PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Casserly Mock


Pages : [1] 2

Mr. Laz
02-15-2012, 02:23 PM
Redskins will trade up to snag RG3

By Charley Casserly | NFL Network
Analyst
Published: Feb. 15, 2012 at 02:57 p.m.

PICK NO.1 Colts

ANDREW LUCK QBSTANFORD
Luck just may be most pro-ready QB I have ever seen.

PICK NO.2 Washington

ROBERT GRIFFIN, III QBBAYLOR
TRADE: The Redskins move up from No. 6 to No. 2 in a trade with the Rams. Washington snags the potential franchise quarterback it's coveted for so many years.

PICK NO.3 Vikings

MATT KALIL OTUSC
Kalil fills an obvious need to protect quarterback Christian Ponder.

PICK NO.4 Cleveland

JUSTIN BLACKMON WROKLAHOMA ST.
The Browns need offensive weapons, and Blackmon gives them a legit No. 1 receiver.

PICK NO.5 Arizona

MORRIS CLAIBORNE CBLSU
Tough to pass on RB Trent Richardson -- and I personally wouldn't -- but Claiborne fills a bigger need.

PICK NO.6 Rams

RILEY REIFF OTIOWA
TRADE: The Rams move down from No. 2 to No. 6 in a trade with the Redskins. The Rams are here and need to protect Bradford better, Jason Smith is too expensive and injury prone.

PICK NO.7 Jags

QUINTON COPLES DENORTH CAROLINA
They need to improve in their pass rush, Aaron Kampman can't stay healthy.

PICK NO.8 Panthers

DEVON STILL DTPENN ST.
The Panthers continue to build a strong defensive line.

PICK NO.9 Miami

JONATHAN MARTIN OTSTANFORD
Martin played left tackle at Stanford, but he can move to right tackle in the NFL.

PICK NO.10 Buffalo

WHITNEY MERCILUS DEILLINOIS
With Buffalo transitioning to a 4-3 defense, Mercilus can fill a fresh void at defensive end.

PICK NO.11 Chiefs

TRENT RICHARDSON RBALABAMA
Too good a player to pass up -- Richardson truly boasts top-10 ability.

PICK NO.12 Seattle

DRE KIRKPATRICK CBALABAMA
The Seahawks won't pass on a quality corner.

PICK NO.13 Arizona

MIKE ADAMS OTOHIO ST.
Adams can play left tackle, moving Levi Brown to right tackle -- his better position.

PICK NO.14 Dallas

DAVID DECASTRO OGSTANFORD
Dallas continues to rebuild its offensive line.

PICK NO.15 Philly

LUKE KUECHLY ILBBOSTON COLLEGE
The instinctive Kuechly fills the biggest need on Philadelphia's defense.

PICK NO.16 Jets

COURTNEY UPSHAW OLBALABAMA
At some point, the Jets need to find a linebacker who can get to the passer.

PICK NO.17 Cincy

JANORIS JENKINS CBNORTH ALABAMA
If I were in charge in Cincy, I would try to trade up and acquire Trent Richardson. But cornerback is a big need, too. (And the Bengals can address running back with their second first-round pick ...)

PICK NO.18 Chargers

MELVIN INGRAM DESOUTH CAROLINA
Not sure what Ingram's best position is, but he has pass-rush talent and the Chargers can use some help there.

PICK NO.19 Bears

MICHAEL FLOYD WRNOTRE DAME
Jay Cutler needs to get some stability at receiver.

PICK NO.20 Titans

MICHAEL BROCKERS DTLSU
Good size, strength and upside for this naturally gifted underclassman.

PICK NO.21 Cincy

LAMAR MILLER RBMIAMI
The Bengals likes to earmark positions for rounds, and I think they'll want to come out of the first round with a CB and an RB. Mission accomplished.

PICK NO.22 Cleveland

RYAN TANNEHILL QBTEXAS A&M
Tannehill will need time to develop, but he has more upside than Colt McCoy.

PICK NO.23 Detroit

ALFONZO DENNARD CBNEBRASKA
Martin Mayhew begins to address the corner position in the draft.

PICK NO.24 Steelers

CORDY GLENN TGEORGIA
The front line has been the only weakness of the Steelers offense.

PICK NO.25 Donkeys

JEREL WORTHY DTMICHIGAN ST.
The 310-pound Michigan State underclassman adds much-needed bulk to the Broncos' defense.

PICK NO.26 Texans

KENDALL WRIGHT WRBAYLOR
The Texans would love another receiver to complement Andre Johnson.

PICK NO.27 Patriots

MARK BARRON SSALABAMA
Despite his hernia issues, Barron is the best player on the board at a need position for New England. But, as always with Bill Belichick's Patriots, don't discount a trade out of the first round here for a No. 1 pick in 2013.

PICK NO.28 Packers

FLETCHER COX DTMISSISSIPPI ST.
Cox can help the Packers establish an inside pass rush.

PICK NO.29 Ravens

PETER KONZ CWISCONSIN
Konz will be Matt Birk's replacement.

PICK NO.30 49ers

ALSHON JEFFERY WRSOUTH CAROLINA
San Francisco needs another weapon outside to take some of the attention away from tight end Vernon Davis.

PICK NO.31 Patriots

DONT'A HIGHTOWER ILBALABAMA
Will the Patriots trade both of their first-round picks?

PICK NO.32 Giants

ZACH BROWN OLBNORTH CAROLINA
The Giants have a need, but they will take the best player available.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 02:24 PM
Deal.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:26 PM
Can we get some leather helmets too?

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 02:28 PM
Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock on #Alabama RB Trent Richardson: "I think the last guy where you banged the table this hard was Peterson when he was the 7th pick."

milkman
02-15-2012, 02:30 PM
Can we get some leather helmets too?

I believe the Texans would have had the #1 seed and gone to the SB, and possibly won it had they not lost Matt Schaub to injury, and they ran the ball nearly 100 times more than they passed it.

nychief
02-15-2012, 02:31 PM
we're going to sign Benjarvus and draft Trent Richardson?!?!??!

I seriously don't see Trent lasting that long... but I know nothing.

DTLB58
02-15-2012, 02:32 PM
Ok......Then trade him for a QB so this team can compete for a SB before I die please.

Micjones
02-15-2012, 02:32 PM
I hate the idea of taking Richardson at 11.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:32 PM
I believe the Texans would have had the #1 seed and gone to the SB, and possibly won it had they not lost Matt Schaub to injury, and they ran the ball nearly 100 times more than they passed it.

The did lose Matt Schaub to injury and they didn't advance to the Super Bowl so all the conjecture is moot.

Not to mention the fact that they didn't even DRAFT Foster, let alone draft him in the top half of Round 1.

Or the fact that they acquired Schaub and THEN acquired Foster.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 02:33 PM
we're going to sign Benjarvus and draft Trent Richardson?!?!??!

We are?

As far as I knew, only a couple people speculated on where BJGE would be a good fit. Now we are committed to signing him?

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 02:33 PM
I believe the Texans would have had the #1 seed and gone to the SB, and possibly won it had they not lost Matt Schaub to injury, and they ran the ball nearly 100 times more than they passed it.

Any team would if TJ Yates and Delhomme were your QB's.

Bump
02-15-2012, 02:34 PM
The did lose Matt Schaub to injury and they didn't advance to the Super Bowl so all the conjecture is moot.

Not to mention the fact that they didn't even DRAFT Foster, let alone draft him in the top half of Round 1.

Or the fact that they acquired Schaub and THEN acquired Foster.

ya and 5 out of the top 10 defenses didn't make the playoffs, that must mean that defense doesn't mean shit.

I'm all for T Rich 2 if he falls to us

DTLB58
02-15-2012, 02:35 PM
I believe the Texans would have had the #1 seed and gone to the SB, and possibly won it had they not lost Matt Schaub to injury, and they ran the ball nearly 100 times more than they passed it.

Was that 100 more, before or after Schaub got hurt?

eazyb81
02-15-2012, 02:36 PM
The did lose Matt Schaub to injury and they didn't advance to the Super Bowl so all the conjecture is moot.

Not to mention the fact that they didn't even DRAFT Foster, let alone draft him in the top half of Round 1.

Or the fact that they acquired Schaub and THEN acquired Foster.

Yeah, I believe they traded for Schaub, who was another team's backup.

Maybe we should try something like that?

Chiefnj2
02-15-2012, 02:36 PM
Better learn how to run block.

eazyb81
02-15-2012, 02:38 PM
ya and 5 out of the top 10 defenses didn't make the playoffs, that must mean that defense doesn't mean shit.

I'm all for T Rich 2 if he falls to us

Yep. There are multiple ways to skin a cat and build a Super Bowl winning team.

T Rich is a stud, and pairing him with a healthy Charles would make this a very potent offense.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 02:38 PM
How far could the 2011 Chiefs have gone with a back like Trent once Jamaal went down to injury?

If Cassel is gonna be back (in any capacity) we are gonna need an insurance policy towards a re-injury and once again being one dimensional all year in a failing effort.

The defense deserves a back like Trent extending drives.

milkman
02-15-2012, 02:39 PM
The did lose Matt Schaub to injury and they didn't advance to the Super Bowl so all the conjecture is moot.

Not to mention the fact that they didn't even DRAFT Foster, let alone draft him in the top half of Round 1.

Or the fact that they acquired Schaub and THEN acquired Foster.

When it comes to Matt Cassel, Scott Pioli appears to be a drooling idiot, so I doubt any move we make, and any thing Cassel does is going to get him removed as the starter.

When that situation changes, I'd like to have the kind of team in place to to make the transition to a young QB easier.

And where players were drafted is irrelevant.

If everyone knew that Foster was going to be this good, he would have been a first round pick.

Epic Fail 007
02-15-2012, 02:42 PM
very nice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5D70hJrb8o

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Only on Chiefsplanet, where drafting the most elite talent on the board is something to scoff at.

talastan
02-15-2012, 02:43 PM
When it comes to Matt Cassel, Scott Pioli appears to be a drooling idiot, so I doubt any move we make, and any thing Cassel does is going to get him removed as the starter.

When that situation changes, I'd like to have the kind of team in place to to make the transition to a young QB easier.

And where players were drafted is irrelevant.

If everyone knew that Foster was going to be this good, he would have been a first round pick.

Richardson better be Peterson-like quality if we are picking him up at 11. I still think we are in for a O-Lineman pick myself. Gotta keep Pioli's Golden boy upright. He hurt his whittle hand last season. :shake: :Lin:

milkman
02-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Was that 100 more, before or after Schaub got hurt?

In their final 3 games, the Texans ran the ball 9 times more than passed it.

Bump
02-15-2012, 02:44 PM
Yeah, I believe they traded for Schaub, who was another team's backup.

Maybe we should try something like that?

you mean that it can work? WUUUUT?

http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h361/Bump4/gifs/311pahl.gif

I would take a chance on Flynn if we can't get anybody else

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:44 PM
Yep. There are multiple ways to skin a cat and build a Super Bowl winning team.

No, there really aren't.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:46 PM
When it comes to Matt Cassel, Scott Pioli appears to be a drooling idiot, so I doubt any move we make, and any thing Cassel does is going to get him removed as the starter.

When that situation changes, I'd like to have the kind of team in place to to make the transition to a young QB easier.

And where players were drafted is irrelevant.

If everyone knew that Foster was going to be this good, he would have been a first round pick.

You're right, where players are drafted isn't really relevant in terms of performance.

But it's VERY important when looking at INTENT.

The Texans acquired Foster as a COMPLIMENTARY piece of a team being built around the QUARTERBACK.

