PDA

View Full Version : One Fan's Analysis of the Chiefs Pick at #5


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.

notorious
04-17-2010, 03:37 PM
Skimmed through it and I have to say:





Good job nOOb.

The Bad Guy
04-17-2010, 03:45 PM
If you keep passing on playmakers high in the draft just to get quantity that's how you end up as a consistent mediocre franchise like the Chiefs.

Cosmos
04-17-2010, 04:24 PM
Very nice read, well thought out.

Thanks.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 04:26 PM
If you keep passing on playmakers high in the draft just to get quantity that's how you end up as a consistent mediocre franchise like the Chiefs.

Pretty much, this isn't Madden where you can pull superstars consistently out of the 5th round.

I'm for trading down if there isn't an elite prospect, this year the Chiefs will almost assuredly have the chance to take an elite prospect.

Reaper16
04-17-2010, 04:27 PM
Well-constructed analysis. Rep.

KCDC
04-17-2010, 04:39 PM
Pretty much, this isn't Madden where you can pull superstars consistently out of the 5th round.

I'm for trading down if there isn't an elite prospect, this year the Chiefs will almost assuredly have the chance to take an elite prospect.

I agree about 5th rounders and such. Query whether we can still get elite talent at #7 or #9 and get an extra third in the process.

As for the Philly scenario, I would put to you that superstars can still be pulled at #24 and #45 (as well as the 2011 pick). Berry is a 95% chance of star, perhaps. Kindle and Cody may only be 60-70% likely stars (as will the extra 2nd rounder in 2011); but, the statistics favor the trade.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 04:41 PM
While a NT may be something you need to have, he's not going to be star. No matter how good Kelly Gregg is or how important he is, he's not Ed Reed.

I've actually come to the belief that some of these guys, like Kindle are going to go higher than are being projected. I think he realistically may go 12th.

The Bad Guy
04-17-2010, 04:58 PM
I agree about 5th rounders and such. Query whether we can still get elite talent at #7 or #9 and get an extra third in the process.

As for the Philly scenario, I would put to you that superstars can still be pulled at #24 and #45 (as well as the 2011 pick). Berry is a 95% chance of star, perhaps. Kindle and Cody may only be 60-70% likely stars (as will the extra 2nd rounder in 2011); but, the statistics favor the trade.

There are no statistics you can present me that would want me to drop from 5 to 24 and just come away with an extra 2 this year and 2 next year.

Superstars can be pulled at 24. The likelyhood of that isn't very good.

I just really don't get the fascination with trading down. Every god damn year a ton of Chiefs fans think we should stockpile picks because we aren't "one player away".

You don't get to be one-player away by constantly giving up picks in the top 10 so you can draft later and pick up that coveted 2nd rounder.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 05:00 PM
If you drop literally 20 picks you should be getting more than basically 1 pick to do it, you're basically saying "we're going to give the Eagles one of the 4 best players in the draft and not get much in return"

Dave Lane
04-17-2010, 05:05 PM
A great analysis. Very hard to argue with, there is the one problem that the bad guy brings up. If you fill a bunch of holes with quantity vs quality your team will tend to be a 8-8 team +/- 2 games a year and your draft position will be such that getting to the elite players will become increasingly difficult.

Its a very tough decision and my personal opinion is to take the elite players now. I'd prefer a QB over a safety and build to something. It might mean another 4 win season or maybe 5-6 wins but it gives you a shot at an additional elite player. Then if you have some success you can move down from the 10 -12 area to the 20's for a few filler pieces. Then, after you have filled most of your glaring holes, is when you try to do a trade up to grab a missing piece like Philly is wanting to do.

So basically I see a 4 year cycle if the Chiefs are lucky in the draft to really make a run. I'd try to base all my long term thoughts on players that will be contributors at 3-4 years.

the Talking Can
04-17-2010, 05:06 PM
hell of a post


but i'm not passing on a rare talent, and i think berry is a rare talent

Dave Lane
04-17-2010, 05:10 PM
You don't get to be one-player away by constantly giving up picks in the top 10 so you can draft later and pick up that coveted 2nd rounder.

Yet there are teams like Detroit and Cleveland that picked top ten 10 talent for years and never went anywhere. But I do understand your point.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 05:18 PM
Yet there are teams like Detroit and Cleveland that picked top ten 10 talent for years and never went anywhere. But I do understand your point.

