Chief Roundup
04-14-2017, 09:55 PM
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2017/4/13/15213218/kansas-city-chiefs-need-to-be-aggressive-not-desperate
Just because a perceived need is first on the list, it doesn’t mean the Chiefs have to draft it in the first round. We tend to have tunnel vision in draft season, and only focus on the first round pick. Or we focus on the first round pick being the only chance to address the top need. If this team’s top need is RB for example, they could easily take a good RB that fits the system in the third round. Same goes for ILB. QB is the exception. Even if QB isn’t the top need, you take them early because teams tend to overdraft for need at the position. I don’t want my team picking through the scraps in the third round hoping to grab the QB of the future.. Hope isn’t a strategy.
The definition of worth is whatever someone is willing to pay. I hate seeing these debates about a player saying he’s not worth a first round pick or in the case of free agency he’s not worth the contract he is demanding. A player is worth a first round pick if the team picking in the first round is willing to use their first pick on him. Nothing else matters. You may not want to spend your first on that player, but it only takes one team to pull the trigger, and boom ... that guy is a first round pick. In free agency, if a team thinks the player can help them and they can fit his contract in the salary cap, then he’s worth the contract ... to them. It doesn’t matter what we think.
We want the Chiefs to be aggressive, not desperate. I would argue that they were desperate for a QB when Andy Reid and John Dorsey were hired, and they invested heavily in Alex Smith and Chase Daniel. Since then, the team has been neither aggressive nor desperate. They’ve passed on QBs that might have made sense, and been leap-frogged in the draft by other teams willing to be more aggressive to get QBs the Chiefs were interested in. This year is the same but different. They still aren’t desperate in that there’s a competent starter in place (please don’t argue this point). But it’s time for the Chiefs to be more aggressive in getting the QB of the future. If there’s a guy they love, they should be aggressive in doing whatever it takes to draft him (trade up, take him a round earlier than others have him graded, etc). However, they shouldn’t be taking a first round QB that isn’t their guy just out of desperation to get one. Bad teams act out of desperation, good teams are aggressive when they need to be.
Win now or build for the future? Why choose? From day one of the Reid/Dorsey era, they have built a team that can compete, while drafting for the future. I’d argue that the team has evolved, but not much has fundamentally changed. The first season, they added a handful of veterans (including Alex Smith) to help bring the team out of the 2-14 pit and into a winning team. They accomplished that goal, going 11-5 in their first season, and been in contention (at least for the division title) ever since. Then, they had a couple of good drafts, purged some veterans and moved forward. The Chiefs aren’t drafting for immediate needs, but typically for needs in future years. They have an established roster that can win now, and the draft capital to build for the future. It’s not one or the other.
Your board is not the same as Dorsey’s board. I wrote about this in 2015, but it bears repeating this time of year. The draft isn’t simple. It’s not just best player available and that means something different to each team. Quoting myself here: Teams build their own, independent boards by trusting their scouts instead of prevailing opinions. They make a list of players and / or skill sets that complement their existing roster and improve their team. They eliminate players from the board that don’t fit their schemes. Then they pick the Best Available Player at each pick in their draft based on the board and shopping list they have compiled.
Reach or value only matter on draft day, and it should only matter to guys like Mel Kiper. A player that seems like a great value (based on draft experts mocks and big boards) might not even be on the board for the Chiefs. On another player, the team might see a perfect fit and believe that he won’t be there for their later selection, so they pull the trigger. At the end of the day, the only questions that really matter are: Can they help improve the team and will they be available when our next pick comes up? After the draft (and the silly post-draft grades), the rookies have to line up for minicamps, OTAs and training camp. They have to make the team, and find a role.
Get outta here with your draft grades. “I have a second round grade on all the QBs!” “I can’t believe they took that guy in the first round, I had a third round grade on him!” We can only guess where the actual NFL teams believe a guy will be taken, but how can we actually assign a specific round based on what we see on draft breakdown? Are we able to look at each NFL team’s needs, the skill sets they value, and the draft picks they have available and determine how many times they’ll pass over a player before they draft them?
Even crazier are the grades within a round. Most teams only have one first round pick, some have two, but they don’t get to pick where in the round they select. So, if your team picks 10th, but their favorite player in the draft, the one that fits their needs is perceived by many to be a “late first round pick” or “graded out in the 20s” ... they should absolutely take him. Generally, if a player is good enough to be taken with pick 32, they are good enough to be taken with pick one. Again, if that player is your guy and he won’t be there when you pick next, it’s not a reach and you should take him. Mel Kiper be damned.
From the Upside Down:
Trades are impossible to predict but ... I mentioned in last week’s edition that I’d be OK trading into next year’s draft, given the glut of 2017 picks the Chiefs own. Today, I’ll go a step further. If the Chiefs don’t love the QBs this year, I’d be OK trading KC’s first round pick to a bad team for something like a 2017 second and a first round pick next year.
As with most seasons, experts say the 2018 QB class is much better than the 2017. We should be skeptical of this type of analysis because a lot can change in one year. But the Chiefs do have flexibility. They could take a QB this year to sit for a year, then cut Alex in 2018. Or they could draft the QB in 2018, then start him and cut Alex when the rookie is ready.
The Chiefs are meeting with all of the top QB prospects, so we know Dorsey is doing his homework. If he doesn’t see the QB of the future in this group, he could punt the decision to next year. If that happens, however, they will be closer to the desperate category at the position, so the pressure will be on Dorsey to get it right.