Drafting Richardson now, while Cassel is the QB, is doing the EXACT opposite.

Chief Roundup
02-15-2012, 02:46 PM
I believe the Texans would have had the #1 seed and gone to the SB, and possibly won it had they not lost Matt Schaub to injury, and they ran the ball nearly 100 times more than they passed it.

The Texans do seem to have good depth on the whole team. They also lost Mario Williams and Foster was out several games.

Bump
02-15-2012, 02:46 PM
No, there really aren't.

it all starts with QB. If we don't make a move on a better QB, T Rich 2 will be the best option for us.

FAX
02-15-2012, 02:47 PM
I'm going to be very interested to see how Luck pans out in the pros.

He may be the most "NFL ready" quarterback of all times, but there's a long road between draft day and the Super Bowl.

FAX

Inmem58
02-15-2012, 02:47 PM
I thought we have a coin flip with Seattle to see who gets the 11th/12th pick?

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:47 PM
Only on Chiefsplanet, where drafting the most elite talent on the board is something to scoff at.

I'm not scoffing at drafting elite talent.

I'm opposed to the idea of the CHIEFS drafting Trent Richardson because of the history of the franchise - I believe if they draft him, we'll be headed down a path we've already experienced.

And it didn't work.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 02:47 PM
No, there really aren't.

At this point, with my optimism and expectations for this franchise so low, I'll be happy with just a playoff win.

I haven't seen one yet.

I'll start worrying about a SB when the Chiefs finally win a fucking playoff game first.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:48 PM
it all starts with QB. If we don't make a move on a better QB, T Rich 2 will be the best option for us.

Best option for what? 9-7 and a first round loss?

Gotta fill those seats!

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 02:50 PM
Best option for what? 9-7 and a first round loss?

Gotta fill those seats!

We know. You'd rather see the team make a bad selection rather than a good one. I just don't think a lineman will jettison Cassel any faster.

Bewbies
02-15-2012, 02:51 PM
The did lose Matt Schaub to injury and they didn't advance to the Super Bowl so all the conjecture is moot.

Not to mention the fact that they didn't even DRAFT Foster, let alone draft him in the top half of Round 1.

Or the fact that they acquired Schaub and THEN acquired Foster.

We got Stanzi first, so we're good. :evil:

BossChief
02-15-2012, 02:56 PM
You're right, where players are drafted isn't really relevant in terms of performance.

But it's VERY important when looking at INTENT.

The Texans acquired Foster as a COMPLIMENTARY piece of a team being built around the QUARTERBACK.

Drafting Richardson now, while Cassel is the QB, is doing the EXACT opposite.

I'll say it again.

I don't want us to draft Richardson for Cassel...I think Cassel will fail regardless.

I want us to draft Richardson for Stanzi or whoever else we bring in.

Look at what Orton was able to do with a one dimensional offense...think of how much better he would have looked with a back like Richardson to take the pressure off.

milkman
02-15-2012, 02:56 PM
You're right, where players are drafted isn't really relevant in terms of performance.

But it's VERY important when looking at INTENT.

The Texans acquired Foster as a COMPLIMENTARY piece of a team being built around the QUARTERBACK.

Drafting Richardson now, while Cassel is the QB, is doing the EXACT opposite.

At the end of the day, whether we draft Richardson, Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff, it's all about propping up Cassel.

Nothing we do is gonna change that.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 02:57 PM
I'll say it again.

I don't want us to draft Richardson for Cassel...I think Cassel will fail regardless.

I want us to draft Richardson for Stanzi or whoever else we bring in.

Look at what Orton was able to do with a one dimensional offense...think of how much better he would have looked with a back like Richardson to take the pressure off.

This.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 02:59 PM
We know. You'd rather see the team make a bad selection rather than a good one. I just don't think a lineman will jettison Cassel any faster.

It's not just about Cassel, it's also about who they replace him with.

There's a reason that we had Steve Deberg and Dave Krieg, Joe Montana and Steve Bono.

Team's that are that heavily run-oriented don't VALUE the QB, they see the QB as a finishing piece, something to get them over the top.

One only needs to look at the stellar performance of the Minnesota Vikings the past few years to see how it works.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:00 PM
I'll say it again.

I don't want us to draft Richardson for Cassel...I think Cassel will fail regardless.

I want us to draft Richardson for Stanzi or whoever else we bring in.

Look at what Orton was able to do with a one dimensional offense...think of how much better he would have looked with a back like Richardson to take the pressure off.

Having a guy like Richardson DICTATES who we bring in. We'll get rid of Cassel and replace him with another Cassel, and another, and another.

Orton is a journeyman stopgap. He's not a top 10 QB, he's not even close.

milkman
02-15-2012, 03:01 PM
It's not just about Cassel, it's also about who they replace him with.

There's a reason that we had Steve Deberg and Dave Krieg, Joe Montana and Steve Bono.

Team's that are that heavily run-oriented don't VALUE the QB, they see the QB as a finishing piece, something to get them over the top.

One only needs to look at the stellar performance of the Minnesota Vikings the past few years to see how it works.

The Vikings with Adrian Peterson, and the 90s Chiefs absolutely saw the need for the QB, which is why the Vikings brought Brett Favre in, and drafted Christian Ponder too high, and the Chiefs traded for Joe Montana.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 03:03 PM
It's not just about Cassel, it's also about who they replace him with.

There's a reason that we had Steve Deberg and Dave Krieg, Joe Montana and Steve Bono.

Team's that are that heavily run-oriented don't VALUE the QB, they see the QB as a finishing piece, something to get them over the top.

One only needs to look at the stellar performance of the Minnesota Vikings the past few years to see how it works.

Minnesota? The team who took a top 15 QB?

Not a good example.

And your examples of Deberg and Krieg etc were during an era that defense & Running games DID win Championships. Also not good examples IMO.

milkman
02-15-2012, 03:03 PM
Carl Peterson thought Elvis GrBac was that guy also, which is why he signed him.

This team's history shows they are afraid to draft QB.

That isn't going to change just because we don't draft Richardson.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 03:05 PM
That diesnt make any sense, htis.

If they pull the plug on Cassel, the next man up is probably gonna be Stanzi because Scott drafted him.

I think Cassel will start te year as the teams starter, but I don't think he ends the year in that role.

If we draft Richardson, it will give Stanzi a better chance of success.

Have you cooled off of what your own eyes told you about the kid?

Chief Roundup
02-15-2012, 03:05 PM
You're right, where players are drafted isn't really relevant in terms of performance.

But it's VERY important when looking at INTENT.

The Texans acquired Foster as a COMPLIMENTARY piece of a team being built around the QUARTERBACK.

Drafting Richardson now, while Cassel is the QB, is doing the EXACT opposite.

I'm not scoffing at drafting elite talent.

I'm opposed to the idea of the CHIEFS drafting Trent Richardson because of the history of the franchise - I believe if they draft him, we'll be headed down a path we've already experienced.

And it didn't work.


I think I understand what you are saying and I agree with your intention. We need a QB first. But that is not going to happen. Unless maybe we draft Tannehill. Not promoting him. He just seems listed 3rd on QB lists.
If we draft BPA from what I have read that would seem to be Trent Richardson. I guess it also depends on an O-Line availability, but I think that they can do that in the middle rounds. It seems like other teams find them there.

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 03:08 PM
That diesnt make any sense, htis.

If they pull the plug on Cassel, the next man up is probably gonna be Stanzi because Scott drafted him.

I think Cassel will start te year as the teams starter, but I don't think he ends the year in that role.

If we draft Richardson, it will give Stanzi a better chance of success.

Have you cooled off of what your own eyes told you about the kid?

Do you ever not talk about Stanzi? You're wrong too. The next man up was Tyler Palko then Kyle Orton. If Cassel fails it'll be Brian Hoyer.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 03:08 PM
Do you ever not talk about Stanzi? You're wrong too. The next man up was Tyler Palko then Kyle Orton. If Cassel fails it'll be Brian Hoyer.

Horny for Hoyer?

Chiefs Pantalones
02-15-2012, 03:13 PM
The way the dude runs he's gonna last three years in the league.

Inmem58
02-15-2012, 03:14 PM
Blow for Barkley?


When can we start this up again?

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:15 PM
You have to take Richardson if you have any doubt about Charles. It's good business sense.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 03:15 PM
Do you ever not talk about Stanzi? You're wrong too. The next man up was Tyler Palko then Kyle Orton. If Cassel fails it'll be Brian Hoyer.Was someone talking to you?

I thought I asked a respected posters opinion a question. Not you.

We only have 2 quarterbacks at the moment, with one of them being Cassel am I supposed to not talk about the position at all?

Id make a bet that we don't bring in Hoyer unless Stanzi has already had his chance and showed he wasn't worth further looks.

Next man up is Stanzi, like it or not.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:16 PM
You can't just ignore draft value because you're scared of being the 90s Chiefs.

Pestilence
02-15-2012, 03:16 PM
You have to take LJ if you have any doubt about Holmes. It's good business sense.

.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:18 PM
LJ was a good pick. We win a SB with LJ if the defense isn't trash.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 03:19 PM
Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock on #Alabama RB Trent Richardson: "Tremendous feet for size. Really good balance & vision. This kid is tough and he's a 3-down back."

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 03:20 PM
Was someone talking to you?

I thought I asked a respected posters opinion a question. Not you.

We only have 2 quarterbacks at the moment, with one of them being Cassel am I supposed to not talk about the position at all?

Id make a bet that we don't bring in Hoyer unless Stanzi has already had his chance and showed he wasn't worth further looks.

Next man up is Stanzi, like it or not.

To further prove how full of shit you are the other day you claimed Clark Hunt was waiting in the wings for Peyton Manning. Talking Can called you out on it.

Good thing the season doesn't start for another 6 months huh?

Pestilence
02-15-2012, 03:20 PM
LJ was a good pick. We win a SB with LJ if the defense isn't trash.

I'm not saying that he wasn't. It's basically the same situation.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:21 PM
Carl Peterson thought Elvis GrBac was that guy also, which is why he signed him.

This team's history shows they are afraid to draft QB.

That isn't going to change just because we don't draft Richardson.

Then it's time to give up. Because nothing is ever going to change.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 03:21 PM
Let's not act as if Trent Richardson is the same type of problem Larry Johnson was.

Trents a good, humble kid.

I don't see him hitting women or spitting drinks in bars at them...or any of the other problems that douche had.

He is basically getting the player on the field that LJ was, at his peak, without the problems.

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 03:21 PM
LJ was a good pick. We win a SB with LJ if the defense isn't trash.

What do we win with Troy Polamalu?

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 03:21 PM
Then it's time to give up. Because nothing is ever going to change.

Yeah, that's the conclusion i'm coming to.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
You can't just ignore draft value because you're scared of being the 90s Chiefs.

Yes, I most certainly can.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
LJ was an especially good pick because that team was trying to win within 3-4 years. Kinda like this team with the clock ticking on our core of studs.

Take Richardson, find a QB within the next 2-3 year and hope it all comes together.

King_Chief_Fan
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
Was someone talking to you?

I thought I asked a respected posters opinion a question. Not you.

We only have 2 quarterbacks at the moment, with one of them being Cassel am I supposed to not talk about the position at all?

Id make a bet that we don't bring in Hoyer unless Stanzi has already had his chance and showed he wasn't worth further looks.

Next man up is Stanzi, like it or not.

I am not sure about that. I would need some insight as to how that would be. Stanzi will be #3 on the list. I can see the Chiefs nabbing Campbell - gag- to provide the competetion for Cassel. #1 Cassel #2 Campbell #3 Stanzi.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
Yes, I most certainly can.

