PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs The Position We're In @ 11


Direckshun
04-03-2012, 05:09 PM
Ever since I've followed the draft hardcore, I've seen the Chiefs desperately try to fill holes that, every year, seem to outnumber their slotted picks.

This year, we've got two legitimate holes on this team, a few that could be upgraded, and for the most part have pretty decent depth.

That means this team can do what the best teams in the league have done for decades: sit back, pick and choose who we think the best talent on the board is, and take a gamble here or there without having to worry about having to thrust players onto the field too soon.

It's a great position.

For any of those despairing about the #11 overall pick, here are our options:

We take DeCastro, and have the best offensive line in the league. We take Kuechly, and have the best linebacking corps in the league. We take Brockers or Cox (or Still, as I'd prefer), and have the best DE depth in the league. We can take Trent Richardson, and have the best RBs in the league. We can take Kirkpatrick or Jenkins or Gilmore, and have the best CBs in the league. We can take Barron, and have the best safeties combo in the league. We can take Melvin Ingram/Nick Perry/Whitney Mercilus, and have the best rushbacking corps in the league. We can take Ryan Tannehill, the first 1st round QB we've taken in decades.
So that's our position. The #11 position is a bit awkward for us, because the two positions we really need don't quick sync up with that position.

But there are no real bad choices that really damage this team if they somehow don't work out.

Hammock Parties
04-03-2012, 05:12 PM
http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/ma_012NicholsonBening.jpg

KCrockaholic
04-03-2012, 05:16 PM
Just say NO to Poe.

Mr. Laz
04-03-2012, 05:17 PM
For any of those despairing about the #11 overall pick, here are our options:

We take DeCastro, and have the best offensive line in the league.

maybe but we still don't know what we have at center

We take Kuechly, and have the best linebacking corps in the league.

umm ... not unless Houston and Kuechly blow up this year

We take Brockers or Cox (or Still, as I'd prefer), and have the best DE depth in the league.

meh ... depth?

We can take Trent Richardson, and have the best RBs in the league.

could be

We can take Kirkpatrick or Jenkins or Gilmore, and have the best CBs in the league.

could be

We can take Barron, and have the best safeties combo in the league.

could be

We can take Melvin Ingram/Nick Perry/Whitney Mercilus, and have the best rushbacking corps in the league.

umm ... that's a tough call considering all the rushers around

We can take Ryan Tannehill, the first 1st round QB we've taken in decades.

true

Okie_Apparition
04-03-2012, 05:22 PM
If each choice doesn't come with it's own seperate depth chart
I really can't be pulled away from licking this lamb's anus

prhom
04-03-2012, 05:27 PM
Yep, lots of interesting options with positive outcomes. The only ones I'd personally be a little disappointed with are the rush backer and DE scenarios unless they come with a trade down and extra picks.

Psyko Tek
04-03-2012, 05:54 PM
WE HAD THE BEST CB'S in the league


safety wise we are solid starter wise but Need depth, not first round

linebacker, nice

like to get a qb but we still ain't let the last one we drafted play

and I do not watch college so have no idea if teanehill is any good

O.city
04-03-2012, 06:06 PM
If for any chance Richardson is there at 11, I think you would be nuts to not take him. He's a legit blue chipper.


With where we are as a team, if a blue chip guy is there, take him.


I'm liking Molk in the later rounds to play center.

Titty Meat
04-03-2012, 06:15 PM
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4025/jimcarreyjerkin.png

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 07:06 PM
Guess I should have put a late night bullshit tag on this.

Meh well.

O.city
04-03-2012, 07:11 PM
I would love to have Richardson.


I like Decastro, but I like grabbing another top guy at 11 and taking Molk later in the draft. I'm starting to think it's gonna be Kuechly or Brockers.

KurtCobain
04-03-2012, 07:13 PM
If each choice doesn't come with it's own seperate depth chart
I really can't be pulled away from licking this lamb's anus

This.

Setsuna
04-03-2012, 07:13 PM
No one has the best depth at DE except Giants. Don't even act like anyone comes close. Laughable. /thread

CaliforniaChief
04-03-2012, 07:14 PM
'Shun, I see the point of the OP and for the most part agree with you.

We did very well in FA. Winston was gifted to us, Hillis gives some thunder to Charles' lightning, Boss gives us injury protection/2 TE set to respect, and Quinn's going to be willing to grab nutsacks in the locker room...something lacking after Shaun Smith left.

I go back and forth on this draft. I did a mock draft that had Kuechly coming in. But I would be happy with a variety of players:

Richardson, Tannehill, DeCastro, Cox, Barron, Kirkpatrick, hell even Michael Floyd.

O.city
04-03-2012, 07:16 PM
Richardson, Tannehill, Decastro, Brockers, Kuechly, or Ingram.

