Chiefs A few Chiefs' draft questions [Archive]

View Full Version : Chiefs A few Chiefs' draft questions

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 10:15 AM

-I just realized that one major mistake people are making is assuming that the Chiefs are going to have a top 5 pick. I think it's very possible that Tampa, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Tennessee could pick higher than us. If that's the case, Berry and Suh are taken off the board. Is Cody a bad pick in this case? I actually think he'd be a great pick if those guys are off the board.
-If the Chiefs end up at #5 or #6, do you entertain a trade down? I think the Chiefs could trade down and still get Mays or Cody. And these two draft slots are attractive enough to trade out of
-If Berry and Suh are off the board, is there a player that teams would actually trade up for? I don't want Bradford at all, but is he a player teams would trade up for? What about Dunlap out of Florida?
-If Jimmy Claussen declares (which I don't think he will), is he worth the pick? My opinion--I would even trade up and take him. I think this kid is going to be the best QB prospect in years.
-If Jake Locker declares, is he worth a look? He looks like he'll be a real good QB, but I can't help but think he's going to be Brady Quinn or maybe a less mobile, slightly more accurate version of Cassel

milkman

11-01-2009, 10:17 AM

No.

kcpasco

11-01-2009, 10:18 AM

Lets take another guard and make him a tackle

Mr. Arrowhead

11-01-2009, 10:19 AM

I rather take that NT from Duke in the 3rd round than have Cody

Dante84

11-01-2009, 10:23 AM

I'd trade back 35 times... and have every pick in next year's draft. Is what I'd do.

Dante84

11-01-2009, 10:23 AM

If I was Peoly.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 10:25 AM

Why would we care if Suh is off the board?

Don't like either of those QB prospects, so the selection is easy: Mays.

Rain Man

11-01-2009, 10:46 AM

We probably should implement a rule where we can never talk about trading down if we have a top-8 pick.

OnTheWarpath15

11-01-2009, 10:47 AM

How about another 5 technique that is rated as a mid-late round pick?

doomy3

11-01-2009, 10:49 AM

How about another 5 technique that is rated as a mid-late round pick?

Are you trying to imply that Tyson Jackson was rated as a mid to late round pick? ROFL

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 10:50 AM

Are you trying to imply that Tyson Jackson was rated as a mid to late round pick? ROFL

Mid? Yes, because he was.

Unless we really care what the dumbass in Cleveland was going to do, but...we might, since he has connections to NE.

doomy3

11-01-2009, 10:51 AM

Mid? Yes, because he was.

Unless we really care what the dumbass in Cleveland was going to do, but...we might, since he has connections to NE.

Really? So, if we hadn't have drafted him, what round do you think he would have gone in? Fourth? Fifth?

Give me a break.

milkman

11-01-2009, 10:53 AM

Are you trying to imply that Tyson Jackson was rated as a mid to late round pick? ROFL

I'm pretty sure that Path mean't mid to late first round pick.

I'm also fairly certain that you probably knew that's what he mean't as well.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 10:53 AM

Really? So, if we hadn't have drafted him, what round do you think he would have gone in? Fourth? Fifth?

Give me a break.

He was referring to mid-late first round.

OnTheWarpath15

11-01-2009, 10:53 AM

Are you trying to imply that Tyson Jackson was rated as a mid to late round pick? ROFL

No implication necessary.

Until Rick Gosselin's mock came out late Friday night, no one had Jackson going any earlier than 12-14, and several had him going as late as 20.

Once Gosselin's mock came out, everyone jumped on board.

Rain Man

11-01-2009, 10:53 AM

I'd like to see us get Suh, and then sign Ray Lewis, me, Brett Favre, Chris Long, and Terrell Owens as free agents, so with Dorsey we could have Dor, Ray, me, Fahv-re, Suh, Long, T.O.

OnTheWarpath15

11-01-2009, 10:54 AM

I'm pretty sure that Path mean't mid to late first round pick.

I'm also fairly certain that you probably knew that's what he mean't as well.

He was referring to mid-late first round.

This.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 10:56 AM

I'd like to see us get Suh, and then sign Ray Lewis, me, Brett Favre, Chris Long, and Terrell Owens as free agents, so with Dorsey we could have Dor, Ray, me, Fahv-re, Suh, Long, T.O.

LMAO.

Nice. And actually a more competent off-season plan than what Scott Oedipus orchestrated this past year.

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 10:57 AM

Are you trying to imply that Tyson Jackson was rated as a mid to late round pick? ROFL

Intellectual dishonesty, FTL.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 11:03 AM

Mid? Yes, because he was.

Unless we really care what the dumbass in Cleveland was going to do, but...we might, since he has connections to NE.

if cleveland didnt take him, Mike Singletary said on NFLN on may 6, when he was a guest, that they wanted TJ...

Thats if he also got past GB.

I think alot of people will be posting Tysons name on the "I was wrong about..." thread by the middle of next year.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 11:05 AM

if cleveland didnt take him, Mike Singletary said on NFLN on may 6, when he was a guest, that they wanted TJ...

Thats if he also got past GB.

I think alot of people will be posting Tysons name on the "I was wrong about..." thread by the middle of next year.

Oh, I think he can definitely be a very good player. We're FAR from being able to call him a bust.

But the question is whether he's a player worthy of being the #3 overall pick.

KChiefs1

11-01-2009, 11:07 AM

If the Chiefs don't have a top 5 pick then it's probably easier to trade down to get more picks...I'm hoping the QB class is stellar next year & everyone wants to move up to get one.

milkman

11-01-2009, 11:09 AM

Oh, I think he can definitely be a very good player. We're FAR from being able to call him a bust.

But the question is whether he's a player worthy of being the #3 overall pick.

Again, one has to ask, if you are going to transition to a 34, and take a 5 tech DE with a top 5 pick, would a better plan hae been to transition over a period of time, focus O-Line in the last draft and take Suh in the next draft?

I think Jackson is going to be a good 5 tech, but Suh looks like he could well be that rare dominating 5 tech.

But I have to say, at the same time, I just couldn't get behind taking Curry top 5 either.

So what do we do?

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:12 AM

Oh, I think he can definitely be a very good player. We're FAR from being able to call him a bust.

But the question is whether he's a player worthy of being the #3 overall pick.

But you have to grade on a curve.

Last year's draft class was very low on talent. It's not as much about taking Jackson #3 overall as much as it is... who else should they have taken?

The only two answers at the time were Raji and Sanchez. Raji hasn't shown anything yet and whether you agree with the move or not, Sanchez was off the table the minute they traded for Cassel.

He was a bit of a reach, but I still think it was one of the best moves they could have made given the circumstances.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 11:13 AM

No implication necessary.

Until Rick Gosselin's mock came out late Friday night, no one had Jackson going any earlier than 12-14, and several had him going as late as 20.

Once Gosselin's mock came out, everyone jumped on board.

the mock I found Seymour going highest in was 16 by Kiper back in 2001, take it for what its worth.

Where was Mario Williams supposed to go?

Truth is we are in our houses when these guys are interviewing him and watching all game tape as well as going to the combine and his pro day and private workouts.

I hope these guys we brought in to make these decisions know what they are doing this time...

Mr. Laz

11-01-2009, 11:13 AM

you guys really think a Safety in gonna go top 3?

i seriously doubt it unless there is a new CBA that has a new draft slotting provision.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 11:14 AM

Again, one has to ask, if you are going to transition to a 34, and take a 5 tech DE with a top 5 pick, would a better plan hae been to transition over a period of time, focus O-Line in the last draft and take Suh in the next draft?

I think Jackson is going to be a good 5 tech, but Suh looks like he could well be that rare dominating 5 tech.

But I have to say, at the same time, I just couldn't get behind taking Curry top 5 either.

So what do we do?

Suh does look like a freak.

Regarding last year:

1. Pioli better have thought Raji was a worthless sack of shit.
2. Better plan would have been to have tried to get an impact player, WR, CB, something (not even touching the QB discussion).
3. If I'm acquiring a win-now QB, I'm probably not trading Gonzo. His value toward Cassel's development could be worth well more than a late 2nd rounder.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 11:15 AM

the mock I found Seymour going highest in was 16 by Kiper back in 2001, take it for what its worth.

Where was Mario Williams supposed to go?

Truth is we are in our houses when these guys are interviewing him and watching all game tape as well as going to the combine and his pro day and private workouts.

I hope these guys we brought in to make these decisions know what they are doing this time...

#2 overall.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:15 AM

If the Chiefs don't have a top 5 pick then it's probably easier to trade down to get more picks...I'm hoping the QB class is stellar next year & everyone wants to move up to get one.

I agree with you. It's very possible the Chiefs fall into that trade zone. If Jake Locker declares and pending the draft value of Bradford (who many are projecting could still go in the top 10, regardless of injury status), the Chiefs might have some bargaining chips for a trade down.

ThunderChief

11-01-2009, 11:16 AM

There are, arguably, about 3-4 OTs with first round grades thus far for the 2010 draft. That status can, and usually does, change as the players go through the process of evaluation in terms of body of work, Combine, and personal workouts. Whatever.

If that number stays close to accurate, I say trade down, but select one of those LTs and shore up the Oline. Find out, for example, if Albert is better suited at his college position of OG or could be get the job done at RT? At any rate, this front office cannot again ignore the most glaring weakness on the team.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 11:16 AM

The QBs would have to seriously entice because there's no chance we're not picking in the top 3.

milkman

11-01-2009, 11:18 AM

Suh does look like a freak.

Regarding last year:

1. Pioli better have thought Raji was a worthless sack of shit.
2. Better plan would have been to have tried to get an impact player, WR, CB, something (not even touching the QB discussion).
3. If I'm acquiring a win-now QB, I'm probably not trading Gonzo. His value toward Cassel's development could be worth well more than a late 2nd rounder.

I think now, though I admit I didn't at the time of the draft, I would have taken Moreno to give Cassel a weapon to wiork with out of the backfiled.

I'm not big on taking RBs in the first round, but I do think, and have thought for some time, that Moreno has the tools to be a special talent in the Thurmon Thomas mode.

The fact is though, that I really had no idea who would have any real value at that pick.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:19 AM

Suh does look like a freak.

Regarding last year:

1. Pioli better have thought Raji was a worthless sack of shit.
2. Better plan would have been to have tried to get an impact player, WR, CB, something (not even touching the QB discussion).
3. If I'm acquiring a win-now QB, I'm probably not trading Gonzo. His value toward Cassel's development could be worth well more than a late 2nd rounder.