You can. NFL teams and competent GMs can't.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
What do we win with Troy Polamalu?

That's gonna sting. :)

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:23 PM
You can. NFL teams and competent GMs can't.

Name a team that is in a similar situation to us that took a 1st round RB and won a Super Bowl with him.

suds79
02-15-2012, 03:23 PM
Then it's time to give up. Because nothing is ever going to change.

Oh there's change. You now having on top of a team that's afraid to ever draft a QB in the first round, one that spends like the Royals to boot. :thumb:

:(

BossChief
02-15-2012, 03:26 PM
To further prove how full of shit you are the other day you claimed Clark Hunt was waiting in the wings for Peyton Manning. Talking Can called you out on it.

Good thing the season doesn't start for another 6 months huh?

You're a joke of a poster.

When I posted about Peyton, it was with a pretense that Clark would get involved.

Saying I wouldn't throw the idea of us bringing him out isn't the same as saying it's likely a move happens.

I even said that I doubt Peyton would want to go to a small market.

I do remember saying Trent is the best RB prospect in a really long time and you and can laughed at that.

Seems scouts agree with me.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:27 PM
Name a team that is in a similar situation to us that took a 1st round RB and won a Super Bowl with him.

That's too specific.

Rashard Mendenhall is a good enough example.

FAX
02-15-2012, 03:28 PM
This thread is a tad depressing, to be honest.

FAX

BossChief
02-15-2012, 03:29 PM
What do we win with Troy Polamalu?

Everyone gather around.

Billay just made a good post.

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 03:30 PM
You're a joke of a poster.

When I posted about Peyton, it was with a pretense that Clark would get involved.

Saying I wouldn't throw the idea of us bringing him out isn't the same as saying it's likely a move happens.

I even said that I doubt Peyton would want to go to a small market.

I do remember saying Trent is the best RB prospect in a really long time and you and can laughed at that.

Seems scouts agree with me.

Whew i'm a joke of a poster that you keep responding to ROFL

Yeah the Chiefs are bringing in another QB that's why they said there will be competition it won't be Manning but it'll be Orton or someone like Campbell. Stanzi will be the #3 again.

You're tweaking my words I believe I said Richardson isn't as good of a prospect as Peterson or Faulk were.

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 03:32 PM
I like the Richardson pick he'll be a good RB. I do want to know though why did Saban use him so sparingly in the NC game? I seem to remember him coming out on 3rd downs and it seemed like everytime they got past the 50 he wasn't in.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 03:34 PM
Whew i'm a joke of a poster that you keep responding to ROFL

Yeah the Chiefs are bringing in another QB that's why they said there will be competition it won't be Manning but it'll be Orton or someone like Campbell. Stanzi will be the #3 again.

You're tweaking my words I believe I said Richardson isn't as good of a prospect as Peterson or Faulk were.

I'd be fine with Orton as a stopgap. But I don't want Campbell, I would rather have Cassel than Campbell.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:40 PM
That's too specific.

Rashard Mendenhall is a good enough example.

The Steelers won a Super Bowl 3 years before Mendenhall was drafted using RB by committee and won another his rookie season, when he had all of 19 carries.

That offense is built around the passing game.

Try again.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 03:41 PM
Why does that matter? No one said the Steelers won the SB because of Mendenhall, nor is anyone saying Richardson is going to lead us there.

But he can be a valuable cog.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:43 PM
Why does that matter? No one said the Steelers won the SB because of Mendenhall, nor is anyone saying Richardson is going to lead us there.

But he can be a valuable cog.

He can be a cog, but he WON'T BE.

This is the Chiefs, have you completely forgotten that fact?

Trent Richardson is EXACTLY the kind of crutch Clark Hunt needs to return this team to the "glory days" of the 1990's, when the seats were full and we lost to inferior teams in the playoffs, AT ARROWHEAD.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:44 PM
By the way, one only needs to look at the Steelers before Ben Roethlisberger and after. Look at all of those teams built in Marty's image, with great QBs like Tommy Maddox and Bubby Brister.

Is that REALLY what we want to be?

Pestilence
02-15-2012, 03:45 PM
So for the people who are against taking Richardson at #11.......who do you take in that spot? And this is assuming that the Chiefs aren't going to reach on a QB or trade up for one of the top two.

DeCastro? Konz? Poe? Reiff?

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:46 PM
So for the people who are against taking Richardson at #11.......who do you take in that spot? And this is assuming that the Chiefs aren't going to reach on a QB or trade up for one of the top two.

DeCastro? Konz? Poe? Reiff?

Anybody.

No other position paints them into a corner the way Trent Richardson does.

Al Bundy
02-15-2012, 03:52 PM
Hmm He has Arizona drafting in Tampa's spot.. wonder if he thinks there will be a trade?

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 03:58 PM
By the way, one only needs to look at the Steelers before Ben Roethlisberger and after. Look at all of those teams built in Marty's image, with great QBs like Tommy Maddox and Bubby Brister.

Is that REALLY what we want to be?

My bad, I confused Bubby Brister with Neil O'Donnell and Tommy Maddox with Mike Tomczak...wait... :evil:

Okie_Apparition
02-15-2012, 04:06 PM
Filling the seats is part of Pioli's job
Which is why I think Cassel's starter leash is very short

Micjones
02-15-2012, 04:07 PM
So for the people who are against taking Richardson at #11.......who do you take in that spot? And this is assuming that the Chiefs aren't going to reach on a QB or trade up for one of the top two.

DeCastro? Konz? Poe? Reiff?

Trade back.
Then consider taking Tannehill.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 04:08 PM
Filling the seats is part of Pioli's job
Which is why I think Cassel's starter leash is very short

Not that it matters.

There's respected posters here that think the Chiefs need to take Trent Richardson and sign Kyle fucking Orton.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 04:09 PM
Anybody.

No other position paints them into a corner the way Trent Richardson does.

You're basically saying that no team with an elite running game will be successful unless they have a great QB in place before hand.

So teams should just never draft great RB's until they have a great franchise QB otherwise they'll all be backed into a corner (that corner meaning they are a run first team).

Great theory if you have a top 5 QB.

For the other 27 teams however, not so much.

whoman69
02-15-2012, 04:10 PM
My bad, I confused Bubby Brister with Neil O'Donnell and Tommy Maddox with Mike Tomczak...wait... :evil:

Maybe Kordell Stewart? But isn't he just Aaron Brooks evil twin?

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 04:11 PM
You're basically saying that no team with an elite running game will be successful unless they have a great QB in place before hand.

So teams should just never draft great RB's until they have a great franchise QB otherwise they'll all be backed into a corner (that corner meaning they are a run first team).

Great theory if you have a top 5 QB.

For the other 27 teams however, not so much.

Yep.

And for us, it's a question of draft value.

BPA says we take Richardson. It'd be different if we needed an OLB or a LT or a WR or something.

Okie_Apparition
02-15-2012, 04:11 PM
I like Richardson for helping along a rookie QB, so I'm in that group think

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2012, 04:14 PM
Pioli can fill the holes in free agency he should be doing everything to trade up for Griffin.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 04:16 PM
You're basically saying that no team with an elite running game will be successful unless they have a great QB in place before hand.

Yep. Take a look at the history of the modern NFL and that's absolutely the case. You can disagree all you want, history doesn't lie.

So teams should just never draft great RB's until they have a great franchise QB otherwise they'll all be backed into a corner (that corner meaning they are a run first team).

Not necessarily. A team that truly understands the dynamic and is willing to take risks could probably do it.

Of course, that's the antithesis of the Chiefs.

Great theory if you have a top 5 QB.

For the other 27 teams however, not so much.

Hey, I didn't make the NFL completely QB-centric, the NFL did. It is what it is.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 04:18 PM
It's great listening to Holthus and Keitzman talk about it.

Keitzman thinks the Chiefs talk about competition is bogus.

And Holthus thinks Matt is the starter because the Chiefs believe in him.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 04:28 PM
If they really wanted to create competition they'd just trade up for a QB.

That would be real competition, not Orton.

milkman
02-15-2012, 04:39 PM
Then it's time to give up. Because nothing is ever going to change.

I've been waiting for change for 30+ years.

If I had been holding my breath, I'd have died 20+years ago.

I'm just hanging on, hoping for the best, and this year's best could well be Trent Richardson.

That's all we got.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 04:41 PM
If they really wanted to create competition they'd just trade up for a QB.

That would be real competition, not Orton.

Lol. Competition. Don't be silly, silly.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 04:44 PM
Lol. Competition. Don't be silly, silly.

Yeah, sorry about trying to believe the things they say. I'm giving them one more chance for some stupid reason.

the Talking Can
02-15-2012, 04:46 PM
we should be offering anything and everything to trade up for RG3...but we're never going to do that so...

might as well draft Richardson, he will ensure that we win enough games to not be in position for a QB in next year's draft...thus ensuring our 3 decade run of pointless mediocrity continues unharmed...

the Talking Can
02-15-2012, 04:47 PM
Yeah, sorry about trying to believe the things they say. I'm giving them one more chance for some stupid reason.

because you're stupid

there is no competition for Cassel, and they never said there would be....

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 04:47 PM
because you're stupid

there is no competition for Cassel, and they never said there would be....

There were at least two articles talking about Pioli saying they wanted QB competition.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 04:50 PM
we should be offering anything and everything to trade up for RG3...but we're never going to do that so...

might as well draft Richardson, he will ensure that we win enough games to not be in position for a QB in next year's draft...thus ensuring our 3 decade run of pointless mediocrity continues unharmed...

Gotta be good at something!

the Talking Can
02-15-2012, 04:51 PM
There were at least two articles talking about Pioli saying they wanted QB competition.

he didn't say that....this has been hashed and rehashed

he said he believes in competition for all positions...he was being politic, throwing the word out there while only endorsing it as a general concept...

and besides, it doesn't take a genious to know that there is not going to be any competition for Cassel....he's our starter barring injury...period

but people love to spin fantasies

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 04:51 PM
:shrug:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/03/chiefs-will-have-a-quarterback-competition/

Both Chiefs coach Romeo Crennel and General Manager Scott Pioli told the Kansas City Star that there will be a quarterback competition this offseason.

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 04:52 PM
he didn't say that....this has been hashed and rehashed

he said he believes in competition for all positions...he was being politic, throwing the word out there while only endorsing it as a general concept...

and besides, it doesn't take a genious to know that there is not going to be any competition for Cassel....he's our starter barring injury...period

but people love to spin fantasies

It was said by both Romeo and Pioli, DIRECTLY refering to the QB position.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 04:53 PM
he didn't say that....this has been hashed and rehashed

he said he believes in competition for all positions...he was being politic, throwing the word out there while only endorsing it as a general concept...

and besides, it doesn't take a genious to know that there is not going to be any competition for Cassel....he's our starter barring injury...period

but people love to spin fantasies

you is and idiot.

the Talking Can
02-15-2012, 04:53 PM
:dunno:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/03/chiefs-will-have-a-quarterback-competition/

jesus facepalm christ

they in fact didn't say that...go read their actual fraking quotes

or believe whatever stupid shit you want to believe...might as well, people here believe Orton is our savior...

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 04:54 PM
jesus facepalm christ

they in fact didn't say that...go read their actual fraking quotes

or believe whatever stupid shit you want to believe...might as well, people here believe Orton is our savior...

“There will be increased competition at every position, including the quarterback position,” Pioli said.

