It won't be DeCastro. I'm still betting Kuechly. But here's a dark horse... - Page 9

Direckshun · 04-16-2012, 08:48 AM

I am willing to bet something severe on my signature, like a one-year ownership of it, that this team will not take David DeCastro at any point in the 2012 NFL Draft.

Several reasons, which we've all visited:

The run game is mostly fine. We led the league in rushing two years ago with Thomas ****ing Jones taking half the carries, behind Ryan Lilja. Scott Pioli does not view Lilja as a weak spot, nor really should he for another year or two. DeCastro would offer an upgrade, but it would almost certainly involve cutting Lilja, which Pioli is not going to do.
At the same time, DeCastro would offer an upgrade over Lilja in pass protection, but only a marginal one. Lilja is a technician in pass protection, and you're only going to see the upgrade against the bigger nose tackles when they're lined up over Lilja. Even then, as milkman said in another thread, Cassel still took over 40 sacks in New England behind their stud, first round guard.
The Chiefs do have three good value guards under contract, and by good value I mean we have two solid starters and solid depth with Darryl Harris, which is what most teams strive for. All three first-rounders during the Pioli era have been selections at a position the team is perilously thin at (2009, DE; 2010, S; 2011, WR).
Kind of a lesser argument here, but DeCastro was not a captain at Stanford, and has a reputation for being quiet as a Will Sheilds mouse. If Pioli's going to take a guard, he's going to want it to be a dynamic-changing personality -- not somebody who will just upgrade one spot, but somebody who will elevate several spots through force of will.
Even more than picking an elite talent at guard, Pioli wants to stockpile 2012 and 2013 draft picks. It's infinitely more likely we'll trade out of the #11 to somebody who really wants DeCastro than it is we'll pick DeCastro ourselves.

It is still my opinion that this team wants Luke Kuechly. The Chiefs in 2013 will only have one ILB under contract in DJ. Siler and Belcher will be free agents, though I believe Pioli would love to keep Belcher, and I bet we can.

Although I really believe, following this front office as closely as I've tried to, that Mark Barron and Michael Brockers are both everything this front office loves in a prospect. The safety position is very thin now, and the DE position will be thin next year, assuming Brandon Bair doesn't blow up.

It doesn't take a lot to see that they are really intrigued by Tannehill.

And they no doubt love Riley Reiff, but of course we have no need for him.

Another dark horse, considering these factors: the Chiefs still lack a deep threat to stretch defenses, and Baldwin's shown flashes, but only flashes, at this point is still a bit unreliable.

Kendall Wright played for four years at Baylor, and was an emotional team captain for that offense (whereas RG3 is more of a cool-as-a-cucumber, poker face leader). Wright's timed speed means precisely jack and shit to Pioli, who's spoken at length about Kendrick Lewis playing faster than he timed -- and Wright plays like a 4.4 speed demon.

The Chiefs have Breaston and Baldwin another four years, and I don't think they'll get Bowe signed in July. They may hold off longer to see if Baldwin can take off, and if he does (and he's shown that he can...), they could always let Bowe walk or trade him off, and a WR corps of Baldwin, Breaston, and Wright would provide a perfect balance of weapons.

Of course, I hope we never do let Bowe go. In a passing league, there is plenty of room for four WR's to get lots of catches, and it would make life very easy for the QBotF after Cassel.

No point to this thread, other than some random thoughts. I think Wright is a sleeper if the Chiefs trade down.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

I saw on Twitter the Jags want to trade out and are hoping we'd trade up to get Tannehill. What would that cost us? A 3rd?

I'd come at them like this.

We will give you the 11 pick and a third...and a conditional pick as follows: if Tannehill wins a playoff game for us during his rookie deal, we will send you another third rounder in the ensuing draft...if he wins two playoff games it goes up to a second...superbowl, a first.

That would be a GREAT deal for both sides.

O.city · 04-18-2012, 07:10 PM

I wouldn't mind trading up for Tannehill. Don't really like it, but wouldn't mind.

I'm starting to extremely hope it plays out something like this.

The Chiefs can trade back, getting an extra 3. Take Barron.

Secondary is good. Scary good and young save for corner, but I will get to that.

Use your that third and some other picks to trade back up into the first and take Konz.

Offensive line is set. Or sit in the second and take Janoris Jenkins when he falls, which he will.

Take Chapman as soon as you have to to make sure you get him.

Barron
Konz
Chapman

Thats a winner draft right there.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2012, 07:14 PM

Go look at my mock draft, buddy.

IMO it's the best one out there for us...with the exception of moving up for Tannehill.

Also, don't sleep on Jalil Brown.

I think he can be about as good as Carr was in a year or two.

Titty Meat · 04-18-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

I'd come at them like this.

