. If it was me, I'd take it because other good RT/LT prospects will be available.
Buffalo
They want Clausen or an OT. Maybe they want Berry. If they want an OT, they will not offer much of a trade since the position is deep. On the other hand, Seattle and Oakland are likely to take LTs before them. Thus, they are left taking the 4th or 5th best LT in a draft at #9. Not a good scenario. If they want Clausen, they have to accept that we won't take him, nor Cleveland. That is risky.
Trade value of moving up to #5 from #9 is 350 points. They won't give up their second (490) (unless they are desperate, which I can't imagine they are). So, we get an offer of their 3rd (225) and maybe next year's third. Do we take it?
If we really want either Berry and Clausen badly, we decline the trade. An extra couple of picks later on don't compensate for the loss of a unique player.
If we want to take Dan Williams, McClain, Graham or a RT, then yes. We get nice extra picks and still get our man.
San Francisco
They want Clausen perhaps. They have two picks in the first round, so they can take a chance moving up from #13 to #5 for 550 trade points. They would, presumably offer their second rounder #45 (450) as an enticement. A extra top 50 pick in this talented draft is something to be considered heavily. Do we take it?
At #13, most anyone we want could well be gone (except a good RT, a rushbacker, WR or a great center) McClain could be gone, or maybe Dan Williams. So, it is more of a risk. I think the answer depends on your philosophy. If you are absolutely sold on Clausen or Berry as must haves, you don't do it. Otherwise, you do. If DW or RM are gone, take a Earl Thomas or a top rushbacker at #13 and get your NT at 2a hopefully and use the extra #45 pick to get that RT, LB, or WR that should help fill one of the several gaping holes in the team. So, we could fill 3 needs in the second round, instead of two. That is pretty powerful.
Philadelphia
They have to want Berry awfully badly to want to move up from #24 to #5. But then, they do not have many holes to fill and one more playmaker on defense could be the only thing standing between them and the Super Bowl (if Kolb delivers).
On the trade value chart, the difference is 960 points. I don't think the Eagles offer that much. The table is skewed in that way for a top 5 pick compared to a later round pick. I think that they offer something like the Redskins second round pick (#37 worth 530) and maybe their second rounder next year (treated as a third rounder).
This would change the dynamic of the draft significantly for the Chiefs. The guys available at #24 are a completely different list, and each player has question marks. It means that you are hoping for Earl Thomas to fall. You do the same with Pouncey and Iupati (that we would transform into a RT maybe). Taylor Mays might be available. So would Kindle and many other talents. It would have the unique advantage of allowing the Chiefs to have back-to-back picks at the top of the second round. With the new draft format of starting the second round on the next day, that is likely to bring in lots off trade offers overnight. Maybe we get someone's first rounder next year for one of ours.
If we were 2-3 players away from the playoffs, I would pass on this deal. If we are 4+ away (which I think we are), I take it. Though I sigh at the loss of the good talent of Berry or Clausen, I get two more high picks (albeit one in 2011). With those two extra picks, we get our QBOTF in 2011 and fill in the remaining holes. Some view this strategy as a return to the 8-8 win-loss philosophy, but I don't agree. One playmeker is not enough to get us to the SB. We are too weak. Fill the holes in 2010 and let them get experience this year. Then add the one or two playmekers when the team is already sound to help propel you to the playoffs and beyond. That's my opinion anyway. Thanks for reading.
I must confess I have no secret sources inside Arrowhead, unless you count being on BRC's email list. I have not met any coaches while out shopping with the wife, so I missed the chance to probe their favorites, or even gain a wink, let alone a photo op.
Positional Analysis
We've all heard it before. A top five pick needs to be one of the following positions to justify the pick: QB, LT, DT, or rushbacker. So, I've thought about each position.
QB
Hamas and others are correct, IMO, that a Super Bowl team needs a "franchise QB." The Ravens and Bucs were flukes in recent years. The Redskins won with mediocre QBs in the 80s. It *is* possible to win it all without a high caliber QB, but not probable.
Of course, having one (e.g. Dan Marino) is no assurance of a Super Bowl victory either. Still, no one should deny their importance.
