Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts (Post 6708011)

Naw, I was just ****ing around with that post. Nothing personal dude, I really don't hate the pick. I think he's going to do well. I just think we could've done better.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6707995)

If Moeaki can stay healthy, he's icing on the cake. And we've still got two picks tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6707999)

I was watching the draft with a friend of mine, you know it's bad when we look at Baltimore and go "hey they took the guys we shoulda took"

Originally Posted by OleMissCUb (Post 6708013)

He doesn't look any slower than Charles to me.

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts (Post 6708018)

The Arenas pick was the one that really pissed me off. There were way too many better options than Mighty Mouse II.

Originally Posted by Saccopoo (Post 6708020)

We traded up for a tight end. Again.

And that would be okay if you didn't have the first team Walter Camp tight end or the first team AP All-American tight end still on the board and it looked like both would have been there when the Chiefs picked in the fourth. But, instead, we decide to throw away one of our very valuable fifth round picks to draft a guy who has never played a full season in college because of injuries and concussions.

Bad ****ing pick.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 6708007)

I totally get it. The drafturbaters sound a little like they're wishing the chiefs had picked for need, with a focus on the front 7. Which is eerily similar to "WE GAVE UP SACKS DRAFT AN OT!" or "DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS, GET A DAMN NT" instead of the normal "we're drafting at 5, you need to draft a great playmaker there instead of a ****ing offensive tackle".

Mostly though it reads like "I wanted playmakers, damnit, but not these playmakers".

As far as sumbitting to authority, I think you'll probably hear somebody argue that the converse is true and that the drafturbators are sticking to their normal MO of criticizing the front office regardless of what they do.

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts (Post 6708018)

The Arenas pick was the one that really pissed me off. There were way too many better options than Mighty Mouse II.

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts (Post 6708018)

The Arenas pick was the one that really pissed me off. There were way too many better options than Mighty Mouse II.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 6708026)

Everything only sounds like what you're describing it as if you can't read particularly well. Point of dispute: when we say need at 36 we're also talking about BPA at the same time - win/win, McCluster wasn't BPA at the time and Arenas was like a two round reach, no one would argue against an LT at #5 in any draft unless your team already has one - like the Chiefs - so there goes that mischaracterization, I know that I'll hear someone attempt to argue that some of us bitch about every single move the front office makes but I don't care because that is so stupid as to not warrant getting indignant over.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 6708026)

Everything only sounds like what you're describing it as if you can't read particularly well.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6708024)

But look at all those games we would have won last year had we had a KR?

Seriously, only this fanbase could possbily think that a slot WR, TE and a KR carries more value than a pass rusher, NT or ILB in a 34 scheme.

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts (Post 6708018)

The Arenas pick was the one that really pissed me off. There were way too many better options than Mighty Mouse II.