Get Ready For Plan B

[Mr. Krab]

Don't kid yourself: These Chiefs are too careful to not have a Plan B


<!-- END tabs --> <!-- begin content --> Sure, there's a contingency plan. If there weren't, would Scott Pioli be living up to his advertisements as the shrewd, calculating mastermind that Clark Hunt pursued, bagged and then unveiled earlier this year?

Hunt wanted a general manager who would do things right, even if it took a long time and even if it meant overlooking the obvious decisions and digging deeper. That's why Hunt pursued Pioli and, really, no one else. That's why Hunt paid Pioli millions and thereby assigned him a world of pressure to make decisions that pay off.

It's draft season, Pioli's time to shine. It's also the season of decoy negotiations, false signals and meetings so secret that Pentagon officials make fun of them at after-hours bars. The Chiefs' top target, it would appear, is former Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry. He's too good to pass up at No. 3, and unless Curry is gone, it makes all the sense in the world for Kansas City to take Curry and strengthen its linebacker situation, a particular weakness last year.

But here's the interesting part: This week, the Chiefs reportedly held in-house workouts for former Florida State DE-LB Everette Brown, and former Utah DE Paul Kruger and former Cincinnati DE-LB Connor Barwin have reportedly appeared at Chiefs headquarters, too. Oh, and also Curry. That's a lot of defenders, but then again, the Chiefs needed a lot of defensive help last year. But something smells strange here. If the Chiefs were so certain on Curry, why would they bother bringing in Brown and Barwin, two linebackers projected no higher than the late first-round?

Maybe it's an attempt to identify their man if Curry does pull a disappearing act on draft day. But it'd be a mistake to choose either of those players at No. 3 overall. Let's not forget, either, that the Chiefs no longer possess a second-round pick, after the Matt Cassel-Mike Vrabel trade.

No, more likely, it's to see how close either of those players compares to Curry. If it's a few yards instead of a few miles of difference, it becomes an interesting situation for the Chiefs. We'll hazard a theory: Pioli and Co. are seeing what kind of linebacker they'd get if they traded the No. 3 pick and slid down to the other team's first-round or early second-round spot.
Here's a scenario, with no evidence or hearsay to back this up. It's just a scenario, and you can bet Pioli and the Crew are going through a hundred of these a day:

The Eagles are in desperate need of an offensive tackle and have yet to sign a premiere blocker despite pursuing Orlando Pace and some others this offseason. They'll enter the draft with two first-round picks, Nos. 21 and 28. Who's to say Philadelphia doesn't call Pioli and offer those two picks to slide up to No. 3 so they can grab either Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe, whomever St. Louis doesn't select at No. 2 overall. On paper, the Chiefs would surely accept that deal, to add a second first-round pick as they continue to build onto last year's foundation of your players.

But here's the problem: Curry would be gone, probably no later than the No. 4 or 5 overall pick, long before the Chiefs' first pick. They'd miss their man and have to draft intelligently to uncover two great players to compensate for missing on one potentially elite one.

So as the Chiefs move closer to D(raft)-Day, they're doing their homework. They're seeing if there's an ant hill or a chasm between Curry and, say, Brown. There's no doubt that Curry is a unique talent, but Kansas City likely would pass on him if it could get two first-rounders -- and select Brown or Barwin if either showed that they possess talent not terribly dissimilar to Curry's.

With that second pick, they could add a pass rusher or an offensive lineman -- heck, whatever they wanted. As it stands, the Chiefs' next pick doesn't come until the third round, and that's a numbers game the Chiefs probably don't consider ideal, now that the thrill of acquiring Cassel and Vrabel has subsided.

It'd be a difficult scenario to pass up. It's clear the Chiefs are at least sifting through their options, and that's the smart play. That's what Hunt's dollars paid for, after all. And at least in the preparation department, Pioli is living up to expectations.

In about a month, we'll see how good the guy really is.

Submitted by Kent Babb on April 1, 2009 - 5:54am.

(http://chiefsblog.kansascity.com/?q=user/login&destination=comment/reply/758%23comment_form)

[jwazzie]

Good article and a scenario I would be ok with.

[Reaper16]

Curry and Brown/Barwin will be completely different LBs. Why would Pioli directly compare ILB to OLB? Dumb.

[Buehler445]

Well if it is all a smokescreen, he could be thinking QB there :shrug:

[/pipedream]
Posted via Mobile Device

[Coogs]

Curry and Brown/Barwin will be completely different LBs. Why would Pioli directly compare ILB to OLB? Dumb.


Maybe because many draft experts have Curry listed as an OLB? :shrug:

[Fish]

Plan B > Plan A

[Tribal Warfare]

It's going to be a trade down special

[Coogs]

It's going to be a trade down special

The trade down for 21 and 28 would be OK. It would be a lot better if there was another trade down prior to that trade down though... or a bit more involved than just 21 and 28 from the Eagles.

[PRIEST]

It's going to be a trade down special



THIS

[Jethopper]

It's going to be a trade down special

This

[DaKCMan AP]

The trade down for 21 and 28 would be OK.

