PDA

View Full Version : Who The Chiefs are Drafting.


Direckshun
04-09-2012, 05:07 PM
Some recent mocks.

Walter Football, Charlie Campbell (http://walterfootball.com/draft2012charlie.php):

11. Kansas City Chiefs: David DeCastro, G, Stanford

After signing Eric Winston to upgrade their right tackle, the Chiefs can look to bolster the interior of their line with the best guard available. Kansas City could still consider a tackle since Brandon Albert could play guard, but he's in the final year of his contract. The Chiefs might also consider Dontari Poe to play nose tackle, but he is not nearly as safe a prospect as DeCastro. Kansas City may also think of trading up with Jacksonville to land Ryan Tannehill.

DeCastro is so dominant that he is worth a top-15 pick. The 6-foot-5, 310-pounder is an experienced starter who was a Second-Team All-American in 2010 and a First-Team All-American this season. The Cardinal averaged 213.8 rush yards per game with DeCastro paving the way at right guard in 2010. He was an overwhelming force for the Stanford this year.

You could make a strong argument for DeCastro being one of the safest picks in this draft class. He is a powerful run blocker who is phenomenal at pulling and hitting blocks on the move. DeCastro is also very good at getting to the second level of the defense and blasting linebackers. He will quickly become a run-blocking asset in the NFL. Addtionally, there is no drawback with DeCastro as a pass blocker. He has a strong base and stonewalls bull rushes, including from larger defensive tackles.

DeCastro saw his best competition of 2011 when facing the University of Washington. Unfortunately, he rarely went against Huskies standout defensive tackle Alameda Ta'amu, but when DeCastro did, he beat Ta'amu on every rep. Stanford ran for 446 yards against Washington. DeCastro also had good performances against USC, Oregon and Oklahoma State.

44. Kansas City Chiefs: Alameda Ta'amu, NT, Washington

The Chiefs need a nose tackle for their 3-4 defense and are fortunate to land one of the few candidates worth an early-round pick.

Ta'amu collected 30 tackles with seven tackles for a loss and 3.5 sacks in 2011. He had a good game against Colorado with five tackles, 1.5 tackles for a loss and .5 sacks. After that, the 6-foot-3, 337-pounder had a terrible performance against Stanford. Ta'amu was a non-factor as the Cardinal was able to run through him and the Huskies' defense with ease. He also played poorly against Baylor in the Alamo Bowl shootout.

Still, Ta'amu remains one of the better nose tackles in the draft class, and he is perfect to play the nose in a 3-4 defense (plus remains one of the few genuine candidates available). At the Senior Bowl, Ta'amu was inconsistent from play to play and practice to practice. There were times when he overwhelmed linemen and other times when he looked lost.

Ta'amu was a tough run stuffer as a junior in 2010. He recorded 39 tackles with five tackles for a loss and 1.5 sacks. In his second year as a starter, Ta'amu was an All-Pac-10 honorable mention. Usually, he is a powerful force at the point of attack who is nearly impossible to move.

74. Kansas City Chiefs: Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona State

The Chiefs grab a quarterback to groom for a year or two behind Matt Cassel.

Osweiler (6-6, 242) is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case as he is a good scrambler.

As a junior this year, Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. He also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. Osweiler set the school record for yards, completions and attempts. In 2010, he had only two starts, but played well, throwing for 797 yards and five touchdowns with zero interceptions, while also running for 168 yards and a score.

Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. However, he is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something. It wouldn't be surprising if Osweiler's stock rises during the lead up to the draft. He should have stayed in school and improved before going pro.

107. Kansas City Chiefs: Chase Minnifield, CB, Virginia

The Chiefs could use some depth at cornerback.

After notching two interceptions per season as a freshman and sophomore, Minnifield broke out with six picks in 2010. He also had 48 tackles with one sack and four passes broken up. The 5-foot-10, 183-pounder can contribute as a punt returner as well.

Minnifield hurt his stock when he checked into the Combine significantly shorter than his listed height. Then, Minnifield didn't work out on the field, and he also had the lowest bench press total (seven) of any defensive back.

Minnifield's numbers declined as a senior since most teams threw away from him. In 2011, he totaled three interceptions plus 50 tackles, seven tackles for a loss, 1.5 sacks and eight passes broken up. His last interception was returned 54 yards for a touchdown.

Minnifield has the ability to function as a man or zone corner. He is a gritty, instinctive player. That could stem from his bloodlines. His father, Frank Minnifield, was a Pro Bowl defensive back in the 1980s.

146. Kansas City Chiefs: James-Michael Johnson, ILB, Nevada

The Chiefs get a backup inside linebacker.

Johnson is a quality value in the fourth round. He totaled 100 tackles with 5.5 tackles for a loss, 1.5 sacks, one interception and one forced fumble this season. That's much better than his 88 tackles from 2010.

Johnson is at his best when he is attacking the line of scrimmage and would be a quality fit on the inside of a 3-4 defense. For the next level, the 6-foot-2, 249-pounder is a sleeper prospect who could use some development. He recorded a 4.60 time in the 40 at the Combine.

Sports Bank, Paul Banks (http://www.thesportsbank.net/nfl/2012-nfl-mock-draft-4-9-12/):

11. Kansas City, Dontari Poe, DT, Memphis

This year’s Jason-Pierre Paul, a combine warrior, measurables monster. Poe is so ridiculously big, and men that big aren’t supposed to move like he can. We’ll see if his career pans out to his numbers.

Finding a true nose tackle is extremely difficult, but Poe certainly fits the bill. Poe has great size and strength, and surprisingly plays bigger than his frame would suggest. Memphis coaches called him the hardest worker on the team, and he did extremely well in his Combine interviews, showing teams his passion for the game.

44. Kansas City, Aaron Henry, S, Wisconsin

Besides being one of the best interviews in college football, the Wisconsin Badgers Aaron Henry is also a talented prospect at the safety position.

The senior Henry will enter the NFL Draft this spring and as of now ranks as a top-five safety. With a strong showing prior to the draft, he could go as high as the second round, but shouldn’t go any lower than the third or fourth round.The biggest knack on Henry is his tackling. He’s been known to whiff on defenders from time-to-time and doesn’t have the large body-size to to take down big receivers with ease. He’s not a horrible tackler, but it’s not his strong suit.

Eat Sleep & Drink Football, Kevin Hanson and Sean Beazley (http://www.eatdrinkandsleepfootball.com/draft/nfl/mockdraft/collaborative/kevin-hanson-sean-beazley-mock.html):

11. Kansas City Chiefs: Dontari Poe, DT, Memphis

With his size, strength and mobility, Poe's combine workout has been compared to Baltimore's Haloti Ngata (but not his game tape, as noted above). While Poe has the boom-or-bust potential, the Chiefs ranked 26th in the NFL against the run (132.0 yards per game) last year and Romeo Crennel's speciality is coaching the defensive line.

FanSpeak, Steve Shoup (http://fanspeak.com/nfldraft/2012/04/09/2012-nfl-mock-draft-round-1-picks-1-16-409/):

11. Kansas City Chiefs: ILB Luke Kuechly, Boston College:

The Chiefs are probably going to look defense here (though RT is an option), and if so I think going with Kuechly is a smart play. Teaming him with Derrick Johnson makes that defense pretty potent. Trading back could be an option, but it is going to be tough to pass up a talent like Kuechly.

44. Kansas City Chiefs- NT Alameda Ta’amu, Washington

74. Kansas City Chiefs- QB Kirk Cousins, Michigan State

107. Kansas City Chiefs- DE Malik Jackson, Tennessee

146. Kansas City Chiefs- FS Aaron Henry, Wisconsin

182. Kansas City Chiefs- G Joe Looney, Wake Forrest

218. Kansas City Chiefs – CB Mike Harris, FSU

238. Kansas City Chiefs (via New England Patriots) – WR Jordan White, Ohio

Press Box Scouting (http://pressboxscouting.blogspot.com/2012/04/end-of-free-agency-mock-draft.html):

1 11 11 Kansas City // David DeCastro, OG Stanford

2 12 44 Kansas City // Mychal Kendricks, ILB California

3 11 74 Kansas City // Chris Polk, RB Washington

4 12 107 Kansas City // Coryell Judie, CB Texas A&M

5 11 146 Kansas City // George Bryan, TE North Carolina State

Extra Point (http://www.extra-point.net/mock-draft/):

11. The Kansas City Chiefs (7-9) select:
Luke Kuechly | LB | Boston College | 94

I think Kansas City has killed the offseason, acquiring a replacement at Cornerback and a new Right Tackle. Now, outside of Defensive Line and Quarterback, the Kansas City Chiefs don’t really have many needs.

With Ryan Tannehill off the board, it becomes a little more questionable who the Chiefs are going to take here. The Chiefs need help at Inside Linebacker, and Luke Kuechly could be the perfect solution. Although the Left Guard position could have been addressed, Luke Kuechly is much more likely to make an impact.

44. The Kansas City Chiefs (7-9) select:
Kendall Reyes | DT | Connecticut | 85

The Chiefs need help on their Defensive Line. Outside of that, they don’t really have immediate needs. Kendall Reyes is a Five-Technique project for when the Chiefs inevitably part ways with Tyson Jackson.

75. The Kansas City Chiefs (7-9) select:
Brandon Washington | G | Miami (FL) | 74

The Chiefs need help at Left Guard. Brandon Washington has spent a lot of time at Offensive Tackle in Coral Gables, but he’s going to move inside at the next level.

Draft Tek (http://www.drafttek.com/CMDRound1.asp):

11. Kansas City -- OG David DeCastro, Stanford

Dontari Poe seems to have fallen off the radar a bit, but Michael Brockers and Ryan Tannehilll are starting to register. The Chiefs are probably blowing smoke (Tannehill) or preparing for a trade down (Brockers). The safe bet is still for the Chiefs to take David DeCastro. He is the best player available and the best Guard prospect since Steve Hutchinson. He will lock down an offensive line spot for ten plus years, more than likely at a multiple Pro Bowl level.

44. Kansas City -- QB Brandon Weeden, Oklahoma State

The Chiefs have started to work out second tier quarterbacks like Kirk Cousins and Brock Osweiler. However Brandon Weeden represents the best QB value at this point. He can make all the throws. If he was younger, he would be a first round selection. Weeden needs to learn to operate under center and at his age, needs to come up to speed fast. He should be starting in year two for a eight to ten year NFL career. Is this the beginning of the end of Matt Cassel? It may very well be.

74. Kansas City -- CB Brandon Boykin, Georgia

107. Kansas City -- FS Trenton Robinson, Michigan State

146. Kansas City -- NT Nicolas Jean-Baptiste, Baylor

182. Kansas City -- TE Kevin Koger, Michigan

218. Kansas City -- RB Edwin Baker, Michigan State

238. Kansas City -- OLB Jacquies Smith, Missouri

NFL Draft Geek (http://www.nfldraftgeek.com/2012nflmockdraft.html):

#11) Kansas City Chiefs- David Decastro (Guard Stanford)

In all likelihood, I think on draft day, the Chiefs will end up trading back, possibly with a team looking to move up and pick one of the stellar Defensive Line prospects in the draft. If they do stay here however, I think the Chiefs will have a very tough decision on their hands. They have a big need at Nose Tackle, but people have been realizing lately, that Dontari Poe, is nowhere near ready to anchor a 3-4 defense, and I don't think the Chiefs would take a risk on a big time project this early on in the draft. They too could take a strong look at Luke Kuechly, as they could use someone to play next to Derrick Johnson. However, the Chiefs are really looking to shore up their offensive line, and even though they signed Eric Winston to play RT, they still could use a lot of help up from. Decastro is a dominant Guard prospect, who has all the makings of a perennial Pro-Bowler.

#44) Kansas City Chiefs- Kirk Cousins (QB Michigan State)

I don't think Cousins is really worth this pick, but this is about where his stock is, and K.C does needs to add immediate competition for Matt Cassel

#74) Kansas City Chiefs- Jared Crick (DT/DE Nebraska)

It's amazing what an injury can do. Crick was thought to be a mid 1st round pick going into this year and because of a pec injury he falls to the 3rd round. If he's fully healthy for OTAs and training camp he should be able to challenge for a starting spot at DE. Possible steal of the draft here.

#107) Kansas City Chiefs- Akiem Hicks (DT Canada)

Akiem Hicks is a player that nobody really knows too much about. Out of Regina Canada, he's 6-5 310, and is supposedly very athletic. High upside selection here.

#146) Kansas City Chiefs- A.J Jenkins (WR Illinois)

AJ Jenkins has really impressed these past months and has seen his stock rise. He can come in and at the very least make a push for playing time.

Pro Draft Guide (http://prodraftguide.com/2012-nfl-mock-draft.html):

Pick 11, Kansas City Chiefs - DT, Dontari Poe, Memphis

After signing (OT) Eric Winston in Free Agency, the Chiefs don't have any glaring needs. With this pick they can get younger talent at Nose Tackle (Kelly Gregg will be 36). If they like (NT) Jerrell Powe enough, this pick could also be used on (ILB) Luke Kuechly.

NE Patriots Draft (http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2012-nfl-mock-draft):

11. Kansas City Chiefs -- Fletcher Cox, DL, Mississippi State

Scott Pioli-led teams don’t pass on many dynamic defensive line talents like Fletcher Cox. If he is around at #11, I expect the Chiefs to pounce.

44. Kansas City Chiefs -- Josh Robinson, CB, UCF

Robinson is the fastest cornerback in the draft and can also help out in the return game. He will certainly help ease the pain of losing Brandon Carr.

75. Kansas City Chiefs -- BJ Coleman, QB UT-Chattanooga

107. Kansas City Chiefs -- Markelle Martin, S, Oklahoma State

NFL Draft Guru (http://thenfldraftguru.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-nfl-mock-draft-post-pro-days.html):

11. Kansas City Chiefs – Luke Kuechly, LB, Boston College

With the Chiefs having upgraded their offensive line by signing T Eric Winston, they can turn their attention to other areas. A nose tackle would help anchor their 3-4 defense, while Luke Kuechly of Boston College could be a consideration at linebacker. With this draft being deep at defensive tackle and Kuechly having elite zone coverage skills, Kuechly represents the better relative value at pick #11.[/b]

NFL.com, Chad Reuter (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2012/mock-drafts/chad-reuter/130101):

Pick No. 11: David DeCastro, G, Stanford

General manager Scott Pioli has also made notable investments on offense, albeit in the running game, signing bruiser Peyton Hillis to complement speedsters Jamaal Charles and Dexter McCluster. DeCastro's strength and mobility would help all those backs find room to run.

Bewbies
04-09-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm surprised any mocks have us taking a QB at all....

Dave Lane
04-09-2012, 05:38 PM
I'm surprised any mocks have us taking a QB at all....

Actually and perhaps surprisingly Tannehill will not be the only quarterback drafted in the NFL draft after Luck and Griffin are gone.

Frosty
04-09-2012, 05:50 PM
I haven't been very high on Weeden because of his age. However, if you could get him at #44 and get a Andy Dalton-like rookie year and then 8-9 years of a, say, Matt Ryan level of play, would it be worth it?

On one hand, I would say it would be good enough on a good team. On the other, I think I would feel buyer's remorse, thinking I was settling on "good enough" while possibly missing out on someone better.

Dave Lane
04-09-2012, 05:55 PM
I haven't been very high on Weeden because of his age. However, if you could get him at #44 and get a Andy Dalton-like rookie year and then 8-9 years of a, say, Matt Ryan level of play, would it be worth it?

On one hand, I would say it would be good enough on a good team. On the other, I think I would feel buyer's remorse, thinking I was settling on "good enough" while possibly missing out on someone better.

If he can turn into Aaron Rodgers I'd settle for 3 minutes worth at this point

Pestilence
04-09-2012, 06:05 PM
I haven't been very high on Weeden because of his age. However, if you could get him at #44 and get a Andy Dalton-like rookie year and then 8-9 years of a, say, Matt Ryan level of play, would it be worth it?

On one hand, I would say it would be good enough on a good team. On the other, I think I would feel buyer's remorse, thinking I was settling on "good enough" while possibly missing out on someone better.

8-9 years? He's playing until he's 37?

KCDC
04-09-2012, 06:51 PM
Thanks for pulling together the sampling of mocks.

Just say no to Poe.

Sorter
04-09-2012, 07:51 PM
Don't want Brock; if we could get Minnifield in the 4th, that is a steal. Will probably go in the 2nd or 3rd.

prhom
04-09-2012, 08:52 PM
I can't get very excited about any of these mocks. I certainly hope Pioli can come up with something better than these.

mikey23545
04-10-2012, 03:20 AM
8-9 years? He's playing until he's 37?

I forget...how old is that guy that Denver just signed?

Frosty
04-10-2012, 06:15 AM
8-9 years? He's playing until he's 37?

It's not unheard of, especially since he is fairly low mileage at this point.

Also, I did say "if". :)


As an aside, I keep hearing that Weeden is older and more mature so he should be able to come in and play at a high level right away. I don't know if I buy that. Regardless of age, there is still a huge transition between college (especially a spread offense where you don't have to read the defense as much) and the NFL. The maturity may come into play in the ability to focus on learning the playbook and film room time but I don't think it is going to be as seamless as people are saying.

Micjones
04-10-2012, 06:25 AM
DeCastro, Ta'amu, Osweiler, Minnefield...

GREAT first four rounds.

KCrockaholic
04-10-2012, 06:45 AM
DeCastro, Ta'amu, Osweiler, Minnefield...

GREAT first four rounds.

Yeah this is JIMP material.

Chiefnj2
04-10-2012, 07:56 AM
"the Chiefs ranked 26th in the NFL against the run (132.0 yards per game) last year "

I didn't realize that. I was under the impression that Dorsey and Jax were doing a good job against the run

Dave Lane
04-10-2012, 08:59 AM
8-9 years? He's playing until he's 37?

Why not?

DJ's left nut
04-10-2012, 09:01 AM
DeCastro, Ta'amu, Osweiler, Minnefield...

GREAT first four rounds.

Yup - that would be pretty spectacular.

Mr. Arrowhead
04-10-2012, 09:54 AM
surprisingly I liked Walter draft the best

tredadda
04-10-2012, 10:11 AM
DeCastro, Ta'amu, Osweiler, Minnefield...

GREAT first four rounds.

Normally I would agree, but anyone who predicts that we take DeCastro at #11 is an idiot even if multiple people on multiple sites have agreed on it. The GM's and Mel Kiper Jr's on this board have declared it as such. No matter how good he is you just don't take a guard that high. So I guess this mock would really rock if we take anyone but a guard at #11 because we get a QB, safety depth, and a NT that we need so bad.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 10:11 AM
I love Guards. Guards Guards Guards. Trade all of our picks for more picks next year so we can draft more Guards.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 10:14 AM
Will Shields + Brian Waters = Super Bowls

Bewbies
04-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Actually and perhaps surprisingly Tannehill will not be the only quarterback drafted in the NFL draft after Luck and Griffin are gone.

