A few Chiefs' draft questions

[chiefzilla1501]

-I just realized that one major mistake people are making is assuming that the Chiefs are going to have a top 5 pick. I think it's very possible that Tampa, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Tennessee could pick higher than us. If that's the case, Berry and Suh are taken off the board. Is Cody a bad pick in this case? I actually think he'd be a great pick if those guys are off the board.
-If the Chiefs end up at #5 or #6, do you entertain a trade down? I think the Chiefs could trade down and still get Mays or Cody. And these two draft slots are attractive enough to trade out of
-If Berry and Suh are off the board, is there a player that teams would actually trade up for? I don't want Bradford at all, but is he a player teams would trade up for? What about Dunlap out of Florida?
-If Jimmy Claussen declares (which I don't think he will), is he worth the pick? My opinion--I would even trade up and take him. I think this kid is going to be the best QB prospect in years.
-If Jake Locker declares, is he worth a look? He looks like he'll be a real good QB, but I can't help but think he's going to be Brady Quinn or maybe a less mobile, slightly more accurate version of Cassel

[DeezNutz]

The QBs would have to seriously entice because there's no chance we're not picking in the top 3.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Suh does look like a freak.

Regarding last year:

1. Pioli better have thought Raji was a worthless sack of shit.
2. Better plan would have been to have tried to get an impact player, WR, CB, something (not even touching the QB discussion).
3. If I'm acquiring a win-now QB, I'm probably not trading Gonzo. His value toward Cassel's development could be worth well more than a late 2nd rounder.

I think now, though I admit I didn't at the time of the draft, I would have taken Moreno to give Cassel a weapon to wiork with out of the backfiled.

I'm not big on taking RBs in the first round, but I do think, and have thought for some time, that Moreno has the tools to be a special talent in the Thurmon Thomas mode.

The fact is though, that I really had no idea who would have any real value at that pick.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Suh does look like a freak.

Regarding last year:

1. Pioli better have thought Raji was a worthless sack of shit.
2. Better plan would have been to have tried to get an impact player, WR, CB, something (not even touching the QB discussion).
3. If I'm acquiring a win-now QB, I'm probably not trading Gonzo. His value toward Cassel's development could be worth well more than a late 2nd rounder.

I personally believe that 5-techniques are far more impactful on the team than a WR or CB. You can bypass average CB play with a great pass rush (see Pittsburgh). And I can think of a handful of receivers who are pure difference makers. You can live without stellar WRs or CBs. You absolutely cannot survive in a 3-4 without really good players up front.

Raji is the only guy I would have considered (I'm staying out of the QBs discussion).

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

The QBs would have to seriously entice because there's no chance we're not picking in the top 3.

Tampa, St. Louis, Cleveland, Tennessee. Maybe even Washington or Tennessee. I think there's a really good chance the Chiefs don't pick in the top 3.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by milkman

Again, one has to ask, if you are going to transition to a 34, and take a 5 tech DE with a top 5 pick, would a better plan hae been to transition over a period of time, focus O-Line in the last draft and take Suh in the next draft?

I think Jackson is going to be a good 5 tech, but Suh looks like he could well be that rare dominating 5 tech.

But I have to say, at the same time, I just couldn't get behind taking Curry top 5 either.

So what do we do?

when we make the playoff run in a couple years, it would be very nice to have a Bruce Smith/Reggie White clone such as Suh, wouldnt it?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Tampa, St. Louis, Cleveland, Tennessee. Maybe even Washington or Tennessee. I think there's a really good chance the Chiefs don't pick in the top 3.

I think we have 1 more win left on our schedule, Cleveland at home.

[Mr. Arrowhead]

Originally Posted by milkman

I think now, though I admit I didn't at the time of the draft, I would have taken Moreno to give Cassel a weapon to wiork with out of the backfiled.

I'm not big on taking RBs in the first round, but I do think, and have thought for some time, that Moreno has the tools to be a special talent in the Thurmon Thomas mode.

The fact is though, that I really had no idea who would have any real value at that pick.

if we ever take a RB in the first round again, then just shoot me in the ****ing head, because i want a player thats gonna be there for 10-12 years and not 5

[BossChief]

[QUOTE=milkman;6224424]I think now, though I admit I didn't at the time of the draft, I would have taken Moreno to give Cassel a weapon to wiork with out of the backfiled.

I'm not big on taking RBs in the first round, but I do think, and have thought for some time, that Moreno has the tools to be a special talent in the Thurmon Thomas mode.