They'll enter the draft with two first-round picks, Nos. 21 and 28. Who's to say Philadelphia doesn't call Pioli and offer those two picks to slide up to No. 3 so they can grab either Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe, whomever St. Louis doesn't select at No. 2 overall. On paper, the Chiefs would surely accept that deal, to add a second first-round pick as they continue to build onto last year's foundation of your players.
(http://chiefsblog.kansascity.com/?q=user/login&destination=comment/reply/758%23comment_form)

The Chiefs would be stupid to accept that deal. There's a difference in value equivalent to the #24 overall pick - another 1st round selection. We'd be getting pwned.

[Tribal Warfare]

The Chiefs would be stupid to accept that deal. There's a difference in value equivalent to the #24 overall pick - another 1st round selection. We'd be getting pwned.

not if the Eagles sell their soul for next year too.

[Brock]

Curry won't be gone, and he won't be the pick either.

[PastorMikH]

The Chiefs would be stupid to accept that deal. There's a difference in value equivalent to the #24 overall pick - another 1st round selection. We'd be getting pwned.



I was thinking the same thing, #21 and #28 seem pretty light to me, there better be some other picks/players thrown in.


Does anyone have a link to that chart that shows the value of draft pick positions?

[Micjones]

The Chiefs would be stupid to accept that deal. There's a difference in value equivalent to the #24 overall pick - another 1st round selection. We'd be getting pwned.

Yep. We'd be giving away over 700 points in value.

We'd HAVE to get an additional #3 to make this deal halfway reasonable.

[DaKCMan AP]

I was thinking the same thing, #21 and #28 seem pretty light to me, there better be some other picks/players thrown in.


Does anyone have a link to that chart that shows the value of draft pick positions?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670

[Coogs]

The Chiefs would be stupid to accept that deal. There's a difference in value equivalent to the #24 overall pick - another 1st round selection. We'd be getting pwned.

That is pretty much what I said.

[Reaper16]

Maybe because many draft experts have Curry listed as an OLB? :shrug:
Not a 3-4 OLB. I said ILB to OLB, not MLB to OLB

[DaKCMan AP]

Yep. We'd be giving away over 700 points in value.

We'd HAVE to get at least an additional #3 to make this deal halfway reasonable.

IMO, we'd have to get at least next year's 1st round pick too and even then we'd be getting jobbed.

Fair value would be #21, #28, Eagles 2nd round pick #53 and Eagle's 2010 1st round pick.

[DaKCMan AP]

That is pretty much what I said.

You said it would be "OK". It wouldn't be "OK" - it would be an abomination of utter stupidity and epic fail.

[Coogs]

You said it would be "OK". It wouldn't be "OK" - it would be an abomination of utter stupidity and epic fail.

Read the rest of it. It's kind of hard on a BB to emphasis words. If we were talking in person, I probably would have been able to portray better what I meant by OK. Maybe a de-emphasised OK with a back and forth hand shake with the fingers all extended type of thing.

[DaKCMan AP]

Read the rest of it.

I did and what I said isn't "pretty much what you said". Trading #3 for #21 and #28 would NOT be OK. At all. Ever. I understand you stated it'd be better to acquire more through another trade down or get more out of Philly but #3 for #21 and #28 is never OK.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yep. We'd be giving away over 700 points in value.

We'd HAVE to get an additional #3 to make this deal halfway reasonable.

I've been saying it for months: IF the Chiefs have an opportunity to move down and collect more picks, it doesn't necessarily have to meet the "Value Chart" because there isn't much positional value at the top of the draft for the Chiefs (they already have a LT and a QB).

They need football players. Period.

[Micjones]

IMO, we'd have to get at least next year's 1st round pick too and even then we'd be getting jobbed.

Fair value would be #21, #28, Eagles 2nd round pick #53 and Eagle's 2010 1st round pick.

Actually... According to the chart we'd only be entitled to:
#21
#28
#53
And a late-round Second Round Pick next season.

Honestly though...
If they gave us two #1's and their #2 I'd call it even.
I don't think the draft value chart isn't as significant this season.

Let them have the other 370 points.

We'd have three picks in the opening two rounds.
That could conceivably yield:
Mau, Alex Mack, and Duke Robinson.

Sign me up...

[DaneMcCloud]

I did and what I said isn't "pretty much what you said". Trading #3 for #21 and #28 would NOT be OK. At all. Ever. I understand you stated it'd be better to acquire more through another trade down or get more out of Philly but #3 for #21 and #28 is never OK.

This year, it's okay.

Would you rather have Curry or a left tackle or Mack/Unger and a rush linebacker?

I know what I'd choose.

[Micjones]

I've been saying it for months: IF the Chiefs have an opportunity to move down and collect more picks, it doesn't necessarily have to meet the "Value Chart" because there isn't much positional value at the top of the draft for the Chiefs (they already have a LT and a QB).

They need football players. Period.

I tend to agree with you, but you don't leave 700 points on the table.
That's equivalent to a low First Round pick.

