Chiefs Meet With Otah - Page 10

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.

Brock · 03-28-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

Give me a ****ing break. Nobody is appointing him the second coming of Jerry Rice. I simply claimed he is a good wide receiver. Is he not worthy of being called a good wide receiver? He is a building block of this team. For now he is a good wide receiver with the potential to be great.

He MAY be a good receiver. At this point, he's a young guy who is still a question mark, but you can feel somewhat optimistic about him.

kcchiefsus · 03-28-2008, 03:33 PM

So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this. This scenario probably wouldn't happen but humor me and go along with it.

What happens if in the next 3 drafts for one reason or another the BPA in the first few rounds is never an offensive lineman? Do you simply keep ignoring a HUGE need? At what point do you finally say "our line is bad enough that we have no choice but to reach"?

I understand not wanting to reach in the 1st round. Getting a player like Ellis or Dorsey is probably more preferable to an Otah or Clady. But I am of the opinion that after the first round it gets more and more acceptable to reach for a need. But let's define the term "reach". There is the kind of reach where you have a need and you panic and take the best player at a position available. That is a mistake in my opinion. But what if you really like a player and feel he can help your team but he might be a slight reach at your spot? What if the Chiefs are really high on Sam Baker, just for an example. They feel he can be a very good offensive tackle for us. But they feel he is a mid to late 2nd round pick. Obviously, they probably don't think he would be there at our 3rd round pick. So if you want that player is it such a mistake to reach for him? Personally, I don't think it is. If you like a player and you think he can help you then you should draft him.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-28-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this. This scenario probably wouldn't happen but humor me and go along with it.

What happens if in the next 3 drafts for one reason or another the BPA in the first few rounds is never an offensive lineman? Do you simply keep ignoring a HUGE need? At what point do you finally say "our line is bad enough that we have no choice but to reach"?

I understand not wanting to reach in the 1st round. Getting a player like Ellis or Dorsey is probably more preferable to an Otah or Clady. But I am of the opinion that after the first round it gets more and more acceptable to reach for a need. But let's define the term "reach". There is the kind of reach where you have a need and you panic and take the best player at a position available. That is a mistake in my opinion. But what if you really like a player and feel he can help your team but he might be a slight reach at your spot? What if the Chiefs are really high on Sam Baker, just for an example. They feel he can be a very good offensive tackle for us. But they feel he is a mid to late 2nd round pick. Obviously, they probably don't think he would be there at our 3rd round pick. So if you want that player is it such a mistake to reach for him? Personally, I don't think it is. If you like a player and you think he can help you then you should draft him.

There's the problem.

It's being implied by many, and now stated by you, that not drafting an OL in the first 2 rounds is "ignoring a huge need."

The two staples of our great OL were a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA.

Brock · 03-28-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this.

I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-28-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

Absolutely.

kcchiefsus · 03-28-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

He MAY be a good receiver. At this point, he's a young guy who is still a question mark, but you can feel somewhat optimistic about him.

How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

kcchiefsus · 03-28-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

There's the problem.

It's being implied by many, and now stated by you, that not drafting an OL in the first 2 rounds is "ignoring a huge need."

The two staples of our great OL were a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA.

So it should just be assumed that we can continue building our offensive line with low round draft picks? Then why haven't guys like Brett Williams, Kevin Sampson, Tre' Stallings, Will Svitek, Jordan Black, etc. worked out?

And we had more invested in that line than just a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA. Roaf was a 1st round pick by New Orleans that ended up costing us a 3rd round pick. And ever since we lost 1st round pick Tait right tackle has been a revolving door.

kcchiefsus · 03-28-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I'm not against drafting offensive linemen. I'm against reaching for need and not taking the best player you can get.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-28-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-28-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

So it should just be assumed that we can continue building our offensive line with low round draft picks? Then why haven't guys like Brett Williams, Kevin Sampson, Tre' Stallings, Will Svitek, Jordan Black, etc. worked out?

And we had more invested in that line than just a 3rd round pick and an undrafted FA. Roaf was a 1st round pick by New Orleans that ended up costing us a 3rd round pick. And ever since we lost 1st round pick Tait right tackle has been a revolving door.

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.

Zeke Ziggle · 03-28-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

Its not a point about him having a great season last year its about backing that up over multiple years. Michael Clayton had 1193 yards and 7 touchdowns in his rookie year and he was proclaimed a star. in the past three years he has 1029 yards and 1 touchdown. Bowe had a great rookie season and people should be optimistic about him however he needs more than a great rookie season to be called a star

kcchiefsus · 03-28-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke Ziggle

Its not a point about him having a great season last year its about backing that up over multiple years. Michael Clayton had 1193 yards and 7 touchdowns in his rookie year and he was proclaimed a star. in the past three years he has 1029 yards and 1 touchdown. Bowe had a great rookie season and people should be optimistic about him however he needs more than a great rookie season to be called a star

Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

Brock · 03-28-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

How is he MAYbe a good wide receiver? Good means solid. If a 5th year wide receiver had 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 touchdowns you would call him good. But because Bowe is a rookie that doesn't count as him being good? Bullshit. You just want to bitch and complain about this team having no talent.

WTF? Are you kidding? It means he HAD A GOOD YEAR. THAT IS ALL. Your dimestore psychoanalysis of me is duly noted. I'm guessing I've paid attention to this team for a while longer than you have and that's why I prefer to let them prove something before I go all homer about them.

Brock · 03-28-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

I notice you avoid calling Michael Clayton a good receiver. Why is that?

Zeke Ziggle · 03-28-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

Nobody is calling him a star now are they? I claimed he is a GOOD wide receiver. Eddie Kennison was a GOOD wide receiver. Calling Bowe a GOOD wide receiver isn't saying a whole lot. Nobody is callling him the next Terrell Owens or a pro bowler. He is a GOOD wide receiver.

My point remains he had a good year. great for a rookie but that doesn't mean that he keeps that up. For all of us i hope he does turn into Owens without the headcase issues. However there is still a chance that he will be jeff webb suck next year and the year after

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

03-28-2008, 03:33 PM	#137
kcchiefsus Banned Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nowhere Casino cash: $10017949	So for you anti-offensive line people, let's try to analyze this. This scenario probably wouldn't happen but humor me and go along with it. What happens if in the next 3 drafts for one reason or another the BPA in the first few rounds is never an offensive lineman? Do you simply keep ignoring a HUGE need? At what point do you finally say "our line is bad enough that we have no choice but to reach"? I understand not wanting to reach in the 1st round. Getting a player like Ellis or Dorsey is probably more preferable to an Otah or Clady. But I am of the opinion that after the first round it gets more and more acceptable to reach for a need. But let's define the term "reach". There is the kind of reach where you have a need and you panic and take the best player at a position available. That is a mistake in my opinion. But what if you really like a player and feel he can help your team but he might be a slight reach at your spot? What if the Chiefs are really high on Sam Baker, just for an example. They feel he can be a very good offensive tackle for us. But they feel he is a mid to late 2nd round pick. Obviously, they probably don't think he would be there at our 3rd round pick. So if you want that player is it such a mistake to reach for him? Personally, I don't think it is. If you like a player and you think he can help you then you should draft him.
Posts: 4,649