Definitely in the defense.

Gs are taken high in the draft less than any other position, and there is a reason for that.
Positional value is real, and only what teams consider to be elite talents at C and G are taken in the first round, and usually late in the first round.
You were way off when you said that G is a position that has risen in value as it has actually declined with the increase in demand for players such as TE, and safety in a league that is increasingly geared toward the passing game.
G may have lowest positional valuein the league above only FB and maybe 2 down (thumper) ILB

Quite true, there sure as hell isn't some one size fits all best philosophy... what works best for Brady sure isn't the best thing for Smith.

If Schwartz wants more than 3 million a season, move on.

He was the most sacked QB in the league last season, had a non existent run game, and hardly any weapons outside of Mike Wallace and Charles Clay. Can you name their second WR?

He carried that offense.

well thats not gonna happen. most of them are about to hit 30 and the cliff is coming sooner than later.

their 2nd WR had 1000 yards

hes not some noticeable drop off

Brian Hartline> Donnie Avery

Damn, he did crack 1,000 yards (more than Wallace, FTR). Hartline is good but nothing special; I suspect if we had him we'd be looking to upgrade just like we are now.

The point is, Tannehill didn't have much to work with. Wallace and Hartline are serviceable to "pretty good" on certain days, but are either of them top 15? Top 20? Top 30?

People bitch about Alex Smith not having enough weapons but he had a decent offensive line and the most productive running back in the league helping him. Tannehill didn't have much and the fact that Hartline broke 1,000 yards is actually more of a testament to Ryan than it is himself, I think.

The kid did a pretty good job with what he was given.

I should point out that I really, really don't like Mike Wallace.

As for all of those people advocating going with journeymen OL players and low round picks. You really trust this line:

Stephenson/Fisher - Allen - Hudson - (journeyman/Watkins/Johnson/etc) - Fisher/Stephenson

To hold up against:

SF:

A. Smith - J. Smith - McDonald - Brooks

Seattle:

Irvin/Clemons/Avril - Mebane - McDaniels - Bennett

Arizona: (With Washington blitzing in the middle)

Acho - Campbell - Williams - Docket - Okafor

St. Louis:

Quinn - Brockers - Langford - Long


And I haven't even mentioned the Jets and their tremendous front 7 yet. You've gotta be kidding me if you think that we'll be ok with what's currently on the roster or with just getting a late round player to start or even any of our depth guys. If we don't have good players in place on the OL, don't expect us to get out of their with Alex Smith's health intact.

Ssssh! Realism isn't welcomed on this board. The Chiefs will be just fine with a bench warmer that looked "just fine" against an unprepared San Diego team last December.

Tannehill is a definite sleeper, considering the internal tumult of last year I'd say he did a very admirable job of keeping things together... just because he wasnt an INSTANT superstar doesn't mean he wont be great.

In many ways, he's a lot like Alex Smith IMO... very efficient with whats given to him talentwise and able to keep the wolves at bay in the lockerroom through steady leadership.

Not an instant eye catcher, but one of those guys who can really grow on you.

Or you could do the same thing with our WR's and the secondaries they will be facing.

You can scheme to beat coverage, but all of that won't mean a damn thing if your QB is running for his life in less than 2 seconds. The most important thing has always been time in the pocket and having a clean pocket to work with.

Manning had all of the receiving talent he could ask for against the Seahawks, but that didn't matter because the Seahawks destroyed his pocket and took him out of his comfort zone.