PDA

View Full Version : Well less than a week away..


Mecca
04-22-2012, 02:52 AM
And I'm really starting to think the pick is going to be Michael Brockers after a trade down, Pioli/NE have always loved the 6'5 300lb type ends and he fits the bill...it would likely mean Dorseys last year here, but that's what I'm expecting right now.

Thoughts?

BigMeatballDave
04-22-2012, 04:03 AM
The LSU Trifecta!

:)

Chocolate Hog
04-22-2012, 04:16 AM
No thanks can get a solid NT or DE in the middle rounds.

milkman
04-22-2012, 08:19 AM
No thanks can get a solid NT or DE in the middle rounds.

Just like we did with Tyson Jackson.

I just don't see who would be sitting there at #11 that other team's just have to trade up for.

No one is going to trade up for a guard or an overrated ILB.

If Pioli wants Brockers, he'll take him at #11.

Direckshun
04-22-2012, 09:29 AM
And I'm really starting to think the pick is going to be Michael Brockers after a trade down, Pioli/NE have always loved the 6'5 300lb type ends and he fits the bill...it would likely mean Dorseys last year here, but that's what I'm expecting right now.

Thoughts?

I think it makes a ton of sense.

Few other picks make as much sense as Brockers.

Direckshun
04-22-2012, 09:29 AM
By the by, Mecca. Do a mock.

The Bad Guy
04-22-2012, 09:45 AM
I think it makes a ton of sense.

Few other picks make as much sense as Brockers.

It makes sense to those who continually overrate the 3-4 DE.

We'd be the only team in modern history to spend 3 top 15 picks on hte position.

It's laughable that anyone would defend such a pick.

SNR
04-22-2012, 10:08 AM
Reasons why I hate taking a 5-tech in the first:

1. Contrary to popular belief, Allen Bailey DOES have the size to play all three downs. He's 290, which is what Dorsey weighs. Given his country strength, there's no reason at all why he couldn't take up blockers and hold the point of attack on running downs and then shift inside to shoot gaps on 3rd down.

2. Is it our new plan to draft 1st round 5-techs, run out their rookie contracts, and then replace them with another 1st round 5-tech? Drafting a player in the first round to replace a player at a position whom you drafted in the first round = retardation.

3. There are better players at more important positions available at 11 or later if we trade down.

4. Why not take a guy like Jared Crick in the second or third, who figures to fill the job and the need that Brockers will provide? Or Kendall Reyes. Or Billy Wynn. Or anyfuckingbody. This is the deepest draft for 3-4 DE personnel I've seen in a long time. Take advantage of that. Get some value out of the position. Don't blow all our chunks on Dorsey's unimportant replacement. Use the first on a sexier position. Anything.Hell, if we're talking trade down like Mecca says, I'd much rather have Hightower than Brockers. Or an OLB. Or if Stephon Gilmore is still there after we trade down take him for Christ's sake.

BigMeatballDave
04-22-2012, 10:09 AM
It makes sense to those who continually overrate the 3-4 DE.

We'd be the only team in modern history to spend 3 top 15 picks on hte position.

It's laughable that anyone would defend such a pick.

Not only that, but its another LSU player. I will laugh if it happens.

6 1st rd picks and 4 of them LSU, 3 of which are DTs.

I have nothing against LSU, but it'll look a bit Matt Millen-ish if Brockers is the pick.

SNR
04-22-2012, 10:17 AM
Not only that, but its another LSU player. I will laugh if it happens.

6 1st rd picks and 4 of them LSU, 3 of which are DTs.

I have nothing against LSU, but it'll look a bit Matt Millen-ish if Brockers is the pick.We're absolutely no better than Matt Millen. We'll be drafting Brockers and letting go of Dorsey, just as Millen drafted Rogers, who busted, then got replaced by Roy Williams.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 10:19 AM
The LSU Trifecta!

:)

You think Pioli will trust another LSU lineman after watching T Jax bust and Dorsey just being average?

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 10:23 AM
It makes sense to those who continually overrate the 3-4 DE.

We'd be the only team in modern history to spend 3 top 15 picks on hte position.

It's laughable that anyone would defend such a pick.

Especially when Brockers can't even match Seymour's play in college. It doesn't make sense. If Pioli were to take Brockers it means Brockers should be at Seymour's level in college which some here have already attested to that Brockers doesn't even sniff Seymour's stats.

milkman
04-22-2012, 10:23 AM
You think Pioli will trust another LSU lineman after watching T Jax bust and Dorsey just being average?

TJax hasn't busted, dumbass.

He will never live up to his draft status, but he is solid and should continue to improve.

If he had been picked late in the first round or later, he would have been a solid pick.

Anyone who expected anymore from him is a complete fucking moron.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 10:42 AM
If he had been picked late in the first round or later, he would have been a solid pick. Anyone who expected anymore from him is a complete ****ing moron.

Justify these comments please! His play sure does not show it !!

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 10:48 AM
but he is solid and should continue to improve.

Seriously? Denial can be fun for awhile:D

the Talking Can
04-22-2012, 10:53 AM
there are no good answers at #11...everyone would be a backup with the exception of decastro and maybe barron

i'm sure pioli wants to trade down...barring that, brockers is the most logical based on how they value the dl...if they took jackson at #3 they'd take brockers at #11

i think we assume dorsey is gone, but with jackson's restructuring it isn't clear to me which, if either, are for sure gone

we really should roll the dice on a qb, but i don't believe pioli will...and i'd just as soon trade down and take crick and chapman then draft brockers...

rambling...

milkman
04-22-2012, 10:58 AM
Justify these comments please! His play sure does not show it !!

.
Raji is ranked 6th worst at his position (or 78th) and 3rd worst in run defense. He has 9 stops all year, good for 66th at his position.

http://i40.tinypic.com/ruxic3.jpg

Jackson is ranked 10th at his position and 6th in run defense. He has 32 stops, good for 2nd at his position.

http://i44.tinypic.com/ifxxs9.jpg

Does this mean the drafturbators are defeated forever?

milkman
04-22-2012, 11:00 AM
Seriously? Denial can be fun for awhile:D

Maybe you should get a fucking clue, or at the very least, stop proving your moronacy.

