ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs MEDIA REACTIONS: Chiefs Early Draft Losers on NFLN (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=283607)

OnTheWarpath15 05-12-2014 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10626066)
Terrible. But last year's draft isn't the focus right now. Terrible, terrible draft, it appears.

I'm not sure how you can't look to last year and be concerned.

4/8 picks last year had a significant injury history in college and/or have shown to be fragile in their first NFL season.

Now 4/6 picks this year have serious medical red flags.

A disturbing trend is developing.

Discuss Thrower 05-12-2014 04:11 PM

Keep ****ing doubting Junior Hemingway

keg in kc 05-12-2014 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 10626065)
Which is why I said, everyone's idea of BPA is different.

I was just pointing out that from the team's perspective, all those other definitions are irrelevant. They have their own board, the product of literally millions of dollars of work (including I think it's safe to assume a great deal of medical study). So whatever in both our opinion valid injury concerns the class has, the fact remains that these picks were BPA based on their own board. Dorsey outright said as much. So like Deez pointed out, there's some irony when analysts - or you or I - beat the "BPA" drum, yet then turn around and criticize them for actually picking what was BPA on their board.

In any case, it's a pretty radical departure in philosophy for this organization, and I would say it's long overdue. Whether it works out or not, I don't know, but I'm certainly happier with this approach that I was with the Eric Fisher end of the spectrum.

(not to mention head scratchers like Braden Wilson).

At the end of the day, I think they drafted a few guys with legitimate star potential. And they picked the guys where were at the top of their board. Were they the names I expected or even wanted based on stuff I read pre-draft? No. But does that really matter?

chiefzilla1501 05-12-2014 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10626062)
All of this is amplified by the fact that the Chiefs typically don't utilize FA appropriately.

This is where you fills "needs," and you have to pay out the ass for it. Don't want to get ****ed over by the market? Then don't draft like shit and create holes for your franchise.

And the only way to do the latter is to consistently get the most amount of talent possible, which speaks to a BPA approach.

It will be curious to see Dorsey's approach once this team is established. Reid and Dorsey both seem to value signing ther own as the #1 priority. Dorsey's outside moves in free agency seem very stopgap (short-term contract, overpay but mostly inexpensive, low signing bonus so easy to cut). Rather than sign outside free agents long-term, he signs them short-term until they can draft a replacement or sign someone cheap.

If his draft picks don't pan out, this strategy doesn't work. And I'm curious if he keeps this strategy up as the team becomes his own or if he'll start placing bigger free agency bets. Hard to say -- his approach this year, after all, is a complete 180 from the approach last year.

OnTheWarpath15 05-12-2014 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10626103)
It will be curious to see Dorsey's approach once this team is established. Reid and Dorsey both seem to value signing ther own as the #1 priority. Dorsey's outside moves in free agency seem very stopgap (short-term contract, overpay but mostly inexpensive, low signing bonus so easy to cut). Rather than sign outside free agents long-term, he signs them short-term until they can draft a replacement or sign someone cheap.

If his draft picks don't pan out, this strategy doesn't work. And I'm curious if he keeps this strategy up as the team becomes his own or if he'll start placing bigger free agency bets. Hard to say -- his approach this year, after all, is a complete 180 from the approach last year.

Which is why I'm concerned about the trend developing of drafting guys that can't stay healthy.

OldSchool 05-12-2014 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 10626084)
I'm not sure how you can't look to last year and be concerned.

4/8 picks last year had a significant injury history in college and/or have shown to be fragile in their first NFL season.

Now 4/6 picks this year have serious medical red flags.

A disturbing trend is developing.

Ford's only bad injury was in 2011.

Gaines hasn't missed a game due to injury for the past two seasons.

The only injury that I can remember De'Anthony Thomas ever getting was his ankle injury in 2013 that limited him for much of the season.

Murray is a QB who wasn't very mobile in the first place. He'll be fine.

OnTheWarpath15 05-12-2014 04:25 PM

I was wondering how long it would take to rationalize the injuries.

chiefzilla1501 05-12-2014 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 10626112)
Which is why I'm concerned about the trend developing of drafting guys that can't stay healthy.

It's a reasonable concern. Though, last year was kind of freak. I don't think Kelce or Commings had injury red flags, did they?

PunkinDrublic 05-12-2014 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 10626007)
Who exactly isn't being "fair"?

When 4 of your 6 picks have significant injury histories and you didn't fill any needs - perceived or real - people aren't going to think much of your draft.

The medical risks alone justify "C" grades.


Yeah because this entire offseason the players weren't given any medical evaluations by top physicians. To pretend you know more than the people who have first hand access to a persons medical condition is laughable. Nothing wrong with being skeptical but you're wildly speculating.

OnTheWarpath15 05-12-2014 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10626125)
It's a reasonable concern. Though, last year was kind of freak. I don't think Kelce or Commings had injury red flags, did they?

IIRC, Commings had injury issues early. Kelce I may have mistaken his lack of production as injury related.

Just Passin' By 05-12-2014 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 10626117)
I was wondering how long it would take to rationalize the injuries.

LMAO

Welcome to my nightmare.

Easley's had both ACLs pop, and they were both non-contact, as I recall. The Patriots message board party line is that ACLs aren't serious injuries anymore, because most players can come back from them now, and Peterson had a great first year back. You'd think we were talking about a minor cartilage tear.

And that's nothing compared to all the bullshit I heard last year in the wake of BB screwing the pooch on the Welker situation and ending up with Mr. Glass himself, Danny Amendola.

OnTheWarpath15 05-12-2014 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic (Post 10626130)
Yeah because this entire offseason the players weren't given any medical evaluations by top physicians. To pretend you know more than the people who have first hand access to a persons medical condition is laughable. Nothing wrong with being skeptical but you're wildly speculating.

What exactly am I speculating about?

Dee Ford had back surgery, right? He had a nagging knee ligament injury, correct? He wasn't medically cleared for the combine due to an issue with his surgically repaired back.

I'm not speculating at all. Stating facts. I'm exactly what you said there was "nothing wrong" with - being skeptical. Guys that can't stay healthy in college usually don't stay healthy in the pros playing against bigger, stronger and faster guys that college.

OnTheWarpath15 05-12-2014 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10626141)
LMAO

Welcome to my nightmare.

Easley's had both ACLs pop, and they were both non-contact, as I recall. The Patriots message board party line is that ACLs aren't serious injuries anymore, because most players can come back from them now, and Peterson had a great first year back. You'd think we were talking about a minor cartilage tear.

And that's nothing compared to all the bullshit I heard last year in the wake of BB screwing the pooch on the Welker situation and ending up with Mr. Glass himself, Danny Amendola.

If these guys were drafted by Denver or San Diego, there would be threads on the first page calling them brokedicks and trolling MHM, Garcia Bronco, Buck and Gadzooks.

SAUTO 05-12-2014 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 10626136)
IIRC, Commings had injury issues early. Kelce I may have mistaken his lack of production as injury related.

Pretty sure Kelce had injury concerns also
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501 05-12-2014 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic (Post 10626130)
Yeah because this entire offseason the players weren't given any medical evaluations by top physicians. To pretend you know more than the people who have first hand access to a persons medical condition is laughable. Nothing wrong with being skeptical but you're wildly speculating.

I don't think there's much speculation.

I love the draft, but we're not talking about players who had a freak injury in college. We're talking about a few guys who couldn't stay on the field. It's a legit argument. It almost reminds me of the Bengals way which is to overvalue bad character talent because they are easier to get. I hope we don't fall into the habit of overvaluing injury prone talent, but the gamble is pretty intriguing because we essentially get blue chip talent at #23.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.