ChiefsPlanet
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Meet With Otah (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=182173)

Frankie 03-29-2008 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcchiefsus (Post 4654500)
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.
Excellent post.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655761)
Do you consider Jake Long at 5, Clady at (say) 10 or Otah at (say) 17 reaches?
I know this was directed at Brock, but here's my thoughts.

Long is not a reach at 5, but isn't going to be there.

Clady and Otah are both reaches at those positions IMO, because they aren't even the 2nd and 3rd best OT's in the draft.

I think Chris Williams should/could go around 12, Clady around 15 and Otah somewhere after 20.

Mecca 03-29-2008 12:36 PM
I personally think Chris Williams has a better chance of succeeding as a LT in the league than Long does because speed rushers don't give him problems.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655777)
Excellent post.
Well, ****.

If we're basing our draft on history, the I guess we're REALLY limited as to who we can pick.

I mean, who's the last QB, OT, C, DT, MLB, or CB we've drafted that has "worked out?"

AVOID THEM ALL. CARL ****ED UP BACK IN (insert year here)......

Frankie 03-29-2008 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcchiefsus (Post 4654502)
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.
Siavii in the 2nd = reach
Getting a player in the position of need a couple of places earlier in a projected round = Good drafting. Not a reach.

Mecca 03-29-2008 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655785)
Siavii in the 2nd = reach
Getting a player in the position of need a couple of places earlier in a projected round = Good drafting. Not a reach.
In the top ten that makes it a reach, like I said this isn't the 5th round a couple spots is a really big deal in the top 10, even more so in the top 5.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655785)
Siavii in the 2nd = reach
Getting a player in the position of need a couple of places earlier in a projected round = Good drafting. Not a reach.
:spock:

Go look at the past drafts of the Colts, Patriots and Chargers and tell me how they reached based on need.

I'll warn you, it's gonna take a while.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Mecca 03-29-2008 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655798)
:spock:

Go look at the past drafts of the Colts, Patriots and Chargers and tell me how they reached based on need.

I'll warn you, it's gonna take a while.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Like when everyone was screaming that the Colts needed defense and they drafted, Dallas Clark, what a bunch of morons huh?

That Bill Polian he has no idea what he's doing by taking the best players, Frankie would hate him as GM despite him know what he's doing.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 4655804)
Like when everyone was screaming that the Colts needed defense and they drafted, Dallas Clark, what a bunch of morons huh?

That Bill Polian he has no idea what he's doing by taking the best players, Frankie would hate him as GM despite him know what he's doing.
Yep, or Anthony Gonzalez last year.

Mecca 03-29-2008 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655809)
Yep, or Anthony Gonzalez last year.
Some people here have been following this team way to long and have lost touch with how the guys who know what they are doing do things...

If you want to see contending teams built primarily through the draft...Indy and SD, you want to strive to be like them, how many times have they reached on players because of need?

Makes me laugh to see people around here talk shit on AJ Smith or the Chargers he's done an awesome job and built a hell of a team we should want to strive to be like them.

milkman 03-29-2008 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 4655817)
Some people here have been following this team way to long and have lost touch with how the guys who know what they are doing do things...

If you want to see contending teams built primarily through the draft...Indy and SD, you want to strive to be like them, how many times have they reached on players because of need?

Makes me laugh to see people around here talk shit on AJ Smith or the Chargers he's done an awesome job and built a hell of a team we should want to strive to be like them.
I'm generally in agreement with you on this, and really like what AJ Smith has done, including the campaign to can Marty.

However, until they actually advance to the SB, they are nothing more than the 90s Chiefs as it relates to what has been accomplished.

Brock 03-29-2008 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655824)
I'm generally in agreement with you on this, and really like what AJ Smith has done, including the campaign to can Marty.

However, until they actually advance to the SB, they are nothing more than the 90s Chiefs as it relates to what has been accomplished.
Perhaps, but in the arena of the draft, they kick a bunch of other teams asses.

milkman 03-29-2008 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4655826)
Perhaps, but in the arena of the draft, they kick a bunch of other teams asses.
I agree.