I personally believe that 5-techniques are far more impactful on the team than a WR or CB. You can bypass average CB play with a great pass rush (see Pittsburgh). And I can think of a handful of receivers who are pure difference makers. You can live without stellar WRs or CBs. You absolutely cannot survive in a 3-4 without really good players up front.

Raji is the only guy I would have considered (I'm staying out of the QBs discussion).

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:22 AM

The QBs would have to seriously entice because there's no chance we're not picking in the top 3.

Tampa, St. Louis, Cleveland, Tennessee. Maybe even Washington or Tennessee. I think there's a really good chance the Chiefs don't pick in the top 3.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 11:23 AM

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 11:24 AM

Tampa, St. Louis, Cleveland, Tennessee. Maybe even Washington or Tennessee. I think there's a really good chance the Chiefs don't pick in the top 3.

I think we have 1 more win left on our schedule, Cleveland at home.

Mr. Arrowhead

11-01-2009, 11:26 AM

I think now, though I admit I didn't at the time of the draft, I would have taken Moreno to give Cassel a weapon to wiork with out of the backfiled.

I'm not big on taking RBs in the first round, but I do think, and have thought for some time, that Moreno has the tools to be a special talent in the Thurmon Thomas mode.

The fact is though, that I really had no idea who would have any real value at that pick.

if we ever take a RB in the first round again, then just shoot me in the fucking head, because i want a player thats gonna be there for 10-12 years and not 5

BossChief

11-01-2009, 11:28 AM

I think now, though I admit I didn't at the time of the draft, I would have taken Moreno to give Cassel a weapon to wiork with out of the backfiled.

I'm not big on taking RBs in the first round, but I do think, and have thought for some time, that Moreno has the tools to be a special talent in the Thurmon Thomas mode.

The fact is though, that I really had no idea who would have any real value at that pick.

all the otackles had concerns, BJ is an idiot, Crabtree is a adolecent and Curry isnt a pass rusher. Jackson had no negatives except he may not develop into a dominating elite style player, but might have added value to Dorseys play.

Jackson wasnt as bad a pick as he is made out to be.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 11:28 AM

if we ever take a RB in the first round again, then just shoot me in the ****ing head, because i want a player thats gonna be there for 10-12 years and not 5

Depending upon the roster and how close the team is to making a run at the SB, I'm taking AP, pardon the pun, all day.

Barry Sanders? Done. And I don't really give a fuck what the team looks like.

milkman

11-01-2009, 11:30 AM

if we ever take a RB in the first round again, then just shoot me in the ****ing head, because i want a player thats gonna be there for 10-12 years and not 5

Small shifty backs that give you 250-300 carries a season, and are weapons as receivers out of the backfield, who don't take a lot of hits head on, generally give you 9-10 good years.

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 11:35 AM

But you have to grade on a curve.

Last year's draft class was very low on talent. It's not as much about taking Jackson #3 overall as much as it is... who else should they have taken?

The only two answers at the time were Raji and Sanchez. Raji hasn't shown anything yet and whether you agree with the move or not, Sanchez was off the table the minute they traded for Cassel.

He was a bit of a reach, but I still think it was one of the best moves they could have made given the circumstances.

zilla, you are treating each draft as though it exists in a vacuum. Perhaps it does for a team that is one year away from making a run, but for a rebuilding team, you need to think long term. You need to look at how the strengths of the draft play out. Where the value is most likely going to be, and adjust your needs accordingly.

If there are several good QBs in a draft one year, and few to none the next two years, then those QBs have far more value, as they are a shrinking commodity. Same goes for OL. They were worth more in the mid rounds last year, because their skill level was greater than the round they were falling in would indicate, and the next few classes weren't going to be as good.

Now, that's not to say you can go into a draft and only look for the positions you absolutely need, but when analyzing the next several drafts, you should work future returns into your valuing of current picks. Obviously, if you have to choose between a middling OG to help your weak line or a very good LB to solidify your ok to good LB corps you go with the LB, but if there is a very weak class of one and a strong class of another in next year's draft, and the prospects are similarly rated, you should get the rarer commodity.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 11:36 AM

you guys know what happens to our pass rush if we draft Suh and add a rushbacker to blitz off his outside shoulder?

Consistent havoc in opposing backfields in the playoffs, thats what.

milkman

11-01-2009, 11:41 AM

all the otackles had concerns, BJ is an idiot, Crabtree is a adolecent and Curry isnt a pass rusher. Jackson had no negatives except he may not develop into a dominating elite style player, but might have added value to Dorseys play.

Jackson wasnt as bad a pick as he is made out to be.

Let's take a look at last year's draft, and sub Moreno in for Jackson.

In the third round we take Antione Caldwell, 4th, Jonathan Luigs, 5th Johnny Knox.

Follow that up this next draft, we take Suh in the first, Jerry Hughes and Ciron Black in the second, Boo Robinson in the third and Brandon Lang in the fourth.

How would that look going forward?

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 11:45 AM

I said last year that if the Chiefs were going to go off the reservation with #3 overall, they should take Maclin. He instantly fills three positions on the team, and gives you a great deep threat.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:46 AM

zilla, you are treating each draft as though it exists in a vacuum. Perhaps it does for a team that is one year away from making a run, but for a rebuilding team, you need to think long term. You need to look at how the strengths of the draft play out. Where the value is most likely going to be, and adjust your needs accordingly.

If there are several good QBs in a draft one year, and few to none the next two years, then those QBs have far more value, as they are a shrinking commodity. Same goes for OL. They were worth more in the mid rounds last year, because their skill level was greater than the round they were falling in would indicate, and the next few classes weren't going to be as good.

Now, that's not to say you can go into a draft and only look for the positions you absolutely need, but when analyzing the next several drafts, you should work future returns into your valuing of current picks. Obviously, if you have to choose between a middling OG to help your weak line or a very good LB to solidify your ok to good LB corps you go with the LB, but if there is a very weak class of one and a strong class of another in next year's draft, and the prospects are similarly rated, you should get the rarer commodity.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Chiefs did horrendous in the later rounds. But in terms of the first round, Jackson was one of the only logical options. I don't know if your point is to say that a backup LT or a backup QB would have been more valuable because of future trade value. I can see your point on that. But then you run into the same issues of whether you're overpaying for a backup QB or a backup LT (or, arguably, a guard... if the rationale was to move Albert to Guard).

I'm just arguing against those who say he was a reach or some guy the Chiefs overpaid for. He wasn't a reach when you consider that the main alternatives was in two positions we already had. He is overpaid, but everybody is in a weak draft class.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:46 AM

I said last year that if the Chiefs were going to go off the reservation with #3 overall, they should take Maclin. He instantly fills three positions on the team, and gives you a great deep threat.

My opinion is that in 2-3 years, Jackson makes a much bigger impact on his team than Maclin. Just an opinion.

milkman

11-01-2009, 11:48 AM

My opinion is that in 2-3 years, Jackson makes a much bigger impact on his team than Maclin. Just an opinion.

Is this an example of a post that you think you're right?

salame

11-01-2009, 11:49 AM

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 11:52 AM

Is this an example of a post that you think you're right?

It's a post where I know I'm right.

There's been so much talk about how Dorsey's play this season has made Hali a much better player. If Jackson figures things out, he's going to make the run defense much better and he's going to make whomever is rushing the passer behind him very productive. Right now, Vrabel's getting stonewalled quite a bit because Jackson is very inconsistent, and it's giving him no pass rush lanes to work with.

I would rather stop the run and get sacks than have a deep threat wide receiver.

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 11:55 AM

Don't get me wrong. I think the Chiefs did horrendous in the later rounds. But in terms of the first round, Jackson was one of the only logical options. I don't know if your point is to say that a backup LT or a backup QB would have been more valuable because of future trade value. I can see your point on that. But then you run into the same issues of whether you're overpaying for a backup QB or a backup LT (or, arguably, a guard... if the rationale was to move Albert to Guard).

I'm just arguing against those who say he was a reach or some guy the Chiefs overpaid for. He wasn't a reach when you consider that the main alternatives was in two positions we already had. He is overpaid, but everybody is in a weak draft class.

Well, here's the thing:

I had the Chiefs in the CP mock after the Chiefs drafted Cassel. Given the strength of the board, my lack of confidence in Cassel, and my belief in Sanchez, I took Sanchez with the belief that I could either trade Cassel to a team that wanted him for more than I paid for him (like Denver, as the Cutler trade hadn't happened yet, or Minnesota pre-Favre and Rosenfels).

I was pilloried for it.

I also thought that taking Raji (given the fact that he can play NT) or a guy like Maclin would be far better than Jackson, and I said such. I thought Malcolm Jenkins was an option until his awful 40 time.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 12:00 PM

Well, here's the thing:

I had the Chiefs in the CP mock after the Chiefs drafted Cassel. Given the strength of the board, my lack of confidence in Cassel, and my belief in Sanchez, I took Sanchez with the belief that I could either trade Cassel to a team that wanted him for more than I paid for him (like Denver, as the Cutler trade hadn't happened yet, or Minnesota pre-Favre and Rosenfels).

I was pilloried for it.

I also thought that taking Raji (given the fact that he can play NT) or a guy like Maclin would be far better than Jackson, and I said such. I thought Malcolm Jenkins was an option until his awful 40 time.

Sanchez was never a lousy option, even as a backup. And the guy I was pushing for was Raji. I don't necessarily think Jackson was the best pick. I just disagree with people who say he was a bad pick. Or claim he was this monumental reach or is overpaid. Given the alternatives the Chiefs had, I don't think either one of those is true.

milkman

11-01-2009, 12:02 PM

It's a post where I know I'm right.

There's been so much talk about how Dorsey's play this season has made Hali a much better player. If Jackson figures things out, he's going to make the run defense much better and he's going to make whomever is rushing the passer behind him very productive. Right now, Vrabel's getting stonewalled quite a bit because Jackson is very inconsistent, and it's giving him no pass rush lanes to work with.

I would rather stop the run and get sacks than have a deep threat wide receiver.

All the while ignoring the fact that a reliable deep threat would give DCs 2nd thoughts about stacking the box and open up things underneath in the passing game, creating more opportunities for Bowe to make plays.

And then, of course, he could have an impact in the field position battle with his return abilities.

