Chiefs Meet With Otah - Page 19

KC4EVER · 03-27-2008, 06:51 PM

Chiefs | Team meets with Otah
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:13 -0700

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Kansas City Chiefs met with University of Pittsburgh OT Jeff Otah Monday, March 24.

I think the chiefs hope they can grab him in the second, wich is considerable since we pick early in most rounds.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-29-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melbar

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

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.

Brock · 03-29-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

03-27-2008, 06:51 PM
KC4EVER It's Been Too Long! Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $10004900	Chiefs Meet With Otah Chiefs \| Team meets with Otah Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:13 -0700 Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Kansas City Chiefs met with University of Pittsburgh OT Jeff Otah Monday, March 24. I think the chiefs hope they can grab him in the second, wich is considerable since we pick early in most rounds.
Posts: 124

03-29-2008, 01:48 PM	#272
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Castillo wasn't a reach. This makes about as much sense as calling Gholston lazy.
Posts: 47,314

03-29-2008, 01:54 PM	#276
melbar Hillbilly Pharoh Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Branson MO. Casino cash: $10004900	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. __________________
Posts: 2,148