KurtCobain
04-22-2012, 11:04 AM
Maybe you should get a fucking clue, or at the very least, stop proving your moronacy.

I like Jackson.

I know this has been rehashed over and over, but who would you take at number 3 that year using hindsight? Can't find a trade down partner.

Coogs
04-22-2012, 11:07 AM
Don't know if you guys have seen this yet today...

If Kalil gets by the Vikings, we may be looking to trade up for the LT.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-04-21/2012-nfl-draft-countdown-sns-no-4-prospect-usc-ot-matt-kalil

milkman
04-22-2012, 11:08 AM
I like Jackson.

I know this has been rehashed over and over, but who would you take at number 3 that year using hindsight? Can't find a trade down partner.

In hindsight, Orakpo.

At the time, I was hoping Raji.

Coogs
04-22-2012, 11:10 AM
I like Jackson.

I know this has been rehashed over and over, but who would you take at number 3 that year using hindsight? Can't find a trade down partner.

I wanted to move up for Stafford.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 11:10 AM
there are no good answers at #11...everyone would be a backup with the exception of decastro and maybe barron

i'm sure pioli wants to trade down...barring that, brockers is the most logical based on how they value the dl...if they took jackson at #3 they'd take brockers at #11

i think we assume dorsey is gone, but with jackson's restructuring it isn't clear to me which, if either, are for sure gone

we really should roll the dice on a qb, but i don't believe pioli will...and i'd just as soon trade down and take crick and chapman then draft brockers...

rambling...

I agree with your post and the 'logical part' "IF" T Jax hadn't busted. But now Pioli has witnessed 2 failed 1st rd DL picks given their draft position. So do you think Pioli is willing to go with a 2nd LSU DL pick(his watch) in the first rd and chance a "hat trick failure"(2-Pioli and 1-Peterson) with 3 LSU D-linemen especially when Brockers doesn't even come close to Seymour college play? I doubt it.

But I definitely like your Barron pick:thumb:

milkman
04-22-2012, 11:11 AM
Don't know if you guys have seen this yet today...

If Kalil gets by the Vikings, we may be looking to trade up for the LT.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-04-21/2012-nfl-draft-countdown-sns-no-4-prospect-usc-ot-matt-kalil

I don't believe it.

milkman
04-22-2012, 11:12 AM
I wanted to move up for Stafford.

Pipe dream.

Coogs
04-22-2012, 11:12 AM
I don't believe it.

I don't either.

milkman
04-22-2012, 11:13 AM
I agree with your post and the 'logical part' "IF" T Jax hadn't busted. But now Pioli has witnessed 2 failed 1st rd DL picks given their draft position. So do you think Pioli is willing to go with a 2nd LSU DL pick(his watch) in the first rd and chance a "hat trick failure"(2-Pioli and 1-Peterson) with 3 LSU D-linemen especially when Brockers doesn't even come close to Seymour college play? I doubt it.

But I definitely like your Barron pick:thumb:

HMOG, you're a fucking moron.

the Talking Can
04-22-2012, 11:13 AM
Don't know if you guys have seen this yet today...

If Kalil gets by the Vikings, we may be looking to trade up for the LT.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-04-21/2012-nfl-draft-countdown-sns-no-4-prospect-usc-ot-matt-kalil

fml

albert to guard meme

Coogs
04-22-2012, 11:13 AM
Pipe dream.

We didn't even explore it by jumping on Cassel in March. But it is what I wanted to do.

milkman
04-22-2012, 11:15 AM
We didn't even explore it by jumping on Cassel in March. But it is what I wanted to do.

The Lions were never going to give that pick up, much like the Colts will never give up their pick this year.

QB is just far, far, far too valuable.

BigMeatballDave
04-22-2012, 11:19 AM
I like Jackson.

I know this has been rehashed over and over, but who would you take at number 3 that year using hindsight? Can't find a trade down partner.

Draft Sanchez.

Yes, hindsight is 50/50, but you still gotta take a shot.

Coogs
04-22-2012, 11:23 AM
The Lions were never going to give that pick up, much like the Colts will never give up their pick this year.

QB is just far, far, far too valuable.

That may be. I'm just telling ya that is what I wanted to do.

Fat Elvis
04-22-2012, 11:36 AM
Just like we did with Tyson Jackson.

I just don't see who would be sitting there at #11 that other team's just have to trade up for.
No one is going to trade up for a guard or an overrated ILB.

If Pioli wants Brockers, he'll take him at #11.

I bet Dallas would trade up for Barron.

whoman69
04-22-2012, 11:47 AM
I bet Dallas would trade up for Barron.

Dallas is famous for moving up but giving up very little to do so. I don't see the move myself. Why would they think Arizona or Seattle would grab him up?

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 11:54 AM
In hindsight, Orakpo.

At the time, I was hoping Raji.

Thank you for your honesty and you still would have been right with both and especially Raji !

We wouldn't be having NT issues right now.

Von Miller had a pro bowl rookie yr and justified himself being picked at 2 overall. T-Jax obviously did not even come close to justifying himself with the overall 3rd pick his rookie yr.

As of matter of fact, when you look at T-Jax's rookie yr play he didn't even justify ever being drafted at all IMO. He couldn't even muster up 7th rd level play his rookie yr. His play this last yr might be 5th rd worth at this point in his career.

Yet you justify that T-Jax would have been a good pick at the end of the 1st rd or later in the draft that yr?

He is a bust !!! Pioli just admitted it with asking him to take a pay cut !!

Fat Elvis
04-22-2012, 12:00 PM
Dallas is famous for moving up but giving up very little to do so. I don't see the move myself. Why would they think Arizona or Seattle would grab him up?

The question is whether or not we would grab him.

milkman
04-22-2012, 12:11 PM
Thank you for your honesty and you still would have been right with both and especially Raji !

We wouldn't be having NT issues right now.

Von Miller had a pro bowl rookie yr and justified himself being picked at 2 overall. T-Jax obviously did not even come close to justifying himself with the overall 3rd pick his rookie yr.

