LT Eugene Monroe in round 1? Pioli-Haley-Groh-Albert-Monroe
 

Holy six degrees of separation Batman. So Charlie Casserly thinks the Chiefs are going with E. Monroe out of Virgina. I know some of you despise that idea, but I'm just repeating what he said. His theory on why Monroe makes sense:

1) Monroe has value at #3. Stud player. (Awesome Pro Day & Combine.)
2) Continuity as Albert/Monroe played together at UVA.
3) Albert/Monroe = bookends to to protect Cassel (& big $$ investment).
4) Pioli, Haley & Groh (HC at Virgina) all coached at Jets together. Groh loves Monroe. Pioli/Haley respect Groh's opinion & will listen.
5) Chiefs might be able to trade down a position or so and still get Monroe while picking up an extra pick(s).

My apologies in advance if this is a repost.

How is there any continuity if Albert isn't playing guard?

Then there's the money issue.

The offensive line plays as a unit. All offensive linemen will wax poetic about the importance of playing with the same guys over time. We heard it here in KC for so many years as we consistently had one of the best lines in the NFL.

Money? There's no money issue. Come on bro, quit throwing rocks.

Yes, but we're talking about continuity.

Albert played left guard with Monroe at left tackle at Virginia.

There's ZERO continuity ON THE FIELD if that is changed up.

There most definitely is a money issue. Monroe is going to want top 10 money. Albert signed a sizable contract last year as the #18 (?) pick. He's already proven he can play left tackle. He's going to want left tackle money for his next contract.

Too much money and too many draft resources tied up in two tackle spots.

It's just a bad idea. A good personnel department can find a right tackle anywhere. Free agency, later in the draft, a trade.

Bad ones (Carl) don't, and make fans think you have to spend another first-round pick on another tackle.

what

Hey Casserly

http://i41.tinypic.com/2lbcbap.jpg

I agree with T-Post, for what its worth. Claythan (and others) has done a good job explaining why a LB should not be a top 5 pick. Curry is good and would be a good pick, but LBs are available later in the draft. A franchise LT is available to a team once per generation (unless you are the Rams or Lions and will suck for years to come).

We lucked out and may have gotten one last year. We have a rare chance to get another if we can't trade the pick. Bookend tackles allow every kind of offensive play calling, and allow even mediocre recievers to get open and runners to have good seasons. If Mike Shanahan taught us one thing, it is that if you have a great OL, any mediocre RB can look like a star. Joe Gibbs taught that to the NFL with the "Hogs" in the 80s.

Also, what happens if Albert is injured for a few games, or is having a tough time with a particular DE in a game. Imagine the luxury of swapping Monroe in (or vice versa) and not missing a beat. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can pick up RTs later in the draft. You can get a younger version of McIntosh. Then, when Albert is hurt, don't come moaning that the season is over because we have to play a McIntosh Jr. at LT.

A team can survive without one of its 3 or 4 LBs. It can't without a QB or a top quality LT. That is why these are money positions and are the most common positions drafted in the first three picks. We have our QB and we have half of an OL. Let's lock up the other half (so that Albert and Monroe can be interchangeable at LT or RT. Albert should not become a guard. Excellent guards are available in FA, or late in the draft. We got Goff for no draft picks, and he'll be very solid at guard. Put McIntosh in as RG and let Albert play RT.

You can HAVE bookend tackles without committing $100 million in contracts and two first-round draft picks to the position.

The Colts have Ryan Diem - 4th round

The GREATEST PASSING OFFENSE EVER - the 1999 Rams - featured 5th rounder Fred Miller at RT.

Do you know where the Bills got Howard Ballard? THE 11TH ****ING ROUND! THEY HAD THE TOP RANKED OFFENSE IN 1993!

Guess where they drafted their left tackle? Where you draft left tackles. THE FIRST ROUND.

Get a right tackle someplace else. They are spare parts. You give one $50 million and you're wasting money.

