Chiefs Someone review Tyson Jackson and rest of Dline. - Page 6

googlegoogle · 08-21-2010, 09:37 PM

Len and Mitch said the Dline looked good.

The_Doctor10 · 08-23-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

As I recall, the Chargers elevation came on the heels of several top 5 picks. LT in '01, Jammer (who I'd call a bust) in '02 and Rivers (for Manning at #1) in '04.

The Packers took AJ Hawk at 5 in '06 (after a 4-12 season). They've managed to turn out okay despite that poor decision. Point being, it would obviously help if Jackson turned into something, but the Chiefs can survive it, and survive the way the '09 draft is turning out, but they can't have any more speed bump offseasons like that. It doesn't have to be the end of the world, and '10 is looking like a good start so far.

What's your point with San Diego? They got the best RB of the past decade and drafted a franchise QB with their top 5 picks. Add to that they also grabbed a second franchise QB three years earlier.

That seems a far cry from Chiefs' last few top 5 picks, Eric Berry, Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey, only one of whom has a real chance to be an impact player at this stage. We can argue maybe Dorsey would've been better served in the 4-3 as a DT, but lord knows that's a stupid discussion at this point.

keg in kc · 08-23-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unleash_the_Phury

What's your point with San Diego? They got the best RB of the past decade and drafted a franchise QB with their top 5 picks. Add to that they also grabbed a second franchise QB three years earlier.

That seems a far cry from Chiefs' last few top 5 picks, Eric Berry, Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey, only one of whom has a real chance to be an impact player at this stage. We can argue maybe Dorsey would've been better served in the 4-3 as a DT, but lord knows that's a stupid discussion at this point.

My only point with San Diego was that they didn't build their team without top 5 picks. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

The only argument of any kind I'm making is that Jackson's pick last year, should he not develop into anything more than he's shown so far, doesn't have to doom the franchise into oblivion.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-23-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The only argument of any kind I'm making is that Jackson's pick last year, should he not develop into anything more than he's shown so far, doesn't have to doom the franchise into oblivion.

Obvlivion? No.

But it does set the franchise back at least two years, which was my original point.

If Tyson Jackson was Richard Seymour Part Two, then teams would be double teaming him consistently, which would give the linebackers and Dorsey a much better chance to limit yardage on the ground and through the air.

In absence of those double teams, most teams can run and throw at will against the Chiefs defense.

CrazyHorse · 08-23-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Obvlivion? No.

But it does set the franchise back at least two years, which was my original point.

If Tyson Jackson was Richard Seymour Part Two, then teams would be double teaming him consistently, which would give the linebackers and Dorsey a much better chance to limit yardage on the ground and through the air.

In absence of those double teams, most teams can run and throw at will against the Chiefs defense.

Seymour made 0 impact his 1st year.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-23-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Seymour made 0 impact his 1st year.

44 tackles and 3 sacks in 10 starts (13 games) is not what I'd call zero.

**DeezNutz** · 08-23-2010, 05:38 PM

The problem isn't that Jackson isn't Seymour; everyone knew this long before the kid was drafted.

The problem is that Pioli stubbornly and/or foolishly selected him anyway.

Why two years, though, Dane? As opposed to one or even three? Seems like a random (albeit reasonable) number.

CrazyHorse · 08-23-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

44 tackles and 3 sacks in 10 starts (13 games) is not what I'd call zero.

Yeah, thats pretty good. I guess I didnt notice as much because he was on a defense full of stars. We dont have that problem.

CrazyHorse · 08-23-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

The problem isn't that Jackson isn't Seymour; everyone knew this long before the kid was drafted.

The problem is that Pioli stubbornly and/or foolishly selected him anyway.

Why two years, though, Dane? As opposed to one or even three? Seems like a random (albeit reasonable) number.

I think its fairly common for DL to take 3 years or so to develop. I would say that more often than not. That dont mean TJ will. But it could happen and it wouldnt be unusual if it did.

CrazyHorse · 08-23-2010, 05:52 PM

As for the DL overall in Tampa, I thought they did a nice job. They were a factor. Also unusual.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-23-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

The problem isn't that Jackson isn't Seymour; everyone knew this long before the kid was drafted.

The problem is that Pioli stubbornly and/or foolishly selected him anyway.

Why two years, though, Dane? As opposed to one or even three? Seems like a random (albeit reasonable) number.

Because I figure by the end of year two, the Chiefs will have come to the realization that Jackson just isn't the solution and will either replace him via free-agency or the draft.

If he doesn't improve during the 2010 season, I don't know how Pioli & Co. can sit on their hands and not make a move.

That, however, doesn't guarantee they'll make a move.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-23-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

I think its fairly common for DL to take 3 years or so to develop. I would say that more often than not. That dont mean TJ will. But it could happen and it wouldnt be unusual if it did.

While I somewhat agree, I don't think it should take three years for the #3 overall player chosen in the NFL draft.

The #3 overall player should pretty much be a finished product, ready to make an immediate impact, unless we're talking QB.

**DeezNutz** · 08-23-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Because I figure by the end of year two, the Chiefs will have come to the realization that Jackson just isn't the solution and will either replace him via free-agency or the draft.

If he doesn't improve during the 2010 season, I don't know how Pioli & Co. can sit on their hands and not make a move.

That, however, doesn't guarantee they'll make a move.

Yeah, I could see them moving off this player, and he's already losing plenty of snaps to Gilberry. The fact that this is already happening to a player with that big of contract should speak strongly to his level of suck.

CrazyHorse · 08-23-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

While I somewhat agree, I don't think it should take three years for the #3 overall player chosen in the NFL draft.

The #3 overall player should pretty much be a finished product, ready to make an immediate impact, unless we're talking QB.

I think where D linemen are concerned, you'll find they're not generally finished products. Regardless thier draft position. Especially 3-4 linemen.

Basileus777 · 08-23-2010, 06:00 PM

Tyson Jackson ever living up to his draft position is a lost cause, it probably was from the beginning. I'm just hoping he can be a decent starter at this point.

**BossChief** · 08-23-2010, 06:02 PM

Richard Seymour and Vince Wilfork both started for defenses that lead the way to the Lombardi in their rookie year.

It can be done.

08-21-2010, 09:37 PM
googlegoogle Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	Someone review Tyson Jackson and rest of Dline. Len and Mitch said the Dline looked good.
Posts: 4,700

08-23-2010, 05:52 PM	#84
CrazyHorse All Motor! Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	As for the DL overall in Tampa, I thought they did a nice job. They were a factor. Also unusual.
Posts: 2,118

08-23-2010, 06:00 PM	#89
Basileus777 MVP Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Jersey Casino cash: $5145958	Tyson Jackson ever living up to his draft position is a lost cause, it probably was from the beginning. I'm just hoping he can be a decent starter at this point.
Posts: 9,230

08-23-2010, 06:02 PM	#90
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1484088	Richard Seymour and Vince Wilfork both started for defenses that lead the way to the Lombardi in their rookie year. It can be done. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,185