Chiefs Meet With Otah

[KC4EVER]

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.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Sure-Oz

I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck While Willie Roaf was here

FYP

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by milkman

FYP

QFT

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

It's become painfully obvious where the dividing line is in this argument.

There's the group who isn't thinking a day past December 31, 2008.

And then there's the group who is more concerned about 2010, 2011, etc.

Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

No, cause going with a strategy that builds a team with a talent core, rather than addressing specific need, is clearly shortsighted.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

Not if you're not getting the best possible player from the draft. And you probably aren't when you suffer from tunnel vision like some of you do.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by Brock

No, you're just saying draft LT with the first draft pick regardless of what else is available. It's really stupid.

NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Frankie

You mean aside from TG, LJ, DJ, JA, Hali, Waters, Bowe, et al.? We also have players like Boone and McIntosh who are at least good for holding the fort while we arte rebuilding. How about players who are developing who at least have a 50-50 chance to become solid? People like our two safeties, Croyle, Smith, Webb (yes, Webb), Tank and Turk. I'm pretty excited about seeing which ones will become contributors. Your cup is all empty. Mine is half full.

You just completely ignored my post.

ACTUAL TALENT. Not who you think has a CHANCE to be talented.

Being excited about who will become a contributor is great. I'm looking forward to that as well.

But as of 11:46am on March 29th, there is little TRUE talent on this team.

Gonzalez and Waters have maybe 2 years left. They won't be here when this team turns the corner.

We can only HOPE that LJ is the same after a foot injury last year and a 400+ carry season the year before.

Jared Allen is one mistake away from a year-long vacation.

Dwayne Bowe had an excellent rookie year. Now he needs to PROVE he can do it year after year.

Bowe, DJ and Hali are about the only talented players you can count on being here when the rebuild is over - building blocks.

The fact that you even mentioned Boone and McIntosh tells me your homer level. Through the roof.

You want to see talent? Young players that are the building block of an organization?


Philip Rivers
LaDainian Tomlinson
Nick Hardwick
Marcus McNeill
Antonio Gates
Chris Chambers
Igor Olshansky
Jamal Williams
Luis Castillo
Shaun Phillips
Shawne "roidman" "roidman" Merriman
Antonio Cromartie


THAT is talent you build around. Not a whopping 2-3 players.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Frankie

NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

If you feel you absolutely need to draft an OT early this year, wouldn't it be better to draft an elite level prospect at 5, then trade up into the late first round to get a shot at Sam Baker?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Exactly. And the ones who are pushing for O-line are the long-term thinking ones.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Frankie

NEVER EVER said that. My plan 'C' calls for BPA. if Long is gone and we can't trade down to get either Otah or Clady WHERE THEY ARE WORTH! I admit if we go BPA and he's not an OLT we then almost HAVE to get a LT in the 2nd. That's the "have to" situation I'd like to avoid by implementing plan 'B' (trade down) if Jake Long is gone.

No, there are tackles to be had later. And my guess is the Chiefs won't be drafting a LEFT tackle at all.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by milkman

If you feel you absolutely need to draft an OT early this year, wouldn't it be better to draft an elite level prospect at 5, then trade up into the late first round to get a shot at Sam Baker?

This place should be a blast to be around on draft day.

The nervous posts saying "it's OK, we'll get an OT in the 2nd" when Jake Long is gone before we pick in R1.

The anticipation hoping Baker is there in the 2nd, and the ensuing calls for a reach for Collins if he's not.

I have a feeling people are going to be disappointed come Saturday night when we have ZERO offensive linemen through R2.

Then we'll be at DefCon 5 when we pass on an offensive linemen in the 3rd.



If Baker isn't there at #35, I'd be willing to bet we don't see an O-lineman drafted until R4 or later.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

This place should be a blast to be around on draft day.

The nervous posts saying "it's OK, we'll get an OT in the 2nd" when Jake Long is gone before we pick in R1.

The anticipation hoping Baker is there in the 2nd, and the ensuing calls for a reach for Collins if he's not.

I have a feeling people are going to be disappointed come Saturday night when we have ZERO offensive linemen through R2.

Then we'll be at DefCon 5 when we pass on an offensive linemen in the 3rd.



If Baker isn't there at #35, I'd be willing to bet we don't see an O-lineman drafted until R4 or later.

I predict I will be doing a lot of laughing at this board on draft weekend.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm saying that those who are advocating picking the BPA are looking to the future, while those that are advocating drafting based on need are only worried about getting back to 8-8 ASAP.

Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by melbar

Wow, I've been trying to catch up on this thread all morning! I'll just jump from here and forgive if I've missed something...

I think the point about "stars" that some of us have is that even DT and Neil didnt look nearly as star-like without Saleamua and Phillips in front of them. They didnt get star status but guys like them and Szott, Grunhard, Alt, etc. freed the other guys up to do their thing. We may never find out who the young stars are if they are picking up slack for poor play in the trenches.

LJ was a "star" untill we started loosing the battle of the trenches, then he looked like crap without solid talent in front.

I'm not for OT at all cost, but if Long is there it frees us up to do so much more with our other picks. I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

I'm going to qoute my post from another thread to address this post.

Originally Posted by milkman

Here's the thing.

Tre Stallings started 48 games in college, Herb Taylor started in 48, and Rudy Niswanger started in 29.

Taylor and Niswanger showed pretty well in the games they played in last year, and appear to be ready to step in and play.

Fact is, if the Chiefs hadn't started off the season with the moronic belief that they were a playoff team and played these guys, along with Brodie Croyle, starting in game one, we might have found out that we have some OL building blocks in Niswanger and taylor.

The league is littered with players on the O-Line that started a lot of college games, were drafted on the seond day, and have become solid starters.

Our needs on the O-Line may not be as great as some/most think.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by melbar

I also would take Clady over reaching for a Defensive guy like Gholston who doesnt even fit out scheme. Its funny that the BPA regardless crowd seems to be all for reaching for Defense.

First, you just advocated reaching based on need by taking Clady.

Second, Gholston wouldn't be a reach.

Third, 7 of the Top 10 players in this draft play defense.

Originally Posted by melbar

Again at 5 we're going to get one of the elite 5-6 players in the draft, whats wrong with hoping that its also a position of need that will free up our "stars" on Offense to do what they do? If its Dorsey or Ellis I'll be jumping for joy! But we'll still have to think OT, and OG later in the draft and hoping they can start almost immediately because they will have to. My whole point is the later we wait to address a position where we need starters NOW the less likely we'll get players ready to start NOW. ----before you say it I'm not saying that means we will win now.

I'm fine with taking Long IF he's there.

I'm not fine with reaching for Clady or Otah based on need, when we'd be passing on some combination of Dorsey, Ellis, Gholston, etc.