We will give you the 11 pick and a third...and a conditional pick as follows: if Tannehill wins a playoff game for us during his rookie deal, we will send you another third rounder in the ensuing draft...if he wins two playoff games it goes up to a second...superbowl, a first.

That would be a GREAT deal for both sides.

It's certainly an outside the box way of thinking and I like it. How long would Tannehill's rookie contract be? 5 years? I don't think he'll be ready for about 3 years though.

O.city · 04-18-2012, 07:23 PM

I don't really want them to play him next year, but I think the best way to learn is to be thrown into the fire.

I know the Rodgers situation worked out. But look how many qbs are behind other guys that never turn out.

Supposedly, Tannehill has greatly improved his mechanics this offseason.

IMO the best way to learn the speed of the NFL, is to play in the NFL. Now I don't want to ruin him like the Jags possibly might have with Gabbert, but I think with our talent he could easily lean on the run and get his feet wet early.

Look at how fast his learning curve has been so far.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

It's certainly an outside the box way of thinking and I like it. How long would Tannehill's rookie contract be? 5 years? I don't think he'll be ready for about 3 years though.

5 years with a heavily inflated 6th year team option iirc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

I don't really want them to play him next year, but I think the best way to learn is to be thrown into the fire.

I know the Rodgers situation worked out. But look how many qbs are behind other guys that never turn out.

Supposedly, Tannehill has greatly improved his mechanics this offseason.

IMO the best way to learn the speed of the NFL, is to play in the NFL. Now I don't want to ruin him like the Jags possibly might have with Gabbert, but I think with our talent he could easily lean on the run and get his feet wet early.

Look at how fast his learning curve has been so far.

I'd only sit him for one year...even if Cassel is terrible, I still go with Stanzi and the only way Stanzi is the starter in 2013 is if he plays so well you can't sit him or someone coughs up a premium pick (first or second round) for him.

Otherwise, Cassel is cut at years end and Tannehill is the cemented starter the next 2 1/2 years...barring injury.

O.city · 04-18-2012, 07:34 PM

Probably right Boss, but I just look at what Andy Dalton did last year.

I think Tannehill is better than Dalton. Probably needs a little while to get there mentally but physically yeah.

Tannehill could be a game manager for a year, I don't care.

milkman · 04-18-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Probably right Boss, but I just look at what Andy Dalton did last year.

I think Tannehill is better than Dalton. Probably needs a little while to get there mentally but physically yeah.

Tannehill could be a game manager for a year, I don't care.

I think Dalton was more NFL ready than Tannehill is.

I also think Dalton will be a good QB for years, but will never be among the top tier QBs.

I think that Tannehill has a much higher ceiling (as well as a much lower floor), but I also believe that there are some QBs that absolutely can be ruined by starting them too soon, and Tannehill is likely one of those (as I believe Mark Sanche was, but that's another discussion).

I've said it many times through the years.

If you believe that a QB has the tools to be a franchise QB, even if you believe he is a project, you take him high.

O.city · 04-18-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I think Dalton was more NFL ready than Tannehill is.

I also think Dalton will be a good QB for years, but will never be among the top tier QBs.

I think that Tannehill has a much higher ceiling (as well as a much lower floor), but I also believe that there are some QBs that absolutely can be ruined by starting them too soon, and Tannehill is likely one of those (as I believe Mark Sanche was, but that's another discussion).

I've said it many times through the years.

If you believe that a QB has the tools to be a franchise QB, even if you believe he is a project, you take him high.

They surely can be ruined. Gabbert, IMO, will likely never be what he could have been.

That said, I just think the best way to learn is for the bullets to start flying.

Even if we sit him for a year, it's gonna take another full year for him to get his feet under him.

However, as I've been thru the last 24 years of my life with the way the Chiefs have been with a qb, i'll gladly wait another year for one to sit on the bench and learn the way to play.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2012, 07:58 PM

The thing Dalton had going for him was that he was the starter from day one of camp and got all the first team snaps after being a starter at tcu for almost twice as long as Tannehill.

Tannehill would probably get "red shirted" for us so Pioli can try to build some tradable value for Cassel and wouldn't get many (if any at all) first team snaps.

I'd also like to say that if a quarterback can be "ruined" by starting him too early, how do you properly judge his ability to fight through adversity and grow as a leader? That's one of the most important aspects for a quarterback you feel you can win a superbowl with because he WILL face heavy adversity the deeper he goes in the playoffs.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2012, 08:21 PM

If I'm Pioli, I see Tannehill as the perfect fit.

He desperately wants to boost his ego and how better to do that than to take Tannehill with intensions of sitting him at least one full year and maybe two years while Pioli can get to see what Cassel does to build his trade value while developing the mental part of Tannehills game so he is mentally prepared for things teams will try to do to him in games.