Noticed I said "at all" and not "in the first."

Nightfyre
04-10-2012, 04:38 PM
"the Chiefs ranked 26th in the NFL against the run (132.0 yards per game) last year "

I didn't realize that. I was under the impression that Dorsey and Jax were doing a good job against the run

This could qualify as the most tunnel-visioned and dumbest post I have seen in some time.

DJ's left nut
04-10-2012, 07:09 PM
I love Guards. Guards Guards Guards. Trade all of our picks for more picks next year so we can draft more Guards.

I still think many of you are a little out-dated with your line of thinking here.

Guards are getting huge money in the FA market right now. They're getting more than RTs are. NFL general managers certainly seem to think that the guard position is a pretty damn important one.

With teams stunting more and dialing up more and more exotic blitzes, having a versatile guard is more important than ever.

To dismiss the idea of taking DeCastro, who could be the best guard in the NFL by year 2, is just folly. DeCastro, if he ends up living up to the hype, would be a fine pick at 11.

O.city
04-10-2012, 07:30 PM
I won't be upset with Decastro at all. That said, I think i'd rather grab a center and leave hudson at guard.

Direckshun
04-10-2012, 07:32 PM
I still think many of you are a little out-dated with your line of thinking here.

Guards are getting huge money in the FA market right now. They're getting more than RTs are. NFL general managers certainly seem to think that the guard position is a pretty damn important one.

With teams stunting more and dialing up more and more exotic blitzes, having a versatile guard is more important than ever.

To dismiss the idea of taking DeCastro, who could be the best guard in the NFL by year 2, is just folly. DeCastro, if he ends up living up to the hype, would be a fine pick at 11.

YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 07:51 PM
I still think many of you are a little out-dated with your line of thinking here.

Guards are getting huge money in the FA market right now. They're getting more than RTs are. NFL general managers certainly seem to think that the guard position is a pretty damn important one.

With teams stunting more and dialing up more and more exotic blitzes, having a versatile guard is more important than ever.

To dismiss the idea of taking DeCastro, who could be the best guard in the NFL by year 2, is just folly. DeCastro, if he ends up living up to the hype, would be a fine pick at 11.

The two best Guards in the league were available in free agency this year. If you need a guard, buy one.

Direckshun
04-10-2012, 07:53 PM
The two best Guards in the league were available in free agency this year. If you need a guard, buy one.

DeCastro, 15 million.

Nicks, 45.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 07:58 PM
DeCastro, 15 million.

Nicks, 45.

Nicks: best Guard in the league and doesnt cost a first round pick

Clark's money: better spent on our team than sitting in a hedge fund

DJ's left nut
04-10-2012, 08:43 PM
The two best Guards in the league were available in free agency this year. If you need a guard, buy one.

At a cost so prohibitive that they would keep you from re-signing Bowe or another skill-position player that is far less likely to be elite.

DeCastro + Bowe >>>>>>>>>>>>> than Grubbs and Kendall Wright.

The nice thing about an elite guard prospect is that he's about 80% likely to be an elite guard at the next level - they're just very very safe prospects. So if an elite guard has a $10 mil/season pricetag, that makes a guy that's 80% likely to reach that level an $8 million asset. Whereas an elite WR may be a $12 mil/season player, an WR prospect you're going to get at 11 is going to be, at best, 50% likely to end up an elite player - making him a $6 million asset.

Drafting a surefire stud guard is absolutely the right decision to make from a financial perspective. You can then use FA to get guys that are far higher bust risks in the draft should the mood strike.

And again - my argument was only as to their value to a team. NFL GMs are valuing them much more highly than RTs and even DTs, yet most of you would've been more than happy to take a RT and/or a NT at that point in the draft. The market is clearly suggesting that teams are putting significant weight in the position.

Canofbier
04-10-2012, 08:57 PM
[indent]11. Kansas City Chiefs: ILB Luke Kuechly, Boston College:

The Chiefs are probably going to look defense here (though RT is an option), and if so I think going with Kuechly is a smart play. Teaming him with Derrick Johnson makes that defense pretty potent. Trading back could be an option, but it is going to be tough to pass up a talent like Kuechly.

lolwut

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 09:34 PM
At a cost so prohibitive that they would keep you from re-signing Bowe or another skill-position player that is far less likely to be elite.

DeCastro + Bowe >>>>>>>>>>>>> than Grubbs and Kendall Wright.

The nice thing about an elite guard prospect is that he's about 80% likely to be an elite guard at the next level - they're just very very safe prospects. So if an elite guard has a $10 mil/season pricetag, that makes a guy that's 80% likely to reach that level an $8 million asset. Whereas an elite WR may be a $12 mil/season player, an WR prospect you're going to get at 11 is going to be, at best, 50% likely to end up an elite player - making him a $6 million asset.

Drafting a surefire stud guard is absolutely the right decision to make from a financial perspective. You can then use FA to get guys that are far higher bust risks in the draft should the mood strike.

And again - my argument was only as to their value to a team. NFL GMs are valuing them much more highly than RTs and even DTs, yet most of you would've been more than happy to take a RT and/or a NT at that point in the draft. The market is clearly suggesting that teams are putting significant weight in the position.

Give me a list of the best Guards to ever play the game, and I'll show you a list of guys who have receipts for all of their jewelry.

DJ's left nut
04-10-2012, 09:46 PM
The market doesn't lie.

NFL GMs have determined that an elite guard is worth less than an elite LT, but more than an elite RT, C and DT. They're probably slotting in ahead of safeties at this point as well and many people are advocating taking a second safety in the top 1/2 of the first round.

You can't just ignore the value the market is placing on these guys right now. Guards are clearly seen as more important in NFL circles than you're willing to admit.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 09:55 PM
The market doesn't lie.

NFL GMs have determined that an elite guard is worth less than an elite LT, but more than an elite RT, C and DT. They're probably slotting in ahead of safeties at this point as well and many people are advocating taking a second safety in the top 1/2 of the first round.

You can't just ignore the value the market is placing on these guys right now. Guards are clearly seen as more important in NFL circles than you're willing to admit.

Elite DTs don't make the FA market.

You can pay money and get the best Guard in the NFL. You can pay less money and get a serviceable Guard, and your team won't be appreciably worse for having done so. You can draft a Guard with the 11th overall pick and be the Chiefs of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s

DJ's left nut
04-10-2012, 10:05 PM
Elite DTs don't make the FA market.

You can pay money and get the best Guard in the NFL. You can pay less money and get a serviceable Guard, and your team won't be appreciably worse for having done so. You can draft a Guard with the 11th overall pick and be the Chiefs of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s

The Chiefs of the 80's 90s and 2000s were not worse for having Will Shields. Will Shields was not the reason they didn't win anything and they'd have won a hell of a lot less without him.

Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Dave Krieg, Steve DeBerg, Greg Hill, Harvey Williams, Sean LaChapelle and many others were the reasons the Chiefs weren't winning in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Drafting DeCastro is not going to be the reason we end up with Cassel at QB - but it could be the reason we're an elite offense in 2 seasons behind Wilson, Bray or whoever else eventually replaces him.

saphojunkie
04-10-2012, 10:05 PM
Actually and perhaps surprisingly Tannehill will not be the only quarterback drafted in the NFL draft after Luck and Griffin are gone.

ONly the first couple quarterbacks are worth anything.

Sincerely,

dan marino, 5th QB taken in first round.

tredadda
04-10-2012, 10:08 PM
Nicks: best Guard in the league and doesnt cost a first round pick

Clark's money: better spent on our team than sitting in a hedge fund

Nicks: Costs us so much that it makes it hard to resign our impact WR, Bowe. Then we need to hope Baldwin is as good as some think he could be, OR draft a WR hoping he can replace what we lose in Bowe, OR drop a sick amount of cash on a replacement WR.

Clark's money: Better spent on our team by resigning core players like, oh Bowe and Albert while supplementing the team with solid players. Not by overpaying a guard, especially when you have a chance to draft someone who could end up being better than him.

saphojunkie
04-10-2012, 10:11 PM
Elite DTs don't make the FA market.

You can pay money and get the best Guard in the NFL. You can pay less money and get a serviceable Guard, and your team won't be appreciably worse for having done so. You can draft a Guard with the 11th overall pick and be the Chiefs of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s

By that rationale, no one should ever draft a cornerback or wide receiver in the top ten.

Or do you think Nnamdi Asumugha and Vincent Jackson don't count as "elite?"

How about pass rushers? Do elite pass rushers hit the free agent market? Mario Williams sure did.

What about elite middle linebackers? You aren't supposed to draft a MLB in the top ten, but I've never seen a Ray Lewis or Junior Seau in their prime on the open market.

I'd say elite quarterback's never make free agency, and yet...Joe Montana, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning.

What if they don't want a "serviceable" guard? What if they'd rather have a "serviceable" nose tackle? You know, not an "elite" one that gets after the QB, but a stout run defender who plays two downs and comes off?

The fact is, all of this "positional value" crap is nonsense. You draft for your team. No one else's. You draft the player you like. Who cares if you draft him at #27 or #3? If he isn't going to be there at your next pick, then you take him and don't look back.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 10:11 PM
The Chiefs of the 80's 90s and 2000s were not worse for having Will Shields. Will Shields was not the reason they didn't win anything and they'd have won a hell of a lot less without him.

Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Dave Krieg, Steve DeBerg, Greg Hill, Harvey Williams, Sean LaChapelle and many others were the reasons the Chiefs weren't winning in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Drafting DeCastro is not going to be the reason we end up with Cassel at QB - but it could be the reason we're an elite offense in 2 seasons behind Wilson, Bray or whoever else eventually replaces him.

We weren't worse for having Shields and Waters and Alt and Szott and Grunny. They just aren't the types of players who are the difference between winning something and not winning something.

Let another team draft a Guard early in the first round. Then, Hutchinson, Waters, and Shields can all welcome DeCastro to the superstar Guard club in 20 years. Their secret handshake will be silent because no rings will be clanging into each other.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 10:12 PM
Nicks: Costs us so much that it makes it hard to resign our impact WR, Bowe. Then we need to hope Baldwin is as good as some think he could be, OR draft a WR hoping he can replace what we lose in Bowe, OR drop a sick amount of cash on a replacement WR.

Clark's money: Better spent on our team by resigning core players like, oh Bowe and Albert while supplementing the team with solid players. Not by overpaying a guard, especially when you have a chance to draft someone who could end up being better than him.

I'm not saying we should go break the bank for the best Guard in the league. I'm the guy saying elite Guards don't really matter, remember?

tredadda
04-10-2012, 10:13 PM
The Chiefs of the 80's 90s and 2000s were not worse for having Will Shields. Will Shields was not the reason they didn't win anything and they'd have won a hell of a lot less without him.

Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Dave Krieg, Steve DeBerg, Greg Hill, Harvey Williams, Sean LaChapelle and many others were the reasons the Chiefs weren't winning in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Drafting DeCastro is not going to be the reason we end up with Cassel at QB - but it could be the reason we're an elite offense in 2 seasons behind Wilson, Bray or whoever else eventually replaces him.

What gets me is how much people devalue DeCastro and the position he plays. To understand his importance, look at Stanford last year. They had Andrew freakin' Luck and still were a primarily running team. They were actually a dominant running team and they did not have an elite RB. DeCastro was a MAJOR reason for that. He is not just a meh guard. He is an elite guard. That is why so many project him to go Top 15.

Saul Good
04-10-2012, 10:17 PM
By that rationale, no one should ever draft a cornerback or wide receiver in the top ten.

Or do you think Nnamdi Asumugha and Vincent Jackson don't count as "elite?"

How about pass rushers? Do elite pass rushers hit the free agent market? Mario Williams sure did.

What about elite middle linebackers? You aren't supposed to draft a MLB in the top ten, but I've never seen a Ray Lewis or Junior Seau in their prime on the open market.

The fact is, all of this "positional value" crap is nonsense. You draft for your team. No one else's. You draft the player you like. Who cares if you draft him at #27 or #3? If he isn't going to be there at your next pick, then you take him and don't look back.

What the fuck is this bullshit?

I guess Deion Sanders never won any Super Bowls.
I guess Jerry Rice never won any Super Bowls.

(And no, Vincent Jackson isn't elite.)

You can draft a 4-3 MLB in the top 10. They are difference makers.

Positional value absolutely matters. It matters a lot. It matters a fucking ton.

Name for me the best Guards in history, and I'll show you who would have been a better pick that year at 11. Hell, show me any OL, and I'll show you a better player available at 11 that year.

tredadda
04-10-2012, 10:18 PM
We weren't worse for having Shields and Waters and Alt and Szott and Grunny. They just aren't the types of players who are the difference between winning something and not winning something.

Let another team draft a Guard early in the first round. Then, Hutchinson, Waters, and Shields can all welcome DeCastro to the superstar Guard club in 20 years. Their secret handshake will be silent because no rings will be clanging into each other.

Would you recommend a NT? How many SB rings does Wilfork have? How about Ngata? Or Soliai? The closest thing is Raji, but he was by no means even close to the reason GB won their SB.

tredadda
04-10-2012, 10:19 PM
What the **** is this bullshit?

I guess Deion Sanders never won any Super Bowls.
I guess Jerry Rice never won any Super Bowls.

(And no, Vincent Jackson isn't elite.)

You can draft a 4-3 MLB in the top 10. They are difference makers.

Positional value absolutely matters. It matters a lot. It matters a ****ing ton.

Name for me the best Guards in history, and I'll show you who would have been a better pick that year at 11. Hell, show me any OL, and I'll show you a better player available at 11 that year.

Both had elite QB's. Much like the guards that also won those same SB rings.

DJ's left nut
04-10-2012, 10:26 PM
We weren't worse for having Shields and Waters and Alt and Szott and Grunny. They just aren't the types of players who are the difference between winning something and not winning something.

Let another team draft a Guard early in the first round. Then, Hutchinson, Waters, and Shields can all welcome DeCastro to the superstar Guard club in 20 years. Their secret handshake will be silent because no rings will be clanging into each other.

There are maybe 2 or 3 legitimate 'difference maker' positions in the NFL. The rest of them are positions that have to be, as an aggregate, very very good to win championships.

If an elite QB prospect were available at 11, we should take him over DeCastro. Probably an elite LT, elite WR or elite pass-rusher as well. That said, I don't know that Ingram is an elite pass-rusher and there aren't going to be elite WRs or QBs available to us. And taking a projected LT there when we already have Albert is ridiculous.

You're just creating false dichotomies here. It's not 'DeCastro or superstar QB' or 'DeCastro or Calvin Johnson' or even 'DeCastro and potential every down stud RB'.

The market has shown that G is not any more or less critical than any of the positions we're likely to target with that pick and none of the guys available are anywhere near as sure a thing, nor do they have as high a ceiling respective to their positions, as DeCastro does.

Saccopoo
04-10-2012, 11:32 PM
So, where does DeCastro play?

Is Asamoah our backup at that point? As a former All-American, he's got the potential even though he struggled a bit last year - his first full year of starting?

Does he supercede Hudson? A guy who was even more decorated as a college guard than DeCastro?

So, since we've taken two All-American guards the past two drafts, doesn't taking another one seem a bit redundant? Especially since there are only two guard positions on the offensive line.

Tribal Warfare
04-10-2012, 11:37 PM
The Mock Draft I'm waiting for is Rick Gosselin's

spanky 52
04-11-2012, 04:31 AM
Don't think Gosselin's doing them anymore. Read somewhere he's a columnist now and had given up doing them.

Mr_Tomahawk
04-11-2012, 05:27 AM
DeCastro, Ta'amu, Osweiler, Minnefield...

GREAT first four rounds.

This would be an amazing draft if it were to pan out as such...

Micjones
04-11-2012, 06:41 AM
Normally I would agree, but anyone who predicts that we take DeCastro at #11 is an idiot even if multiple people on multiple sites have agreed on it. The GM's and Mel Kiper Jr's on this board have declared it as such. No matter how good he is you just don't take a guard that high. So I guess this mock would really rock if we take anyone but a guard at #11 because we get a QB, safety depth, and a NT that we need so bad.

For the right kind of prospect you have to abandon that die-hard Draft wisdom.

Eric Berry was one such example.
David DeCastro is another.
He's THAT good.

He's better at his position than Tannehill (who I want) is at QB, Kuechly is at ILB, Barron is at Safety and Poe is at Nose Tackle.

The ONLY player I'd take over DeCastro is Tannehill.
Because if we miss out on him we can always take Zeitler in Round 2.

tredadda
04-11-2012, 08:19 AM
For the right kind of prospect you have to abandon that die-hard Draft wisdom.

Eric Berry was one such example.
David DeCastro is another.
He's THAT good.

He's better at his position than Tannehill (who I want) is at QB, Kuechly is at ILB, Barron is at Safety and Poe is at Nose Tackle.

The ONLY player I'd take over DeCastro is Tannehill.
Because if we miss out on him we can always take Zeitler in Round 2.

I actually agree with you, not sure if it showed in my post or not. For me I am not sold on Tannehill. I still think his draft stock is rising more because of a weak QB class outside the top two than from him and his abilities. He worries me. If we somehow get him, I will support him. If we do not get DeCastro, then we need to look at a Center in round 2 as we can just put Hudson at Guard instead of center.

Coogs
04-11-2012, 08:43 AM
The Mock Draft I'm waiting for is Rick Gosselin's

If he is still doing them, his dates last year were the 17th, 25th, and the one that counts on the 27th.

Micjones
04-11-2012, 09:11 AM
I actually agree with you, not sure if it showed in my post or not. For me I am not sold on Tannehill. I still think his draft stock is rising more because of a weak QB class outside the top two than from him and his abilities. He worries me. If we somehow get him, I will support him. If we do not get DeCastro, then we need to look at a Center in round 2 as we can just put Hudson at Guard instead of center.

I think having Hudson gives you flexibility. He can play Center so you can certainly draft a Guard and move him over. Either way I think this position needs to be address in one of the first two rounds of the Draft.

Take DeCastro at 11 (if Tannehill isn't there) and then the Draft opens up wide. Gives you the freedom to choose either R2 or R3 to address NT.

And there should be 1 or 2 players you can take at QB in Round 2.

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 09:26 AM
There isn't a single QB in this draft that should be taken in round 2, IMO.

There are 3 first rounders and 5 3rd/4th rounders. I guess Foles could be a legitimate 2nd rounder, but that's about it.

milkman
04-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Having the best guard in the game is as about as vital to NFL success as having the best ticket taker.

whoman69
04-11-2012, 12:35 PM
Having the best guard in the game is as about as vital to NFL success as having the best ticket taker.