I'm just saying using them in this debate isn't really a good idea.

Th question from the OT or bust crowd will inevitably be, what have they done?

In the end, nothing more than the 90s Chiefs is the answer.

Mecca 03-29-2008 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655831)
I agree.

I'm just saying using them in this debate isn't really a good idea.

Th question from the OT or bust crowd will inevitably be, what have they done?

In the end, nothing more than the 90s Chiefs is the answer.
Look how long they are setup to be good, if the Chiefs don't do this properly they'll be losing to the Chargers year in and year out for a long time.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 4655817)
Some people here have been following this team way to long and have lost touch with how the guys who know what they are doing do things...

If you want to see contending teams built primarily through the draft...Indy and SD, you want to strive to be like them, how many times have they reached on players because of need?

Makes me laugh to see people around here talk shit on AJ Smith or the Chargers he's done an awesome job and built a hell of a team we should want to strive to be like them.
18/22 starters for the Chargers were drafted by the Chargers.

And most of them are STARS.

milkman 03-29-2008 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 4655834)
Look how long they are setup to be good, if the Chiefs don't do this properly they'll be losing to the Chargers year in and year out for a long time.
Again, I don't disagree with you, but it still comes down to the fact that they haven't won anything yet.

And for all the other good things he's done, AJ Smith hired Norv Turner.

In spite of that playoff run last year, I have no confidence in Norv Turner's ability.

Until and unless they do make a SB run, they are not a good example in this debate.

melbar 03-29-2008 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655798)
:spock:

Go look at the past drafts of the Colts, Patriots and Chargers and tell me how they reached based on need.

I'll warn you, it's gonna take a while.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
First article I found named them specifically for 2005-

Other reaches include:

San Diego Chargers - DT Luis Castillo, Round 1 (28) Oakland Raiders - CB Stanford Routt, Round 2 (38)
Seattle Seahawks - ILB Lofa Tatupu, Round 2 (45)
Green Bay Packers - CB Nick Collins, Round 2, (51)
Indianapolis Colts - CB Kelvin Hayden, Round 2 (60)

Mecca 03-29-2008 01:16 PM
Um that pick is pretty much right around the area Castillo was thought to be going...

milkman 03-29-2008 01:17 PM
I thought Castillo fell a little because of a positive drug test.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melbar (Post 4655846)
First article I found named them specifically for 2005-

Other reaches include:

San Diego Chargers - DT Luis Castillo, Round 1 (28) Oakland Raiders - CB Stanford Routt, Round 2 (38)
Seattle Seahawks - ILB Lofa Tatupu, Round 2 (45)
Green Bay Packers - CB Nick Collins, Round 2, (51)
Indianapolis Colts - CB Kelvin Hayden, Round 2 (60)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 4655851)
Um that pick is pretty much right around the area Castillo was thought to be going...
Exactly.

I'd be curious as to who thought Castillo was a reach, considering the entire world expected him to be a late R1 pick.

Link?

Frankie 03-29-2008 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcchiefsus (Post 4654569)
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.
The problem is, the "empty cup" folks are willing to doubt the future of a rookie with a great year and possibly dismiss is as fluke. But they also put a lot of weight on other young players' slightly subpar year as proof that they are no-talent busts. Tamba Hali, Brodie Croyle and our safeties are total and definite trash in their book. :shake:

Mecca 03-29-2008 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655854)
I thought Castillo fell a little because of a positive drug test.
I think that is the case but he wasn't a reach at that pick, and has proven that with his play.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655854)
I thought Castillo fell a little because of a positive drug test.
BINGO.

The steroids issue is why people thought he'd DROP to the late 1st round.

milkman 03-29-2008 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655858)
The problem is, the "empty cup" folks are willing to doubt the future of a rookie with a great year and possibly dismiss is as fluke. But they also put a lot of weight on other young players' slightly subpar year as proof that they are no-talent busts. Tamba Hali, Brodie Croyle and our safeties are total and definite trash in their book. :shake:
I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.

