Wrong! It only looks that way because a weak-looking chain is only as strong as it's weakest links. Change those links and the chain will be strong. How is it that some teams are shitty one year and playoff contenders the next?

I never do this but, son you're a moron.

This entire god damn team sucks ****in ass. This team has a couple of players nothing more. We are one of the absolute worst teams in the league all the way around it is not just the Oline.

Wow, yet another lame metaphor to explain why we should ignore everything else that's wrong with this team.

Neil Smith was NOT a star. Just a damn good DLineman. Very few linemen on either side of the ball will ever achieve "star" status. You want us to get a Peyton Manning or a Jerry Rice with our 5th.

We have a good defensive end, a good linebacker and a good running back. Also a great tight end. now look at that and tell me we won't be in the super bowl next year if we just draft a left tackle.

Neil Smith not a star??? LOL, that explains why he's on the ring of honor.

Defensive ends that make the pro bowl consistently are stars.......

Frankie sometimes you annoy me because I honestly wonder if you have any idea what the hell you are talkin about. There are defensive stars all across the league yet in your mind the only stars are O players.

Bull Shit Mecca. Even the best teams are made up of mostly above average role players. The league is too watered down for it to be any other way. The solid core players make the rest look, and perform a hell of a lot better.

I'm not saying anthing about who we should draft, that is a dead horse at this point.

We fill some of our gaping holes with solid starters, and we are a few "stars" away from contending about two to three seasons from now if we draft correctly. If we don't have the final pieces by then we'll have plenty of cash to buy them.

The first NE superbowl winning team was without "stars." The undefeated Dolphins had less "stars" than our Chiefs team has right now.

LOL.......well then I guess the Chiefs role players must be piss poor compared to most other teams..

Any marginally good team is basically better than the Chiefs across the board...

Chiefs major problem here is 2 of their highest paid players are at positions that arent that valued in RB and TE.

They also had great quarterbacks and great defenses.

Moot question. I'm the one who is arguing for building the O-line first.

For the love of god do not compare 1972 to now, the league is completely different.

Defensive stars don't count in Frankies mind.

I've just recently been seeing him drop because of questions about character being re-ignited because he was banned from Nebraskas pro-day for another character issue. Your probably right some team wont care...

You aren't gonna have any stars [at least on O] without QB protection.

And if there are teams that are good without high O-line picks, those same teams FOUND quality O-linemen somewhere. While there might be teams without high pick O-lineman, there aren't any with shitty O-lines.

Heck the difference between DV's offense and our present offense boils down more than ANYTHING to Roaf, with the degeneration of the rest of line a close second.

This D is a Sedric Ellis away from kicking ass.

You would also be blown away with what they could do if we could implement an offensive gameplan so they weren't on the field for 45 min.

Yes, potentially at the expense of getting something better.

Can't argue with that.

The D that needs an entire new list of CB's needs atleast 2 new LB's and may need atleast 1 more safety?

This team has one good linebacker and one good defensive lineman, and a bunch of question marks everywhere else. Wake up.

Whats funny is that Herm blamed the high powered offense for putting the D on the field too much. :shake:

You would hope that Herm could spot these role players somewhere in two or three drafts.:hmmm: HOPE being the key word. If we can't then we were never destined to win shit anyway.

We have a lot of unspectaculars, but I believe with a few better players around them, they will be, if nothing else, solid starters.

I count 3 very good D linemen and 2 good LB's. We have 1 good O-lineman.

One of the dumbest things he's ever said, and that's saying a lot.

I just ate the worlds best orange. It was ****ing delicious.

I didnt mean to interrupt this pissing match though, I am very entertained. Best sitcom I have seen in years!

So interesting being on the outside viewing this match of wits...

We seem to have a George W. Bush-esque argument going on now. "If you want 'A' you are (and) idiot and dont know anything and hate our team." And on the other side we just have a lot of talking but the points arent being made clear. I am not really making fun of either side, I know you think I am, it is just too fascinating and I had to comment.

Essentially, what it seems like is both sides are trapped by what they are arguing. Both want BPA at #5, the difference being an opinion, so who gives a **** if your BPA is DL and yours is OL? Our team is just going to **** it up anyway, why are you wasting time arguing over something you know wont matter anyway, they are going to **** this up 100%. Just think about it, you know it is a certainty. I mean for gods sake our HC announced 3 days prior that he was going to announce moving a practice to St Joe and something pointless about a youth camp.... how can this team improve??

Now make fun of me and stop arguing over something we have no control over and are going to wish we didnt witness anyway.