As of matter of fact, when you look at T-Jax's rookie yr play he didn't even justify ever being drafted at all IMO. He couldn't even muster up 7th rd level play his rookie yr. His play this last yr might be 5th rd worth at this point in his career.

Yet you justify that T-Jax would have been a good pick at the end of the 1st rd or later in the draft that yr?

He is a bust !!! Pioli just admitted it with asking him to take a pay cut !!

He didn't take a pay cut.

JFC.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 12:15 PM
I don't believe it.

Well let's rethink this and look at Pioli's stubborn ego by still supporting Cassel as his starter. I think it has 'some merit' because it is obvious that "come hell or high water" Pioli will make Cassel a great QB. And in Pioli's mind Cassel 'must succeed' to save face for Pioli as Cassel was his first player move as a GM.

If Pioli does make this move it will at least reveal 2 things Pioli is thinking and that is that Albert is not a real LT and Cassel plays nervously(although Pioli would never admit this he would say "Matt just needs more time in the pocket") and needs a Fort Knox Wall in front of him in order to succeed which he did have in NE.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 12:16 PM
He didn't take a pay cut.

JFC.

Regardless, Pioli sent a message.

Saccopoo
04-22-2012, 12:21 PM
As of matter of fact, when you look at T-Jax's rookie yr play he didn't even justify ever being drafted at all IMO. He couldn't even muster up 7th rd level play his rookie yr. His play this last yr might be 5th rd worth at this point in his career.

Yet you justify that T-Jax would have been a good pick at the end of the 1st rd or later in the draft that yr?

He is a bust !!! Pioli just admitted it with asking him to take a pay cut !!

He's not a bust.

He's turned out to be pretty solid and was close to overpowering at certain moments last season.

Considering that there wasn't a single 34 DE on the entire Chiefs roster in 2009, the pick ended up being pretty good.

If you did it over again, 2009 would be:

1. Orakpo
2. Matthews
3. Mack
4. Jackson
5. Freeman

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 12:35 PM
He's turned out to be pretty solid and was close to overpowering at certain moments last season.

To the point where he was a pro bowler in 2011?

He doesn't even 'sniff' pro bowler play at this point in his career 'still' for an overall 3rd pick. And that's pathetic.

You use the words "certain moments". And there is the problem.

Very few if any at all and for a 1st rd 3rd overall pick or hell a 5th-rd pick should be defined by words like "consistent playmaker" not just "certain moments".:rolleyes:

O.city
04-22-2012, 01:04 PM
He was drafted to anchor the defense from the d end spot.


I think you need to do a little research on the role that a 5 tech does in the style of defense we play.


And if you are gonna measure players by pro bowls, you aren't gonna be taken very seriously.

All pro maybe, but not pro bowl. 34 de's rarely make the pro bowl.

milkman
04-22-2012, 01:07 PM
He was drafted to anchor the defense from the d end spot.


I think you need to do a little research on the role that a 5 tech does in the style of defense we play.


And if you are gonna measure players by pro bowls, you aren't gonna be taken very seriously.

All pro maybe, but not pro bowl. 34 de's rarely make the pro bowl.

It's like trying to explain physics to a 5 year old.

Let him stew in his idiocy and move on.

O.city
04-22-2012, 01:17 PM
I do like Brockers for what he could/ would become. It would take patience for him to develop, which is something I don't really like in a early first round pick. But, I would live with that as it's what good/great teams do. They draft guys and develop them.



I'm not really sure who it's gonna be. Every one you bring up that we could draft at 11, you can think about 2 or 3 other guys that you could have late that could do the same thing.


I was big on Hightower for a while, as I think he can thump and brings a little extra as he can play different lb spots and rush the passer. But I'm not sure how much of an upgrade he is over Belcher, who I think is getting better day by day.

If it were me, i'd probably try and get Tannehill. If I couldn't do that, I'm probably trying to trade back and grab some picks. I like Konz alot. If we could get him and a couple extra picks or even an extra guy in the first or second I would be fine with that.

SNR
04-22-2012, 01:36 PM
I don't believe it.
Some guy asked this very question during the Chiefs pre-draft press conference about taking one of the tackles in the first round (Reiff was the guy) and then moving Albert over to guard. Pioli gave him an "are you fucking stupid?" look and said, "No, Brandon Albert is a left tackle. He's our left tackle and a damn good player" and left it at that.

I know Pioli says lots of shit to conceal his true intentions, but this seemed actually pretty convincing to me. The look on his face was genuinely, "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard"

BigMeatballDave
04-22-2012, 01:54 PM
To the point where he was a pro bowler in 2011?

He doesn't even 'sniff' pro bowler play at this point in his career 'still' for an overall 3rd pick. And that's pathetic.

You use the words "certain moments". And there is the problem.

Very few if any at all and for a 1st rd 3rd overall pick or hell a 5th-rd pick should be defined by words like "consistent playmaker" not just "certain moments".:rolleyes:Dude. 3-4 DE is a very non-exciting position. Them and the NT have specific gap responsibilities so other position; ILB, OLB can make plays. How many elite 3-4 DE have 10+ sacks in a season?
Its nothing like 4-3 DE, like you're thinking.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 02:47 PM
He was drafted to anchor the defense from the d end spot.


I think you need to do a little research on the role that a 5 tech does in the style of defense we play.


And if you are gonna measure players by pro bowls, you aren't gonna be taken very seriously.

All pro maybe, but not pro bowl. 34 de's rarely make the pro bowl.

The 3rd pick overall !! He better be at least a pro-bowler by his 3rd yr.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 02:53 PM
Dude. 3-4 DE is a very non-exciting position. Them and the NT have specific gap responsibilities so other position; ILB, OLB can make plays. How many elite 3-4 DE have 10+ sacks in a season?
Its nothing like 4-3 DE, like you're thinking.

Dude. I get your point and I get the 34, but he was a 3rd overall pick who is barely 'serviceable' now.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 03:09 PM
Let him stew in his idiocy and move on.