How important is having a hole like Lilja still on your line? How important is having a line with no holes?

milkman
04-11-2012, 12:40 PM
How important is having a hole like Lilja still on your line? How important is having a line with no holes?

The Steelers, the Pack, the Giants, have won recent SBs with mediocre lines, so I'd have to say, having a hole like Lilja on your line is a minor annoyance.

Having the greatest O-Line ever only matters to teams that don't have a QB.

Coogs
04-11-2012, 12:58 PM
The Steelers, the Pack, the Giants, have won recent SBs with mediocre lines, so I'd have to say, having a hole like Lilja on your line is a minor annoyance.

Having the greatest O-Line ever only matters to teams that don't have a QB.

Ummm... Milk?!?!

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 01:06 PM
Having the best guard in the game is as about as vital to NFL success as having the best ticket taker.

And yet NFL GMs were lining up to give them more money than RTs of similar stripe.

You're vastly understating the value of an elite G because we failed when we had a HOF caliber on our own line.

Again - we won games because we had Will Shields. We didn't lose a single one because of him. You folks keep dicking up this causation/correlation thing.

Having the best guard in the game on a draftee's contract would be a massive value to the team and wouldn't preclude on our never-ending quest to find a legitimate starting QB.

The guard is right there with 75% of the positions in the NFL - important but not critical. There isn't an elite talent at any of the critical positions that's going to fall to us - so why not target the elite talent at a position that's as valuable as any other position we're likely to be drafting with that pick?

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-11-2012, 01:30 PM
The year of meh.

Rausch
04-11-2012, 02:33 PM
The year of meh.

This.

There are probably 7 or 8 legit stud prospects and then a huge drop off.

L.A. Chieffan
04-11-2012, 02:51 PM
A G or a LB.

Snore

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 03:04 PM
This.

There are probably 7 or 8 legit stud prospects and then a huge drop off.

David DeCastro is a legit stud. He's probably better at his position than any other player in this draft is at their, besides perhaps Andrew Luck and maybe Trent Richardson.

Nightfyre
04-11-2012, 03:51 PM
I think Lilja might be catching a bad wrap around here because he had the misfortune of playing next to Weigmann. I also think that guards are heavily overrated in terms of positional value by this board. DeCastro, no matter how elite, only eats one defensive lineman, and that's if he's not working a double team. Drafting a center or guard later in the draft makes much more sense anyway.

milkman
04-11-2012, 03:54 PM
And yet NFL GMs were lining up to give them more money than RTs of similar stripe.

You're vastly understating the value of an elite G because we failed when we had a HOF caliber on our own line.

Again - we won games because we had Will Shields. We didn't lose a single one because of him. You folks keep dicking up this causation/correlation thing.

Having the best guard in the game on a draftee's contract would be a massive value to the team and wouldn't preclude on our never-ending quest to find a legitimate starting QB.

The guard is right there with 75% of the positions in the NFL - important but not critical. There isn't an elite talent at any of the critical positions that's going to fall to us - so why not target the elite talent at a position that's as valuable as any other position we're likely to be drafting with that pick?

The Viking gave Steve Hutchinson a big free agent contract a few years ago.
The Jets gave Alan Faneca a big free agent contract.

Don't care.

They are all good, even great players, but a guard is not a difference maker.

The Colts won a SB with Ryan Lilja.
The Steelers, Pack, and Giants won SBs with mediocre guards.

You spend high draft picks on premium, difference making positions.

And don't tell me safety is not a difference making position.

Tell that to guys like Troy Palomalu, Ed Reed, a healthy Bob Sanders and Darren Sharper.

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 03:55 PM
I think Lilja might be catching a bad wrap around here because he had the misfortune of playing next to Weigmann. I also think that guards are heavily overrated in terms of positional value by this board. DeCastro, no matter how elite, only eats one defensive lineman, and that's if he's not working a double team. Drafting a center or guard later in the draft makes much more sense anyway.

Waters and Shields were able to blow through the middle and engage the LBs with regularity.

Like hell they only occupy one lineman - a guard can absolutely wreak havoc on the interior of a defense. Hell, look at how caught up so many of us are on the importance of significant improvement at NT - it's because they will occupy those guards and allow our LBs to roam. On the flipside, a guard that can destroy his responsibility and get to the 2nd level can absolutely be a difference maker.

You can't have it both ways - if a NT is critical because it allows your LBs to make plays unmolested, then a G is equally critical in that he can prevent opposing LBs from roaming around unmolested.

If anything guards are wildly undervalued around here. They're not LTs, but your guards are as important as your RT and C.

Nightfyre
04-11-2012, 03:59 PM
Waters and Shields were able to blow through the middle and engage the LBs with regularity.

Like hell they only occupy one lineman - a guard can absolutely wreak havoc on the interior of a defense. Hell, look at how caught up so many of us are on the importance of significant improvement at NT - it's because they will occupy those guards and allow our LBs to roam. On the flipside, a guard that can destroy his responsibility and get to the 2nd level can absolutely be a difference maker.

You can't have it both ways - if a NT is critical because it allows your LBs to make plays unmolested, then a G is equally critical in that he can prevent opposing LBs from roaming around unmolested.

If anything guards are wildly undervalued around here. They're not LTs, but your guards are as important as your RT and C.
A NT occupies double and triple teams nearly every play they are in. A guard would be lucky to occasionally get to the second level. Big difference.

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 04:06 PM
The Viking gave Steve Hutchinson a big free agent contract a few years ago.
The Jets gave Alan Faneca a big free agent contract.

Don't care.

They are all good, even great players, but a guard is not a difference maker.

The Colts won a SB with Ryan Lilja.
The Steelers, Pack, and Giants won SBs with mediocre guards.

You spend high draft picks on premium, difference making positions.

And don't tell me safety is not a difference making position.

Tell that to guys like Troy Palomalu, Ed Reed, a healthy Bob Sanders and Darren Sharper.

Do you think the NFL is going to be content with speed rushers now? Hell no - coaches and GMs are making it clear with where they're spending money where the NFL is going. Teams aren't going to be able to contain WRs and frankly a speed rusher isn't always going to do the job.

More and more teams are looking to create havoc up the middle in an attempt to push the pocket back and make a QB uncomfortable as hell. It's not just those swim moves that are getting things done; teams are using stunts and crosses more than ever before. Teams are absolutely attacking the interior of the O-line with their rushers in an attempt to eliminate a QBs ability to step up and into a throw.

There's a reason GMs are giving guards this kind of money - they can see that the trenches, especially the interior, is where a lot of teams are going to try to close the gap between the offenses and defenses since the league is cracking down on mere coverage stuff.

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 04:10 PM
A NT occupies double and triple teams nearly every play they are in. A guard would be lucky to occasionally get to the second level. Big difference.

Says who?

An elite guard is able to get to the second level with fair regularity. Again, Waters and Shields were doing it a ton; that's the difference between the okay guards so many of you are espousing and the truly elite ones.

These guys aren't considered studs for no reason - they do things that nobody else that plays their position is doing. Nicks was blasting into the second level all the time last year.

Yes, a guard is absolutely capable of making a massive difference on a play if he's truly exceptional. The elite players, regardless of position, make a difference on virtually every play they're involved in.

milkman
04-11-2012, 04:13 PM
Do you think the NFL is going to be content with speed rushers now? Hell no - coaches and GMs are making it clear with where they're spending money where the NFL is going. Teams aren't going to be able to contain WRs and frankly a speed rusher isn't always going to do the job.

More and more teams are looking to create havoc up the middle in an attempt to push the pocket back and make a QB uncomfortable as hell. It's not just those swim moves that are getting things done; teams are using stunts and crosses more than ever before. Teams are absolutely attacking the interior of the O-line with their rushers in an attempt to eliminate a QBs ability to step up and into a throw.

There's a reason GMs are giving guards this kind of money - they can see that the trenches, especially the interior, is where a lot of teams are going to try to close the gap between the offenses and defenses since the league is cracking down on mere coverage stuff.

This is not a new trend.

The NFL has always looked for interior guys that can get a push in the middle.

If they were easy to find, guys like Buck Buchanon, Joe Greene, Warren Sapp, John Randle wouldn't have been so valuable.

xztop12
04-11-2012, 05:01 PM
a pulling guard is one of the most important positions in the run heavy offense that we intend to run. furthermore a big guy who can operate in space like decastro is rare athletically

Stanford had andrew luck but was a running team because of Decastro. and that was over the span of multiple running backs

also the saints pass-blocking was immense last year and they were a guard heavy team

Saul Good
04-11-2012, 06:41 PM
The Chiefs had 2 of the 3 best Guards in the NFL for several years...and the best LT...and the best FB...and the best TE of all time. That was the secret to our success. That's why teams model themselves after the Chief way.

DJ's left nut
04-11-2012, 06:45 PM
The Chiefs had 2 of the 3 best Guards in the NFL for several years...and the best LT...and the best FB...and the best TE of all time. That was the secret to our success. That's why teams model themselves after the Chief way.

So you're going to repeat the same idiocy.

We did not lose because of any of those things you cited. In fact, we won a shitload of games in large part because of them. We lost because we didn't have a legitimate NFL quarterback in the 90s or a defense of any sort in the Vermeil years.

Drafting DeCastro precludes none of that.

This is just the same false dichotomy bullshit that you keep peddling.

Saul Good
04-11-2012, 06:59 PM
There are maybe 2 or 3 legitimate 'difference maker' positions in the NFL. The rest of them are positions that have to be, as an aggregate, very very good to win championships.

If an elite QB prospect were available at 11, we should take him over DeCastro. Probably an elite LT, elite WR or elite pass-rusher as well. That said, I don't know that Ingram is an elite pass-rusher and there aren't going to be elite WRs or QBs available to us. And taking a projected LT there when we already have Albert is ridiculous.

You're just creating false dichotomies here. It's not 'DeCastro or superstar QB' or 'DeCastro or Calvin Johnson' or even 'DeCastro and potential every down stud RB'.


It's not a false dichotomy. There will be game changing players available at 11 that we will have to miss on because of a Guard.

Saul Good
04-11-2012, 07:04 PM
So you're going to repeat the same idiocy.

We did not lose because of any of those things you cited. In fact, we won a shitload of games in large part because of them. We lost because we didn't have a legitimate NFL quarterback in the 90s or a defense of any sort in the Vermeil years.

Drafting DeCastro precludes none of that.

This is just the same false dichotomy bullshit that you keep peddling.

The Chiefs never lost a game because of Kendal Gammon, either. I don't want to draft the next great Longsnapper in the first round, either.

If we're a QB away from being a Super Bowl winner, either draft a QB or trade away the farm for chips in next year's draft.

Nightfyre
04-11-2012, 07:05 PM
It's not a false dichotomy. There will be game changing players available at 11 that we will have to miss on because of a Guard.

The Chiefs never lost a game because of Kendal Gammon, either. I don't want to draft the next great Longsnapper in the first round, either.

If we're a QB away from being a Super Bowl winner, either draft a QB or trade away the farm for chips in next year's draft.
All of these.

the Talking Can
04-11-2012, 07:11 PM
Pioli can be dumb, but even he isn't dumb enough to draft a guard at #11


so no one has to worry about something that stupid happening...

Bewbies
04-11-2012, 07:14 PM
Arguing with the DeCastro crowd is like giving yourself nuthooks.

milkman
04-11-2012, 07:19 PM
Arguing with the DeCastro crowd is like giving yourself nuthooks.

It's become like that with virtually every argument.

Bewbies
04-11-2012, 08:35 PM
It's become like that with virtually every argument.

A little bit, but there aren't many folks that are Tannehill, Kuechly, Poe or whoever else or nothing. The DeCastro die hards have convinced themselves that the player and the position both carry values that FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds reality. That skewed view prevents any sort of actual dialogue.

How do you argue with someone that claims pre-snap importance or Stanford's offense being tailored around a guard and not the best QB they've had since Elway?

beach tribe
04-11-2012, 09:58 PM
"the Chiefs ranked 26th in the NFL against the run (132.0 yards per game) last year "

I didn't realize that. I was under the impression that Dorsey and Jax were doing a good job against the run
They are, as are our LBs. That's why NT is considered one of, if not THE, most important player in our D scheme.

O.city
04-11-2012, 10:18 PM
I had never thought of it like DJ is saying. If NT is this important, why do we devalue the guard spot?

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 09:36 AM
I had never thought of it like DJ is saying. If NT is this important, why do we devalue the guard spot?

Exactly - look at it as a Newton's law kinda thing; equal and opposite reactions.

I was going to address this specifically to nightfyre, who is so strongly in favor of Brockers (as am I, in fact).

The reason we want Brockers is that we believe he can be a true difference maker. A guy like Seymore that can destroy the interior, wreck blocking schemes and just create havoc in the trenches. Okay - well if that's what we want to have, it stands to reason that we certainly want to avoid having that done to us. We want to make sure that a stunting DE or even a 3-4 end can't split the double or collapse the pocket. We want to make sure that a premier DT can't push our interior line into the QBs lap.

We want to make sure that all those things that we want to do, don't end up happening to us.

DeCastro is purported to be good enough to neutralize a force like Seymore. If you're a guy that can take an opponents playmaker out of the game, you are every bit the equal of that 'impact' player. If DeCastro can handle a guy like Seymore on his own (and Hutchinson damn sure could), then it frees your tackles up to deal with the Hali's of the world. Now when that 4-3 end stunts or the WLB tries an interior blitz, the guard can pick him up clean and the tackle doesn't get caught in the wash. Now when that 3-4 end tries to occupy a double team, DeCastro can fuck him up on his own and Albert can get to the 2nd level to seal the end.

You simply can't make the argument that the D-Line is so important without recognizing that getting a guy that can neutralize those threats is equally important.

I'm not saying just draft a good guard at 11. But if you have a chance to get a guy that can be the best guard at 11 - yeah, that's a definite difference maker. That changes what you can do with your blocking schemes, blitz pickups, hell your pass patterns.

I'm not saying that DeCastro's easily the pick to make - but this 'you never draft a guard at 11, no matter how good he is' stuff is just simplistic garbage. If he's Will Shields good, he's absolutely worth the 11.

Micjones
04-12-2012, 09:41 AM
Exactly - look at it as a Newton's law kinda thing; equal and opposite reactions.

I was going to address this specifically to nightfyre, who is so strongly in favor of Brockers (as am I, in fact).

The reason we want Brockers is that we believe he can be a true difference maker. A guy like Seymore that can destroy the interior, wreck blocking schemes and just create havoc in the trenches. Okay - well if that's what we want to have, it stands to reason that we certainly want to avoid having that done to us. We want to make sure that a stunting DE or even a 3-4 end can't split the double or collapse the pocket. We want to make sure that a premier DT can't push our interior line into the QBs lap.

We want to make sure that all those things that we want to do, don't end up happening to us.

DeCastro is purported to be good enough to neutralize a force like Seymore. If you're a guy that can take an opponents playmaker out of the game, you are every bit the equal of that 'impact' player. If DeCastro can handle a guy like Seymore on his own (and Hutchinson damn sure could), then it frees your tackles up to deal with the Hali's of the world. Now when that 4-3 end stunts or the WLB tries an interior blitz, the guard can pick him up clean and the tackle doesn't get caught in the wash. Now when that 3-4 end tries to occupy a double team, DeCastro can **** him up on his own and Albert can get to the 2nd level to seal the end.

You simply can't make the argument that the D-Line is so important without recognizing that getting a guy that can neutralize those threats is equally important.

I'm not saying just draft a good guard at 11. But if you have a chance to get a guy that can be the best guard at 11 - yeah, that's a definite difference maker. That changes what you can do with your blocking schemes, blitz pickups, hell your pass patterns.

I'm not saying that DeCastro's easily the pick to make - but this 'you never draft a guard at 11, no matter how good he is' stuff is just simplistic garbage. If he's Will Shields good, he's absolutely worth the 11.

I hate that die-hard Draft wisdom.
Of course you don't take the average Guard at 11, but a guy who compares favorably to Steve Hutchinson? Uh yeah... Make that happen.

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 09:43 AM
It's not a false dichotomy. There will be game changing players available at 11 that we will have to miss on because of a Guard.

Like who?

Luke Keuchly? A Ted backer? He's not a difference maker in this scheme. Mark Barron? A strong safety with injury issues and coverage questions that would be the 2nd safety in our defense? Hell, even if Ingram falls to us (I don't think he will), there's a short list of pass-rushers with short arms in this league.

Some of you folks have lost your damn minds on this 'playmaker or bust' shit. These were many of the same folks that wanted CJ Spiller in the top 10 because he 'makes plays', blah blah blah.

This isn't Madden Football. This isn't just raw arcade crap. You still need to have strong, every down football players that are capable of just going out there and flat out fucking up the guy on the other side of them. You still need to be able to impose your will at various points throughout the game.

It's not just about drafting guys you believe are playmakers. You have to also have guys that put them in positions to make those plays as well as guys that are designed to stop the opponents playmakers.

DeCastro absolutely falls into both of those camps. You continue to try to lump him in with the Ryan Lilja's and Chris Snee's of the world; competent guards that can do the job. That's not who DeCastro can be. DeCastro is being compared to the elite of the elite guards. Guys that were absolutely able to blow up the 'playmakers' like Ray Lewis or Richard Seymore. Guys that can change the way a defense has to address your offense.

That's absolutely an impact player.

Micjones
04-12-2012, 09:48 AM
Like who?

Luke Keuchly? A Ted backer? He's not a difference maker in this scheme. Mark Barron? A strong safety with injury issues and coverage questions that would be the 2nd safety in our defense? Hell, even if Ingram falls to us (I don't think he will), there's a short list of pass-rushers with short arms in this league.

Some of you folks have lost your damn minds on this 'playmaker or bust' shit. These were many of the same folks that wanted CJ Spiller in the top 10 because he 'makes plays', blah blah blah.

This isn't Madden Football. This isn't just raw arcade crap. You still need to have strong, every down football players that are capable of just going out there and flat out ****ing up the guy on the other side of them. You still need to be able to impose your will at various points throughout the game.

It's not just about drafting guys you believe are playmakers. You have to also have guys that put them in positions to make those plays as well as guys that are designed to stop the opponents playmakers.

DeCastro absolutely falls into both of those camps. You continue to try to lump him in with the Ryan Lilja's and Chris Snee's of the world; competent guards that can do the job. That's not who DeCastro can be. DeCastro is being compared to the elite of the elite guards. Guys that were absolutely able to blow up the 'playmakers' like Ray Lewis or Richard Seymore. Guys that can change the way a defense has to address your offense.

That's absolutely an impact player.

DeCastro will be better at his position than any other player, available at 11, will be at theirs.

