ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   The Lounge (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Albert/Joeckel perspective (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=272267)

chiefzilla1501 04-18-2013 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9601974)
I suppose the Chiefs could also come out on top if

1) Joeckel/Fisher are good players. They aren't total busts.
2) Alex Smith unprecedentedly plays leaps better than even his last two seasons in San Francisco
3) The 2nd rounder we get from the Dolphins turns out to be a pretty damn good player

If the Chiefs find a better QB than Geno, and Joeckel isn't a bust, the Chiefs did fine on their pick. I'm not saying that will be easy. But let's stop twisting the argument. People aren't against Joeckel as much as they are against the idea of passing on Geno.

DaneMcCloud 04-18-2013 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9602000)
I don't think these two cases prove that Albert is unsignable.

I don't think it's a matter of sign-ability with the Chiefs. It think it's a matter of compatibility.

Albert is absolutely overrated by 99% of this forum.

Time to move on.

Tribal Warfare 04-18-2013 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 9601992)
I

But to the main point... I don't get it. Isn't the only reason people don't want Joeckel because they want Geno? If we end up with a better QB than Geno, than what did we lose?

I'm not in the Geno or bust group but I want an impact player. (QB,Pass Rusher, WR,CB)

Joeckel will have to be on the same level as Roaf when comes to pure dominance. It's what that draft slot demands.

cdcox 04-18-2013 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 9602010)
If the Chiefs find a better QB than Geno, and Joeckel isn't a bust, the Chiefs did fine on their pick. I'm not saying that will be easy. But let's stop twisting the argument. People aren't against Joeckel as much as they are against the idea of passing on Geno.

Albert + Jordan > Joeckel
Albert + Warmack > Joeckel
Albert + Jones > Joeckel
Albert + Milliner > Joeckel

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9602026)
Albert + Jordan > Joeckel
Albert + Warmack > Joeckel
Albert + Jones > Joeckel
Albert + Milliner > Joeckel

Complete speculation

Hammock Parties 04-19-2013 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9602026)
Albert + Jordan > Joeckel
Albert + Warmack > Joeckel
Albert + Jones > Joeckel
Albert + Milliner > Joeckel

This x eleventy.

There is no defense for the pissing away of 1.1.

'Hamas' Jenkins 04-19-2013 12:07 AM

Drafting Luke Joeckel would be markedly worse than the Tyson Jackson pick. Jackson at least filled a legitimate need, not one the FO created through their own dipshittery.

ChiefsCountry 04-19-2013 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9601878)
Mother of Pearl, PLEASE stop with the outdated ****ing value chart.

Dane,

The teams followed the chart on the first round trades last year.

Jaguars/Bucs
#5 (1700) for #7(1500) and #101(96)
1700 for 1596

Cowboys/Rams
#6 (1600) for #14(1100) and #45(450)
1600 for 1550

Eagles/Seahawks
#12 (1200) for #15(1050), #114(66), and #172(22)
1200 for 1138

Pats/Bengals
#21 (800) for #27 (680) and #93 (128)
800 for 808

Pats/Broncos
#25 (720) for #31 (600) and #126(46)
720 for 646

Vikings/Ravens
#29 (640) for #35(550) and #98(108)
640 for 658

Bucs/Broncos
#31 (600) and #126(46) and #36(540) and #101(96)
646 for 636

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9602050)
Drafting Luke Joeckel would be markedly worse than the Tyson Jackson pick. Jackson at least filled a legitimate need, not one the FO created through their own dipshittery.

I strongly disagree.

Tyson Jackson was an awful pick for numerous reasons. Two down player, 5 tech, passing on Elite talent (Matthews, Harvin, etc.) and forcing an entire defensive shift. And ***** most certainly created that "hole" through personal amount of dipshittery.

Joeckel/Fisher would fill a need created by the trade of Albert. Let's face it: The promise of Albert's rookie season went unfulfilled his subsequent four seasons.

Haley made him lose weight, which caused him to lose confidence. His 2009 was shaky at best and while he played better in 2010, he wasn't a Pro Bowler, let alone All-Pro.

He's a guy that's slightly above average. He's probably closer to John Tait than John Alt and he's no where near "Elite". At nearly 29 years of age and a new regime, I'm fine with him moving on.

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 9602062)
Dane,

The teams followed the chart on the first round trades last year.

I'm not stating that teams haven't held true to the draft chart: I'm stating that it should be no longer relevant.

Football people are ****ing dumb. It's a network of "friends". Once one of these dumbshits figure out that the value has decreased radically due to the new CBA, they'll all fall in line.

'Hamas' Jenkins 04-19-2013 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9602063)
I strongly disagree.

Tyson Jackson was an awful pick for numerous reasons. Two down player, 5 tech, passing on Elite talent (Matthews, Harvin, etc.) and forcing an entire defensive shift.

Joeckel/Fisher would fill a need created by the trade of Albert. Let's face it: The promise of Albert's rookie season went unfullfilled his subsequent four seasons.

Haley made him lose weight, which caused him to lose confidence. His 2009 was shaky at best and while he played better in 2010, he wasn't a Pro Bowler, let alone All-Pro.

He's a guy that's slightly above average. He's probably closer to John Tait than John Alt and he's no where near "Elite". At nearly 29 years of age and a new regime, I'm fine with him moving on.

They would fill a need created by the trade of an established player who plays at a high level. A created need.

It's the very definition of one step forward and two steps back.

Would you support trading Jamaal Charles for a 2nd and then using that pick on a back?

That would also fill a created need.

ChiefsCountry 04-19-2013 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9602069)
I'm not stating that teams haven't held true to the draft chart: I'm stating that it should be no longer relevant.

Football people are ****ing dumb. It's a network of "friends". Once one of these dumbshits figure out that the value has decreased radically due to the new CBA, they'll all fall in line.

The chart is from Jimmy Johnson era which is Plan B free agency and before the big money rookies, its came full circle where its probably back to being more accurate.

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9602076)
They would fill a need created by the trade of an established player who plays at a high level. A created need.

It's the very definition of one step forward and two steps back.

Would you support trading Jamaal Charles for a 2nd and then using that pick on a back?

That would also fill a created need.

Of course not.

But I don't there's a single person in the league that feels that Brendan Albert equals Jamaal Charles.

Furthermore, Joeckel is at least 8 years younger and $5 million per less than Albert. All things being equal in terms of play, there is a benefit to moving him, not to mention the fact that Albert has stated unequivocally that he will not play any position other than left tackle, regardless of salary.

I don't know about you but if I walked into a new situation and I could move that guy, he's gone.

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 9602079)
The chart is from Jimmy Johnson era which is Plan B free agency and before the big money rookies, its came full circle where its probably back to being more accurate.

Right, which makes it even more irrelevant today.

Any team that's willing to pay those outdated rates is foolish.

'Hamas' Jenkins 04-19-2013 12:27 AM

Although Charles is an unquestionably better player than Albert, their trade value is probably near equal.

That said, Branden Albert is a better LT than the majority of starters who have played in the last five Super Bowls. He's not a problem. If you are renovating a house you don't tear out five year old, perfectly good copper pipes and replace them with new ones, especially if the new pipes won't lead to a demonstrable increase in water pressure or flow.

Furthermore, why wouldn't Albert say he's only going to play LT? It's the most important position on the line and he does it really, really well. Would you move a hitter with a .920 OPS from the 3 hole to the 7 hole? You could, but what purpose would it serve? What is the point of moving Branden Albert to any other position on the line?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.