LT Eugene Monroe in round 1? Pioli-Haley-Groh-Albert-Monroe

[T-post Tom]

Holy six degrees of separation Batman. So Charlie Casserly thinks the Chiefs are going with E. Monroe out of Virgina. I know some of you despise that idea, but I'm just repeating what he said. His theory on why Monroe makes sense:

1) Monroe has value at #3. Stud player. (Awesome Pro Day & Combine.)
2) Continuity as Albert/Monroe played together at UVA.
3) Albert/Monroe = bookends to to protect Cassel (& big $$ investment).
4) Pioli, Haley & Groh (HC at Virgina) all coached at Jets together. Groh loves Monroe. Pioli/Haley respect Groh's opinion & will listen.
5) Chiefs might be able to trade down a position or so and still get Monroe while picking up an extra pick(s).

My apologies in advance if this is a repost.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by philfree

Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree

You clearly fail to realize that the reason that the Chiefs have been 6-26 the past two seasons is because the Chiefs rosters is nearly devoid of any talent.

Five shitty years of drafting under Vermeil utterly destroyed this football team. The Chiefs have to be extremely wise in rebuilding their roster for the future, not for the 2009 season.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The Chiefs have to be extremely wise in rebuilding their roster for the future, not for the 2009 season.

Now you're just talking ****ing stupid.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

NFL starts > college starts

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Claythan

NFL starts > college starts

Of course.

If Sanchez were worth a shit he would have skipped college.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I didn't read beyond this. Albert isn't under contract for the next five years. And if we replace him one offseason after he played better than any other rookie left tackle, he might posture to leave before his contract is up.

Drafting a LT is dumb on so many levels it's not even worth talking about.

This post is full of untruthiness. Albert is under contract until 2012, so not quite 5 years out yet, but certainly not 2 or 3 as you imply. Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT. Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

[dj56dt58]

Originally Posted by Claythan

You can HAVE bookend tackles without committing $100 million in contracts and two first-round draft picks to the position.

The Colts have Ryan Diem - 4th round

The GREATEST PASSING OFFENSE EVER - the 1999 Rams - featured 5th rounder Fred Miller at RT.

Do you know where the Bills got Howard Ballard? THE 11TH ****ING ROUND! THEY HAD THE TOP RANKED OFFENSE IN 1993!

Guess where they drafted their left tackle? Where you draft left tackles. THE FIRST ROUND.

Get a right tackle someplace else. They are spare parts. You give one $50 million and you're wasting money.

I agree with you. I'm going to go kill myself now

[bringbackmarty]

what does albert's contract pay this year? I see he made over 9 mill in salary bonuses and incentives last year. Say we pay monroe somewhere around 14 to be our lt, trade waters for a pick, and our line could look like this. Granted it is a lot of money tied up in the line, but we have a lot to spend, and 2010 could end up being an uncapped year. Two years is a long time, a lot of things could happen.

Monroe, Albert, Goff (C), Niswanger (RG), 3rd round draft pick.

Spoken like a true fan I know...

I'd take that line and run larry right up denver, san diego and oakland's ass for the first half of the year while we figure out how to field a defense that can stop somebody. It will give Cassel some time back there with Bowe and Gonzalez learning the new playbook. Might even sneak into the playoffs and make a Zona style run peaking at the end of the season. I'm not saying we would go to the superbowl, but it's a good plan in a weak year for the defense. Especially with the cap room we have, which we routinely let go to waste.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by aturnis

This post is full of untruthiness. Albert is under contract until 2012, so not quite 5 years out yet, but certainly not 2 or 3 as you imply. Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT. Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

I know you're not alluding to Long...because that would be terribly inaccurate.

Clady, ok, worthy of debate. No one else.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Second Albert wasn't even the 2nd best rookie LT.

Bollocks.

Third, if he did leave early, we would certainly get something for him.

Yeah, a compensatory pick, maybe.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

No. You're going in a different direction.

Why can't we afford to take this risk? When should we?

There's a huge chance anyone we select will bust, for one reason or another, so let's not even visit this line of argumentation

But back to the two questions above...

The chances of Sanchex busting are far greater then that of the other top rated players in this draft. For one he's a QB and QBs are so highly valued that are over rated in the draft. That's why so many do bust. And also only have 16 starts increases the odds that he won't become a franchise QB. And we can't afford it because after he busts we will have essentially thrown away a #3 pick in the draft. That's a huge set back for a team rebuilding through the draft.

PhilFree

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by philfree

And we can't afford it because after he busts we will have essentially thrown away a #3 pick in the draft. That's a huge set back for a team rebuilding through the draft.

PhilFree

High-round QB's who bust cripple franchises, like the Chargers.

If not now, when? When there's a "sure-fire lock," right? Like Peyton Manning, who was a slam-dunk, no debate, no question, #1 pick.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

What's the difference? You still have a shit ton of money wrapped up in TWO left tackles! Name a successful team that's drafted TWO left tackles in consecutive years, especially when the current left tackle played brilliantly in his first season?

The idea of drafting Monroe is so monumentally ****ing stupid that only a ****ing moron would support it.

Dane, right now we can afford it. And, Albert's contract is a mid first round contract. Its not so prohibitive that he can't be traded.

THAT is the true value. We can use the two LT's to build a great O line right now. (IF personnel people are right).

When we have too much $$$ tied up in LTs, we can then TRADE a young, in his prime, LT. Those guys almost NEVER hit the market and we could demand a bushel of picks. Something like a 1st and 2 2nds.

This move might be the best way to max value on the draft. It all depends on the exact terms of Albert's and the new LTs contracts and how our personnel people rate the talent.

Your thinking about budgeting is generally correct. The Chiefs, however, are in a somewhat unusual cap position and can contemplate unusual long term strategy.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

High-round QB's who bust cripple franchises, like the Chargers.

If not now, when? When there's a "sure-fire lock," right? Like Peyton Manning, who was a slam-dunk, no debate, no question, #1 pick.

If Stafford slips to #3 I'd take him.


PhilFree

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

When we have too much $$$ tied up in LTs, we can then TRADE a young, in his prime, LT. Those guys almost NEVER hit the market and we could demand a bushel of picks. Something like a 1st and 2 2nds.

This is the best argument so far (not surprising considering the source ).

I still don't like it. We need defense. Trade down.

[Pioli Zombie]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

It is if you take note that Cassels starts were in THE NFL!
Posted via Mobile Device