Well if we're going to use that as an example we're fucked because they just don't know what they're doing.

Even like last year, the Browns handed the Jets a QB for nothing.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 05:18 PM
There are no statistics you can present me that would want me to drop from 5 to 24 and just come away with an extra 2 this year and 2 next year.

Superstars can be pulled at 24. The likelyhood of that isn't very good.

I just really don't get the fascination with trading down. Every god damn year a ton of Chiefs fans think we should stockpile picks because we aren't "one player away".

You don't get to be one-player away by constantly giving up picks in the top 10 so you can draft later and pick up that coveted 2nd rounder.

The Eagles have three 2nd rounders. I don't see why they wouldn't give up 2 of them to move up. And if they give that up, I don't see why you wouldn't think about it.

One thing to also consider is that with the Chiefs holding the 37th pick, if you believe at all in the trade chart, you can move as far up from 24 to #10.

I agree you don't take chances if you really want a playmaker and he's there. But it would really be one hell of a thing if you trade down, grab Clausen, AND get an extra second rounder in the process.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 05:21 PM
I don't think the Eagles will be overly willing to give up a ton of picks, they need to fill several spots on their team, they can't have a 1 player draft.

The Bad Guy
04-17-2010, 05:26 PM
The Eagles have three 2nd rounders. I don't see why they wouldn't give up 2 of them to move up. And if they give that up, I don't see why you wouldn't think about it.

One thing to also consider is that with the Chiefs holding the 37th pick, if you believe at all in the trade chart, you can move as far up from 24 to #10.

I agree you don't take chances if you really want a playmaker and he's there. But it would really be one hell of a thing if you trade down, grab Clausen, AND get an extra second rounder in the process.

So let me get this straight. You think the Eagles would give 2 #2's to trade up (I don't think there's a chance in that) and then we can use one of our 2's to go from 24 to 10 to grab Clausen (who I think goes 7 to Cleveland)?

Yeah, I'm staying at 5 in that scenario.

Hammock Parties
04-17-2010, 05:26 PM
Getting Clausen and Cleveland's 4th and 5th would kick ass.

Doubt they trade up for Berry, though.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 05:28 PM
I think a lot of people are setting themselves up for major disappointment.

KCDC
04-17-2010, 05:33 PM
Getting Clausen and Cleveland's 4th and 5th would kick ass.

Doubt they trade up for Berry, though.

But, if you really wanted Berry and they wanted Clausen, then it would also be a win to get their 4th and 5th to get the guy we wanted anyway.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 05:34 PM
Well if we're going to use that as an example we're ****ed because they just don't know what they're doing.

Even like last year, the Browns handed the Jets a QB for nothing.

The problem was Mangini using old tree players as extra collateral, which was stupid. Kenyon Coleman and Brett Ratliff shouldn't have been involved in the trade.

However, if Sanchez was never on their board, then the Browns didn't get hosed out of it. They got a good safety in Abram Elam. In Alex Mack and James Davis, they got two guys they think could be good long-term starters. And David Veikune... he didn't get a chance to play last season due to injury. Yet to be seen if that was any kind of a decent move.

The only reason it smells of a bad trade was because of Sanchez. If the Browns were going to go with Crabtree or Raji or Moreno with that pick, would you still say that was a bad pick if Mack and Davis become productive starters?

Mecca
04-17-2010, 05:39 PM
Yes it's a bad trade, a 6th round RB is not going to make me change my tune on a trade. and a 1st round center is suppose to be basically a 10 year pro bowler.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 05:58 PM
I don't think the Eagles will be overly willing to give up a ton of picks, they need to fill several spots on their team, they can't have a 1 player draft.

Trust me. I grew up near Philly.

I can guarantee you that they're thinking about it. They just traded McNabb and Sheldon Brown, in two years they've lost Sheldon Brown, Dawkins, Lito Shepard, and their long-time defensive coordinator Jim Johnson. Not to mention Brian Westbrook. And we're talking about one of the toughest media markets in the NFL behind a head coach who many believe isn't good enough to win the big game. And in the process, they added Asante Samuel, who many are starting to believe is an enormously expensive bust.