But a 5 tech DE, who isn't going to be as good as Suh is likley to be, would have a greater impact.

Yeah.

Sure.

Mecca

11-01-2009, 12:06 PM

I rather take that NT from Duke in the 3rd round than have Cody

Vince Oghobaase is a 3-4 end not a NT.

cdcox

11-01-2009, 12:07 PM

There is currently a 77% chance we'll have a top 5 pick.

Mecca

11-01-2009, 12:09 PM

There is currently a 77% chance we'll have a top 5 pick.

You've now destroyed the thread.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 12:17 PM

All the while ignoring the fact that a reliable deep threat would give DCs 2nd thoughts about stacking the box and open up things underneath in the passing game, creating more opportunities for Bowe to make plays.

And then, of course, he could have an impact in the field position battle with his return abilities.

But a 5 tech DE, who isn't going to be as good as Suh is likley to be, would have a greater impact.

Yeah.

Sure.

Of course a good player at any position is going to give you more opportunity to do other things. But you can get a premiere punt returner in the later rounds. And you can easily find receivers with explosive 40 times in the second or third round. If you're looking for a guy who can free up Bowe, then you go for an all-around receiver like Crabtree early and you draft a really lightning fast guy in the later rounds or bring one in in free agency--that's your deep threat. Thank god, by the way, they didn't draft Crabtree. Maclin as a pure receiver came in with some major issues and it's no wonder he was taken fairly low in the first round. If we're talking reaches, that's one where we know for sure it was a huge reach because we know exactly where he was drafted. It would have been a 16-spot reach.

The Raiders basically did the same thing by drafting Heyward-Bey because of his deep threat potential and got grilled for it. And rightfully so.

If we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Braylon Edwards, then I see your point. But Crabtree was the only guy in the draft with that kind of positional value, and I am glad the Chiefs didn't take a flyer on him.

milkman

11-01-2009, 12:21 PM

Of course a good player at any position is going to give you more opportunity to do other things. But you can get a premiere punt returner in the later rounds. And you can easily find receivers with explosive 40 times in the second or third round. If you're looking for a guy who can free up Bowe, then you go for an all-around receiver like Crabtree early and you draft a really lightning fast guy in the later rounds or bring one in in free agency--that's your deep threat. Thank god, by the way, they didn't draft Crabtree. Maclin as a pure receiver came in with some major issues and it's no wonder he was taken fairly low in the first round. If we're talking reaches, that's one where we know for sure it was a huge reach because we know exactly where he was drafted. It would have been a 16-spot reach.

The Raiders basically did the same thing by drafting Heyward-Bey because of his deep threat potential and got grilled for it. And rightfully so.

If we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Braylon Edwards, then I see your point. But Crabtree was the only guy in the draft with that kind of positional value, and I am glad the Chiefs didn't take a flyer on him.

If you can get a starter at WR who can do the things that you're talking about two or three different players can do for your team, by himself, that gives him more value than some 5 tech DE whose primary job is to tie up blockers.

You can find a guy that will have the same impact over time that jackson will have in the second or third round.

Alex Magee isn't that far behind him in his developoment.

beach tribe

11-01-2009, 12:27 PM

I'd like to see us get Suh, and then sign Ray Lewis, me, Brett Favre, Chris Long, and Terrell Owens as free agents, so with Dorsey we could have Dor, Ray, me, Fahv-re, Suh, Long, T.O.

:clap: Bravo RM. Bravo.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 12:28 PM

If you can get a starter at WR who can do the things that you're talking about two or three different players can do for your team, by himself, that gives him more value than some 5 tech DE whose primary job is to tie up blockers.

You can find a guy that will have the same impact over time that jackson will have in the second or third round.

Alex Magee isn't that far behind him in his developoment.

Just my opinion. But I think Jackson has potential to be a very good DE while Magee's upside is to be a solid but unspectacular rotational DE. Saying all they do is tie up blockers is selling these guys short. We've seen some of the stuff Dorsey's starting to do. He's tying up blockers, he's doing a great job of swimming past them and attacking too. And this is considering that Jackson, in my opinion, has a much higher upside than Dorsey has as a 3-4 DE.

And again, those receivers who also return punts and kicks aren't hard to find in the very late rounds. At the earliest, you'll see them taken in the late first round, unless you're stupid like the Raiders. You're basically telling me that Maclin's ability to return punts leapfrogs him 15-20 spots on the first round draft board. It's valuable, but not THAT valuable.

milkman

11-01-2009, 12:37 PM

Just my opinion. But I think Jackson has potential to be a very good DE while Magee's upside is to be a solid but unspectacular rotational DE. Saying all they do is tie up blockers is selling these guys short. We've seen some of the stuff Dorsey's starting to do. He's tying up blockers, he's doing a great job of swimming past them and attacking too. And this is considering that Jackson, in my opinion, has a much higher upside than Dorsey has as a 3-4 DE.

And again, those receivers who also return punts and kicks aren't hard to find in the very late rounds. At the earliest, you'll see them taken in the late first round, unless you're stupid like the Raiders. You're basically telling me that Maclin's ability to return punts leapfrogs him 15-20 spots on the first round draft board. It's valuable, but not THAT valuable.

My point is that, unless Tyson Jackson is getting 8-9 sacks a year and an absolute monster in run defense, there is no way a 5 tech DE is as impactful as a WR that can open up things in the running game and the short passing game.

Richard Seymour may well be the best 5 tech we've seen, but there's no way he was as valuable as Marvin Harrison was to the Colts.

cdcox

11-01-2009, 12:38 PM

I'd like to see us get Suh, and then sign Ray Lewis, me, Brett Favre, Chris Long, and Terrell Owens as free agents, so with Dorsey we could have Dor, Ray, me, Fahv-re, Suh, Long, T.O.

Some people are operating on a whole different level than the rest of us. Well done.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 03:46 PM

My point is that, unless Tyson Jackson is getting 8-9 sacks a year and an absolute monster in run defense, there is no way a 5 tech DE is as impactful as a WR that can open up things in the running game and the short passing game.

Richard Seymour may well be the best 5 tech we've seen, but there's no way he was as valuable as Marvin Harrison was to the Colts.

I don't agree. Look at what 3-4 defenses do in terms of who they protect and who they're willing to let go. You rarely ever see a 3-4 defense ship out a productive D-lineman. Yet, you see a constant revolving carousel of CBs and ILBs. Usually a lot of movement at free safety. And as we've seen in Baltimore and New England, they had a revolving carousel of Outside Rush LBs too. Isn't it interesting that the Chargers shipped out two of their key defensive linemen, and their defense went from powerful to completely flat in one offseason.

And again, you're confusing Marvin Harrison, a terrific overall WR to Jeremy Maclin, a guy that we've been talking about as a pure deep threat. Like I said, if you've got a fast receiver like Steve Smith who can make catches all across the field, then that's a guy you can take at #3. But if we're talking about a Ted Ginn type that's going to play primarily in the slot as your #3 WR, then he better be Wes Welker good. And Maclin isn't going to be remotely as good as Welker.

Stats are grossly overrated. But if we're talking stats, a good 5-technique will rack up a good 70-80 tackles a year and a lot of that is in run defense. A deep threat may open up the short passing game and maybe the running game, but ever think of the opportunities a DE opens up? A great 3-4 D-line will stuff the run. That means your back 7 can focus on stopping the pass instead of cheating up to stop the run. It means you eliminate big cutback lanes on the run game, so your safeties can focus exclusively on the pass. It means you can be a lot more aggressive in your blitz packages. And just as a left tackle gives your QB/WRs time to make plays, a Defensive line opens lanes up for your rush backers to make plays.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:03 PM

If we're talking about Calvin Johnson or Braylon Edwards, then I see your point. But Crabtree was the only guy in the draft with that kind of positional value, and I am glad the Chiefs didn't take a flyer on him.

You're "glad"?

Just how fucking retarded are you?

I know, I know. It would totally suck to have Cassel throwing to Crabtree & Bowe.

My bad.

:shake:

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:05 PM

Stats are grossly overrated. But if we're talking stats, a good 5-technique will rack up a good 70-80 tackles a year

What?

Ty Warren's a "good" 3-4 end and he averages 54 tackles a year.

You're smokin' crack.

chiefs1111

11-01-2009, 04:07 PM

How about another 5 technique that is rated as a mid-late round pick?

if they do that,im going to have buy a new TV

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 04:13 PM

You're "glad"?

Just how ****ing retarded are you?

I know, I know. It would totally suck to have Cassel throwing to Crabtree & Bowe.

My bad.

:shake:

I am not sold on Crabtree. I don't think he's going to be worth a top 3 pick. He didn't come with nearly the resume as say a Calvin Johnson or a Braylon Edwards.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:18 PM

I am not sold on Crabtree. I don't think he's going to be worth a top 3 pick. He didn't come with nearly the resume as say a Calvin Johnson or a Braylon Edwards.

Really?

Then you're just plain fucking stupid.

The guy didn't go through training camp.

The guy's had two weeks of practice.

And guess what?

Crabtree has 11 catches in two games for 137 yards in TWO GAMES. He's averaging 12.5 yards per catch .

Dwayne Bowe has 23 catches in 7 GAMES.

Urine idiot.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 04:18 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=1946758
Originally Published: December 15, 2004
Defensive linemen do the dirty work in 3-4
If stats are your thing, then playing defensive line in a 3-4 probably isn't for you.
Email Print Share
Smith By Michael Smith
ESPN.com
Archive

No man is an island, but when you're Julius Peppers, a defensive end with the athleticism to suck up tailbacks from 70 yards away and to line up at receiver in the red zone, you want to be on one as often as possible, pursuing the quarterback from the most advantageous position.

Peppers is at his best when he's rushing from the edge, wide of the tackle or over a tight end, in what's known as the "7" technique. Peppers (6 feet, 6 inches and 290 pounds) has ideal size to play on the interior, and for a brief period during the first month of the season, Carolina, looking to take advantage of their linebacker depth, experimented with using Peppers inside, over the tackle in the "5" technique, at end in their 3-4 package. Make that misusing him.

A former "4" (power forward) for The University of North Carolina hoops team, Peppers learned that battling inside on the gridiron is a whole different ballgame. His production slipped in those and he looked, according to one pro scout, hesitant.

