drafting Trent Richardson

[jlscorpio]

just saw the 2nd different mock that has us taking T-Rich 2.0 w/our 1st pick. I'm not opposed to it since no all-world DT is available this year. Here's the write up from Foxsports:

11. Kansas City Chiefs*: Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama: The Chiefs lost Jamaal Charles in the second week of the 2011 NFL season, and the offense never rebounded. Charles should be back and healthy next season, but Richardson is the rare running back talent who can completely change an offense. The way this mock draft has unfolded, he’ll be slipping out of the Top 10 — something few scouts or experts expect. A different type of back from Charles, the two could work together to form a dynamic duo in the Kansas City backfield. Though Charles signed a five-year, $32 million extension in 2010, he’s not making the Adrian Peterson/Chris Johnson money you might expect. Richardson, a between-the-tackles grinder, is viewed as a much better pro prospect than his former teammate, Mark Ingram. In the rough-and-tumble AFC West, I love the thought of a Charles-Richardson platoon.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

I agree you don't always need the best RB but we're talking value at the #11 spot. Is Richardson a better pick at 11 than a right tackle, guard or possibly reaching for a Nose tackle?

[Monty]

Originally Posted by milkman

Here's the problem with your thought process.

The Chiefs have been doing the same damn thing for 25 years, when they last drafted a first round QB.

They are going to draft O-Lineman, after having spent money in free agency on a receiver, and drafting another.

They are going to do everything they can to help Cassel, and the Chiefs by extension, achieve mediocrity.

These guys are never going to fix the QB position.
They are always going to use the bandiad approach, cause if they haven't figured out it isn' working yet, they are never going to figure it out.

We are ****ed, pure and simple.

Embrace the ****.


The definition of "In Kansas City"...Keep signing reject QBs and expect different results.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

Lol. Those guys hardly contributed at all. All QB driven teams.

ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT QB's.

You showed me a list of RB's....great

Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Ben Ruthelessraper
Eli Manning.

I'm well aware a Franchise QB is needed. But because we don't have one, and there likely won't be one available when we draft, we should just pass up on a player that provides instant offense?

[Bane]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

This is one of those times when I sorta agree with you,but it's still not awesome.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

I agree you don't always need the best RB but we're talking value at the #11 spot. Is Richardson a better pick at 11 than a right tackle, guard or possibly reaching for a Nose tackle?

Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea.

BPA at a position of need.

It's how the Ravens do it. It's how the Steelers do it. It's how the Packers do it.

It's how the Chiefs should do it, regardless of who is at QB.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Bane

This is one of those times when I sorta agree with you,but it's still not awesome.

Those RB's he listed are good enough to win with when you have a SB caliber QB. But then again, I bet Aaron Rodgers would still be 15-1 with Jackie Battle as his primary back.

So wtf does it matter?

[Bane]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea.

BPA at a position of need.

It's how the Ravens do it. It's how the Steelers do it. It's how the Packers do it.

It's how the Chiefs should do it, regardless of who as at QB.

Then we would be following documented FACTS....Who the **** do you think you are to suggest such logic!!!!!!!

[Bane]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Those RB's he listed are good enough to win with when you have a SB caliber QB. But then again, I bet Aaron Rodgers would still be 15-1 with Jackie Battle as his primary back.

So wtf does it matter?

I don't think Richardson will be there when we pick so IMO it doesn't matter.Probably wrong as **** but I can see it happening.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Lol. Those guys hardly contributed at all. All QB driven teams.

When the Giants won the Super Bowl they were a top 5 rushing team and middle of the pack passing team. Not really QB driven.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

When the Giants won the Super Bowl they were a top 5 rushing team and middle of the pack passing team. Not really QB driven.

You know damn well that Eli was the reason they won in the post season. They were an average team going into the playoffs. Their post season success was QB driven.

[suds79]

I wouldn't be upset at all if the Chiefs drafted Richardson. He's not my first choice but I wouldn't be upset.

While I believe in general best practices when drafting (which includes "RBs can be found late"), I don't believe in absolutes. If that was the case, one could have said pass on Eric Berry then because typically you shouldn't draft a Safety so high.

I want a QB most of all. More than anything. I'd love for the Chiefs to go after RG3. However, since I don't think there's any chance in hell that happens, might as well have a backup plan.

Most of all in the first, I want a playmaker. So if the Chiefs think this guy has Adrian Peterson type of ability, it's hard to justify passing that up. I'd take that over some RT any day. Just give me someone who can change the game. Especially when our RB is a speed guy coming off an ACL.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

You know damn well that Eli was the reason they won in the post season. They were an average team going into the playoffs. Their post season success was QB driven.

Their pass rush was the reason they won.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

UNderstand what you are getting at but teams dont think this way. If a guy is available who they view as "cant miss" or "elite" they are rarely going to pass. You cant hope you might get lucky and find a diamond in the rough 4 or 5 rounds later. The odds of finding a star or a decent starter for 5-8 years are much higher in the first few rounds than the lower rounds. Its all a gamble and about playing the odds ultimately.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by Bane

I don't think Richardson will be there when we pick so IMO it doesn't matter.Probably wrong as **** but I can see it happening.

No, I believe you are right. The top 6 players are Luck, Kalil, RG3, Claiborne, Blackmon, and Richardson. Doubt any of them will be available, if we stay put.

[suds79]

Originally Posted by Bane

I don't think Richardson will be there when we pick so IMO it doesn't matter.Probably wrong as **** but I can see it happening.

Adrain Peterson went 7 when he came out. Ran a flat 4.4 40 at the combine.

If Richardson is going top 10, he'll have to run a similar time. And he's a little bigger than AP. Hard for me to see that happening. Unless he's even freakier than I think.