The Eagles are trying to sell to the fans that Kevin Kolb, a guy they know pretty little about, is going to be an adequate replacement to Donovan McNabb, a pro bowler. They have a coach who everyone fears may never have what it takes to make the big game. Their defense is starting to slip.

Few teams need a playmaker as badly as the Eagles do. Their fans know the window is close to closing. And the Eagles, I'm sure, would like a guy who can immediately make the defense good enough that you don't put the world on Kolb's shoulders.

They most certainly will be interested in Berry, which is probably why they've expressed interest in him. You don't express that much interest in taking a guy like Berry unless you might be interested in offering the ammo to get him.

Hammock Parties
04-17-2010, 06:01 PM
All I can say is if the Eagles want Berry and trade with us, we better go after their first-round pick next year.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 06:02 PM
Yes it's a bad trade, a 6th round RB is not going to make me change my tune on a trade. and a 1st round center is suppose to be basically a 10 year pro bowler.

If the Browns' alternative was Raji or Crabtee, you have no idea if it was a bad trade.

Especially when you consider that they could have stuck around at #17 and drafted Maclin.

Abram Elam was a good pickup. Mack may be a good starter--we'll see. David Veikune, we won't know what they have in him until he gets to play healthy this season. And James Davis was a guy that they really loved coming out of training camp until he got injured. Even Kenyon Coleman did just fine as a utility player, even though he's really only a 1-2 year fix.

The only reason people think the Browns got hosed is because they passed on Sanchez. But you can't think that way. If they ended up drafting Raji instead, nobody would have faulted them for it. So if the choice is between Raji and all those guys above, we have no idea which side got hosed.

BossChief
04-17-2010, 06:05 PM
the Browns passing on Sanchez, Orakpo and ultimately ending up with a fucking center out of the first round is what likely got Kokinis fired.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 06:06 PM
So let me get this straight. You think the Eagles would give 2 #2's to trade up (I don't think there's a chance in that) and then we can use one of our 2's to go from 24 to 10 to grab Clausen (who I think goes 7 to Cleveland)?

Yeah, I'm staying at 5 in that scenario.

I like Clausen enough to take him.

But it's not a horrible trade if they decide to trade down. If they see playmaker potential in a pass rusher like Graham or Kindle or Hughes and they think they can get him at 24, then I think a pass rusher is one of the few positions I don't mind gambling on. And in the process, you still put yourself in position to trade up in the event Clausen falls, which he very well might.

I'm not saying it's the best option. And I probably wouldn't take it only because I like Clausen. But it's certainly not a horrible alternative.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 06:10 PM
the Browns passing on Sanchez, Orakpo and ultimately ending up with a ****ing center out of the first round is what likely got Kokinis fired.

1) Again, you're assuming Sanchez was ever on their board. If it's Raji in exchange for a starting Safety, Center, very likely a starting RB, and who knows, maybe a starting pass rusher? That's not a bad trade. And if Sanchez isn't a franchise QB, it's not a bad trade.
2) Kokinis wasn't fired for that trade. He basically quit his job because Mangini was running the show. It's well documented. Kokinis was so fed up with having no say that he was basically showing up to work and playing Solitaire on his computer all day long.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 06:18 PM
There isn't a team in the league with a worse QB situation than Cleveland.

But lets be fair here on the Eagles point, the Eagles have to exit this draft with in no particular order.

Safety
Guard
Linebacker
Running Back
Corner
Defensive End

That's 6 things, several of which they could use a starter at...I don't think they'd give away all their picks for 1 player. I think they'd consider moving up for Earl Thomas if he starts to slip...Actually a trade scenario I think that is likely for a team taking less than equal value to move out is Jacksonville. So I could see Philly ripping off Jacksonville then taking Thomas.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 06:25 PM
There isn't a team in the league with a worse QB situation than Cleveland.

But lets be fair here on the Eagles point, the Eagles have to exit this draft with in no particular order.

Safety
Guard
Linebacker
Running Back
Corner
Defensive End

That's 6 things, several of which they could use a starter at...I don't think they'd give away all their picks for 1 player. I think they'd consider moving up for Earl Thomas if he starts to slip...Actually a trade scenario I think that is likely for a team taking less than equal value to move out is Jacksonville. So I could see Philly ripping off Jacksonville then taking Thomas.