Frankie 03-29-2008 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4654601)
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.
No disrespect dude. But that's one of the dumbest reasonings I've read on this bb. Read Baby Lee's post again. Believe me THAT is solid reasoning.

Mecca 03-29-2008 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655863)
I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.
He's still trying to get Al Saunders hired as head coach.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:23 PM
Here's Scott Wright's final mock for 2005.

He had Castillo going at #31. What a reach. :rolleyes:

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/archive/2005/mock.html

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655865)
No disrespect dude. But that's one of the dumbest reasonings I've read on this bb. Read Baby Lee's post again. Believe me THAT is solid reasoning.
Feel free to point me in the direction of this supposed magical post.

This is crystal clear, though you're making it difficult.

Reaching based on need is a panic move that typically set franchises further back.

Taking the BPA, as the Chargers have done for the past 5-7 years, is how you build a complete team.

Our so-called "foundation" consists of Hali, Allen, DJ and Bowe.

SD's consists of Rivers, Tomlinson, Gates, Davis, Jackson, McNeill, Hardwick, Castillo, Merriman, Olshansky, Phillips, Cromartie, and Weddle.

WHY?

Because they took the BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE at the time, and didn't reach based solely on need.

melbar 03-29-2008 01:41 PM
It was from About.com/football (I can go back and get the link)

Castillo was thought to fall because of character concerns. Hayden didnt excatly make the Colts draft either, but it was a need. Everybody does it.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655863)
I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.
I swear.

Mediocrity is like heroin to some of these guys.

They need their next fix.

If people would wake the **** up and realize that it's going to be 2-3 years before we're SERIOUSLY competitive, maybe they could survive without the drug of 8-8.

And that's if we do everything right in the next 2-3 drafts.

Reaching for need is the quickest way back to records between 7-9 and 9-7, maybe edging in to the playoffs every 3 years, and losing in the 1st round. The better players you passed over are the one's that could have made a 8-8 team a 12-4 team later.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melbar (Post 4655886)
It was from About.com/football (I can go back and get the link)

Castillo was thought to fall because of character concerns. Hayden didnt excatly make the Colts draft either, but it was a need. Everybody does it.
So how was Castillo a reach if he FELL?

Brock 03-29-2008 01:48 PM
Castillo wasn't a reach. This makes about as much sense as calling Gholston lazy.

Frankie 03-29-2008 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 4654954)
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
Croyle was mentioned often with the QBs who were drafted 1st rd in his draft. He was picked in the 3rd mainly due to his injury history. But you guys are hell bent on not giving him any slack. :hmmm:

Brock 03-29-2008 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655897)
Croyle was mentioned often with the QBs who were drafted 1st rd in his draft. He was picked in the 3rd mainly due to his injury history. But you guys are hell bent on not giving him any slack. :hmmm:
I'm giving him all of next year. What more do you want?

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4655897)
Croyle was mentioned often with the QBs who were drafted 1st rd in his draft. He was picked in the 3rd mainly due to his injury history. But you guys are hell bent on not giving him any slack. :hmmm:

I'm a HUGE fan of Croyle's. Followed him pretty closely at Alabama.

Saying that, why SHOULD he get any slack?

He hasn't done anything yet.

melbar 03-29-2008 01:54 PM
This again goes to what you consider a reach. If the top 5 guys are gone from the elite prospects pool then the next level of guys consists of about 7-8 guys. Depending on whose (sp?) rankings you go with their all about =. Its not like taking Ted Ginn Jr. at #9. If we're going by strict rankings then we should go with McFadden. Comes back to opinion about whether you want a guy who goes down on contact, or you just want the open field ability. Does his style go with this team? You have to weigh that with every player/team combo. Say McFadden, Ryan, Gholston arent considered fits to our team either by interview or style? Suddenly Clady is #6 on your board. Or do you then take Rivers? Its all relative and dependent on what the teams above us do.