Herb Taylor is more than adequate as a backup left tackle.

The league is too talent-thin for any team to have a first-round backup left tackle. That's ridiculous.

It doesn't work this way unless they are both Hall of Famers, like Will Shields, who played 3 or 4 positions on the line if memory serves and never missed a beat.

But the best argument is we have too many holes elsewhere.

Great idea. Let's play Hali at DT. Equally reeruned.

zombie ideas won't die

imagine spending two consecutive top 5 picks on LTs....has any franchise ever been that ****ing stupid, or had a fanbase so ****ing stupid that they thought it was a great idea?

Hope you don't mean me. I want Raji or a trade down.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes, let's draft a LT because our current LT sucks ass, even though they're blindly ignoring that he missed the majority of training camp, and missed one game, yet he only gave up 4.5 sacks during his rookie year, and IIRC, had one false start penalty, who's potentional could be as good as a Willie Roaf.

Brilliant ****ing logic.

Our top 5 pick last year was Dorsey, not Albert.

Who's ****ing stupid?

You don't need two LT's and you don't spend a top-5 pick on a RT. (Even if Monroe plays LT and Albert is moved to RT, you're essentially spending a top-5 pick on a RT) :spock:

You?

I know everyone here thinks you can pick a good RT later or in FA but before you claim that again, stop and think how long have we been b!tching about the RT spot and saying that we need a RT? I'm not an advocate of a RT at #3 but I do think it needs to be a priority to get another OL that will step in and start like Albert did last year. IMHO I'm not sure who to take at #3, would greatly prefer trading down 3-6 spots and getting another pick, but OL has been a problem for a couple of years and will continue to be until they spend some money and picks to get quality players instead of relying on finding diamonds in the late rounds to get by.

LOL, I agree with you but I want to play devil's advocate... what about last year's arizona cardinals? Levi Brown... 5th pick.... lol I still can't believe they picked him there and that he's finally starting to become serviceable now (and that's just serviceable, he's not good yet).

eh, amend it to first round


silly noobs

Unlike the fans, Scott Pioli will be looking for the best player that fits with the team.

Could Monroe be the pick? Absolutely. Would it excite me? No.

We can make an argument against ANY player that will be available.

If they took Monroe, the Chiefs suddenly have (at least on Paper) the best young bookend tackles in the NFL.

It isn't just about the starters either. If they draft Monroe, and Albert got hurt, they have another top level LT starter.

Again, I am not really in favor of this... but it isn't like they are talking about drafting a punter here.

I agree about the injury thing, but never, at any time would I want my OT's to switch positions in a game.

Levi Brown was picked as a left tackle. Right tackle protecting a left handed qb.

While the pick isn't my favorite, you are foolish not to see the value of having two premier tackles. Clearly, I don't think that you draft a pure backup in the first round. But, a guy that will be a starter, and would be able to fill in at LT without missing much of a beat has at least some value.

I would prefer the Chiefs trade down. But, you aren't even considering the fact that the Chiefs would have two legit LT's.

I actually would prefer Curry here, because he fills a bigger hole. But, you can find linebackers late. You can find ANY position late. There is someone at every single position that has made pro bowls that has been drafted past the fifth round, or even undrafted.

The reality is that you should set up your draft board according to the demands of the offense and defense that you want to use.

DV's offense worked a lot better when they had Roaf and Tait in there.

What so many in here fail to realize is that most RT's get help for most of the game. And, most offenses are fine doing that.

But, imagine how much better the offense becomes if you can get one more guy out in a pattern. (without worrying about your QB getting killed)

Again, so that we are clear, I would prefer to trade down and work on our linebackers first. But, to act like there is no reasonable side to this argument is foolish.

Runs with scissors.

There is no value in having two premiere left tackles unless you're suggesting we're going to win the Super Bowl in the next 24 months.

A championship team doesn't build that way, EVER.