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 09:49 AM
A little bit, but there aren't many folks that are Tannehill, Kuechly, Poe or whoever else or nothing. The DeCastro die hards have convinced themselves that the player and the position both carry values that FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds reality. That skewed view prevents any sort of actual dialogue.

How do you argue with someone that claims pre-snap importance or Stanford's offense being tailored around a guard and not the best QB they've had since Elway?

How do you argue with someone that can only rebut arguments he creates from whole cloth?

If you keep on making straw-men, you shouldn't have a hard time defeating them. If you actually intend to address the points made, OTOH, I'd imagine you'll have a far harder time with them.

I have put forth significantly more 'actual dialogue' on this topic than you've put together in your history on this board. As such, feel free to go fuck yourself.

O.city
04-12-2012, 09:51 AM
If Stanford's offense was tailored around the best qb they've had since Elway, why were they a power running team?

Coogs
04-12-2012, 09:58 AM
If Stanford's offense was tailored around the best qb they've had since Elway, why were they a power running team?

I've wondered that many times. One of the best TE's in college FB, and one of the fastest WR's too.

O.city
04-12-2012, 10:05 AM
Stanford ran a pro style o. They ran it a shit ton behind Decastro and Their LT whose name is escaping me.

Frosty
04-12-2012, 10:11 AM
I've wondered that many times. One of the best TE's in college FB, and one of the fastest WR's too.

I think that was Harbaugh's influence. There were a lot of jokes at the time about Harbaugh bringing Big 10 football to the PAC-10. I don't know for sure but my impression was that they weren't as run heavy this year, though the current coach is a Harbaugh disciple.

The Poz
04-12-2012, 10:47 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7438/quinton-coples
"Sources tell ESPN Florida that the Jaguars "aren't completely sold" on Quinton Coples and Justin Blackmon as being worthy of the No. 7 overall pick.
Jags GM Gene Smith is known for targeting players with "clean" resumes. Neither Coples nor Blackmon fits that description. ESPN Florida's Charlie Bernstein suggests the Jaguars might target LSU CB Morris Claiborne in a small trade up, or try to trade out of the No. 7 slot if another team is trying to move ahead of the Dolphins (No. 8) for Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill."

I really think is the Chiefs only reasonable option at landing him.

buddha
04-12-2012, 11:54 AM
There is so much strained logic in this thread.

You need great linemen, period. Yes, LOTs are more valuable than OGs. Why? Because there are fewer of them. It doesn't mean that great guards aren't important or essential. Having a great OL is the key. KC has had great lines in the past and their best eras reflected those lines.

It just so happens that DeCastro isn't just a guard...he's considered to be a GREAT f'ing guard. Are there any of you who wouldn't take him at 11 if he turned out to be another Will Shields or better? He is considered to be at that level. I'd do that in a heart beat and never look back.

WTF do you others want there? Poe (blubbery mess of disappointment)? Kuechly (who will he beat out...? He's not as good as Belcher now)?

I like first round picks who are productive with lots of upside. DeCastro is that guy.

If you disagree, fine. Tell me a better pick there (without using magical thinking) and let's discuss it. Otherwise, stop the nonsense about never drafting a guard at 11.

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:01 PM
Exactly - look at it as a Newton's law kinda thing; equal and opposite reactions.

I was going to address this specifically to nightfyre, who is so strongly in favor of Brockers (as am I, in fact).

The reason we want Brockers is that we believe he can be a true difference maker. A guy like Seymore that can destroy the interior, wreck blocking schemes and just create havoc in the trenches. Okay - well if that's what we want to have, it stands to reason that we certainly want to avoid having that done to us. We want to make sure that a stunting DE or even a 3-4 end can't split the double or collapse the pocket. We want to make sure that a premier DT can't push our interior line into the QBs lap.

We want to make sure that all those things that we want to do, don't end up happening to us.

DeCastro is purported to be good enough to neutralize a force like Seymore. If you're a guy that can take an opponents playmaker out of the game, you are every bit the equal of that 'impact' player. If DeCastro can handle a guy like Seymore on his own (and Hutchinson damn sure could), then it frees your tackles up to deal with the Hali's of the world. Now when that 4-3 end stunts or the WLB tries an interior blitz, the guard can pick him up clean and the tackle doesn't get caught in the wash. Now when that 3-4 end tries to occupy a double team, DeCastro can **** him up on his own and Albert can get to the 2nd level to seal the end.

You simply can't make the argument that the D-Line is so important without recognizing that getting a guy that can neutralize those threats is equally important.

I'm not saying just draft a good guard at 11. But if you have a chance to get a guy that can be the best guard at 11 - yeah, that's a definite difference maker. That changes what you can do with your blocking schemes, blitz pickups, hell your pass patterns.

I'm not saying that DeCastro's easily the pick to make - but this 'you never draft a guard at 11, no matter how good he is' stuff is just simplistic garbage. If he's Will Shields good, he's absolutely worth the 11.

What DJ's left nut said.

I love how the people who think DeCastro is the best player available at 11 are characterized as idiots, but these same haters have no better choices to offer. DeCastro is a proven commodity. You aren't wishing and hoping like you would be with Brockers and Poe. DeCastro is an established TWO-TIME All American, who moves like a puma and has a mean streak. Yeah...what idiot is going to draft THAT guy?

Much better to bitch about not drafting an ELITE quarterback...you see so many of them out there, right? :banghead: Some of you are seriously morons.

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:02 PM
I had never thought of it like DJ is saying. If NT is this important, why do we devalue the guard spot?

for obvious reasons

NT is one of 3 parts of a 3-4 DL
G is one of 5 parts of an OL, and only 1 of 2 guards

guards can be found - almost literally - in every round of every draft

NT's are physically rare humans and most drafts have 4 or 5 guys that get any consideration at all...

you're comparing aluminum to diamonds

drafting a guard at #11 is flat out fucking retarded

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:07 PM
Talking Can...we aren't going to agree on your feeling about guards.

If there was a proven NT available at 11...great. THERE ISN'T.

Your analogy of aluminum to diamonds is strained in general, but when Poe is one of your "diamonds", then it looks even worse.

BTW, if really good guards are so common place, why is it that every team doesn't have at least two of them?

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:11 PM
Talking Can...we aren't going to agree on your feeling about guards.

If there was a proven NT available at 11...great. THERE ISN'T.

Your analogy of aluminum to diamonds is strained in general, but when Poe is one of your "diamonds", then it looks even worse.

BTW, if really good guards are so common place, why is it that every team doesn't have at least two of them?

every team has more than two, what the hell are you talking about?

Poe reinforces my point...even he is a ? of a NT and he is one of the rarest combos of size and athleticism walking the fucking planet...

jesus, WE have two guards on our roster and neither was acquired in the first...the Colts grabbed Lilja off our practice squad, the pats grabbed a broke dick Waters off our team....guard is the easiest fucking position to find and fill...

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:20 PM
Thanks for making my point. People make do with guards, don't they? Great guards are very hard to find, and they are extremely valuable. Do you really think that the Pats would prefer to play Waters? He probably won't make their team, but even if he did, he won't be worth much.

I will agree that you can always find somebody to fill in at guard, and possibly get by there. That isn't the case with left offensive tackle...granted. However, if you can get a great guard, why wouldn't you? You'd rather just keep getting by with crap?

Ryan Simms was, "one of the rarest combos of size and athleticism walking the f'ing planet..." Big deal? Poe reminds me of Simms and DeCastro reminds me of a young Steve Hutchinson. I know who I'd draft.

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 12:25 PM
every team has more than two, what the hell are you talking about?

Poe reinforces my point...even he is a ? of a NT and he is one of the rarest combos of size and athleticism walking the fucking planet...

jesus, WE have two guards on our roster and neither was acquired in the first...the Colts grabbed Lilja off our practice squad, the pats grabbed a broke dick Waters off our team....guard is the easiest fucking position to find and fill...

Guard isn't a hard position find a marginal player to cover.

Guard is a hard position to put an elite player in. And to argue that an elite guard can't completely change the way a defense has to deal with you is absurd.

An elite guard can change virtually everything a team will have to do against you. That guy can get to the 2nd level with regularity and destroy your LBs. He can seal the edge on his own and allow your tackles to pick up blitzers. He can maintain the interior to ensure your QB always has something of a lane to step into to throw. He can keep you from having to keep a RB in as often. He can change 100 different things that this team is able to do.

This isn't just some rank and file player - this guy has the ability to be better than anyone in the league at what he does. A league where GMs are giving nearly 7 figures/season to elite guards.

Your argument can only fly if you refuse to acknowledge that there's any such thing as a game-changing guard. If there's no such thing as a game-changing guard, then there's no such thing as a game-changing NT either. If your game-changer at the nose makes an impact because he keeps guys off the LBs, then my game-changing guard makes an impact precisely because he can break beyond that NT and get right on those same LBs.

But yeah - CJ Spiller was a great 1st rounder because he can run fast. Evidently it's okay to draft that guy because he's flashy but 'idiotic' to draft a guy that changes almost everything your offense is able to do because John Madden won't ever circle him and shout 'boom!'

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:28 PM
Thanks for making my point. People make do with guards, don't they? Great guards are very hard to find, and they are extremely valuable. Do you really think that the Pats would prefer to play Waters? He probably won't make their team, but even if he did, he won't be worth much.

I will agree that you can always find somebody to fill in at guard, and possibly get by there. That isn't the case with left offensive tackle...granted. However, if you can get a great guard, why wouldn't you? You'd rather just keep getting by with crap?

Ryan Simms was, "one of the rarest combos of size and athleticism walking the f'ing planet..." Big deal? Poe reminds me of Simms and DeCastro reminds me of a young Steve Hutchinson. I know who I'd draft.

great guards are easy to find...they show up in later rounds all the time....and you don't need great guards anyways, good ones will do...and they're plentiful

you missed my point about poe...even being a rare specimen isn't enough to guarantee he's a good NT...I wouldn't draft poe

any squat bastard can be a good guard

name the giants guards without using google...or the Packers...or...and then check their draft rounds...

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:32 PM
Guard isn't a hard position find a marginal player to cover.

Guard is a hard position to put an elite player in. And to argue that an elite guard can't completely change the way a defense has to deal with you is absurd.

An elite guard can change virtually everything a team will have to do against you. That guy can get to the 2nd level with regularity and destroy your LBs. He can seal the edge on his own and allow your tackles to pick up blitzers. He can maintain the interior to ensure your QB always has something of a lane to step into to throw. He can keep you from having to keep a RB in as often. He can change 100 different things that this team is able to do.

This isn't just some rank and file player - this guy has the ability to be better than anyone in the league at what he does. A league where GMs are giving nearly 7 figures/season to elite guards.

Your argument can only fly if you refuse to acknowledge that there's any such thing as a game-changing guard. If there's no such thing as a game-changing guard, then there's no such thing as a game-changing NT either. If your game-changer at the nose makes an impact because he keeps guys off the LBs, then my game-changing guard makes an impact precisely because he can break beyond that NT and get right on those same LBs.

But yeah - CJ Spiller was a great 1st rounder because he can run fast. Evidently it's okay to draft that guy because he's flashy but 'idiotic' to draft a guy that changes almost everything your offense is able to do because John Madden won't ever circle him and shout 'boom!'

you're right, there aren't any game changing guards...he's one meat bag out of 5 on the OL...and anyways we already have two that will be just fine and neither cost us the fucking #11 pick

and i don't care what stupid contracts stupid teams gave to guards-that-were-5th-round-draft-picks...let them, I'll go get my guard in the 2nd through 5th...

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 12:34 PM
You can't argue with the DeCastro crowd.

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:35 PM
Jamal Charles almost broke the NFL record for yards per carry...who were his 'game changing' guards and where were they drafted?

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 12:38 PM
There's simply no logic in that position.

Explain to me how a NT that keeps your guards off a LB is a game-changer whereas a guard that can blast through that same NT and engage that LB is not.

If my grunt can blow up what you're trying to do, he's a playmaker. If he can neutralize your playmaker, he's a game-changing player. Just because there's another guard on the other side doesn't diminish the elite guard's contributions if he's able to command the singular attention of the NT or if he's able to blow up that NTs attempts to engage or push the center of the line.

If a NT can be considered a playmaker, so can any guard that can neutralize him. DeCastro is of that class of player.

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 12:39 PM
You can't argue with the DeCastro crowd.

And you can't form a cogent thought.

Go sit in the corner, half-wit.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 12:39 PM
If DeCastro can dominate bitches so hard he turns Andrew Luck into the #1 overall pick we need to grab him.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 12:40 PM
And you can't form a cogent thought.

Go sit in the corner, half-wit.

I want Jamal Charles to average over 5ypc, don't think that's possible without the LG that Stanford built their offense around.

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:44 PM
There's simply no logic in that position.

Explain to me how a NT that keeps your guards off a LB is a game-changer whereas a guard that can blast through that same NT and engage that LB is not.

If my grunt can blow up what you're trying to do, he's a playmaker. If he can neutralize your playmaker, he's a game-changing player. Just because there's another guard on the other side doesn't diminish the elite guard's contributions if he's able to command the singular attention of the NT or if he's able to blow up that NTs attempts to engage or push the center of the line.

If a NT can be considered a playmaker, so can any guard that can neutralize him. DeCastro is of that class of player.

it's already been explained why NT's more valuable, you simply refuse to listen...it's a pretty basic issue of scarcity based on the specific type of defense...

but it doesn't matter...you'd spend top 11 picks on the a guard...great...neat...dumb

thankfully, pioli won't, so we don't have to worry about it

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 12:44 PM
The lack of high picks playing guard isn't an indicator of positional value, it is proof of how dominate DeCastro is. I just hope 11 is high enough to get A player that singlehandedly could turn us into the #1 rush offense in the NFL.

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:44 PM
If DeCastro can dominate bitches so hard he turns Andrew Luck into the #1 overall pick we need to grab him.

Yes we do.

Does that make you one of the DeCastro crowd, Bewbies? I think so!~

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:46 PM
it's already been explained why NT's more valuable, you simply refuse to listen...it's a pretty basic issue of scarcity based on the specific type of defense...

but it doesn't matter...you'd spend top 11 picks on the a guard...great...neat...dumb

thankfully, pioli won't, so we don't have to worry about it

Can,

I liked your idea of moving up to get Kalil and moving Albert inside. No problems there at all.

Whatever makes the KC OL better is what we need to do. It doesn't have to be DeCastro, but it could involve him.

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 12:49 PM
Jamal Charles almost broke the NFL record for yards per carry...who were his 'game changing' guards and where were they drafted?

Shaun Alexander was destroying worlds from 2001-2005 when Hutchinson was in Seattle; he was dogshit from the moment Hutchinson left. Chester Taylor suddenly became a 1200 yard rusher behind the line that Hutchinson anchored in Minn.

Y'all love to slam the teams with great guards as win-nothing losers, but ignore shit like Russ Grimm and the Redskins destroying worlds with Mark Rypen and Doug Williams. Emmit Smith owns the career rushing mark as much because of Larry Allen as he does his own skills.

Truly elite guards are absolutely difference makers.

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:52 PM
Shaun Alexander was destroying worlds from 2001-2005 when Hutchinson was in Seattle; he was dogshit from the moment Hutchinson left. Chester Taylor suddenly became a 1200 yard rusher behind the line that Hutchinson anchored in Minn.

Y'all love to slam the teams with great guards as win-nothing losers, but ignore shit like Russ Grimm and the Redskins destroying worlds with Mark Rypen and Doug Williams. Emmit Smith owns the career rushing mark as much because of Larry Allen as he does his own skills.

Truly elite guards are absolutely difference makers.

Boom goes the dynamite!

Elite guards are the backbone of great lines. You mentioned Larry Allen...OMG, that guy along with big Eric at tackle...they just mauled people at will. Emmitt would tell you that his line made his career.

DJ's left nut
04-12-2012, 01:00 PM
it's already been explained why NT's more valuable, you simply refuse to listen...it's a pretty basic issue of scarcity based on the specific type of defense...


Because it doesn't make sense.

If fewer teams need them, then there's less of a demand for them and thus the fact that there are fewer available makes the supply/demand curve no more prohibitive.

It's not any easier to get a stud guard in this league than it is to get a stud NT. Guys like Terrance Cody can be had in the 2nd. Ted Washington was a FA 1,000 goddamn times. Cite Nicks as a 5th rounder if you want and I'll go ahead and give you Kyle Williams in the 5th as a counter. Shaun Cody is a more than adequate 3-4 NT and the Texans got him for 2.7 mil/season. Antonio Garay was at one point one of the better 3-4 noses in the league and he got signed of the goddamn practice squad for the Jets. Paul Soliai, everyone's favorite FA target, was a 4th rounder. Do I need to continue?

Your argument just doesn't wash, that's why I keep ignoring it. Casey Hampton was a 1st rounder and he's probably the gold standard for long-term elite NTs - how does Hutchinson's performance and status not compare favorably to Hampton's?

If there's any such thing as an elite, game-changing NT; there's absolutely an elite, game-changing guard.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 01:02 PM
Larry Johnson was never the same back after breaking the rush attempts record. Will Shields shouldn't have retired.

buddha
04-12-2012, 01:05 PM
Larry Johnson was never the same back after breaking the rush attempts record. Will Shields shouldn't have retired.

Are you planning to make sense EVER? :shake:

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 01:36 PM
Are you planning to make sense EVER? :shake:

What I'm saying will never make sense to people that think DeCastro at 11 is anything other than retarded.

buddha
04-12-2012, 01:52 PM
What I'm saying will never make sense to people that think DeCastro at 11 is anything other than retarded.

No, I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense to other people as well. Gibberish is still gibberish. None of those posts were ironic...they were strained.

milkman
04-13-2012, 10:00 PM
Shaun Alexander was destroying worlds from 2001-2005 when Hutchinson was in Seattle; he was dogshit from the moment Hutchinson left. Chester Taylor suddenly became a 1200 yard rusher behind the line that Hutchinson anchored in Minn.

Y'all love to slam the teams with great guards as win-nothing losers, but ignore shit like Russ Grimm and the Redskins destroying worlds with Mark Rypen and Doug Williams. Emmit Smith owns the career rushing mark as much because of Larry Allen as he does his own skills.

Truly elite guards are absolutely difference makers.

The Seattle Seahawks won how many SBs?

The Minnesota Vikings won ho many SBs?

The NFL was a different game when Allen and Grimm were playing.

buddha
04-13-2012, 11:17 PM
The Seattle Seahawks won how many SBs?

The Minnesota Vikings won ho many SBs?

The NFL was a different game when Allen and Grimm were playing.

Of course...there can be no measure of accomplishment without winning the Super Bowl. Milkman, are you really that dim? Are you implying that the Seahawks didn't win the Super Bowl because they had a great running game?

You have to have the entire package to win the SB, right? Had Seattle bothered to field a defense during those years, who knows what might have happened?

