Mock Draft from NFLCountdown... - Page 7

Coogs · 10-20-2006, 07:57 AM

I know a lot of you are not interested in this type of stuff, but I like college football as well as the NFL. What I like about this draft site is the analysis they give on each of the players. Here it is...

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/sub/mockdraft.html

milkman · 10-21-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

Hence, KC's draft has looked like shit when it concerns drafting need players instead of the BPA. If one wants to plug holes then I'd rather do it in FA.

That is not the reason that the draft has been shitty.

The Chiefs have had so many needs in the last decade, the BPA almost always fills a need.

Hell, when the next draft rolls along, the reality will be that nearly every position on the field will be a position of need, with, perhaps, a couple of exceptions.

keg in kc · 10-21-2006, 03:49 PM

How many actual need picks have the Chiefs made recently?

Lest we forget, need and BAA aren't mutually exclusive concepts, either. Personally, I like to merge the two into best available athlete at a position of need. Either way, just because we pick a player at an obvious position of need doesn't mean that guy wasn't the BAA on the Chiefs' board. Derrick Johnson certainly was. And I'd imagine Hali was. They seem to be working out okay.

Frankie · 10-21-2006, 03:56 PM

If there is any year our first two draft picks need to be for the positions of need it's this year. Those positions are topped by LT and DT.

**Tribal Warfare** · 10-21-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

How many actual need picks have the Chiefs made recently?

.

http://www.drafthistory.com/teams/chiefs.html

Sims, Siavii,Freeman, Eric Downing, Snoop Minnis

keg in kc · 10-21-2006, 05:38 PM

Sims was the top player on their board, whether he was a need pick or not. They didn't give him the number 90 for no reason. And lest we forget, most (in and outside KC) thought Sims was a good pick when it was made. It's easy to be a 'draft expert' in retrospect and talk about how bad it turned out.

And he was the only one on that list I'd agree with. You're talking about 2nd and 3rd round picks after that, and that's outside the context of the discussion.

However, if you want to take the conversation in that direction, then the fact is that none of the guys you named other than Sims were need picks. They were all project players, none expected to contribute immediately. That's BAA in spades, taking physical talent and long-term potential over players with a lower upside who fit an immediate hole. They missed on those players, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that none of them were need picks.

A player like Hali is a need pick. Although he also happened to be the BAA on their board (according to them). Ditto for Sims.

Frankie · 10-21-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Sims was the top player on their board, whether he was a need pick or not. And lest we forget, most (in and outside KC) thought Sims was a good pick when it was made. It's easy to be a 'draft expert' in retrospect and talk about how bad it turned out.

Sims was on EVERY draft expert and NFL team's board as a top ten pick. That's one pick I won't blame Carl about. Everyone of this bb (including myself) were quite excited that we maneuvered the pick in front of the Vikes to get him.

keg in kc · 10-21-2006, 05:55 PM

The idea I really want to get across is the fact that a player fills a need doesn't automatically exclude him from also being the best player on their board.

And along another line, the fact that a player may not be the best player on your board or my board or some website's board means exactly nothing. The Chiefs draft off their board. And, again on the topic of 'need', I certainly don't recall them drafting a bunch of NFL-ready, talented but low upside picks, which is what need picks are - players who've basically reached their full potential in college, who are NFL ready, but probably won't ever be superstars.

Which, frankly, we could have used a few of over the last 10 years. We have way too many picks that simply did nothing for us.

**Tribal Warfare** · 10-21-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

A player like Hali is a need pick. Although he also happened to be the BAA on their board (according to them). Ditto for Sims.

Hali was also the BPA too, and I told you guys this last march. Plus, that th reaches and misfires directly show in the draft with the plethra of DTs drafted

**Tribal Warfare** · 10-21-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

Everyone of this bb (including myself) were quite excited that we maneuvered the pick in front of the Vikes to get him.

Really? I wasn't, I wanted John Henderson

keg in kc · 10-21-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

Hali was also the BPA too,

Yeah, I said that, I just use different terminology - I say BAA (best avail. ath.) instead of BPA.

Not everyone would necessarily agree that he was, but they thought he was, and that's what counts in the end.

What I'm trying to say is that I think we've always drafted BAA. And I think we've missed a lot. Don't misinterpret that as me saying BAA is the wrong approach, the problem in my mind is that too many of our day one picks have been coach's choice rather than relying on our scouting staff. That goes for Sims (Vermeil), Freeman (Robinson), Downing (Robinson), Wilson (Saunders), Siavii (Cunningham), Mitchell (Vermeil) and several others, I'm sure. For whatever reason, they got convinced that all those guys were going to become studs eventually. And of course, out of all those, only Mitchell has, so far, turned into anything.