As many on the Planet have realized, under normal circumstances, it would be almost impossible that Pioli selects one of the two top QBs this year. He comes from an organization that did not like burning early round choices for one, it would be an admission of his failure in trading for Cassel (JW's ego point brought forward), Cassel deserves another year to prove himself (after Pioli being witness to a good year Cassel had in 2008), etc.
Two things could raise the odds of drafting a QB at #5 from zero to a slim chance. First, either Bradford or Clausen were can't miss QBOTFs, or Charlie Weis changes the mind of Pioli and Haley.
Distilling dozens of threads, articles and mocks into a simple sentence ... neither Bradford nor Clausen are sure bets. Next year, Jake Locker might be one. I don't want to start a debate here on this point, but there have been fair questions raised about both, even though both promise to project better than Cassel. Either involves a moderate risk. Pioli confesses he is not a risk taker by nature -- especially with big contracts. So, I think the odds of drafting a QB at #5 go from zero to maybe less than 5% on the basis of the talent available.
The other wild card is Charlie Weis. If there is one man in the world that knows the risk profile of Jimmy Clausen, it is him. Thus, if Weis (a man respected by both Pioli and Haley) assures that Clausen is as close to can't miss, that removes the risk element that would prevent Pioli from pulling the trigger.
The question is how badly does Weis want Clausen. In front of the cameras and with the press, he has to say wonderful things about him. A coach owes that to his QB. What does he say privately? One bit of faint praise from Weis behind closed doors and the chance of choosing a QB at #5 returns to less than 5% again. Conversely, if he is frothing at the mouth over him, suddenly Clausen becomes a real possibility.
If the Chiefs were going to draft Clausen, would Pioli not be shopping Cassel or Croyle privately? One of them would need to go, at least. We've heard nothing (in a world where information leaks badly). Maybe Pioli is smart to not tip his hand. Those of us who prefer to play psychological games to show intent could fashion an argument as follows: Pioli is a well-trained tactician. If he wanted Clausen, he would profess no interest, shop no current QBs, field no questions about a QB at #5, and encourage mockers to focus on the OL. This he has done.
If he did not want Clausen, he would want to signal Cleveland, Buffalo, SF, and other potential trade partners that he was being considered. He would shop Croyle to Buffalo for a 5th rounder, he would privately express surprise to major mockers that they did not include the possibility of a QB at #5, etc. It would be designed to create rumors that would raise the value of the number 5 pick to these same trade partners (and, vicariously, raise the value of Washington's #4 pick for those wanting to get in front of the Chiefs).
So, where do I stand on QB? If Bradford falls to us (5% chance), Pioli has better leverage to trade down and will do so. If Clausen falls to us (90% chance), it will all be on the shoulders of Weis. Pioli will not want to draft him, and CW will have to bear a heavy burden of persuasion. Given the silence about QB to the Chiefs so far, I think this is a possibility -- a glimmer -- but a possibility.
I'd be happy if the Chiefs selected Clausen at #5, because it will have meant that, even with heavy natural reluctance, Pioli was convinced that Clausen represented little risk.
Offensive Lineman
I started this off-season where Saccapoo and most major mockers were. Our OL sucked. The best chance to get a great LT is at the top of the draft. An LT is always justified with a top five pick. It is a safe pick. Pioli plays it safe.
Over time, I am now becoming convinced that the liklihood of selecting a LT is falling from probable to something like 25%. Here's why.
I have been persuaded by the leaders on this board that Albert did not do poorly, what we really need is a RT, and Albert does not translate well there. He is not the prototypical road grader. So, that means, if you select Bulaga, you have to move Albert to LG. We have Waters at LG. He had an off year, but has a couple of more seasons in him. It still does not address the need for a RT. So, stop and think about it. Pioli is not a fool (even though he did draft T-Jax at #3 last year). From a business sense, it doesn't make sense to use that pick except to address an area of obvious need. Our area of obvious need is RT. If Albert was a prototypical RT, then this would make business sense (other than paying Albert too much to be a RT). But, if Albert will not be a great RT, then what have you accomplished other than selecting a replacement for Brian Waters, essentially, with a #5 pick? That just makes no sense.