Ron Jaworski used the same false choice logic as you this morning on ESPN. "Cleveland didn't make the playoffs even though Joe Thomas was a terrific pick at OT..." Dumbass. Everything revolves around the QB. Colt McCoy sucks, but he would be DEAD if he didn't have Joe Thomas in front of him.

You have to have a really good line AND an elite QB to win the SB. The Chiefs have neither at the moment.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:18 PM
I can't believe people actually want to take a G at 11. Mind bottling.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:20 PM
Of course...there can be no measure of accomplishment without winning the Super Bowl. Milkman, are you really that dim? Are you implying that the Seahawks didn't win the Super Bowl because they had a great running game?

You have to have the entire package to win the SB, right? Had Seattle bothered to field a defense during those years, who knows what might have happened?

Ron Jaworski used the same false choice logic as you this morning on ESPN. "Cleveland didn't make the playoffs even though Joe Thomas was a terrific pick at OT..." Dumbass. Everything revolves around the QB. Colt McCoy sucks, but he would be DEAD if he didn't have Joe Thomas in front of him.

You have to have a really good line AND an elite QB to win the SB. The Chiefs have neither at the moment.

We actually do have a really good line with the addition of Winston.
Hudson will be fine at C, and Lilja will be better with someone stronger than Wiggs beside him.

buddha
04-13-2012, 11:21 PM
I can't believe people actually want to take a G at 11. Mind bottling.

Whatever that means...?

Who do you want at 11, Beach? I'll bet money that whomever it is isn't half the player that DeCastro is.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:21 PM
Shaun Alexander was destroying worlds from 2001-2005 when Hutchinson was in Seattle; he was dogshit from the moment Hutchinson left. Chester Taylor suddenly became a 1200 yard rusher behind the line that Hutchinson anchored in Minn.

Y'all love to slam the teams with great guards as win-nothing losers, but ignore shit like Russ Grimm and the Redskins destroying worlds with Mark Rypen and Doug Williams. Emmit Smith owns the career rushing mark as much because of Larry Allen as he does his own skills.

Truly elite guards are absolutely difference makers.

Hutch was a huge help, but SA was breaking down, and rushing for 1200 yards isn't really anything of note.
I'm a huge advocate of having a great line, but a G at 11? Please no.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:24 PM
Whatever that means...?

Who do you want at 11, Beach? I'll bet money that whomever it is isn't half the player that DeCastro is.

There's no way to tell, but positional value has to come into play here.
For the record, if we do take Decastro I won't be all too pissed, as i think he's gonna be damn good, but, I'll take a Tamba Hali or Troy Polamaluaululu any day over a steve hutchison.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:25 PM
And if we trade down and take Decastro I will be THRILLED.

buddha
04-13-2012, 11:27 PM
A great offensive linemen at any position is tremendously valuable.

This isn't DeCastro myopia...this argument is about building an elite line, or continuing to stumble along using free agents and taking flyers on late round picks.

buddha
04-13-2012, 11:30 PM
I'd take Hutch over Hali every day of the week. But that's just me. Now if you said Derrick Thomas or Hutch, you go with DT with no questions.

You put a great guard next to a great tackle and you create magic. Larry Allen and Eric Williams made Emmitt Smith great. You don't need greatness across the entire line, just one side.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:34 PM
I'd take Hutch over Hali every day of the week. But that's just me. Now if you said Derrick Thomas or Hutch, you go with DT with no questions.

You put a great guard next to a great tackle and you create magic. Larry Allen and Eric Williams made Emmitt Smith great. You don't need greatness across the entire line, just one side.

I respect your opinion, but think a stable of pass rushers is much more valuable when we already have the linemen we have/will have the opportunity to grab.
I honestly think our line is going to be top 5 w/wo Decastro.

beach tribe
04-13-2012, 11:37 PM
I realy have to ?? your assessment of our O=line as well though. We have more than just late round fliers out there.
1st round LT
If Hudson-2nd round G
If C form the draft Konz? Damn good.
Asamoah 3rd round prospect with tremendous upside
Arguably the best RT in the league.
This is not a bunch of scrubs, and cast-offs.

Tribal Warfare
04-14-2012, 02:29 AM
I respect your opinion, but think a stable of pass rushers is much more valuable when we already have the linemen we have/will have the opportunity to grab.
I honestly think our line is going to be top 5 w/wo Decastro.

In all honesty it doesn't need be top 5 either, considering the weapons KC has to excel.The Chiefs don't have a true triggerman.

Von Dumbass
04-14-2012, 02:50 AM
Wow that first mock has the Donks getting Brockers and Worthy. That would be crazy for the Donks.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-14-2012, 07:48 AM
I'd take Hutch over Hali every day of the week. But that's just me. Now if you said Derrick Thomas or Hutch, you go with DT with no questions.

You put a great guard next to a great tackle and you create magic. Larry Allen and Eric Williams made Emmitt Smith great. You don't need greatness across the entire line, just one side.

JFC that is one of the most retarded f'n things I've read in awhile.

milkman
04-14-2012, 08:48 AM
Of course...there can be no measure of accomplishment without winning the Super Bowl. Milkman, are you really that dim? Are you implying that the Seahawks didn't win the Super Bowl because they had a great running game?

You have to have the entire package to win the SB, right? Had Seattle bothered to field a defense during those years, who knows what might have happened?

Ron Jaworski used the same false choice logic as you this morning on ESPN. "Cleveland didn't make the playoffs even though Joe Thomas was a terrific pick at OT..." Dumbass. Everything revolves around the QB. Colt McCoy sucks, but he would be DEAD if he didn't have Joe Thomas in front of him.

You have to have a really good line AND an elite QB to win the SB. The Chiefs have neither at the moment.

The point that you are missing is that the Colts wouldn't have won a SB without Bob Sanders.

The Steelers would not have won a SB without Troy Polomalu.

The Saints, without Darren Sharper.

I use safety examples, because of DJ's arguments about the value of guard vs. the value of safety.

But there are other positions, like Charles Woodson and the Pack, and yes I know that he was injured in the SB, but they don't get there without him.

The Giants without JPP.

The point is, you can argue all day long about the impact that DeCastro might have on a team, but a guard is not a difference making position like a pass rusher, an impact secondary player, or even a WR.

milkman
04-14-2012, 08:52 AM
I'd take Hutch over Hali every day of the week. But that's just me.

You, my friend, are a fucking moron.

Bewbies
04-14-2012, 09:32 PM
As I've said, there is no reasoning with the crowd that thinks a guard at 11 is a great pick. That group has written the stupidest shit I have ever read on here in the last few weeks.

Pre-snap importance
Elite communication with LT for snap count
Stanford offense designed around DeCastro
Can't design an offense with Lilja at guard
Guard > Tamba Hali everyday of the week
Can't win without elite OL no matter how good the QB

What else am I missing?

Bewbies
04-14-2012, 09:34 PM
I think it's about time I rest my case on the DeCastro crowd.

O.city
04-14-2012, 09:35 PM
Of course...there can be no measure of accomplishment without winning the Super Bowl. Milkman, are you really that dim? Are you implying that the Seahawks didn't win the Super Bowl because they had a great running game?

You have to have the entire package to win the SB, right? Had Seattle bothered to field a defense during those years, who knows what might have happened?

Ron Jaworski used the same false choice logic as you this morning on ESPN. "Cleveland didn't make the playoffs even though Joe Thomas was a terrific pick at OT..." Dumbass. Everything revolves around the QB. Colt McCoy sucks, but he would be DEAD if he didn't have Joe Thomas in front of him.

You have to have a really good line AND an elite QB to win the SB. The Chiefs have neither at the moment.

The Giants oline sucked ass this year. SuperBowl.

The Colts and Pats have fielded subpar olines. Superbowls.

The Pack were down to their backup guard and tackle last year in the playoffs. Superbowl.

The Chiefs offensive line is good enough as is. If we add a great center to Decastro and Hudson is a great C, we are set up front to win.

Chief Roundup
04-14-2012, 11:22 PM
I'd take Hutch over Hali every day of the week. But that's just me. Now if you said Derrick Thomas or Hutch, you go with DT with no questions.

You put a great guard next to a great tackle and you create magic. Larry Allen and Eric Williams made Emmitt Smith great. You don't need greatness across the entire line, just one side.

WOW It is easier to find OG than it is a pass rusher. That is very evident by the pay scale difference between the two positions.
Another thing you do realize the league has changed tremendously since those dallas days

whoman69
04-15-2012, 10:36 AM
The Giants oline sucked ass this year. SuperBowl.

The Colts and Pats have fielded subpar olines. Superbowls.

The Pack were down to their backup guard and tackle last year in the playoffs. Superbowl.

The Chiefs offensive line is good enough as is. If we add a great center to Decastro and Hudson is a great C, we are set up front to win.

Those teams don't have to make up for Cassel. Those teams with weak lines had the ability to get after the QB to make up for their own deficiencies. The weak line killed the Pack in the playoffs this year. Not sure I would consider the Pats in that crowd as Matt Light has been All-Pro multiple times.

O.city
04-15-2012, 12:27 PM
Thats essentially what I was getting at whoman. We have a potentially great line with one more addition and some growth from the young guys up there.


For the time being, with Cassel under center, thats he way we are gonna have to win.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 12:35 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7438/quinton-coples
"Sources tell ESPN Florida that the Jaguars "aren't completely sold" on Quinton Coples and Justin Blackmon as being worthy of the No. 7 overall pick.
Jags GM Gene Smith is known for targeting players with "clean" resumes. Neither Coples nor Blackmon fits that description. ESPN Florida's Charlie Bernstein suggests the Jaguars might target LSU CB Morris Claiborne in a small trade up, or try to trade out of the No. 7 slot if another team is trying to move ahead of the Dolphins (No. 8) for Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill."

I really think is the Chiefs only reasonable option at landing him.

Give em Dorsey and the 11 pick.

the Talking Can
04-15-2012, 12:47 PM
I'd take Hutch over Hali every day of the week. But that's just me.

jesus fucking christ


that's a new level of dumb

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 12:58 PM
The point that you are missing is that the Colts wouldn't have won a SB without Bob Sanders.

The Steelers would not have won a SB without Troy Polomalu.

The Saints, without Darren Sharper.

I use safety examples, because of DJ's arguments about the value of guard vs. the value of safety.

But there are other positions, like Charles Woodson and the Pack, and yes I know that he was injured in the SB, but they don't get there without him.

The Giants without JPP.

The point is, you can argue all day long about the impact that DeCastro might have on a team, but a guard is not a difference making position like a pass rusher, an impact secondary player, or even a WR.

The Steelers didn't need Ryan Clark to win the Super Bowl, though. The Saints and Colts didn't have !@#$ across from Sanders or Sharper either.

I'm saying that the position isn't so important as to require two upper echilon players there. If we didn't have Berry already, I'd be more inclined to consider Barron - but we do.

For this team, an elite guard would do more than Barron would. Besides, as I continue to point out, this isn't just supposed to be a good player. This is supposed to be a HOF caliber guy. Barron wouldn't even be the best safety on the team and I don't buy these Polumalu comparisons either; the kid isn't that good.

My point is that you don't get to argue positional value when you're talking about the second safety on the field. It's the same argument to make w/r/t bringing back Carr at $11 million/season. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to throw that many resources at a single position.

Using 2 first round picks on safeties in 3 years is just a massive waste of resources. Especially when the only difference between Barron and a guy like Trumaine Johnson is that Barron was never good enough to play corner in college. Had you taken an athlete like Johnson and made him a SS for his entire college career, his performance would've been every bit as impressive as Barrons, except that you can get Johnson in the 3rd.

If there's a QB, WR, elite DE, CB or all-purpose RB like Richardson there - I'll listen to the scarcity argument. But the guys we're going to be looking at are guys that are either our #2 safety or situational pass-rushers. Sorry, but there's no positional value high ground to be had for those guys.

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 01:00 PM
I think it's about time I rest my case on the DeCastro crowd.

You've never made a case, fuckwit.

Quit trying to claim ground covered by those that are far more intelligent than you. You're merely the half-wit in the background yelling "YEAH!" anytime someone else makes a point.

Leave the actual discussion to the adults, m'kay?

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 01:04 PM
I respect your opinion, but think a stable of pass rushers is much more valuable when we already have the linemen we have/will have the opportunity to grab.
I honestly think our line is going to be top 5 w/wo Decastro.

Gimme the pass rusher. How do you intend to create this stable of pass-rushers in this draft with this scheme?

Move Ingram to Houston's spot? Put Houston inside? Hali's hand on the ground? Even presuming Houston or Hali can make the switch, Ingram's far from a sure thing. I still think most solid tackles will be able to route him out of the play as a standup backer. He could be the next Hali, but that's a pretty rare bird and I'd be surprised if we just happened to nail the two of them in the league.

People keep wanting to point to the Giants model and continually ignore the fact that the Giants run a far FAR different scheme than anything the Chiefs will employ. We're not going to just abandon the 2-gap setup for Ingram. And if we won't abandon the 2-gap, I'm not so sure a 3rd premium pass-rusher on the field is going to do a hell of a lot for us unless it's someone like a Brockers that isn't a conventional pass-rusher, but can bull the line backwards from the trench.

What is your alternative? I know what you want, now exactly how do you plan to go about getting it?

O.city
04-15-2012, 01:17 PM
We need a pash rusher like Bailey. Someone who can push the pocket and make plays from there, especially with the defense we have.

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 01:26 PM
We need a pash rusher like Bailey. Someone who can push the pocket and make plays from there, especially with the defense we have.

That's why I like Brockers a lot with the 11. I think Brockers can be just the sort of DE that is able to force the pocket back against the pass and seal hard on the edge against the run.

Then again, DeCastro is the kind of guard that can !@#$ that whole plan right up; which is why I'd be just fine taking DeCastro there as well. DeCastro can be instrumental in preventing teams from doing to us what we want to do to them. As such, he's an impact player.

O.city
04-15-2012, 01:30 PM
I'm actually fine with Decastro if we are sure Hudson can play C.

milkman
04-15-2012, 01:34 PM
The Steelers didn't need Ryan Clark to win the Super Bowl, though. The Saints and Colts didn't have !@#$ across from Sanders or Sharper either.

I'm saying that the position isn't so important as to require two upper echilon players there. If we didn't have Berry already, I'd be more inclined to consider Barron - but we do.

For this team, an elite guard would do more than Barron would. Besides, as I continue to point out, this isn't just supposed to be a good player. This is supposed to be a HOF caliber guy. Barron wouldn't even be the best safety on the team and I don't buy these Polumalu comparisons either; the kid isn't that good.

My point is that you don't get to argue positional value when you're talking about the second safety on the field. It's the same argument to make w/r/t bringing back Carr at $11 million/season. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to throw that many resources at a single position.

Using 2 first round picks on safeties in 3 years is just a massive waste of resources. Especially when the only difference between Barron and a guy like Trumaine Johnson is that Barron was never good enough to play corner in college. Had you taken an athlete like Johnson and made him a SS for his entire college career, his performance would've been every bit as impressive as Barrons, except that you can get Johnson in the 3rd.

If there's a QB, WR, elite DE, CB or all-purpose RB like Richardson there - I'll listen to the scarcity argument. But the guys we're going to be looking at are guys that are either our #2 safety or situational pass-rushers. Sorry, but there's no positional value high ground to be had for those guys.

First, I'm not sure that Ryan Clark wouldn't have made a difference in that game against the Broncos in the playoffs.

I've argued that he would have.

Second, I disagree that DeCastro would be the difference maker that you think he is.

You don't need to have the best guard in the game to win a championship.

There's an old adage in football that says that your O-Line is only as strong as your weakest link.

We don't need the guard to be the strongest link.

We improve the O-Line, and potentially have one of the best in the game, with Hudson at guard and a 2nd to mid round center.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 01:36 PM
The Steelers didn't need Ryan Clark to win the Super Bowl, though. The Saints and Colts didn't have !@#$ across from Sanders or Sharper either.

I'm saying that the position isn't so important as to require two upper echilon players there. If we didn't have Berry already, I'd be more inclined to consider Barron - but we do.

For this team, an elite guard would do more than Barron would. Besides, as I continue to point out, this isn't just supposed to be a good player. This is supposed to be a HOF caliber guy. Barron wouldn't even be the best safety on the team and I don't buy these Polumalu comparisons either; the kid isn't that good.

My point is that you don't get to argue positional value when you're talking about the second safety on the field. It's the same argument to make w/r/t bringing back Carr at $11 million/season. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to throw that many resources at a single position.

Using 2 first round picks on safeties in 3 years is just a massive waste of resources. Especially when the only difference between Barron and a guy like Trumaine Johnson is that Barron was never good enough to play corner in college. Had you taken an athlete like Johnson and made him a SS for his entire college career, his performance would've been every bit as impressive as Barrons, except that you can get Johnson in the 3rd.

If there's a QB, WR, elite DE, CB or all-purpose RB like Richardson there - I'll listen to the scarcity argument. But the guys we're going to be looking at are guys that are either our #2 safety or situational pass-rushers. Sorry, but there's no positional value high ground to be had for those guys.

1) Berry is coming off a torn ACL and it would be wise to move him to FS the next couple years, maybe permanently.

2) Guards dont impact games like star safeties. There is a reason guys like Hutchingson and other "stud guards" jump teams every few years.

Teams pay out that ass for the same reasons you are drooling over Decastro and then, once they have them and notice how much they pay them...they let them go because they arent worth the money.

3) Can we please stop calling college players HOF guys. Really

4) Funny how you try to argue for a guard at 11 (which is as bad as Jackson at 3) with the point of "we dont need to invest that much into the secondary" but seem totally ok with having:

2 top half of the first round linemen
1 second rounder
1 third rounder
a right tackle making 5.5 million per year

How many teams have ever had that much invested in their OL?

5) whats this "second safety" stuff about? Its 2012...teams are almost all 3 deep at receiver nowadays. You NEED two good safeties if you are gonna have an elite defense. Drafting Barron gives us two dual threat safeties that both can flat out fly and hit like trucks.

In todays NFL, you cant even attempt to undervalue guys like that.

Talk about rare?

How many good safeties that are dual threats are there in the NFL?

O.city
04-15-2012, 01:48 PM
DJ just made this comment in the other thread here and it really made sense to me so I'm gonna try and spin it here.


Where the Chiefs are picking, at 11, there isn't really a guy likely to be available there that is much better than a guy you could look at in round 2 or 3 and think "meh, he could possible do what we need as well as the guy earlier".

Look at Poe for instance. He has alot of measurables and talent, but his tape doesn't like. Seems like Chapman in the third could do that. Same with Barron. I think he's a great talent, but Harrison Smith could do what we want Barron to do and he could possibly be had in the second, or the kid from Miami in the second.