And what I'm saying is that the Eagles are in a much more "win now" situation than you realize. Especially since you have no idea if Kolb is going to play well and a very good chance he's not as good as McNabb. This isn't a team that can afford to chip away at a few solid fill-ins. It's a team that needs playmakers and they need them right away.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 06:29 PM
Yea because the Eagles certainly have no playmakers, I mean that bum Samuel only had 10 picks last year, how dare he, and Trent Cole and Bunkley what bums those guys are.

Oh and DeSean Jackson...

And for what you said in that other thread, Andy Reid is in no danger of getting fired his moves prove that, not to mention dude acts as their GM, Andy Reid is not even close to being on the hot seat.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 07:09 PM
Yea because the Eagles certainly have no playmakers, I mean that bum Samuel only had 10 picks last year, how dare he, and Trent Cole and Bunkley what bums those guys are.

Oh and DeSean Jackson...

And for what you said in that other thread, Andy Reid is in no danger of getting fired his moves prove that, not to mention dude acts as their GM, Andy Reid is not even close to being on the hot seat.

I suppose you think DJ had a great season because he had such an awesome game against Denver. A lot of Philly fans despise Samuels. He was extremely inconsistent last season and for every pick, there were a few blown plays that turned into big gains. Compared to Shepard and Brown were consistent shutdown corners, Samuels has been a huge disappointment. I don't care what the stat line says. And based on Samuels bitching publicly about the Eagles and Sheldon Brown mentioning that Samuel wasn't buying into the system, it sounds to me like he's got himself a little attitude too.

And while the Eagles have a few playmakers, you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think those are guys who can carry the team to a Super Bowl run. They have a few playmakers, but they don't have Jim "we can win with scrubs at linebacker" Johnson anymore, and based on losing Sheldon Brown, Lito Shepard, and Brian Dawkins in 2 seasons, they went from having an all-world shutdown secondary to being one of the more vulnerable ones. Between that, losing Westbrook, and losing McNabb, you're kidding yourself if you don't think this team isn't ripe for a huge step backward. And you're not going to fix those problems with a second-tier Safety and a few second round linemen.

This is a team that's lost 5 big-time playmakers in the past 2 seasons. And they are taking a huge gamble by resting the future of the franchise on Kevin Kolb. So you tell me, given the high bar Kolb has to reach to match McNabb, the huge step back they've taken in losing Dawkins, Westbrook, Brown, and Shepard, how patiently the rabid Eagles fans are going to wait when Reid enters season 13 or 14 and he still hasn't won a Super Bowl, and his team is maybe sitting at 8-8 in 2012.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 07:15 PM
Dude, Lito Shephard is fucking done and was the day they got rid of him, I don't get how this is a problem

Brown got repeatedly roasted last year too because dude is old. When you cross 30 the Eagles get rid of you.

And Westbrook is done too, if fans are really bitching about this stuff they're fuckin stupid, they wanna keep old guys because they have sentimental value?

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 07:22 PM
Dude, Lito Shephard is ****ing done and was the day they got rid of him, I don't get how this is a problem

Brown got repeatedly roasted last year too because dude is old. When you cross 30 the Eagles get rid of you.

And Westbrook is done too, if fans are really bitching about this stuff they're ****in stupid, they wanna keep old guys because they have sentimental value?

I'm not saying you keep these guys. When did I ever say that?

I'm saying that, like the Patriots, the guys who have carried this franchise and been a rock during Reid's entire tenure are leaving. And that there's a very good chance this team sinks to mediocrity.

You don't replace the value of players like McNabb, Westbrook, and Dawkins with a bunch of second round picks.

Ming the Merciless
04-17-2010, 08:03 PM
Best analysis I have seen to date. Nice job.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 08:08 PM
The Eagles last several drafts have been very good...the team is full of young talented players now.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 08:45 PM
The Eagles last several drafts have been very good...the team is full of young talented players now.

That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that three players who have been carrying that franchise and one defensive coordinator who made incredible strides with often-times average talent are no longer there. Maclin, Jackson, McCoy, and Kolb are good, but compared to Westbrook, McNabb, Dawkins? Those guys were considered elite at their positions.

Fair or not, the front office is going to be judged by their decision to trade McNabb. And they're going to have to do that in an insanely talented division. You're essentially suggesting that the Eagles would be just fine bringing in some unproven playmakers, some of which will probably take 3-4 years to hit their talent potential. And I'm telling you that they can't wait that long.

