Chiefs Meet With Otah

[KC4EVER]

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.

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm not assuming anything. Every team in this league has starting offensive linemen that were 2nd day draft picks.

Not taking 1 in the 1st 2 rounds is not "ignoring" our needs.

And our past history has absolutely NOTHING to do with THIS year's draft.

Our past history has nothing to do with this years draft? Even when some of the same scouts, the same GM, and others involved in the draft process back then are still here?

The Chiefs have not taken an offensive line on the first day since 1999. I think it is pretty obvious that that relates directly to our current situation with the offensive line. So yes, I believe that if we go for the 10th straight year without taking an offensive lineman on the first day we are "ignoring" our needs.

And interestingly enough after a quick look the Chiefs and Bills are the only 2 teams in the NFL without a starting offensive lineman that was drafted by them in the first 3 rounds.

The vast majority of NFL teams have a starting left tackle drafted in the first 3 rounds, something like 28 of 32. The number is slightly lower but still high at around 23 of 32 drafted in the first 2 rounds. Yet we are going to fix the revolving doors we have at tackle by ignoring the position on the first day? Ridiculous.

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And what happens if he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years?

He's not so "solid" anymore, is he?

There's a saying:

Once may be an aberration, but twice is a trend.

Some of us would just like to see him develop that trend before we assume he's a cornerstone of the franchise.

And again, nobody is saying he is a cornerstone. I called him a building block which really isn't too much to ask out of a young player on a rebuilding team.

If he averages half of those numbers over the next 5 years? Then he won't be so good. But currently that hasn't happened so currently he is a good wide receiver.

[Brock]

Homers.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

It's become painfully obvious where the dividing line is in this argument.

There's the group who isn't thinking a day past December 31, 2008.

And then there's the group who is more concerned about 2010, 2011, etc.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you mean those in favor of a stud LT are looking short term, I posit that;
1) LTs have a longer NFL shelf life than most positions,
2) the overwhelming majority of successful teams have a stud LT as an underappreciated cornerstone.

So how in the hell is acquiring a foundational element that's more likely to be around for a long time than other positions shortsighted?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you mean those in favor of a stud LT are looking short term, I posit that;
1) LTs have a longer NFL shelf life than most positions,
2) the overwhelming majority of successful teams have a stud LT as an underappreciated cornerstone.

So how in the hell is acquiring a foundational element that's more likely to be around for a long time than other positions shortsighted?

I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

No team, absolutely NO team takes BPA in rounds 1-7. It just doesn't happen. At some point you have to reach for a need. Should we reach in the 1st round? No. But after that if you have a guy ranked slightly lower but you feel he can be a good player and you believe he won't be there in the next round by all means the team should use a draft pick on that player then.

This team isn't close to winning, that is why they should be taking the best player every round, anyone can help at any spot. We aren't the Colts or the Chargers or Pats with a very defined core team with a couple spots to fill in, we need to build our core.

And what he means by short term and longterm is if you want a LT above all else you are thinking about this next year because you perceive it as the teams greatest need and nothing more.

I think some people need to get a grip this team is years away, most of the players on the team that are any good are old which makes them about ready to also be replaced.

This is basically the first year of rebuilding with the draft, when you have picks this high you simply take the best players every round. You worry about needs when the majority of your core is built and you only have a few holes.

Everyone says look at Arizona they ignored their line yadda yadda, well guess what they got outstanding players now they are in a position to focus on that 1 spot. You think they'd trade having Fitzgerald or Boldin for a OL I don't...

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Micjones

Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

This isn't about Jake Long. He's likely to be gone well before our pick.

This is about reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when there are better players on the board at our pick.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Micjones

Drafting a Left Tackle would absolutely be forward-thinking.
BL pointed that out beautifully. Chances are, Jake Long would be around longer than any other player the Chiefs could draft.

I'm okay with drafting Jake Long under certain circumstances. But if he's not there, I don't want to reach, and I don't want to trade down.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

So, does that extend all the way to where McFadden is the BPA? Really?

And the term BPA and QB shouldn't even be allowed in the same sentence in the first 20 or so picks. Not after the history of the past couple of decades. That's 'intelligent design' thinking right there.

I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocate. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

So, does that extend all the way to where McFadden is the BPA? Really?

And the term BPA and QB shouldn't even be allowed in the same sentence in the first 20 or so picks. Not after the history of the past couple of decades. That's 'intelligent design' thinking right there.

I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocatge. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.

If that camp exists, I'm not in it.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I'm not saying LT, hell or high water. I'm actually a BPA advocate. But it seems like there's a notion hereabouts that all the LTs are crap and all other positions have surefire studs.

Well, some people think this is a deep class of tackles with not that much difference between most of the candidates. And some people don't care about that even if it's true.

[Mecca]

You also have to understand positional value with this.....I would never draft a RB with a top 5 pick unless I somehow had that pick and was a championship team with that as my only need.

To me unless he has 0 flaws a OT is not worth a top 5 pick.

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by Mecca

This team isn't close to winning, that is why they should be taking the best player every round, anyone can help at any spot. We aren't the Colts or the Chargers or Pats with a very defined core team with a couple spots to fill in, we need to build our core.

And what he means by short term and longterm is if you want a LT above all else you are thinking about this next year because you perceive it as the teams greatest need and nothing more.

I think some people need to get a grip this team is years away, most of the players on the team that are any good are old which makes them about ready to also be replaced.

This is basically the first year of rebuilding with the draft, when you have picks this high you simply take the best players every round. You worry about needs when the majority of your core is built and you only have a few holes.