“What happens in free agency remains to be seen,” Crennel said. “I know competition makes everybody better, and we’ll just have to see what kind of competition we’re going to have at the quarterback position.”

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 04:54 PM
Seems pretty clear from this quote.

“There will be increased competition at every position, including the quarterback position,” Pioli said. “Who that is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s Kyle [Orton], maybe it’s another free agent, maybe it’s a draft choice, I don’t know.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 04:54 PM
jesus facepalm christ

they in fact didn't say that...go read their actual fraking quotes

or believe whatever stupid shit you want to believe...might as well, people here believe Orton is our savior...

Feel free to post the quotes you are referring to...and include the link.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 04:58 PM
“We’ve been saying it for three years, and I’m going to continue to say it, because it’s a core part of our philosophy: There will be increased competition at every position, including the quarterback position,” Pioli said. “Who that is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s Kyle (Orton), maybe it’s another free agent, maybe it’s a draft choice, I don’t know.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/02/3406996/chiefs-narrow-coordinator-search.html#storylink=cpy

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 05:02 PM
“There will be increased competition at every position, including the quarterback position,” Pioli said.

“What happens in free agency remains to be seen,” Crennel said. “I know competition makes everybody better, and we’ll just have to see what kind of competition we’re going to have at the quarterback position.”

Here's the problem:

He didn't say there would be competition, period. He used a qualifier, saying there will be INCREASED competition.

Since the previous competition was ZERO, bringing in my Grandma could be construed as INCREASED competition.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 05:02 PM
Here's the problem:

He didn't say there would be competition, period. He used a qualifier, saying there will be INCREASED competition.

Since the previous competition was ZERO, bringing in my Grandma could be construed as INCREASED competition.

Is your grandma any good?

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 05:04 PM
Is your grandma any good?

Not at football. :evil: :Lin:

Chiefs Pantalones
02-15-2012, 05:06 PM
LMAO
How does a more downfield passing game play to Cassel's strengths?

Crennel- It depends on how far you throw the ball down the field.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/media-center/videos/Romeo-Crennel-Conference-Call/e8042e4a-9f0e-4a15-90fc-9fc95f4cd13a

FAX
02-15-2012, 05:19 PM
Beware the words of Dr. Evil, my friends. For, he of the bugged candy wrapper is inscrutable and devious. To wit; Dr. Evil knew we were listening when he said, "there will be a quarterback competition this offseason."

Note that he did not say there would be competition "for" the quarterback position. No, he did not. Rather, he simply stated that, "there will be a quarterback competition ...".

This could well mean that a couple of quarterbacks will arm wrassle for quarters after practice. Alternatively, it could indicate that vanilla ice cream sandwiches will be handed out to each quarterback in camp and the quarterback who finishes his sandwich first will receive a signed photograph of Dr. Evil and Bill Belichick standing in front of the Paul Revere House.

Therefore, my friends, it behooves us to remember that, when suck is all about you and all about you is suck, skepticism can be your ally.

FAX

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 05:20 PM
LMAO
How does a more downfield passing game play to Cassel's strengths?

Crennel- It depends on how far you throw the ball down the field.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/media-center/videos/Romeo-Crennel-Conference-Call/e8042e4a-9f0e-4a15-90fc-9fc95f4cd13a

No ****ing way? He said that?

If he did, LMAO LMAO LMAO

Detoxing
02-15-2012, 05:23 PM
No ****ing way? He said that?

If he did, LMAO LMAO LMAO

Meh. Sounded much better when taken out of context.

Chiefs Pantalones
02-15-2012, 05:25 PM
Meh. Sounded much better when taken out of context.

But still he said it. I thought I heard a little laugh in the background from one of the genious KC media guys when he said that.

I don't know how they can have so much confidence in this guy.

Fish
02-15-2012, 05:33 PM
LMAO
How does a more downfield passing game play to Cassel's strengths?

Crennel- It depends on how far you throw the ball down the field.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/media-center/videos/Romeo-Crennel-Conference-Call/e8042e4a-9f0e-4a15-90fc-9fc95f4cd13a

Wow....

-King-
02-15-2012, 05:37 PM
jesus facepalm christ

they in fact didn't say that...go read their actual fraking quotes

or believe whatever stupid shit you want to believe...might as well, people here believe Orton is our savior...

ROFLROFLROFL

What the fuck?


How the fuck did you miss “There will be increased competition at every position, including the quarterback position (http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/02/3406996/chiefs-narrow-coordinator-search.html#storylink=rss#storylink=cpy),” Pioli said. “Who that is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s Kyle [Orton], maybe it’s another free agent, maybe it’s a draft choice, I don’t know. Very few people can perform at an extremely high level without competition.”Seriously. I really want to know.

whoman69
02-15-2012, 06:00 PM
Is your grandma any good?

Not at football. :evil: :Lin:

If she can throw to her left she must be better than Manning.

O.city
02-15-2012, 06:05 PM
I want the Chiefs to take Richardson for a couple reasons.

I think if he is there when we pick, we will be getting the BPA, which is never a bad thing. He is a great great running back. Not only is he a great runner, but he is great at blitz pickup and catching the ball out of the backfield. He would make a great addition to our offense as you can never have too many weapons.

I have the same fear of htis in what Richardson would or could do for Cassel, but that bring me to my second point. I don't think Cassel is the starter next year. For some reason I just don't see a way with all that has happened how the front office can bring the guy back.

MahiMike
02-15-2012, 06:13 PM
BOO!

milkman
02-15-2012, 06:17 PM
I want the Chiefs to take Richardson for a couple reasons.

I think if he is there when we pick, we will be getting the BPA, which is never a bad thing. He is a great great running back. Not only is he a great runner, but he is great at blitz pickup and catching the ball out of the backfield. He would make a great addition to our offense as you can never have too many weapons.

I have the same fear of htis in what Richardson would or could do for Cassel, but that bring me to my second point. I don't think Cassel is the starter next year. For some reason I just don't see a way with all that has happened how the front office can bring the guy back.

Personally, I think we're stuck with Cassel for the next 2 years, regardless of any pick we make, whether Richardson or Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff.

It will be one of those guys, cause they are going to do whatever they can to prop up Cassel.

They will make more excuses after the season to dismiss Cassel's continued suckage, and draft more Cassel props in 2013.

Going into 2014, they'll be looking for another vet QB, because all the pieces will be in place, and they think a vet QB will get us over the hump.


Wash, rinse, repeat.

stonedstooge
02-15-2012, 06:36 PM
Can't the Executive of the Decade find a way to beat Washington out for the second pick?

Lightrise
02-15-2012, 06:57 PM
I'm not expecting it to fall this way, and IF we sign Orton which is what I think we MUST do I'd take it, but I'd rather have the #1 guard for a decade of stability.

milkman
02-15-2012, 07:03 PM
I'm not expecting it to fall this way, and IF we sign Orton which is what I think we MUST do I'd take it, but I'd rather have the #1 guard for a decade of stability.

:banghead:

el borracho
02-15-2012, 07:14 PM
I'm not expecting it to fall this way, and IF we sign Orton which is what I think we MUST do I'd take it, but I'd rather have the #1 guard for a decade of stability.

We should probably trade up to get him.

DeezNutz
02-15-2012, 07:16 PM
We should probably trade up to get him.

Assuming there isn't a worthy TE on the board.

Tribal Warfare
02-15-2012, 07:21 PM
LMAO
How does a more downfield passing game play to Cassel's strengths?

Crennel- It depends on how far you throw the ball down the field.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/media-center/videos/Romeo-Crennel-Conference-Call/e8042e4a-9f0e-4a15-90fc-9fc95f4cd13a

Heh, it doesn't sound like Crennel has faith in Matt's "deep ball" attack.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 07:22 PM
LMAO
How does a more downfield passing game play to Cassel's strengths?

Crennel- It depends on how far you throw the ball down the field.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/media-center/videos/Romeo-Crennel-Conference-Call/e8042e4a-9f0e-4a15-90fc-9fc95f4cd13a

Does anyone have the transcript to this?

DonTellMeShowMe
02-15-2012, 07:22 PM
Dont think the 49ers take Alshon Jeffery....Harbaugh will hate this dudes work ethic plus he's fat

http://www.frumpzilla.com/image_gallery/Alshon-Jeffrey-Is-Fat.jpg

Tribal Warfare
02-15-2012, 07:24 PM
Does anyone have the transcript to this?

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/article-2/QA-with-Romeo-Crennel-215/afa7f503-9cc2-4813-8d48-07196bfe6f3e

whoman69
02-15-2012, 07:25 PM
Can't the Executive of the Decade find a way to beat Washington out for the second pick?

That is not in the executive of the decade's plans. His highness backs his choice of Matthew Castle.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 07:43 PM
He can be a cog, but he WON'T BE.

This is the Chiefs, have you completely forgotten that fact?

Trent Richardson is EXACTLY the kind of crutch Clark Hunt needs to return this team to the "glory days" of the 1990's, when the seats were full and we lost to inferior teams in the playoffs, AT ARROWHEAD.

YOU HAVE GOTTEN TO BE SOOOOOOOO INCESSANTLY ANNOYING WITH YOUR "LOGIC"!!!

As Milkman said earlier, picking any player for the Oline would essentially be "propping up" Cassel also.

To which I believe you retorted with something like, "That's why we have to get a QB at any cost". Who then, do you suggest we get? Luck is off limits, and so is RG3.

So what is the right pick? I'm waiting, and it had BETTER not be an idiotic reach like Tannehill or some other inferior QB.

Can't you just stock the cupboards this year and get a QB in a much deeper QB draft next year?

jspchief
02-15-2012, 07:43 PM
It's funny because BPA has been a popular stance around here for a long time. Richardson is probably the BPA if he's there at 12. And now people are wavering.

I also think there's a lot of people here that will always want the flashy skill players over linemen.

The reality is the Chiefs will have several good options picking in that spot, to either fill a distinct need or add a talented athletic contributor. It seems like the only way we screw this up will be if we fuck up with Bowe or Carr and create a new immediate need in the process.

As much as I like Richardson, and I really really like him, I think we are probably better off taking Oline. We can find a RB to compliment Charles in later rounds. Richardson is too much of a luxury when we have other needs that can be filled with guys worthy of the selection.

O.city
02-15-2012, 07:50 PM
A pick like McCluster is a luxury pick.


A rb that can be AP type good and tote the rock 300 times if you need him to and be an integral part of your offense doesn't seem to be a luxury pick to me.

-King-
02-15-2012, 07:51 PM
YOU HAVE GOTTEN TO BE SOOOOOOOO INCESSANTLY ANNOYING WITH YOUR "LOGIC"!!!

As Milkman said earlier, picking any player for the Oline would essentially be "propping up" Cassel also.

To which I believe you retorted with something like, "That's why we have to get a QB at any cost". Who then, do you suggest we get? Luck is off limits, and so is RG3.

So what is the right pick? I'm waiting, and it had BETTER not be an idiotic reach like Tannehill or some other inferior QB.

Can't you just stock the cupboards this year and get a QB in a much deeper QB draft next year?

WE SHOULDN'T DRAFT ANY PLAYER THAT MAKES US BETTER! THAT WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH!

IF PIOLI WERE SMART, HE'D FORFEIT THE DRAFT! /Htismaqe

aturnis
02-15-2012, 07:53 PM
By the way, one only needs to look at the Steelers before Ben Roethlisberger and after. Look at all of those teams built in Marty's image, with great QBs like Tommy Maddox and Bubby Brister.

Is that REALLY what we want to be?

REALLY?! Do we have an opportunity to draft a Ben Roethlisberger? No? Oh, that's what I thought.

