Chiefs Meet With Otah - Page 22

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-29-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

So, you have a way of guaranteeing a college player's success or lack thereof? Man you could make millions working for any NFL team.

The point: No college player is ever a sure thing. They all come up and have to prove themselves against top competition.

That's MY point.

The way some people make it out, is that passing on Jake Long would be a mistake of biblical proportion, all based on him having one penalty and giving up two sacks in his career.

Never mind how the skills he may or may not have translate to the NFL level.

Frankie · 03-29-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Kinda like Long falling to the Chiefs, or taking Clady at 5?

Long might yet fall to the 5th spot. And I have already stated I currently consider Clady somewhat of a reach at 5. So what's your beef?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-29-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

You repeatedly miss my point and then call me dense. My point is OUR D-LINE, while far from perfect, IS IN WAY BETTER SHAPE THAN OUR O-LINE!!

Really?

WAY better shape?

On the DL, we have one superstar and one guy who's shown he MIGHT be that guy. (Hali)

On the OL, we have one superstar, and one guy who's shown to be serviceable, but not much more. (MacIntosh)

Seeing as how backup OL never play unless the starter is injured, and how backup DL play quite a bit, I'd say both the offensive and defensive lines are in shambles.

I guess you think that we're set at DE because we have Allen and Hali?

Can they play EVERY DOWN of EVERY GAME?

Because right now, they are the only two DE's we have on the roster.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-29-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

Long might yet fall to the 5th spot. And I have already stated I currently consider Clady somewhat of a reach at 5. So what's your beef?

That you call my scenario "unrealistic" yet live in the fantasy world where Jake Long falls to us at the 5 slot.

Mecca · 03-29-2008, 05:19 PM

I want to know where this great defense is that people don't act like we need players for...

The majority if this team needs to be upgraded...we aren't the old Ravens with a great defense and no offense. We have a awful offense and a bad defense with aging players...we need a ton of new guys on both sides.

And guess what it just so happens the best players in this years draft are defensive players, so um you get those guys now because they are better. If the better guys were offensive players then you could slant it that way but they aren't.

This team is bad, it needs great players in general. We are in no way shape or form in position to pick and choose positions, we need help at basically every position.

Frankie · 03-29-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm shooting you down because no one is saying that the rookie with a great year is a fluke, and the subpar years for others are total trash.

Then you haven't read all of the posts here. And do you deny that there are those on this bb who are already having buyers' remorse about Hali, Pollard and Croyle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

They are simply saying that guys like Bowe have to do it for more than one year before you label him a star, and Hali needs to step it up another level, as does Pollard.

I have never disagreed with this, but again some people are cocksure these players do not represent talent on our roster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

As for Croyle, there are those who never believed he would amount to anything, and those that have high hopes for him.

They have no evidence to base this prediction on. I bet if Croyle was Green Bay's pick the same folks would call the Chiefs FO inept for not having drafted him when he was available in the 3rd round. Our grass is always brown in their eyes.

**Tribal Warfare** · 03-29-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

It only sounds "dense" to you because somehow you are taking the total opposite meaning of my post. I can't help you there.

No, greatest need? Jesus! for example if you have an all-world WR on the draft board and instead you take the above average player at the greatest position of need well that's just plain stupid. If we do that every round you know what we get? The Vermeil Era, but it would be whiffs on offense instead of the defense

Mecca · 03-29-2008, 05:25 PM

I have a problem with Pollard for the same reason I had a problem with Woods and Tongue, he was taken ahead of a player who plays the same position as him that he isn't as good as.

Frankie · 03-29-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

That's MY point.

The way some people make it out, is that passing on Jake Long would be a mistake of biblical proportion, all based on him having one penalty and giving up two sacks in his career.

Never mind how the skills he may or may not have translate to the NFL level.

But you are using the same reasoning to condemn Jake Long. You are going out of your way to belittle his college stats. I'm taking the cup-half-full side of the JL argument. That's all.

Mecca · 03-29-2008, 05:29 PM

You do realize that college stats aren't that important when translating a player to the league right? Bryant McKinnie didn't give up a sack his entire college career.....he isn't the best LT in the game.

It's about having the natural physical talent to play the position and there is question of Long has it. All of Jake Longs flaws are physical, they aren't technical flaws. If his few flaws could be fixed with some coaching of technique I'd feel alot more comfortable with him but fact is his flaws are physical flaws that he will always have.

milkman · 03-29-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

Then you haven't read all of the posts here. And do you deny that there are those on this bb who are already having buyers' remorse about Hali, Pollard and Croyle?
I have never disagreed with this, but again some people are cocksure these players do not represent talent on our roster.

I've reaad every post here, and not one person has made this assertion.

And yes, I know there are people on this forum having buyers remorse, but those are generally the people who never expected anything anyway.

Quote:

They have no evidence to base this prediction on. I bet if Croyle was Green Bay's pick the same folks would call the Chiefs FO inept for not having drafted him when he was available in the 3rd round. Our grass is always brown in their eyes.

You're probably right.

But I bet there are people in GB forums bitching about Aaron Rogers right now.

There are always those people.

Frankie · 03-29-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

No, greatest need? Jesus! for example if you have an all-world WR on the draft board and instead you take the above average player at the greatest position of need well that's just plain stupid.

I repeat: I'M NOT SAYING THAT. But I'm saying in that scenario, it's more of an astute move to try for a good trade down; get the player for that position of dire need and get a few more draft picks. God knows our team is in need of more draft picks.

keg in kc · 03-29-2008, 05:31 PM

Jake Long's physical flaws are so great that he'll be off the board before we pick, and any discussion about him as our selection will have been rendered moot.

Mecca · 03-29-2008, 05:31 PM

In fairness to Rodgers he's looked good in his limited playing time.

Frankie · 03-29-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I've reaad every post here, and not one person has made this assertion.

And yes, I know there are people on this forum having buyers remorse, but those are generally the people who never expected anything anyway.

You're probably right.

But I bet there are people in GB forums bitching about Aaron Rogers right now.

There are always those people.

Cool.

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

03-29-2008, 05:19 PM	#320
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-662950	I want to know where this great defense is that people don't act like we need players for... The majority if this team needs to be upgraded...we aren't the old Ravens with a great defense and no offense. We have a awful offense and a bad defense with aging players...we need a ton of new guys on both sides. And guess what it just so happens the best players in this years draft are defensive players, so um you get those guys now because they are better. If the better guys were offensive players then you could slant it that way but they aren't. This team is bad, it needs great players in general. We are in no way shape or form in position to pick and choose positions, we need help at basically every position.
Posts: 115,346

03-29-2008, 05:25 PM	#323
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-662950	I have a problem with Pollard for the same reason I had a problem with Woods and Tongue, he was taken ahead of a player who plays the same position as him that he isn't as good as.
Posts: 115,346

03-29-2008, 05:29 PM	#325
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-662950	You do realize that college stats aren't that important when translating a player to the league right? Bryant McKinnie didn't give up a sack his entire college career.....he isn't the best LT in the game. It's about having the natural physical talent to play the position and there is question of Long has it. All of Jake Longs flaws are physical, they aren't technical flaws. If his few flaws could be fixed with some coaching of technique I'd feel alot more comfortable with him but fact is his flaws are physical flaws that he will always have.
Posts: 115,346

03-29-2008, 05:31 PM	#328
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Jake Long's physical flaws are so great that he'll be off the board before we pick, and any discussion about him as our selection will have been rendered moot.
Posts: 58,682

03-29-2008, 05:31 PM	#329
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-662950	In fairness to Rodgers he's looked good in his limited playing time.
Posts: 115,346