I think thats why Decastro would make sense. The next guard isn't in the same class as Decastro.

Anyway just my two cents. I'm not sure who I want to draft in the first.

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 01:50 PM
1) Berry is coming off a torn ACL and it would be wise to move him to FS the next couple years, maybe permanently.

2) Guards dont impact games like star safeties. There is a reason guys like Hutchingson and other "stud guards" jump teams every few years.

Teams pay out that ass for the same reasons you are drooling over Decastro and then, once they have them and notice how much they pay them...they let them go because they arent worth the money.

3) Can we please stop calling college players HOF guys. Really

4) Funny how you try to argue for a guard at 11 (which is as bad as Jackson at 3) with the point of "we dont need to invest that much into the secondary" but seem totally ok with having:

2 top half of the first round linemen
1 second rounder
1 third rounder
a right tackle making 5.5 million per year

How many teams have ever had that much invested in their OL?

5) whats this "second safety" stuff about? Its 2012...teams are almost all 3 deep at receiver nowadays. You NEED two good safeties if you are gonna have an elite defense. Drafting Barron gives us two dual threat safeties that both can flat out fly and hit like trucks.

In todays NFL, you cant even attempt to undervalue guys like that.

Talk about rare?

How many good safeties that are dual threats are there in the NFL?

"They aren't worth the money...." huh? Did you not just see the contracts guards got? Yeah, plenty of teams believe they're worth the money.

I don't think the Chiefs breakdown of line 'value' is that unreasonable. Everyone would agree that a 1st round LT is just fine. Many many people are saying Konz at the end of the 1st would be a fine place to get him, so why is Hudson as a 2nd rounder ridiculous? Everyone thought the Asomoah pick was a steal. Winston's contract was very very reasonable given the present cap, in fact it also was generally cited as extremely undervalued. I don't see us as being overly leveraged in along the line at all, even if we do add DeCastro.

As for the HOF comparisons - if you've never used the Troy Polumalu argument in defending Mark Barron - I'll listen. But if you're going to say that Barron is Polumalu, I absolutely get to say that DeCastro is Shields or Hutchinson, especially since I have far more support for that position on my side than you do for yours.

I'm simply not convinced there's enough surplus value gained through the addition of a 2nd premium safety to justify that pick. You seem to think here's no diminishing marginal return on adding Barron when you already have Berry and I simply disagree.

If you're addressing the defense, you'd upgrade more by adding Brockers, IMO and if you're just looking overall, the team improves more by adding DeCastro and being able to create an absolute wall. So many people continue to argue that adding pass-rushers is the way to win - so why isn't stopping pass rushers of equal importance?

BossChief
04-15-2012, 01:50 PM
Also, Lilja is only 30 and is still a serviceable guard.

We could probably do well to upgrade either guard or center, but there is no way Id spend #11 overall to do that.

We could probably get Brewster or Molk in the middle rounds (who both project as starting centers for zone blocking teams) and spend the top picks on somebody that provides more impact and be more than fine on the OL.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 01:55 PM
"They aren't worth the money...." huh? Did you not just see the contracts guards got? Yeah, plenty of teams believe they're worth the money.

I don't think the Chiefs breakdown of line 'value' is that unreasonable. Everyone would agree that a 1st round LT is just fine. Many many people are saying Konz at the end of the 1st would be a fine place to get him, so why is Hudson as a 2nd rounder ridiculous? Everyone thought the Asomoah pick was a steal. Winston's contract was very very reasonable given the present cap, in fact it also was generally cited as extremely undervalued. I don't see us as being overly leveraged in along the line at all, even if we do add DeCastro.

As for the HOF comparisons - if you've never used the Troy Polumalu argument in defending Mark Barron - I'll listen. But if you're going to say that Barron is Polumalu, I absolutely get to say that DeCastro is Shields or Hutchinson, especially since I have far more support for that position on my side than you do for yours.

I'm simply not convinced there's enough surplus value gained through the addition of a 2nd premium safety to justify that pick. You seem to think here's no diminishing marginal return on adding Barron when you already have Berry and I simply disagree.

If you're addressing the defense, you'd upgrade more by adding Brockers, IMO and if you're just looking overall, the team improves more by adding DeCastro and being able to create an absolute wall. So many people continue to argue that adding pass-rushers is the way to win - so why isn't stopping pass rushers of equal importance?

I havent made any player comparisons to Barron.

Not sure where you are getting that from.

Ill give you one thing.

Ive gone from "Mass murder if we take a guard at 11" to "Ill be disapointed, but at least you dont have to worry about the pick busting out"

But, yeah. Teams let guys like Hutchinson walk every year for big money because they have need and want the best....but then, they cut the player or dont re-sign him because the price tag is higher than his actual impact.

O.city
04-15-2012, 01:56 PM
I've never really felt like this about a Chiefs first round pick, but I'm really numb to it.


The later rounds need to be solid to add depth and some potential starters. That first and second rounders could go so many ways I don't really know what to think .

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 01:58 PM
I've never really felt like this about a Chiefs first round pick, but I'm really numb to it.


The later rounds need to be solid to add depth and some potential starters. That first and second rounders could go so many ways I don't really know what to think .

I'm not numb to it.

I'll !@#$ing kill people if we take Poe. And I won't be pleased if we take Kuechly either.

There are a lot of things I'd be fine with us doing (I wouldn't love Barron, but I would be intrigued by the options he'd create). But that doesn't mean there aren't some things that I damn sure don't want us doing.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 02:04 PM
They can probably even sell me on Poe if he is our pick.

Romeo has been the NFL gold standard for 3-4 DL play for 30 years and if we take Poe, that means Romeo thought he was worth the pick and that he can coach him into the potential his tools indicate and that would be one hell of an exciting player.

No way on Kuechly, though.

I would rather trade up to 3 and take Tannehill (which I wouldn't do, just trying to make a point) before I would take Brockers, Kuechly or Decastro at 11.

O.city
04-15-2012, 02:06 PM
Really, Kuechly is the only guy I don't really want as I don't think he really fits what we need him to do or atleast he hasn't shown that he can do that.


Decastro, Mercilus, Poe, Brockers, Barron, etc. I'm fine with all of them.

Sorter
04-15-2012, 02:21 PM
The Steelers didn't need Ryan Clark to win the Super Bowl, though. The Saints and Colts didn't have !@#$ across from Sanders or Sharper either.


Wrong. Steelers have definitely relied on Ryan Clark; he allows Troy to roam in their D. The Colts had/have Antwan Bethea/Mike Doss during their Super Bowl run. Bethea is one of the better FS in the AFC. The Saints definitely needed a two safeties that can play, which is why they had Roman Harper playing SS and Sharper playing free. That is also why they used a high pick on Malcolm Jenkins and moved him to FS.

Sorter
04-15-2012, 02:23 PM
Really, Kuechly is the only guy I don't really want as I don't think he really fits what we need him to do or atleast he hasn't shown that he can do that.


Decastro, Mercilus, Poe, Brockers, Barron, etc. I'm fine with all of them.

The only reasoning I can think for Kuechly is insurance if DJ gets injured. We have nobody at ILB that plays like him. Agree though, I would think Kuechly is a last resort.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 02:36 PM
Hate to say it, but I think if we are stuck at 11 the pick will be Kuechly or Decastro.

Kuechly is beloved by everyone I have listened to that is/was part of the tree. Bruschi LOVES him.

Decastro would be the safest pick and a guy that would help Cassel...if thats what they want to do.

milkman
04-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Hate to say it, but I think if we are stuck at 11 the pick will be Kuechly or Decastro.

Kuechly is beloved by everyone I have listened to that is/was part of the tree. Bruschi LOVES him.

Decastro would be the safest pick and a guy that would help Cassel...if thats what they want to do.

I would be shocked if the pick isn't DeCastro.

That doesn't mean I won't argue against it until it happens, or that I will like it when it does.

I fully expect Pioli to make whatever investments necessary to prop up Cassel so that we can once again be a one and done playoff team.

Feel the excitement.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 02:47 PM
The more we talk about all these guys, the more I think moving up to 6 or 7 for Tannehill would be the better choice.

Im totally prepared for Decastro or Kuechly to be the pick, though.

Bewbies
04-15-2012, 02:49 PM
The more we talk about all these guys, the more I think moving up to 6 or 7 for Tannehill would be the better choice.

Im totally prepared for Decastro or Kuechly to be the pick, though.

That would address the biggest hole on our team with the only position that makes absolute sense with our first round pick.

Big risk though, no idea if Pioli is into that sort of thing though.

DJ's left nut
04-15-2012, 02:51 PM
The more we talk about all these guys, the more I think moving up to 6 or 7 for Tannehill would be the better choice.

Im totally prepared for Decastro or Kuechly to be the pick, though.

Look at my 'top 5' post.

That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to as well.

I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd to do it, though. Maybe a 2nd and next years 2nd at worst. I'm not selling the farm for the privilege; not for Tannehill.

buddha
04-15-2012, 03:04 PM
jesus ****ing christ

that's a new level of dumb

No...you are far dumber if you think Hali is more valuable than Hutch. Look at their careers. Hutch has been an amazing freaking player for years. Hali had one very good year and was solid last year.

And for the dumb ass above who said that we can't use the Cowboys right side as an example because, "the NFL has changed since then..." that comment defines STUPID. Eric Williams and Larry Allen would still dominate and they would still produce Pro Bowl running backs today.

What is wrong with you people??? A bunch of f'ing moron offensive line haters. Let's review..."Giants won the Super Bowl and their line sucked..." If the f'ing Niners had a guy who could field a football cleanly, we wouldn't be hearing that load of crap. The Giants line got healthy at just the right time...the o-line didn't suck shit during the post season. FAIL!

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:04 PM
Look at my 'top 5' post.

That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to as well.

I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd to do it, though. Maybe a 2nd and next years 2nd at worst. I'm not selling the farm for the privilege; not for Tannehill.

Thats pretty much where Im at, too.

Id give a 2nd this year and a conditional 2013 or 2014 pick (that would be decided upon playing time for Tannehill)

Should we spend a premium pick to upgrade a position of less need, or do we grab our balls and make a move for a guy that has a very high ceiling?

GO GET US A QUARTERBACK.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:06 PM
No...you are far dumber if you think Hali is more valuable than Hutch. Look at their careers. Hutch has been an amazing freaking player for years. Hali had one very good year and was solid last year.

And for the dumb ass above who said that we can't use the Cowboys right side as an example because, "the NFL has changed since then..." that comment defines STUPID. Eric Williams and Larry Allen would still dominate and they would still produce Pro Bowl running backs today.

What is wrong with you people??? A bunch of f'ing moron offensive line haters. Let's review..."Giants won the Super Bowl and their line sucked..." If the f'ing Niners had a guy who could field a football cleanly, we wouldn't be hearing that load of crap. The Giants line got healthy at just the right time...the o-line didn't suck shit during the post season. FAIL!

feel free to jump off a building.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:09 PM
Pioli can be dumb, but even he isn't dumb enough to draft a guard at #11


so no one has to worry about something that stupid happening...

Pioli has explicitly said he doesn't like drafting o-linemen in the first round and he has the history to prove it. And I absolutely agree with this. Pioli has made a lot of questionable decisions in his time with KC, but he also drafted two players that I think are going to be excellent linemen (Asamoah, Hudson) at a terrific draft value.

milkman
04-15-2012, 03:10 PM
No...you are far dumber if you think Hali is more valuable than Hutch. Look at their careers. Hutch has been an amazing freaking player for years. Hali had one very good year and was solid last year.

And for the dumb ass above who said that we can't use the Cowboys right side as an example because, "the NFL has changed since then..." that comment defines STUPID. Eric Williams and Larry Allen would still dominate and they would still produce Pro Bowl running backs today.

What is wrong with you people??? A bunch of f'ing moron offensive line haters. Let's review..."Giants won the Super Bowl and their line sucked..." If the f'ing Niners had a guy who could field a football cleanly, we wouldn't be hearing that load of crap. The Giants line got healthy at just the right time...the o-line didn't suck shit during the post season. FAIL!

Pro Bowl running backs are dominating the SB while guys like Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Drew Brees are just watching from their sofas in their living rooms.

Oh, and Eli Manning was hit 27 times in that game against the 9ers, but he kept getting up and making plays, something that Alex Smith couldn't do, going 1-13 on critical third down situations.

The punt returner keeps taking the blame, but the reality is that if Alex Smith just makes 1 or 2 plays, we aren't having this discussion.

That game was won, and lost, by the QBs.

buddha
04-15-2012, 03:14 PM
Hate to say it, but I think if we are stuck at 11 the pick will be Kuechly or Decastro.

Kuechly is beloved by everyone I have listened to that is/was part of the tree. Bruschi LOVES him.

Decastro would be the safest pick and a guy that would help Cassel...if thats what they want to do.

Common sense has to kick in at some point. Watch the video on Kuechly and tell me why anybody would draft him at #11? I've asked this multiple times and nobody can explain the infatuation. He's not particularly good in run support, and for being this wonderful coverage LB, he always waits too long to rotate his hips and waits the receiver to run past him. He does it multiple times in the Clemson game and the ND game footage I've watched.

I'm all for a LB...I just don't think he's very good.

Also, guys rack up 200 career tackles by playing four four seasons and playing LB...you get more tackles there than any place else.

Finally, Boston College defenders have a horrible history in the NFL. You have to go back to Romo to find a good one.

buddha
04-15-2012, 03:15 PM
feel free to jump off a building.

Nice response BC...is that the best you could come up with?

How about mixing in something of substance?

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:17 PM
The more we talk about all these guys, the more I think moving up to 6 or 7 for Tannehill would be the better choice.

Im totally prepared for Decastro or Kuechly to be the pick, though.

Ugh. Reaching for a QB is one thing. Trading up to reach higher is yet another thing. I get that this is a new NFL where draft QBs will be overvalued, but realize that if the Chiefs trade aggressively for Tannehill, the Chiefs are essentially saying that Tannehill is the QBOTF. At least with Stanzi, he has to earn that privilege and you sense that even if Stanzi has a solid first few starts, the Chiefs will still continue looking for a good QB. Tannehill is way too risky a pick to put all your eggs in that one basket, given that he doesn't have elite enough skills to counter his inexperience.

I'm a lot more intrigued at the idea of drafting Weeden or Osweiler. Weeden because he's the only QB left that will be true competition for Cassel in the near-term and Osweiler because he at least has the elite skill set you can develop into. And guess what, they can both be had at a much more reasonable second round value. And unlike tannehill, these are guys who are expendable. If they don't cut it, they're gone. If they cut it, the Chiefs will still likely continue to look at QB options until they're 100% sure. That's what's really nice about second round picks. There isn't this long-drawn out thing where you wait and wait and wait on a Mark Sanchez to hit his potential and in the process not look for competitive QB options.

buddha
04-15-2012, 03:19 PM
Pro Bowl running backs are dominating the SB while guys like Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Drew Brees are just watching from their sofas in their living rooms.

Oh, and Eli Manning was hit 27 times in that game against the 9ers, but he kept getting up and making plays, something that Alex Smith couldn't do, going 1-13 on critical third down situations.

The punt returner keeps taking the blame, but the reality is that if Alex Smith just makes 1 or 2 plays, we aren't having this discussion.

That game was won, and lost, by the QBs.

Great...who will argue that you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl? DUH!!!??? Of course you do. However, those guys need the supporting cast, right?

BTW, what made the Cowboys so great in the triplet era was that you couldn't shut down Smith without leaving the receivers in single coverage. You don't see the value in that?

There is no great running game without a great line. You don't need a great running game to win the SB if you have Brady or Manning as your QB. Sadly we don't and we're not going to have anybody that good any time soon.

We can stand around and bitch about the lack of a great QB, or you can build the rest of the machine while we're waiting.

buddha
04-15-2012, 03:21 PM
I'm a lot more intrigued at the idea of drafting Weeden or Osweiler. Weeden because he's the only QB left that will be true competition for Cassel in the near-term and Osweiler because he at least has the elite skill set you can develop into. And guess what, they can both be had at a much more reasonable second round value.

I agree. I'd go with Osweiler myself. He does have a strong skill set you can develop and you don't mortgage your future to get him.

Tannehill is over valued right now. For those that disagree, please tell us why?

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:22 PM
If the front office doesn't think Tannehill is the guy they wanna make a move for, I'd really rather not even draft a qb this year. I don't think any of the guys outside of RGIII and LUck are really that much better of a prospect than Stanzi.

Sorter
04-15-2012, 03:24 PM
Lol at the Hali-Hutch debate. buddha, you can't usually advance in the playoffs without having a premier pass rusher, usually 2. (*see Giants, 49ers, Ravens, NE, GB, Houston, Pittsburgh, NYJ, CHI) However, you can do it with a poor O-line (*see GB last year, NYG, CHI, AZ, Pittsburgh, Seattle). I watched last year as the 2 best guards in the NFL get worked over repeatedly by a rookie and Justin Smith. If you think that having a HOF guard is more important than having an elite pass rush, be my guest. However, its idiocy.

milkman
04-15-2012, 03:25 PM
Ugh. Reaching for a QB is one thing. Trading up to reach higher is yet another thing. I get that this is a new NFL where draft QBs will be overvalued, but realize that if the Chiefs trade aggressively for Tannehill, the Chiefs are essentially saying that Tannehill is the QBOTF. At least with Stanzi, he has to earn that privilege and you sense that even if Stanzi has a solid first few starts, the Chiefs will still continue looking for a good QB. Tannehill is way too risky a pick to put all your eggs in that one basket, given that he doesn't have elite enough skills to counter his inexperience.

I'm a lot more intrigued at the idea of drafting Weeden or Osweiler. Weeden because he's the only QB left that will be true competition for Cassel in the near-term and Osweiler because he at least has the elite skill set you can develop into. And guess what, they can both be had at a much more reasonable second round value. And unlike tannehill, these are guys who are expendable. If they don't cut it, they're gone. If they cut it, the Chiefs will still likely continue to look at QB options until they're 100% sure. That's what's really nice about second round picks. There isn't this long-drawn out thing where you wait and wait and wait on a Mark Sanchez to hit his potential and in the process not look for competitive QB options.

Weedon will be 29 whe the season starts.

Even if he were more advanced it would take him 3 years to fully understand the NFL game, which will put him at the age of 32 before he gets it.

Then I read somewhere that he has a difficult time understanding the concepts and verbage that Gruden was presenting to him in that ESPN show he does with QBs leading up to the draft.

You don't draft a QB that gives you a 3 year window of prime years, and that's best case scenario.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:26 PM
It has more to do with the skill postiion guys than the line.

This has been proven time and tie again.

Look at Mannings line with and without him.

Look at the NE or KC line with and without Cassel

Look at our OL with and without Charles.

