Don't Chiefs need a 2nd or 2 firsts for a successful 2009 draft?

[chiefsfan1963]

Is just getting Curry and then waiting for our 2nd pick in the 3rd round sufficient for chiefs to be successful in the 2009 draft? I'm curious what others are thinking regarding the draft. Wouldn't trading our 3rd pick for more picks make more sense rather than pay Curry huge guarantee money. I won't be surprised if Pioli does this.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm sorry. I know people are getting tired of this argument. But this is a clear year when you're better off trading down and sacrificing some trade value than to adhere to the draft value chart.

I would trade down as far as maybe #10 in exchange for a 2nd round pick and some other low round pick, to hell with the fact that the draft chart says. In this draft, is there anyone that disagrees that a #10 and a #74 pick would be nicer than a #3 pick? With those two picks, you could easily get a linebacker like Maualuga (who I believe is a much better fit for the eventual 3-4 than Curry is) and probably Everett Brown or Raji (assuming his trade value doesn't decline majorly after his drug test). In the second round, you can grab one of the top centers or guards off the board.

There's a HUGE difference in sacrificing SOME value - which several of us have said they'll likely have to do - and just giving the pick away because you don't like the draft chart, as you've said in the past.

The scenario you're describing is giving the Niners the 3rd overall pick for less than .70 on the dollar.

You want an exchange rate like that, visit Canada.

Otherwise, this is a business. You're not going to get far giving away your commodities at a huge discount.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by chiefsfan1963

Is just getting Curry and then waiting for our 2nd pick in the 3rd round sufficient for chiefs to be successful in the 2009 draft? I'm curious what others are thinking regarding the draft. Wouldn't trading our 3rd pick for more picks make more sense rather than pay Curry huge guarantee money. I won't be surprised if Pioli does this.

Okay, the Chiefs can have a good draft with the picks that they have. Now, the reality, is that the Chiefs first day of the draft will be rather boring if they don't trade down, or they may trade up from the third pick if something is sitting there that they want.

But, if they don't trade down, the first day of the draft will probably be pretty boring for Chiefs fans.

But, the actual quality of the draft? Not an issue with those picks. Heck, if they get a HOF player at #3, and then a starter in the third round... it is a successful draft.

[DaFace]

I think we just need to keep in mind that we're still at least one year away from being a playoff contender. While there's a chance we could have a great turnaround like the '08 Dolphins, it just doesn't happen that often.

[PastorMikH]

We got a potential franchise QB prospect with NFL experience and a solid veteran LB with our 2nd. Let's see anyone else do that good with their 2nd round pick.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

But, if they don't trade down, the first day of the draft will probably be pretty boring for Chiefs fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCnsQdPsgZ4#t=0m26s

[milkman]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I would have paid good money to see the look on your face as you typed this.

My face rarely reflects my emotion.

I should have been a poker player.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

As much as I like Albert, I would take Ryan Clady and the 18th pick for our #3 in a heartbeat.

Branden Albert is going to be a better LT than Clady.

He has all the same physical attributes that Clady does (Clady has slightly longer arms, Albert has slight quicker and more fluid feet), and has a stronger lower body, making him a more physical run blocker.

Going forward, Albert will be a top 3 LT in the NFL.

[soundmind]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Okay, the Chiefs can have a good draft with the picks that they have. Now, the reality, is that the Chiefs first day of the draft will be rather boring if they don't trade down, or they may trade up from the third pick if something is sitting there that they want.

But, if they don't trade down, the first day of the draft will probably be pretty boring for Chiefs fans.

But, the actual quality of the draft? Not an issue with those picks. Heck, if they get a HOF player at #3, and then a starter in the third round... it is a successful draft.

Exactly this. However, on the bright side, if all you're worried about are the Chiefs selections - then it frees up your saturday after about 30 minutes of waiting.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

There's a HUGE difference in sacrificing SOME value - which several of us have said they'll likely have to do - and just giving the pick away because you don't like the draft chart, as you've said in the past.

The scenario you're describing is giving the Niners the 3rd overall pick for less than .70 on the dollar.

You want an exchange rate like that, visit Canada.

Otherwise, this is a business. You're not going to get far giving away your commodities at a huge discount.

I don't like the draft chart because I believe that value should reflect the strength of the draft board. I have never said you should completely throw away the draft chart. It's a good benchmark to use, but too many teams use it as an absolute. It should be used as a reference point, not as exact value. This year, the trade board is weak, so the draft value chart should adjust. Using your analogy, the exchange rate changes based on a lot of economic factors. So why is draft trade value the same ever year? Shouldn't trade value go down when, for example, you learn that Raji failed a drug test? Or Malcolm Jenkins bombed the combine? You're right. This is a business and negotiations change based on market conditions. If you don't believe that, ask yourself how much your house is worth versus five years ago. Or ask yourself how much your average laptop costs versus how much it costed five years ago. So as the draft "market" changes every year (and even every day), why does the draft value stay exactly the same? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Here's the situation the Chiefs are in. Nobody valued at #3 is worth taking. That would likely be Stafford, Sanchez, Jason Smith, and/or Eugene Monroe (I think Curry is a huge reach for a team trying to shift to a 3-4). So the Chiefs are in a situation where they are forced to take a guy valued at #3 who they don't want, or reach for a guy that's a middle-round prospect (Maualuga, Everett Brown, Aaron Maybin, Orakpo, Maclin, Andre Smith). The players the Chiefs should like are valued around the middle of the first round. So rather than reach, then why not trade down into those spots and recapture that second round pick you don't have? Who really cares if an extra third rounder or whatever isn't packaged in too? You're picking the guy you want (and not the guy you're forced to take) at the right spot without reaching, paying him the salary he deserves, and getting picks on the side. What's not to like?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by milkman

Branden Albert is going to be a better LT than Clady.