Just because a perceived need is first on the list, it doesn’t mean the Chiefs have to draft it in the first round. We tend to have tunnel vision in draft season, and only focus on the first round pick. Or we focus on the first round pick being the only chance to address the top need. If this team’s top need is RB for example, they could easily take a good RB that fits the system in the third round. Same goes for ILB. QB is the exception. Even if QB isn’t the top need, you take them early because teams tend to overdraft for need at the position. I don’t want my team picking through the scraps in the third round hoping to grab the QB of the future.. Hope isn’t a strategy.
The definition of worth is whatever someone is willing to pay. I hate seeing these debates about a player saying he’s not worth a first round pick or in the case of free agency he’s not worth the contract he is demanding. A player is worth a first round pick if the team picking in the first round is willing to use their first pick on him. Nothing else matters. You may not want to spend your first on that player, but it only takes one team to pull the trigger, and boom ... that guy is a first round pick. In free agency, if a team thinks the player can help them and they can fit his contract in the salary cap, then he’s worth the contract ... to them. It doesn’t matter what we think.
We want the Chiefs to be aggressive, not desperate. I would argue that they were desperate for a QB when Andy Reid and John Dorsey were hired, and they invested heavily in Alex Smith and Chase Daniel. Since then, the team has been neither aggressive nor desperate. They’ve passed on QBs that might have made sense, and been leap-frogged in the draft by other teams willing to be more aggressive to get QBs the Chiefs were interested in. This year is the same but different. They still aren’t desperate in that there’s a competent starter in place (please don’t argue this point). But it’s time for the Chiefs to be more aggressive in getting the QB of the future. If there’s a guy they love, they should be aggressive in doing whatever it takes to draft him (trade up, take him a round earlier than others have him graded, etc). However, they shouldn’t be taking a first round QB that isn’t their guy just out of desperation to get one. Bad teams act out of desperation, good teams are aggressive when they need to be.
Win now or build for the future? Why choose? From day one of the Reid/Dorsey era, they have built a team that can compete, while drafting for the future. I’d argue that the team has evolved, but not much has fundamentally changed. The first season, they added a handful of veterans (including Alex Smith) to help bring the team out of the 2-14 pit and into a winning team. They accomplished that goal, going 11-5 in their first season, and been in contention (at least for the division title) ever since. Then, they had a couple of good drafts, purged some veterans and moved forward. The Chiefs aren’t drafting for immediate needs, but typically for needs in future years. They have an established roster that can win now, and the draft capital to build for the future. It’s not one or the other.
Your board is not the same as Dorsey’s board. I wrote about this in 2015, but it bears repeating this time of year. The draft isn’t simple. It’s not just best player available and that means something different to each team. Quoting myself here: Teams build their own, independent boards by trusting their scouts instead of prevailing opinions. They make a list of players and / or skill sets that complement their existing roster and improve their team. They eliminate players from the board that don’t fit their schemes. Then they pick the Best Available Player at each pick in their draft based on the board and shopping list they have compiled.
Reach or value only matter on draft day, and it should only matter to guys like Mel Kiper. A player that seems like a great value (based on draft experts mocks and big boards) might not even be on the board for the Chiefs. On another player, the team might see a perfect fit and believe that he won’t be there for their later selection, so they pull the trigger. At the end of the day, the only questions that really matter are: Can they help improve the team and will they be available when our next pick comes up? After the draft (and the silly post-draft grades), the rookies have to line up for minicamps, OTAs and training camp. They have to make the team, and find a role.
Get outta here with your draft grades. “I have a second round grade on all the QBs!” “I can’t believe they took that guy in the first round, I had a third round grade on him!” We can only guess where the actual NFL teams believe a guy will be taken, but how can we actually assign a specific round based on what we see on draft breakdown? Are we able to look at each NFL team’s needs, the skill sets they value, and the draft picks they have available and determine how many times they’ll pass over a player before they draft them?
Even crazier are the grades within a round. Most teams only have one first round pick, some have two, but they don’t get to pick where in the round they select. So, if your team picks 10th, but their favorite player in the draft, the one that fits their needs is perceived by many to be a “late first round pick” or “graded out in the 20s” ... they should absolutely take him. Generally, if a player is good enough to be taken with pick 32, they are good enough to be taken with pick one. Again, if that player is your guy and he won’t be there when you pick next, it’s not a reach and you should take him. Mel Kiper be damned.
From the Upside Down:
Trades are impossible to predict but ... I mentioned in last week’s edition that I’d be OK trading into next year’s draft, given the glut of 2017 picks the Chiefs own. Today, I’ll go a step further. If the Chiefs don’t love the QBs this year, I’d be OK trading KC’s first round pick to a bad team for something like a 2017 second and a first round pick next year.
As with most seasons, experts say the 2018 QB class is much better than the 2017. We should be skeptical of this type of analysis because a lot can change in one year. But the Chiefs do have flexibility. They could take a QB this year to sit for a year, then cut Alex in 2018. Or they could draft the QB in 2018, then start him and cut Alex when the rookie is ready.
The Chiefs are meeting with all of the top QB prospects, so we know Dorsey is doing his homework. If he doesn’t see the QB of the future in this group, he could punt the decision to next year. If that happens, however, they will be closer to the desperate category at the position, so the pressure will be on Dorsey to get it right.