"I really don't like being down inside," said Peppers, who, at home on the edge, has posted eight of his 10 sacks this season in the past six games. "I feel like when I'm down in that area like a tackle, I don't feel like I'm being used properly. It's hard, because you have to be a lot more run conscious and a lot more physical, which, being physical, that's no problem for me. But I'd rather get on the edge and rush the passer."

Wouldn't they all. Look at it this way, Julius: At least your 3-4 days are over. There are linemen in Baltimore, Houston, New England, Oakland, Pittsburgh, San Diego stuck doing the defense's dirtiest jobs week in and week out.

The primary defensive front for the aforementioned six franchises is the 3-4, which includes three defensive linemen -- a nose tackle lined up over center flanked by ends over each tackle -- and four linebackers, two inside and two outside. Majority rules in this scheme, which several other teams also have in their personnel package. It's designed to feature the 'backers. They're the stars, while the linemen's primary responsibility is to help the 'backers look their best by keeping offensive linemen occupied. Their contributions can't necessarily be measured by individual statistics. At least, not their individual statistics.

Think of the big boys up front as production assistants. They get about the same amount of recognition, too. Very little.

"It's not that hard," said Patriots nose tackle Keith Traylor, who had limited experience in the 3-4 before this season, "it's just boring. It's not a lot of fun."

Indeed, for 3-4 linemen, the action in the playmaking department rarely is fast and furious. All 3-4 teams use some style of the "two-gap" technique, which calls for the nose tackle to fill the "A" gaps on either side of the center and for the ends to take care of the "B" and "C" gaps between the guards and tackles and outside the tackle, respectively. The idea is to fill both gaps and delay, if not prevent, blockers from reaching the second level, thereby creating open lanes to the football for the inside linebackers.

Pittsburgh's linemen do lots of stunting (looping) and penetrating, forcing the ballcarrier to commit to a hole. The Patriots linemen, on the other hand, are asked to simply hold their positions and tie up blockers. In general, linemen in the 3-4 often aren't in the best position to make tackles, hence their typically low totals. And since they aren't shooting through gaps like 4-3 linemen, they don't make very many stops behind the line of scrimmage, either. That's particularly true for the nose tackles, who deal with more of a variety of double teams than their 4-3 counterparts, who are already aligned in gaps.

Richard Seymour
Richard Seymour is considered one of the NFL's best defensive linemen.
Sacks are a bonus for pocket-pushing nose tackles, like an onion ring in your French fries; Baltimore's Kelly Gregg, maybe the best nose in the game along with Pittsburgh's Casey Hampton, has 1½. Ends in the 3-4 tend to collect a few more, but they are inhibited by their responsibilities versus the run and don't put up the same kind of numbers as 4-3 ends.

Before an end can get after the quarterback, he has to first make certain a draw isn't coming through the "B" gap (between the guard and tackle). The end also has bootleg duty. If there's run action inside, the ends first reaction should be to hit the "B" gap, and if nothing's coming, hustle back outside to contain the quarterback.

"The responsibility of a 3-4 end is 10 times harder than the responsibility of a 4-3 end," said Pittsburgh end Kimo von Oelhoffen. "You're on the edge (in the 4-3). You've got great angles for stopping the run, and great angles for rushing the quarterback. That's why those guys get sacks."

All of which makes Steeler Aaron Smith's eight sacks all the more impressive (Patriots DE Richard Seymour had eight last season). Smith's eight sacks tie him for 15th in the league. Next among 3-4 defensive linemen is Baltimore's Marques Douglas, who has 5½, tied for 38th in the league.

“ It's not designed for you to make the plays. It's designed for the linebackers. That's why it's a 3-4. You've really got to do a good job to get yourself into it, but you're creating for other people. ”
— Richard Seymour, Patriots DE

Smith and Seymour are considered the league's top 3-4 ends because they're strong against the run and the pass. Seymour has made the last two Pro Bowls. Long (6-6, 310) and athletic, he's considered the prototype for the position the way 365-pound Ted Washington was for the nose. People in Pittsburgh are lobbying for Smith to be the team's first Pro Bowl end since L.C. Greenwood after the '79 season.

One number says it all about the difference between playing defensive tackle in a 4-3 and end in a 3-4, similar positions in terms of physical stature. The number is one. That's Warren Sapp's sack total this season.

"It takes a special cat to really play within the structure of the defense and be unselfish and all the things that come with it," said Ravens defensive line coach Rex Ryan, who's brother, Rob, coordinates Oakland's defense. "Warren Sapp's one of the best 4-3 tackles of all time. You'd think he'd be able to do it (convert to end), but, and I don't get to see their games, but something's not happening over there."

"It's not designed for you to make the plays," said Seymour, who has four sacks this year. "It's designed for the linebackers. That's why it's a 3-4. You've really got to do a good job to get yourself into it, but you're creating for other people."

If stats are your thing, and you're looking to others to define your value to your defense, then the 3-4 isn't for you.

"You have to be an unselfish player," Ryan said. "If you're playing like you're in an Indianapolis scheme and getting up the field and all that, you would not be able to stop a run to save anything. Those (3-4) guys have gotta two gap. They've got to do all the dirty work."

Michael Smith is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:20 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=1946758
Originally Published: December 15, 2004

Michael Smith is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Who gives a fuck?

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:23 PM

Stats are grossly overrated. But if we're talking stats, a good 5-technique will rack up a good 70-80 tackles a year

I have no idea where you got this idea but Richard Seymour has averaged only 44 tackles (that includes assists) in 8 years in the NFL.

:shake:

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 04:25 PM

Who gives a ****?

If you actually took the time to read, which you didn't, you'll find it's a very interesting read for this discussion.

The Bad Guy

11-01-2009, 04:25 PM

Just looking through this thread makes me happy I have Chiefzilla on ignore. Crabtree not worth a 3rd pick, but Braylon Edwards is? Hilarious.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 04:27 PM

I have no idea where you got this idea but Richard Seymour has averaged only 44 tackles (that includes assists) in 8 years in the NFL.

:shake:

No, I'm wrong on that. I could have sworn I've seen 70-80. My bad.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 04:28 PM

Just looking through this thread makes me happy I have Chiefzilla on ignore. Crabtree not worth a 3rd pick, but Braylon Edwards is? Hilarious.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Braylon Edwards was a consensus top 5 pick. He hasn't lived up to the top 5 pick, but at the time, any team would have been CRAZY to pass on him based on what they knew then. There were 9 teams that obviously didn't think Crabtree was a top 3 pick. We'll see. Two games is far too soon to judge Crabtree. I haven't followed him to date, but there were a gajillion people on this forum that said no, no, no to Crabtree last year. There were a lot more people that disliked Crabtree on this forum than those who liked him.

Hootie

11-01-2009, 04:34 PM

Well, here's the thing:

I had the Chiefs in the CP mock after the Chiefs drafted Cassel. Given the strength of the board, my lack of confidence in Cassel, and my belief in Sanchez, I took Sanchez with the belief that I could either trade Cassel to a team that wanted him for more than I paid for him (like Denver, as the Cutler trade hadn't happened yet, or Minnesota pre-Favre and Rosenfels).

I was pilloried for it.

I also thought that taking Raji (given the fact that he can play NT) or a guy like Maclin would be far better than Jackson, and I said such. I thought Malcolm Jenkins was an option until his awful 40 time.

you also took Vernon Gholston over Matt Ryan on a team that is an elite QB away from being Super Bowl contenders...

Coogs

11-01-2009, 04:38 PM

Hindsight is 20/20.

Braylon Edwards was a consensus top 5 pick. He hasn't lived up to the top 5 pick, but at the time, any team would have been CRAZY to pass on him based on what they knew then. There were 9 teams that obviously didn't think Crabtree was a top 3 pick. We'll see. Two games is far too soon to judge Crabtree. I haven't followed him to date, but there were a gajillion people on this forum that said no, no, no to Crabtree last year. There were a lot more people that disliked Crabtree on this forum than those who liked him.

I flip-flopped back and forth between the Sanchez/Stafford option and the Crabtree option. At this point in time, I still like my choice better than what we have, but... :shrug:

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:52 PM

Just looking through this thread makes me happy I have Chiefzilla on ignore. Crabtree not worth a 3rd pick, but Braylon Edwards is? Hilarious.

Yeah, and a "good" 3-4 DE is supposed to get 70-80 tackles per season, even though Richard Seymour has averaged 44 combined tackles (assists included) in his career.

I hope this guy is neutered.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 04:55 PM

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 04:58 PM

And admitted I was wrong.

JFC.

Where did you come up with this idea?

And quite honestly, you've been wrong about everything else in this thread.

Where DO you come up with this shit?

I'm curious.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:03 PM

Yeah, and a "good" 3-4 DE is supposed to get 70-80 tackles per season, even though Richard Seymour has averaged 44 combined tackles (assists included) in his career.

I hope this guy is neutered.

Some elite 3-4 defensive ends have had that many tackles, some (like Bruce Smith and even Neil Smith) have good sack production as well.

those arent typical 5 tecs though, they were used differently.

Bruce Smith had years where he had over 100 tackles and more than 10 sacks as a 3-4 end. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitBr00.htm

Neil Smith was more like 60-70 tackles and 7 or so sacks while in the 3-4
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitNe00.htm

there are other examples, but those were different systems they ran. Sure it was a 3-4, but every player had different responsibilities than what our scheme calls for Those are also HOF examples where there were probably only another handfull of players that could do those things in the history of the NFL I know of....

In our system, the jobs of the 3 down linemen is to tie up the 5 olinemen so that the backers can roam and make plays rather than make the plays themselves.

Look at Seymour now as opposed to what he did in NE, completely different responsibilities.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:06 PM

Some elite 3-4 defensive ends have had that many tackles, some (like Bruce Smith and even Neil Smith) have good sack production as well.

When was Neil Smith a 3-4 DE?

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 05:10 PM

you also took Vernon Gholston over Matt Ryan on a team that is an elite QB away from being Super Bowl contenders...

The Dolphins are nowhere near being SB contenders, QB or not.

Keep harping on this though, it's the only ammo you've got, you stupid fucking cunt.

milkman

11-01-2009, 05:12 PM

When was Neil Smith a 3-4 DE?

Hell, when did Bruse Smith play in a 34?

I think Neil played in a 34 from about 90-92.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:13 PM

Hell, when did Bruse Smith play in a 34?

I think Neil played in a 34 from about 90-92.

Yeah, when DT got to pick what side of the formation he wanted to blitz from...