Coogs
04-03-2012, 07:17 PM
This year, we've got two legitimate holes on this team

OK, I'll bite. Which two?

Myself on these two... QB and NT

Titty Meat
04-03-2012, 07:18 PM
Guess I should have put a late night bullshit tag on this.

Meh well.

It was 6:30

O.city
04-03-2012, 07:19 PM
Thing about taking Brockers or Decastro is that they aren't ever going to be a game changer.


The 34 DE in our defense, won't ever be asked to be a playmaker, unless it's in a sub package. It's an important spot, but tough to spend that high a pick on again.


This is the weirdest year in that no one has a real idea where we are gonna go.

Extra Point
04-03-2012, 07:23 PM
OK, I'll bite. Which two?

Myself on these two... QB and NT

This, twice.

The Bad Guy
04-03-2012, 07:25 PM
If they trade Brockers, I'm going to fucking lose my mind.

Dr. Gigglepants
04-03-2012, 07:32 PM
I was having this exact conversation at work today. We both decided we'd be OK with Tannehill if he was there, but we doubted he would be there. Then we got to thinking about how we will most likely have to run the ball 50 times per game if we want to win with Cassel, so we landed on DeCastro. If he's there, I think that's the pick.

O.city
04-03-2012, 07:34 PM
If they trade Brockers, I'm going to ****ing lose my mind.

What?

Chiefnj2
04-03-2012, 07:55 PM
Thing about taking Brockers or Decastro is that they aren't ever going to be a game changer.


The 34 DE in our defense, won't ever be asked to be a playmaker, unless it's in a sub package. It's an important spot, but tough to spend that high a pick on again.


This is the weirdest year in that no one has a real idea where we are gonna go.

If someone like Brockers isn't doing his job the other guys on the team aren't in a position to be "playmakers".

O.city
04-03-2012, 07:59 PM
If someone like Brockers isn't doing his job the other guys on the team aren't in a position to be "playmakers".

So you burn a topof the first round pick on the guy if thats all he's gonna be?


If we are taking Brockers, he needs to develop some type of pass rush and be disruptive.

Chiefnj2
04-03-2012, 08:05 PM
So you burn a topof the first round pick on the guy if thats all he's gonna be?


If we are taking Brockers, he needs to develop some type of pass rush and be disruptive.

I think it is short sighted to say someone like Brockers isn't a playmaker. Hali isn't getting to the QB if Brockers isn't occupying multiple OL. DJ isn't making big hits or forcing fumbles if he has to take on OL that are getting free off the line.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:06 PM
Just say NO to Poe.

Agreed...

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:07 PM
I think it is short sighted to say someone like Brockers isn't a playmaker. Hali isn't getting to the QB if Brockers isn't occupying multiple OL. DJ isn't making big hits or forcing fumbles if he has to take on OL that are getting free off the line.

I think he could be a playmaker, but it's atleast 3 or 4 years down the road. It's just tough to take a guy that high that's going to take that long to develop.



Would he even be a starter right away?

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:10 PM
Some have said this is a bad spot to be, but it really isn't that awful. We can sit tight or trade down and just see who drops that we have rated high.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:10 PM
For any of those despairing about the #11 overall pick, here are our options:

We take DeCastro, and have the best offensive line in the league.

maybe but we still don't know what we have at center

We have Rodney Hudson, a premier center prospect.

If we can't trust a premier center prospect at the position, we literally can't trust anybody.

We take Kuechly, and have the best linebacking corps in the league.

umm ... not unless Houston and Kuechly blow up this year

Kuechly is a sure 150+ tackles a year, and I bet he's over 130 tackles his rookie season.

That gives us two perennial All Pro talents in DJ and Hali, another player who could easily be that soon in Kuechly, and Houston who's taken off and the sky is the limit.

No 3-4 team has a better starting squad of LBs.

We take Brockers or Cox (or Still, as I'd prefer), and have the best DE depth in the league.

meh ... depth?

Counts for something, especially as Dorsey will not be with the team past this year, and Jackson may be cut as well if he refuses to restructure.

We can take Trent Richardson, and have the best RBs in the league.

could be

Richardson/Charles with Hillis as your fullback/goal-line RB?

It's the best RBs in the league without question.

We can take Kirkpatrick or Jenkins or Gilmore, and have the best CBs in the league.

could be

Name one team that could do better than Flowers/Routt/any of the above rookies/Arenas.

We can take Barron, and have the best safeties combo in the league.

could be

Berry/Barron would be unrivaled in a year's time, if not right away.

We can take Melvin Ingram/Nick Perry/Whitney Mercilus, and have the best rushbacking corps in the league.

umm ... that's a tough call considering all the rushers around

Hali/Houston/Ingram?

Hali/Houston/Mercilus?

