|
04-09-2009, 08:44 PM | |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $4160478
|
Michael Ash's Undeniable Draft Facts
CURRY BAD!
http://kan.scout.com/2/855237.html With the NFL draft just two weeks away, we’re in a confusing, speculation-filled period. These five undeniable draft facts should keep you level-headed as we forge ahead into the great unknown. 1) This is not a good year to be drafting high. A point many have been arguing this offseason was recently driven home by the NFL Network’s Mike Mayock, who told Sports Illustrated, “This is by far the worst year for the top 10 that I've seen.” He explained that teams will be able to draft players around pick #20 that are equal to the players in the top 10, and they won’t come at a high price. It’s the words “by far” that really stand out. Mayock isn’t merely saying 2009 is a bad draft class for top-echelon players, he’s saying it’s “by far” the worst he’s seen. That has to make you stop and think. As it relates to Kansas City, that statement seems to suggest two things - the best move the Chiefs could make is trading down, but few teams will be looking to move up. That’s not a good combination. 2) Aaron Curry is not Jack Bauer. If you’ve spent the last few months tracking what Chiefs fans think about the Wake Forest linebacker, you’ve undoubtedly seen statements like: - Curry is a once-in-a-lifetime prospect. - Curry has to be a Chief or the team will regret it forever. - Curry is the next Derrick Thomas. And so on and so forth. The Curry legend has almost grown to Bauer or Chuck Norris-like proportions. Any day now I expect talk radio callers to start telling tales of how Curry sleeps with a nightlight. Not because he’s afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of him. Incidentally, the final item on that list is my favorite. Back around January, the Curry-Thomas comparisons were running wild, until people finally began pointing out how absurd it was to compare someone who only racked up only nine and a half sacks in four years of college to someone who once had seven sacks in a single game. Rather than backing off the hyperbole, though, the comparison simply shifted and now it seems Curry is being anointed as the next Ray Lewis. When people point out that linebackers aren’t selected near the top of the draft – especially those who don’t rush the quarterback – it only seems to embolden the Curry supporters. That Curry is being talked about as a top three pick in spite of that tradition is taken as proof of his dominance and used as further evidence that he should be the Chiefs’ selection. In reality, Curry is one of the top draft prospects in a class that’s not particularly strong on top. That’s why his name has been bandied about as a potential top-three pick. Unlike other years, there aren’t enough top prospects to push him back into the 6-12 range where a comparable player would normally go. He’s not a once-in-a-lifetime marvel – he’s the beneficiary of having a weak class around him. Does any of that mean Curry won’t be a good player in the NFL? Of course not. He may be elite. He’s widely considered among analysts as the draft’s safest pick because he’s talented, makes few mistakes, and seems unlikely to be a bust. But being “safe” doesn’t make him a perennial Pro Bowler, either. Being “safe” means he could be in the mold of Derrick Johnson – a decent enough player who only comes up big in one or two games a season. So, please, let’s stop all the Curry insanity. He’s a fine prospect. But if he was half the player some seem to think he is, with the weak state of the top 10, he’d be long gone by the time the Chiefs make their pick. 3) The Chiefs must draft the best players they possibly can. This seems rather obvious, doesn’t it? But every year there are those who insist that filling a specific need is the more important goal on draft day. That may be true for a team that’s one piece away – a win-now team that could say, “You know, a really good receiver might put us over the top this year.” But after compiling a grand total of six victories over the last two seasons, the Chiefs are hardly in that position. This year, the “draft for need” crowd has focused on the Chiefs’ lack of a pass rush. With only 10 sacks last year, they say, the Chiefs’ primary focus should be on finding a pass-rusher, no matter which more-talented prospects they have to skip over in the process. If the goal of the 2009 draft was to re-simulate the 2008 season and make the Chiefs a little more competitive along the way, drafting a pass rusher would be a good way to go. With a few more sacks, maybe the Chiefs could have won as many as four games. That was what they did when Jared Allen logged 15.5 sacks in 2007, after all. Unfortunately for supporters of that method, that isn’t the goal of the draft. The purpose is to make the Chiefs better in 2009 and beyond, something teams accomplish by collecting as many good football players as they can. There’s no arguing the Chiefs need help when it comes to pressuring the quarterback. But they also need help in other areas. Without a pass rusher worthy of selection at the #3 spot, they don’t have the luxury of ignoring better players and reaching on someone in an effort to patch holes from last year’s ship. That style of drafting is the equivalent of sticking your finger in the leaky dam, only to watch another leak spring up a few inches from the old one. Then you plug the new leak to see yet another pop up. It’s an endless cycle and you never get ahead of the game. Of course, there are surely proponents of taking a pass-rusher who don’t fall into this “drafting for need” category. Some may not see a big difference between, say, Aaron Curry and Florida State’s Everette Brown, so to them the Chiefs wouldn’t be passing up better players to fill a need. There’s nothing wrong with that. This reminder is for those who were even advocating a pass rusher before the Matt Cassel trade, when the debate included the prospect of taking a quarterback. Yes, it’s true – some of the “draft for need” crowd was endorsing their position with the idea that Tyler Thigpen could hold down the fort for another year, because what the Chiefs really needed was more sacks. If you’ve ever found yourself talking to someone who argues that filling some random need is more important to a team than finding a franchise quarterback, say “That’s nice, Carl,” and ask him how he’s enjoying retirement. Tomorrow: We examine the draft value chart and the need for a particular player. |
Posts: 279,743
|
04-10-2009, 08:28 AM | #46 |
Supporter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Who knows?