We went through this yesterday, and not only could nobody name a Super Bowl team with 2 1st-round left tackles, we ended up producing a list of teams that were LOADED on the offensive line and couldn't combine to win ONE PLAYOFF GAME.

There is no reasonable side to the argument, unless you're more concerned with 9-7 than winning it all.

Well, lets say five years since the Chiefs would have them both under contract for about the next five years.

As far as what Championship teams do.... this kind of makes me laugh.

While I understand the point, every year is different. And, just because it 'hasn't' happened, doesn't mean that it won't.

I am sure that when 'most' of these teams were drafting, there were other players that were as good as the OT's availalble.

And, other than maybe Curry, I don't see anyone as good as Monroe. Do you?

Again, this isn't my 'favorite' option. This isn't something that I desperately want to do, but I don't think it is 'foolish' as some have claimed.

We can sit here and say drafting a RT is stupid. Drafting a LB is stupid.

But who has ever built a championship trading away a second round pick for a QB and then drafting one in the top five?

At some point, we have to concede that this is not the ideal situation for the Chiefs with the needs they currently have.

So then, it becomes who is worth the pick? Not what position is worth the pick, but what PLAYER is worth the pick.

And, the Chiefs will likely take a player that doesn't fit from a positional value perspective. I have come to accept that. But, I don't think there will be someone there that fits as a top five pick talent, in a positon that the Chiefs need and at a position that typically gets drafted top five.

I try not to convince myself that a player is better than he is merely to justify taking a player at a certain position. That is why I have never been a huge Sanchez or Raji supporter.

Now, I could be totally wrong on both of those guys. But, I think that the majority of the fans in here are 'justifying' players that will be available at positions they want, rather than looking at actual talent.

I didn't read beyond this. Albert isn't under contract for the next five years. And if we replace him one offseason after he played better than any other rookie left tackle, he might posture to leave before his contract is up.

Drafting a LT is dumb on so many levels it's not even worth talking about.

The combined record of teams that had more than 1 first round pick on their offensive line last year was 56-72. Those teams had 0 playoff wins.

Would you want the Royals to spend a top flight draft pick on a middle reliever?

Drafting a guy and paying him LT money is ****ing reeruned when we already have someone on the roster who is, for all intents and purposes, the same age, and who has proven he can play the position at a very high level when the other hasn't.

How hard is it really for a guy to switch from one side to the other? LTvs.RT? I know McInsuck did terrible on both sides. Can't a good LT be a good RT?

My second ever post here -

Haley already said that "Branden Albert is not one of the problems on this football team."

We are not drafting a left tackle with the #3 pick overall. Period. Write it down.

The defense just set an NFL record for fewest sacks in a season, gave up 300+ yards rushing in a game and set other inept records against the run, and has possibly the worst overall front 7 in the league.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea or ever was a good idea to take another left tackle, especially in the first round when we don't have a second round pick, is galactically stupid and should remove the ability from their body to discuss football related topics via some kind of surgery.

First off, Albert is a franchise left tackle. The guy missed most of camp, then gave up 4.5 sacks all season and owned some very good pass rushers along the way. He's only going to get better if you just leave him out there. Yet some would be ok with taking him and moving him to a lesser position at right tackle, where his footwork and initial sets would completely change and he would have a learning curve all over again? Not to mention, Albert is not a typical mauling right tackle. He might actually not be that great there for a lot of reasons.

Having bookend tackles is not required for having a great offense. The right tackle position can be handled by an average without much thought. Most Chief fans just love to find them some players they can hate on, but after about midseason McIntosh was actually pretty solid at RT once his footwork became more natural to him. I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade at RT, but switching Albert to RT is incredibly stupid. The offense was good enough at times near the end of the season to win games but the defense couldn't stop the run or pass, and some people think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a left tackle? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

This team should take no less than 5 defensive players in this draft.

We need a DE. Too bad this years DE Crop is not worth a top 10 pick.