Then you need to recount. We have Jared Allen. We have Derrick Johnson. That's it. Those are the only two guys who have proven anything at all. Those are the only two defensive playmakers this team has.

Beats the heck out of me!?!? :shrug:

And that statement right there is why Gun needs to be shown the door. :thumb:

What you, and mecca can't seem to grasp is that teams are not made up of JAs, and DJs, and LJs, and TGs. They are made up of a few "stars" and lots of role players.

So in other words, 2 star players on either side of the ball is all we should be looking for. Thanks, Carl.

Twist it however you want. That's not what i said. The whole team can't be studs. There's not one team in the league that is.

I stand by my belief that we need a WR so I want Todd Blythe in the first. I don't care if he's the best player or not available, I want a WR and I want him now!!!!!!!

Maybe not what you said, but definitely what you implied.

And you don't have to go far to find a team with a ton of studs - they reside in our division.

Philip Rivers
LaDainian Tomlinson
Nick Hardwick
Marcus McNeill
Antonio Gates
Chris Chambers
Igor Olshansky
Jamal Williams
Luis Castillo
Shaun Phillips
Shawne Merriman
Antonio Cromartie

No my friend. Only realistic. Unlike you I don't see things only in black or white. I have no illusions about this team being in need of talent. But I also don't think it is as untalented as you think. It's somewhere in the shades of gray.

Ni. We believe we "don't have a bad defense." It is still a few players from being good.

Your forgetting a good wide receiver.

But we do have a bad defense. Very, very bad.

Covered in plan 'C.' Read the entire post.

A guy who had a good year for a rookie.

Please, Frankie. Tell us where you see ACTUAL talent on this team.

Not "I think this guy MIGHT be talented," but TRUE talent.

Then tell us how many of those guys are age 28 or over.

If BPA is your third option, that pretty much tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the draft.

Everything is black now then.:rolleyes:

Who's had one good year.

Let's see him do it this year, and in 2009, 2010, etc before we annoit him as the second coming of Jerry Rice.

2 new linebackers? Not every team is loaded at every position. Demorrio Williams/Donnie Edwards make for a very good option at the other OLB spot.

Ignore? Who said that? We have a 10 pick draft coming up. I'm not saying draft LTs with all 10. That's what you insist on having me say.

It's become painfully obvious where the dividing line is in this argument.

There's the group who isn't thinking a day past December 31, 2008.

And then there's the group who is more concerned about 2010, 2011, etc.

You are making my point for me. Thanks. We have some star quality players, but not any foundation to put them on.

The feeling is quite mutual. Show me when I said O players. Pay attention,.....son!

No, you're just saying draft LT with the first draft pick regardless of what else is available. It's really stupid.

Ha ha yeah. Just hold your breath waiting for that Lombardi to show up.

Give me a ****ing break. Nobody is appointing him the second coming of Jerry Rice. I simply claimed he is a good wide receiver. Is he not worthy of being called a good wide receiver? He is a building block of this team. For now he is a good wide receiver with the potential to be great.

No, they don't. One is old, the other is not good.

:spock:

Look at the list of players in post 115.

THAT'S a foundation.

Not a young LB, a young DE who's one strike away from a year-long vacation, a RB who's closer to the end of his career than the beginning of it, and a TE who won't be here when this team is actually competitive.

He MAY be a good receiver. At this point, he's a young guy who is still a question mark, but you can feel somewhat optimistic about him.

So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this. This scenario probably wouldn't happen but humor me and go along with it.

What happens if in the next 3 drafts for one reason or another the BPA in the first few rounds is never an offensive lineman? Do you simply keep ignoring a HUGE need? At what point do you finally say "our line is bad enough that we have no choice but to reach"?

I understand not wanting to reach in the 1st round. Getting a player like Ellis or Dorsey is probably more preferable to an Otah or Clady. But I am of the opinion that after the first round it gets more and more acceptable to reach for a need. But let's define the term "reach". There is the kind of reach where you have a need and you panic and take the best player at a position available. That is a mistake in my opinion. But what if you really like a player and feel he can help your team but he might be a slight reach at your spot? What if the Chiefs are really high on Sam Baker, just for an example. They feel he can be a very good offensive tackle for us. But they feel he is a mid to late 2nd round pick. Obviously, they probably don't think he would be there at our 3rd round pick. So if you want that player is it such a mistake to reach for him? Personally, I don't think it is. If you like a player and you think he can help you then you should draft him.

There's the problem.

It's being implied by many, and now stated by you, that not drafting an OL in the first 2 rounds is "ignoring a huge need."

The two staples of our great OL were a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA.

I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

Absolutely.

