If you want to improve your defense, next year is the year to improve the defense.

There is not ONE game-changing defensive lineman or linebacker (that we know of) in this draft.

Not ONE.

Why waste that valuable pick on just a guy?

We could just wait a year to fix the defense when I can think of about 30 stud defensive players off the top of my head in next year's draft.

How many great defense are built around a strong side linebacker that doesn't rush the passer?

Really ask yourself that question because if you make that pick you are expecting Aaron Curry to do something that isn't common.

I'm not sure how you think it's as cut and dried as that... you can't win without a solid team on both sides of the ball, and you don't have to look any further than our own teams in the last 20 years (Marty's D in the 90s or Vermiel's Offense). Obviously a franchise QB is an important piece of the puzzle, but this single-minded QB Kool-Aid that has you thinking the Chiefs will be SB bound once they draft one is as bad as the "True Fan" nonsense.

Is there anyone else in the draft with Curry's skill set? I've heard talk that this year's draft is full of rush backers, so if we're in a 3-4 and Curry is the only guy around that can do what he does, is his value increased as a result?

If Chiefsplanet had been around, this board would have found fault with Elway, Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman when they were drafted.



Alot of this fanbase just like to criticize franchise QB's because we have never drafted one.

But to get to 8-8 this year, we need to draft defense NOW!

Lets be even more dramatic and say that we have to only draft defense because our 24th ranked offense can carry a team to the superbowl...

Seriously? 9-7?

Linebackers are the RB's of defense they're a dime a dozen unless they have pass rush ability, think of it that way.

****ing doubter, he's Aaron fucking Curry, the new Mike Peterson.

Hell, he could give Mike Peterson Mike Peterson lessons. And then when he was done, he'd teach him how to be Aaron fucking Curry.

We have 2 solid young CB's and 1 average LB. Especially if we go 3-4 we have to have solid LB play. I dont recall dominant CB play running the Steelers D. It was great LB play. But I dont think CB isnt valuable. I think we need solid if not spectacular players all over the field.

LOL

The way I look at this is, drafting Aaron Curry this high is like saying Carl Banks was as important as Lawrence Taylor which is pretty laughable.

Our dime a dozen LB's have really served us well havent they?

No your right, its not cut and dry as that. It takes both sides of the ball to win a championship...

Where did I say that the Chiefs were superbowl bound if they drafted a QB? Please Quote that...

not in the 3-4. He's projected inside.

That is NOT HOW YOU DRAFT, how many of those great Steelers LB's were high draft picks..oh yea Lawrence Timmons was taken like 20th none of the other ones were first round picks by them..

The LB position is filled in the middle rounds, or even UDFA the Steelers and Ravens are examples of this, they are not examples that you take non rushers in the top 10.

ROFL

****. People on this board criticize Aikman now, even after he's in the HOF. Some posters say he was carried by all of the talent that surrounded him.

Sound familiar?

Using the Chiefs to form an opinion is dense, that's like saying you don't watch the rest of the NFL and see how top level teams are built...

Because the Chiefs couldn't do something right doesn't mean you do it the complete opposite way either because that then makes you a reaching reerun.

Best post so far. This either or shit is getting old.

I don't think many people will get that reference from the old star board.

Oh, the Mike Peterson stories I could tell. He cured cancer while using his dick as a land bridge to get the native americans back to asia.

But he was no Aaron Curry. No sir.

So are you formally stating that Aaron Curry is the second coming of Ray Lewis?

Poor CB's don't get noticed as much when you run the zone blitz right. Put a ton of pressure on the QB with confusing blitzes and have your CB's or LB's step in the throwing lanes.

3-4 will make poor CB's average and average CB's good. They only have to cover for a few seconds unlike our old Cover-2 which put a ton of pressure on the corners and cover LB's because we could never get pressure on the QB because we were sitting back letting the O dictate what happened.

It's a fine post but we aren't gonna win a bowl with our best player being a strong side LB either...

Pass on a QB this year then we're stuck next year with no QB and a bunch of high level defensive players at the top of the draft.

Sounds like Super Bowl hype to me. Either way, you're presenting a false choice there because the Chiefs need both, especially with our roster.

We cant draft a QB this year because Carl failed 26 years ago with Blackledge.

Why is it so hard to understand that you get better value if you take a QB first then sign or draft a LB later on?

The odds of finding a productive LB in rounds 2-UDFA pretty good the odds of finding a QB there pretty bad.

See is that hard to grasp?

I don't think anyone is doing this.

No one advocating the drafting of a QB--I'm talking about the regular posters--discounts the value and importance of defense.

