If that camp exists, I'm not in it.

Well, some people think this is a deep class of tackles with not that much difference between most of the candidates. And some people don't care about that even if it's true.

You also have to understand positional value with this.....I would never draft a RB with a top 5 pick unless I somehow had that pick and was a championship team with that as my only need.

To me unless he has 0 flaws a OT is not worth a top 5 pick.

I find it hilarious that you mentioned Arizona ignoring their line and drafting great players yet just last year they reached for Levi Brown at about the same spot in the draft that we are currently in.

I am still of the opinion that if you have a player ranked somewhat close to where your pick is at but you don't want to risk him not being there the next round then you go ahead and take him. If you take a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round 10 or 15 spots higher then you think he should go I really don't think it is a big deal.

Again, what if 2008 rolls around and the way our picks go the best player available is not an offensive lineman? And again in 2009? At what point do you finally start taking the OL?

I also think that if Sam Baker is there in the 2nd round then this whole argument is moot because I believe Baker is still a 1st round talent but his stock has dropped due to injuries. Would anybody really complain about us taking Baker in the 2nd round? Whether he is a left tackle or a right tackle it would still fill a huge need and it would help the offensive line.

http://www.czabe.com/backup/graphics...ory/idiots.jpg

Everyone, arguing w/ Mecca and Brock is a waste of finger strength...both are idiots. Mecca thinks he's an all world analyst, and all of his post are full of condecending tones, when all he really knows about anyone he writes his opinions on is what he's read somewhere else. If he really knew anything, someone would employ him for his opinion. Brock is a BPA or die guy, who would twist any comment you make to support his own argument. Reminds me of the guy who says you hate america because you oppose the war. Stupid logic. Arguing w/ them is just dumb.

Brock, all anyone is saying is that Long and Clady are not "reaches" at the #5 spot. Even if McFadden or Ryan or whoever it is you would like to draft is there, it would still be VERY smart to solidify the MOST IMPORTANT position on ANY football team first. The offensive line IS what hindered the offense so much this year, solidify it and production will go up. Also, Croyle needs a chance, would you like him to go 0-whatever next year, get cut, and go somewhere else and become a good QB? That's what happens when you don't give guys a chance, the Chiefs owe it to themselves to find out what they do or do not have. Not to find out would be dumb.

If Long is gone and we don't want Clady, trading down would be a VERY smart move. We will still get a first round quality player, albeit w/o all the glitz and glam, plus more early choices to help solidify this teams many needs. And you can't say "trading down's not that easy!" like all of your cronies either, if Mcfadden and Ryan are still there, or any other good guys, the possibility is always there, not definate, but the possibility is there just the same. Just like all the possibilities of the guys we all want being there for us to take.

Drafting a stud DT is not a bad idea either, it may instantly improve our defense, which is great. I'd be all for it. Although, our defensive unit does not suck as bad as you and Mecca would like to think. While their not great statistically, they only gave up what, 20 points per game? Not stellar but fairly servicable if you ask me. they gave up the run, gave up the pass, and the occasional long run or pass, but not typically a long run or pass for a TD. I think it's the first time in recent memory bend but don't break has worked in KC. Even if that is just happenstance and not our philosiphy.

If the Chiefs were to hold our opponents to 20 ppg next year, and raise our average from 14ppg, we will win more games, period. Possibly 8-8 or better. That's not a prediction, just a condecending remark aimed at those of you who oh so hate 8-8. Guess what?!?! WE ALL DO, but 8-8 IS, not an opinion, a fact, IS better that 4-12

You do make a good point though...a stud OT will not get us to the superbowl next year. Neither will any player you would like for the Chiefs to take. Just so happens our biggest need, is any teams biggest need, and you don't like it. If the Chiefs take "your guy" whoever that might be, good. Frankies, good. Great!

All I know is, for the first time in a LONG time, I know I will be comfortable w/ a very good portion of our draft. I always hated Vermeils illogical picks (I.E. Kris Wilson or Svitek) and always hated taking important positions in late rounds HOPING they would turn out b/c we would rather spend our early picks on pretty players. Taking linemen in late rounds CAN work out...sometimes. The last 5 or more years though, tell us that is hasn't for the Chiefs.