Get it through your head man, NOBODY IS SAYING TAKE TRENT RICHARDSON BEFORE ANDREW LUCK. NOBODY IS SAYING TAKE TRENT RICHARDSON BEFORE RG3. All ANYONE is saying is, we are as screwed positional value wise as we were in 2009, so take the BPA this time and don't force a pick for need by taking another Tyson Jackson.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 07:55 PM
A pick like McCluster is a luxury pick.


A rb that can be AP type good and tote the rock 300 times if you need him to and be an integral part of your offense doesn't seem to be a luxury pick to me.

We have a very good RB. We don't have a center, RT, guard, or NT.

That's what makes it a luxury pick in my mind.

While its.possible to fill all those holes in FA, its highly unlikely that we fill ALL of them.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 07:56 PM
WE SHOULDN'T DRAFT ANY PLAYER THAT MAKES US BETTER! THAT WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH!

IF PIOLI WERE SMART, HE'D FORFEIT THE DRAFT! /Htismaqe

That's basically how I read it. Over and over and over again. In every draft related discussion on this forum...

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 07:56 PM
We have a very good RB. We don't have a center, RT, guard, or NT.

That's what makes it a luxury pick in my mind.

While its.possible to fill all those holes in FA, its highly unlikely that we fill ALL of them.

Will JC be returning completely healthy...not affected by the injury?

O.city
02-15-2012, 07:58 PM
We had a very good rb. We don't know what we have right now.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 07:59 PM
Will JC be returning completely healthy...not affected by the injury?

So we use the #12 overall on insurance when we have so many needs?

It makes sense just like the LJ made sense. But ultimately we insured Holmes and our running game at the cost of getting better on D. Where did that get us?

FAX
02-15-2012, 07:59 PM
Given where we are right now, it's BPA in the draft all the way. Forget positional drafting. We need depth across the board. We can use FA to further improve the line, probably find a RB, and fill in other slots where it's necessary.

As everyone knows, we're not going anywhere in the playoffs with our current quarterback so, in the meantime, we need to focus on A) Not getting our asses into cap trouble and B) Building a solid starting 10 on offense and C) Acquiring quality depth everywhere.

Then, we have to find us a damn quarterback before everybody else on the team starts collecting social security.

FAX

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:01 PM
So we use the #12 overall on insurance when we have so many needs?

It makes sense just like the LJ made sense. But ultimately we insured Holmes and our running game at the cost of getting better on D. Where did that get us?

I get what you are saying, but it comes down, IMO to positional value.


You can't get a rb prospect like Richardson in the third round. I guess you could but not likely. It is much more likely to be able to get a really good RT prospect in round 2 or 3.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 08:01 PM
So we use the #12 overall on insurance when we have so many needs?

It makes sense just like the LJ made sense. But ultimately we insured Holmes and our running game at the cost of getting better on D. Where did that get us?

So JC returns to speed and we are STUCK with a backfield of JC and TR.

Or...

We roll the dice on JC and pass on TR (if he is there) just to find out JC has lost a step...or worse. Now what...?

jspchief
02-15-2012, 08:02 PM
We had a very good rb. We don't know what we have right now.

We know we have a bad QB, RT, no NT, a mediocre guard, and god knows how many other holes after FA.

I don't see how anyone can justify drafting for a "possible" need when we have a laundry list of definite needs.

milkman
02-15-2012, 08:04 PM
Well, hell, let's just David DeCastro.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:07 PM
We have 4 rounds of the draft to get starting quality players.


If we are smart, we could come out of free agency and the draft with

A starting NT
A starting RT
Possible all pro players at rb, safety, corner, wr, LG.

And that's mainly thru Free agency.

By the time the draft comes, if we are lucky and smart, we should have locked up Bowe and Carr, signed Soliai, Nicks or Grubbs, Orton, and possibly, my fingers are crossed for it, Landry.

That sets us at NT, LG, QB, S, WR, and C.

Basically thru the draft you need depth anywhere you can get it, a RT, and more depth.

Trent Richardson, IMO, woudl be pretty damn solid depth and/or a backup plan if JC doesn't come back.

milkman
02-15-2012, 08:08 PM
And RB is not a "possible need".

It's a real need.

Even if Charles comes back 100%, you aren't going to give him more than 230 carries.

We need another back to take those 250 carries that he doesn't get, and Jackie Battle and Dexter McCluster ain't that guy.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:11 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure Richardson wouldn't within a year or two, be one of the best 3 rbs in the league.


Of course that doesn't mean shit but if we coudl get a qb to match with that.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 08:13 PM
Nobody can argue that IF JC returns to the player he was in 2010-11 and you add Richardson...we will have the most talented backfield...

aturnis
02-15-2012, 08:14 PM
So we use the #12 overall on insurance when we have so many needs?

It makes sense just like the LJ made sense. But ultimately we insured Holmes and our running game at the cost of getting better on D. Where did that get us?

And we now have a fantastic D, no chance of filling our biggest need(QB) with the pick and Lilja is constantly overstated as a liability. Hudson fills one spot, if that is center, then I doubt we even attempt to replace Lilja this year(too much change on the line in one year is not good) and we can get the only other need along the OL anywhere from round 2-4 with a pretty solid guy this year. Not to mention RT at 11 is ridiculously bad value.

If the brass decides that from this day forward, Hudson is our LG and Lilja is out, then they might draft 2 OL, or sign a vet and draft one. I think they drafted him to play center though and don't seem like the type of guys to second guess themselves.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:15 PM
A healthy Charles and Richardson, could potentially be 2 of the top 5 rbs in the league in the same backfield.


With those two carrying the ball, I think Orton, with his play action game, could be cold blood nasty.

Kyle DeLexus
02-15-2012, 08:20 PM
And RB is not a "possible need".

It's a real need.

Even if Charles comes back 100%, you aren't going to give him more than 230 carries.

We need another back to take those 250 carries that he doesn't get, and Jackie Battle and Dexter McCluster ain't that guy.

It'd be nice to have a RB that could pick up a first down on 3rd and short. If they keep the same blocking scheme, Richardson would be extremely valuable. Adding him will make the entire team that much better by extending the offensive possessions and giving the defense some rest.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:23 PM
I think Richardson has the build and agility of MJD, with the vision and speed of AP.

He's a hell of a player.

Pasta Giant Meatball
02-15-2012, 08:23 PM
It would be a better pick than a damn interior lineman...

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 08:26 PM
In the end...I bet he goes to Tampa before he drops to us.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 08:32 PM
I can't believe how many people have TR falling to 11. All this talk about TR being the next AP and yet no teams before us want the next AP.

In this mock the Redskins leapfrogged the Browns for RG3... The Browns need a RB. They also need someone that can do the same for McCoy that people want for Cassel. They appear to be warming up to the idea of bringing Hillis back, but even if he does come back you cant count on him to stay healthy and, other than 1 year, he isn't someone you want as your #1.

TB is another team that could really use TR to protect their QB. They also need a CB, but Carr is going to be a UFA and Routt just got cut so they dont necessarily need to use their first on Claiborne.

Count Zarth
02-15-2012, 08:33 PM
Imagine our 2010 rushing attack with Trent Richardson improving on TJ's 3.7 YPC

Dayze
02-15-2012, 08:34 PM
Considering we won't be drafting a qb IDE ok with the pick if he fell to us. I wouldn't want to trade up to get him but I'd be ok with the pick if it came to us

ChiefsCountry
02-15-2012, 08:38 PM
Really the Chiefs can draft like a playoff team in all honesty. Other than QB our holes are minor positions sans NT and we are close to the luxury building stages.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 08:41 PM
Really the Chiefs can draft like a playoff team in all honesty. Other than QB our holes are minor positions sans NT and we are close to the luxury building stages.

I wouldn't say OL is a minor need.

Ya, a good QB can overcome some weaknesses in the line but look at how good that QB has to be to do that. And its not just the passing game that is effected by a shit OL.

Guru
02-15-2012, 08:42 PM
None of it means squat as long as we keep trotting Cassel out there.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:42 PM
I wouldn't say OL is a minor need.

Ya, a good QB can overcome some weaknesses in the line but look at how good that QB has to be to do that. And its not just the passing game that is effected by a shit OL.

I agree.


I do think though that the oline can be made a really good unit with a free agent siging and a 2 or 3 round pick.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 08:46 PM
I agree.


I do think though that the oline can be made a really good unit with a free agent siging and a 2 or 3 round pick.

Same can be said for RB.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:47 PM
That is true.


However, if Richardson is there in the first you take him.

Would you not jd?

jd1020
02-15-2012, 08:48 PM
That is true.


However, if Richardson is there in the first you take him.

Would you not jd?

If I had no other options. I'd try to trade the pick as best I could if he did wind up falling to us.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:50 PM
Don't think he's that much of a game changer or just don't value rb spot with a 1st rounder?

jd1020
02-15-2012, 08:52 PM
I like the value of RBs later in the draft better than the value of OL later in the draft.

O.city
02-15-2012, 08:53 PM
I see.


I just see the gap between Richardson and the 2 tier of Rb's more than the top tier or RT's and the second tier.

DenverDanChiefsFan
02-15-2012, 09:01 PM
That's basically how I read it. Over and over and over again. In every discussion on this forum...

FYP

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:03 PM
Meh.

I'd take Reiff/Martin and Miller/Wilson/Martin over Richardson and Sanders/Massie. I question Massie for the simple fact that when he declared he had a lot of people asking "Why?"

In the event of a trade down I'd take Konz/Adams, Miller/Wilson/Martin, and Fleener over Richardson and Sanders/Massie.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:18 PM
Really the Chiefs can draft like a playoff team in all honesty. Other than QB our holes are minor positions sans NT and we are close to the luxury building stages.

Finally someone with some sense. I'm sick of people acting like this team has no talent. This team is chock full of talent and 30 millions under the cap. For the most part, the Chiefs need a QB and some easily filled holes plus depth.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:21 PM
I wouldn't say OL is a minor need.

Ya, a good QB can overcome some weaknesses in the line but look at how good that QB has to be to do that. And its not just the passing game that is effected by a shit OL.

Honestly, we have only 2 REAL holes on the OL. RT and C. Hudson can play C, it's what we drafted him to do. Lilja isn't spectacular, but this board is overstating his shortcomings. A team can, and has won a Superbowl with Lilja. You might realistically only see a RT drafted this year.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:24 PM
Meh.

I'd take Reiff/Martin and Miller/Wilson/Martin over Richardson and Sanders/Massie. I question Massie for the simple fact that when he declared he had a lot of people asking "Why?"

In the event of a trade down I'd take Konz/Adams, Miller/Wilson/Martin, and Fleener over Richardson and Sanders/Massie.

I disagree. Also might want to include Reynolds in there or any number of other T that can and probably will drop.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:25 PM
I disagree. Also might want to include Reynolds in there or any number of other T that can and probably will drop.

We're talking 2nd tier here... not 4th round.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 09:28 PM
We have 4 rounds of the draft to get starting quality players.


If we are smart, we could come out of free agency and the draft with

A starting NT
A starting RT
Possible all pro players at rb, safety, corner, wr, LG.

And that's mainly thru Free agency.

By the time the draft comes, if we are lucky and smart, we should have locked up Bowe and Carr, signed Soliai, Nicks or Grubbs, Orton, and possibly, my fingers are crossed for it, Landry.

That sets us at NT, LG, QB, S, WR, and C.

Basically thru the draft you need depth anywhere you can get it, a RT, and more depth.