Yeah, you keep right on justifying T Jax even at this point and we will see who "stews in their own idiocy" in the long run.:rolleyes:

KCDC
04-22-2012, 03:21 PM
I worry we won't find a trading partner. This is especially true as Buffalo at #10 and Arizona at #13 have signaled they would like to trade down too because the depth at OL is good.

I think Pioli would love to trade down and take Brockers but his hand will be forced and he'll take Brockers at #11 and we will all be shaking our heads at taking another LSU talented lineman at a spot 10 above where he should have been taken.

So I agree with Mecca and Milkman.

If you are going to draft someone with #22 talent, would you be better off taking a DeCastro, Keuchly, or a Barron? Each is a reach.

Let's pray for a trading partner that wants to pick in front of Seattle for some reason. Maybe someone wants Keuchly.

The Bad Guy
04-22-2012, 03:42 PM
I don't care how good Brockers could become, you don't spend 2 top 5 picks on the position just 4 years ago and then take yet another one. This isn't a pass rusher we are talking about, it's a space eater.

Space eaters are available in any round.

It would blow my fucking mind if this happened. It shows a massive amount of scouting failure if the team has to invest into a grunt position this much.

How fucking sickening is a team that sucks as bad as we do, and 3 of the 4 years we have drafted in the top 15, we end up with 3 space eaters?

If Brockers is the pick, Pioli should be fired 5 minutes after it.

The Bad Guy
04-22-2012, 03:45 PM
Let me also say that it's a fucking joke we'd invest in the DE position like this, and then completely fucking ignore the NT position, which carries just as much value, if not more, in this defense.

Good move Scott, let's tie up considerable draft picks in one position, and put a 6th rounder and journeymen next to them.

the Talking Can
04-22-2012, 03:59 PM
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-5578.html

My Sunday Best: Most Productive Pass Rushers

If players were drafted solely on college production, they would come off the board in an entirely different order. Through STATS’ Ice system, here is a look at how the top pass rushers would rank if pass rush production were the only measure. Ice is a player evaluation system being used by NFL teams in preparation for the draft. The number each player is rated by is the total of his sacks, knockdowns and hurries in 2011.

1. Whitney Mercilus, Illinois—43.5 (16 sacks, 19.5 knockdowns, eight hurries). Little known fact: a lot of his pass rush production came as an interior rusher.

2. Melvin Ingram, South Carolina—35.5 (10 sacks, 15 knockdowns, 10.5 hurries). He did not get his production solely as an edge rusher either. Ingram rushed from all over, and was very effective inside. The fact that he had this much production against SEC competition is particularly impressive.

3. Andre Branch, Clemson—32 (9.5 sacks, 16 knockdowns, 6.5 hurries). It’s all about speed and edge rush with Branch.

4. Nick Perry, Southern Cal—30.5 (9.5 sacks, 14.5 knockdowns, 6.5 hurries). Perry got his production by using a combination of athleticism and power, and he also was very good with his hands.

any olb/de we draft is going to see limited snaps, i wonder if the 'inside rush' of mercilus and ingram will influence pioli's thinking at all....

Mr. Laz
04-22-2012, 04:09 PM
no need to draft a "clogger" in the 1st round ... probably a dozen guys i would rather take.

Btw - if we are going to trade down i would rather trade down big and get another 1st round pick NEXT year.

BigMeatballDave
04-22-2012, 04:11 PM
Dude. I get your point and I get the 34, but he was a 3rd overall pick who is barely 'serviceable' now.

Barely serviceable? LMAO

Fat Elvis
04-22-2012, 05:50 PM
I don't care how good Brockers could become, you don't spend 2 top 5 picks on the position just 4 years ago and then take yet another one. This isn't a pass rusher we are talking about, it's a space eater.

Space eaters are available in any round.

It would blow my ****ing mind if this happened. It shows a massive amount of scouting failure if the team has to invest into a grunt position this much.

How ****ing sickening is a team that sucks as bad as we do, and 3 of the 4 years we have drafted in the top 15, we end up with 3 space eaters?

If Brockers is the pick, Pioli should be fired 5 minutes after it.

Get ready to be pissed off.

KCDC
04-22-2012, 06:08 PM
Get ready to be pissed off.

Yep. I'm going to be upset when he selects Brockers but I'll have five days to prepare my mental state for disappointment.

Bad Guy, I think it might be best if you are drunk, tranquilized or don't watch. It's going to be Brockers unless we can find a team willing to trade up for our pick and then Denver jumps ahead of us to select him so he is no longer available.

The Bad Guy
04-22-2012, 06:20 PM
Yep. I'm going to be upset when he selects Brockers but I'll have five days to prepare my mental state for disappointment.

Bad Guy, I think it might be best if you are drunk, tranquilized or don't watch. It's going to be Brockers unless we can find a team willing to trade up for our pick and then Denver jumps ahead of us to select him so he is no longer available.

I'll be drunk and watching. It's just another nail in the Pioli coffin if he does select another 5-tech DE.

ChiefMojo
04-22-2012, 06:29 PM
Sure NT is the biggest need but there isn't a NT in this draft worth a 1st round pick imo. Chapman and Ta'amu would work great in my book but we can land them in the 2nd/3rd round range.

I would only want Brockers on a trade down. If we get Brockers, it is means the end of Dorsey unless we move him inside.

OnTheWarpath58
04-22-2012, 06:34 PM
I don't care how good Brockers could become, you don't spend 2 top 5 picks on the position just 4 years ago and then take yet another one. This isn't a pass rusher we are talking about, it's a space eater.

Space eaters are available in any round.

It would blow my fucking mind if this happened. It shows a massive amount of scouting failure if the team has to invest into a grunt position this much.

How fucking sickening is a team that sucks as bad as we do, and 3 of the 4 years we have drafted in the top 15, we end up with 3 space eaters?

If Brockers is the pick, Pioli should be fired 5 minutes after it.

Be prepared to be pissed. It boggles the mind to think about how much this regime overvalues that position, while woefully undervaluing NT and QB.

Saccopoo
04-22-2012, 06:38 PM
I'll be drunk and watching. It's just another nail in the Pioli coffin if he does select another 5-tech DE.

He's got to be high on their board.

