Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First Round
 

Not sure if it has been posted.....

Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First*Round

by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 AM CDT in 2010 Campaign

Last year about this time, Michael Lombardi of the National Football Post first reported that the Chiefs were "in love" with LSU DE Tyson Jackson. A few days later and Jackson was the Chiefs pick in the draft.

Now Lombardi reports that the Chiefs are trying like hell to move down in the draft.

"The Chiefs are trying, and I mean really trying, to move down," Lombardi reports. "My sources tell me they'll be willing to go down as far as 15 for the right deal because they feel they can find a player in that range."

It's a fine line between trading down and trading down too far. According to Lombardi, our theory of the Eagles offering up the 24th and 37th picks for the Chiefs fifth pick doesn't look like it's happening. By staying around 15, they can still have a shot at a game changer -- Alabama LB Rolando McClain and Texas S Earl Thomas come to mind here -- as well as picking up extra selections.

That said, who's the Chiefs trading partner? SB Nation's Mocking The Draft takes an excellent look at this situation and comes to the conclusion that San Francisco might be the only team in that area that has a chance of moving up.

Lombardi reports the Chiefs are hoping someone wants to get in line to pick Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen.

If that's true, then what does it mean? I would think it means they're wanting to go offensive line.

I don't mind a trade down. But moving a few extra spots for one extra pick when Clausen and Berry on the board reeks of stupid. If it's two extra picks (both of second round value or higher), I can deal.

In fact, I'd much rather trade down to the 20's and pick up an extra pick than pick up an average LB like McClain.

Now, if they trade down and take the top pass rusher on the board, that's a move I can deal with.

It's more detailed that Bad Guy's thread, but a repost still.

This is a perfect example to illustrate the reason that draft talk shouldn't be seperated by a different forum.

No, how the hell do you get that from this?

Myopia rules this damn forum sometimes.

I am high on S Earl Thomas, so if we could move down and still get a solid saftey and maybe address another need as well that would be fantastic.

Weatherspoon will be a better linebacker in the NFL than McClain. I will be pissed if we draft McClain.

Sure they want to trade down.

Why draft a superstar when you can move down, save money, pick a lessor talent, and pick up a couple of 2nd round picks?

:facepalm:

My sincere apologies.
Posted via Mobile Device

I've been hearing that there are a slew of offensive tackles available, and I hear about only 2 QBs 1 or 2 RBs, there are questions about every receiver, 2 safeties, 1 CB, and maybe a couple of linebackers. Could be that they want Dan Williams and presume he'll slide, but a low-risk move would be assuming they want one of the herd of offensive linemen.

This is pretty much where I stand, too. Trade-downs in my opinion are almost always a bad move.

I kindof agree with you on this....I think there should be just a "Lounge" where you talk about anything but football and a "Field" where you talk about football....If it was like that, there wouldnt be a need for a draft section.

It had better be a pass rusher. And we better get one hell of a value. Otherwise, this is a ridiculously stupid trade.

I disagree, i think it means we are eying Mcclain or Earl Thomas

Oh, this makes perfect sense.

When you have dogshit at the top of the draft, stay at your spot and reach hard for a fat **** to take up blockers.

When you have several great options to pick from a variety of extremely talented players at the top of the draft, trade out of that talent tier, draft another fatass of some type, and pick up more picks.

This ****ing franchise makes me want to shoot my sister