Chiefs LT Eugene Monroe in round 1? Pioli-Haley-Groh-Albert-Monroe - Page 5

T-post Tom · 01:16 AM

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.

philfree · 04-10-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soupnazi

It's probably the best move at 3, if they can't trade out of it.

I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree

aturnis · 04-10-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

You don't need two LT's and you don't spend a top-5 pick on a RT. (Even if Monroe plays LT and Albert is moved to RT, you're essentially spending a top-5 pick on a RT)

This is the most reeruned argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you ****ing clones.

**DeezNutz** · 04-10-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree

Why not?

When will we be able to afford this risk?

20 years from now? We're currently at the midpoint?

KCDC · 04-10-2009, 11:42 AM

The interesting thing I have noticed about the Planet is that there is absolutely no consensus. Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other reeruned. Then, someone suggests a third approach, or a compromise ... and they tend to get labeled as reeruned too. *lol*

Tough crowd, but fun. For the record, I encourage Scott to trade down and wheel and deal all day. I trust him completely to know how to get value. If we can't trade down, taking either Curry or the best LT is fine with me. Those of you attacking the best LT idea, that could allow Scott to trade that LT later in the first round when Philly realizes there are no stud tackles left by the time they pick and Scott dangles Monroe for them.

Some here would argue to take Sanchez and use him for trade bait. But, if no one bites, we have a huge contract for someone that won't be playing in 2009. At least with a stud LT, if no one will offer value for him later in Day One, he will play in 2009, and can be traded to a team for a boat load of picks in 2010 when someone's LT goes down for the season (e.g. Pace and Walter Jones alert here).

Brock · 04-10-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree

"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

philfree · 04-10-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Why not?

When will we be able to afford this risk?

20 years from now? We're currently at the midpoint?

Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.

PhilFree

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-10-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aturnis

This is the most reeruned argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you ****ing clones.

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.

**DeezNutz** · 04-10-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.

PhilFree

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...

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-10-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.

PhilFree

Phil, this is ****ing dumbest argument you've made yet.

The only reason you think that Sanchez will bust is because of his "lack" of starts. You fail to recognize his poise in the pocket, his accuracy, leadership and football smarts.

****ing stupid. As usual.

**DeezNutz** · 04-10-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

Exactly. Implicit whenever someone references "most immediate impact."

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-10-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

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...

He's a moron.

What is "Huge" anyway? Is he stating that there's a 85% chance that Sanchez will be a total NFL failure?

That's just plain dumb.

philfree · 04-10-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

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

**DeezNutz** · 04-10-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Phil, this is ****ing dumbest argument you've made yet.

The only reason you think that Sanchez will bust is because of his "lack" of starts. You fail to recognize his poise in the pocket, his accuracy, leadership and football smarts.

****ing stupid. As usual.

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

The difference is stark.

**DeezNutz** · 04-10-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

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

So why can't we afford the risk?

When should we?

MTG#10 · 04-10-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCDC

Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other reeruned.

Thats horrible. There may be someone related to a special needs child reading this.

04-10-2009, 01:11 AM
T-post Tom Threepeat! Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Milk/Honey/Gazland Casino cash: $4517293	LT Eugene Monroe in round 1? Pioli-Haley-Groh-Albert-Monroe 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. Last edited by T-post Tom; 04-10-2009 at 01:16 AM..
Posts: 20,242

04-10-2009, 11:42 AM	#64
KCDC Starter Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $9726110	The interesting thing I have noticed about the Planet is that there is absolutely no consensus. Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other reeruned. Then, someone suggests a third approach, or a compromise ... and they tend to get labeled as reeruned too. lol Tough crowd, but fun. For the record, I encourage Scott to trade down and wheel and deal all day. I trust him completely to know how to get value. If we can't trade down, taking either Curry or the best LT is fine with me. Those of you attacking the best LT idea, that could allow Scott to trade that LT later in the first round when Philly realizes there are no stud tackles left by the time they pick and Scott dangles Monroe for them. Some here would argue to take Sanchez and use him for trade bait. But, if no one bites, we have a huge contract for someone that won't be playing in 2009. At least with a stud LT, if no one will offer value for him later in Day One, he will play in 2009, and can be traded to a team for a boat load of picks in 2010 when someone's LT goes down for the season (e.g. Pace and Walter Jones alert here).
Posts: 876