Everyone says look at Arizona they ignored their line yadda yadda, well guess what they got outstanding players now they are in a position to focus on that 1 spot. You think they'd trade having Fitzgerald or Boldin for a OL I don't...

I find it hilarious that you mentioned Arizona ignoring their line and drafting great players yet just last year they reached for Levi Brown at about the same spot in the draft that we are currently in.

I am still of the opinion that if you have a player ranked somewhat close to where your pick is at but you don't want to risk him not being there the next round then you go ahead and take him. If you take a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round 10 or 15 spots higher then you think he should go I really don't think it is a big deal.

Again, what if 2008 rolls around and the way our picks go the best player available is not an offensive lineman? And again in 2009? At what point do you finally start taking the OL?

I also think that if Sam Baker is there in the 2nd round then this whole argument is moot because I believe Baker is still a 1st round talent but his stock has dropped due to injuries. Would anybody really complain about us taking Baker in the 2nd round? Whether he is a left tackle or a right tackle it would still fill a huge need and it would help the offensive line.

[aturnis]

Everyone, arguing w/ Mecca and Brock is a waste of finger strength...both are idiots. Mecca thinks he's an all world analyst, and all of his post are full of condecending tones, when all he really knows about anyone he writes his opinions on is what he's read somewhere else. If he really knew anything, someone would employ him for his opinion. Brock is a BPA or die guy, who would twist any comment you make to support his own argument. Reminds me of the guy who says you hate america because you oppose the war. Stupid logic. Arguing w/ them is just dumb.

Brock, all anyone is saying is that Long and Clady are not "reaches" at the #5 spot. Even if McFadden or Ryan or whoever it is you would like to draft is there, it would still be VERY smart to solidify the MOST IMPORTANT position on ANY football team first. The offensive line IS what hindered the offense so much this year, solidify it and production will go up. Also, Croyle needs a chance, would you like him to go 0-whatever next year, get cut, and go somewhere else and become a good QB? That's what happens when you don't give guys a chance, the Chiefs owe it to themselves to find out what they do or do not have. Not to find out would be dumb.

If Long is gone and we don't want Clady, trading down would be a VERY smart move. We will still get a first round quality player, albeit w/o all the glitz and glam, plus more early choices to help solidify this teams many needs. And you can't say "trading down's not that easy!" like all of your cronies either, if Mcfadden and Ryan are still there, or any other good guys, the possibility is always there, not definate, but the possibility is there just the same. Just like all the possibilities of the guys we all want being there for us to take.

Drafting a stud DT is not a bad idea either, it may instantly improve our defense, which is great. I'd be all for it. Although, our defensive unit does not suck as bad as you and Mecca would like to think. While their not great statistically, they only gave up what, 20 points per game? Not stellar but fairly servicable if you ask me. they gave up the run, gave up the pass, and the occasional long run or pass, but not typically a long run or pass for a TD. I think it's the first time in recent memory bend but don't break has worked in KC. Even if that is just happenstance and not our philosiphy.

If the Chiefs were to hold our opponents to 20 ppg next year, and raise our average from 14ppg, we will win more games, period. Possibly 8-8 or better. That's not a prediction, just a condecending remark aimed at those of you who oh so hate 8-8. Guess what?!?! WE ALL DO, but 8-8 IS, not an opinion, a fact, IS better that 4-12

You do make a good point though...a stud OT will not get us to the superbowl next year. Neither will any player you would like for the Chiefs to take. Just so happens our biggest need, is any teams biggest need, and you don't like it. If the Chiefs take "your guy" whoever that might be, good. Frankies, good. Great!

All I know is, for the first time in a LONG time, I know I will be comfortable w/ a very good portion of our draft. I always hated Vermeils illogical picks (I.E. Kris Wilson or Svitek) and always hated taking important positions in late rounds HOPING they would turn out b/c we would rather spend our early picks on pretty players. Taking linemen in late rounds CAN work out...sometimes. The last 5 or more years though, tell us that is hasn't for the Chiefs.

Herm has impressed me not only w/ his solid picks, but with his involvement, commitment and faith in scouting. Not just getting the prettiest player, but the right player, not the best player, but the best for us. His draft resume looks pretty good for the Chiefs so far, 4 of Herms 7 picks last year played ALOT, and played well. Medlock, we'll chalk up to stupid "loyalty", and Herb Taylor played a little bit and showed promise. What becomes of Michael Allen, I promise we'll see this season. Also, 5 of Herms 7 picks in 2006 have played substantial amounts of time, while I'm sure we'll see Marcus Maxey and Tre' Stalling get their shots in camp to compete for starting jobs, or they will probably make good/decent backups.

BPA is a luxury. Drafting BPA hasn't worked out too well for the year in and year out cellar dwellers has it? Too many costly mistakes made too high, b/c of hype. B/c of BPA a lot of cellar dweller have stayed cellar dwellers. BPA is a strategy I believe works best for teams w/ very few gaping holes in their roster. The attitude is "We don't NEED anyone, we'll just take whomever we like." BPA could result in the Chiefs having two good, highly paid runningbacks, or a good DE who will sit on the sidelines. Who's to say Long or Clady won't be a "star", or for that matter that Dorsey, Ellis, or Ryan will? Noone knows.

Fact is, I'll be happy w/ anything we take, even if it's not what I want. Sorry Brock if any of this came off as too condecending, but hey, at least I'm not Mecca.

____aturnis (wishing he was Mecca)