Herm has impressed me not only w/ his solid picks, but with his involvement, commitment and faith in scouting. Not just getting the prettiest player, but the right player, not the best player, but the best for us. His draft resume looks pretty good for the Chiefs so far, 4 of Herms 7 picks last year played ALOT, and played well. Medlock, we'll chalk up to stupid "loyalty", and Herb Taylor played a little bit and showed promise. What becomes of Michael Allen, I promise we'll see this season. Also, 5 of Herms 7 picks in 2006 have played substantial amounts of time, while I'm sure we'll see Marcus Maxey and Tre' Stalling get their shots in camp to compete for starting jobs, or they will probably make good/decent backups.

BPA is a luxury. Drafting BPA hasn't worked out too well for the year in and year out cellar dwellers has it? Too many costly mistakes made too high, b/c of hype. B/c of BPA a lot of cellar dweller have stayed cellar dwellers. BPA is a strategy I believe works best for teams w/ very few gaping holes in their roster. The attitude is "We don't NEED anyone, we'll just take whomever we like." BPA could result in the Chiefs having two good, highly paid runningbacks, or a good DE who will sit on the sidelines. Who's to say Long or Clady won't be a "star", or for that matter that Dorsey, Ellis, or Ryan will? Noone knows.

Fact is, I'll be happy w/ anything we take, even if it's not what I want. Sorry Brock if any of this came off as too condecending, but hey, at least I'm not Mecca.:D

____aturnis (wishing he was Mecca) :rolleyes:

Well there is great depth but most of those tackles are going to be gone before the 3rd round is over. IMO the top class of OT's consists of:

Jake Long
Ryan Clady
Jeff Otah
Chris Williams
Sam Baker
Anthony Collins
Gosder Cherilus
Duane Brown
Carl Nicks

Not necessarily in any particular order. After that the talent drops off significantly with guys like Oniel Cousins and John Greco being the next best tackles.

I am not necessarily in favor of taking a guy like Ryan Clady in the first round but I don't get why people say he is so raw. The guy started 3 years at tackle for Boise State, the last 2 at left tackle. Each year he improved his play based on being a first team Freshman All-American in 2005, a second team All-American in 2006, and a first team All-American in 2007. Would I prefer Dorsey or Ellis over Clady? Sure. But would I be upset with Clady in the 1st round? No, not really.

Actually, there are quite a few decent people here who are in favor of best available player, so don't allow the fact that it is me or mecca in this particular case arguing for it color your thinking about what sort of person holds the opinion. Besides, I'm just arguing on the internet because that's what internet message boards are for. I've spun my opinions about most players out of whole cloth, just like every single other person on this site has. A few "I've seen him play 1000 times" guys aside. I'm not seriously trying to convince anyone of anything.

The "Best Player Available" theory is kind of funny. I agree with it in principle, I think, but what the Hell does it really mean. It's just funny to hear everyone say "draft the best player available no matter what" when those people probably have very different lists than each other.

It would be nice if Glenn Dorsey just fell to us, kind've like DJ

how many surgeries has dorsey had?

I'm a bit concerned about the injury history. I think he'd be dominant but could potentially only be around for a few years. Not sure if it's worth the risk of a top 5 pick.

That's why he's this year's Adrian Peterson, because of his injury history pushing him down the draft boards, but the payoff for taking such a risk could be tremendous

The issue here is the reach or the trade down. When you suck you don't trade down, you take the best players you can get. If anything you trade up. You may trade a 2nd day pick to move up to the bottom of round 1 or 2 and pick a guy that has fallen but you don't think should have.

I think that the difference between a guy like Clady and a guy like Baker isn't as big as the difference between where people want to pick them. Could anyone say Clady at 5 is a better value for the long term core of this team than Baker is in round 2?

What if you could get Baker in round 2, and then with that #5 you get Ellis, Dorsey or Ryan? Now you've improved 2 positions. And that guy you picked with your first is going to be far better than someone playing the same position you could get with your #2.

You'd think this is rocket science.

I wouldn't think that anybody would have a problem with drafting an offensive lineman if he is the BPA, but a problem arises when people claim that the Chiefs should draft an offensive lineman, even when he isn't the BPA.

It was pretty much ado about nothing. He was ticketed for failing to disperse after a party. But seeing as to how a couple other guys also were ticketed that weekend and another guy got in trouble at a bar Pelini brought the sledgehammer down. Banned players from going to certain bars and the like.

The way I see it,

There is more to it then the BPA. I think it really boils down to BPA combined with position of need. That's would be my way of drafting.

Would it make any sense if lets say Matt Ryan fell to NE and NE should draft him because he is the BPA at #7? Of course not! That would be stupid.