No 3-4 team can match that one-two-three combo at OLB.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:12 PM
WE HAD THE BEST CB'S in the league

Sorry, but Flowers/Carr/Arenas still requires help from the safeties in sub packages.

Flowers/Routt/rookie above/Arenas is a deep, versatile CB group who doesn't need safety help in subpackages.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:12 PM
If for any chance Richardson is there at 11, I think you would be nuts to not take him. He's a legit blue chipper.

With where we are as a team, if a blue chip guy is there, take him.

From your lips to God's ears.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:13 PM
I would love to have Richardson.

I like Decastro, but I like grabbing another top guy at 11 and taking Molk later in the draft. I'm starting to think it's gonna be Kuechly or Brockers.

I am thinking it's Kuechly.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:13 PM
No one has the best depth at DE except Giants. Don't even act like anyone comes close. Laughable. /thread

Except that's a 4-3 team.

Find me a 3-4 team that can beat Dorsey/Jackson/rookie above/Bailey.

It's the best, deepest corps in the league.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:15 PM
I am thinking it's Kuechly.

It probably will be and honestly I'm fine with that.


He's an upgrade and potential all pro ILB tackling machine. We could do alot worse.


It also isn't gonna completely take Belcher away from the defense. He will probably play special teams and goal line/ heavy packages.


When you have players of Belchers ability playing those roles, thats' not a bad thing.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:15 PM
'Shun, I see the point of the OP and for the most part agree with you.

We did very well in FA. Winston was gifted to us, Hillis gives some thunder to Charles' lightning, Boss gives us injury protection/2 TE set to respect, and Quinn's going to be willing to grab nutsacks in the locker room...something lacking after Shaun Smith left.

I go back and forth on this draft. I did a mock draft that had Kuechly coming in. But I would be happy with a variety of players:

Richardson, Tannehill, DeCastro, Cox, Barron, Kirkpatrick, hell even Michael Floyd.

Richardson, Tannehill, Decastro, Brockers, Kuechly, or Ingram.

I don't think Cox fits this defense, but I'd fucking love him in subpackages with Bailey. Holy shit they'd get after it.

Floyd would be a nice boost to the WR corps, but there's no chance Pioli takes another WR headache after Baldwin's bullshit last year.

Ingram I've soured on -- 31 inch arms are pretty short... I'm thinking he falls hard in the draft, to the teens.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:15 PM
OK, I'll bite. Which two?

Myself on these two... QB and NT

Yup.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:17 PM
I don't think Cox fits this defense, but I'd ****ing love him in subpackages with Bailey. Holy shit they'd get after it.

Floyd would be a nice boost to the WR corps, but there's no chance Pioli takes another WR headache after Baldwin's bullshit last year.

Ingram I've soured on -- 31 inch arms are pretty short... I'm thinking he falls hard in the draft, to the teens.

I am starting to feel the same way with Ingram. We need more pass rushers, but we need them to be that, just pass rushers. Come in during subpackages and just go crazy. That could be had later in the draft.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:17 PM
Thing about taking Brockers or Decastro is that they aren't ever going to be a game changer.

The 34 DE in our defense, won't ever be asked to be a playmaker, unless it's in a sub package. It's an important spot, but tough to spend that high a pick on again.

This is the weirdest year in that no one has a real idea where we are gonna go.

There is no reason why the 3-4 DE, even in a two-gapping system, can't be a playmaker.

Richard Seymour was a monstrous playmaker. Ziggy Hood is making stuff happen for the Steelers.

We need somebody who is not just one-dimensional at the DE position, though. Dorsey and Jackson are one-dimensional.

Brockers is one-dimensional. Cox is one-dimensional the other way -- softer on run, tougher on the passrush.

Still is the only guy who plays both with aplomb, in my earnest opinion.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:18 PM
I gotta say Shun, I really enjoy these threads. Really gets football talk started.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:18 PM
If they trade Brockers, I'm going to ****ing lose my mind.

What?

Pretty sure he meant "select" Brockers.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:19 PM
I think it is short sighted to say someone like Brockers isn't a playmaker. Hali isn't getting to the QB if Brockers isn't occupying multiple OL. DJ isn't making big hits or forcing fumbles if he has to take on OL that are getting free off the line.

Brockers isn't making plays.

He clogs so other people can make plays.

He's not a playmaker.

You want a playmaker at #11.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:19 PM
Some have said this is a bad spot to be, but it really isn't that awful. We can sit tight or trade down and just see who drops that we have rated high.

Gimme a 2013 first rounder!

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:20 PM
There is no reason why the 3-4 DE, even in a two-gapping system, can't be a playmaker.

Richard Seymour was a monstrous playmaker. Ziggy Hood is making stuff happen for the Steelers.

We need somebody who is not just one-dimensional at the DE position, though. Dorsey and Jackson are one-dimensional.

Brockers is one-dimensional. Cox is one-dimensional the other way -- softer on run, tougher on the passrush.