He fits just about every way possible in terms of what the position requires.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Brockers was the pick and it's not that big a reach if any. I've seen him mocked to Carolina and then all the way down to about 22.

He's got a great motor, plays with superb leverage and has a really high ceiling, especially for the five tech spot. And he's big enough that if you wanted, he could easily pack on weight to 350 and play nose. LSU lined him up over center a lot last season.

He's a pretty good pick if they plan on not resigning Dorsey or Jackson due to their contract situations after the 2012 season.

The Bad Guy
04-22-2012, 06:42 PM
He's got to be high on their board.

He fits just about every way possible in terms of what the position requires.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Brockers was the pick and it's not that big a reach if any. I've seen him mocked to Carolina and then all the way down to about 22.

He's got a great motor, plays with superb leverage and has a really high ceiling, especially for the five tech spot. And he's big enough that if you wanted, he could easily pack on weight to 350 and play nose. LSU lined him up over center a lot last season.

He's a pretty good pick if they plan on not resigning Dorsey or Jackson due to their contract situations after the 2012 season.

I'm not questioning the player he is, I'm questioning the investment and the return on a grunt position in this defense. It's a position that most 3-4 teams invest in with later round picks.

I've never seen a 3-4 team stockpile 5-techs like this team. No way should they pay Dorsey to eat up blockers, the same way they shouldn't over-invest in Brockers to do the same.

Blick
04-22-2012, 06:53 PM
I wouldn't mind Brockers.

I'm tired of the sub-300 pound 5-techs. The run defense was trash last year. In order to 2 gap effectively, you need big motherfuckers at all 3 D-line spots in that base defense.

I like the youth, upside, and SIZE of Brockers. He's already huge and has the frame to add even more weight as he gets older.

You're not going to get a guy with his attributes and upside in the later rounds.

We could do worse.

SNR
04-22-2012, 07:04 PM
Be prepared to be pissed. It boggles the mind to think about how much this regime overvalues that position, while woefully undervaluing NT and QB.I have to think it goes back to the ol' True Fan excuse regarding the QB: "What the hell did you expect Pioli to do? There wasn't any talent available where we were."

Not once from 2009-2011 were the Chiefs in line to pick up a franchise QB or a franchise NT except for a 5th and a 6th round pick in 2011. That pretty much seems to be what Pioli is saying. I understand that overpaying for something that isn't a clear solution is never a good idea, but for two of the most foundational positions on offense and defense?

And I'm as big of a fan of the 2011 draft as you'll find around here. If Pioli's answer to the QB and NT position actually is Stanzi and Powe and that works out... then hey, I'll change my name to Truedy Fanny Truefan McTruefanerson the Truefan. But I got a funny feeling that both of those players aren't long term solutions.

milkman
04-22-2012, 07:16 PM
Yeah, you keep right on justifying T Jax even at this point and we will see who "stews in their own idiocy" in the long run.:rolleyes:

First, you dumbshit, I have not once justified the use of the 3rd overall pick on a 5 tech.

In '09, when we learned that he was the pick, it was the consensus that it was a stupid pick.

But the point is, he is playing his position as well as anyone in the league as a runstuffer, his role in this defense.

He is more than just "servicable".

There isn't a singl person here, except your moronic fucking ass, that has any expectation that he'll ever be a pro bowler, which is nothing more than a popularity contest in any event.

Using the 3rd overall on him was wasted value, but that doesn't change the fact that you are one clueless motherfucker and a useless fucking tool.

He does his job, and he does it well.

BossChief
04-22-2012, 07:17 PM
Haha

Thinking back at how I valued both of those guys predraft, I still think both have a good shot at being difference makers in the NFL.

I would have been happy with either in the late second/early third.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 07:19 PM
I worry we won't find a trading partner. This is especially true as Buffalo at #10 and Arizona at #13 have signaled they would like to trade down too because the depth at OL is good.

Let's pray for a trading partner that wants to pick in front of Seattle for some reason. Maybe someone wants Keuchly.

I think Barron and possibly Kuechly will be our best bait assuming they fall to us which I think there is better than a 75% chance they will and Barron will be the better bait assuming we don't want him IMO. Don't think for a moment AZ wouldn't like to have Barron in their backfield with their division getting much better and Dallas picking right behind them. It may come down to Dallas or AZ swapping with us.

Mr. Laz
04-22-2012, 07:27 PM
I wouldn't mind Brockers.

I'm tired of the sub-300 pound 5-techs. The run defense was trash last year. In order to 2 gap effectively, you need big motherfuckers at all 3 D-line spots in that base defense.

I like the youth, upside, and SIZE of Brockers. He's already huge and has the frame to add even more weight as he gets older.

You're not going to get a guy with his attributes and upside in the later rounds.

We could do worse.
while i agree about the desire to put some real beef at DE, i don't think you need to do that in the 1st round.

Go find a DT or NT that is really strong and works hard but isn't quite fast enough to make it as a DT or big enough to make as a NT. They will slide in the draft and you grab them in the 2nd/3rd/4th round.

We need to be fishing for these every year BUT not in round 1 and preferably not in the 2nd either.

Hell i think we could make do by fielding 3 nose tackles. You wouldn't get much pass rush but then again we don't ask them to do that most of the time anyway. Have two 2nd string guys that you bring in for passing downs.

3 big,fat nose tackles that are so massive that they can literally clog up the LOS. Fixes the interior run game and lets the LB's run free for the outside stuff.

btw - we need to have those karate guys in camp every year to teach hand fighting because that is a must with the way Crennel wants them to play.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 07:35 PM
But the point is, he is playing his position as well as anyone in the league as a runstuffer, his role in this defense.He does his job, and he does it well.

Yes that is why our Run D was ranked what last yr ?

26th Kansas City 508 2112 4.2 35 14 132.0 8 4

Yep 26th ! You permanently leaking tampon !!!:rolleyes:

milkman
04-22-2012, 07:44 PM
Yes that is why our Run D was ranked what last yr ?

26th Kansas City 508 2112 4.2 35 14 132.0 8 4

Yep 26th ! You permanently leaking tampon !!!:rolleyes:

This is why stats are such a useless fucking tool for useless fucking tools.