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:14 PM

Neil Smith played in a non traditional 3-4 his whole buffalo career. Here are a bunch of links to proof, take your pick

http://www.google.com/search?q=bruce+smith+3-4+defense&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 05:17 PM

milkman

11-01-2009, 05:18 PM

milkman

11-01-2009, 05:19 PM

Better duck.

Why?

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 05:22 PM

Where did you come up with this idea?

And quite honestly, you've been wrong about everything else in this thread.

Where DO you come up with this shit?

I'm curious.

-Glad you think I'm wrong on the value of the 5-technique. After you ignored a very well-written article on the topic
-I made the point that 3-4 defenses rarely get rid of productive 3-4 Defensive linemen. But put a lot less effort into keeping their OLBs and especially their CBS and ILBs. Obviously teams think 5-techniques are valuable. Tell me where I'm wrong there
-So I'm wrong about Crabtree because he had two productive games?
-And to say that Crabtree was a consensus top 5 pick is revisionist history. Like I said, there were a lot more people on this board against Crabtree than for him. But hindsight is 20/20

It's easy to say somebody's wrong when you don't even try to argue the points.

DeezNutz

11-01-2009, 05:22 PM

Why?

Neil Smith's career...in Buffalo?

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:28 PM

Better duck.

LOL ok, I see now.

Even I didnt know Neil Smith played for Buffalo LOL

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:29 PM

incidentally, those guys are why I wouldn't cry if we drafted Suh. When one of those is available, you take 'im.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:37 PM

-Glad you think I'm wrong on the value of the 5-technique. After you ignored a very well-written article on the topic
-I made the point that 3-4 defenses rarely get rid of productive 3-4 Defensive linemen. But put a lot less effort into keeping their OLBs and especially their CBS and ILBs. Obviously teams think 5-techniques are valuable. Tell me where I'm wrong there
-So I'm wrong about Crabtree because he had two productive games?
-And to say that Crabtree was a consensus top 5 pick is revisionist history. Like I said, there were a lot more people on this board against Crabtree than for him. But hindsight is 20/20

It's easy to say somebody's wrong when you don't even try to argue the points.

First off, who gives a shit about an article from 2004 written by Michael Smith? He uses Seymour as his basis. Who cares? Did you NOT know what the 5-Tech DE's job is on the field?

Secondly, the CHIEFS are the only team in NFL HISTORY to place such importance on a 3-4, 5-tech.

And lastly, Pioli went off the fucking reservation to draft TJ and has been panned by ANYONE and EVERYONE with any football knowledge.

People may have questioned taking Crabtree at #3 (or the other guys I mentioned) but there's no denying that he (and the others) are game-changing playmakers.

TJ is NOT.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:37 PM

Some elite 3-4 defensive ends have had that many tackles, some (like Bruce Smith and even Neil Smith) have good sack production as well.

those arent typical 5 tecs though, they were used differently.

Bruce Smith had years where he had over 100 tackles and more than 10 sacks as a 3-4 end. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitBr00.htm

Neil Smith was more like 60-70 tackles and 7 or so sacks while in the 3-4
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitNe00.htm

there are other examples, but those were different systems they ran. Sure it was a 3-4, but every player had different responsibilities than what our scheme calls for Those are also HOF examples where there were probably only another handfull of players that could do those things in the history of the NFL I know of....

In our system, the jobs of the 3 down linemen is to tie up the 5 olinemen so that the backers can roam and make plays rather than make the plays themselves.

Look at Seymour now as opposed to what he did in NE, completely different responsibilities.

Bruce & Neil Smith were NEVER 5-Tech defensive ends.

End of story.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:38 PM

LOL ok, I see now.

Even I didnt know Neil Smith played for Buffalo LOL

Wow.

Been a real long string of one tuesday after another for you...

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:38 PM

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:38 PM

take this for what its worth as well, but in 1988 we had the #3 pick in the draft and traded our #3 pick AND our #3 in the second round to move up ONE SPOT to select Neil Smith who was drafted to play 3-4 5tec lde.

After his first year he was getting slammed in the papers for being a huge bust!

accept it for what it is, an oddly reminiscent comparison of two not so different situations separated by over 20 years.

Could any of you imagine the complete meltdown that would occur here on the Planet if we had done that in this draft?

just WOW

even then they recognized the value of a versatile pass rusher that had the tools to stop the run as well.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:39 PM

He was never a 5-tech.

Buce. Neil.

Neither one.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:39 PM

Wow.

Been a real long string of one tuesday after another for you...

It's because he's used to posting at the Chiefs Coalition were EVERYONE is a drooling retard.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:39 PM

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:40 PM

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:40 PM

Buce. Neil.

Neither one.

I don't know how this retard has any green showing.

JFC.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:43 PM

He was never a 5-tech.

he was in 88 before Marty came in according to one of those sites I linked.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:46 PM

he was in 88 before Marty came in according to one of those sites I linked.

What?

Your Google search was about Bruce Smith, not Neil Smith.

Secondly, NEITHER was EVER asked to be a 5-tech.

JFC.

Seriously, are you retarted?

Coogs

11-01-2009, 05:49 PM

-I just realized that one major mistake people are making is assuming that the Chiefs are going to have a top 5 pick.

Rams won, and Titans apparently are going to win. Top 5 is getting closer.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:49 PM

He was never a 5-tech.

I never said he was, matter of fact I said he wasnt if you would read the damn post instead of looking to criticize first.

I was 10 years old at the time, I had no idea what a 5 tec was at the time. Im going off what I read in the supplied links.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 05:52 PM

ChiefsCountry

11-01-2009, 05:53 PM

Rams won, and Titans apparently are going to win. Top 5 is getting closer.

Cd has us at 77% and his program is normally pretty damn accurate.

milkman

11-01-2009, 05:55 PM

Cd has us at 77% and his program is normally pretty damn accurate.

Was that before or after today's results?

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:55 PM

Cd has us at 77% and his program is normally pretty damn accurate.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that we should all get together and kick his ass?

Ahm'i'raht?...

BossChief

11-01-2009, 05:55 PM

What?

Your Google search was about Bruce Smith, not Neil Smith.

Secondly, NEITHER was EVER asked to be a 5-tech.

JFC.

Seriously, are you retarted?

I was 10 at the time, do you understand that?

If it makes me retarded to not know what a 5tec was when I was ten I guess I was retarded.

I was wrong, you were right.

have a great night!

Deberg_1990

11-01-2009, 05:56 PM

Vince Young back from the dead today!

Coogs

11-01-2009, 05:57 PM

Was that before or after today's results?

Just a guess here, but I would say before. Titans game is still finishing up.

milkman

11-01-2009, 05:58 PM

I never said he was, matter of fact I said he wasnt if you would read the damn post instead of looking to criticize first.

I was 10 years old at the time, I had no idea what a 5 tec was at the time. Im going off what I read in the supplied links.

So, essentially you linked us to sites of people that wanted to shed Bruce Smith in the best possible light?

That wanted to make a case for him as a better DE than Reggie White, without actually having a fucking clue?

Bruce Smith's sacks came in a 43 set.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 05:58 PM

I was 10 at the time, do you understand that?

So was I!

That's why they made fucking SUPER TECMO BOWL!

:cuss:

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 06:00 PM

I was 10 at the time, do you understand that?

If it makes me retarded to not know what a 5tec was when I was ten I guess I was retarded.

I was wrong, you were right.

have a great night!

Why do I care about your age? You're the fucking moron that compared Neil & Bruce Smith to Tyson Jackson. JFC.

:shake:

KChiefs1

11-01-2009, 06:00 PM

Titans won.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:04 PM

First off, who gives a shit about an article from 2004 written by Michael Smith? He uses Seymour as his basis. Who cares? Did you NOT know what the 5-Tech DE's job is on the field?

Secondly, the CHIEFS are the only team in NFL HISTORY to place such importance on a 3-4, 5-tech.

And lastly, Pioli went off the ****ing reservation to draft TJ and has been panned by ANYONE and EVERYONE with any football knowledge.

People may have questioned taking Crabtree at #3 (or the other guys I mentioned) but there's no denying that he (and the others) are game-changing playmakers.

TJ is NOT.

Take the big 3 (Pitt, NE, Baltimore) in terms of years of experience. In order, the players that are the longest tenured are: Nose Tackles (8 years), Defensive End (7 years), ILB (6 years... 4 years if you subtract out Ray Lewis' 14 years), OLB (5 years), Strong Safety (4 years), Free Safety (3 years), CB (3 years)

If the DE position is so unimportant, then why do these teams continue to re-sign their starters at the position? And by the way, how much do you think the Cowboys miss Jamaal Williams and Olshansky right now? Shawn Merriman isn't jack shit without these guys in front of him.

DE
Brett Keisel - 8
Aaron Smith - 11
Jarvis Green - 8
Ty Warren - 7
Trevor Pryce - 4
Haloti Ngata - 4
Average - 7 years

NT
Casey Hampton - 9
Vince Wilfork - 6
Kelly Gregg - 9
Average - 8 years

OLB
Lamar Woodley - 3
James Harrison - 7
Pierre Woods - 4
Adalius Thomas - 3
Jarrett Johnson - 7
Terrell Suggs - 7
Average: 5 years

ILB
James Farrior - 8
Lawrence Timmons - 3
Jerod Mayo - 2
Eric Alexander - 6
Ray Lewis - 14
Tavares Gooden - 2
Average: 6 years

CB
Ike Taylor - 7
William Gay - 3
Shawn Springs - 1
Leigh Bodden - 1
Dominique Foxworth - 1
Fabian Washington - 2
Average: 2.5 years

Free Safety
Ryan Mundy - 1
Branden McGowan - 1
Ed Reed - 8
Average: 3 years

Strong Safety
Troy Polamalu - 7
Branden Merriweather - 3
Dawan Landry - 4
Average: 4 years

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:06 PM

Rams won, and Titans apparently are going to win. Top 5 is getting closer.

The Rams beat the Lions--somebody had to win the game. Just like the Redskins beat two winless teams. There's still a very good chance the Chiefs pick around 5 or 6.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 06:07 PM

If the DE position is so unimportant, then why do these teams continue to re-sign their starters at the position? And by the way, how much do you think the Cowboys miss Jamaal Williams and Olshansky right now? Shawn Merriman isn't jack shit without these guys in front of him.

Merriman's coming off of major knee reconstruction. Did you really expect that after one year he'd be exactly the same?