A couple hundred, maybe... But certainly not 7.

[Brock]

I don't see Philadelphia wanting to go up there anyway. It makes no sense for them.

[Coogs]

I did and what I said isn't "pretty much what you said". Trading #3 for #21 and #28 would NOT be OK. At all. Ever. I understand you stated it'd be better to acquire more through another trade down or get more out of Philly but #3 for #21 and #28 is never OK.

Okay! Let's try this again! I think it would totally suck as well, but I am not making the call!

Sorry to get your panties all in a bunch!

[htismaqe]

The Chiefs would be stupid to accept that deal. There's a difference in value equivalent to the #24 overall pick - another 1st round selection. We'd be getting pwned.

A trade like that would almost certainly involve next year's first-rounder.

[DaKCMan AP]

Actually... According to the chart we'd only be entitled to:
#21
#28
#53
And a late-round Second Round Pick next season.


What you need to understand is that a 1st round pick next year is equal in value to a 1st round pick this year. So, a late 2nd round pick, such as #53, this year is equal to a late 1st round pick next year.

In this year's picks the Eagles equivalent value to #3 would be #21, #28, #53 and #53. The second #53 is equivalent to next year's 1st round pick.

Thus,
#21
#28
#53
2010 1st round pick

[DaKCMan AP]

Okay! Let's try this again! I think it would totally suck as well

Now we agree.

[Micjones]

What you need to understand is that a 1st round pick next year is equal in value to a 1st round pick this year. So, a late 2nd round pick, such as #53, this year is equal to a late 1st round pick next year.

In this year's picks the Eagles equivalent value to #3 would be #21, #28, #53 and #53. The second #53 is equivalent to next year's 1st round pick.

Thus,
#21
#28
#53
2010 1st round pick

I won't pretend that I'm a draft guru by any stretch of the imagination, but help me understand how a late 2nd Round pick would be equivalent to a late First Rounder?

[DaKCMan AP]

I won't pretend that I'm a draft guru by any stretch of the imagination, but help me understand how a late 2nd Round pick would be equivalent to a late First Rounder?

That's how it works. Next year's picks are equivalent a pick this year of lower value. A 2009 2nd is equal to a 2010 1st. A 2009 3rd is equal to a 2010 2nd, etc.

[Chiefnj2]

The value chart can get in the way of common sense.

[Brock]

That's how it works. Next year's picks are equivalent a pick this year of lower value. A 2009 2nd is equal to a 2010 1st. A 2009 3rd is equal to a 2010 2nd, etc.

I thought that was the other way around.:shrug:

[Coogs]

Now we agree.

We did the first time. Like I said, it's pretty difficult to put emphasis in a BB message very well.

It's cool.

[DaneMcCloud]

I tend to agree with you, but you don't leave 700 points on the table.
That's equivalent to a low First Round pick.

A couple hundred, maybe... But certainly not 7.

In a "normal" year, I'd agree. But this year, I think the Chiefs should take what they can get.

There just isn't much "elite" talent outside possibly the two left tackles and the two QB's (which has been debated here ad nauseam). The Chiefs already have a QB and a LT.

If the Chiefs can get a pair of 1st round picks and an additional 5th, I'd be completely stoked.

[PhillyChiefFan]

The Eagles signed Stacey Andrews and have Shawn Andrews on the other side. Why are they in "desperate need" of a LT?

[DaKCMan AP]

The value chart can get in the way of common sense.

We always get these "the value chart doesn't matter" responses. It does to NFL teams and has in most all trades the Patriots have made over the years. I've posted examples in the past but don't have the time to search for them right now.

[Chiefnj2]

In a "normal" year, I'd agree. But this year, I think the Chiefs should take what they can get.

There just isn't much "elite" talent outside possibly the two left tackles and the two QB's (which has been debated here ad nauseam). The Chiefs already have a QB and a LT.

If the Chiefs can get a pair of 1st round picks and an additional 5th, I'd be completely stoked.

For once I agree with Dane.

If KC works out Barwin, Kruger and Maybin and comes to the conclusion that one or more of them aren't that far behind Curry in their evaluation and think they could get another immediate starter like Mack at #28 then they would be silly not to pull the trigger with the Eagles just because the chart says not to.

[DaKCMan AP]

I thought that was the other way around.:shrug:

No. For example, in 2007 the Colts traded their 2008 1st round pick and their 2007 4th round pick to the 49ers for their 2007 2nd round pick (#47) which was used to draft Tony Ugoh.

[Micjones]

That's how it works. Next year's picks are equivalent a pick this year of lower value. A 2009 2nd is equal to a 2010 1st. A 2009 3rd is equal to a 2010 2nd, etc.

Interesting. Never knew that.

Still... I think given how peculiar this draft class is I take their #21, #28, and #53 picks and call it even.

[Micjones]

In a "normal" year, I'd agree. But this year, I think the Chiefs should take what they can get.

There just isn't much "elite" talent outside possibly the two left tackles and the two QB's (which has been debated here ad nauseam). The Chiefs already have a QB and a LT.