Luck of the draw. Unfortunately we drew facing the wrong direction this year.

:eek: I thought I'd never see it again. A n00b whose not a completely dumb sonofabitch.

Absolutely not. LT is a position that demands athleticism and technique. RT is a position that values brute strength and mauling. Your LT should be your best athlete on the line, and should have great feet. Your RT should be your biggest guy, and should be among the strongest and most physically violent on the line.

You can get all the ex-UVA linemen you want, but they get abused when they play real competition. That's why UVA sucks at football every year.

If we go OT I'd rather have Andre Smith and his 330 plous pounds playing RT and leave Alberts at LT. Andre seems a little risky but at one point he was considered the best OT in the draft. I'm not saying I want to go OT but we really have no idea what pioli is gonna do. Our HC is from the offensive side of the ball though so I could see him wanting to get the O line in order to protect our new QB. With Cassel and a sound O line this offense will be ready to roll.


PhilFree:arrow:

Yeah. Branden Albert, Chris Long, and D'Brickashaw Ferguson have all proven to be complete ****ing bums.

I was with you right up to the last sentence. If we trade down and pick up a boat load of picks, then I might go with you on 5 spots for the defense.

I know I am in the minority here, but without a trade down, I like either Sanchez or Crabtree at #3 in that order. Then in the 3rd and 4th right now, it looks like bolstering the O-line may be a better way to go than marginal defenders.

Next year is where the defense should be upgraded.

Now if we trade down... then it is a whole different draft board.

If we can muster a trade down, this makes a whole lot more sense than moving Albert. But it still wouldn't be my top choice even under a trade down scenario to grab a RT in round 1.

It wouldn't be mine either but it might work out really well.


PhilFree:arrow:

If the first pick for Chiefs isn't on Sports Center every night then he sucks. -----Chiefs Planet Logic

Have your manjuices backed up into your brain? Dude, I know a few gals that will help you out.

The Chiefs can easily budget another top flight tackle. Especially one that appears to be fit for instant duty. Give me a break.

RTs are spare fookin' parts? I have but four points to make:

1) Trezelle Jenkins
2) Jeff Criswell (Hwy 69)
3) Kyle Turley
4) Damien McIntosh

Case closed.

Just because we've sucked at it for the last 10 years.....doesn't make it true.

And we can easily budget for a top flight tackle....right now. Give it 4 years down the road when Brandon Albert wants to be paid as a LT...when he's playing another position....and you won't be able to spend that money on a position that's of actual need.

I can definitely see this happening. I don't like it, but they haven't asked me.

i dont know imo its either curry or everett brown at 3 or we trade down case closed imo

I think the notion of moving albert to rt and putting a rookie in at lt is laughable at best. Albert held his own last year and the idea that we could get two rookie lts to do that back to back years is plain silly. We have a lt and won't get value at 3 to pick a rt. This team needs playmakers, be it offense or defense but they have to impact.

Bullshit.

This draft sucks for defensive talent. It would be a colossal mistake to take guys just to take guys.

2010 is the year for defense in the draft. Not 2009.

Yeah, what did it get the Chiefs? Nothing. Not jackshit.

Yeah, let's go ahead and have $80 million dollars wrapped up in TWO left tackles. That way, when the Chiefs have to address other needs, they won't be able to because the majority of their cap is taken by two left tackles.

Brilliant.

JFC.

Exactly.

Hopefully the Lambs take him and we wont have to worry about it.

It would be unpopular, but for the Chiefs to get the best value for their $$$ in this draft, they should take Stafford or Sanchez whoever is left at #3.

Tait was drafted BEFORE DV.

They traded for Roaf because he wasn't good enough to play LT for DV. He just HAPPENED to fit at RT.

It can work, but actually McIntosh was better at left tackle.

Saying "oh they can flip flop at any time!" is reeruned. It's tough to make that switch during the middle of a season.