So many projects, so few guys ready to go...

milkman · 10-21-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

Really? I wasn't, I wanted John Henderson

I wanted Henderson also.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Sims was almost universally considered the BPA on the board at the time of that selection.

keg in kc · 10-21-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

Really? I wasn't, I wanted John Henderson

I wanted Wendell Bryant. But I was happy when we got Sims because I thought all of those guys were going to turn out to be good.

In the end, I'm not convinced any of them would've done anything here, not on his own. There's a reason the defense is finally starting to turn, and I think that's because of the nearly total roster turnover. I think the time for a DT is now, with two established ends, a talented core of LBs and a veteran secondary.

Mr. Laz · 10-21-2006, 06:38 PM

the chiefs haven't drafted so poorly because of putting need above talent ... there has always been multiple players at the same position they could of taken.

some turned out, some didn't

the chiefs drafted poorly because they did a crappy job of evaluating talent.... had nothing to do with position.

ie sims ... there were have half a dozen defensive tackles they could of taken.

savaii ... also tons of other tackles available

it goes on and on ..... bad talent evaluation

CupidStunt · 10-22-2006, 03:57 AM

Alan Branch was bitchin' again yesterday.

Draft this mofo. **** all the receivers.

Sfeihc · 10-22-2006, 06:02 AM

Branch isn't No tryin', always cryin', POS Ryan Sims.

Branch destroys plays and whomever has the ball.

10-20-2006, 07:57 AM
Coogs In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Northern Kansas Casino cash: $1194349	Mock Draft from NFLCountdown... I know a lot of you are not interested in this type of stuff, but I like college football as well as the NFL. What I like about this draft site is the analysis they give on each of the players. Here it is... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/sub/mockdraft.html
Posts: 21,647

10-21-2006, 03:49 PM	#92
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	How many actual need picks have the Chiefs made recently? Lest we forget, need and BAA aren't mutually exclusive concepts, either. Personally, I like to merge the two into best available athlete at a position of need. Either way, just because we pick a player at an obvious position of need doesn't mean that guy wasn't the BAA on the Chiefs' board. Derrick Johnson certainly was. And I'd imagine Hali was. They seem to be working out okay.
Posts: 58,682

10-21-2006, 03:56 PM	#93
Frankie Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	If there is any year our first two draft picks need to be for the positions of need it's this year. Those positions are topped by LT and DT.
Posts: 26,959

10-21-2006, 05:38 PM	#95
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Sims was the top player on their board, whether he was a need pick or not. They didn't give him the number 90 for no reason. And lest we forget, most (in and outside KC) thought Sims was a good pick when it was made. It's easy to be a 'draft expert' in retrospect and talk about how bad it turned out. And he was the only one on that list I'd agree with. You're talking about 2nd and 3rd round picks after that, and that's outside the context of the discussion. However, if you want to take the conversation in that direction, then the fact is that none of the guys you named other than Sims were need picks. They were all project players, none expected to contribute immediately. That's BAA in spades, taking physical talent and long-term potential over players with a lower upside who fit an immediate hole. They missed on those players, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that none of them were need picks. A player like Hali is a need pick. Although he also happened to be the BAA on their board (according to them). Ditto for Sims.
Posts: 58,682

10-21-2006, 05:55 PM	#97
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	The idea I really want to get across is the fact that a player fills a need doesn't automatically exclude him from also being the best player on their board. And along another line, the fact that a player may not be the best player on your board or my board or some website's board means exactly nothing. The Chiefs draft off their board. And, again on the topic of 'need', I certainly don't recall them drafting a bunch of NFL-ready, talented but low upside picks, which is what need picks are - players who've basically reached their full potential in college, who are NFL ready, but probably won't ever be superstars. Which, frankly, we could have used a few of over the last 10 years. We have way too many picks that simply did nothing for us.
Posts: 58,682

10-21-2006, 06:38 PM	#103
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	the chiefs haven't drafted so poorly because of putting need above talent ... there has always been multiple players at the same position they could of taken. some turned out, some didn't the chiefs drafted poorly because they did a crappy job of evaluating talent.... had nothing to do with position. ie sims ... there were have half a dozen defensive tackles they could of taken. savaii ... also tons of other tackles available it goes on and on ..... bad talent evaluation __________________
Posts: 95,626

10-22-2006, 03:57 AM	#104
CupidStunt offense > defense Join Date: Jul 2005 Casino cash: $2183332	Alan Branch was bitchin' again yesterday. Draft this mofo. **** all the receivers.
Posts: 8,922

10-22-2006, 06:02 AM	#105
Sfeihc It's All Good Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $10010133	Branch isn't No tryin', always cryin', POS Ryan Sims. Branch destroys plays and whomever has the ball.
Posts: 3,441