sick suspicion about carl peterson and the draft

elvomito · 03-16-2005, 03:00 AM

I don't know what's going to unfold in the near future as far as player signings, but I just had a terrible thought about draft day: What if CP thinks he made enough defensive moves to pick a WR with the #1?

I totally expect this to be a 100% defensive draft at least the first two rounds. Anything less will be caca

keg in kc · 03-16-2005, 03:06 AM

I think the fact that we're bringing in WRs, including several 'developmental' WRs is a sign we're probably not going to draft one.

|Zach| · 03-16-2005, 03:26 AM

There is a solid group of people around here that want to draft WR in the 1st. I am not one of them really but I find it a bit suprising.

Alphaman · 03-16-2005, 07:27 AM

I would suggest you get your head around the possibility of Mark Clayton or Troy Williamson in the first. CB or LB is a possibility as well.

patteeu · 03-16-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elvomito

I don't know what's going to unfold in the near future as far as player signings, but I just had a terrible thought about draft day: What if CP thinks he made enough defensive moves to pick a WR with the #1?

I totally expect this to be a 100% defensive draft at least the first two rounds. Anything less will be caca

I don't know whether your sick suspicion will come true, but if you expect a 100% defensive draft, you might as well start preparing your rant now.

I wouldn't have a problem with a WR in the first, and at the very least, I hope the Chiefs have a balanced draft. The offense needs some youth BEFORE it begins to crumble. If the likes of Parker and Black are the real deal, then the need isn't quite as great, but I don't think they can count on that at this point.

DaWolf · 03-16-2005, 08:00 AM

If there is a stud reciever there, who is the better player between himself and the best defender available, then why not? This offense as it is will not be on top forever. And this defense is nowhere close to being a shutdown defense. So the Chiefs have to stay ahead of the curve offensively. And the hard facts are we need to find upgrades/young talents at wideout and at left tackle. Now if there is an outstanding defender there for us to take, I go D. But I do not advocate blindly choosing a defensive player just because we need defense if there is a reciever on the board who is head and shoulders a better football player and more of a "value" pick.

All that being said, I get the opposite feeling from Carl. He stated all offseason that his main mission was to improve the defense through FA and the draft and he's pretty much stuck to the plan. He's gotten the LB and safety, and would have gotten the CB already if the deal hadn't been botched. Despite whatever smokescreens they throw up there, I've got a pretty good feeling we'll be drafting D in round 1...

StcChief · 03-16-2005, 08:04 AM

WR. ? Sammie Parker looked good enough to me. Send pillowbiter Morton packing.

milkman · 03-16-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaWolf

blindly choosing

What is "Carl's annual draft strategy" Alex.

Chan93lx50 · 03-16-2005, 08:32 AM

Were bringing in Kevin Johnson (Ravens) for a look see, and I think he would make a fine addition to our WR corps

Dr. Johnny Fever · 03-16-2005, 08:33 AM

As long as we make the necessary improvements on defense in free agency first, I have no problem with drafting a stud WR first. We need one of those too.

**the Talking Can** · 03-16-2005, 08:35 AM

we still need 2 CBs, an OLB, and a DE....CP got a lot of work to do before we starts yanking DV's schlong again...

milkman · 03-16-2005, 08:37 AM

If the Chiefs get a CB and OLB in FA, then I'd like to see them get another CB and DE in the draft, but I'm not going to be upset with good selections to fill any positions, offense or defense.

I'd just like to see a draft where we get some actual NFL players for a change.

**jAZ** · 03-16-2005, 08:42 AM

I won't be upset with WR &/or OLT in the first 2 rounds if we sign Law or trade for Surtain.

~Could go for an All-Offensive draft.

whoman69 · 03-16-2005, 08:57 AM

Last year we drafted a TE, 2 WR and a T. The year prior we drafted a G, T, and RB. 5 of those 6 were on the active roster last year. We need help on D now. Even if we get a CB in FA we still need one more in round one. We are weak at OLB and DE. We have plenty of young players on the offense but drafting perhaps 3 or 4 more this year would not hurt. Wait for day 2 unless we have our 2nd yet and gain a 3rd for Tait.

chop · 03-16-2005, 09:11 AM

The same people that will complain about drafting an offensive guy this year will be the ones that complain that Carl didn't know what he was doing when he passed up that great WR and drafted an average cb/lb/de.