I've been saying this for months.

I don't think it would be unpopular. It would mean the people in charge of this team finally understand football in the 21st century.

Oh, I think all the dummies that actually listen to KK and his ilk for information wouldn't like it.

**** 'em.

Not on board with drafting Monroe at #3.

I hope they're able to trade down.

Yeah, I think the people wanting immediate gratification would be deeply distraught.

How are we going to be 9-7 this season?!!!?

It's probably the best move at 3, if they can't trade out of it.

Yep I agree.

Imagine if they drafted Sanchez at #3. You know they'd be able to deal him for a 1st and some change (what other picks I don't know) to somebody. And if we don't get exactly equal value in terms of the chart? Who cares. We'll still get a 1st and probably our 2nd back. Just need more picks.

With the salary structure now a days, it's a curse to be drafting this high. Not a blessing and that's messed up.

I really don't care anymore, Albert was one of the best OG prospects to come out, he proved he can be a great LT so I'm assuming he can be an even better guard(I'd rather him play guard than RT). His contract isn't too big to play OG or RT, while he was a first round pick he wasn't a top 10 pick. This is really like Curry for me, not my top choice.

I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree:arrow:

This is the most reeruned argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you ****ing clones.

Why not?

When will we be able to afford this risk?

20 years from now? We're currently at the midpoint?

The interesting thing I have noticed about the Planet is that there is absolutely no consensus. Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other reeruned. Then, someone suggests a third approach, or a compromise ... and they tend to get labeled as reeruned too. *lol*

Tough crowd, but fun. For the record, I encourage Scott to trade down and wheel and deal all day. I trust him completely to know how to get value. If we can't trade down, taking either Curry or the best LT is fine with me. Those of you attacking the best LT idea, that could allow Scott to trade that LT later in the first round when Philly realizes there are no stud tackles left by the time they pick and Scott dangles Monroe for them.

Some here would argue to take Sanchez and use him for trade bait. But, if no one bites, we have a huge contract for someone that won't be playing in 2009. At least with a stud LT, if no one will offer value for him later in Day One, he will play in 2009, and can be traded to a team for a boat load of picks in 2010 when someone's LT goes down for the season (e.g. Pace and Walter Jones alert here).

"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.


PhilFree:arrow:

What's the difference? You still have a shit ton of money wrapped up in TWO left tackles! Name a successful team that's drafted TWO left tackles in consecutive years, especially when the current left tackle played brilliantly in his first season?

The idea of drafting Monroe is so monumentally ****ing stupid that only a ****ing moron would support it.

No. You're going in a different direction.

Why can't we afford to take this risk? When should we?

There's a huge chance anyone we select will bust, for one reason or another, so let's not even visit this line of argumentation

But back to the two questions above...

Phil, this is ****ing dumbest argument you've made yet.

The only reason you think that Sanchez will bust is because of his "lack" of starts. You fail to recognize his poise in the pocket, his accuracy, leadership and football smarts.

****ing stupid. As usual.

Exactly. Implicit whenever someone references "most immediate impact."

He's a moron.

What is "Huge" anyway? Is he stating that there's a 85% chance that Sanchez will be a total NFL failure?

That's just plain dumb.

Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree:arrow:

Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

So why can't we afford the risk?

When should we?

Thats horrible. There may be someone related to a special needs child reading this.

You clearly fail to realize that the reason that the Chiefs have been 6-26 the past two seasons is because the Chiefs rosters is nearly devoid of any talent.

Five shitty years of drafting under Vermeil utterly destroyed this football team. The Chiefs have to be extremely wise in rebuilding their roster for the future, not for the 2009 season.

Now you're just talking ****ing stupid.

NFL starts > college starts

Of course.

If Sanchez were worth a shit he would have skipped college.

This post is full of untruthiness. Albert is under contract until 2012, so not quite 5 years out yet, but certainly not 2 or 3 as you imply. Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT. Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.