If the Chiefs can get a pair of 1st round picks and an additional 5th, I'd be completely stoked.

We'd have to come away with a third pick.
No way I'd deal a Top 5 pick for two in the 20's.

I'd push for a #2 as the third pick (which again gives a 370 point advantage -- equivalent to a #2 to the other team). I'd settle for a #3 though.

[DaKCMan AP]

No. For example, in 2007 the Colts traded their 2008 1st round pick and their 2007 4th round pick to the 49ers for their 2007 2nd round pick (#47) which was used to draft Tony Ugoh.

Another example:

From last year's draft -

Eagles trade #19

Panthers trade #43, #109 and 2009 1st round pick (#28)

[DaneMcCloud]

We'd have to come away with a third pick.
No way I'd deal a Top 5 pick for two in the 20's.

I'd push for a #2 as the third pick (which again gives a 370 point advantage -- equivalent to a #2 to the other team). I'd settle for a #3 though.

I guess that's where we disagree.

I'd rather have two players than one in the top 3 this year, especially given the fact that the talent level between the #3 player and the #21 player is marginal at worst.

[Micjones]

I guess that's where we disagree.

I'd rather have two players than one in the top 3 this year, especially given the fact that the talent level between the #3 player and the #21 player is marginal at worst.

I think we agree. We just differ slightly in our opinion of appropriate compensation.

I'd absolutely make the deal, but only if we got an additional pick out of it.
Ideally a Second Rounder, but I'd settle for #21/#28/Third Round pick.

Any deal that gives us a shot at DHB works for me.

[DaneMcCloud]

I think we agree. We just differ slightly in our opinion of appropriate compensation.

I'd absolutely make the deal, but only if we got an additional pick out of it.
Ideally a Second Rounder, but I'd settle for #21/#28/Third Round pick.

Any deal that gives us a shot at DHB works for me.

DHB and Mack/Unger would be an awesome first round, IMO.

[Micjones]

DHB and Mack/Unger would be an awesome first round, IMO.

Dude, I'd shit myself.
We could do without a #2 with that kind of opening round.

[DaneMcCloud]

Dude, I'd shit myself.
We could do without a #2 with that kind of opening round.

Totally. They could decide to put Unger at right tackle, so the Chiefs could possibly choose Wood, Luigs, Caldwell or Shipley with their third round pick. IF that were the case, they'd have a very solid line in 2009, an outside thread in DHB, with possession recievers in Bowe & Gonzalez.

It could potentially be an extremely potent offense.

I'm probably dreaming...

[Manila-Chief]

I've been saying it for months: IF the Chiefs have an opportunity to move down and collect more picks, it doesn't necessarily have to meet the "Value Chart" because there isn't much positional value at the top of the draft for the Chiefs (they already have a LT and a QB).

They need football players. Period.

In a "normal" year, I'd agree. But this year, I think the Chiefs should take what they can get.

There just isn't much "elite" talent outside possibly the two left tackles and the two QB's (which has been debated here ad nauseam). The Chiefs already have a QB and a LT.

If the Chiefs can get a pair of 1st round picks and an additional 5th, I'd be completely stoked.

I agree! It seems to me that there are no really high quality guys up at the top, and if ... notice I said "if" ... I yield to the wisdom of the Chiefs scouts/Pioli ... Pioli agrees ... it would make more sense to get 2 1st. round picks than just one ... even if you get nothing more.

Plus, another reason for trading down is the money you have to pay a #3 pick. I say this in reference to the so called "value of the guy" but to the potential for him to become a game changer. If he is there pay him the money. If not, save cap room and get your player at a lower draft order and a more reasonable price.

Unless Curry is going to become the next LT, I think trading down to get even half the value but additional guys would be the wise thing to do.

But, for the thread ... I think Pioli and crew are just covering all the bases. Yes, they know who they want, but other teams draft before them and/or have to be willing to trade.

The real smoke screen would be for them to bring in Stafford or Sanchez.

[Micjones]

Totally. They could decide to put Unger at right tackle, so the Chiefs could possibly choose Wood, Luigs, Caldwell or Shipley with their third round pick. IF that were the case, they'd have a very solid line in 2009, an outside thread in DHB, with possession recievers in Bowe & Gonzalez.

It could potentially be an extremely potent offense.

I'm probably dreaming...

We're dreaming a little, but if the trade were to take place this would all be fairly reasonable.

You wouldn't play Unger at Center though?

[tyton75]

ultimately.. we need players everywhere... to get 2 high picks that can play everyday with impact would be bigger than one guy with impact..

imo

[DaneMcCloud]

We're dreaming a little, but if the trade were to take place this would all be fairly reasonable.

You wouldn't play Unger at Center though?

Unger is big enough and versatile enough to play center, guard or right tackle. He's very athletic and unlike Mack, would give the Chiefs a few options.

[Manila-Chief]

I guess that's where we disagree.

I'd rather have two players than one in the top 3 this year, especially given the fact that the talent level between the #3 player and the #21 player is marginal at worst.

