Chiefs MEDIA REACTIONS: Chiefs Early Draft Losers on NFLN - Page 31

**Ragged Robin** · 05-10-2014, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Kansas City Chiefs
The Chiefs had pressing needs after a rough free agency, and they still have massive questions on the offensive line and at wide receiver. Dee Ford is a nice long-term gamble, but should start his career as a part-time player. Third-round cornerback Phillip Gaines seems more like a developmental prospect. Fourth-round RB/WR/return/cornerback/football player De'Anthony Thomas is a wild card. This was a draft in which the Chiefs needed some instant-impact players, and it's hard to see them here.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...y-draft-grades

Welp..

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05-12-2014, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I find it very odd, though, that analysts consistently advocate "BPA, BPA" but then grade with a strong eye to need.

It's contradictory at best.

I really don't give a shit about "need" when it comes to the draft. FA is where a team should address needs.

Like I said, the medical red flags alone justify an average grade.

And regarding need, in a draft that deep, there were players available that not only could have been considered BPA, but also played a position of need.

Everyone's idea of BPA is different. I don't recall taking a single guy of our first three picks that was a Mayock "10 best available" at the time we took them.

eDave · 05-12-2014, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

At the end of the day KC was in a position to try to fill starting holes in the roster. Instead they went with a bunch of specialists, some of which had a history of missing significant time due to injuries. That just brings back bad memories of Croyle, Moeki, Bell, Kelce and just about everyone other than Roaf.

Personally, I have no idea what direction the team is going in. I expect them to extend Smith soon, but I have no idea why if they aren't going to protect him or give him weapons.

They just gave him a weapon. Jesus Christ.

keg in kc · 05-12-2014, 03:55 PM

It's not a matter of who's BPA on your board or my board or Mayock's board, it's who's BPA on the team's own board. They define their own selections.

**DeezNutz** · 05-12-2014, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Like I said, the medical red flags alone justify an average grade.

And regarding need, in a draft that deep, there were players available that not only could have been considered BPA, but also played a position of need.

Everyone's idea of BPA is different. I don't recall taking a single guy of our first three picks that was a Mayock "10 best available" at the time we took them.

My point is more that it seems that the Chiefs took whom they believed to be the BPA.

And I'm OK with this. Yes, there are legit concerns about all of these guys, but they play impact positions. It's not like they took a ****ing guard in the first, which is essentially impossible to defend with claims of BPA.

A ****ing guard is never the BPA in the first.

So, philosophically, I believe the Chiefs approach in terms of positional value was sound. And we've talked the merits of positional value every draft because of KC's penchant for ****ing this up.

**DeezNutz** · 05-12-2014, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's not a matter of who's BPA on your board or my board or Mayock's board, it's who's BPA on the team's own board. They define their own selections.

And this is the less verbose version.

jd1020 · 05-12-2014, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

And I'm OK with this. Yes, there are legit concerns about all of these guys, but they play impact positions. It's not like they took a ****ing guard in the first, which is essentially impossible to defend with claims of BPA.

What about a MAC tackle #1 overall?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05-12-2014, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I think it's possible for need and BPA to meet, though. Dennard, for example, would have been my choice in the first round because I think he was the BPA.

Again, using Mayock as an example, Dennard was the BPA at our pick. Calvin Pryor at 22nd and Marquise Lee at 28th would have been the next two where BPA and need intersected.

Ford was ranked 37th.

Mayock's last mock that considered both BPA and need had Ford falling to Dallas at 47.

**DeezNutz** · 05-12-2014, 03:59 PM

All of this is amplified by the fact that the Chiefs typically don't utilize FA appropriately.

This is where you fills "needs," and you have to pay out the ass for it. Don't want to get ****ed over by the market? Then don't draft like shit and create holes for your franchise.

And the only way to do the latter is to consistently get the most amount of talent possible, which speaks to a BPA approach.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05-12-2014, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's not a matter of who's BPA on your board or my board or Mayock's board, it's who's BPA on the team's own board. They define their own selections.

Which is why I said, everyone's idea of BPA is different.

**DeezNutz** · 05-12-2014, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd1020

What about a MAC tackle #1 overall?

Terrible. But last year's draft isn't the focus right now. Terrible, terrible draft, it appears.

Carnivore · 05-12-2014, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcaj22

can you say the Chiefs are the losers of the 2013 draft yet? Or do you need another year of bad tackle play and the rest on the injury report not contributing to believe it?

I thought Poe was a bust his Rookie year, then he turned into Beast mode last year.
I'm hoping to see the same from Fisher this year... We'll see

**Easy 6** · 05-12-2014, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I think it's possible for need and BPA to meet, though. Dennard, for example, would have been my choice in the first round because I think he was the BPA.

I guess we disagree there at some level, I viewed another CB as more of want, it'd be nice kind of a thing... the needs in my mind were safety or receiver/tight end.

But with Denver looming around every corner, another solid CB can never hurt, so I'm glad we addressed it with Gaines, and sure, Dennard would've been even better.

Anyway, this is the first time that a draft totally didn't go the way I though it should/would, and yet I somehow ended up pleased with it... I saw a plan in action.

Halfcan · 05-12-2014, 04:03 PM

I wonder if people will poo poo the undrafted players we bring in?

"We could have got X off the streets-why did we take Z-God the Chiefs suck."

Halfcan · 05-12-2014, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivore

I thought Poe was a bust his Rookie year, then he turned into Beast mode last year.
I'm hoping to see the same from Fisher this year... We'll see

Lots of posters on here thought he was a Bust as well-dumbest pick of all time!

**Easy 6** · 05-12-2014, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eDave

They just gave him a weapon. Jesus Christ.

A homerun hitter in every sense of the word.

05-12-2014, 03:55 PM	#453
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	It's not a matter of who's BPA on your board or my board or Mayock's board, it's who's BPA on the team's own board. They define their own selections.
Posts: 58,682

05-12-2014, 04:03 PM	#463
Halfcan In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $7327995	I wonder if people will poo poo the undrafted players we bring in? "We could have got X off the streets-why did we take Z-God the Chiefs suck."
Posts: 43,200