Trent Richardson, IMO, woudl be pretty damn solid depth and/or a backup plan if JC doesn't come back.

So you expect us to get Bowe, Carr, Soliai, Nicks/Grubbs, Landry, and Orton?

You're fucking on crack. Thats pretty much the top/2nd prospect at each of their respective positions. Regardless of have the cap room, there's no fucking way Hunt suddenly becomes Dan Snyder.

More realistically, we'll be lucky to keep Carr and Bowe, will bring Gregg back, will bid on a 2nd tier guard and settle on a 3rd tier one instead, and won't even glance at Landry or Orton. This isn't Madden, and this organization has never made a splash in FA remotely close to what you're anticipating.

Richardson is a great prospect. I agree that he has potential to be a top 3 back in the league. I agree that it could give our backfield 2 of the top 5 backs in the league. What I don't agree with is the need to have that much talent in our backfield with as many holes as we have elsewhere.

I won't hate picking Richardson. It will give me years of enjoyable football to watch, I'm sure. I just don't feel its the best route to building this team into a championship contender.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:29 PM
We're talking 2nd tier here... not 4th round.

He is second tier. He'll fall to the 4th b/c of his age, not his talent.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:30 PM
He is second tier. He'll fall to the 4th b/c of his age, not his talent.

... Reynolds is not 2nd tier. He's barely being looked at as a T at the NFL level.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:31 PM
Richardson is a great prospect. I agree that he has potential to be a top 3 back in the league. I agree that it could give our backfield 2 of the top 5 backs in the league. What I don't agree with is the need to have that much talent in our backfield with as many holes as we have elsewhere.

I won't hate picking Richardson. It will give me years of enjoyable football to watch, I'm sure. I just don't feel its the best route to building this team into a championship contender.

I agree.

I think its a waste to pick Richardson and have him split carries with someone.

kysirsoze
02-15-2012, 09:34 PM
I agree.

I think its a waste to pick Richardson and have him split carries with someone.

Almost everybody splits carries now. It keeps them fresh throughout the season not to mention extends their careers. Since his physical running style is a concern for a lot of people, I would think having someone to take the load off would be a perfect fit.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:35 PM
Almost everybody splits carries now. It keeps them fresh throughout the season not to mention extends their careers. Since his physical running style is a concern for a lot of people, I would think having someone to take the load off would be a perfect fit.

Almost everyone doesn't have AP/MJD.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:37 PM
So you expect us to get Bowe, Carr, Soliai, Nicks/Grubbs, Landry, and Orton?

You're ****ing on crack. Thats pretty much the top/2nd prospect at each of their respective positions. Regardless of have the cap room, there's no ****ing way Hunt suddenly becomes Dan Snyder.

More realistically, we'll be lucky to keep Carr and Bowe, will bring Gregg back, will bid on a 2nd tier guard and settle on a 3rd tier one instead, and won't even glance at Landry or Orton. This isn't Madden, and this organization has never made a splash in FA remotely close to what you're anticipating.

Gregg is strongly considering retirement, and recent reports hint that he is leaning in that direction.


Richardson is a great prospect. I agree that he has potential to be a top 3 back in the league. I agree that it could give our backfield 2 of the top 5 backs in the league. What I don't agree with is the need to have that much talent in our backfield with as many holes as we have elsewhere.

I won't hate picking Richardson. It will give me years of enjoyable football to watch, I'm sure. I just don't feel its the best route to building this team into a championship contender.

You talk like we have ALL THESE HOLES! On defense, we NEED a NT, that's it, Belcher and Lewis are serviceable. No NEED to replace them right now.

As for offense, we NEED a QB, a RT and a C. Hudson might just be our center as that is where he was drafted to play. Other than those positions, we really just need depth and role players before we can have the luxury of taking whatever the hell we damned well please.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:38 PM
... Reynolds is not 2nd tier. He's barely being looked at as a T at the NFL level.

So says you. He is widely considered an NFL RT. SOME have noted his size, but he looks the part doesn't he?

jspchief
02-15-2012, 09:38 PM
Almost everyone doesn't have AP/MJD.

Exactly. People want the best RB in the draft, for a complimentary role.

It'd be like taking the top CB to fill our nickel spot.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:42 PM
So says you. He is widely considered an NFL RT. SOME have noted his size, but he looks the part doesn't he?

The same people that think he fits at RT also make note that he would probably benefit from a move inside.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:46 PM
Exactly. People want the best RB in the draft, for a complimentary role.

It'd be like taking the top CB to fill our nickel spot.

How would he be complimentary? He'd be our premier RB. He'd take more carries than Charles, not only b/c he is built to carry the load, but b/c he is versatile enough to use on 3 downs, 4 actually, when you consider he'd take the 4th and short yardage carries when Romeo chooses to go for it. Whereas Charles is a 1&2 down and 3rd and long back, and almost useless in goal line and short yardage situations.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 09:48 PM
How would he be complimentary? He'd be our premier RB. He'd take more carries than Charles, not only b/c he is built to carry the load, but b/c he is versatile enough to use on 3 downs, 4 actually, when you consider he'd take the 4th and short yardage carries when Romeo chooses to go for it. Whereas Charles is a 1&2 down and 3rd and long back, and almost useless in goal line and short yardage situations.

Ok, so you'd make our all pro RB a complimentary back. Gotcha.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:50 PM
The same people that think he fits at RT also make note that he would probably benefit from a move inside.

As would ANY 2nd tier T. The only 2nd tier T who wouldn't benefit from a move inside is one who's physical stature wouldn't allow them to be successful inside(too tall etc). Robert Gallery was a #1 overall LT who benefited from a move inside.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:51 PM
As would ANY 2nd tier T. The only 2nd tier T who wouldn't benefit from a move inside is one who's physical stature wouldn't allow them to be successful inside(too tall etc). Robert Gallery was a #1 overall LT who benefited from a move inside.

I dont see anyone claiming Sanders/Massie would benefit from a move inside.

kysirsoze
02-15-2012, 09:52 PM
Almost everyone doesn't have AP/MJD.

Good point. We do have Charles at an incredible bargain, but having both of those guys could be overkill. I'd be extremely happy with someone like BGE to fill that role opposite Charles.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:52 PM
Ok, so you'd make our all pro RB a complimentary back. Gotcha.

Ok, so you make our all pro RB coming off of a torn ACL, is too small to carry the bulk of the workload and who has been worthless in short yardage/goal line situations our premiere runningback?

jd1020
02-15-2012, 09:53 PM
Ok, so you make our all pro RB coming off of a torn ACL, is too small to carry the bulk of the workload and who has been worthless in short yardage/goal line situations our premiere runningback?

:facepalm:

aturnis
02-15-2012, 09:58 PM
I dont see anyone claiming Sanders/Massie would benefit from a move inside.

And as I said, most any scouting report I've read that has stated anything of the sort, has cited his SIZE as the reason. Saying he's too small to play T in the NFL. They have also been criticized for saying that, as Reynolds is virtually the same exact size as Sanders, and just a bit lighter than Massie.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:03 PM
:facepalm:

:facepalm:

Setsuna
02-15-2012, 10:05 PM
All wrong. The Jags will never draft Couples because he isn't a class act. And that is who our GM drafts. I suspect we get Brian Quick from App State first pick or another OL. Like clockwork. I hate Gene Smith.

kysirsoze
02-15-2012, 10:05 PM
Ok, so you make our all pro RB coming off of a torn ACL, is too small to carry the bulk of the workload and who has been worthless in short yardage/goal line situations our premiere runningback?

Yeah, Charles could never be a premiere running back. That's just nonsense.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:05 PM
And as I said, most any scouting report I've read that has stated anything of the sort, has cited his SIZE as the reason. Saying he's too small to play T in the NFL. They have also been criticized for saying that, as Reynolds is virtually the same exact size as Sanders, and just a bit lighter than Massie.

So if he's virtually the same size as those other players then how come those other players aren't being looked at for G?

I think I'd rather carry on a conversation with a fucking wall than you.

Anyone thinking a 4-5 pick is second tier anything is a fucking moron. You and Sac should hook up.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 10:10 PM
The absolute best insight into the situation was when Pioli had his sit down wi Jack Harry.

I know I keep coming back to this, but it's the best we have to hope for.

Jack asked Pioli if he would spend a first round pick on the competition.

Pioli said yes

Jack followed it up asking if Scott would trade up in the first to draft a quarterback and Piolis answer was

"depends on the cost"

Not...."no, I don't think we need that much of an investment when we already have Cassel"

He said it depends on how much more than just a first round pick it would take.

That right there tells us that even Pioli looks at qb as a position in need of a serious invesent to upgrade....he just isn't willing to spend "multiple first round picks" to fix the position because he thought that would be irresponsible of him to do so.

There really is hope.

Anybody that doesn't think so should go watch that interview or listen to it

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:15 PM
Yeah, Charles could never be a premiere running back. That's just nonsense.

Might be silly to put your eggs in that basket, considering his injury. Also, he's not going to carry the brunt of the load, if you ask him to, you are a fool. It's been mentioned, 230 carries is a good number for Charles, add in some receiving and he touches the ball plenty. The Chiefs ran the ball 487 times last year, WITHOUT an all pro RB. Who takes the other 250 carries? You could give Dex some and another guy, but why not just leave Dex out of it and give the carries to one dependable RB, after all, Dex doesn't offer anything Charles doesn't and isn't nearly as effective.

kysirsoze
02-15-2012, 10:16 PM
The absolute best insight into the situation was when Pioli had his sit down wi Jack Harry.

I know I keep coming back to this, but it's the best we have to hope for.

Jack asked Pioli if he would spend a first round pick on the competition.

Pioli said yes

Jack followed it up asking if Scott would trade up in the first to draft a quarterback and Piolis answer was

"depends on the cost"

Not...."no, I don't think we need that much of an investment when we already have Cassel"

He said it depends on how much more than just a first round pick it would take.

That right there tells us that even Pioli looks at qb as a position in need of a serious invesent to upgrade....he just isn't willing to spend "multiple first round picks" to fix the position because he thought that would be irresponsible of him to do so.

There really is hope.

Anybody that doesn't think so should go watch that interview or listen to it

Sounds to me like he is saying the kind of thing he's always said. Non-commital and politically safe. He knows Cassel is unpopular. Why would he further risk his reputation by stating that the Chiefs won't even pursue other options? I think he is laying the groundwork for the idea that getting a replacement for Cassel was just too costly. Either way, his comments are way too vague to be taken as much of an indicator of anything.

Just like the whole QB competition thing. What's he gonna say? They won't make Cassel compete for his job? That would fly in the face of the entire philosophy he's espoused since he got here.

With Pioli and QB's I am in the "believe it when I see it" camp. I really hope you're right.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 10:18 PM
Ok, so you make our all pro RB coming off of a torn ACL, is too small to carry the bulk of the workload and who has been worthless in short yardage/goal line situations our premiere runningback?

We can lead the league in rushing with Thomas fucking Jones supporting Charles, so clearly we need to replace Jones with a #12 overall RB

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:19 PM
So if he's virtually the same size as those other players then how come those other players aren't being looked at for G?

I think I'd rather carry on a conversation with a ****ing wall than you.

Anyone thinking a 4-5 pick is second tier anything is a ****ing moron. You and Sac should hook up.

B/C NOBODY'S SAYING THEY'RE TOO SMALL TO PLAY TACKLE DUMB FUCK!

Can you not follow? The reason most often stated for Reynolds to move inside is b/c of his size. Too small for tackle. Yet he's the same size as these other two. Dumb fuck.