Heck, from what I know about the talent in this year's draft, if additional picks were to be a deal breaker, I'd be happy with the #21 & #28. My point we need as many solid picks as possible. I would let that "value of #3" stand in the way of improving the team. Especially, if some of the other LB's have the possibility of being as good as Curry.

[Micjones]

Unger is big enough and versatile enough to play center, guard or right tackle. He's very athletic and unlike Mack, would give the Chiefs a few options.

That'd definitely give us some options to go back to the well and get a guy like Wood. We'd have the makings of a talented young line.

Without the trade I think that possibility still exists though.

[htismaqe]

I have to agree with Dane here.

If there's any year to take less than what the value chart says, it's this one.

[Toad]

I believe virtually everyone agrees the chart value has been minimized a in the last couple of years. The question is how much? I would say not significantly.

CAR set the precendence last year:

The Philadelphia Eagles receive the Carolina Panthers 2009 1st Round pick, 2008 2nd Round pick (#43 - traded away), and 2008 4th Round pick (#109 - Mike McGlynn) for their 2008 1st Round pick (#19 - Jeff Otah).

If you assume the guideline that current year 1st round equals a next years 2nd round value, then Carolina's 2009 1 rd pick goes from 660 points to 300.

Philly total points received = 470 (43rd) + 76 (109th) + 300 (2009 28th) = 846.

Carolina total points received = 875 (19th).

846 is not that far off from 875.

I think it's okay to give up a couple hundred points, but not more than 300 certainly.

[DaneMcCloud]

I think it's okay to give up a couple hundred points, but not more than 300 certainly.

In this year's draft and with double digit holes on the Chiefs roster, if they could get two first round players (starters) for the #3 overall AND save $30 million dollars, I think they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Regardless of the value chart.

[Micjones]

I believe virtually everyone agrees the chart value has been minimized a in the last couple of years. The question is how much? I would say not significantly.

CAR set the precendence last year:

The Philadelphia Eagles receive the Carolina Panthers 2009 1st Round pick, 2008 2nd Round pick (#43 - traded away), and 2008 4th Round pick (#109 - Mike McGlynn) for their 2008 1st Round pick (#19 - Jeff Otah).

If you assume the guideline that current year 1st round equals a next years 2nd round value, then Carolina's 2009 1 rd pick goes from 660 points to 300.

Philly total points received = 470 (43rd) + 76 (109th) + 300 (2009 28th) = 846.

Carolina total points received = 875 (19th).

846 is not that far off from 875.

I think it's okay to give up a couple hundred points, but not more than 300 certainly.

I tend to agree.
No way you leave 300+ points on the table.

There's no hard fast rule as it relates to the DVC, but it should be used as a guide.
Even in years like this one.

No way I'd leave 300 points (that's the 60th pick in this year's draft) on the table.

I'd move the 3rd overall pick for picks #21 and #28, but I'd have to get another one out of the deal. And I think their #53 pick would be my bottomline. Even then they'd still owe us. But I realize this is an odd year so I'd call that even.

[DaneMcCloud]

No way I'd leave 300 points (that's the 60th pick in this year's draft) on the table.

So hypothetically, if all you can get for the #3 is the #21 & #28, you refuse to make the deal?

Not me. I'm taking the picks.

If I didn't like the players available at #21, I could turn that into at least a second & a third (and maybe a 2nd next year).

There's just SO much you could do with those picks, especially in this year's draft.

[Toad]

In this year's draft and with double digit holes on the Chiefs roster, if they could get two first round players (starters) for the #3 overall AND save $30 million dollars, I think they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Regardless of the value chart.


Do you really think Pioli will simply fork over 740 points?

[Micjones]

Do you really think Pioli will simply fork over 740 points?

No way.
MAYBE if they threw a player in...

But 3rd overall for 21st & 28th overall (straight up)? No.

[DaneMcCloud]

Do you really think Pioli will simply fork over 740 points?

Yeah, this year.

There's not much difference between the #3 player and the #21 player.

Would you rather take a QB or LT or Curry (:Lin:), or turn the #3 pick into two first rounders and possibly more, especially knowing that 3/5's (if not 4/5's) of your entire offensive line needs replacing and this draft is amazingly deep with guys that can start immediately?

I think it's a no-brainer and helps the Chiefs immediately.

[Micjones]

Yeah, this year.

There's not much difference between the #3 player and the #21 player.

Would you rather take a QB or LT or Curry (:Lin:), or turn the #3 pick into two first rounders and possibly more, especially knowing that 3/5's (if not 4/5's) of your entire offensive line needs replacing and this draft is amazingly deep with guys that can start immediately?

I think it's a no-brainer and helps the Chiefs immediately.

Getting more value for the 3rd overall pick would help the Chiefs a bit more.

[DaneMcCloud]

Getting more value for the 3rd overall pick would help the Chiefs a bit more.

Sure but if the team you're trading with refuses to give up more, are you going to just sit at #3 because of some invisible value chart or are you going to strengthen your team and make the trade?

I think it's the latter, without a doubt.