ChiefsCountry 03-29-2008 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655903)
I'm a HUGE fan of Croyle's. Followed him pretty closely at Alabama.

Saying that, why SHOULD he get any slack?

He hasn't done anything yet.
Same boat here. I loved him at Alabama and I think he has the potential to be a great one but he doesnt need slack.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melbar (Post 4655904)
This again goes to what you consider a reach. If the top 5 guys are gone from the elite prospects pool then the next level of guys consists of about 7-8 guys. Depending on whose (sp?) rankings you go with their all about =. Its not like taking Ted Ginn Jr. at #9. If we're going by strict rankings then we should go with McFadden. Comes back to opinion about whether you want a guy who goes down on contact, or you just want the open field ability. Does his style go with this team? You have to weigh that with every player/team combo. Say McFadden, Ryan, Gholston arent considered fits to our team either by interview or style? Suddenly Clady is #6 on your board. Or do you then take Rivers? Its all relative and dependent on what the teams above us do.
Who's rankings are we using?

I have no way to prove it, but I'd bet just about anything that Ryan Clady is NOT a Top 10 player on KC's board.

And last I checked, the team's individual boards are the only ones that matter, not Joe Draft down the street who's running a blog from his parents basement as a hobby.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 4655907)
Same boat here. I loved him at Alabama and I think he has the potential to be a great one but he doesnt need slack.
He has to EARN it, IMO.

Same with all of these guys.

Some of us are getting lambasted for asking that Bowe continue his play before we say he's a good/great player.

Hell, Hali has had 2 pretty solid years, and there are still people demanding more/better from him.

We'll need more from those players if we're ever going to compete for a Championship with them.

Shaid 03-29-2008 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4655900)
I'm giving him all of next year. What more do you want?
I'm not advocating LT or bust in the 1st round but it's also extremely hard to gauge Croyle behind this awful line. If we take enough O-linemen to field an adequate line that can allow at least some protection, I'm fine with pulling him if he doesn't produce this year. If we draft soley on BPA and that leads to not taking any O-lineman until the bottom of the draft again, then we aren't giving the kid a chance. Brady and Manning would both only look mediocre behind this horrendous line. That's one reason I really want some early picks on the line. We can give Croyle all of next year and truly see what he has and if it's not enough, we'll be candidates for a top QB next year anyway. If our line is awful, it doesn't matter who the skill players are. And yes, the same can be said on the defensive side of the ball as well.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 4655929)
I'm not advocating LT or bust in the 1st round but it's also extremely hard to gauge Croyle behind this awful line. If we take enough O-linemen to field an adequate line that can allow at least some protection, I'm fine with pulling him if he doesn't produce this year. If we draft soley on BPA and that leads to not taking any O-lineman until the bottom of the draft again, then we aren't giving the kid a chance. Brady and Manning would both only look mediocre behind this horrendous line. That's one reason I really want some early picks on the line. We can give Croyle all of next year and truly see what he has and if it's not enough, we'll be candidates for a top QB next year anyway. If our line is awful, it doesn't matter who the skill players are. And yes, the same can be said on the defensive side of the ball as well.
So we can only upgrade our line by using early picks?

What if we drafted Eric Young in the 4th, John Sullivan in the 5th, and Chad Rinehart with our other 5th?

We've just rebuilt the entire right side of our line.

Brock 03-29-2008 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 4655929)
I'm not advocating LT or bust in the 1st round but it's also extremely hard to gauge Croyle behind this awful line. If we take enough O-linemen to field an adequate line that can allow at least some protection, I'm fine with pulling him if he doesn't produce this year.
You're putting an awful lot of pressure on a rookie offensive lineman. Croyle is likely to get hurt no matter who you draft.

Shaid 03-29-2008 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655943)
So we can only upgrade our line by using early picks?

What if we drafted Eric Young in the 4th, John Sullivan in the 5th, and Chad Rinehart with our other 5th?