On top of that, he has a dark horse with a good resume in Stanzi.

That's three ways Pioli can boost his personal ego.

milkman · 04-18-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

The thing Dalton had going for him was that he was the starter from day one of camp and got all the first team snaps after being a starter at tcu for almost twice as long as Tannehill.

Tannehill would probably get "red shirted" for us so Pioli can try to build some tradable value for Cassel and wouldn't get many (if any at all) first team snaps.

I'd also like to say that if a quarterback can be "ruined" by starting him too early, how do you properly judge his ability to fight through adversity and grow as a leader? That's one of the most important aspects for a quarterback you feel you can win a superbowl with because he WILL face heavy adversity the deeper he goes in the playoffs.

I think it has to be a case by case basis, but the most obvious reason that some QBs can be ruined is that those would likely be the ones with the lower floors.

You start them too early, and they revert to old, bad habits, and never are able to get through that.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I think it has to be a case by case basis, but the most obvious reason that some QBs can be ruined is that those would likely be the ones with the lower floors.

You start them too early, and they revert to old, bad habits, and never are able to get through that.

Then thats a guy that doesn't have the mental toughness to overcome adversity.

For me, I prefer the "throw them into the fire" approach.

I want to see how my boy reacts after he gets hit in the mouth.

Does he back off and play timid after an early pick? Or is he a fighter that will come out throwing darts after walking up and down the sideline telling his teammates he owes them one? (this is something Stanzi did a few times that really made me a fan. Especially his first year playing Indiana)

Is his head in it after he gets rattled a few times...meaning, does he still process as much information during the plays after getting hit, or does he get lazy and stare guys down.

Then, after his first year starting, does he "own the team" and does he appear to "step it up" and take the next step and how do his teammates respond to the change?

There are a million positives to "throwing the kid in the fire"

Coogs · 04-18-2012, 08:50 PM

Actually, Tannehill may be better off starting here than Luck with the Colts in the first year just due to the fact that the Chiefs have a much better supporting cast in place than the Colts do.

milkman · 04-18-2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

Then thats a guy that doesn't have the mental toughness to overcome adversity.

For me, I prefer the "throw them into the fire" approach.

I want to see how my boy reacts after he gets hit in the mouth.

Does he back off and play timid after an early pick? Or is he a fighter that will come out throwing darts after walking up and down the sideline telling his teammates he owes them one? (this is something Stanzi did a few times that really made me a fan. Especially his first year playing Indiana)

Is his head in it after he gets rattled a few times...meaning, does he still process as much information during the plays after getting hit, or does he get lazy and stare guys down.

Then, after his first year starting, does he "own the team" and does he appear to "step it up" and take the next step and how do his teammates respond to the change?

There are a million positives to "throwing the kid in the fire"

I disagree.

A kid that is a project because he has to learn some new mechanics isn't going to play with the confidence of a kid that has more advanced mechanics.

This is not a case of mental toughness, at all.

You first have to believe in what you're doing, and no one, learning something new, believes that new is necessarily improved until they can feel it.

Start him too early, and he may never fully believe in his new mechanics.

04-16-2012, 08:48 AM
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2113447	It won't be DeCastro. I'm still betting Kuechly. But here's a dark horse... I am willing to bet something severe on my signature, like a one-year ownership of it, that this team will not take David DeCastro at any point in the 2012 NFL Draft. Several reasons, which we've all visited: The run game is mostly fine. We led the league in rushing two years ago with Thomas ***ing Jones taking half the carries, behind* Ryan Lilja. Scott Pioli does not view Lilja as a weak spot, nor really should he for another year or two. DeCastro would offer an upgrade, but it would almost certainly involve cutting Lilja, which Pioli is not going to do. At the same time, DeCastro would offer an upgrade over Lilja in pass protection, but only a marginal one. Lilja is a technician in pass protection, and you're only going to see the upgrade against the bigger nose tackles when they're lined up over Lilja. Even then, as milkman said in another thread, Cassel still took over 40 sacks in New England behind their stud, first round guard. The Chiefs do have three good value guards under contract, and by good value I mean we have two solid starters and solid depth with Darryl Harris, which is what most teams strive for. All three first-rounders during the Pioli era have been selections at a position the team is perilously thin at (2009, DE; 2010, S; 2011, WR). Kind of a lesser argument here, but DeCastro was not a captain at Stanford, and has a reputation for being quiet as a Will Sheilds mouse. If Pioli's going to take a guard, he's going to want it to be a dynamic-changing personality -- not somebody who will just upgrade one spot, but somebody who will elevate several spots through force of will. Even more than picking an elite talent at guard, Pioli wants to stockpile 2012 and 2013 draft picks. It's infinitely more likely we'll trade out of the #11 to somebody who really wants DeCastro than it is we'll pick DeCastro ourselves. It is still my opinion that this team wants Luke Kuechly. The Chiefs in 2013 will only have one ILB under contract in DJ. Siler and Belcher will be free agents, though I believe Pioli would love to keep Belcher, and I bet we can. Although I really believe, following this front office as closely as I've tried to, that Mark Barron and Michael Brockers are both everything this front office loves in a prospect. The safety position is very thin now, and the DE position will be thin next year, assuming Brandon Bair doesn't blow up. It doesn't take a lot to see that they are really intrigued by Tannehill. And they no doubt love Riley Reiff, but of course we have no need for him. Another dark horse, considering these factors: the Chiefs still lack a deep threat to stretch defenses, and Baldwin's shown flashes, but only flashes, at this point is still a bit unreliable. Kendall Wright played for four years at Baylor, and was an emotional team captain for that offense (whereas RG3 is more of a cool-as-a-cucumber, poker face leader). Wright's timed speed means precisely jack and shit to Pioli, who's spoken at length about Kendrick Lewis playing faster than he timed -- and Wright plays like a 4.4 speed demon. The Chiefs have Breaston and Baldwin another four years, and I don't think they'll get Bowe signed in July. They may hold off longer to see if Baldwin can take off, and if he does (and he's shown that he can...), they could always let Bowe walk or trade him off, and a WR corps of Baldwin, Breaston, and Wright would provide a perfect balance of weapons. Of course, I hope we never do let Bowe go. In a passing league, there is plenty of room for four WR's to get lots of catches, and it would make life very easy for the QBotF after Cassel. No point to this thread, other than some random thoughts. I think Wright is a sleeper if the Chiefs trade down.
Posts: 59,688