And secondly, whether you know if or not, those guys you mentioned played for the Chargers, not Cowboys.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 06:07 PM

So, essentially you linked us to sites of people that wanted to shed Bruce Smith in the best possible light?

That wanted to make a case for him as a better DE than Reggie White, without actually having a ****ing clue?

Bruce Smith's sacks came in a 43 set.

no I just remember nowing they ran a 3-4 and when asked I simply punched in Bruce Smith 3-4 defense and then linked the page so you guys could choose which one to go off of.

I had no dog in this fight

this was zilla arguement, I simply posted that there were in fact a handfull of players that did reach the benchmarks he threw out there.

I even said I didnt agree with his side of it, but I guess I got it somehow pined to me, its cool though I have thick skin and its really not that big a deal.

I even went as far as to state clearly that both players never played the 5tec, but that evidently wasnt good enough not to get hazed, so Ill take it like a man and move on. No sweat off my nuts.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 06:09 PM

So was I!

That's why they made ****ing SUPER TECMO BOWL!

:cuss:

best game ever

Coogs

11-01-2009, 06:10 PM

The Rams beat the Lions--somebody had to win the game. Just like the Redskins beat two winless teams. There's still a very good chance the Chiefs pick around 5 or 6.

Possibly, but I don't think it is a MAJOR MISTAKE to assume it could be a top 5 pick at this point. We look pretty crappy so far.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:11 PM

Merriman's coming off of major knee reconstruction. Did you really expect that after one year he'd be exactly the same?

And secondly, whether you know if or not, those guys you mentioned played for the Chargers, not Cowboys.

Glad you're more interested in pointing out typos than actually looking at the meat of the argument.

If 5-technique DEs are so unimportant, as you claim, then how come you never, ever, ever hear about a 3-4 defense willing to part ways with a productive DE... unless they felt like they could get better?

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:12 PM

Possibly, but I don't think it is a MAJOR MISTAKE to assume it could be a top 5 pick at this point. We look pretty crappy so far.

No, I think there's a decent chance of it. It's just that most people who have been analyzing the draft seem pretty certain about it. Because if the Chiefs pick at 5 or 6, good chance Berry is off the board. And he seems to be one of the main can't miss guys for the Chiefs. If he's off the board, it's interesting to evaluate who would make the most sense.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 06:14 PM

Why do I care about your age? You're the ****ing moron that compared Neil & Bruce Smith to Tyson Jackson. JFC.

:shake:
I compared the ****ing situations not the players.

Stick with the facts, man.

is all this really all that big of a deal?

geez man, you're overreacting if I ever saw overreacting.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 06:15 PM

Glad you're more interested in pointing out typos than actually looking at the meat of the argument.

If 5-technique DEs are so unimportant, as you claim, then how come you never, ever, ever hear about a 3-4 defense willing to part ways with a productive DE... unless they felt like they could get better?

Really?

Well, the Cowboys and Chargers are two teams just this offseason that let their 3-4 5-tech's go.

Your claim is invalid.

milkman

11-01-2009, 06:15 PM

Glad you're more interested in pointing out typos than actually looking at the meat of the argument.

If 5-technique DEs are so unimportant, as you claim, then how come you never, ever, ever hear about a 3-4 defense willing to part ways with a productive DE... unless they felt like they could get better?

because, in spite of the fact that the 5 tech and NT play in the trenches, their skills don't erode as quickly as the second and third level players in a defense.

Those positions, like RB, rely on quickness and speed, and those qualities don't last.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 06:17 PM

is all this really all that big of a deal?

geez man, you're overreacting if I ever saw overreacting.

You shouldn't be a part of a debate in which you have no knowledge of what's being debated.

You tried to use Google as a basis to backup your worthless claim.

Instead, you should have kept your mouth shut, listened and learned.

Saul Good

11-01-2009, 06:25 PM

Really?

Well, the Cowboys and Chargers are two teams just this offseason that let their 3-4 5-tech's go.

Your claim is invalid.

How have their defenses done since then?

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:26 PM

Really?

Well, the Cowboys and Chargers are two teams just this offseason that let their 3-4 5-tech's go.

Your claim is invalid.

These are the two examples you want to use? The 18th and 22nd ranked defenses?

The Chargers got rid of 2 of their Defensive Linemen and their defense looks absolutely horrendous. The Cowboys downgraded from Canty to Olshansky and, oh guess what? Big surprise. Their defensive ranking has dropped from #8 to #22. And oh by the way, that stud OLB... Demarcus Ware? Yeah, he lines up behind Olshansky. And he is on pace for 10 sacks, which is half the number of sacks he has in 2008.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 06:26 PM

These are the two examples you want to use? The 18th and 22nd ranked defenses?

The Chargers got rid of 2 of their Defensive Linemen and their defense looks absolutely horrendous. The Cowboys downgraded from Canty to Olshansky and, oh guess what? Big surprise. Their defensive ranking has dropped from #8 to #22. And oh by the way, that stud OLB... Demarcus Ware? Yeah, he lines up behind Olshansky. And he is on pace for 10 sacks, which is half the number of sacks he has in 2008.

Hey Fucko, you're the one that made claim.

Eat it.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 06:27 PM

How have their defenses done since then?

You're obviously missing his point.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:30 PM

because, in spite of the fact that the 5 tech and NT play in the trenches, their skills don't erode as quickly as the second and third level players in a defense.

Those positions, like RB, rely on quickness and speed, and those qualities don't last.

That's a fair argument. I'm not saying that it's a bulletproof argument. But the claim was that teams find starting 3-4 5-technique DEs to be unimportant, and yet the good teams rarely ever let their starting D-linemen walk away.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 06:34 PM

You're obviously missing his point.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

The fact that the two defenses that made the decision to downgrade their DEs are fielding piss-poor defenses is obviously hurting my argument on the importance of 5-techniques.

And you're right, we should be basing our personnel decisions on what two declining 3-4 defenses are doing. Perhaps we should model our offense after the Cleveland Browns.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 06:37 PM

You shouldn't be a part of a debate in which you have no knowledge of what's being debated.

You tried to use Google as a basis to backup your worthless claim.

Instead, you should have kept your mouth shut, listened and learned.

dude, zilla came out with a ridiculous claim that 3-4 ends have like 70-80 tackles.

I said that almost never happens but it has happened and here is where it happened. I use football reference for my statistics because its easy to read and compare with.

from there a couple folks asked when he played in a 3-4, so I used google to give them multiple choices of where they wanted to verify that he did play 15 years in a 3-4 defense.

I even added to that that the scheme we use is completely different to what they used to get those stats and that the only similarity is the formation, the scheme is different though.

I remember reading that Neil Smith was considered a huge bust after one year and tried finding an article that stated that and ran across the article about the trade we did to move up one spot and felt it was a cool point that I didnt know previously. I posted it so that if others didnt know it, they could share the tidbit.

For that, I get hazed by you for about 15 posts of all kind of hatred for a fellow fan that has done exactly nothing to provoke it.

But you know, whatever live and let die, right!

Its all good!

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:06 PM

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

The fact that the two defenses that made the decision to downgrade their DEs are fielding piss-poor defenses is obviously hurting my argument on the importance of 5-techniques.

And you're right, we should be basing our personnel decisions on what two declining 3-4 defenses are doing. Perhaps we should model our offense after the Cleveland Browns.

Downgrade, huh?

Well, the most important factor is their W-L record.

San Diego is 4-3 and Dallas is 5-2.

I'm betting you wouldn't know what a 5 tech DE WAS before Pioli came along and drafted Tyson and Magee.

MOST teams don't put a ridiculous value on them. Apparently, you do because Pioli does, which is fucking stupid.

:shake:

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:08 PM

dude, zilla came out with a ridiculous claim that 3-4 ends have like 70-80 tackles.

I said that almost never happens but it has happened and here is where it happened. I use football reference for my statistics because its easy to read and compare with.

from there a couple folks asked when he played in a 3-4, so I used google to give them multiple choices of where they wanted to verify that he did play 15 years in a 3-4 defense.

I even added to that that the scheme we use is completely different to what they used to get those stats and that the only similarity is the formation, the scheme is different though.

I remember reading that Neil Smith was considered a huge bust after one year and tried finding an article that stated that and ran across the article about the trade we did to move up one spot and felt it was a cool point that I didnt know previously. I posted it so that if others didnt know it, they could share the tidbit.

For that, I get hazed by you for about 15 posts of all kind of hatred for a fellow fan that has done exactly nothing to provoke it.

But you know, whatever live and let die, right!

Its all good!

I really don't give a fuck to read a summary of all the stupid shit you've posted in this thread.

It's clear that you have no idea of what you speak.

It's all good!

:rolleyes:

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 07:15 PM

Downgrade, huh?

Well, the most important factor is their W-L record.

San Diego is 4-3 and Dallas is 5-2.

I'm betting you wouldn't know what a 5 tech DE WAS before Pioli came along and drafted Tyson and Magee.

MOST teams don't put a ridiculous value on them. Apparently, you do because Pioli does, which is ****ing stupid.

:shake:

And that has nothing to do with the Cowboys winning 4 games against teams under .500. Or the Cowboys putting up 30+ points in 3 of those 5 wins. And for the Chargers, two of those wins were against the Raiders, 1 against the Chiefs.

The defenses aren't nearly as good. And Demarcus Ware is on pace to have 10 less sacks and 32 less tackles than in 2008. Neither of these teams are winning because of their defense. They're winning despite their defenses.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 07:18 PM

I really don't give a **** to read a summary of all the stupid shit you've posted in this thread.

It's clear that you have no idea of what you speak.

It's all good!

:rolleyes:
I hope you feel better about yourself

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:19 PM

And that has nothing to do with the Cowboys winning 4 games against teams under .500. Or the Cowboys putting up 30+ points in 3 of those 5 wins. And for the Chargers, two of those wins were against the Raiders, 1 against the Chiefs.

The defenses aren't nearly as good. And Demarcus Ware is on pace to have 10 less sacks and 32 less tackles than in 2008. Neither of these teams are winning because of their defense. They're winning despite their defenses.

So? What's your point? That Canty is better than Ohlshansky? Duh.

You know, teams change from year to year. Not everyone performs exactly the same, year in and year out.

Again, what's your point because all I can tell is that it was a mistake to take you off of ignore.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:20 PM

I hope you feel better about yourself

I'd feel even better if you'd just go away

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 07:23 PM

Downgrade, huh?