Look at our line with and without Orton

I can go on like this for days, but Im sure you guys get the point.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:28 PM
I realize you can win with a mediocre line, but doesn't making the line outstanding give you a better chance to win?

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:28 PM
Great...who will argue that you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl? DUH!!!??? Of course you do. However, those guys need the supporting cast, right?

BTW, what made the Cowboys so great in the triplet era was that you couldn't shut down Smith without leaving the receivers in single coverage. You don't see the value in that?

There is no great running game without a great line. You don't need a great running game to win the SB if you have Brady or Manning as your QB. Sadly we don't and we're not going to have anybody that good any time soon.

We can stand around and bitch about the lack of a great QB, or you can build the rest of the machine while we're waiting.

I agree to some level. In that we shouldn't draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. If he's going to be a first round pick (particularly in a trade) he better be the right guy.

But when you talk about building the rest of the machine, the Chiefs have to start proving they can draft good talent at marquee positions. They've only proven they can draft good support players. For a few very key reasons. #1 - because these players can help carry a team, whereas support players like Guards cannot. #2 - because in free agency, a gazillion elite Guards and LBs go into free agency; Left Tackles, Nose Tackles, QBs, etc... rarely do great ones hit free agency; #3 - In order to keep our cap expenses down in the long-term, we have to consider long-term replacements for the guys who are up for contract. Getting rid of Brandon Carr would have felt more comforting if he was replaced by a young CB with significant upside. Next year, we're going to have to decide on Branden Albert and Dwayne Bowe for long-term contracts. I'd love to keep both of those guys, but wouldn't it be nice if the Chiefs had the option to not spend over $100M on Branden Albert because they have a good young player waiting in the wings?

Pioli has built a remarkable cast of support players. He needs to start finding the core players. Even if that means reaching slightly or trading down. At this stage in the game, I'd rather the Chiefs draft a developmental core player than an elite support player if we're talking first round picks.

milkman
04-15-2012, 03:29 PM
Great...who will argue that you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl? DUH!!!??? Of course you do. However, those guys need the supporting cast, right?

BTW, what made the Cowboys so great in the triplet era was that you couldn't shut down Smith without leaving the receivers in single coverage. You don't see the value in that?

There is no great running game without a great line. You don't need a great running game to win the SB if you have Brady or Manning as your QB. Sadly we don't and we're not going to have anybody that good any time soon.

We can stand around and bitch about the lack of a great QB, or you can build the rest of the machine while we're waiting.

I absolutely see the value in that, and have argued for doing exactly that, when we get a real QB.

But I can't support any argument that proposes using the #11 overall pick on a guard.

It is simply poor use of value.

You take difference making playmakers that high, and there is no argument that will convince me that a guard is a difference making playmaker.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:29 PM
If the front office doesn't think Tannehill is the guy they wanna make a move for, I'd really rather not even draft a qb this year. I don't think any of the guys outside of RGIII and LUck are really that much better of a prospect than Stanzi.TRUTH

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:31 PM
I realize you can win with a mediocre line, but doesn't making the line outstanding give you a better chance to win?

This line will be outstanding WITHOUT Deastro.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:32 PM
I agree to some level. In that we shouldn't draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. If he's going to be a first round pick (particularly in a trade) he better be the right guy.

But when you talk about building the rest of the machine, the Chiefs have to start proving they can draft good talent at marquee positions. They've only proven they can draft good support players. For a few very key reasons. #1 - because these players can help carry a team, whereas support players like Guards cannot. #2 - because in free agency, a gazillion elite Guards and LBs go into free agency; Left Tackles, Nose Tackles, QBs, etc... rarely do great ones hit free agency; #3 - In order to keep our cap expenses down in the long-term, we have to consider long-term replacements for the guys who are up for contract. Getting rid of Brandon Carr would have felt more comforting if he was replaced by a young CB with significant upside. Next year, we're going to have to decide on Branden Albert and Dwayne Bowe for long-term contracts. I'd love to keep both of those guys, but wouldn't it be nice if the Chiefs had the option to not spend over $100M on Branden Albert because they have a good young player waiting in the wings?

Pioli has built a remarkable cast of support players. He needs to start finding the core players. Even if that means reaching slightly or trading down. At this stage in the game, I'd rather the Chiefs draft a developmental core player than an elite support player if we're talking first round picks.

I'll have to disagree on one thing here. You don't want to always be drafting guys to replace proven guys at important positions because you don't want to pay.


We have an ascending LT in Albert, who could possibly take that next step this year. I don't want to have to be drafting guys at spots like that because we are afraid to pay.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:33 PM
This line will be outstanding WITHOUT Deastro.

Wouldn't it be even better with him?



I'm not advocating for him to be the pick, but if he is the prospect they say he is, he absolutely upgrades the Chiefs at RG or LG.


I think Lilja is ok for now, but this is where the Chiefs are as a team drafting this year. Its time to start upgrading positions. Not just filling holes.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:33 PM
Weedon will be 29 whe the season starts.

Even if he were more advanced it would take him 3 years to fully understand the NFL game, which will put him at the age of 32 before he gets it.

Then I read somewhere that he has a difficult time understanding the concepts and verbage that Gruden was presenting to him in that ESPN show he does with QBs leading up to the draft.

You don't draft a QB that gives you a 3 year window of prime years, and that's best case scenario.

I am a lot more intrigued about drafting Weeden as a stopgap. Tannehill is a hell of a lot less NFL ready than Weeden. I think Weeden could very easily step in and start on day 1.

That does a few nice things for the Chiefs. #1 - it accelerates the likelihood that the Cassel era ends; #2 - it allows you to commit to a short-term QB while still being aggressive about finding a long-term franchise QB (even if Weeden is excellent his rookie year, the Chiefs could still aggressively trade up in 2013 for a first round QB). If you draft Osweiler or Tannehill, you have to come to the grips with the fact that these guys won't be ready for 3 years. Which means we have to suck it up and realize that Cassel is our guy for 2012 no matter what. Weeden can at least be ready to start from day 1, even if he needs development.

For the record, if the Chiefs draft Weeden, I'd like to see them keep 4 QBs (of course... I'd love to see the Chiefs keep 3 by cutting Cassel, but that's not going to happen). And no matter what, in 2013, I think the Chiefs need to make an AGGRESSIVE move for a true long-term franchise QB.

Nightfyre
04-15-2012, 03:34 PM
I am a lot more intrigued about drafting Weeden as a stopgap. Tannehill is a hell of a lot less NFL ready than Weeden. I think Weeden could very easily step in and start on day 1.

That does a few nice things for the Chiefs. #1 - it accelerates the likelihood that the Cassel era ends; #2 - it allows you to commit to a short-term QB while still being aggressive about finding a long-term franchise QB (even if Weeden is excellent his rookie year, the Chiefs could still aggressively trade up in 2013 for a first round QB). If you draft Osweiler or Tannehill, you have to come to the grips with the fact that these guys won't be ready for 3 years. Which means we have to suck it up and realize that Cassel is our guy for 2012 no matter what. Weeden can at least be ready to start from day 1, even if he needs development.

For the record, if the Chiefs draft Weeden, I'd like to see them keep 4 QBs (of course... I'd love to see the Chiefs keep 3 by cutting Cassel, but that's not going to happen). And no matter what, in 2013, I think the Chiefs need to make an AGGRESSIVE move for a true long-term franchise QB.
Weeden is not more NFL ready than Tannehill. Where do you jokers get this shit? do you just make shit up to back up your argument?

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:36 PM
Weeden won't be ready to start day 1. He was a spread guy for one. If you watched the Gruden thing, he struggled with terminology. He isn't used to being under center.


I know he was a late rounder, but if someone other than Cassel is gonna be the qb this year it's gonna have to be Stanzi.


Or Quinn i guess.

DeezNutz
04-15-2012, 03:36 PM
I am a lot more intrigued about drafting Weeden as a stopgap. Tannehill is a hell of a lot less NFL ready than Weeden. I think Weeden could very easily step in and start on day 1.

That does a few nice things for the Chiefs. #1 - it accelerates the likelihood that the Cassel era ends; #2 - it allows you to commit to a short-term QB while still being aggressive about finding a long-term franchise QB (even if Weeden is excellent his rookie year, the Chiefs could still aggressively trade up in 2013 for a first round QB). If you draft Osweiler or Tannehill, you have to come to the grips with the fact that these guys won't be ready for 3 years. Which means we have to suck it up and realize that Cassel is our guy for 2012 no matter what. Weeden can at least be ready to start from day 1, even if he needs development.

For the record, if the Chiefs draft Weeden, I'd like to see them keep 4 QBs (of course... I'd love to see the Chiefs keep 3 by cutting Cassel, but that's not going to happen). And no matter what, in 2013, I think the Chiefs need to make an AGGRESSIVE move for a true long-term franchise QB.

We're drafting stopgaps now? LMAO. When will this pain end for KC fans?

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:38 PM
I'll have to disagree on one thing here. You don't want to always be drafting guys to replace proven guys at important positions because you don't want to pay.


We have an ascending LT in Albert, who could possibly take that next step this year. I don't want to have to be drafting guys at spots like that because we are afraid to pay.

Just using Albert as a specific example. If you add up all the long-term contracts that are going to come up the next few years, those contracts will close the gap very quickly. I wouldn't want to see the Chiefs to get rid of a guy like Albert purely for financial reasons. Instead, ideally you'd like the Chiefs to start building pipelines of young players who can impress in practice to the point where they believe they can expend a guy like Albert.

The great teams cut very good players and have a replacement in mind. The Pats are an interesting example. Even though they had Wilfork, they still got Brace. There was a period when it seemed like the Pats were trying to groom Brace to be his replacement and then, at the least minute, they didn't seem to be confident enough in Brace to justify getting rid of Wilfork.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:40 PM
QB
WR1
OLT
ROLB
CB1
S

Those are the core positions in todays NFL.

Time to draft that final one.

QB

This is as high as we will be drafting for what will probably be 5 or more years.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:41 PM
We're drafting stopgaps now? LMAO. When will this pain end for KC fans?

Who cares if we draft a stopgap if it's in the second round, and if that enables you to still be aggressive in future years to find a long-term QB? That makes you feel less comfortable than drafting a risky prospect like Tannehill and then, for the next 3 years, abandoning all your plans to aggressively try to draft or bring in a true franchise QB?

I support a stopgap because I'm just not very impressed with our remaining options for a long-term guy.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:41 PM
Yes, the Pats do that very well.



Again, though, they also have possibly the best QB to ever play the game.


Also all those moves they have been lately haven't been working out very well. Their defense has been slowly declining.


The great teams do cut players, when they start to age and decline. They don't like to pay the last contract.


I don't think Albert, for example, is there yet.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:46 PM
Weeden won't be ready to start day 1. He was a spread guy for one. If you watched the Gruden thing, he struggled with terminology. He isn't used to being under center.


I know he was a late rounder, but if someone other than Cassel is gonna be the qb this year it's gonna have to be Stanzi.


Or Quinn i guess.

I didn't see the Gruden special, but that would surprise me, since it seems like people believe the guy is very intelligent. I don't really care about his experience in the spread. Teams got scared of it, but QBs of late have adapted just fine in moving from the spread to the NFL. Especially since the NFL has become more spread-oriented.

So yeah... if it's true that he's going to lack the mental capacity to pick up the offense quickly, that's fine. But I don't see why you couldn't build a simplified offense ala Andy Dalton to help him adjust quickly.

BossChief
04-15-2012, 03:47 PM
Im starting to wonder if Morris Claiborn will be available at our pick.

If so, what are you guys' thoughts on taking him at 11?

Nightfyre
04-15-2012, 03:48 PM
Im starting to wonder if Morris Claiborn will be available at our pick.

If so, what are you guys' thoughts on taking him at 11?

It's a no-brainer.

milkman
04-15-2012, 03:48 PM
I am a lot more intrigued about drafting Weeden as a stopgap. Tannehill is a hell of a lot less NFL ready than Weeden. I think Weeden could very easily step in and start on day 1.

That does a few nice things for the Chiefs. #1 - it accelerates the likelihood that the Cassel era ends; #2 - it allows you to commit to a short-term QB while still being aggressive about finding a long-term franchise QB (even if Weeden is excellent his rookie year, the Chiefs could still aggressively trade up in 2013 for a first round QB). If you draft Osweiler or Tannehill, you have to come to the grips with the fact that these guys won't be ready for 3 years. Which means we have to suck it up and realize that Cassel is our guy for 2012 no matter what. Weeden can at least be ready to start from day 1, even if he needs development.

For the record, if the Chiefs draft Weeden, I'd like to see them keep 4 QBs (of course... I'd love to see the Chiefs keep 3 by cutting Cassel, but that's not going to happen). And no matter what, in 2013, I think the Chiefs need to make an AGGRESSIVE move for a true long-term franchise QB.

Brandon Weedon comes from a oure spread offense, and according to reports of his interview with Gruden, he is far from ready to take any snaps as a starter in the NFL.

I am not going to replace Cassel with a guy that has an even more limited understanding of NFL offense than Cassel.

We're aren't going to win anything with a stopgap, and if you use a high second rounder on Weedon, as it appears you will have to, you are going to commit to developing that QB.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:48 PM
He had some problems with the lingo iirc.



From what I watched in the Senior Bowl, he didn't really have much zip on his ball. Again, just me so it's probably wrong.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:49 PM
Is Claiborne a pure man guy?


I have thought about taking Jenkins in the second?

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:52 PM
Brandon Weedon comes from a oure spread offense, and according to reports of his interview with Gruden, he is far from ready to take any snaps as a starter in the NFL.

I am not going to replace Cassel with a guy that has an even more limited understanding of NFL offense than Cassel.

We're aren't going to win anything with a stopgap, and if you use a high second rounder on Weedon, as it appears you will have to, you are going to commit to developing that QB.

If that's the case, then I go with Osweiler in the second.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:53 PM
With the Osweiler in the second talk, I just think I probably don't take a qb this year.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:57 PM
With the Osweiler in the second talk, I just think I probably don't take a qb this year.

What intrigues me about Osweiler is that he strikes me as a guy who might have the elite talent to develop into a QB that can be very good, even if he can't think the game like Brady or Brees. I wonder if he can become a Big Ben like QB--a QB who isn't going to develop into a great mental QB, but can use his size to buy him the time to take a little longer with his reads.

I don't see that with Tannehill. I think for Tannehill to be a franchise QB, he has to be not just good, but exceptional at thinking through the game. Because he doesn't have elite enough physical talent to make up for his inexperience.

O.city
04-15-2012, 03:58 PM
I like Osweiler alot, but I'm just not sure he's a second round qb.


Third rounder? Sure.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 04:00 PM
I like Osweiler alot, but I'm just not sure he's a second round qb.


Third rounder? Sure.

I have no idea what his value is. But if it's past the first round, I'm not going to be upset if the Chiefs reach for him. I'm willing to bet that his character and leadership potential is going to boost his draft stock a little bit higher.

milkman
04-15-2012, 04:05 PM
What intrigues me about Osweiler is that he strikes me as a guy who might have the elite talent to develop into a QB that can be very good, even if he can't think the game like Brady or Brees. I wonder if he can become a Big Ben like QB--a QB who isn't going to develop into a great mental QB, but can use his size to buy him the time to take a little longer with his reads.

I don't see that with Tannehill. I think for Tannehill to be a franchise QB, he has to be not just good, but exceptional at thinking through the game. Because he doesn't have elite enough physical talent to make up for his inexperience.

What Tannehill lacks in physical skill is due primarily to poor footwork mechanics in the pocket.

That's coachable.

It's been reported that his work with Chris Weinke has had remarkable results in that area already.

But in other areas, in throwing on the run, he has zip and accruracy as good as or better than every other QB in this draft.

He has a great work ethic, and reports of his interview with Gruden was that he was extremely impressive.

He's a bit of a reach, and a risk.

But the iunvestment in first round QBs isn't nearly as killing now as it was 3 years ago.

These guys will be expendable in a couple of years if they don't pan out.

I'm either taking Tannehill, or passing on QB in this draft altogether.

Bewbies
04-15-2012, 04:17 PM
A QB picked in the first round is your QBOTF. I agree that it'd be better to draft one later so you don't have to commit to one.

O.city
04-15-2012, 04:19 PM
This is pretty much where I stand.


If the front office thinks Tannahill is the guy to lead us down the road to SB's, yeah pick him, i'm far and away ok with that.

tredadda
04-15-2012, 04:20 PM
There's no way to tell, but positional value has to come into play here.
For the record, if we do take Decastro I won't be all too pissed, as i think he's gonna be damn good, but, I'll take a Tamba Hali or Troy Polamaluaululu any day over a steve hutchison.

I agree, if we were lacking in those positions. But, we have our Hali already and our Polamalu (Berry). Any pass rushers we bring in will be depth behind Hali and Houston, and any safety we bring in will back up Berry or possibly Lewis (whim I think is terribly underrated on this board). At #11 you draft an impact player at a position that could use an upgrade regardless of the outdated "positional" value.

tredadda
04-15-2012, 04:22 PM
The Seattle Seahawks won how many SBs?

The Minnesota Vikings won ho many SBs?

The NFL was a different game when Allen and Grimm were playing.

Didn't they also have Walter Jones, who is arguably one of the best LT's EVER on that team? I guess they don't win SB's either based off of that analogy.

tredadda
04-15-2012, 04:28 PM
The Giants oline sucked ass this year. SuperBowl.

The Colts and Pats have fielded subpar olines. Superbowls.

The Pack were down to their backup guard and tackle last year in the playoffs. Superbowl.

The Chiefs offensive line is good enough as is. If we add a great center to Decastro and Hudson is a great C, we are set up front to win.

The problem with your argument is those teams had elite QB's, we do not nor will we get one this year without giving up the farm for the new draft sensation Tannehill and hope beyond hope he is more than just potential. We blew our shot at the two elite QBs of this draft. We can get damn near any QB we want outside of Tannehill in round 2-7. Since we will need a QB either this year or next, why not do all we can to protect him as much as possible.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 04:33 PM
What Tannehill lacks in physical skill is due primarily to poor footwork mechanics in the pocket.

That's coachable.

It's been reported that his work with Chris Weinke has had remarkable results in that area already.

But in other areas, in throwing on the run, he has zip and accruracy as good as or better than every other QB in this draft.

He has a great work ethic, and reports of his interview with Gruden was that he was extremely impressive.

He's a bit of a reach, and a risk.

But the iunvestment in first round QBs isn't nearly as killing now as it was 3 years ago.

These guys will be expendable in a couple of years if they don't pan out.

I'm either taking Tannehill, or passing on QB in this draft altogether.

His zip and accuracy and mobility are as good as any of the top prospects in the draft. But they are not elite compared to NFL QBs. That's why Tannehill scares the shit out of me. In the NFL, he will have to be exceptional at the mental aspect of the game. A guy like RGIII doesn't have to be because he has elite athleticism. A guy like Luck probably already has it. Even a guy like Osweiler, in my opinion, can get away with it if he plays a Big Ben style of game.