How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

So it should just be assumed that we can continue building our offensive line with low round draft picks? Then why haven't guys like Brett Williams, Kevin Sampson, Tre' Stallings, Will Svitek, Jordan Black, etc. worked out?

And we had more invested in that line than just a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA. Roaf was a 1st round pick by New Orleans that ended up costing us a 3rd round pick. And ever since we lost 1st round pick Tait right tackle has been a revolving door.

No team, absolutely NO team takes BPA in rounds 1-7. It just doesn't happen. At some point you have to reach for a need. Should we reach in the 1st round? No. But after that if you have a guy ranked slightly lower but you feel he can be a good player and you believe he won't be there in the next round by all means the team should use a draft pick on that player then.

And what happens if he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years?

He's not so "solid" anymore, is he?

There's a saying:

Once may be an aberration, but twice is a trend.

Some of us would just like to see him develop that trend before we assume he's a cornerstone of the franchise.

I'm not assuming anything. Every team in this league has starting offensive linemen that were 2nd day draft picks.

Not taking 1 in the 1st 2 rounds is not "ignoring" our needs.

And our past history has absolutely NOTHING to do with THIS year's draft.

Its not a point about him having a great season last year its about backing that up over multiple years. Michael Clayton had 1193 yards and 7 touchdowns in his rookie year and he was proclaimed a star. in the past three years he has 1029 yards and 1 touchdown. Bowe had a great rookie season and people should be optimistic about him however he needs more than a great rookie season to be called a star

Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

WTF? Are you kidding? It means he HAD A GOOD YEAR. THAT IS ALL. Your dimestore psychoanalysis of me is duly noted. I'm guessing I've paid attention to this team for a while longer than you have and that's why I prefer to let them prove something before I go all homer about them.

I notice you avoid calling Michael Clayton a good receiver. Why is that?

My point remains he had a good year. great for a rookie but that doesn't mean that he keeps that up. For all of us i hope he does turn into Owens without the headcase issues. However there is still a chance that he will be jeff webb suck next year and the year after

Our past history has nothing to do with this years draft? Even when some of the same scouts, the same GM, and others involved in the draft process back then are still here?

The Chiefs have not taken an offensive line on the first day since 1999. I think it is pretty obvious that that relates directly to our current situation with the offensive line. So yes, I believe that if we go for the 10th straight year without taking an offensive lineman on the first day we are "ignoring" our needs.

And interestingly enough after a quick look the Chiefs and Bills are the only 2 teams in the NFL without a starting offensive lineman that was drafted by them in the first 3 rounds.

The vast majority of NFL teams have a starting left tackle drafted in the first 3 rounds, something like 28 of 32. The number is slightly lower but still high at around 23 of 32 drafted in the first 2 rounds. Yet we are going to fix the revolving doors we have at tackle by ignoring the position on the first day? Ridiculous.

And again, nobody is saying he is a cornerstone. I called him a building block which really isn't too much to ask out of a young player on a rebuilding team.

If he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years? Then he won't be so good. But currently that hasn't happened so currently he is a good wide receiver.

Homers. ROFL

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you mean those in favor of a stud LT are looking short term, I posit that;
1) LTs have a longer NFL shelf life than most positions,
2) the overwhelming majority of successful teams have a stud LT as an underappreciated cornerstone.

So how in the hell is acquiring a foundational element that's more likely to be around for a long time than other positions shortsighted?

I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

This team isn't close to winning, that is why they should be taking the best player every round, anyone can help at any spot. We aren't the Colts or the Chargers or Pats with a very defined core team with a couple spots to fill in, we need to build our core.

And what he means by short term and longterm is if you want a LT above all else you are thinking about this next year because you perceive it as the teams greatest need and nothing more.

I think some people need to get a grip this team is years away, most of the players on the team that are any good are old which makes them about ready to also be replaced.

This is basically the first year of rebuilding with the draft, when you have picks this high you simply take the best players every round. You worry about needs when the majority of your core is built and you only have a few holes.

Everyone says look at Arizona they ignored their line yadda yadda, well guess what they got outstanding players now they are in a position to focus on that 1 spot. You think they'd trade having Fitzgerald or Boldin for a OL I don't...

This isn't about Jake Long. He's likely to be gone well before our pick.

This is about reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when there are better players on the board at our pick.

I'm okay with drafting Jake Long under certain circumstances. But if he's not there, I don't want to reach, and I don't want to trade down.

So, does that extend all the way to where McFadden is the BPA? Really?

And the term BPA and QB shouldn't even be allowed in the same sentence in the first 20 or so picks. Not after the history of the past couple of decades. That's 'intelligent design' thinking right there.

I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocate. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.