The front office will be judged by the McNabb trade. Reid will really have to prove he can sustain that defense without Jim Johnson. Frankly, I could easily see this going down in the same way Shanahan was fired if this team isn't deep in the playoffs by 2012. The Eagles are in a win now mentality simply because of how much is on the line for the front office and for Reid. If you think Philly will be patient if this team is anything short of an NFC Championship team by 2012, you don't know Philly very well.

The Bad Guy
04-17-2010, 09:37 PM
I'm not saying you keep these guys. When did I ever say that?

I'm saying that, like the Patriots, the guys who have carried this franchise and been a rock during Reid's entire tenure are leaving. And that there's a very good chance this team sinks to mediocrity.

You don't replace the value of players like McNabb, Westbrook, and Dawkins with a bunch of second round picks.

The Eagles are the ultimate rinse and repeat team.

Tre Thomas too old? That's fine. Go out and get Peters. John Runyan too old? That's ok, Winston Justice is ready.

People forget that everyone said the same shit when Hugh Douglas, Jeremiah Trotter, Chad Lewis and Carlos Emmons left. They replaced them pretty successfully.

Shelton Brown old and wants more money? No sweat. Joselio Hanson is ready to step in.

They have an incredible ability to know when a player's time with the team is over.

They have Kolb, who will be pretty good because Reid can coach up QBs. They have Lesean McCoy, who was groomed last year.

The last team we should be questioning is the Eagles.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 09:43 PM
As far as the way to handle the roster, the Eagles are the example everyone should follow.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 09:43 PM
The Eagles are the ultimate rinse and repeat team.

Tre Thomas too old? That's fine. Go out and get Peters. John Runyan too old? That's ok, Winston Justice is ready.

People forget that everyone said the same shit when Hugh Douglas, Jeremiah Trotter, Chad Lewis and Carlos Emmons left. They replaced them pretty successfully.

Shelton Brown old and wants more money? No sweat. Joselio Hanson is ready to step in.

They have an incredible ability to know when a player's time with the team is over.

They have Kolb, who will be pretty good because Reid can coach up QBs. They have Lesean McCoy, who was groomed last year.

The last team we should be questioning is the Eagles.

Bad Guy, I know where you're coming from. But you have to realize, this is something that was said of the Patriots for years too. They've had a lot of change. But four constants were McNabb, Dawkins, Westbrook, and Jim Johnson. And they weren't just guys who were there. They were enormous parts to the team. This year, they don't have any of those guys.

Will the Eagles be okay? Probably. But the team is in rebuild. And if Kolb is anything short of awesome, this team could be 7-9 with that division they play in. I don't think we're talking about the Eagles we're used to. Keep in mind that Kolb has to play near a pro bowl level to match McNabb, and if he doesn't, you're downgrading at the most important position on the field.

Mecca
04-17-2010, 09:45 PM
When the Eagles mangle 4 straight drafts and start trading draft picks for players because they haven't been able to draft properly, we can then make that comparison.

The Eagles are moving on from guys because they are consistently hitting in the draft.

And for the record, most every Eagle fan I've come across, hates McNabb, even the ones that didn't said "we're never going to win with him it's time to move on".

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2010, 09:52 PM
When the Eagles mangle 4 straight drafts and start trading draft picks for players because they haven't been able to draft properly, we can then make that comparison.

The Eagles are moving on from guys because they are consistently hitting in the draft.

And for the record, most every Eagle fan I've come across, hates McNabb, even the ones that didn't said "we're never going to win with him it's time to move on".

Mecca, I'm not disputing that the Eagles are a great personnel organization. I really admire their ability to draft. But two things I know very well about Eagles' fans: 1) they're fickle. If McNabb does real well in Washington and Philly slumps, they're going to throw a shit fit--this is a fan base that boo'ed Mike Schmidt at the end of his career during a slump. 2) they are PISSED every year that they never spend up to the cap

If Kolb is anything short of outstanding, Eagles fans will have an extremely short memory. And they're going to come down hard on the front office and Reid for trading McNabb. Kolb will be further challenged by a slipping defense with a horrendous secondary and a defensive coordinator who isn't half the coach Jim Johnson was.