We've just rebuilt the entire right side of our line.
I agree but LT is where you protect the blindside of the QB. Obviously if we built up the right side we could shift some of our protections to make up for shortcomings on other parts of the line. You just don't see a lot of teams with an LT that wasn't drafted in the first few rounds. I just think if we don't give Croyle any time to make a play, we just wasted a pick by taking him.

In my opinion, you look at your player rankings and if you have a DE for example that is rated just slightly higher than an LT but you have a much bigger need at LT, you should go for the LT. I'm not talking about moving 10 positions, but in most cases you should have 3-4 people who are all ranked very closely to each other at each pick(1st round might be the exception) and if you take the player at the position of need rather than the player who was barely ranked higher, I don't think it's a reach.(again, 1st round might be the exception because of high we pick)

Shaid 03-29-2008 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4655973)
You're putting an awful lot of pressure on a rookie offensive lineman. Croyle is likely to get hurt no matter who you draft.
You're probably right. Rookie Lineman can take some time to develop. I think that's another reason to start putting the peices together now, so we can be competitive in a few years.

melbar 03-29-2008 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4655894)
Castillo wasn't a reach. This makes about as much sense as calling Gholston lazy.
Everyone calls Gholston lazy because he takes plays off. He disappears in the fourth, and gets taken out of games completely.

There was a question of whether anyone could find examples of certain teams reaching, and they were listed along with the Colts in that article. Castillo was more taking a chance for need in the same way Cromartie who was a health concern was a nice injury risk reward because SD needed CB. Not the same as a pure reach, but still taking a chance because of need.

kcchiefsus 03-29-2008 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4655973)
You're putting an awful lot of pressure on a rookie offensive lineman. Croyle is likely to get hurt no matter who you draft.
Got to draft them sometime. If we draft them in 2008 it is that much sooner that they are able to get in the offense and develop.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melbar (Post 4656016)
Everyone calls Gholston lazy because he takes plays off. He disappears in the fourth, and gets taken out of games completely.
Wow.

That sounds like someone I know that plays DE for the Chiefs, yet everyone says he's an elite DE.....

Frankie 03-29-2008 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcchiefsus (Post 4655264)
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.
I have more reservations about Turk in the 2nd than Tank in the 3rd. I think Tank can develop into something good if coached well. I also think there's more to his Sleep Apnea problem than we hear. If not corrected it could take a lot from his tank.

As for your last comment, I totally agree, but I also submit that our O-line is in way more dire situation than our D-line.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655396)
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.
By this posting you have read post 59, I'm sure.

You're welcome. ;)

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655588)
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......
.....

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


THAT is talent you build around. Not a whopping 2-3 players.
How many of those names made your list AFTER SD became a good team? We are not a good team now. But when SD was in our current shoes a lot of those players were called no talent busts, I'm sure, by some of their fans. Just like you are doing.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655596)
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?
I'm not personally a Sam Baker fan, but I agree with the spirit of what you are saying too.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melbar (Post 4655636)
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 wish I could double-rep this post.:clap:

kcchiefsus 03-29-2008 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4656037)
Wow.

That sounds like someone I know that plays DE for the Chiefs, yet everyone says he's an elite DE.....
That is complete bullshit. Since when has Jared taken plays off?

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 4655670)
It's not about need, it's about quality, .
Nope! It's about "quality" in the position of our greatest "need."

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melbar (Post 4655673)
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.
2 or 3 spots early in the first round might be somewhat of a reach whereas it's not in the lower rounds. That's why I would accept Clady at 5 only if by draft day, I have read enough reputable draft experts convincing me his stock has legitimately risen. Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to draft Clady around 8 or 9 if we could swing a good trade down.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655685)
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.
Tank and Turk represent hope, at least. Our O-line does not even have that luxury.