04-18-2012, 07:10 PM	#122
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-545936	I wouldn't mind trading up for Tannehill. Don't really like it, but wouldn't mind. I'm starting to extremely hope it plays out something like this. The Chiefs can trade back, getting an extra 3. Take Barron. Secondary is good. Scary good and young save for corner, but I will get to that. Use your that third and some other picks to trade back up into the first and take Konz. Offensive line is set. Or sit in the second and take Janoris Jenkins when he falls, which he will. Take Chapman as soon as you have to to make sure you get him. Barron Konz Chapman Thats a winner draft right there.
Posts: 84,157

04-18-2012, 07:14 PM	#123
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $-1555912	Go look at my mock draft, buddy. IMO it's the best one out there for us...with the exception of moving up for Tannehill. Also, don't sleep on Jalil Brown. I think he can be about as good as Carr was in a year or two. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,876

04-18-2012, 07:23 PM	#125
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-545936	I don't really want them to play him next year, but I think the best way to learn is to be thrown into the fire. I know the Rodgers situation worked out. But look how many qbs are behind other guys that never turn out. Supposedly, Tannehill has greatly improved his mechanics this offseason. IMO the best way to learn the speed of the NFL, is to play in the NFL. Now I don't want to ruin him like the Jags possibly might have with Gabbert, but I think with our talent he could easily lean on the run and get his feet wet early. Look at how fast his learning curve has been so far.
Posts: 84,157

04-18-2012, 07:34 PM	#127
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-545936	Probably right Boss, but I just look at what Andy Dalton did last year. I think Tannehill is better than Dalton. Probably needs a little while to get there mentally but physically yeah. Tannehill could be a game manager for a year, I don't care.
Posts: 84,157

04-18-2012, 07:58 PM	#130
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $-1555912	The thing Dalton had going for him was that he was the starter from day one of camp and got all the first team snaps after being a starter at tcu for almost twice as long as Tannehill. Tannehill would probably get "red shirted" for us so Pioli can try to build some tradable value for Cassel and wouldn't get many (if any at all) first team snaps. I'd also like to say that if a quarterback can be "ruined" by starting him too early, how do you properly judge his ability to fight through adversity and grow as a leader? That's one of the most important aspects for a quarterback you feel you can win a superbowl with because he WILL face heavy adversity the deeper he goes in the playoffs. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,876

04-18-2012, 08:21 PM	#131
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $-1555912	If I'm Pioli, I see Tannehill as the perfect fit. He desperately wants to boost his ego and how better to do that than to take Tannehill with intensions of sitting him at least one full year and maybe two years while Pioli can get to see what Cassel does to build his trade value while developing the mental part of Tannehills game so he is mentally prepared for things teams will try to do to him in games. On top of that, he has a dark horse with a good resume in Stanzi. That's three ways Pioli can boost his personal ego. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,876

04-18-2012, 08:50 PM	#134
Coogs In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Northern Kansas Casino cash: $-2045651	Actually, Tannehill may be better off starting here than Luck with the Colts in the first year just due to the fact that the Chiefs have a much better supporting cast in place than the Colts do.
Posts: 21,896