But we have to be realistic. This draft, what do we have the best chance of improving/solidifying with the #3 overall pick?

There isn't an elite defensive player worthy of the pick, yet there are two quarterbacks. We don't have one of these. Conveniently, it's the most important position on the field.

We don't need a LT, and there isn't a freakish WR on the board. Let's not even discuss RB.

I don't think it's a difficult decision at all.

Carl should've traded up for Elway. Idiot.

Try reading comprehension... I said I want a QB and a CHANCE to win a superbowl...

I never said that it was a slam dunk like you said it was....

:banghead:

Actually I've yet to see anyone make a well reasoned logical argument for Curry, other than "our LB's suck" really well our team sucks so how's that fly?

I agree and I want a QB though IMVHO I think Stafford is the only franchise type QB in this draft. I know people will disagree with that but that is cool.

It is just this either or shit that is bothersome.

My trust is in Pioli.

Everytime you guys argue why we should draft Sanchez you always go back to saying "Thigpen sucks and cant play in a pro style" how is this any different?

If Aaron Curry was a game changing defensive end this would be a great argument but...he's not.

The most important things on the field are QB DE and LT the Chiefs have a LT there's no DE that should make the pick a no brainer right?

There have been a lot of posts that address Sanchez's strengths and explain why he's worthy of the selection.

Let me explain something Mark Sanchez as a good NFL starting QB is more valuable than Aaron Curry if he's a great strong side LB.

Not how who drafts? You? Draft Potential over productivity because of position? Hello Gholston! Thats worked out well!

Who cares when they were drafted?! A great player is a great player. Scouts missed them. You think teams wouldnt love to pick them higher if they coulod go back? Ray was a late first rounder. Merriman went top ten. Again just because Brady was a 6th rounder you dont wait late and pass up a guy if he's the best guy available.

Do you research before you post? There are plenty of threads talking about Sanchez's pros and cons...

Mecca is very honest about both...

I think that is a well reasoned post DeeNutz and hard to argue with. I disagree about Sanchez but I am really not excited about anyone else so I am kind of torn.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Thigpen is not an NFL QB at this point in time. He can't play effective behind center.

Aaron Curry isn't a linebacker in the mold of Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor. He's not Ray Lewis or Mike Singletary. He's just a good, all-around linebacker. Not someone worthy of the 3rd overall pick.

There's always one that legitimately points out his strengths while the others hop on the bandwagon and talk about our present qb situation.

You only get so many chances at this. Atlanta pulled Matt Ryan out from underneath us last year, but we got lucky and Dorsey dropped. If either Sanchez or Stafford is on the board, the scouting department says 'this guy's a franchise quarterback', and we don't draft him, much less for a coverage linebacker, then we deserve however many more years of failure we get.

Top 5 picks don't grow on trees, especially not if the guys we hired to turn this franchise around do their jobs. We may not have this chance again.

I have a hard time with this.

When everyone thought that Stafford might have a chance to be the QB the Chiefs would be drafting, we heard nothing but arguments that he wasn't a franchise QB.

Bradford was the franchise QB.

Now it's Sanchez, and suddenly everyone says that Stafford is the only franchise QB in this draft.

God this argument blows, you don't overrdraft players either, I always despised when people say things like "oh we'd have taken him earlier if we knew he was this good"

No you wouldn't have dolt, now instead of just getting him you got another player too, that is why you know what draft value is.

Only if you believe Sanchez is a franchise type QB. Alot of people don't.

I've made the arguments over and over and you've yet to address anything except to go back to LB isnt an important position. How bout what team has won the SB without great LB play?

I'm not arguing that at all. The OP was about how could Curry be worth the 3rd pick, and I'm wracking my brain trying to think of how, especially since he's showing up in some real mocks. I think that a QB is absolutely more important than an LB, and I know that obviously the players that are drafted earlier have a lot more talent than later picks and UDFAs.

The reason that this thread is being hijacked is that a lot of people are just tired of hearing that the only way we're going to be relevant again is if we draft a QB. Frankly, if Pioli isn't sold that Sanchez is a sure thing, I don't believe he will draft him with our first pick.

Having the 3rd pick sucks this year. If we had a later pick, I would have no problem trying out Sanchez or Curry or anyone. But no one in this draft other than Stafford stands out as a clear cut #3.

You didn't hear that from me. I have like Stafford from the beginning and I wanted Ryan last year.

They take whichever QB they think will be there for us and rail him....

So, you failed to answer my question earlier: Are you stating that Aaron Curry is the second coming of Ray Lewis, as you suggested?

