**** Official 2013 NFL Draft Thread****

[Titty Meat]

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/tracke...bs:dt-by-round

[mcaj22]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Two quality TEs (Moeaki and Fasano), one draft pick (Kelce) and a camp body (Brock)

the draft pick is a projected day 1 starter so you can eliminate the "two quality TEs" part.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

the draft pick is a projected day 1 starter so you can eliminate the "two quality TEs" part.

I doubt the Chiefs only carry two TEs. Most teams carry three.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by farmerchief

Possibly, because we have more holes to fill than Denver?

Fisher filled a hole, Johnson filled a hole and you could argue that Kelce filled a hole. The rest of the players they drafted are project picks. Davis was RB depth with huge injury and ball security concerns. Commings is DB depth with character issues. Kush is a division 2 player who'll be o-line depth at best. Fullback is a position that's been all but cycled out of today's NFL, so Wilson's more of a luxury pick and Catapano, while potentially a sleeper is a project. None of those are need picks.

Now I'm not saying any of those (with the possible exception of Davis and Wilson) are bad, just saying they weren't the kind of picks that would leave a gaping hole anywhere if they weren't made.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Two quality TEs (Moeaki and Fasano), one draft pick (Kelce) and a camp body (Brock)

We can't rely on Brokeaki....plus, his contract is up next year. Kelce was a solid, if unspectacular, pick.

Originally Posted by Jamie

I bet we sign Matt Scott if makes he through these last few picks.

That's my best guess, as well.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Denver. Who drafted Osweiler last year drafts Dysert now.

I did not like Osweiler last year, but the point remains, they see a QB, they take a QB, even if it isn't a need at the time.

Why we can't do this boggles the mind.

It's interesting because Elway has said he thought Osweiler would be the first QB taken in this year's draft. Pretty much threw this draft class under the bus.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Fisher filled a hole, Johnson filled a hole and you could argue that Kelce filled a hole.

If all 3 of these become starters and produce well for the Chiefs, do you call this draft successful?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

We can't rely on Brokeaki....plus, his contract is up next year. Kelce was a solid, if unspectacular, pick.

He asked what TEs are on the roster. Those guys are on the roster. That's all.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

Honest question here....do you think that Ostweiler and Dysert will see anything other than garbage playing time in Denver? And then let's say that Peyton takes a vicious shot from Hali and is out for most of the season...do you see either of them becoming the QBOTF or just filler until Elway buys a different QB he likes?

I have no idea. What I do know is that there's zero chance of either of them being a player for Denver if they aren't drafted in the first place.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

If all 3 of these become starters and produce well for the Chiefs, do you call this draft successful?

Being a starter isn't a benchmark. They will be evaluated on their contribution to WINNING.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I have no idea. What I do know is that there's zero chance of either of them being a player for Denver if they aren't drafted in the first place.

But in reality aren't you wasting a draft pick if you have other needs that could/should be filled?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Fisher filled a hole, Johnson filled a hole and you could argue that Kelce filled a hole. The rest of the players they drafted are project picks. Davis was RB depth with huge injury and ball security concerns. Commings is DB depth with character issues. Kush is a division 2 player who'll be o-line depth at best. Fullback is a position that's been all but cycled out of today's NFL, so Wilson's more of a luxury pick and Catapano, while potentially a sleeper is a project. None of those are need picks.

Now I'm not saying any of those (with the possible exception of Davis and Wilson) are bad, just saying they weren't the kind of picks that would leave a gaping hole anywhere if they weren't made.

I totally get the negativity but I remember before the draft that people were talking how Dorsey filled all of the major holes (except ILB) in FA and would have the freedom to pick BPA throughout the draft. It wasn't done the way I would have done it (didn't like the Davis pick at all) but it is pretty clear to me that they think they are doing it that way.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

We can't rely on Brokeaki....plus, his contract is up next year. Kelce was a solid, if unspectacular, pick.



That's my best guess, as well.

There's a good chance Kelce could be a spectacular pick.

People who harp on tight ends don't now Reid's offense. In Reid's offense, Celek is sometimes nipping at 1,000 yards. We got a guy who might get us 600-800 yards and be a valuable blocker.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Being a starter isn't a benchmark. They will be evaluated on their contribution to WINNING.

So...if they win a few more games is that WINNING? Or are you talking about winning it all?

I say it's a good draft if they all 3 become starters and plug holes we need filled. There are too many holes in this team to fill in one year.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

If all 3 of these become starters and produce well for the Chiefs, do you call this draft successful?

I'm not sure how you quantify 'production' for an offensive tackle, but at the end of the day, the success or failure of this draft will have more to do with Alex Smith than with anyone else.

And I want to reiterate that I have been one of the more positive posters about the players they drafted this weekend. The only picks I really question are Knile Davis and Braden Wilson. My main issue with this draft was and is the loss of the 34th pick. I think we gave up too much for Alex Smith, I think we'd have been better served with a free agent veteran quarterback and spending the 2013 and 2014 second rounders on draft picks. But I'm fine with everyone they drafted. My question was simply why they seem so averse to drafting a project quarterback as opposed to, let's say, a project RB, or a project DB, or a project C, or a project DE. Philosophical thing, and it's not just related to this draft.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I totally get the negativity but I remember before the draft that people were talking how Dorsey filled all of the major holes (except ILB) in FA and would have the freedom to pick BPA throughout the draft. It wasn't done the way I would have done it (didn't like the Davis pick at all) but it is pretty clear to me that they think they are doing it that way.

I'm a little confused. What have I said that's negative?