[Micjones]

Sure but if the team you're trading with refuses to give up more, are you going to just sit at #3 because of some invisible value chart or are you going to strengthen your team and make the trade?

I think it's the latter, without a doubt.

I politely tell them to "fuck off".
Again. You'd be giving up 740 points.
Hell even without the chart it's rather simple mathematics to determine that you're getting the short end of the stick.

To move into the Top 5 for two late round #1's? Uh no...
Sorry... Pony up a #3, a player, or stop wasting my cell phone minutes.

[Toad]

Yeah, this year.

There's not much difference between the #3 player and the #21 player.

Would you rather take a QB or LT or Curry (:Lin:), or turn the #3 pick into two first rounders and possibly more, especially knowing that 3/5's (if not 4/5's) of your entire offensive line needs replacing and this draft is amazingly deep with guys that can start immediately?

I think it's a no-brainer and helps the Chiefs immediately.

Please- 3 talent vs 21 talent?

Yes, I would take Stafford before I pull a deal that results in a net loss of 740 points. I'd like to trade down, not get raped. My choice is to trade down but remain within the top 10 so we can still take E Brown.

[DaneMcCloud]

My choice is to trade down but remain within the top 10 so we can still take E Brown.

Uh, no. Yuck, actually.

[DaneMcCloud]

I politely tell them to "fuck off".
Again. You'd be giving up 740 points.
Hell even without the chart it's rather simple mathematics to determine that you're getting the short end of the stick.

To move into the Top 5 for two late round #1's? Uh no...
Sorry... Pony up a #3, a player, or stop wasting my cell phone minutes.

Well, then you're stuck with Curry or Monroe instead of DHB and Mack/Unger.

:Lin:

[Chiefless]

Sure but if the team you're trading with refuses to give up more, are you going to just sit at #3 because of some invisible value chart or are you going to strengthen your team and make the trade?

I think it's the latter, without a doubt.

yep. This year it is. I'm really not sure there is a player worth 60mil to the Chiefs this year. THIS YEAR I'd ask for more but take the two picks.

[Micjones]

Well, then you're stuck with Curry or Monroe instead of DHB and Mack/Unger.

:Lin:

Fine.
I'll take Curry. Or wait for a more reasonable offer.

[Toad]

Well, then you're stuck with Curry or Monroe instead of DHB and Mack/Unger.

:Lin:

Don't you think your limiting the options? There are other teams besides Philly to trade with. The options aren't just trade with Philly OR Curry...

[DaneMcCloud]

Don't you think your limiting the options? There are other teams besides Philly to trade with. The options aren't just trade with Philly OR Curry...

No, I'm with you. That was just one "scenario".

[tonyetony]

I politely tell them to "**** off".
Again. You'd be giving up 740 points.
Hell even without the chart it's rather simple mathematics to determine that you're getting the short end of the stick.

To move into the Top 5 for two late round #1's? Uh no...
Sorry... Pony up a #3, a player, or stop wasting my cell phone minutes.

740 points of value should probably, at the very least, be based on a sliding scale depending on how many area's of need a team needs to address in the draft. I think that holds even more true if the draft is deep in one of the positions your team must address. I guess what I'm saying point values are not as important when your team needs starters picked all the way to the fourth round.

[Dante84]

Hey, guys, Noob here. This is my first post. Been reading for a few months now. Thought now is as good a time as ever to jump in.


I realize that Teams in the same division almost never trade with each other, but what about this hypothetical situation?

Pre-Draft
Cutler to Lions for pick 1.20

Draft
1.1 - Lions take the top OT, as they now don't need a QB
1.2 - Rams take other OT
1.3 - Denver trades up to KC, giving picks 1.12, 1.20, and 3.12 in order to get Stafford

That would allow KC to address the LB/DE need, perhaps both, and a good Olineman.

Is it possible?


Now, off to chug some antifreeze and light myself on fire!

[the Talking Can]

I politely tell them to "**** off".
Again. You'd be giving up 740 points.
Hell even without the chart it's rather simple mathematics to determine that you're getting the short end of the stick.

To move into the Top 5 for two late round #1's? Uh no...
Sorry... Pony up a #3, a player, or stop wasting my cell phone minutes.

amen

jesus you guys are sad...you don't negotiate by giving up

and there is no way in hell that Pioli is going to bend over and take it to the tune of losing 700 points....

we aren't paying him the big bucks to be a p&%$@....

i bet Belicheck would get on a plane, fly to KC, drive to Arrowhead, get on an elevator, walk in to Pioli's office, put on his championship rings, punch Pioli in the face, and ask for his rings back...say "we don't give rings to %^%#$@@!"...

then he would walk out of the office, down the hallway, get on the elevator, look at his reflection in the wall as the elevator descends, walk back to his car, drive out of arrowhead, stop by a McDonalds on the way to the airport, smoke a blunt before returning his car to the rental agency, get lost on his way to the gate, stop to play a video game, prank call the commissioner on his cell phone, go take a dump...wait, what were we talking about?