The run defense did struggle to some extent because we don't hav ethat space eater in the middle.

That being said, the overall yards are a product of teams playing with a lead against the Chiefs.

They were ranked close to the top 10 in yards per carry.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 08:11 PM
This is why stats are such a useless ****ing tool

Yeah, I'm sure they(stats) are useless to 32 GMs and 32 HCs in the NFL trying to gauge their teams and how to improve the following year.

:facepalm:

You are actually drinking your own sour milk today. Your insecurity of being challenged or actually being wrong about Chiefs football or anything in life for that matter WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

You must have been "bullied like a little bitch" when you were younger. Parent or older kids or both?

Because your caustic bullying here of those who you 'think' are wrong/stupid is definitely evident.

You are one angry bitter bitter "little man" that is for sure. And it is very sad to see and I am being sincere when I say this.

milkman
04-22-2012, 08:50 PM
Yeah, I'm sure they(stats) are useless to 32 GMs and 32 HCs in the NFL trying to gauge their teams and how to improve the following year.

:facepalm:

You are actually drinking your own sour milk today. Your insecurity of being challenged or actually being wrong about Chiefs football or anything in life for that matter WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

You must have been "bullied like a little bitch" when you were younger. Parent or older kids or both?

Because your caustic bullying here of those who you 'think' are wrong/stupid is definitely evident.

You are one angry bitter bitter "little man" that is for sure. And it is very sad to see and I am being sincere when I say this.

I can have civil debates with intelligent posters.

You, if you are actually a shrink, are living proof that they will give any moron a degree in psychology.

Nightfyre
04-22-2012, 09:03 PM
I'm not questioning the player he is, I'm questioning the investment and the return on a grunt position in this defense. It's a position that most 3-4 teams invest in with later round picks.

I've never seen a 3-4 team stockpile 5-techs like this team. No way should they pay Dorsey to eat up blockers, the same way they shouldn't over-invest in Brockers to do the same.

The thing about Brockers is that he could be a three down 5-tech. He pushes the pocket against double/triple teams in SEC competition and gets his arms up in the throwing lanes. In addition to holding ground and eating blocks. I would hope we would draft him and deal Dorsey to recoup something out of him before he inevitably isn't resigned next year.

Saccopoo
04-22-2012, 09:28 PM
I'm not questioning the player he is, I'm questioning the investment and the return on a grunt position in this defense. It's a position that most 3-4 teams invest in with later round picks.

I've never seen a 3-4 team stockpile 5-techs like this team. No way should they pay Dorsey to eat up blockers, the same way they shouldn't over-invest in Brockers to do the same.

Due to the rookie pay scale, by drafting Brockers they are getting a player that is more "prototypical" of the five tech position than Dorsey and a boat load cheaper than what Glenn is currently getting paid.

The five tech is a grunt position, but the problem with it is, there are very few guys with the size and skill set to properly play it effectively. Brockers has just about everything you could want in a player for the position - great length, massive trunks/legs, plays with leverage and is functionally strong. He also plays with a high motor. His ceiling for the position is quite high.

It's a nice draft for the five tech position. I like Cincinnati's Derek Wolfe a lot and he'll likely be there in the third/fourth round. But it's easy to see this coaching staff and front office really liking Brockers.

Sorter
04-22-2012, 09:29 PM
The thing about Brockers is that he could be a three down 5-tech. He pushes the pocket against double/triple teams in SEC competition and gets his arms up in the throwing lanes. In addition to holding ground and eating blocks. I would hope we would draft him and deal Dorsey to recoup something out of him before he inevitably isn't resigned next year.

^^^This. Plus Pioli talking about "drafting for future needs" make me convinced that Brockers is our pick.

O.city
04-22-2012, 09:31 PM
Brockers, like Jackson, is the prototypical 5 tech for the 34.


He's probably the pick.

SNR
04-22-2012, 09:54 PM
if you told me during the regular season that sure enough, our first round pick would be used to take the top 5-technique DT available, and that it wasn't a joke, I would probably go into a depression of some sort. The kind where I don't leave the house for a couple days, and do nothing but mope around and be an unproductive drain on society.

I'm numb to the pain now, having listened to the arguments for and against, and seen multiple mocks projecting Brockers to us. Hell, I've been so brainwashed by this franchise that the idea of taking Brockers seems to make sense to me, even though I can't explain the logic.

I just remember during the regular season when it was QB talk all season long. The topics were all about how it's pitifully apparent that the Chiefs must now make a move with their first round pick to draft a QB. We haven't taken a QB in the first round in 28 years, but for some reason this draft seemed different. The prospects were there, the team was stacked with great players on both sides of the ball, and we were probably going to get a pretty high draft pick out of the deal from which we could trade up to get the guy we wanted.

I don't know why I had hope that this year would be different. I should know better by now.

DeezNutz
04-22-2012, 10:01 PM
If Brockers is the pick, Pioli should be fired 5 minutes after it.

Amen. And that's being patient.

Chief Roundup
04-22-2012, 10:04 PM
Well since Tannehill, Brockers, Poe are the only first round players that we have had meetings with it will come from those 3 unless Pioli breaks his normal.
I would prefer Tannehill then Brockers.

the Talking Can
04-22-2012, 10:06 PM
our QB situation is even worse then the end of last year

we let orton go, and replaced him with an inferior backup...all for a few mill

they simply refuse to do anything about cassel

and now we're choosing between a guard and another DE....you know, because drafting a QB is risky

Saccopoo
04-22-2012, 10:40 PM
if you told me during the regular season that sure enough, our first round pick would be used to take the top 5-technique DT available, and that it wasn't a joke, I would probably go into a depression of some sort. The kind where I don't leave the house for a couple days, and do nothing but mope around and be an unproductive drain on society.

I'm numb to the pain now, having listened to the arguments for and against, and seen multiple mocks projecting Brockers to us. Hell, I've been so brainwashed by this franchise that the idea of taking Brockers seems to make sense to me, even though I can't explain the logic.

