Chiefs Meet With Otah

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The D that needs an entire new list of CB's needs atleast 2 new LB's and may need atleast 1 more safety?

2 new linebackers? Not every team is loaded at every position. Demorrio Williams/Donnie Edwards make for a very good option at the other OLB spot.

[OnTheWarpath15]

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.

[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.

[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.

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by Brock

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.

Well there is great depth but most of those tackles are going to be gone before the 3rd round is over. IMO the top class of OT's consists of:

Jake Long
Ryan Clady
Jeff Otah
Chris Williams
Sam Baker
Anthony Collins
Gosder Cherilus
Duane Brown
Carl Nicks

Not necessarily in any particular order. After that the talent drops off significantly with guys like Oniel Cousins and John Greco being the next best tackles.

I am not necessarily in favor of taking a guy like Ryan Clady in the first round but I don't get why people say he is so raw. The guy started 3 years at tackle for Boise State, the last 2 at left tackle. Each year he improved his play based on being a first team Freshman All-American in 2005, a second team All-American in 2006, and a first team All-American in 2007. Would I prefer Dorsey or Ellis over Clady? Sure. But would I be upset with Clady in the 1st round? No, not really.

[melbar]

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.

Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by melbar

Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

I'm going to qoute my post from another thread to address this post.

Originally Posted by milkman

Here's the thing.

Tre Stallings started 48 games in college, Herb Taylor started in 48, and Rudy Niswanger started in 29.

Taylor and Niswanger showed pretty well in the games they played in last year, and appear to be ready to step in and play.

Fact is, if the Chiefs hadn't started off the season with the moronic belief that they were a playoff team and played these guys, along with Brodie Croyle, starting in game one, we might have found out that we have some OL building blocks in Niswanger and taylor.

The league is littered with players on the O-Line that started a lot of college games, were drafted on the seond day, and have become solid starters.

Our needs on the O-Line may not be as great as some/most think.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by melbar

I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

First, you just advocated reaching based on need by taking Clady.

Second, Gholston wouldn't be a reach.

Third, 7 of the Top 10 players in this draft play defense.

Originally Posted by melbar

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

I'm fine with taking Long IF he's there.

I'm not fine with reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when we'd be passing on some combination of Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, etc.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm not fine with reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when we'd be passing on some combination of Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, etc.

Not one single person on this board has even implied taking Otah at #5, not one, so drop that please. You've beat it to death. If anyone wants Otah, it's on a trade down scenario.

As for Clady, I guess if you consider that a reach, but whatever.