Chiefs Meet With Otah - Page 11

melbar · 03-29-2008, 01:54 PM

This again goes to what you consider a reach. If the top 5 guys are gone from the elite prospects pool then the next level of guys consists of about 7-8 guys. Depending on whose (sp?) rankings you go with their all about =. Its not like taking Ted Ginn Jr. at #9. If we're going by strict rankings then we should go with McFadden. Comes back to opinion about whether you want a guy who goes down on contact, or you just want the open field ability. Does his style go with this team? You have to weigh that with every player/team combo. Say McFadden, Ryan, Gholston arent considered fits to our team either by interview or style? Suddenly Clady is #6 on your board. Or do you then take Rivers? Its all relative and dependent on what the teams above us do.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-29-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melbar

This again goes to what you consider a reach. If the top 5 guys are gone from the elite prospects pool then the next level of guys consists of about 7-8 guys. Depending on whose (sp?) rankings you go with their all about =. Its not like taking Ted Ginn Jr. at #9. If we're going by strict rankings then we should go with McFadden. Comes back to opinion about whether you want a guy who goes down on contact, or you just want the open field ability. Does his style go with this team? You have to weigh that with every player/team combo. Say McFadden, Ryan, Gholston arent considered fits to our team either by interview or style? Suddenly Clady is #6 on your board. Or do you then take Rivers? Its all relative and dependent on what the teams above us do.

Who's rankings are we using?

I have no way to prove it, but I'd bet just about anything that Ryan Clady is NOT a Top 10 player on KC's board.

And last I checked, the team's individual boards are the only ones that matter, not Joe Draft down the street who's running a blog from his parents basement as a hobby.

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.

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.

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.

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, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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 pick will have been moot.

And I'll laugh at that team, I don't think an OT with any flaw is worth a top 5 pick.

If you watched the guy every game you should know he has some physical flaws...his feet leave something to be desired. He's the top rated OT in a year with a bunch of them but with no elite prospect at the position.

keg in kc · 03-29-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

If you watched the guy every game

Like you did, I'm sure.

milkman · 03-29-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Like you did, I'm sure.

You're a Michigan fan, aren't you?

Mecca · 03-29-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

You're a Michigan fan, aren't you?

And people think I'm bias with SC guys...

keg in kc · 03-29-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

You're a Michigan fan, aren't you?

I am, but I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on him or anybody else that plays for the Wolverines. But that's not really the point I'm making here. It's the humor that is Mecca. He's more of an expert than all the teams in the draft, and if you don't believe that, just ask him. Since, you know, he's watched every game Long's played, and he's going to laugh at whoever drafts such a physically-limited player.

I love this time of year. There's almost endless entertainment coming in the next month.

Mecca · 03-29-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Like you did, I'm sure.

Watch him pass block.....he may be a mauling run blocker but he is anything but fluid when pass blocking. The last thing on earth I want is a RT with a top 5 pick it would set the organization back years.

keg in kc · 03-29-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Watch him pass block.....he may be a mauling run blocker but he is anything but fluid when pass blocking. The last thing on earth I want is a RT with a top 5 pick it would set the organization back years.

Oh, I'll take your word for it, since you watched him every game.

Frankie · 03-29-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

03-29-2008, 01:54 PM	#1
melbar Hillbilly Pharoh Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Branson MO. Casino cash: $10004900	This again goes to what you consider a reach. If the top 5 guys are gone from the elite prospects pool then the next level of guys consists of about 7-8 guys. Depending on whose (sp?) rankings you go with their all about =. Its not like taking Ted Ginn Jr. at #9. If we're going by strict rankings then we should go with McFadden. Comes back to opinion about whether you want a guy who goes down on contact, or you just want the open field ability. Does his style go with this team? You have to weigh that with every player/team combo. Say McFadden, Ryan, Gholston arent considered fits to our team either by interview or style? Suddenly Clady is #6 on your board. Or do you then take Rivers? Its all relative and dependent on what the teams above us do. __________________
Posts: 2,148

03-29-2008, 05:19 PM	#3
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-652950	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	#4
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-652950	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	#5
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-652950	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	#15
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-652950	In fairness to Rodgers he's looked good in his limited playing time.
Posts: 115,346

03-29-2008, 05:31 PM	#6
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