Still is the only guy who plays both with aplomb, in my earnest opinion.


Yeah Still is pretty crazy athletic and strong. I haven't watched a ton on Brockers yet, but I'm intrigued.


IMO, I think Jackson is gonna end up being a really good player.


I said this in the draft planet, but what would you guys think about packing 20 or 25 pounds onto Dorsey and moving him to NT? Could he do that?

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:20 PM
It probably will be and honestly I'm fine with that.

He's an upgrade and potential all pro ILB tackling machine. We could do alot worse.

It also isn't gonna completely take Belcher away from the defense. He will probably play special teams and goal line/ heavy packages.

When you have players of Belchers ability playing those roles, thats' not a bad thing.

Maybe they try to trade Belcher... I have no idea what becomes of him if we pick Kuechly.

I gotta say Shun, I really enjoy these threads. Really gets football talk started.

Back atcha.

Brock
04-03-2012, 08:21 PM
If you're wanting to trade down because the difference between players 10-20 is minimal, good luck with that. It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely to me.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:22 PM
Yeah Still is pretty crazy athletic and strong. I haven't watched a ton on Brockers yet, but I'm intrigued.

IMO, I think Jackson is gonna end up being a really good player.

I said this in the draft planet, but what would you guys think about packing 20 or 25 pounds onto Dorsey and moving him to NT? Could he do that?

Nah, Dorsey couldn't play nose.

There are guys you COULD do that with, but they have to have the frame to add on that weight. Meaning, their body would have to support it.

If you wanted to go crazy scientific experiment style, you could possibly do that with Brockers. Possibly.

But Dorsey is packed about as tight as we can get him. He's not getting any bigger, he's what we call "maxed out."

Besides, he's a 4-3 guy anyway.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:22 PM
Maybe they try to trade Belcher... I have no idea what becomes of him if we pick Kuechly.



Back atcha.

I don't know about trading him.


Kuechly is a tackling machine, who likely is playing most packages. I don't know what you do with Belcher. I'd love to keep him on board and make him the special teams captain and the ILB in big heavy packages.

Coogs
04-03-2012, 08:22 PM
Yup.

:thumb:

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:23 PM
Nah, Dorsey couldn't play nose.

There are guys you COULD do that with, but they have to have the frame to add on that weight. Meaning, their body would have to support it.

If you wanted to go crazy scientific experiment style, you could possibly do that with Brockers. Possibly.

But Dorsey is packed about as tight as we can get him. He's not getting any bigger, he's what we call "maxed out."

Besides, he's a 4-3 guy anyway.

Probably so, but Dorsey did play 25 pounds heavier at LSU so he could add it.


Do you know think Dorsey could physically do it or what?

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:24 PM
I don't know about trading him.

Kuechly is a tackling machine, who likely is playing most packages. I don't know what you do with Belcher. I'd love to keep him on board and make him the special teams captain and the ILB in big heavy packages.

Cutting him is the most likely option.

There's just no chance we ask a whole-season starter for two years on our defense to sit on the bench and play special teams.

Maybe we can get him for something, somewhere. No clue.

Direckshun
04-03-2012, 08:24 PM
Probably so, but Dorsey did play 25 pounds heavier at LSU so he could add it.

Do you know think Dorsey could physically do it or what?

I never heard that. He played that heavy?

It was remarked that Dorsey was overweight the entire time under Herm.

Under Haley, he got into shape, around 300 lbs.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:24 PM
Drafting Kuechly pretty much replaces Belcher, so it would be tough.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:26 PM
I never heard that. He played that heavy?

It was remarked that Dorsey was overweight the entire time under Herm.

Under Haley, he got into shape, around 300 lbs.

I think it was actually around 320 at LSU. So I was a little off.

O.city
04-03-2012, 08:30 PM
I do think Dorsey fits best in a 43. This year against Denver we ran alot of 4 man fronts and Dorsey seemed to really excel.



Maybe that's something we plan to do in the future more often.

O.city
04-03-2012, 09:11 PM
I'm thinking if we don't draft a NT, we sign Franklin to a dirt cheap contract.


Is Carlos Rogers a free agent?

Mr. Laz
04-03-2012, 09:12 PM
We have Rodney Hudson, a premier center prospect.

If we can't trust a premier center prospect at the position, we literally can't trust anybody.

Kuechly is a sure 150+ tackles a year, and I bet he's over 130 tackles his rookie season.
so you've decided that Hudson and Kuechly are just going to walk in and be studs in their 1st year?

You should be a GM

can we fire you if you're wrong? :D

J Diddy
04-03-2012, 09:19 PM
so you've decided that Hudson and Kuechly are just going to walk in and be studs in their 1st year?

You should be a GM

can we fire you if you're wrong? :D

This isn't Hudson's first year.