| JD10367 |
09-07-2009 02:14 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58
(Post 6042929)
How do you see that being a good move for KC?
How many high draft picks to we have to spend on a complementary position?
We've already invested the 3rd overall pick, the 5th overall pick and a high 3rd rounder on ****ing 5-techniques in the past two drafts.
Now you're suggesting that we spend a 2nd on another?
|
Let me follow that logic: a team has already used a high pick on a position. The use of that pick, on that particular player, may or may not have been a good decision. As a result, if you have an opportunity to upgrade by adding a Pro Bowler at a fair price, you shouldn't do it. Uh, okay. That's the kind of thinking that your last regime had: keep the players we drafted, no matter how good or bad they are, 'cause we'll look bad if we don't.
You have to have a more Belichickian philosophy. You don't compound one mistake with another. Draft Kevin O'Connell in the third round, and don't like how it worked out? Cut him. Sign Zach Taylor and Amani Toomer, and get the fans interested, but decide their tanks are empty? Send them on their way as quickly as you brought them in. It's about upgrading. A Raider 1st for Seymour is a butt-raping of Oakland; a KC 2nd for Seymour is a pretty damn good deal, IMO (especially since I think KC will be around .500 so that 2010 pick would be mid-round). Who gives a fat flying f**k what technique he plays, whether he plays DT or DE, whatever... on your defense, at the price of a 2nd rounder--AND, assuming you can re-sign him to a fair contract--that's a very solid pickup, no? Who else you've drafted and where you drafted them is irrelevant, I would think. |
Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour
(https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=213475)