Let's make this clear, the key to success for any team in the NFL is having effective teams built inside the trenches on both sides of the ball. I know one thing, this Chiefs team lacks foundation. Do they have an offensive line? Nope. 1 good player is on that line in Waters that's it. Failing to draft OL in the top rounds after Roaf and Shields retired is showing.

I do feel more optmistic about the Defensive line. The positive signs I can think of there is that they do have some youth. Allen is a stud, Hali has work to do, but he is not that bad. He has a great motor, and decent passrush skills, he needs to work on his run defense. Tyler and McBride are still unknown at this time and played sparingly last year. Boone surprised me last year. But he is 31. Hopefully Tyler or McBride can pan out?

Regardless though, Chiefs pick at 5, if Jake Long is there, and Dorsey is gone, I'd be happy to take Long. He'd probably be the BPA with position of need at 5. If Dorsey is there, and Jake Long is gone, I'd be happy to take Dorsey. He'd probably be the BPA with position of need at 5. Who knows about Tyler or McBride? If Dorsey and Jake Long are gone, and Ellis is there, maybe Ellis is the best guy for the Chiefs to take? Who knows? But he could be the BPA with position of need at the time at 5?

Either way, Chiefs pick at 5, I say be happy because you're going to have a very good chance to pick a top prospect at 5. But either way, I just hope they don't ignore the foundation of the team. The pick should either be an offensive or defensive lineman no doubt about it.

We simply don't have enough players on the defensive line though. IMO the only players currently on our roster at DL who will be here opening day are DE's Jared Allen, Tamba Hali, and Turk McBride and DT's Tank Tyler, Alfonso Boone, and Tank Tyler. Besides the obvious lack of depth at both positions, two things come to mind.

1) Our defensive tackles are all nose tackle types. None of them can rush the passer very well from the interior. Even if Tank Tyler develops he will never be a Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris type. He is more along the lines of a Anthony McFarland/Pat Williams type. We need our Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris/Kevin Williams on the interior.

2) Turk McBride is IMO nothing more than a rotational player. He simply does not have what it takes to rush the passer from the outside. If either Allen or Hali go down for an extended period of time our pass rush goes to shit because we simply won't have any reliable backups at DE who can rush the passer.

Any thought that we are fine on the defensive line is absurd.

no shit..I guess everyone 1-5, maybe further, is going to be "reaching" because Mcfadden is supposed to be the best player in the draft

Not resigning Wilkerson upset me a bit, I thought he was good for depth.

Keep in my mind, McBride can also be lined up DE. He is a bit of both DE/DT. Hali can also be lined up at DT or DE. I don't know why they didn't run the option more often of lining him up on the inside to provide more pressure from the inside on passing down situations.

If Tyler can pan out and be a Pat Williams type player, I know thats a bit of a stretch, but that would be great. The teams weakness was stopping the run. Mainly because cover 2 scheme is not designed to stop the run, more a less to defend the pass, and not give up the big play deep. But the line did lack a run stuffing DT.

I wouldn't say this is an all-pro line, but I thought they showed last year they could play. They were plenty of times last year I saw pressure from the line. That's a great sign! The Chiefs were one of the top ranked teams in pass defense last year believe it or not? Allens play last year showed us he has something, hopefully it can continue.

That's why if Dorsey falls, and he is there at 5, I wouldn't complain if we take him? I personally think he is the best player in this draft. despite all the reports on injuries and stuff, this is a guy who started all his games the last 2 seasons at LSU, and even when he got hurt he still played. He brings character, heart, and talent to the table. and can do it all from a defensive standpoint imo.

I think the Defensive line has come a bit of a way over the past years. It's not a dominant line, obviously they lack a force in the middle, but it definately came a ways and improved. Drafting Dorsey would take this line from good to excellent. And when you have a cover 2 defense, an excellent defensive line makes sense.

The BPA fits well for this year because the Chiefs with whomever they pick for any position in whatever rnd will reasonably be in contention for a starting job.

And even after those points argued we were still respectable on defense with a (admit it) dog$#it pair of DT's.

Our offense was bottom 5. Terrible. As bad as the defense was under DV.

We need huge helpings of help on offense and the biggest area of need is O line. We don't have to go there 1st round but we do have to go there early and very often.

22 posts in and no one has asked this obvious question

What the hell are you smoking?

Otah won't make it out of the top 15 picks, much less into the second round.

:thumb: Nice post!

Actually, the Pats drafting Matt Ryan might be an excellent idea.

They could use some good young LBs, and corners, but who do they have backing up Brady.

Matt Cassell.

If Brady goes down, they're ****ed.

Really?

