|
![]() |
#2 |
Special Teams ACE!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Where the hell is SNR
Casino cash: $-1384792
|
This team needs to draft a real OT and develop him on the bench. We've drafted ONE guy since Dorsey/Reid came here-- Eric Fisher.
That's ridiculous and kind of stupid. That's asking for trouble. |
Posts: 93,341
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
The first tackle taken was at #20, Garrett Bolles, by the Broncos. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of college tackles play in the college spread and they're ill prepared for the NFL game. This situation isn't likely to get any better. |
|
Posts: 88,960
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
First off, the Chiefs have spent draft choices on WR's to develop. There's no reason why Conley, Chesson, Robinson and Hill don't continue to improve each year and if they "hit" on a guy like Jones, the position is set. Nose tackle in the second round? No. That's terrible. As for linebackers, Ramik Wilson has turned it up a notch and at this point in time, it's difficult to assess how March, Eligwe and KPL perform this season, so saying it's a position of need is speculative. The Chiefs top 8 or 9 offensive lineman are fine. If they draft a 5th round OT with some upside and coachability, that's fine but spending anything higher when it's not a position of need is a waste of valuable resources. If last night was any indicator of position of need, it's running back, hands down. |
|
Posts: 88,960
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canton
Casino cash: $8767261
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 1,983
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
Look at New England or even Atlanta: They each have a bevy of interchangeable guys that don't miss a beat when they're replaced. That's what the Chiefs will need to succeed, because very few running backs can stay healthy for 16 games, let alone 19 games. |
|
Posts: 88,960
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Andy Reid Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $-1490389
|
CB is a very underrated need next year. Peters, Mitchell, Gaines and Nelson all have contracts ending within the next couple of years.
|
Posts: 52,124
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
__
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $2073447
|
Quote:
I am holding out hope for Conley and Chesson, but I haven't seen a ton from Chesson to lead me to feel that way. Robinson -- meh. He's not a guy that's getting a ton of separation in camp and while he looked pretty good on that deep throw from Mahomes, I have little faith in him for when the bullets start flying Week 1. Good counter point! I thought that us being cash strapped and having our top two NTs poised for free agency left us with little options. But I hadn't considered the counterargument of "that's terrible." I shall reconsider. Quote:
And I'm speculating that ILB is going to need some serious upgrades. Wilson is our only viable option for the future at this point, though I'll hold out hope for KPL and Eligwe -- and to a lesser extent, March. |
||
Posts: 59,692
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
__
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $2073447
|
Quote:
I think we need to extend Gaines on the cheap and Mitchell needs to be solidified should he continue looking like a very good #2. Peters is going to get a deal in KC. But not this upcoming offseason, as we have no capspace. I think it comes cleaner in 2019. |
|
Posts: 59,692
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
|