Well, the most important factor is their W-L record.

San Diego is 4-3 and Dallas is 5-2.

I'm betting you wouldn't know what a 5 tech DE WAS before Pioli came along and drafted Tyson and Magee.

MOST teams don't put a ridiculous value on them. Apparently, you do because Pioli does, which is ****ing stupid.

:shake:

You keep saying that most teams don't put a ridiculous value on them. And yet, the Steelers, Ravens, and Patriots are all consistently outstanding defenses that continue to renew their contracts year after year after year after year. Your only example of defenses who don't value their 5-techniques are two defenses that got worse after they got rid of them.

And no, I have not defended Pioli on everything. I've said many times that Magee was a horrible pick and I think he's a dumbass when it comes to building offenses. But on the defensive side, sure, I'll side with the guy who helped build a defense that has been consistently outstanding for 10 years.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 07:26 PM

So? What's your point? That Canty is better than Ohlshansky? Duh.

You know, teams change from year to year. Not everyone performs exactly the same, year in and year out.

Again, what's your point because all I can tell is that it was a mistake to take you off of ignore.

Olshansky plays 5-technique DE in front of Demarcus Ware.

You don't think it's a bit interesting that Ware is having one of the worst seasons of his career after the Cowboys downgraded from Canty to Olshansky?

But I guess you're pretty convinced this is just a coincidence.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 07:27 PM

I remember reading that Neil Smith was considered a huge bust after one year and tried finding an article that stated that and ran across the article about the trade we did to move up one spot and felt it was a cool point that I didnt know previously.

His stats were fucking tame his entire career.

His biggest contribution was milking offenses for false start penalties.

That alone amazes me.

If Neil Smith has outsmarted you then life is not your thing.

Just quit....

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:33 PM

Olshansky plays 5-technique DE in front of Demarcus Ware.

You don't think it's a bit interesting that Ware is having one of the worst seasons of his career after the Cowboys downgraded from Canty to Olshansky?

But I guess you're pretty convinced this is just a coincidence.

No, FUCKFACE.

Where did I state that Ohlshansky was the same guy as Canty?

JFC. You're a moron. You're just talking to yourself.

BTW, Canty got $7 million per year, Ohlshansky got $4 million.

I don't there is ANYONE, ANYWHERE that would argue that O is better than Canty.

FUCK.

You're an annoying bastard.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 07:34 PM

I'd feel even better if you'd just go away

put me on ignore and all your fucking wishes come true, any which way...fuck off

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:35 PM

His stats were fucking tame his entire career.

His biggest contribution was milking offenses for false start penalties.

That alone amazes me.

If Neil Smith has outsmarted you then life is not your thing.

Just quit....

Well, that and 105 sacks...

Rausch

11-01-2009, 07:36 PM

put me on ignore and all your ****ing wishes come true, any which way...**** off

If you take this personally, with all respect, I swear to the baby bajeebus I'll face-rape all the ****ing stuffed animals in your house.

ALL OF THEM.

Do not sign up here and go ****'n milktoast...:shake:

Rausch

11-01-2009, 07:39 PM

Well, that and 105 sacks...

He had 4 seasons with more than 10 sacks.

10 sacks is a good season for a DE, I wouldn't say otherwise, but lets not make him out to be fucking Reggie White.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 07:42 PM

His stats were ****ing tame his entire career.

His biggest contribution was milking offenses for false start penalties.

That alone amazes me.

If Neil Smith has outsmarted you then life is not your thing.

Just quit....

I remember watching the interview after he signed with denver, and the look on his face when the reporter told him that his agent was offered more in KC than he took in denver. His agent had obviously told him lies during the negotiations. It worked out for him though...

remember okoye in tecmo? you could stand still and defenders fell right off ya, and DT could go through the line unblocked every play.

dem waz da days

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 07:43 PM

He had 4 seasons with more than 10 sacks.

10 sacks is a good season for a DE, I wouldn't say otherwise, but lets not make him out to be fucking Reggie White.

No, I'm with you. But I don't want to discredit him, either.

He was a serious part of our dominating defenses of the early to mid-90's.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 07:47 PM

No, ****FACE.

Where did I state that Ohlshansky was the same guy as Canty?

JFC. You're a moron. You're just talking to yourself.

BTW, Canty got $7 million per year, Ohlshansky got $4 million.

I don't there is ANYONE, ANYWHERE that would argue that O is better than Canty.

****.

You're an annoying bastard.

I'm talking to myself because you obviously have no idea how to read.

I never said either of us disagreed that Canty > Olshansky. I don't know why you keep focusing on this part.

I've pointed out about a gajillion times that the Cowboys downgraded at 5-technique and their defense is worse because of it. And that they both played a position that opens up opportunities for Demarcus Ware, and he's having the worst season of his career (minus his rookie season).

You keep saying that 5-techniques aren't important. And I'm telling you that Dallas is a clear example of a downgrade at the position (which we both agree upon) that made the defense worse.

BossChief

11-01-2009, 07:49 PM

If you take this personally, with all respect, I swear to the baby bajeebus I'll face-rape all the ****ing stuffed animals in your house.

ALL OF THEM.

Do not sign up here and go ****'n milktoast...:shake:

man, Im the nicest guy around but how much should I take with a smile without sticking up for myself? I have thick skin, but really at one point or another, I fire back.

Its a message board, nothing is taken seriously

really...

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 08:03 PM

You keep saying that 5-techniques aren't important. And I'm telling you that Dallas is a clear example of a downgrade at the position (which we both agree upon) that made the defense worse.

The 5 tech DE is THE least important position on a 3-4 defense.

I haven't watched Dallas this year outside of the Chiefs game so I cannot say specifically why their defense is quote "struggling", yet they're 5-2.

The Chargers defense was porous last year WITH Ohlshansky, so again, your point is invalid.

Please, just stop.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 08:10 PM

The 5 tech DE is THE least important position on a 3-4 defense.

Okay. Glad you said that.

If you actually, truly believe this, then you're an idiot.

Conversation over.

Mecca

11-01-2009, 08:57 PM

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 09:02 PM

'Hamas' Jenkins

11-01-2009, 09:06 PM

FWIW, saying that Neil Smith was tame when the dude had a 100+ sack career is a bit mind boggling.

He's 20th on the all time list, and most of the guys in front of him are going into the HOF.

Mecca

11-01-2009, 09:06 PM

Hey if we're gonna build like New England you better call and tell Clark Hunt he has to spend money like we're in the Boston market because that's what drives the Pats team.

Rausch

11-01-2009, 09:08 PM

man, Im the nicest guy around but how much should I take with a smile without sticking up for myself? I have thick skin, but really at one point or another, I fire back.

Its a message board, nothing is taken seriously

really...

Of course fire back.

I'M SAYING fire back.

Just take the time to know WTF you're talking about. Join a fantasy league. Become a life-wasting nerd like the rest of us.

Well, that's probably not best, but learn to get your game on n00b...

Titty Meat

11-01-2009, 09:10 PM

Why would we care if Suh is off the board?

Don't like either of those QB prospects, so the selection is easy: Mays.

Garbage.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 09:12 PM

Okay. Glad you said that.

If you actually, truly believe this, then you're an idiot.

Conversation over.

Fuck off.

Who get's the big money in 3-4's? Oh yeah, the game-changing, pass rushing linebackers.

Who else? The nose tackle.

Who else? The safeties.

The 5 tech, with the exception of Tyson Jackson, are the low men on the totem pole.

You're a fucking moron. Seriously, I don't think you know jack fucking shit about the NFL and you continue to prove it with each and every post.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 09:40 PM

**** off.

Who get's the big money in 3-4's? Oh yeah, the game-changing, pass rushing linebackers.

Who else? The nose tackle.

Who else? The safeties.

The 5 tech, with the exception of Tyson Jackson, are the low men on the totem pole.

You're a ****ing moron. Seriously, I don't think you know jack ****ing shit about the NFL and you continue to prove it with each and every post.

Umm... No. Nose tackles don't get paid a lot of money and that is easily the most important position in a 3-4. The bar is set pretty much at 5 years $21-22 Million. Aaron Smith signed a 4-year, $25 Million contract and he's old. And unless you're an absolute superstar at safety, they don't get paid dick either. If I'm not mistaken Ty Warren and Aaron Smith get paid more than any nose tackle in the league.

Revised: Sorry, it looks like Jamal Williams was signed to a deal for 5 years, $27.5 M

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 09:53 PM

It's not worth a top 5 pick...of all the teams you listed the only one that put 1st round value on it was NE...Hell Nagata only plays outside because they have another guy inside.

The 5 tech is so important that the Steelers ends were not highly drafted one was a 7th rounder..

Also this other debate is dumb, Tyson Jackson doesn't have pass rush moves, he's not quick off the edge. He's never going to get sacks.

Normally a 5-technique doesn't warrant a top 5 pick, but usually a nose tackle doesn't warrant a top 10 pick either. I don't think it undermines the importance. I think the game has started to change a little bit. With a lot more 3-4 defenses competing for fewer spots, it's going to get increasingly tougher to find these pure 3-4 players. The same case could be made for nose tackles too. A lot of these guys slipped down so low simply because a lot of the 3-4 defenses drafted in the 20's. Granted, I'm not sure how happy I am that the Chiefs are moving to a 3-4, but that's an entirely different issue.

On the sacks issue, he's obviously not going to be Seymour. He's not really a pass rusher type. His strength is that he's a really powerful guy and if he figures things out, he's going to be a major force in the run defense and he'll probably be more of the guy who moves blockers back than he is a guy who hunts down a QB. More of a Ty Warren guy than a Seymour guy.

DaneMcCloud

11-01-2009, 09:53 PM

Umm... No. Nose tackles don't get paid a lot of money and that is easily the most important position in a 3-4. The bar is set pretty much at 5 years $21-22 Million. Aaron Smith signed a 4-year, $25 Million contract and he's old. And unless you're an absolute superstar at safety, they don't get paid dick either. If I'm not mistaken Ty Warren and Aaron Smith get paid more than any nose tackle in the league.

Whatever.

Very few teams covet 5 tech defensive ends.

Oh, and Dallas is #11 overall in points scored.

I'd take that anyday of the week over yards.