If, Pioli, were inclined to take an OL at #5, the only pick that has a certain logic to it would be Trent Williams. believe it or not. TW, like Oher, is supposedly capable of being a great LT or (even more importantly) RT. The theory would be that you select TW as a positional pick, casting him as a LT to compete with Albert in camp. If Albert plays well, TW is moved to the right side (thereby losing the positional advantage and overpaying a RT), but you have depth at the most important position, since TW could switch to LT.
Unfortuanately, one cannot switch easily between LT and RT. They require different skills and knowledge. It is a tough transition; but, could be done if Albert had a serious injury.
So, my conclusion is that it would be bad to take a LT at #5 unless you thought Albert was a failure at LT, or he was versatile enough to switch to RT and solve our problem there.
Defensive Tackle
Can we really afford another top 5 pick here? I think it was Gruden who explained why DTs are risky. Nevertheless, it has become accepted that DTs offer positional advantage sufficient to take them in the top 5. Suh and McCoy seem to be great atheletes. They seem to be safe picks in the top five. So, that has to suggest that Pioli would consider them.
However, there is a slim chance of one of them falling to us. It depends whether Detroit takes a LT and no one trades with the Redskins to move up to take the remaining one in front of us. Bottom line, they are not likely to be available to us; and, even if they were, neither is really the NT that we desperately need. So, you would be taking talent over position, which is not consistent with the Pioli philosophy that we have seen so far.
The only one to consider, really, is Dan Williams. He is a true NT. He is projected to be a mid-round pick. I know the common sentence uttered about Pioli is "if he reached to take T-Jax at #3, then why not do it again and reach down to take a mid-round talent to fill a positional need?" No one can say that is impossible to expect. I think if there were no questions about DW and he was the prototype stud NT, I would say there is a real chance that he would be the pick. Yet, the reviews I have read have been quite complimentary; but, stopping short of naming him a no-risk prototype NT. Still, I think there is a small chance Pioli takes him at #5 (maybe 10%)
Rushbacker
You can take one in the top five if he is a truly outstanding candidate to rush the passer. In a 3-4, we are obviously looking for a rushing OLB. None of the names I have seen are spoken of as the next Derrick Thomas. There is Graham, Kindle and Hughes. Maybe you add DEs Morgan and Pierre-Paul and convert them to OLB. All are projected in the 10-25 range. Would Pioli reach that far? See my argument about Pioli reaching above.
I think, if there was one that was clearly head and shoulders above the rest, there would be a fair chance that he could be our pick. But, since one or more of these names is likely to fall to our 2a pick, it lessens the liklihood that we go OLB at #5.
Value Analysis
This is the approach of taking a "playmaker" regardless of position. You take the best talent (whether it be Safety, WR, RT, or ILB) if the person is truly gifted. This is true even though you might wait until later in the first round to take a good player at this position.
The prototype for this is Eric Berry. He has been discussed ad nauseum on CP. No argument that he is truly gifted. The only counter argument is positional. How can you justify taking a safety that high? Answer: if he is truly that gifted. I find it interesting that mockers and pundits say that it would be a reach for the Chiefs to take him at #5, but they have no problem mocking him to Seattle at #6 or Cleveland at #7. I've not seen many mocks that have him fall out of the top 10 under any scenario envisioned. I think that says something powerful. If he is one of the top 3 talents in the draft, there is broad consensus that he is a top 7 pick (regardless of position) and it is an area of great need for the team, then why is it outlandish to have the Chiefs take him at #5? When you consider the fact that Touchdown Brown was not resigned, and Pioli has egg on his face from releasing Pollard, I think you have signals that they are actively seeking to select him. Couple that with his interview yesterday about positional value and safe picks, I think you have tangible evidence that he is not adverse to selecting Berry. The quote to Dimitroff is not determinative. I would put the odds of selecting Berry at about 50%
The other name you see bandied about is McClain. Though Mayock has him at #19, our own Mecca has mocked McClain to us at #5. Given Mecca's wealth of knowledge, it made me pause. ILB is obviously a position of need for us. But, I take the fact that he passed on Aaron Curry last year (when he was rated the #1 defensive talent on the board) as an indication that Pioli won't overrule his postion vs. talent balance. Curry did not set the world on fire last season, but several ILB taken late in the round did. That should be evidence enough to the front office to wait on an ILB.
