drafting Trent Richardson

[jlscorpio]

just saw the 2nd different mock that has us taking T-Rich 2.0 w/our 1st pick. I'm not opposed to it since no all-world DT is available this year. Here's the write up from Foxsports:

11. Kansas City Chiefs*: Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama: The Chiefs lost Jamaal Charles in the second week of the 2011 NFL season, and the offense never rebounded. Charles should be back and healthy next season, but Richardson is the rare running back talent who can completely change an offense. The way this mock draft has unfolded, he’ll be slipping out of the Top 10 — something few scouts or experts expect. A different type of back from Charles, the two could work together to form a dynamic duo in the Kansas City backfield. Though Charles signed a five-year, $32 million extension in 2010, he’s not making the Adrian Peterson/Chris Johnson money you might expect. Richardson, a between-the-tackles grinder, is viewed as a much better pro prospect than his former teammate, Mark Ingram. In the rough-and-tumble AFC West, I love the thought of a Charles-Richardson platoon.

[Rausch]

THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Rausch

THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

Agreed, QB is our biggest need by far but,

1. Luck and RGIII will be long gone by the time we pick so unless we trade up for one of them (which is almost a guarantee we won't) there are no other QBs worth the #11 pick unless you want to reach for a Tier II QB at #11.

2. Richardson is a playmaker and if we decide to draft at #11 instead of trade back then give me one of the top playmakers in this draft. We can address our RT situation later unless you feel that a RT is worthy of the #11 pick.

3. We could also use a NT. Are there any worth a #11 pick? Would you reach for one at that spot?

The problem is this team screwed itself by winning those pointless games against the Bears, SD, Indy, and Minn. While those wins "felt good" at the time, they put us in a bad spot. Pioli will most likely not trade up for a stud QB, so unless we draft a Tier II QB and hope he pans out we might be screwed at the position for a few years. We will be better next year because of our talent coming back and an easier schedule. We will miss out on next year's stud QBs as well. It appears that this team wants to win with a good defense, running game and average QB. Since they want to do that, why not get the best RB in the draft?

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Rausch

THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

THE CHIEFS WILL NOT FILL THEIR BIGGEST NEED(QB) WITH THEIR FIRST ROUND PICK. GUARANTEED! What then, do you propose they do instead?

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by Rausch

THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

This.

Forget QB (our biggest need).
We draft a RB over RT or NT and I'll be livid.

[Setsuna]

Originally Posted by suds79

If he runs a 4.5, there's no way he goes top 10 IMO.

You are a damn idiot. You need youth and break tackle ability with good speed. That's top 10.

Originally Posted by Micjones

This.

Forget QB (our biggest need).
We draft a RB over RT or NT and I'll be livid.

****ing reeruned.

[suds79]

Originally Posted by Setsuna

You are a damn idiot. You need youth and break tackle ability with good speed. That's top 10.

Okay tough guy and think before you speak.

Unless you're new to football, you should know that NFL teams put entirely way to much stock into the 40 time. My point wasn't that he's not top 10 quality. It was if he runs a 4.5 40, he will not be drafted in the top 10. Bank on it.

[Setsuna]

Originally Posted by suds79

Okay tough guy and think before you speak.

Unless you're new to football, you should know that NFL teams put entirely way to much stock into the 40 time. My point wasn't that he's not top 10 quality. It was if he runs a 4.5 40, he will not be drafted in the top 10. Bank on it.

If he runs a 4.5, only a tenth slower than a 4.4 and you say he won't go top 10? Yes you are an idiot.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Micjones

This.

Forget QB (our biggest need).
We draft a RB over RT or NT and I'll be livid.

mmmm'kay

So instead we should severely reach for a NT (when there is already two promising ones on the roster) or draft a RT, which would also be highly overvalued at #11.

Reaching for need is how bad teams draft.

Drafting BPA at a position of need is how good teams draft.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Rausch

THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

That is because you are an idiot.

You don't draft on need alone, you draft (especially in round 1) the best player on the board.

(Not saying he is the best player, but in general you should draft the best player available with the high picks, imo)

[dannybcaitlyn]

Draft BPA. If Richardson falls to us more then likely he will be BPA. A Elite pro bowl talent. We need more of these type of players on our team last time I looked. He's was the best back in college football. You don't reach and settle for an average ol or NT when you have a can't miss elite talent sitting there when we pick first round. That's the consolation prize for suckage in a season. The team gets an early pick in the draft with a much much better chance of picking up elite talent. So I have no problem with the pick.

[HMc]

Originally Posted by dannybcaitlyn

Draft BPA. If Richardson falls to us more then likely he will be BPA. A Elite pro bowl talent. We need more of these type of players on our team last time I looked. He's was the best back in college football. You don't reach and settle for an average ol or NT when you have a can't miss elite talent sitting there when we pick first round. That's the consolation prize for suckage in a season. The team gets an early pick in the draft with a much much better chance of picking up elite talent. So I have no problem with the pick.

If we draft Richardson, and he and Charles have strong years but nevertheless we still draft in the top 10 again in 2013, and the "BPA" in '13 is another elite level RB, do you draft that RB then also?

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by dannybcaitlyn

You don't reach and settle for an average ol or NT when you have a can't miss elite talent sitting there when we pick first round

This is exactly how i feel. The most pressing need on this team is a young QB, but if ones not available, the select the BPA.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

This is exactly how i feel. The most pressing need on this team is a young QB, but if ones not available, the select the BPA.

Assuming the Chiefs re-sign Bowe and Carr, and BPA is a WR or CB, do you draft him?

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Assuming the Chiefs re-sign Bowe and Carr, and BPA is a WR or CB, do you draft him?

heh, no......i guess i should have said BPA at a position of MOST need. We need RB depth. I have no idea how the Chiefs feel about Charles, but my gut tells me they dont have complete faith in him to carry a full load and never have. Drafting Richardson would be a nice insurance policy.