He has all the same physical attributes that Clady does (Clady has slightly longer arms, Albert has slight quicker and more fluid feet), and has a stronger lower body, making him a more physical run blocker.

Going forward, Albert will be a top 3 LT in the NFL.

Brandon Albert already IS a more-complete LT than Ryan Clady. He may not ever be truly BETTER since that is so subjective.

Ryan Clady is, and will always be, a finesse LT that's a better pass blocker than anything else. It will be interesting to see if McDaniels' offense helps him or hurts him, because Shanny's offense definitely helped him.

[orange]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

There's a HUGE difference in sacrificing SOME value - which several of us have said they'll likely have to do - and just giving the pick away because you don't like the draft chart, as you've said in the past.

The scenario you're describing is giving the Niners the 3rd overall pick for less than .70 on the dollar.

You want an exchange rate like that, visit Canada.

Otherwise, this is a business. You're not going to get far giving away your commodities at a huge discount.

[KCFalcon59]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

I stand by the notion that the #3 will be traded down to get more picks. I hear Denver wants Sanchez...

This would make me sick to my stomach. Trading our spot so a division opponent has an opportunity to draft a possible franchise QB. **** that I'd rather draft him and keep him or trade him to someone outside of the conference.

Originally Posted by milkman

Branden Albert is going to be a better LT than Clady.

He has all the same physical attributes that Clady does (Clady has slightly longer arms, Albert has slight quicker and more fluid feet), and has a stronger lower body, making him a more physical run blocker.

Going forward, Albert will be a top 3 LT in the NFL.

This!!

[Manila-Chief]

Originally Posted by milkman

If Matt Cassel leads this team to a couple of SB wins in the next ten years, then regardless of any other consideration, it will have been a successful draft.

Amen! Brother Milk!!! And, just how many years have us Chief fans been waiting for a long term QB??? I go back to the Mike Livingston (sp?) ... it's been a while and to get the long term answer with a 2nd. pick is a real accomplishment. And, as you said, it doesn't matter how the rest of the draft turns out. It's worth giving up your whole draft for a Peyton, Brady, Elway, Farve, Montana!!!! You can build aroung a guy like that.

Originally Posted by Iowanian

I guess it depends how you look at it...

If the Chiefs use the first 2 rounds to add 1 starting QB, 1 Defensive Playmaker and another starting OLB to their roster, on paper, you'd have to at least consider that was successful by Chiefs standards. I mean, the 2nd could have gone to the next Jr Siavii.

Yes! Plus, Vrabel will be a playing coach ... which adds further value to the #2 pick.

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

As much as I like Albert, I would take Ryan Clady and the 18th pick for our #3 in a heartbeat.

Is this a "let's pretend session?" First, Pioli will never ask; second, Denver will never trade him ... so, why not just dream about getting a whole new defensive line in with your trade/draft.

But, if Denver is willing to trade, why accept Clady ... I'd much rather have the #12 & the #18. That is the trade I'd like ... and I'm with those of you saying we don't have to have true value in the trade. This would be a successful trade/draft. But, I doubt Denver will give up that much to trade.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Manila-Chief

Amen! Brother Milk!!! And, just how many years have us Chief fans been waiting for a long term QB??? I go back to the Mike Livingston (sp?) ... it's been a while and to get the long term answer with a 2nd. pick is a real accomplishment. And, as you said, it doesn't matter how the rest of the draft turns out. It's worth giving up your whole draft for a Peyton, Brady, Elway, Farve, Montana!!!! You can build aroung a guy like that.

Don't misunderstand me here.

I don't believe that Matt Cassel is that guy, and I think it was a mistake to trade for him.

But I do allow for the possibility that I'm wrong.

If Matt Cassel does prove me wrong, then it will have been a good draft.

But remember, Mike Livingston looked like an NFL starter after the '69 season.

How'd that turn out?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by KCFalcon59

This would make me sick to my stomach. Trading our spot so a division opponent has an opportunity to draft a possible franchise QB. **** that I'd rather draft him and keep him or trade him to someone outside of the conference.



This!!

I know this sounds crazy, but if the Chiefs get a strong enough feeling that the Broncos will trade up to take Sanchez, I wonder if they might consider drafting Sanchez and then attempting to trade him. It's not much different from a trade down. That way they hold all the cards.

I'm still not convinced that there's anybody worth a #3 pick for the Chiefs.