Trade Scenarios
Here comes the fun. I know I have lost lots of potential readers because this post is already way too long; but, indulge me here. Like Ralphy Boy, many of us like imagining trades to get more picks. Getting an extra second round pick could be a coup. So, what are the most likely scenarios, in my mind?
Cleveland
They want either Berry or Clausen, same as us. Moving up two slots would not cost the Browns much, in theory. According to the value chart, it is 200 points (their 3rd rounder or 4th and something). I think they offer their 4th and a 5th, expecting that, even without the trade and if they lose Berry, Clausen will be there (expecting Carroll to go LT after the Whitehurst trade). They are probably right.
Do we take it? If we want Berry, no. If we want Clausen and they promise they are only taking Berry with the pick, yes. If we are planning to take Dan Williams, McClain, or a rushbacker, absolutely yes. If we are planning to take Trent Williams, we think about it a bit more (see my analysis about him above) because Seattle could take him. If it was me, I'd take it because other good RT/LT prospects will be available.
Buffalo
They want Clausen or an OT. Maybe they want Berry. If they want an OT, they will not offer much of a trade since the position is deep. On the other hand, Seattle and Oakland are likely to take LTs before them. Thus, they are left taking the 4th or 5th best LT in a draft at #9. Not a good scenario. If they want Clausen, they have to accept that we won't take him, nor Cleveland. That is risky.
Trade value of moving up to #5 from #9 is 350 points. They won't give up their second (490) (unless they are desperate, which I can't imagine they are). So, we get an offer of their 3rd (225) and maybe next year's third. Do we take it?
If we really want either Berry and Clausen badly, we decline the trade. An extra couple of picks later on don't compensate for the loss of a unique player.
If we want to take Dan Williams, McClain, Graham or a RT, then yes. We get nice extra picks and still get our man.
San Francisco
They want Clausen perhaps. They have two picks in the first round, so they can take a chance moving up from #13 to #5 for 550 trade points. They would, presumably offer their second rounder #45 (450) as an enticement. A extra top 50 pick in this talented draft is something to be considered heavily. Do we take it?
At #13, most anyone we want could well be gone (except a good RT, a rushbacker, WR or a great center) McClain could be gone, or maybe Dan Williams. So, it is more of a risk. I think the answer depends on your philosophy. If you are absolutely sold on Clausen or Berry as must haves, you don't do it. Otherwise, you do. If DW or RM are gone, take a Earl Thomas or a top rushbacker at #13 and get your NT at 2a hopefully and use the extra #45 pick to get that RT, LB, or WR that should help fill one of the several gaping holes in the team. So, we could fill 3 needs in the second round, instead of two. That is pretty powerful.
Philadelphia
They have to want Berry awfully badly to want to move up from #24 to #5. But then, they do not have many holes to fill and one more playmaker on defense could be the only thing standing between them and the Super Bowl (if Kolb delivers).
On the trade value chart, the difference is 960 points. I don't think the Eagles offer that much. The table is skewed in that way for a top 5 pick compared to a later round pick. I think that they offer something like the Redskins second round pick (#37 worth 530) and maybe their second rounder next year (treated as a third rounder).
This would change the dynamic of the draft significantly for the Chiefs. The guys available at #24 are a completely different list, and each player has question marks. It means that you are hoping for Earl Thomas to fall. You do the same with Pouncey and Iupati (that we would transform into a RT maybe). Taylor Mays might be available. So would Kindle and many other talents. It would have the unique advantage of allowing the Chiefs to have back-to-back picks at the top of the second round. With the new draft format of starting the second round on the next day, that is likely to bring in lots off trade offers overnight. Maybe we get someone's first rounder next year for one of ours.
If we were 2-3 players away from the playoffs, I would pass on this deal. If we are 4+ away (which I think we are), I take it. Though I sigh at the loss of the good talent of Berry or Clausen, I get two more high picks (albeit one in 2011). With those two extra picks, we get our QBOTF in 2011 and fill in the remaining holes. Some view this strategy as a return to the 8-8 win-loss philosophy, but I don't agree. One playmeker is not enough to get us to the SB. We are too weak. Fill the holes in 2010 and let them get experience this year. Then add the one or two playmekers when the team is already sound to help propel you to the playoffs and beyond. That's my opinion anyway. Thanks for reading.