[Micjones]

740 points of value should probably, at the very least, be based on a sliding scale depending on how many area's of need a team needs to address in the draft. I think that holds even more true if the draft is deep in one of the positions your team must address. I guess what I'm saying point values are not as important when your team needs starters picked all the way to the fourth round.

You're in bad shape if you're depending on your first four picks to be immediate starters.

That probably means you haven't done much in Free Agency.
Even then... I doubt seriously that the first four players taken will start right away.

[tonyetony]

You're in bad shape if you're depending on your first four picks to be immediate starters.

That probably means you haven't done much in Free Agency.
Even then... I doubt seriously that the first four players taken will start right away.

If we trade down there's a damn good possibility that 4 draft picks will be starting by game 10 and 2 or 3 in the opener if we draft for need.

[DaneMcCloud]

You're in bad shape if you're depending on your first four picks to be immediate starters.

That probably means you haven't done much in Free Agency.
Even then... I doubt seriously that the first four players taken will start right away.

I completely disagree.

There are many offensive lineman that could and would start immediately if drafted by the Chiefs. DHB would start immediately.

Uh, keep in mind, Mic, the Chiefs have won 6 games in their past 32.

They're not exactly loaded.

[DaneMcCloud]

amen

jesus you guys are sad...you don't negotiate by giving up

and there is no way in hell that Pioli is going to bend over and take it to the tune of losing 700 points....



It's not giving up if this is the only offer.

If the Chiefs get the #21 & the #28 for the #3, it's far better to draft a couple of guys like Mack/Unger and DHB than a left tackle or Curry. The team would be FAR better off in the long run with two players than one, especially in this draft.

If the top of the draft was loaded with talent, this wouldn't even be worth discussing. But since the most talented players in the draft or either left tackles or QB's (both of which the Chiefs have), they need to take what they can get.

700 points is a myth, anyway.

[DaneMcCloud]

If we trade down there's a damn good possibility that 4 draft picks will be starting by game 10 and 2 or 3 in the opener if we draft for need.

The Chiefs "need" everything but a left tackle and a QB, so anyone they draft with the first 4 picks should start immediately or they've done a poor job of drafting.

[SAUTO]

amen

jesus you guys are sad...you don't negotiate by giving up

and there is no way in hell that Pioli is going to bend over and take it to the tune of losing 700 points....

we aren't paying him the big bucks to be a p&%$@....

i bet Belicheck would get on a plane, fly to KC, drive to Arrowhead, get on an elevator, walk in to Pioli's office, put on his championship rings, punch Pioli in the face, and ask for his rings back...say "we don't give rings to %^%#$@@!"...

then he would walk out of the office, down the hallway, get on the elevator, look at his reflection in the wall as the elevator descends, walk back to his car, drive out of arrowhead, stop by a McDonalds on the way to the airport, smoke a blunt before returning his car to the rental agency, get lost on his way to the gate, stop to play a video game, prank call the commissioner on his cell phone, go take a dump...wait, what were we talking about?

ROFLROFL

[bowener]

I was thinking the same thing, #21 and #28 seem pretty light to me, there better be some other picks/players thrown in.


Does anyone have a link to that chart that shows the value of draft pick positions?

#3 and LJ (to soften the blow, and dump his money and attitude) for #21, 28, and their 2nd (possibly a 2010 pick), or is there a player we could want from them? Kolb as a backup QB???

[aturnis]

Do you really think Pioli will simply fork over 740 points?

The Patriots "forked" over Cassel and Vrabel for a 2nd rounder. The thing is though, they did they Chiefs no favors, we did them a favor. They gave us a deal on Cassel on the condition that we took Vrabel(his contract actually) off of their hands. It was a good business decision for the Patriots. I think that is one key to the way they run their team, like a business. Their key moves make good business sense.

What Dane is saying is, if the only way to move down is to take two firsts, you might be smart to take it. If asking for a second or third to sweeten the deal ultimately breaks the deal, you might just have to take it. Those two picks are worth FAR more to the Chiefs, than the #3 is. There is no player the Chiefs could take with the #3 that would make sense, and there are many that make sense later on, but the Chiefs have to get there first.

How though?

[aturnis]

amen

jesus you guys are sad...you don't negotiate by giving up

and there is no way in hell that Pioli is going to bend over and take it to the tune of losing 700 points....

we aren't paying him the big bucks to be a p&%$@....

i bet Belicheck would get on a plane, fly to KC, drive to Arrowhead, get on an elevator, walk in to Pioli's office, put on his championship rings, punch Pioli in the face, and ask for his rings back...say "we don't give rings to %^%#$@@!"...

then he would walk out of the office, down the hallway, get on the elevator, look at his reflection in the wall as the elevator descends, walk back to his car, drive out of arrowhead, stop by a McDonalds on the way to the airport, smoke a blunt before returning his car to the rental agency, get lost on his way to the gate, stop to play a video game, prank call the commissioner on his cell phone, go take a dump...wait, what were we talking about?

When people negotiate, it's usually the person who wants/needs to make the deal who gives something up. If a team needs a QB and has fallen in love with one, they will give something up to get him.