ChiefsCountry

11-01-2009, 09:59 PM

Jimmy Clausen the best QB prospect in years? Holy shit that is funny. Clausen doesnt even hold Stafford or Sanchez's jock from last year.

chiefzilla1501

11-01-2009, 10:12 PM

Jimmy Clausen the best QB prospect in years? Holy shit that is funny. Clausen doesnt even hold Stafford or Sanchez's jock from last year.

I don't think Stafford was a can't-miss prospect. I worried about his inconsistency and still do. I think he'll be a lesser version of Jay Cutler--a big arm who is frustratingly inconsistent. And Sanchez came into the NFL very raw and I still think he is--he's playing much better than people expected, but there are still a lot of things in his game he needs to work on. I think you're making the mistake of looking at these QBs in hindsight and not on foresight. Matt Ryan has turned into a terrific QB, but there were a lot of experts who didn't think he was can't miss.

Yes, I do think when Clausen enters the draft, he'll be a can't miss QB prospect.

Reaper16

11-01-2009, 10:13 PM

Let's take a look at last year's draft, and sub Moreno in for Jackson.

In the third round we take Antione Caldwell, 4th, Jonathan Luigs, 5th Johnny Knox.

Follow that up this next draft, we take Suh in the first, Jerry Hughes and Ciron Black in the second, Boo Robinson in the third and Brandon Lang in the fourth.

How would that look going forward?
Shit yeah. I was the only person on the board talking that guy up last year.

Coogs

11-02-2009, 08:31 AM

Here is the order at the top after yesterdays games courtesy of GBN...

Rams, Titans get wins; Bucs got to top of draft order… St. Louis and Tennessee both got their initial wins of the 2009 season Sunday afternoon with the Rams edging Detroit to end a 17-game losing streak, while the Titans knocked off Jacksonville. That leaves Tampa Bay, which had a bye this week, as the NFL’s only remaining winless team. As such, if the 2010 draft were held today 0-7 Tampa Bay would have the first pick overall, followed by St. Louis and Cleveland, both at 1-7, and Kansas City, Tennessee and Detroit, each of which is 1-6.

CoMoChief

11-02-2009, 08:50 AM

Are you trying to imply that Tyson Jackson was rated as a mid to late round pick? ROFL

He was predicted to go 15 or lower.

Chiefnj2

11-02-2009, 09:08 AM

He was predicted to go 15 or lower.

Not in the last few days before the draft. Gosselin had him as the 6th best player in the draft.

BossChief

11-12-2009, 12:35 AM

So, essentially you linked us to sites of people that wanted to shed Bruce Smith in the best possible light?

That wanted to make a case for him as a better DE than Reggie White, without actually having a ****ing clue?

Bruce Smith's sacks came in a 43 set.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/757310.html

"Most guys that are able to get a tremendous amount of sacks are in a 4-3 defense, where they don't always get double teamed as much as I did," said Smith, who played in a 4-3 with the Redskins. "A lot of the great pass rushers usually had another dominant pass rusher along with them. Reggie White had Clyde Simmons (121 sacks, 13th all-time). You look at Deacon Jones, he had (Hall of Fame defensive tackle) Merlin Olson, the Fearsome Foursome, 4-3 defense.

"There were a number of other defensive ends and pass rushers that were dominant players. But when you accomplish what I did in a 3-4 defense you have to sit back, shake your head and say that's pretty damn impressive."

DaneMcCloud

11-12-2009, 12:51 AM

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/757310.html

"Most guys that are able to get a tremendous amount of sacks are in a 4-3 defense, where they don't always get double teamed as much as I did," said Smith, who played in a 4-3 with the Redskins. "A lot of the great pass rushers usually had another dominant pass rusher along with them. Reggie White had Clyde Simmons (121 sacks, 13th all-time). You look at Deacon Jones, he had (Hall of Fame defensive tackle) Merlin Olson, the Fearsome Foursome, 4-3 defense.

"There were a number of other defensive ends and pass rushers that were dominant players. But when you accomplish what I did in a 3-4 defense you have to sit back, shake your head and say that's pretty damn impressive."

He wasn't a fucking 5 tech, Dumbass

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:00 AM

He wasn't a ****ing 5 tech, Dumbass

I think I already said I made a mistake earlier didn't I? If I didn't or you feel it wasn't adequate enough, "I fucked up and while reading about a few players, and I got my facts mixed up."

that make you feel better?

Now if you are a big enough man, you can admit you were wrong about the whole fucking defense they lined up in because I was right on that much of the whole argument.

I don't expect you to though.

have a good one!

DaneMcCloud

11-12-2009, 01:10 AM

I think I already said I made a mistake earlier didn't I? If I didn't or you feel it wasn't adequate enough, "I fucked up and while reading about a few players, and I got my facts mixed up."

that make you feel better?

Now if you are a big enough man, you can admit you were wrong about the whole fucking defense they lined up in because I was right on that much of the whole argument.

I don't expect you to though.

have a good one!

Go fuck yourself, Dipshit.

NO ONE denies that the Chiefs of the early 90's or the Bills of that same era ran a 3-4, you fucking retard. As a matter of fact, I was friends with the Bills nose tackle, Jeff Wright, who played at Coffeyville with a bunch of my friends.

BUT, you tried to claim that Bruce and Neil Smith were 5 technique players, which is not only blatantly incorrect, but fucking stupid to boot.

You'd be wise to shut the fuck up but clearly, that's not your strong point.

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:17 AM

Go **** yourself, Dipshit.

NO ONE denies that the Chiefs of the early 90's or the Bills of that same era ran a 3-4, you ****ing retard. As a matter of fact, I was friends with the Bills nose tackle, Jeff Wright, who played at Coffeyville with a bunch of my friends.

BUT, you tried to claim that Bruce and Neil Smith were 5 technique players, which is not only blatantly incorrect, but ****ing stupid to boot.

You'd be wise to shut the **** up but clearly, that's not your strong point.
You love putting words in my mouth, I understand...

Go read the post I quoted of Milkmans that was the one I chose to go off of because you reped it as in wrong leaving "your a football retard".

the last line says clear as day "bruce smiths sacks came in a 4-3 set"

I understand you want to act all high and mighty and don't want to admit you were wrong, like I did when I actually was.

Going back and reading my posts, I never even said Bruce played the 5-tec. I said (mistakenly and said it once before correcting myself) Neil Smith did.

My cousin in North Dakota played with Phil Hanson in college too, that is why I said he played in the 3-4 before providing a link.

Get over yourself.

DaneMcCloud

11-12-2009, 01:21 AM

You love putting words in my mouth, I understand...

I'm not going to go back and read shit.

You're just trying to cover your tracks after talking out of your ass. You clearly have NO knowledge of the players involved, hence your "Google".

Again, you'd be wise to shut the fuck up but of course, you'll continue to make yourself look even more foolish.

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:26 AM

Some elite 3-4 defensive ends have had that many tackles, some (like Bruce Smith and even Neil Smith) have good sack production as well.

those arent typical 5 tecs though, they were used differently.

Bruce Smith had years where he had over 100 tackles and more than 10 sacks as a 3-4 end. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitBr00.htm

Neil Smith was more like 60-70 tackles and 7 or so sacks while in the 3-4
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitNe00.htm

there are other examples, but those were different systems they ran. Sure it was a 3-4, but every player had different responsibilities than what our scheme calls for Those are also HOF examples where there were probably only another handfull of players that could do those things in the history of the NFL I know of....

In our system, the jobs of the 3 down linemen is to tie up the 5 olinemen so that the backers can roam and make plays rather than make the plays themselves.

Look at Seymour now as opposed to what he did in NE, completely different responsibilities.

here is my original post you misunderstood as me calling them 5-tecs

you are mixing my input in the conversation with chiefzillas!

Go ahead and call me an idiot again though if it makes you feel better.

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:28 AM

I'm not going to go back and read shit.

You're just trying to cover your tracks after talking out of your ass. You clearly have NO knowledge of the players involved, hence your "Google".

Again, you'd be wise to shut the **** up but of course, you'll continue to make yourself look even more foolish.

my google was to prove he played in a fucking 3-4. It gives about 20 links to prove he played in the 3-4.

I wonder about people sometimes.

DaneMcCloud

11-12-2009, 01:32 AM

my google was to prove he played in a fucking 3-4. It gives about 20 links to prove he played in the 3-4.

I wonder about people sometimes.

Hey Fuckball, check this out:

Neil Smith played in a non traditional 3-4 his whole buffalo career. Here are a bunch of links to proof, take your pick

http://www.google.com/search?q=bruce+smith+3-4+defense&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

JFC.

:shake:

Again, shut the FUCK UP!

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:36 AM

Hey ****ball, check this out:

JFC.

:shake:

Again, shut the **** UP!

thats right, that shows you where I linked proof he played in a 3-4 defense, not a 5-tec//it is 100% accurate.

You do know you can be a 3-4 end and not be a 5-tec right? Your arguement indicates you might not...

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:39 AM

I said one time that Neil Smith was drafted to be a 5-tec and have admitted I was mistaken in that three times now.

DaneMcCloud

11-12-2009, 01:39 AM

thats right, that shows you where I linked proof he played in a 3-4 defense, not a 5-tec//it is 100% accurate.

You do know you can be a 3-4 end and not be a 5-tec right? Your arguement indicates you might not...

JFC, you are a total fucking retard.

First, you claim that Bruce Smith was a "non-conventional" 3-4 DE.

Then you claim that "Neil" Smith played in Buffalo.

Then you further compare Bruce and Neil to Ty Jackson.

Seriously, Asswipe, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

With each and every post, you dig yourself a deeper hole.

BossChief

11-12-2009, 01:46 AM

JFC, you are a total ****ing retard.

First, you claim that Bruce Smith was a "non-conventional" 3-4 DE.

Then you claim that "Neil" Smith played in Buffalo.

Then you further compare Bruce and Neil to Ty Jackson.

Seriously, Asswipe, SHUT THE **** UP!

With each and every post, you dig yourself a deeper hole.

You have some serious reading issues.

...you are mixing up my part of the discussion with zillas again.

I bumped my post, that I stand by, where my whole part of the discussion started where I clearly said neither played the 5-tec, in case you missed it.

I typod Neil with Bruce, so what. IF you are saying I dont know where NS played, you are mistaken my friend.

you can JFC and call me an idiot all you want while being wrong, I dont mind...keep being a blowhard and thinking that if you yell really loud into the computer that you will be right. You arent.

Chiefs=Champions

11-12-2009, 02:46 AM

This thread showed promise, then it turned into a shouting match.........