The fact is though, that I really had no idea who would have any real value at that pick.[/QUOTE]

all the otackles had concerns, BJ is an idiot, Crabtree is a adolecent and Curry isnt a pass rusher. Jackson had no negatives except he may not develop into a dominating elite style player, but might have added value to Dorseys play.

Jackson wasnt as bad a pick as he is made out to be.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Arrowhead

if we ever take a RB in the first round again, then just shoot me in the ****ing head, because i want a player thats gonna be there for 10-12 years and not 5

Depending upon the roster and how close the team is to making a run at the SB, I'm taking AP, pardon the pun, all day.

Barry Sanders? Done. And I don't really give a **** what the team looks like.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Arrowhead

if we ever take a RB in the first round again, then just shoot me in the ****ing head, because i want a player thats gonna be there for 10-12 years and not 5

Small shifty backs that give you 250-300 carries a season, and are weapons as receivers out of the backfield, who don't take a lot of hits head on, generally give you 9-10 good years.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

But you have to grade on a curve.

Last year's draft class was very low on talent. It's not as much about taking Jackson #3 overall as much as it is... who else should they have taken?

The only two answers at the time were Raji and Sanchez. Raji hasn't shown anything yet and whether you agree with the move or not, Sanchez was off the table the minute they traded for Cassel.

He was a bit of a reach, but I still think it was one of the best moves they could have made given the circumstances.

zilla, you are treating each draft as though it exists in a vacuum. Perhaps it does for a team that is one year away from making a run, but for a rebuilding team, you need to think long term. You need to look at how the strengths of the draft play out. Where the value is most likely going to be, and adjust your needs accordingly.

If there are several good QBs in a draft one year, and few to none the next two years, then those QBs have far more value, as they are a shrinking commodity. Same goes for OL. They were worth more in the mid rounds last year, because their skill level was greater than the round they were falling in would indicate, and the next few classes weren't going to be as good.

Now, that's not to say you can go into a draft and only look for the positions you absolutely need, but when analyzing the next several drafts, you should work future returns into your valuing of current picks. Obviously, if you have to choose between a middling OG to help your weak line or a very good LB to solidify your ok to good LB corps you go with the LB, but if there is a very weak class of one and a strong class of another in next year's draft, and the prospects are similarly rated, you should get the rarer commodity.

[BossChief]

you guys know what happens to our pass rush if we draft Suh and add a rushbacker to blitz off his outside shoulder?

Consistent havoc in opposing backfields in the playoffs, thats what.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by BossChief

all the otackles had concerns, BJ is an idiot, Crabtree is a adolecent and Curry isnt a pass rusher. Jackson had no negatives except he may not develop into a dominating elite style player, but might have added value to Dorseys play.

Jackson wasnt as bad a pick as he is made out to be.

Let's take a look at last year's draft, and sub Moreno in for Jackson.

In the third round we take Antione Caldwell, 4th, Jonathan Luigs, 5th Johnny Knox.

Follow that up this next draft, we take Suh in the first, Jerry Hughes and Ciron Black in the second, Boo Robinson in the third and Brandon Lang in the fourth.

How would that look going forward?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I said last year that if the Chiefs were going to go off the reservation with #3 overall, they should take Maclin. He instantly fills three positions on the team, and gives you a great deep threat.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

zilla, you are treating each draft as though it exists in a vacuum. Perhaps it does for a team that is one year away from making a run, but for a rebuilding team, you need to think long term. You need to look at how the strengths of the draft play out. Where the value is most likely going to be, and adjust your needs accordingly.

If there are several good QBs in a draft one year, and few to none the next two years, then those QBs have far more value, as they are a shrinking commodity. Same goes for OL. They were worth more in the mid rounds last year, because their skill level was greater than the round they were falling in would indicate, and the next few classes weren't going to be as good.

Now, that's not to say you can go into a draft and only look for the positions you absolutely need, but when analyzing the next several drafts, you should work future returns into your valuing of current picks. Obviously, if you have to choose between a middling OG to help your weak line or a very good LB to solidify your ok to good LB corps you go with the LB, but if there is a very weak class of one and a strong class of another in next year's draft, and the prospects are similarly rated, you should get the rarer commodity.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Chiefs did horrendous in the later rounds. But in terms of the first round, Jackson was one of the only logical options. I don't know if your point is to say that a backup LT or a backup QB would have been more valuable because of future trade value. I can see your point on that. But then you run into the same issues of whether you're overpaying for a backup QB or a backup LT (or, arguably, a guard... if the rationale was to move Albert to Guard).

I'm just arguing against those who say he was a reach or some guy the Chiefs overpaid for. He wasn't a reach when you consider that the main alternatives was in two positions we already had. He is overpaid, but everybody is in a weak draft class.