I thought it was a shitty post.

I fell asleep halfway through.

It's several paragraphs worth of rationalization for simplistic thinking, but other than that, I liked it.

So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

Good move?

No.

I'm saying it isn't a suckass move that actually kind of makes sense.

You really think Tom Brady is going to play until he's 41?

People forget that they guy turns 31 in August. He has 3 rings, a shit-ton of money and is the type to retire earlier in his career, not later.

At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck till he got his brains beat in

But he did have an ankle injury in the AFC Championship that was underplayed
going into the SB.

One of the reasons that he takes so few hits is his pocket awareness and ability to slide away from pressure.

Watching him the SB, that bothered him a hell of a lot more than anyone is willing to admit.

COULD he play until he's 41? Probably.

WILL he WANT to?

What else is there to play for?

I'd really be surprised if he plays more than 3-4 more years.

He'll retire when the Pat's have no o-line and start coming back down to earth, so probably within a 3 or 4 year window you'd think?

You mean aside from TG, LJ, DJ, JA, Hali, Waters, Bowe, et al.? We also have players like Boone and McIntosh and Donny Edwards who are at least good for holding the fort while we are rebuilding. How about players who are developing who at least have a 50-50 chance to become solid? People like our two safeties, Croyle, Smith, Webb (yes, Webb), Tank and Turk. I'm pretty excited about seeing which ones will become contributors. Your cup is all empty. Mine is half full.

FYP

QFTLMAO

Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

No, cause going with a strategy that builds a team with a talent core, rather than addressing specific need, is clearly shortsighted.

Not if you're not getting the best possible player from the draft. And you probably aren't when you suffer from tunnel vision like some of you do.

NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

You just completely ignored my post.

ACTUAL TALENT. Not who you think has a CHANCE to be talented.

Being excited about who will become a contributor is great. I'm looking forward to that as well.

But as of 11:46am on March 29th, there is little TRUE talent on this team.

Gonzalez and Waters have maybe 2 years left. They won't be here when this team turns the corner.

We can only HOPE that LJ is the same after a foot injury last year and a 400+ carry season the year before.

Jared Allen is one mistake away from a year-long vacation.

Dwayne Bowe had an excellent rookie year. Now he needs to PROVE he can do it year after year.

Bowe, DJ and Hali are about the only talented players you can count on being here when the rebuild is over - building blocks.

The fact that you even mentioned Boone and McIntosh tells me your homer level. Through the roof.

You want to see talent? Young players that are the building block of an organization?


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


THAT is talent you build around. Not a whopping 2-3 players.

If you feel you absolutely need to draft an OT early this year, wouldn't it be better to draft an elite level prospect at 5, then trade up into the late first round to get a shot at Sam Baker?

ROFLROFLROFL

No, there are tackles to be had later. And my guess is the Chiefs won't be drafting a LEFT tackle at all.

This place should be a blast to be around on draft day.

The nervous posts saying "it's OK, we'll get an OT in the 2nd" when Jake Long is gone before we pick in R1.

The anticipation hoping Baker is there in the 2nd, and the ensuing calls for a reach for Collins if he's not.

I have a feeling people are going to be disappointed come Saturday night when we have ZERO offensive linemen through R2.

Then we'll be at DefCon 5 when we pass on an offensive linemen in the 3rd.



If Baker isn't there at #35, I'd be willing to bet we don't see an O-lineman drafted until R4 or later.

I predict I will be doing a lot of laughing at this board on draft weekend.

Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

I'm going to qoute my post from another thread to address this post.

First, you just advocated reaching based on need by taking Clady.

Second, Gholston wouldn't be a reach.

Third, 7 of the Top 10 players in this draft play defense.


I'm fine with taking Long IF he's there.

I'm not fine with reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when we'd be passing on some combination of Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, etc.

I'm already planning out my snacking menu now. :D

LMAO

In the same breath Tank and Turk faded later in the year (spending most of every game on the field way to much) Still have great potential. Boone and Edwards were at least adequate.
Our needs on the D-line may not be as great as some/most might think.

Defensive linemen rotate. The Chiefs probably need one more in the middle and another end or two.

It's not about need, it's about quality, if one has a chance to draft an elite player if it's not a position of "need" then select that player. It's like saying Would you want Warren Sapp or John Tait. One is a game changer, and the other is solid player nothing more.