Casino cash: $2375884
|
|
Posts: 83,790
|
04-10-2009, 07:55 PM | #47 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $4160478
|
Undeniable Draft Facts - Part II
I tell you what. I'd rather trade down and lose 400 points than draft Eugene M'fing Monroe. Or chicken Curry.
http://kan.scout.com/2/855507.html 4) The draft value chart can be thrown out the window. The thought of the Chiefs trading down and picking up more selections along the way is one of the draft’s most appealing possibilities. But thanks to the weak state of the top 10, the top picks aren’t worth as much as they normally are. Reports say the Detroit Lions have called teams in an attempt to move their #1 pick. The St. Louis Rams have said they’re willing to listen to offers for the spot at #2. Other teams in the top 10 have reportedly made attempts to move back, as well. That means the Chiefs can’t afford to be a slave to the value chart if they want to move down. It’s common sense – your house might have been worth $500,000 a few years ago, but if the foundation has since cracked, the roof is damaged, and the yard is turning to swampland, are you still going to expect someone to pay $500,000 for it? There’s no guarantee that teams will be interested in moving up to the top of the draft as it is. So if the Chiefs can actually find a partner who might be willing, do you expect the team to overcharge them? Take, for example, the Philadelphia Eagles. With two first-round picks and the recent revelation that the team has taken an interest in offensive tackle Eugene Monroe, Chiefs fans have zeroed in on the Eagles as a popular trading partner. Since Monroe will be long gone by the time Philly picks in the late first round, logic would suggest they’re at least considering the idea of moving up. For the sake of discussion, let’s say the Eagles are interested in the Chiefs’ pick. If you look at the draft value chart, the #3 pick is worth 2,200 points. If you add up the value of the Eagles’ two first rounders (#21 and #28) and their second-round pick (#53), it equals 1,830 points. That’s well short of 2,200. In other words, to follow the values set by the chart, the Eagles would have to gut their entire draft to move up that high. That’s not going to happen. If Philly – a team with two first-round picks – can’t afford to do it, there’s little chance of anyone outside the top 10 being able to move into the Chiefs’ spot. That drastically reduces KC’s chances of moving down. But Scott Pioli undoubtedly knows this, which is why you can expect the value chart to be tossed aside. Going back to our Eagles trade scenario, let’s say that in exchange for the #3 spot, Philly offered the Chiefs both their first-round picks and their third rounder. That deal wouldn’t come remotely close to satisfying the trade chart. But do you really think Pioli would dismiss it for that reason? That deal would allow the Chiefs to pick up two late first rounders, which – if you recall Mayock’s opinion that players just as good as those in the top 10 will be available around pick #20 – could prove to be better value than the #3 pick itself. The second of those two selections would basically replace the pick the Chiefs traded to New England, and they would add an extra third-round pick in the process. Plus, using one of those first rounders, Pioli could try to trade back again and acquire even more picks. Such a trade would be blasphemy for those who swear by the value chart. But by making such moves, Pioli could end up landing the Chiefs a glut of extra draft picks, easily coming out ahead in the deal. The notion of trading with the Eagles is attractive because they hold more than one pick in the first round, but the value chart theory holds true no matter who the other team is. If a team is willing to take less than the chart suggests, it makes them a more attractive trading partner and opens up far more possibilities. So when you’re daydreaming about possible draft-day trades over the next two weeks, don’t be a slave to the value chart, because Pioli surely won’t be. Of course, if the Chiefs are talking about a trade with a division rival like Denver, all bets are off. 5) The Chiefs have to draft someone. For all the talk about draft value, and who is or isn’t worth taking with