Any Legit ILB's to consider with our first pick?

[Dante84]

Just curious if there's a guy, or guys, we could realistically consider at 11/12.

How I see our needs, in order:
-QB
-RT
-NT
-ILB
-RB
- value depth in order (Safety, T, TE, CB)

QB- Well, we are pretty much ****ed at QB unless we do something magical, in which case this prognosticating doesn't mean shit. Outside of the top two, there's a huge drop off.

RT - in the first would royally piss me off. A backup LT would also piss me off here.

NT - As mentioned in other threads, there's not really a NT worth that pick.

ILB- Inside Linebacker makes sense - if there's a good enough player.

RB - Trent Richardson, and only Trent Richardson if we use this spot on a RB.

I really hope we don't draft for depth with our first pick. If we lose Bowe/Carr, then we've got other options to consider with the pick.



So, is there a quality, starting caliber ILB to target here, assuming we stand still?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by milkman

The problem with your thinking is that a great RB can be a game changer, even when he doesn't have the a great, even good. O-Line in front of him.

It's no coincidence that, even while the O-Line for the Chiefs last year was better than the year before overall, the Chiefs offense struggled far more without Charles.

The thought that a great RT can have a bigger impact than a great RB is simply misguided.

I just disagree. Trent Richardson would get 20 touches a game? Additionally, he might be in on 10 passing plays.

30 plays a game.

The chiefs this year averaged 64.9 offensive plays per game. So, that's less than half of the offensive plays.

Meanwhile, the right tackle was in on 100% of all offensive plays. Every run, he has to block. Every pass, he has to block.

Add to that the average career length of a running back vs an offensive lineman, and I think the values between the two positions separate even further.

It's just a point of view, and my only reason for stating it is to illustrate to problems with claiming a "best player available" strategy. There is no set criteria for what makes a player at one position "better" than a player at another position. It always, always, always comes down to value.

[jd1020]

You think Richardson is going to get 480 touches a year?

You've lost your mind.

[O.city]

Who is the best RT in the league right now?

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by O.city

Who is the best RT in the league right now?

Clabo or Bulaga.

[O.city]

Wasn't Clabo available in free agency last year?

[jd1020]

Yes, but he was restricted, I believe, and the Falcons gave him a first round tender.

Nevermind. I was looking at the wrong years. He was UFA.

[O.city]

I'm not sure I agree that a RT is more important that a RB, but I guess I could understand it.

[jd1020]

I'll take OL over RB any day of the week, assuming equal talent.

[O.city]

I do think that with the pass rushers teams are starting to develop and the number each team is starting to keep, you need a good right tackle. I don't think you need a great one, but a solid one.


That being said, I think the talent level of say Richardson at rb is more than what some of the tackles would be at RT. But it would likely be close, so I see the justification.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I just disagree. Trent Richardson would get 20 touches a game? Additionally, he might be in on 10 passing plays.

30 plays a game.

The chiefs this year averaged 64.9 offensive plays per game. So, that's less than half of the offensive plays.

Meanwhile, the right tackle was in on 100% of all offensive plays. Every run, he has to block. Every pass, he has to block.

Add to that the average career length of a running back vs an offensive lineman, and I think the values between the two positions separate even further.

It's just a point of view, and my only reason for stating it is to illustrate to problems with claiming a "best player available" strategy. There is no set criteria for what makes a player at one position "better" than a player at another position. It always, always, always comes down to value.

I believe that the guys that are picked in the top 10 of the draft should be difference maker playmakers.

A RB of Richardson's talent is that kind of player, and would have far more impact on a team's fortunes than a RT.

LT is a different animal, so if it was a choice between a Joe Thomas or a Trent Richardson, I'd go Thomas.

But if we're talking a choice between a top 10 talent type RB like Richardson and Riley Reif, I'm taking Richardson and never looking back.

Jamaal Charles mean's 7 points per game to the Cheifs offense.
Richardson could, should have that same type of impact, and there's no way in hell a RT does.

Originally Posted by jd1020

I'll take OL over RB any day of the week, assuming equal talent.

Yeah, David DeCastro or Riley Reif vs. Trent Richardson.

No way in hell I;m taking the OL.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by O.city

I do think that with the pass rushers teams are starting to develop and the number each team is starting to keep, you need a good right tackle. I don't think you need a great one, but a solid one.


That being said, I think the talent level of say Richardson at rb is more than what some of the tackles would be at RT. But it would likely be close, so I see the justification.

You want to minimize a pass rush?

Stay out of 2nd and 3rd and long situations.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by milkman

You want to minimize a pass rush?

Stay out of 2nd and 3rd and long situations.

With Matt Cassel who could be 2 for 2 on a drive and still be looking at a 3rd and 8?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by whoman69

With Matt Cassel who could be 2 for 2 on a drive and still be looking at a 3rd and 8?

Wit Jammal Charles and a good to great complemetary back carrying the rock.

[prhom]

Originally Posted by whoman69

With Matt Cassel who could be 2 for 2 on a drive and still be looking at a 3rd and 8?

To be fair, we were at one point, the best in the league at converting 3rd and really long. I remember thinking that was a pretty dubious honor because it meant we were moving backwards on the first two downs.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by milkman

Jamaal Charles mean's 7 points per game to the Cheifs offense.
Richardson could, should have that same type of impact, and there's no way in hell a RT does.

Sure it does.

All day long.

When Tait went to the Bears, what happened?

Welbourne. (Still with Roaf and Shields.)

Turley.

Whatever piece of shit they put out there...

We got our QB's killed. Regardless if they were bad or good, the got killed because of really shitty Right Tackle play.

It isn't the '70's and 80's anymore. The RT and LT are so close in terms of skill set that teams are eagerly drafting guys who can fill both positions.

Oher, Bulaga, Solder, etc.

Defenses are switching off the dominant pass rusher, stunting, bringing corners/nickles of the edge, etc.

A team better have a guy who is capable of playing either side.