I just remember during the regular season when it was QB talk all season long. The topics were all about how it's pitifully apparent that the Chiefs must now make a move with their first round pick to draft a QB. We haven't taken a QB in the first round in 28 years, but for some reason this draft seemed different. The prospects were there, the team was stacked with great players on both sides of the ball, and we were probably going to get a pretty high draft pick out of the deal from which we could trade up to get the guy we wanted.

I don't know why I had hope that this year would be different. I should know better by now.

I wanted Luck as much as anyone else. Then, even though it was going to require more than it deserved, I hoped that they would trade up for Griffin.

But you know what? We didn't. So I'm not going to dwell on it too much and hope that they get the guy that will help this team the most the fastest at this point.

I can see Brockers being that type of guy, especially if they don't want to pay Dorsey or Dorsey wants to go to a 43 team to take better advantage of his skill set.

I also hope that the mystery that is Brady Quinn is finally revealed. Here was a former first round quarterback that got a raw deal in Cleveland under that dipshit Mangenius and was subsequently swallowed whole by Tebowmania in Denver. He had all the tools, was a hard worker, loved football, etc. Sometimes it's just about being in the right system at the right time. I'm hoping that time is now.

And if that doesn't pan out, then I hope that Stanzi is the absolute shit. I like the guy and think he's got a chance.

I'm actually pretty excited about the potential of Quinn and Stanzi. I like our QB situation a lot better now than I have the past ten years or so - hell, even longer.

But because it isn't going to be Luck or Griffin, at this point I hope it's Brockers. He fits this team better than any other player at that point in the draft. And at least he's not a guard.

ChiefMojo
04-22-2012, 10:54 PM
I'm just hoping KC didn't bring in DeCastro and Kuechly more so due to the fact they really don't have red flags to them. They don't have injury history, they don't have character issues, they have high football IQ's, etc. There is plenty of game film on them and the Chiefs saw/talked to them at the Combine.

Guys like Brockers, Poe and Tannehill you bring them in not only to talk to them but get a good look at them.

So this year wouldn't surprise me at all that we draft someone in the 1st round we didn't bring in for a visit.

If we do draft one of the guys that came in for a visit... I bet it is Brockers.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 11:08 PM
I can have civil debates with intelligent posters.


ROFLROFL Yeah only those that agree with your opinion or don't challenge you.

Otherwise their just dumbasses.:rolleyes:

BTW, you substantively failed big time supporting T-Jax play these last 3yrs. :shrug:

Direckshun
04-22-2012, 11:12 PM
What 1st round "suspects" fit EXACTLY what the Chiefs do?

Kalil
Barron
Brockers
Ingram
Hightower
Kirkpatrick
McClellin

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 11:41 PM
What 1st round "suspects" fit EXACTLY what the Chiefs do?

Kalil
Barron
Brockers
Ingram
Hightower
Kirkpatrick
McClellin

1. McClellin - My long shot prediction is that Pioli really likes McClellin and if given the chance to trade down and get a pick or two he will take Shea who is a helluva value pick in the late 1st. Shea is his right 53 kinda of guy that can cover,thump and rush the passer. He is a young Mike Vrabel and rising on everyone's board. I really like this kid.

2. Barron - Is my next prediction. He makes a lot of sense. 2 Ed Reeds in our 2ndary with Manning in our division makes sense. Barron is smart and very instinctual.

3. Ingram - although short in stature and has short arms and small hands has a helluva motor with great athleticism always making plays. You can't teach athleticism or give someone a motor. They either have it or they don't. He makes sense as well. Reminds me a lot of Hali.

4. Brockers - definitely has the size and can make plays but will need a lot of development. I don't see him as athletic or having the motor that Ingram has and does Pioli have the guts to take another 5 tech DE and fail like he did with T-Jax?

Those are the 4 from your list in that order that I like that make sense.

Nightfyre
04-22-2012, 11:44 PM
Brockers has a great motor. I don't know where you get this stuff.

Chiefshrink
04-22-2012, 11:48 PM
Brockers has a great motor. I don't know where you get this stuff.

I said he didn't have the same motor as Ingram from the tape I saw. I didn't say he 'didn't' have a motor at all.:rolleyes:

Sorter
04-23-2012, 12:14 AM
2. Barron - Is my next prediction. He makes a lot of sense. 2 Ed Reeds in our 2ndary with Manning in our division makes sense. Barron is smart and very instinctual.


Lol, Barron doesn't have even the slightest resemblance in playing style to Ed.

Micjones
04-23-2012, 07:21 AM
I'd rather have Tannehill, but I can live with a trade back + Brockers.

TRR
04-23-2012, 08:11 AM
our QB situation is even worse then the end of last year

we let orton go, and replaced him with an inferior backup...all for a few mill

they simply refuse to do anything about cassel

and now we're choosing between a guard and another DE....you know, because drafting a QB is risky

That's not really true. Your saying Orton, Palko and a rookie Stanzi is better than Cassel, Quinn, second year Stanzi? Cassel doesn't figure into last season when KC had Orton because he was officially done for the year.
Posted via Mobile Device

the Talking Can
04-23-2012, 08:24 AM
That's not really true. Your saying Orton, Palko and a rookie Stanzi is better than Cassel, Quinn, second year Stanzi? Cassel doesn't figure into last season when KC had Orton because he was officially done for the year.
Posted via Mobile Device

palko was gone the minute orton arrived

and orton is significantly better than Quinn...who is a dirt cheap, one year contract...

stanzi...the greatest first round pick ever taken in the 5th?

Chiefnj2
04-23-2012, 08:27 AM
Brockers is too much like TJax. Solid against the run, but no pass rush at all.

YayMike
04-23-2012, 08:30 AM
I'd rather have Tannehill, but I can live with a trade back + Brockers.

I think I'd rather have trade back and Hightower, then trade back and Ingram, but trade back and Brockers would pretty much annoy me because if we drop into the late teens or twenties the linebackers make much more sense than Brockers.

Micjones
04-23-2012, 10:53 AM
I think I'd rather have trade back and Hightower, then trade back and Ingram, but trade back and Brockers would pretty much annoy me because if we drop into the late teens or twenties the linebackers make much more sense than Brockers.