If you're comparing Tannehill to NFL competition, from a mobility, arm strength, and accuracy standpoint... is he really anything special?

tredadda
04-15-2012, 04:37 PM
I havent made any player comparisons to Barron.

Not sure where you are getting that from.

Ill give you one thing.

Ive gone from "Mass murder if we take a guard at 11" to "Ill be disapointed, but at least you dont have to worry about the pick busting out"

But, yeah. Teams let guys like Hutchinson walk every year for big money because they have need and want the best....but then, they cut the player or dont re-sign him because the price tag is higher than his actual impact.

And teams like the Pats (who seem to be the model franchise) franchise their elite 1st round guard. NO let Nicks walk because Brees and Colston are higher on the priority list. Now before you use that to say "see that is why you don't take a guard at #11", remember there will not be an elite QB sitting there for us at #11, nor will drafting DeCastro affect our ability or inability to re-sign Bowe.

milkman
04-15-2012, 04:43 PM
And teams like the Pats (who seem to be the model franchise) franchise their elite 1st round guard. NO let Nicks walk because Brees and Colston are higher on the priority list. Now before you use that to say "see that is why you don't take a guard at #11", remember there will not be an elite QB sitting there for us at #11, nor will drafting DeCastro affect our ability or inability to re-sign Bowe.

Yet teams like the Patriots with an elite 1st round guard gave up 46 sacks with Matt Cassel at QB.

milkman
04-15-2012, 04:47 PM
His zip and accuracy and mobility are as good as any of the top prospects in the draft. But they are not elite compared to NFL QBs. That's why Tannehill scares the shit out of me. In the NFL, he will have to be exceptional at the mental aspect of the game. A guy like RGIII doesn't have to be because he has elite athleticism. A guy like Luck probably already has it. Even a guy like Osweiler, in my opinion, can get away with it if he plays a Big Ben style of game.

If you're comparing Tannehill to NFL competition, from a mobility, arm strength, and accuracy standpoint... is he really anything special?

I'm not sure I'd compare him to any QB today.

I'd say he is a more physically gifted Rich Gannon.

tredadda
04-15-2012, 04:54 PM
Yet teams like the Patriots with an elite 1st round guard gave up 46 sacks with Matt Cassel at QB.

I do not disagree that we need a QB which is where I think you are going. But we lost out on the two elite ones this year. Tannehill is becoming a legend in his own right primarily due to the desperation teams have for a QB right now. No other QB rates out as a first round caliber signal caller. I am leery of having to trade up for a guy who can't come in right away and start as most experts think he will have to sit for a year. Even then, he is more potential at this point than performance. Are we so desperate for a QB that we are willing to possibly have to give up enough to jump Cleveland for him?

If we don't get an elite talent at #11 (and there will probably be only one left), then I would rather give up this year's 1st for a 1st next year and use those two picks to trade up for the top QB in that draft. At least he will project to be a day 1 starter and shuold be starting at the same time as Tannehill.

milkman
04-15-2012, 04:59 PM
I do not disagree that we need a QB which is where I think you are going. But we lost out on the two elite ones this year. Tannehill is becoming a legend in his own right primarily due to the desperation teams have for a QB right now. No other QB rates out as a first round caliber signal caller. I am leery of having to trade up for a guy who can't come in right away and start as most experts think he will have to sit for a year. Even then, he is more potential at this point than performance. Are we so desperate for a QB that we are willing to possibly have to give up enough to jump Cleveland for him?

If we don't get an elite talent at #11 (and there will probably be only one left), then I would rather give up this year's 1st for a 1st next year and use those two picks to trade up for the top QB in that draft. At least he will project to be a day 1 starter and shuold be starting at the same time as Tannehill.

My arguments against Decastro are completely separate from an argument for Tannehill.

I just don't agree with any argument that claims that a gurad, even the best guard to ever play the game, is a difference maker.

Will he do some things that open up some lanes, or perhaps do a better job in pass protection the a top 15 guard, as an example?

Sure.

But at the end of the day, hvaing the best guard in the game is not necessary to overall team success.

The best guard in the game is not as important to a team's success as a top 5 talent in other positions, or in some cases, a top 10 talent.

tredadda
04-15-2012, 05:10 PM
My arguments against Decastro are completely separate from an argument for Tannehill.

I just don't agree with any argument that claims that a gurad, even the best guard to ever play the game, is a difference maker.

Will he do some things that open up some lanes, or perhaps do a better job in pass protection the a top 15 guard, as an example?

Sure.

But at the end of the day, hvaing the best guard in the game is not necessary to overall team success.

The best guard in the game is not as important to a team's success as a top 5 talent in other positions, or in some cases, a top 10 talent.

Problem is though that at every skill position but NT and QB we are all but set. There are none that are worth the #11 pick to be had. To avoid an elite talent at a position that could use an upgrade just because of the outdated positional value idea is foolish. If people were advocating him over others that we could use more at #11 then I would easily be on board with you. I am not sold on Poe, nor am I sold on Brockers (yet another highly hyped LSU D-lineman).

Having the best guard in the league might not make your team's success, I agree with you on that. But they also won't hurt your team's success either. Why not improve the line, especially since we only have two pressing needs and neither position will be available at #11 without reaching?

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 05:22 PM
Problem is though that at every skill position but NT and QB we are all but set. There are none that are worth the #11 pick to be had. To avoid an elite talent at a position that could use an upgrade just because of the outdated positional value idea is foolish. If people were advocating him over others that we could use more at #11 then I would easily be on board with you. I am not sold on Poe, nor am I sold on Brockers (yet another highly hyped LSU D-lineman).

Having the best guard in the league might not make your team's success, I agree with you on that. But they also won't hurt your team's success either. Why not improve the line, especially since we only have two pressing needs and neither position will be available at #11 without reaching?

Using the draft to fill need positions is not good strategy. You draft BPA, period, unless you are completely entrenched at the position. If the Chiefs believe Kuechly has the potential to be significantly better than Belcher, he's your pick, even though Belcher is good enough. If the Chiefs can land Clayborne, he's your pick, even if the Chiefs have Routt and Flowers. And let's not rule out the idea of landing a pass rusher, even if we have Hali and houston.

Free agency and later rounds in the draft are used for drafting non-essential positions. The first round is a critical spot to draft core positions, because rarely will teams let good players like that walk, not without paying a $100M+ contract.

milkman
04-15-2012, 05:28 PM
Problem is though that at every skill position but NT and QB we are all but set. There are none that are worth the #11 pick to be had. To avoid an elite talent at a position that could use an upgrade just because of the outdated positional value idea is foolish. If people were advocating him over others that we could use more at #11 then I would easily be on board with you. I am not sold on Poe, nor am I sold on Brockers (yet another highly hyped LSU D-lineman).

Having the best guard in the league might not make your team's success, I agree with you on that. But they also won't hurt your team's success either. Why not improve the line, especially since we only have two pressing needs and neither position will be available at #11 without reaching?

You can improve the line by drafting Ben Jones in the second, or David Molk in the 4th to play center, and leaving Ridney Hudson at guard.

I think a draft of Mark Barron and Ben Jones does more to improve the team overall than a draft of David DeCastro and Harrison Smith does.

Using that example because the arguments against Barron have included Smith as a second rounder in place of Barron.

I've also argued that Melvin Ingram should be the pick if he's there because of the value his versatility brings to this defense.

Mr. Laz
04-15-2012, 05:45 PM
As an aside, I keep hearing that Weeden is older and more mature so he should be able to come in and play at a high level right away.
why?

why does older = able to read NFL defenses faster

older and being through crap helps with maturity but previous football experience,coaching and talent level will make a player quicker to start, not age.

Didn't Weeden run a spread in college?


just don't see why people think older = 1st day starter

milkman
04-15-2012, 05:52 PM
Laz and I in agreement twice in a day.

What alternate universe have I stumbled into?

tredadda
04-15-2012, 06:23 PM
You can improve the line by drafting Ben Jones in the second, or David Molk in the 4th to play center, and leaving Ridney Hudson at guard.

I think a draft of Mark Barron and Ben Jones does more to improve the team overall than a draft of David DeCastro and Harrison Smith does.

Using that example because the arguments against Barron have included Smith as a second rounder in place of Barron.

I've also argued that Melvin Ingram should be the pick if he's there because of the value his versatility brings to this defense.

I have no issues with Barron, although I do not want him for this team. It is not because I don't think he is good, because I think he is very good. But I also think Lewis is better than people give him credit for. He did well with crap next to him last year, he will be even better with Berry back. Is Lewis #1 safety material? No, but he is a good #2. Having two #1 caliber safeties is overkill IMO. If we did not have Berry, I would be all over getting Barron, but since we do have him I don't think Barron is necessary, especially at #11.

Frosty
04-16-2012, 08:47 AM
just don't see why people think older = 1st day starter

That was kind of the point of the post you partially quoted.

As an aside, I keep hearing that Weeden is older and more mature so he should be able to come in and play at a high level right away. I don't know if I buy that. Regardless of age, there is still a huge transition between college (especially a spread offense where you don't have to read the defense as much) and the NFL. The maturity may come into play in the ability to focus on learning the playbook and film room time but I don't think it is going to be as seamless as people are saying.

Weeden being older just means that you won't have him very long if you are counting on him as a starter. I suspect that when draft day gets here, he is going to fall a lot.

Saccopoo
04-16-2012, 10:15 AM
Using the draft to fill need positions is not good strategy. You draft BPA, period, unless you are completely entrenched at the position.

Sometimes it's good, sometimes it screws you over.

Detroit has been, for a long time, BPA regardless of need.

They ended up drafting wideout after wideout because of it and didn't fill team needs over BPA.

Same thing happened to them again last year when they drafted Nick Fairley. You can't tell me that Nate Solder would have been a much better pick than a back up defensive tackle.

Pioli has done a very good job of drafting BPA as it relates to Team Need. Jackson, Berry and Baldwin were all a "BPA as it relates to team need/priority."

Green Bay has done this as well and has built a very solid team on the concept. In just a few drafts, the Chiefs have build a very solid first string team because of it as well.

BPA is fine, but you have to fill positions of need in doing so.

Frosty
04-16-2012, 11:44 AM
The real question is who is this years' Thomas or Powe? The guy the fans start chanting for in the 2nd who doesn't get drafted until the 6th or later?

DJ's left nut
04-16-2012, 12:44 PM
BPA is great for the first 2 or 3 years of a rebuild, or if you're looking at a roster of older players.

But when you're a team with a bunch of younger players that are fairly well established and mostly under team control for 3-4 more seasons, you really can't just go blindly with BPA. At that point need should absolutely carry weight.

BossChief
04-16-2012, 12:51 PM
Of course need carries weight, but you can't tilt your drafting towards need too much or you get a second wave of players that are nothing special.

You have to weigh need with value and bpa to find the best fit.

That's why Barron is the best pick for us IMO if we can't move up or down in the draft.

I still think packaging Dorsey and the 11 pick would be good business.

O.city
04-16-2012, 01:11 PM
I just don't think Barron is at a real position of need, or atleast that much need. We pretty much drafted a better Barron two years ago.


Get a safety somewhere in the draft that can be a suppackage guy.

DJ's left nut
04-16-2012, 01:22 PM
Of course need carries weight, but you can't tilt your drafting towards need too much or you get a second wave of players that are nothing special.

You have to weigh need with value and bpa to find the best fit.

That's why Barron is the best pick for us IMO if we can't move up or down in the draft.

I still think packaging Dorsey and the 11 pick would be good business.

Except that Barron is neither BPA or a position of need...

Sorter
04-16-2012, 01:44 PM
^^ This. I understand people would like to move Barron to SS and let Berry play FS or roam in a 3 safety sub pkg, and that's fine. It's logical, it makes sense with what Romeo likes to do scheme wise, and would play to their strengths. However, the idea that some of you have of Barron being a better centerfielder than Lewis is wrong. Go watch tape on him against good qb's. Hell, Cam Newton absolutely raped him with pump fakes, Teboner PA fakes, and eventually just looked him off. Barron is great in the box, no doubt. Is fine in short zones, but cant really turn his hips and stay with the TEs he is going to be seeing in the NFL imo. Do you really think he is better than TJ Ward?

So tl;dr I think drafting Barron at 11 or in the 1st would be a waste for us. We can find someone else at a cheaper cost to come in and do his job.

tredadda
04-16-2012, 03:11 PM
Using the draft to fill need positions is not good strategy. You draft BPA, period, unless you are completely entrenched at the position. If the Chiefs believe Kuechly has the potential to be significantly better than Belcher, he's your pick, even though Belcher is good enough. If the Chiefs can land Clayborne, he's your pick, even if the Chiefs have Routt and Flowers. And let's not rule out the idea of landing a pass rusher, even if we have Hali and houston.

Free agency and later rounds in the draft are used for drafting non-essential positions. The first round is a critical spot to draft core positions, because rarely will teams let good players like that walk, not without paying a $100M+ contract.

What if DeCastro is the BPA at #11? Do we continue with the bolded strategy or do we overlook him and that because he is a guard?

Bewbies
04-16-2012, 04:17 PM
What if DeCastro is the BPA at #11? Do we continue with the bolded strategy or do we overlook him and that because he is a guard?

You overlook him because he's a guard. Like every team has done for decades, and decades and decades.

tredadda
04-16-2012, 04:42 PM
You overlook him because he's a guard. Like every team has done for decades, and decades and decades.

Which again contradicts the bolded part. It's either one or the other. Either you follow a BPA strategy, or you ignore it and go need.

Bewbies
04-16-2012, 04:47 PM
Which again contradicts the bolded part. It's either one or the other. Either you follow a BPA strategy, or you ignore it and go need.

I'm sure if there was an all world punter sitting there you'd advocate taking him if he was BPA at 11?

Nightfyre
04-16-2012, 04:47 PM
BPA should be tempered by the value of a position, the fit with the current scheme and the current strength of position. To go BPA in an absolute fashion would be illogical.

tredadda
04-16-2012, 06:41 PM
I'm sure if there was an all world punter sitting there you'd advocate taking him if he was BPA at 11?

Nope.

O.city
04-16-2012, 07:39 PM
Been giving this some thought.



The Chiefs don't have a center. We have two all american guards that are very young.


Why not just trade back (if we can) and draft the best Center prospect in the draft?

Saccopoo
04-16-2012, 10:49 PM
Been giving this some thought.



The Chiefs don't have a center. We have two all american guards that are very young.


Why not just trade back (if we can) and draft the best Center prospect in the draft?

I'm happy the light finally came on.

And Pete Konz isn't chopped liver. He's elite/near elite for his position. Dominant run blocker and very good at pass protection.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SPMVloAiCTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S1wiViy1il0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They ran a ton behind him all season long. He just mauled defensive tackles. He's incredibly fast coming up off the snap, plays nasty and is a real leader on the line.

KCrockaholic
04-16-2012, 10:57 PM
"the Chiefs ranked 26th in the NFL against the run (132.0 yards per game) last year "

I didn't realize that. I was under the impression that Dorsey and Jax were doing a good job against the run

Actually the Chiefs run defense ranked 14th in the league in per carry average which is a more accurate approach to looking at that stat.

Obviously a rushing total will be higher for the opponent when they are ahead, and winning. YPA shows a more accurate ranking.

And the longest run they allowed all season was just 35 yards. 5th best feat in the league.




This post has probably already been addressed, but seeing things like this drive me insane. People need to look at the big picture. And pin pointing Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey as the reason for the Chiefs ranking is utterly ridiculous on it's own.

KCrockaholic
04-16-2012, 11:00 PM
I'm happy the light finally came on.

And Pete Konz isn't chopped liver. He's elite/near elite for his position. Dominant run blocker and very good at pass protection.



They ran a ton behind him all season long. He just mauled defensive tackles. He's incredibly fast coming up off the snap, plays nasty and is a real leader on the line.

I'd actually love to trade back into the 20's, and pick up an extra pick in the 2nd or 3rd and take Konz. That would have "Win" written all over it.

Saccopoo
04-16-2012, 11:20 PM
I'd actually love to trade back into the 20's, and pick up an extra pick in the 2nd or 3rd and take Konz. That would have "Win" written all over it.

Albert/Asamoah/Konz/Hudson/Winston

Jesus...

So long and see ya to struggling with short yardage and red zone situations.

KCrockaholic
04-16-2012, 11:22 PM
Albert/Asamoah/Konz/Hudson/Winston

Jesus...

So long and see ya to struggling with short yardage and red zone situations.


Hell yeah.

You might not care about PFF.

But did you see the stats they put out today about A-gap rushing offenses? Chiefs ranked near the bottom in rushing yardage up the middle in 2011. There's hidden reasons behind that stat, but if we had those 3 as the interior guys, I can guarantee we'd be ranked in the top 7 or 8 of A-gap rushing.

The B-gaps are already our strong point thanks to Albert, and Winston. But this rush offense would be unstoppable with that line and these backs.

BossChief
04-16-2012, 11:44 PM
I totally agree that if we trade down to the 20s or so, Konz would be a damn good pick.

He may not translate to a premier zone blocking center, but the guy has a powerful base and is a leverage technician with a bit of a nasty streak.

Id be totally content with getting Konz and an additional 3rd or second rounder.

Nightfyre
04-17-2012, 06:38 AM
We have Guards that can pull. We should be able to anchor our center every play. Plus we need a guy who can take on a NT without getting anally raped with a cheese grater like Weigs did. I just happen to think Molk might be the right fit

O.city
04-17-2012, 07:32 AM
If you could trade back and get an extra 2, for instance, into the early 20's.


Take Konz in the first.

In the second, take Branch and Harrison Smith

Chapman in the third, or Billy Wynne

Chapman in the fourth

Turbin in the fifth

Dave Lane
04-17-2012, 08:16 AM
A little bit, but there aren't many folks that are Tannehill, Kuechly, Poe or whoever else or nothing. The DeCastro die hards have convinced themselves that the player and the position both carry values that FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds reality. That skewed view prevents any sort of actual dialogue.

How do you argue with someone that claims pre-snap importance or Stanford's offense being tailored around a guard and not the best QB they've had since Elway?

My choice for draft pick is

1) Elite QB
2) Elite QB
3) Elite QB




5) Decastro
6) Trade down
7) mismash of 4-5 players

DeCastro is a difference maker on EVERY play if he is elite.

Bewbies
04-17-2012, 08:19 AM
My choice for draft pick is

1) Elite QB
2) Elite QB
3) Elite QB




5) Decastro
6) Trade down
7) mismash of 4-5 players

DeCastro is a difference maker on EVERY play if he is elite.

Sure thing boss.