Tribal Warfare 03-29-2008 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656105)
Nope! It's about "quality" in the position of our greatest "need."
OMG, so you would pass on an all-world stud at another position for an above average player because of need? That might be the most dense comment I've read this year concerning the upcoming draft outside of findthedr's tripe.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655692)
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 true for ALL college kids drafted in the NFL? So everybody is hopeless by your reasoning.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656091)
How many of those names made your list AFTER SD became a good team? We are not a good team now. But when SD was in our current shoes a lot of those players were called no talent busts, I'm sure, by some of their fans. Just like you are doing.
Dear God, Frankie.

Every single one of those players produced from DAY ONE, with the exception of Rivers. Most QB's don't even play in their 1st year.

I'd love to see who on that lit you thought was a no-talent bust when they were drafted.

And I haven't called a SINGLE Chiefs draft pick under Herm Edwards a bust.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656113)
Isn't that true for ALL college kids drafted in the NFL? So everybody is hopeless by your reasoning.
I swear you're about a sharp as a marble.

People are using it as validation to draft him. College success does not guarantee NFL success.

He'll be facing the best of the best, week-in and week-out. Not some true sophomore from Eastern Michigan who's a walk on.

Robert Gallery was very impressive in college.

Now that he has a few years under his belt, was he worth the 2nd overall pick?

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656110)
Tank and Turk represent hope, at least. Our O-line does not even have that luxury.

Why is that?

Because they weren't drafted early?

Niswanger and Taylor COULD turn into Pro Bowlers. Or, they could be duds.

We won't know until we play them.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 4655797)
In the top ten that makes it a reach, like I said this isn't the 5th round a couple spots is a really big deal in the top 10, even more so in the top 5.
Agreed. I should have been more specific in my post.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcchiefsus (Post 4656099)
That is complete bullshit. Since when has Jared taken plays off?
Did you not notice him disappearing in the second half of games this past year?

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4655863)
I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.
Translation: I can't shoot down your reasoning, so I'll shoot you.:rolleyes:

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4655900)
I'm giving him all of next year. What more do you want?
You weren't before. But at least you are agreeing with me there now. Congrats. If we want to give him all of next year, then I'm sure you also agree we need to put him behind a REASONABLY DECENT O-LINE!!

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4655943)
So we can only upgrade our line by using early picks?

What if we drafted Eric Young in the 4th, John Sullivan in the 5th, and Chad Rinehart with our other 5th?

We've just rebuilt the entire right side of our line.
That's pushing it when it comes to being realistic.

Frankie 03-29-2008 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 4655996)
You're probably right. Rookie Lineman can take some time to develop. I think that's another reason to start putting the peices together now, so we can be competitive in a few years.
Less development time for higher rated linemen, short of rare exceptions.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656132)
That's pushing it when it comes to being realistic.
Kinda like Long falling to the Chiefs, or taking Clady at 5?

milkman 03-29-2008 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656128)
Translation: I can't shoot down your reasoning, so I'll shoot you.:rolleyes:
No.

I'm shooting you down because no one is saying that the rookie with a great year is a fluke, and the subpar years for others are total trash.

They are simply saying that guys like Bowe have to do it for more than one year before you label him a star, and Hali needs to step it up another level, as does Pollard.

As for Croyle, there are those who never believed he would amount to anything, and those that have high hopes for him.

The opportunity he had last year hasn't really changed anyone's stance.

Frankie 03-29-2008 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 4656111)
OMG, so you would pass on an all-world stud at another position for an above average player because of need? That might be the most dense comment I've read this year concerning the upcoming draft outside of findthedr's tripe.
It only sounds "dense" to you because somehow you are taking the total opposite meaning of my post. I can't help you there.

Frankie 03-29-2008 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4656114)
Dear God, Frankie.

Every single one of those players produced from DAY ONE, with the exception of Rivers. Most QB's don't even play in their 1st year.
I'm sure you are not saying that with the benefit of hindsight!

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4656139)
No.

I'm shooting you down because no one is saying that the rookie with a great year is a fluke, and the subpar years for others are total trash.