I'm really not that high on Hightower, to be honest.
If we trade back to the teens...give me either Barron or Upshaw.

aturnis
04-23-2012, 12:25 PM
I'm really not that high on Hightower, to be honest.
If we trade back to the teens...give me either Barron or Upshaw.

Upshaw is a headcase waiting to Hite you in the ass. Don't think he'll be going in the first.

buddha
04-23-2012, 02:30 PM
Brockers is actually not like Jackson.

Brockers is a much bigger man, he is still growing and maturing as a player and a man. Look at film on the two of them without their pads going through drills...Brockers is HUGE and he moves very well for a guy who is his size.

Brockers is much more than a space eater as well. I think he going to become a tough assignment, even for double teams in time.

BigChiefFan
04-23-2012, 02:30 PM
Brockers is actually not like Jackson.

Brockers is a much bigger man, he is still growing and maturing as a player and a man. Look at film on the two of them without their pads going through drills...Brockers is HUGE and he moves very well for a guy who is his size.

Brockers is much more than a space eater as well. I think he going to become a tough assignment, even for double teams in time.

I don't think Brockers makes it to our pick.

ChiefMojo
04-23-2012, 02:34 PM
I would argue that Brockers is a better 5-Tech prospect coming out of college than T-Jax. Brockers has the PERFECT 5-Tech body and his only knock is his pass rush ability (which ISN'T important with a 3-4 DE). This is where we have Allen Bailey for passing sub packages.

Brockers is still quite young (just turned 21) and could develop into a decent pass rusher in time with proper coaching. He has the chance to be a elite run stopper right off the bat. T-Jax has developed into a very good run stopper and Brockers is more advanced coming out than T-Jax was in that department.

buddha
04-23-2012, 02:37 PM
I don't think Brockers makes it to our pick.

Really? Who do you see falling to us who is conventially seen as going before us in that case? I'm intrigued becase nobody has suggested that so far to my knowledge.

There are plenty of top 10 mock draft players who would look great in red.

tredadda
04-23-2012, 02:41 PM
I don't think Brockers makes it to our pick.

In Round 2 maybe. He will most assuredly be there at #11. Question is will we pull the trigger on yet another LSU d-lineman with a Top 15 pick? Dorsey was a "cant miss" D-Lineman and arguably projected as the best in his class. TJAX was the consensus best 3-4 DE in the draft. Was he worth the #3 pick? Was Dorsey worth the #5 pick? Will Brockers be worth a #11 pick three years from now or will he suffer the same fate as the others? You know, solid but not worth their draft position.

Micjones
04-23-2012, 02:42 PM
Upshaw is a headcase waiting to Hite you in the ass. Don't think he'll be going in the first.

Did he have a string of incidents or was it just that thing with his girlfriend?

buddha
04-23-2012, 02:48 PM
In Round 2 maybe. He will most assuredly be there at #11. Question is will we pull the trigger on yet another LSU d-lineman with a Top 15 pick? Dorsey was a "cant miss" D-Lineman and arguably projected as the best in his class. TJAX was the consensus best 3-4 DE in the draft. Was he worth the #3 pick? Was Dorsey worth the #5 pick? Will Brockers be worth a #11 pick three years from now or will he suffer the same fate as the others? You know, solid but not worth their draft position.

tredadda...pretend for a moment that Brockers is coming from a different school. Would that matter to you? Dorsey doesn't count in this discussion. He came from a time with different coaches, a different defense, etc. Jackson was as raw as steak, and is only now starting to round into a good 5 tech.

Brockers isn't Dorsey and he isn't Jackson. He also is young as hell and his best playing days are in front of him.

OnTheWarpath58
04-23-2012, 02:52 PM
In Round 2 maybe. He will most assuredly be there at #11. Question is will we pull the trigger on yet another LSU d-lineman with a Top 15 pick? Dorsey was a "cant miss" D-Lineman and arguably projected as the best in his class. TJAX was the consensus best 3-4 DE in the draft. Was he worth the #3 pick? Was Dorsey worth the #5 pick? Will Brockers be worth a #11 pick three years from now or will he suffer the same fate as the others? You know, solid but not worth their draft position.

Has nothing to do with where he played, IMO.

5-techniques are never going to be worth a high pick. There's been one worth it in the last 15 years, and he was drafted as a 43 DT.

tredadda
04-23-2012, 02:56 PM
tredadda...pretend for a moment that Brockers is coming from a different school. Would that matter to you? Dorsey doesn't count in this discussion. He came from a time with different coaches, a different defense, etc. Jackson was as raw as steak, and is only now starting to round into a good 5 tech.

Brockers isn't Dorsey and he isn't Jackson. He also is young as hell and his best playing days are in front of him.

Possibly, but I still do not think he is worth the #11 pick regardless of where he went to school. As far as Dorsey and Brockers go you need to look at that a little. Dorsey came out with far more accolades than Brockers. Brockers has potential to be great, but once bitten twice shy. Is he worth the #11 pick? Nope IMO. Let's say we had drafted Cassel way back when and then Sanchez a little bit later, would you be eager to go after the next USC QB? What if you had to reach for him as Brockers at #11 is a reach. If we trade back then I have no problems getting him later in the first round.

buddha
04-23-2012, 03:02 PM
Possibly, but I still do not think he is worth the #11 pick regardless of where he went to school. As far as Dorsey and Brockers go you need to look at that a little. Dorsey came out with far more accolades than Brockers. Brockers has potential to be great, but once bitten twice shy. Is he worth the #11 pick? Nope IMO. Let's say we had drafted Cassel way back when and then Sanchez a little bit later, would you be eager to go after the next USC QB? What if you had to reach for him as Brockers at #11 is a reach. If we trade back then I have no problems getting him later in the first round.

Unless the college program is doing something wrong, it doesn't concern me one bit. Brockers jumps off the screen during games. I honestly never noticed Tyson Jackson when he played at LSU...ever. Brockers made plays against tough SEC competition as a sophomore. He is a physical specimen.

He is only one of a group of players that I'd be happy with at 11. I'm not dogmatic about any one guy in this draft. There are several that would be just fine.