I'm for drafting the best available player. If it's equal then you draft for need. I think it ends up biting you when you select purely for need and not get the best player. JMO

03-16-2005, 03:00 AM
elvomito ☻☺ Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: ♠█♠ Casino cash: $10004900	sick suspicion about carl peterson and the draft I don't know what's going to unfold in the near future as far as player signings, but I just had a terrible thought about draft day: What if CP thinks he made enough defensive moves to pick a WR with the #1? I totally expect this to be a 100% defensive draft at least the first two rounds. Anything less will be caca
Posts: 2,362

03-16-2005, 03:06 AM	#2
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	I think the fact that we're bringing in WRs, including several 'developmental' WRs is a sign we're probably not going to draft one.
Posts: 58,682

03-16-2005, 03:26 AM	#3
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5326768	There is a solid group of people around here that want to draft WR in the 1st. I am not one of them really but I find it a bit suprising.
Posts: 53,435

03-16-2005, 07:27 AM	#4
Alphaman Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Austin, TX, USA Casino cash: $10004900	I would suggest you get your head around the possibility of Mark Clayton or Troy Williamson in the first. CB or LB is a possibility as well.
Posts: 1,380

03-16-2005, 08:00 AM	#6
DaWolf Cry havoc... Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10007725	If there is a stud reciever there, who is the better player between himself and the best defender available, then why not? This offense as it is will not be on top forever. And this defense is nowhere close to being a shutdown defense. So the Chiefs have to stay ahead of the curve offensively. And the hard facts are we need to find upgrades/young talents at wideout and at left tackle. Now if there is an outstanding defender there for us to take, I go D. But I do not advocate blindly choosing a defensive player just because we need defense if there is a reciever on the board who is head and shoulders a better football player and more of a "value" pick. All that being said, I get the opposite feeling from Carl. He stated all offseason that his main mission was to improve the defense through FA and the draft and he's pretty much stuck to the plan. He's gotten the LB and safety, and would have gotten the CB already if the deal hadn't been botched. Despite whatever smokescreens they throw up there, I've got a pretty good feeling we'll be drafting D in round 1...
Posts: 6,798

03-16-2005, 08:04 AM	#7
StcChief Playing for #1 Draft Pick Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Just West of Lambs land Casino cash: $10004900	WR. ? Sammie Parker looked good enough to me. Send pillowbiter Morton packing. __________________ sig test for this screwy schema
Posts: 25,901

03-16-2005, 08:32 AM	#9
Chan93lx50 Veteran Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Cedar Rapids, IA Casino cash: $10004900	Were bringing in Kevin Johnson (Ravens) for a look see, and I think he would make a fine addition to our WR corps __________________
Posts: 1,847

03-16-2005, 08:33 AM	#10
Dr. Johnny Fever stax of wax Join Date: Feb 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	As long as we make the necessary improvements on defense in free agency first, I have no problem with drafting a stud WR first. We need one of those too. __________________ courtesy of BoneKrusher "Baseball? It's just a game. As simple as a ball and bat, yet as complex as the American spirit it symbolizes. It's a sport, a business and sometimes a religion." Ernie Harwell
Posts: 34,865

03-16-2005, 08:35 AM	#11
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	we still need 2 CBs, an OLB, and a DE....CP got a lot of work to do before we starts yanking DV's schlong again... __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

03-16-2005, 08:37 AM	#12
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	If the Chiefs get a CB and OLB in FA, then I'd like to see them get another CB and DE in the draft, but I'm not going to be upset with good selections to fill any positions, offense or defense. I'd just like to see a draft where we get some actual NFL players for a change. __________________
Posts: 70,769

03-16-2005, 08:42 AM	#13
jAZ Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Tucson, AZ Casino cash: $9847493	I won't be upset with WR &/or OLT in the first 2 rounds if we sign Law or trade for Surtain. ~Could go for an All-Offensive draft.
Posts: 24,799

03-16-2005, 09:11 AM	#15
chop Go Chiefs! Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Michigan Casino cash: $2814270	The same people that will complain about drafting an offensive guy this year will be the ones that complain that Carl didn't know what he was doing when he passed up that great WR and drafted an average cb/lb/de. I'm for drafting the best available player. If it's equal then you draft for need. I think it ends up biting you when you select purely for need and not get the best player. JMO
Posts: 2,944