That is why this handful of guys saying Reynolds would benefit from a move inside is b/c they say he's small, when in fact, he is not. It was a topic of discussion during the Senior bowl practices, that for a guy being called small, he sure looked big out there.

FAX
02-15-2012, 10:21 PM
Ok, so you make our all pro RB coming off of a torn ACL, is too small to carry the bulk of the workload and who has been worthless in short yardage/goal line situations our premiere runningback?

I blame our difficulties in short-yardage and redzone on scheme and overall tactical planning. We simply haven't been designing or running plays that fit Charles' strengths. Either that, or we haven't built an o-line that can do what's being demanded of them.

I don't put that crap on Charles. Not at all. To do so is unfair. Those problems come to roost on the coaching staff and/or personnel dept. ... 100%.

FAX

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:21 PM
B/C NOBODY'S SAYING THEY'RE TOO SMALL TO PLAY TACKLE DUMB ****!

Can you not follow? The reason most often stated for Reynolds to move inside is b/c of his size. Too small for tackle. Yet he's the same size as these other two. Dumb ****.

That is why this handful of guys saying Reynolds would benefit from a move inside is b/c they say he's small, when in fact, he is not. It was a topic of discussion during the Senior bowl practices, that for a guy being called small, he sure looked big out there.

You are retarded...

Reynolds is only falling because of his size and his age... :rolleyes:

"Of course, while Miller, Wilber, and Tuani looked great, they had to someone look bad. That someone was BYU left tackle Matt Reynolds, and they made him look very bad.

Reynolds came into the Shrine Game as a fourth-round pick, who would not be able to play left tackle at the next level, but could be a starting-caliber right tackle, or kick inside to guard. In this game, it was affirmed that he is unable to play left tackle, and will almost certainly have to move to guard.

Reynolds is tough and physical as a run blocker, but the East’s speed rushers completely dominated him around the edge. Reynolds should now be looked at as a guard prospect, and his poor performance will likely cause him to slide into the late rounds of the draft."

He's definitely not dropping because he was already being projected as a guard and had a less than impressive week in a 2nd tier All-Star game.

Reynolds is virtually the same size as Sanders and Massie just like I'm virtually the same size as Shaquille O'neal.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:24 PM
We can lead the league in rushing with Thomas ****ing Jones supporting Charles, so clearly we need to replace Jones with a #12 overall RB

Colts won a Superbowl with Lilja, yet you seem to think he needs replaced.

Who do you take at #11? A RT? We led the league in rushing with Barry Richardson blocking for Jamaal Charles, so obviously we need to replace him with a #12 overall RT.

So what is it? G, C, or RT? Instead of Richardson, which one of those positions makes this offense so much better that is justifies throwing value and BPA completely out the window?

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:26 PM
Colts won a Superbowl with Lilja, yet you seem to think he needs replaced. How long ago was this?

Who do you take at #11? A RT? We led the league in rushing with Barry Richardson blocking for Jamaal Charles, so obviously we need to replace him with a #12 overall RT. Barry Richardson is a FA and completely horrible.

So what is it? G, C, or RT? Instead of Richardson, which one of those positions makes this offense so much better that is justifies throwing value and BPA completely out the window?

.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:30 PM
You are retarded...

Reynolds is only falling because of his size and his age... :rolleyes:

"Of course, while Miller, Wilber, and Tuani looked great, they had to someone look bad. That someone was BYU left tackle Matt Reynolds, and they made him look very bad.

Reynolds came into the Shrine Game as a fourth-round pick, who would not be able to play left tackle at the next level, but could be a starting-caliber right tackle, or kick inside to guard. In this game, it was affirmed that he is unable to play left tackle, and will almost certainly have to move to guard.

Reynolds is tough and physical as a run blocker, but the East’s speed rushers completely dominated him around the edge. Reynolds should now be looked at as a guard prospect, and his poor performance will likely cause him to slide into the late rounds of the draft."

He's definitely not dropping because he was already being projected as a guard and had a less than impressive week in a 2nd tier All-Star game.

Reynolds is virtually the same size as Sanders and Massie just like I'm virtually the same size as Shaquille O'neal.

So he got beat on the left side by speed rushers? That is what makes him unable to play RT and HAS to move to G? Get out of town.

Not only that, but when did we start taking any credence in what this guy says?

@Dan_Hope
Freshman at The Ohio State University. Alum of Sutton High School. NFL Draft Featured Columnist at Bleacher Report. Also a writer for The Lantern.

Dumbass.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:32 PM
.

Does that matter? Thomas Jones is going to retire...what's your point?

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:34 PM
So he got beat on the left side by speed rushers? That is what makes him unable to play RT and HAS to move to G? Get out of town.

Not only that, but when did we start taking any credence in what this guy says?



Dumbass.

He's not the only one acknowledging Reynolds' short comings at the East-West game. He's simply the only one that went into an even minimal amount of detail.

Dumbass.

I'll take his, and the many others, word over some moron on a forum claiming a 4-5 round G to be a 2nd tier RT.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:36 PM
Does that matter? Thomas Jones is going to retire...what's your point?

That we dont have a RT and we still have Charles?

Why are you drafting an AP type RB to replace Jones and share carries with Charles?

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:41 PM
That we dont have a RT and we still have Charles?

Why are you drafting an AP type RB to replace Jones and share carries with Charles?

We don't have Thomas Jones either and we still have Charles. What's your point?

BossChief
02-15-2012, 10:42 PM
I'd be willing to bet Pittsburgh is willing to move up to take Trent Richardson.

I wonder if that's too big of a move, though.

If he is on the board at our pick, I bet they call about it.

They moved way up for polomalu back in the day...

They brought in Haley to run a balanced attack and Mendenhall is out for the 2012 season.

bowener
02-15-2012, 10:43 PM
Interesting pick for the cardinals. Patrick Peterson and Claiborne at CB. Wow.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:43 PM
We don't have Thomas Jones either and we still have Charles. What's your point?

:facepalm:

Your level of stupid is immeasurable.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:43 PM
By the way, your boy Dan Hope went ahead and put together a list of his top 10 teams who need Oline help. You'll be interested to see where the Chiefs rank...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1012903-2012-nfl-draft-10-teams-that-need-help-on-the-offensive-line

jd1020
02-15-2012, 10:46 PM
By the way, your boy Dan Hope went ahead and put together a list of his top 10 teams who need Oline help. You'll be interested to see where the Chiefs rank...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1012903-2012-nfl-draft-10-teams-that-need-help-on-the-offensive-line

Now he's my boy? ROFL

Another idiot to add to the good ol' ignore list with the likes of chiefzilla.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 10:47 PM
So he got beat on the left side by speed rushers? That is what makes him unable to play RT and HAS to move to G? Get out of town.

Not only that, but when did we start taking any credence in what this guy says?



Dumbass.

In today's NFL, if you can't handle speed you aren't a NFL tackle....be it on the left or right side.

See: Richardson, Barry

FFA we have Von Miller in the division rushing against right tackles.

It's a brave new world where guys like Reiff are worth far more than they used to be.

I've gone from not wanting anything to do with him at 11/12 to thinking it would be a decent pick.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:48 PM
We can lead the league in rushing with Thomas ****ing Jones supporting Charles, so clearly we need to replace Jones with a #12 overall RB

Above is the post I was quoting when I stated that you fucking neanderthal fucktard. I was just showing his how fucking stupid his statement was as an argument.

KC led the league with Jones supporting JC. Well, they also led the league with Richardson at RT. Cassel had a pretty good year behind him that year too. Using his logic, there is not reason to replace Richardson. We all know that isn't true, therefore, his logic is flawed.

Anything else I need to explain to you, you fucking cum dumpster?

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:50 PM
Now he's my boy? ROFL

Another idiot to add to the good ol' ignore list with the likes of chiefzilla.

You're the one touting article written by college freshman as insightful.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 10:52 PM
In today's NFL, if you can't handle speed you aren't a NFL tackle....be it on the left or right side.

See: Richardson, Barry

FFA we have Von Miller in the division rushing against right tackles.

It's a brave new world where guys like Reiff are worth far more than they used to be.

I've gone from not wanting anything to do with him at 11/12 to thinking it would be a decent pick.

Not saying we don't need to upgrade the RT...but Von Miller was virtually a no-show the last time we played them in Denver...

FAX
02-15-2012, 10:53 PM
When Grampa was here, he gave a clinic on how to build an offense. Granted, he won the damn lottery when Priest decided to have a second career at an all-pro level. But nevertheless, he built a team designed around an offensive "philosophy" that, in turn, maximized the talent he selected for that offense. From the o-line to the fullback to the receivers to the quarterback, everybody was put in a position to play to their strengths.

For example, he decided upon a smallish interior line that was quick, fast, could pull in either direction, and block in space. He already had a fullback who read defenses as well as any quarterback in the game, so that was cool. Then, he added a running back with patience and great vision. Put all that together and we dominated in the redzone because we could get Priest to the edges with blocking which effectively negated about two-thirds of the enemy defense. (Who found themselves on the wrong side of the numbers looking for angles 20 yards downfield.)

With these running backs and this patchwork line, it's pretty clear that we don't have a cohesive, comprehensive plan. That's obvious every time we run McDervish off-center, or Tommy Two-Yard up the guard's ass. We're neither a power run team, nor are we a finesse, fast team. Charles has been effective off-tackle simply because he can beat any linebacker to the edge with his speed. We block down with the tackle and tight end, kick the d-back out with the WR (or the WR takes him on a route), and before you can say "10-yard gain", Charles was one-on-one with a linebacker or a safety in space. We were, unfortunately, a one-trick pony, though. No passing threat. No screens. Crap play-action. Etc. Etc.

Unless or until we decide upon an offensive philosophy that we can stick with for more than 2 months, and one that Pioli "gets" so he can find players (i.e. linemen, TEs, blocking backs, feature backs) who can execute that philosophy based on their core skill sets (in other words, we actually do put our players in a position to succeed), our offense will continue to hit on only 2 cylinders and blow clouds of grimy, blue smoke out our asses.

What's our offense supposed to look like? That's question number 1. Answer that, and then we can make good decisions on things like running backs and guards.

FAX

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:55 PM
In today's NFL, if you can't handle speed you aren't a NFL tackle....be it on the left or right side.

See: Richardson, Barry

FFA we have Von Miller in the division rushing against right tackles.

It's a brave new world where guys like Reiff are worth far more than they used to be.

I've gone from not wanting anything to do with him at 11/12 to thinking it would be a decent pick.

I see what you mean, but I don't think speed on that side is as widespread as you might. There are a few teams out there sure, but I don't think nearly enough to say a 2nd tier T can't play RT for you, and do it well.

Are you sure you aren't just coming to terms with what you believe will happen?

aturnis
02-15-2012, 10:56 PM
Not saying we don't need to upgrade the RT...but Von Miller was virtually a no-show the last time we played them in Denver...

They actually pulled him from the game.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 10:58 PM
We don't have Thomas Jones either and we still have Charles. What's your point?

The point is, you don't need Adrian Peterson alongside Charles to have an effective running game. You can replace 2.0 with a later draft pick.

aturnis
02-15-2012, 11:02 PM
The point is, you don't need Adrian Peterson alongside Charles to have an effective running game. You can replace 2.0 with a later draft pick.

Same goes for RT.

ChiefsCountry
02-15-2012, 11:05 PM
RB, RT, or LG are all luxury picks at our draft spot. It really doesn't matter which way we go with it. We are getting a luxury first round pick. Personally I think Riley Rieff would be the best choice if he is there. I have Trent Richardson rated higher but he makes the most sense. If we get Richardson I will be pretty happy since he would be BPA. Jonathan Martin would be the one tackle I have concerns with since he doesn't fit the part of a right tackle. DeCastro would be fine as well.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 11:07 PM
Same goes for RT.