Furthermore, are you judging Gholston after one season? That's all he gets? One season?

And one more thing: Merriman wasn't top ten. He was chosen at #12.

Was this an argument? Cause I missed it. Your reaching.

So, you want to win a Super Bowl with a linebacker?

Uh, what about QB?

The Colts? Who have never drafted a LB in the first round let alone in the top 5?

You draft the player, not the position.

Mecca, the other day you said Scott Wright has the best internet draft site and is one of the best in the business. Why does he have Curry as the #2 prospect in the entire draft and Sanchez at #8? Why does Wright say that Curry is a "marvelous all around player who is effective in every aspect of the game...as good as any linebacker prospect to come along in recent memory" ?

Today your draft guru also said:

What player in your top 25 do you think has the most "Boom or Bust" potential?
11:28 Scott Wright: There are quite a few but I'd single out Mark Sanchez just because of his lack of experience and the checkered history of underclassmen quarterbacks.

And your avoiding answering questions.

You basically tried to argue that draft value doesn't matter, and I showed you that it does and now you're acting confused.

What's ironic is that I bet most of the people strongly against taking Sanchez at #3 would be ok with the idea of drafting Davis or Freeman in the 2nd round. As if it's somehow better to take a player that is more of a gamble in round 2.

This franchise isn't in the position it's in now because of only missing on round 1 picks. Rounds 2-3 are just as important, yet somehow this is overlooked.

Yea he also says things like "hes not a reach this year" he has Curry high because he considers the top end of this draft weak and Curry is "safe"

Only the Chiefs could get a chance at the 3rd pick during a year where the draft is weak as f*&^ when it comes to the elite talent.

shh Rob Morris shh but carry on the good fight.

I might have missed it but maybe someone should start a thread stating what makes Sanchez a franchise QB and worthy of the #3 pick besides being a QB.

I am not being a hater or anything I would be interested in the reasons. My concern with him is he just didn't play enough to make any kind of judgment on him.

I think all the years of shitty picks have made some people think we should just take safe players, I remember all the Tamba Hali cocksucking cause he was safe.

Exactly.

Nobody said linebacker isn't an important position. What people are saying is that in a coverage linebacker is not considered a top-10 selection in terms of draft value. And that's not even an opinion; it's a fact based on who's been drafted where over the last decade. Pass rushing linebackers do get drafted that high, to either play weak-side end on a 4-3 or pass-rushing OLB in a 3-4, although if they're undersized even they fall into the second half of the round.

For Curry to go this high, as a coverage linebacker, he'd pretty much have to be a once-in-a-generation kind of player, the exception to the rule.

Good point.

We cant draft Matt Ryan this year because Carl failed with Blackledge 25 years ago....


Oh wait....

Please do not mention drafting Freeman ever again. Seriously. Let another team jump on that hand-grenade.

I'd consider that an issue if he was a true junior or consistently did dumb shit or was very raw mechanically but he's not.

Every team misses in round 1 from time to time. The problem with the Chiefs hasn't necessarily been blowing it at the very top of the draft.

One of the biggest problems is that they consistently ****ing miss in rounds 2-3.

That sums up what I said one day, to take Curry at 3 you'd have to believe he is one of the greatest prospects that ever lived.

Yet we'll have the same people who don't want Sanchez or want Curry turn around and express desire for Nate Davis or Rhett Bomar.

I don't want any ****ing part of Freeman.

But if a someone is ok with Davis in round 2, that person's probably a ****ing idiot, and the rationale is most likely QB fear early in the draft.

I have news. Round 2 is ****ing early, too. Not as expensive, but just as important.

This is very true. I can't honestly think of the last 2nd rounder we picked that panned out.

A coverage linebacker probably isn't worth a top 10 pick. The fact that Curry is top a top 5 player in almost everyone's ranking means that they see him more than just a coverage linebacker.

Seriously, how could anyone have missed it.

We've discussed it over and over.

Brandon Flowers...

I agree. Flowers is the only really successful 2nd rounder we've had in some time.

I don't know enough about these players to make an informed, strong argument, but I've seen enough to know that they're much less polished than the top 2 guys. I highly doubt Bomar should even be in the same breath.

That said, if Pioli pulls the trigger on either of these guys in rounds 2-3, it's a big ****ing risk. That's an important draft position where a team really needs to get a productive player.

I think there is some truth in that. I don't know enough about Davis or Freeman to make any judgements on either one. To be honest I am not really excited about the choices we have to choose from at the #3 pick unless Stafford falls to us.

Why?