Gholston is a lazy game day guy who had a great workout. Clady is a 2-3 spot "reach". Gholston doesnt fit our Defense and would have to take time to learn to play the run while we hope he starts giving every play. I only hope the Raiders take him so we can run at him all day long and forget him by the 4th quarter. NOT and elite prospect. ONCE AGAIN 2-3 spots isnt a reach otherwise all the teams would just take the next guy on the overall players list.

No one is suggesting that D-Line is a great need.

We are saying that the D-Line can really become dominant with a rotation that includes a dominating DT, and one of those is very likely to be available when we are up at 5.

If Jake Long is gone, selecting Dorsey or Ellis over Ryan Clady is a no brainer.

I'd take them over Long, since I don't believe he's the elite LT prospect that others do, but I won't be pissed if he's there and the Chiefs take him.

O=linemen dont and we dont even have starters at most positions let alone solid backups

Wow.

The only other DT on the roster right now is TJ Jackson, if that tells you anthing about our lack of depth.

Boone is 32 and Edwards is 35. Tanks and Turk BETTER work out, because right now, they are all we have at DT for the future.

We're in even worse shape at DE.

Allen and Hali are the only DE's on the roster.

I'd say that DL is a pretty damn strong need.

I agree. I'm not sure I'd take Ellis first, but I Think more of Long (see 1 penalty and 2 sacks his entire college career. But Dorsey, C. Long are dominant game changers who have the potential to be perennial Pro-Bowlers almost immediately.

I notice you keep mentioning Gholston, but avoid mentioning Dorsey or Ellis.....

Not picking on you, but since you said it....

Why are people so hung up on Long's 1 penalty and 2 sacks?

If he got to play Michigan's schedule again this year, that might be of interest.

He has to play against 16 of the best DE's in the world. The best of the best.

Isn't that by definition impossible? ;)

Your right we do need both. Like I said in my last post Dorsey especially would be understandable to choose over Long (I dont think there is a chance in Hell we have to deal with that decision). I dont think we're going to have many choices as we will choose the elite player that is left on the board, I just dont think that if we're taking a player who is not a top 5-6 player (depending on what we think of Ryan and McFadden) then I'd rather go for an OT who has the potential to be the best LT in this draft and I've never seen ranked lower than 2nd and would be on the field every play, over a workout warrier who is an incomplete player and is ranked from 2-8 at a position where he will be rotating with 2 better players on our roster.

touche':hmmm:

It just shows where he is at his position. Joe Thomas didnt do that in college. It speaks to his readyness and ability. ---not saying he's a better all around T than Thomas...
But questions about his pass-blocking are greatly exagerrated.

mentioned somewhere above.

Man its hard to keep up with the flying posts!:)

Not one single person on this board has even implied taking Otah at #5, not one, so drop that please. You've beat it to death. If anyone wants Otah, it's on a trade down scenario.

As for Clady, I guess if you consider that a reach, but whatever.

Exaggerated?

His footwork is awkward.

When he has to go against Sean Phillips ot Dwight Freeny, that's going to be a big problem.

Joe Thomas is also more athletic and can handle speed rushers, there is serious debate as to whether Long can do that or not....

If Long can't handle speed rushers and ends up on the right side which is basically everything his game is, he becomes a wasted pick in the top 5.

It's that whole people go "oh Gholston was 1 game" well in the NFL you face guys like him, even better every single week...a LT that struggles with speed rushers is a liability.

Here's how I look at it.

There are elite prospects at the the top of the board.

The 2 Longs, Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, Mcfadden, and Ryan.

Clady is in the next level.

If you select a guy that isn't in that elite prospect category, then he absolutely is a reach.

You need to go read DraftPlanet if you actually believe no one is advocating taking Otah at 5.

After his name popped up on a mock draft at 5, people started trying to justify it.

And Clady IS a reach if Dorsey or Ellis ( or even Matt Ryan) are still on the board.

I'll give people a quick newsflash here......if you see Ryan Clady listed as the 8th,9th or 10th best player on a draft board and then say taking him at 5 isn't a reach, that makes you not very bright.

In the top 5 the difference in a reach and good value can be 1 pick, this isn't the difference in the 5th and 6th round.

easyb said he'd take Otah and said he'd prefer a trade down. I'm not sure if that means he'd require a trade down or not.

Do you consider Jake Long at 5, Clady at (say) 10 or Otah at (say) 17 reaches?

Only if he played for another team than the Chiefs.

If you advocate trading out of 5 with a top 5 rated player on the board to take Clady at 10 just because he's an OT then yes, because it just placates position ahead of player.

Not necessarily. They may not be the best players you could get at those spots though.

Or if he'd done it more than once.