ChiefsPlanet
Page 19 of 20 « First 915161718 19 20
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   NFL Draft If Curry is gone at the 3 spot...who do we take or what do we do? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203387)

DeezNutz 03-01-2009 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC_Chief (Post 5544938)
:spock:

I must be typing in a different language.

It's not that complicated.

The key is being stuck at #3 overall. If that were to happen, a realistic scenario is KC drafting an OT. If an OT is drafted that high, it is typically a LT (RT if your QB is a southpaw).

If that were to happen, what happens to Albert? Now, does that "diminish" him as a player when he has proven he can play any position? No.

Now, you following me camera guy? We're going to do this in real time: if KC TRADES DOWN, the OT scenario odds are greatly diminished. The need for a RT still remains. What does that mean? Bueller? Bueller? It means KC can draft for another need, then address RT at another time. OR, if a stud RT is available when they DO pick, perhaps they take him then. Depends on the position and the player now, doesn't it?

I can draw you a picture if you like.
Let's draft a guy and hope he's as good as the second-year player we already have at the same position.

It would make more sense to draft Stafford/Sanchez.

I see neither scenario as realistic.

milkman 03-01-2009 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC_Chief (Post 5544938)
:spock:

I must be typing in a different language.

It's not that complicated.

The key is being stuck at #3 overall. If that were to happen, a realistic scenario is KC drafting an OT. If an OT is drafted that high, it is typically a LT (RT if your QB is a southpaw).

If that were to happen, what happens to Albert? Now, does that "diminish" him as a player when he has proven he can play any position? No.

Now, you following me camera guy? We're going to do this in real time: if KC TRADES DOWN, the OT scenario odds are greatly diminished. The need for a RT still remains. What does that mean? Bueller? Bueller? It means KC can draft for another need, then address RT at another time. OR, if a stud RT is available when they DO pick, perhaps they take him then. Depends on the position and the player now, doesn't it?

I can draw you a picture if you like.
The point he makes is that you admitted that RT has less value than LT by stating we could find one (RT) later in the draft.

If we actually had the need for LT, would you suggest that we could simply trade down and find a LT later?

philfree 03-01-2009 07:54 PM
The Chiefs had Tait at LT when DV became HC and what did he do? He went and got Roaf and moved Tait to RT building one of the best O lines ever as well as a great offense. I think there will be a better pick then another LT but I could see Pioli not valuing Chiefs past draft picks when building his team.

PhilFree:arrow:

HC_Chief 03-01-2009 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5544948)
Let's draft a guy and hope he's as good as the second-year player we already have at the same position.

It would make more sense to draft Stafford/Sanchez.

I see neither scenario as realistic.
Again, key is how KC's scouting department/front office views Monroe. If they look at him & think "Albert's as good/better", then the scenario is moot anyway, right?

In that instance, assuming Curry is off the board (as indicated in the thread title), we'll probably grab a NT (as has been suggested ad nauseum in this thread), which relegates Dorsey to DE or trade bait.

Best case in all scenarios is KC trades down.

DeezNutz 03-01-2009 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC_Chief (Post 5544966)
Best case in all scenarios is KC trades down.
This is what desperately needs to happen. Maybe an outside shot of it coming to fruition with one of the QB's left on the board.

HC_Chief 03-01-2009 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5544978)
This is what desperately needs to happen. Maybe an outside shot of it coming to fruition with one of the QB's left on the board.
Problem is we traded for a QB, so our leverage is lessened. Teams know we aren't a threat to take Stafford/Sanchez, so why trade up that high for one of them?

bdeg 03-01-2009 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC_Chief (Post 5544981)
Problem is we traded for a QB, so our leverage is lessened. Teams know we aren't a threat to take Stafford/Sanchez, so why trade up that high for one of them?
Because Seattle could take one at 4. If Stafford or Monroe fall there might be options as Seattle could take either.

HC_Chief 03-01-2009 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdeg (Post 5545151)
Because Seattle could take one at 4. If Stafford or Monroe fall, there might be options as Seattle could take either.
Then here's to Pioli convincing some team that Seattle is DEFINITELY taking Stafford/Sanchez/Monroe and getting us the hell outta the #3 position!

milkman 03-01-2009 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5544965)
The Chiefs had Tait at LT when DV became HC and what did he do? He went and got Roaf and moved Tait to RT building one of the best O lines ever as well as a great offense. I think there will be a better pick then another LT but I could see Pioli not valuing Chiefs past draft picks when building his team.

PhilFree:arrow:
Tait didn't play up to his billing as the #13 pick in his rookie season, and trading for Roaf was initially designed to bring in a stop gap/mentor.

But Roaf played for longer than expected and Tait hated Carl, so it never worked out according to plan.

Mecca 03-01-2009 10:45 PM
I see there is an Oline obsession going on again.

BigRedChief 03-01-2009 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC_Chief (Post 5544966)
Best case in all scenarios is KC trades down.
Yeah, so thats what everyone says but how to pull it off? Whats going to be there at #3 that would entice another team to trade up?

philfree 03-01-2009 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5545260)
Tait didn't play up to his billing as the #13 pick in his rookie season, and trading for Roaf was initially designed to bring in a stop gap/mentor.

But Roaf played for longer than expected and Tait hated Carl, so it never worked out according to plan.
I don't know if all that's true. Holmes did rush for 1,500 yards behind Tait the first year DV was HC. DV still devalued a 1st round pick LT by bringing in another LT and moving him to RT. It worked out pretty good offensively speaking. I'm not saying it's what I want but I think it's a possibility looking at what's going on.


PhilFree:arrow:

DeezNutz 03-01-2009 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 5545733)
Yeah, so thats what everyone says but how to pull it off? Whats going to be there at #3 that would entice another team to trade up?
Luckily the most valuable commodity, a QB.

philfree 03-01-2009 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5545764)
Luckily the most valuable commodity, a QB.
Yup! Excuse me...... But yes Stafford could still be on the board and that is trade bait.


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca 03-01-2009 11:49 PM
You could possibly bait Jacksonville who desperately wants an LT...

And even using the Roaf example the Chiefs did not use a 1st round pick to acquire him.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 PM.
Page 19 of 20 « First 915161718 19 20
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.