In the running game? Sure.

But the issue with our current RT is the passing game.

ChiefsCountry
02-15-2012, 11:08 PM
But the issue with our current RT is the passing game.

Issue with our passing game is Cassel. Orton proved that Barry Richardson wasn't pure suck and he looked more like he did in 2010.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 11:10 PM
I see what you mean, but I don't think speed on that side is as widespread as you might. There are a few teams out there sure, but I don't think nearly enough to say a 2nd tier T can't play RT for you, and do it well.

Are you sure you aren't just coming to terms with what you believe will happen?

Not at all.

The more the passing game becomes dominant in the NFL, the more teams will add more and more pass rushers to try to effect opposing offenses.

That's why teams like Denver take Von Millers of the world when they already have Really good pass rushers.

Look at how NY has built their defense around a handful of pass rushers.

Freeney and Mathis

Woodley and Harrison

Tamba and Houston

You get the point.

It used to be that if you had a elite left tackle, you could Juliet an opponents rush.

That's not the case anymore.

Shit, even if a team only has one quality pass rusher they often move him to the LDE spot if they can exploit a matchup against a right tackle.

The most important spot in a 3-4 defense used to be the NT...that is no longer the case. Now, it's either the rushbackers or the playmaking safety.

The more pass rushers become important, the more teams will overvalue OTs even the ones that play the right side.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 11:14 PM
Issue with our passing game is Cassel. Orton proved that Barry Richardson wasn't pure suck and he looked more like he did in 2010.

Barry Richardson is good. It's Charles that needs help.

BossChief
02-15-2012, 11:17 PM
The point is, you don't need Adrian Peterson alongside Charles to have an effective running game. You can replace 2.0 with a later draft pick.

No, the point is that teams that always take BPA end up with a roster full of the best players.

Teams that draft for need end up with mediocre talent across the roster.

Right now, you have to look at Charles as 50/50 to ever return to form as an elite NFL back.

When you have a chance at getting a truly elite, once every 7 or 8 year type of player you MUST do it if you have the chance.

If we pass on a talent like that for a need position and take a guy that you can get in every single draft, that's a mistake every time.

If you, or anyone else, would rather have John Tait over Adrian Peterson...I don't know what to tell you.

Yeah, I do actually...You're wrong.

ChiefsCountry
02-15-2012, 11:37 PM
Barry Richardson is good. It's Charles that needs help.

Still a stupid fucking idiot as always.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 11:39 PM
So if Richardson is gone, and Blackmon is there, we should draft another WR since he's BPA.

Or Brockers or Coples or Kirkpatrick. Hell, if Charles is 50/50, so is Berry. We should draft Barron, he's probably a better player than an o-lineman.

And what's the ranking for best player? If Richardson is so clearly ahead of the pack, why is he there at 12? Did all the other teams ahead of us foolishly draft for need instead? What's DeCastro's "best player" ranking?

ChiefsCountry
02-15-2012, 11:42 PM
So if Richardson is gone, and Blackmon is there, we should draft another WR since he's BPA.

Or Brockers or Coples or Kirkpatrick. Hell, if Charles is 50/50, so is Berry. We should draft Barron, he's probably a better player than an o-lineman.

And what's the ranking for best player? If Richardson is so clearly ahead of the pack, why is he there at 12? Did all the other teams ahead of us foolishly draft for need instead? What's DeCastro's "best player" ranking?

Your a fucking mental idiot, just shut the fuck up.

jspchief
02-15-2012, 11:49 PM
Your a fucking mental idiot, just shut the fuck up.

Try to answer the questions I asked instead of resorting to name calling.

At what point does need enter the equation? Every single projected pick before KC factors need in, barring perhaps Indy.

So what's the weighting of need versus BPA? Does need allow you to take the 16th best player at spot 12?

BossChief
02-16-2012, 12:01 AM
As far as BPA for need goes, I'd lay it out lime this:

1) Trent Richardson - he fills an immediate need with elite talent

2) Riley Reiff - he fills an immediate need with versatile and high quality talent. He would not only be a damn good right tackle, he could fill the left side if needed.

3) Decastro - elite guard prospect and we have a need for an interior line prospect...honestly, I think that gets filled in FA, though.

4) Donteri Poe - whole I'm not as high on him as some others, I do recognize his upside...especially with Romeo as the DC. He sure could force teams into a lot of 2nd/3rd and long situations and that plays right into the strength of our defense. Huge frame and the kid has talent....I just don't know enough about this small school guy to say he is worth this high of a pick.

Thats how I see things at this point.

jspchief
02-16-2012, 12:12 AM
As far as BPA for need goes, I'd lay it out lime this:

1) Trent Richardson - he fills an immediate need with elite talent

2) Riley Reiff - he fills an immediate need with versatile and high quality talent. He would not only be a damn good right tackle, he could fill the left side if needed.

3) Decastro - elite guard prospect and we have a need for an interior line prospect...honestly, I think that gets filled in FA, though.

4) Donteri Poe - whole I'm not as high on him as some others, I do recognize his upside...especially with Romeo as the DC. He sure could force teams into a lot of 2nd/3rd and long situations and that plays right into the strength of our defense. Huge frame and the kid has talent....I just don't know enough about this small school guy to say he is worth this high of a pick.

Thats how I see things at this point.

The only thing I might dispute is the amount of need for Richardson.

I would call Reiff, DeCastro, and Poe 5 star needs, while Richardson is a 2 star need.

Richardson is a clear 5 star BPA ranking, with Poe probably at the bottom of that list.

That's why I ask how one would weight those 2 factors.

To me Reiff would be a clear top combo if the two, whereas Poe would be a clear example of reaching for need.

But where does DeCastro + a lot of need rank vs Richardson + a need that can likely be filled in a later round, admittedly with a less talented player.

And certainly what we do in FA will be a factor. There are good guard options, a single good NT option, decent RB options, shit for tackle options.

Chiefnj2
02-16-2012, 06:08 AM
Why do people think G is a viable pick for KC? Lilja is only 30 or 31 years old during the season next year and Asamoah is obviously young. Do people really think KC would replace either with a first round pick? I'd assume if the team was unhappy with either, Hudson would have gotten a few more snaps other than coming in on injuries.

I think both could be upgraded, but I don't think the team agrees.

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:16 AM
Personally, I think we're stuck with Cassel for the next 2 years, regardless of any pick we make, whether Richardson or Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff.

It will be one of those guys, cause they are going to do whatever they can to prop up Cassel.

They will make more excuses after the season to dismiss Cassel's continued suckage, and draft more Cassel props in 2013.

Going into 2014, they'll be looking for another vet QB, because all the pieces will be in place, and they think a vet QB will get us over the hump.


Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yep. This is what I see happening too. Although I think drafting someone like Richardson all but guarantees it. Taking Martin or Reiff still gives a glimmer of hope that Cassel is replaced with a REAL option rather than another retread...

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:19 AM
YOU HAVE GOTTEN TO BE SOOOOOOOO INCESSANTLY ANNOYING WITH YOUR "LOGIC"!!!

As Milkman said earlier, picking any player for the Oline would essentially be "propping up" Cassel also.

To which I believe you retorted with something like, "That's why we have to get a QB at any cost". Who then, do you suggest we get? Luck is off limits, and so is RG3.

So what is the right pick? I'm waiting, and it had BETTER not be an idiotic reach like Tannehill or some other inferior QB.

Can't you just stock the cupboards this year and get a QB in a much deeper QB draft next year?

You're 100% unequivocally wrong. I've NEVER said anything even remotely close. I've openly said I don't think there's a QB out there this season worth taking and that we're stuck with Cassel for at least another year.

Please, just stay out of the discussion because you have zero clue what I'm talking about.

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:20 AM
WE SHOULDN'T DRAFT ANY PLAYER THAT MAKES US BETTER! THAT WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH!

IF PIOLI WERE SMART, HE'D FORFEIT THE DRAFT! /Htismaqe

That's basically how I read it. Over and over and over again. In every draft related discussion on this forum...

Well then it's obvious you can't read.

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:22 AM
I think Richardson has the build and agility of MJD, with the vision and speed of AP.

He's a hell of a player.

How many playoff wins do AP and MJD have between them? :hmmm:

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:33 AM
Not saying we don't need to upgrade the RT...but Von Miller was virtually a no-show the last time we played them in Denver...

He was playing with one arm.

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:36 AM
Why do people think G is a viable pick for KC? Lilja is only 30 or 31 years old during the season next year and Asamoah is obviously young. Do people really think KC would replace either with a first round pick? I'd assume if the team was unhappy with either, Hudson would have gotten a few more snaps other than coming in on injuries.

I think both could be upgraded, but I don't think the team agrees.

Hudson was drafted to play center, wasn't he?

And I sure as hell hope they're looking to replace Lilja - despite his age, his body is breaking down. He sucked for long stretches.

bevischief
02-16-2012, 06:39 AM
Barry Richardson is good. It's Charles that needs help.

Put the crack pipe down.

htismaqe
02-16-2012, 06:43 AM
Put the crack pipe down.

Adjust your sarcasm meter please...

the Talking Can
02-16-2012, 06:48 AM
When Grampa was here, he gave a clinic on how to build an offense. Granted, he won the damn lottery when Priest decided to have a second career at an all-pro level. But nevertheless, he built a team designed around an offensive "philosophy" that, in turn, maximized the talent he selected for that offense. From the o-line to the fullback to the receivers to the quarterback, everybody was put in a position to play to their strengths.

For example, he decided upon a smallish interior line that was quick, fast, could pull in either direction, and block in space. He already had a fullback who read defenses as well as any quarterback in the game, so that was cool. Then, he added a running back with patience and great vision. Put all that together and we dominated in the redzone because we could get Priest to the edges with blocking which effectively negated about two-thirds of the enemy defense. (Who found themselves on the wrong side of the numbers looking for angles 20 yards downfield.)

With these running backs and this patchwork line, it's pretty clear that we don't have a cohesive, comprehensive plan. That's obvious every time we run McDervish off-center, or Tommy Two-Yard up the guard's ass. We're neither a power run team, nor are we a finesse, fast team. Charles has been effective off-tackle simply because he can beat any linebacker to the edge with his speed. We block down with the tackle and tight end, kick the d-back out with the WR (or the WR takes him on a route), and before you can say "10-yard gain", Charles was one-on-one with a linebacker or a safety in space. We were, unfortunately, a one-trick pony, though. No passing threat. No screens. Crap play-action. Etc. Etc.

Unless or until we decide upon an offensive philosophy that we can stick with for more than 2 months, and one that Pioli "gets" so he can find players (i.e. linemen, TEs, blocking backs, feature backs) who can execute that philosophy based on their core skill sets (in other words, we actually do put our players in a position to succeed), our offense will continue to hit on only 2 cylinders and blow clouds of grimy, blue smoke out our asses.

What's our offense supposed to look like? That's question number 1. Answer that, and then we can make good decisions on things like running backs and guards.

FAX

a lucid post there

Chiefnj2
02-16-2012, 07:05 AM
Hudson was drafted to play center, wasn't he?

.

I think he was drafted to play center, but he played guard in college. He was the only backup to all three interior spots last year. I presume if our wonderful team felt Lilja, or even Asamoah, was struggling they might have plugged him in there on occassion. He played exceptionally well at guard in college, why stick with a struggling Lilja all season?