No matter how good the Eagles' personnel organization is, even though they made real good moves this offseason, they were bold moves. And ones that could become really unpopular if they don't win. You better believe they need immediate playmakers well more than they need two second round picks.

DaneMcCloud
04-17-2010, 11:23 PM
You don't replace the value of players like McNabb, Westbrook, and Dawkins with a bunch of second round picks.

LMAO

Sure.

LeSean McCoy is awful. So is Kolb. Oh, and DeSean Jackson. That guy sucks.

LMAO

BossChief
04-18-2010, 04:45 AM
The Steelers, Eagles and Colt are superb franchises as far as just plugging the next guy in.

chiefzilla1501
04-18-2010, 09:03 AM
LMAO

Sure.

LeSean McCoy is awful. So is Kolb. Oh, and DeSean Jackson. That guy sucks.

LMAO

Westbrook > McCoy
McNabb > Kolb
Dawkins > Jackson
By a mile

C'mon. You're talking about 3 players that were considered to be in the top 5 of their position. And 3 guys who've been with the team for 10 years.

chiefzilla1501
04-18-2010, 09:05 AM
The Steelers, Eagles and Colt are superb franchises as far as just plugging the next guy in.

We haven't seen what the Eagles and Colts will be become post-McNabb and post-Peyton Manning.

They have great personnel departments. But given that every single person on this board knows that your QB is bar none the most important position on the field, why do people think downgrading from McNabb to Kolb is no big deal?

The Bad Guy
04-18-2010, 09:33 AM
We haven't seen what the Eagles and Colts will be become post-McNabb and post-Peyton Manning.

They have great personnel departments. But given that every single person on this board knows that your QB is bar none the most important position on the field, why do people think downgrading from McNabb to Kolb is no big deal?

Let's stop pretending here that McNabb has been the model of health. Andy Reid has won plenty of regular season games without Donovan McNabb. He's missed about 24 games as a starter in his career.

Andy Reid will be fine.

milkman
04-18-2010, 09:35 AM
We haven't seen what the Eagles and Colts will be become post-McNabb and post-Peyton Manning.

They have great personnel departments. But given that every single person on this board knows that your QB is bar none the most important position on the field, why do people think downgrading from McNabb to Kolb is no big deal?

This is something of a biased view, since I think McNabb has been overrated for much of his career.

Having said that, there is no way you, I, or anyone else can say with anycertainty that Kolb is downgrading from McNabb.

chiefzilla1501
04-18-2010, 10:43 AM
This is something of a biased view, since I think McNabb has been overrated for much of his career.

Having said that, there is no way you, I, or anyone else can say with anycertainty that Kolb is downgrading from McNabb.

No, but McNabb has set the bar pretty high which means it's not going to be easy to match his production. He was never at Peyton Manning or Drew Brees level, but he's still one of the best QBs in the game.

chiefzilla1501
04-18-2010, 10:51 AM
Let's stop pretending here that McNabb has been the model of health. Andy Reid has won plenty of regular season games without Donovan McNabb. He's missed about 24 games as a starter in his career.

Andy Reid will be fine.

With a very strong defense behind his back led by Jim Johnson.

The team is entirely different from the one a few years ago when Donovan missed a lot of time. It's moved from a defensive powerhouse to an offensive one. Jim Johnson had a knack for making average linebackers look like pro bowlers in his scheme. He also had one of the best secondaries in the game with a difference making safety in Dawkins. Compare that today, where they have two terrific D-lineman and one wildly inconsistent corner, and that's it. That's all they have.

This isn't the Eagles of old. Kolb is going to need to carry this team, because that defense is very quickly slipping. They'll still be a good team. But I'm telling you, with that division, this is a team that is dangerously close to being a 7-9 team or a consistent one-and-done playoff team.

Saccopoo
04-18-2010, 12:24 PM
While a NT may be something you need to have, he's not going to be star. No matter how good Kelly Gregg is or how important he is, he's not Ed Reed.

I've actually come to the belief that some of these guys, like Kindle are going to go higher than are being projected. I think he realistically may go 12th.

He probably will. It's probably my over the top desire for him to still be available when the Chiefs pick in the second round that I didn't put him in the first. Big, long, and has shown that he has the ability to rush the passer as well as drop into coverage. He is, without question, the best 3-4 OLB prospect in this draft.