In this case, I think you've got it twisted, it's not the Eagles who need to move up, in the Chiefs who need to move down. They would probably be willing to give up a little, in order to trade down.

If the Chiefs can get the 21st, 28th, and a 3rd rounder, I'd be ecstatic.

[PastorMikH]

#3 and LJ (to soften the blow, and dump his money and attitude) for #21, 28, and their 2nd (possibly a 2010 pick), or is there a player we could want from them? Kolb as a backup QB???



Uhm, according to the link DaKCMan put up to the draft pick value chart, Not only would the Eagles have to give us both firsts, and their second, they would have to throw in all of their picks for this year and still wouldn't be to the value of our #3 pick - and that's with us keeping LJ.

#3 - 2200

#21 - 800
#28 - 660
#53 - 370
#85 - 165
#121 - 52
#141 - 35.5
#153 - 31.2
#157 - 29.6
#194 - 14.8
#195 - 14.4
#230 - 2

Total: 21174.5

[Toad]

The Patriots "forked" over Cassel and Vrabel for a 2nd rounder. The thing is though, they did they Chiefs no favors, we did them a favor. They gave us a deal on Cassel on the condition that we took Vrabel(his contract actually) off of their hands. It was a good business decision for the Patriots. I think that is one key to the way they run their team, like a business. Their key moves make good business sense.

What Dane is saying is, if the only way to move down is to take two firsts, you might be smart to take it. If asking for a second or third to sweeten the deal ultimately breaks the deal, you might just have to take it. Those two picks are worth FAR more to the Chiefs, than the #3 is. There is no player the Chiefs could take with the #3 that would make sense, and there are many that make sense later on, but the Chiefs have to get there first.

How though?

First of all, player for picks is not the same as picks for picks. The point value loss or gain on picks for picks is very objective and easy to calculate. The picks for players is not. It is virtually impossible to say who got forked in a pick for player type of trade.

Accepting a pick for pick trade with us losing a net of 740 points is a bad deal. That is Ricky Williams bad.

I'll pose this to you as I did Dane - Do you think Pioli will make a trade hosing the Chiefs out of 740 points in his first draft as our GM?

Now, if Philly throws in a 2nd this year or a 1st next year, then yeah.

[Chiefnj2]

First of all, player for picks is not the same as picks for picks. The point value loss or gain on picks for picks is very objective and easy to calculate. The picks for players is not. It is virtually impossible to say who got forked in a pick for player type of trade.

Accepting a pick for pick trade with us losing a net of 740 points is a bad deal. That is Ricky Williams bad.

I'll pose this to you as I did Dane - Do you think Pioli will make a trade hosing the Chiefs out of 740 points in his first draft as our GM?

Now, if Philly throws in a 2nd this year or a 1st next year, then yeah.

You're too hung up on a piece of paper that doesn't take into account the skill or depth of players in this particular draft, or how those players fit into KC's schemes and existing personnel.

[Toad]

You're too hung up on a piece of paper that doesn't take into account the skill or depth of players in this particular draft, or how those players fit into KC's schemes and existing personnel.

Every team uses a value chart to make an objective decision on a pick for pick trade, young man.

[tonyetony]

Every team uses a value chart to make an objective decision on a pick for pick trade, young man.

Yes they use them but they don't let the numbers solely dictate their decisions I guarantee you that.

[Chiefaholic]

The trade down for 21 and 28 would be OK. It would be a lot better if there was another trade down prior to that trade down though... or a bit more involved than just 21 and 28 from the Eagles.

Philli could trade every pick they have this year, and it still doesn't have equal draft value. They'de have to offer both 1st picks this year and next years 1st to boot.

[Chiefaholic]

If it weren't for the Broncos being in our division, we could trade them our #3 overall for their #12, #18, #114, and #140. Denver would only lose 2 points, and they'de get their pick of Stafford or Sanchez to replace Cutler.

[aturnis]

Every team uses a value chart to make an objective decision on a pick for pick trade, young man.

You mean the chart that those in the "know" have recently been calling outdated?

[kcchiefsus]

This year, it's okay.

Would you rather have Curry or a left tackle or Mack/Unger and a rush linebacker?

I know what I'd choose.

I know I would rather have Mack/Unger and a rush linebacker.

[Pioli Zombie]

I guess that's where we disagree.

I'd rather have two players than one in the top 3 this year, especially given the fact that the talent level between the #3 player and the #21 player is marginal at worst.

Thank you!!!!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[Pioli Zombie]

If it weren't for the Broncos being in our division, we could trade them our #3 overall for their #12, #18, #114, and #140. Denver would only lose 2 points, and they'de get their pick of Stafford or Sanchez to replace Cutler.
I wish people would stop with the "we can't trade in our division" crap. That's loser mentality. Let the Broncos be afraid to deal with the Chiefs. If you have confidence in your GM, which you should, go for it. That's why I loved it when BB traded Bledsoe to the Bills. It was like he was saying F you I'm not afraid of you, you be afraid of us!
Posted via Mobile Device