the #3 pick, the sad truth is that no matter how badly the Chiefs want to trade down, they might not be able to move from that spot. Trades into the top five are rare as it is, and with a weak class at the top of the draft, there’s no assurance that another team will want to jump that high and take on the financial responsibilities that go along with a top pick. The one player who may be an exception to that is USC quarterback Mark Sanchez. If Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford goes #1 to Detroit, the amount of quarterback-needy teams and the lack of top quarterback prospects may create a situation where teams are willing to overspend to make sure they get their man. But would they want to move up as high as #3 for Sanchez, insuring they would have to pay him more than the Falcons gave Matt Ryan last year? Obviously, it would depend on how they’ve rated him. It Stafford does go #1, the Chiefs may be able to guarantee themselves a trade-down by drafting Sanchez themselves and dangling him in front of the teams who need a quarterback. At least one of the teams hoping a quarterback falls to their spot should be willing to work out a deal, and the Chiefs taking Sanchez off the board would allow them more time to field offers and negotiate terms than the standard 10-minute draft window. But unless that risky and fairly cut-throat scenario plays out, the Chiefs may be stuck drafting with the third pick. In the event they are, we all know the cases that have been made against certain players: - Linebackers shouldn’t go high, especially if they aren’t pass rushers. - It would be absurd to draft a right tackle (or to move Branden Albert). - Michael Crabtree isn’t on the level of other receivers that have been taken in the top three. - It’s too early to take B.J. Raji. We could go on all day. But if the Chiefs are stuck at #3, all of that will have to be set aside. The Chiefs will have to take somebody, and in all likelihood that person won’t be good value for the #3 spot in the draft. We just have to hope that they make the pick count.
__________________
Chiefs game films |
Posts: 279,743
|
04-10-2009, 08:43 PM | #48 | |||
Unsparing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $10004900
|
Quote:
Quote:
No shit, and put me on that train too. Walter's latest has him going to Jacksonville. Quote:
I proclaim htismage the True Messiah of Chiefs Planet.
__________________
1. Merciless, severe. 2. Given freely and generously. 100% refusal to overrate 20 year Head Coaches with ZERO ****ing rings as a Head Coach. CP's Official Professor of 'Dem Blues for 2019/2020! |
|||
Posts: 77,135
|
04-10-2009, 08:54 PM | #49 |
Playing for #1 Draft Pick
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Just West of Lambs land
Casino cash: $10004900
|
__________________
sig test for this screwy schema |
Posts: 25,901
|
04-10-2009, 09:02 PM | #50 |
Pritay Pritay Pritay Good
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The State of Euphoria
Casino cash: $2985412
|
The part on the trade chart is hilarious, since, correct me if I'm wrong, Clueless Nick came out in the last few days saying the complete opposite of that. Talking about how Pioli would milk the #3 spot for all it was worth, and if other teams were willing to take less to move down it's because they don't have a brilliant GM like we do.
|
Posts: 6,860
|
04-10-2009, 09:12 PM | #51 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $4160478
|
Everyone has their own opinion.
All that and a 2nd round pick will get you Brian Waters + a bag of chips.
__________________
Chiefs game films |
Posts: 279,743
|
04-10-2009, 09:23 PM | #52 |
v^V^v^V^v^V^
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Holland*
Casino cash: $10005177
|
The mere fact that you're laughing at that statement tells me how right it is.
__________________
|
Posts: 39,518
|
04-10-2009, 11:15 PM | #53 |
Sarcasm
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Olathe
Casino cash: $4552900
|
whats funny is that you say this same thing regarding Matt Cassel and the Broncos wanting him. Yet the Broncos are also interested in Mark Sanchez. So what does that say about Sanchez then? Oh it doesnt count right.
|
Posts: 21,146
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|