They are simply saying that guys like Bowe have to do it for more than one year before you label him a star, and Hali needs to step it up another level, as does Pollard.

As for Croyle, there are those who never believed he would amount to anything, and those that have high hopes for him.

The opportunity he had last year hasn't really changed anyone's stance.
He'll find a way to translate into: You think the entire team sucks.

He's done it consistently in this thread.

Frankie 03-29-2008 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4656118)
I swear you're about a sharp as a marble.

People are using it as validation to draft him. College success does not guarantee NFL success.

He'll be facing the best of the best, week-in and week-out. Not some true sophomore from Eastern Michigan who's a walk on.

Robert Gallery was very impressive in college.

Now that he has a few years under his belt, was he worth the 2nd overall pick?
So, you have a way of guaranteeing a college player's success or lack thereof? Man you could make millions working for any NFL team.



The point: No college player is ever a sure thing. They all come up and have to prove themselves against top competition.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656142)
I'm sure you are not saying that with the benefit of hindsight!
I'm sure I'm not as well.

I'd bet I watched more Chargers games last year ALONE as you have in your life, not counting games against KC.

The bottom line is that from 2000-2005, the Chargers drafted exceptionally well, and continue to do so.

During that same time frame, KC might have conducted the worst drafts in the league.

That is why they have young talent up and down their roster, while our cupboard is nearly empty.

Frankie 03-29-2008 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4656121)
Why is that?

Because they weren't drafted early?

Niswanger and Taylor COULD turn into Pro Bowlers. Or, they could be duds.

We won't know until we play them.
You repeatedly miss my point and then call me dense. My point is OUR D-LINE, while far from perfect, IS IN WAY BETTER SHAPE THAN OUR O-LINE!!

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656149)
So, you have a way of guaranteeing a college player's success or lack thereof? Man you could make millions working for any NFL team.



The point: No college player is ever a sure thing. They all come up and have to prove themselves against top competition.
:doh!:

That's MY point.

The way some people make it out, is that passing on Jake Long would be a mistake of biblical proportion, all based on him having one penalty and giving up two sacks in his career.

Never mind how the skills he may or may not have translate to the NFL level.

Frankie 03-29-2008 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4656137)
Kinda like Long falling to the Chiefs, or taking Clady at 5?
Long might yet fall to the 5th spot. And I have already stated I currently consider Clady somewhat of a reach at 5. So what's your beef?

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656154)
You repeatedly miss my point and then call me dense. My point is OUR D-LINE, while far from perfect, IS IN WAY BETTER SHAPE THAN OUR O-LINE!!
Really?

WAY better shape?

On the DL, we have one superstar and one guy who's shown he MIGHT be that guy. (Hali)

On the OL, we have one superstar, and one guy who's shown to be serviceable, but not much more. (MacIntosh)

Seeing as how backup OL never play unless the starter is injured, and how backup DL play quite a bit, I'd say both the offensive and defensive lines are in shambles.

I guess you think that we're set at DE because we have Allen and Hali?

Can they play EVERY DOWN of EVERY GAME?

Because right now, they are the only two DE's we have on the roster.

OnTheWarpath15 03-29-2008 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 4656156)
Long might yet fall to the 5th spot. And I have already stated I currently consider Clady somewhat of a reach at 5. So what's your beef?

That you call my scenario "unrealistic" yet live in the fantasy world where Jake Long falls to us at the 5 slot.

Mecca 03-29-2008 05:19 PM
I want to know where this great defense is that people don't act like we need players for...

The majority if this team needs to be upgraded...we aren't the old Ravens with a great defense and no offense. We have a awful offense and a bad defense with aging players...we need a ton of new guys on both sides.

And guess what it just so happens the best players in this years draft are defensive players, so um you get those guys now because they are better. If the better guys were offensive players then you could slant it that way but they aren't.

This team is bad, it needs great players in general. We are in no way shape or form in position to pick and choose positions, we need help at basically every position.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 AM.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.