Ryan Douchebag, TE, Jackson State.

Damien Woody was a first round center. So, the Pats had one for two of their three Super Bowls. He left before their last one, I believe.

They also drafted another first rounder in 2005, Mankins.

Now, you are incorrect about the Chiefs offensive line. When they were the 'best', they have Roaf and Tait as the bookends, two first rounders.

They also had Shields and Waters, two pro bowlers. They had a ton of money in that line.

I am not a big fan of an OT at #3, but I won't be upset about it.

Something like the deal with Washington. Tyson Jackson
Posted via Mobile Device

I overlooked Woody, but Mankins has been on 0 SB winners.

The Chiefs line was no better with Tait than Welbourn at RT, and Welbourn was cheaper.

They scored 1 fewer point with Welbourn and Roaf at bookends, and led the league in yardage.

You also seem to lack reading comprehension. Waters=UDFA, Shields=3rd rounder. Whether or not they were pro bowlers only further undermines your argument, as it shows you don't need high picks to get elite production from your line.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical about what they truly invested in their line, Roaf was had for only a mid round pick, so even then they only truly had 3 draft picks worth of investment on that line, and none after '03, when it was at it's apex.

Moreover, the fact that we won shit with one of the best lines in NFL history should show you how important stacking your o-line really is.

Trade down,draft Orakapo,and use the additional picks for O line

How are these stats relevant without taking into consideration factors such as what those teams needs were and what was available in prior drafts?

Do you really think the stats would be that much different if you did it for RB, WR, DL or anything but QB?

Did you notice there's only 7 teams in that sample pool?

Come on Hamas, you're smarter than this.

I believe there were 8 teams this year of 32 that had 2 first round picks on their line. They averaged 7-9 and had 0 playoff victories.

The Cowboys dynasty never had a 1st round lineman starting for them.

The 49ers dynasty had one first round pick on their five SB teams, Harris Barton.

At what point do people realize that investing this much money is foolhardy?

So don't limit it to this year.

Go back TWENTY years and look at the playoff teams that had more than 1 first round offensive lineman. You might find 1 or 2.

It's quite simple - statistics don't favor teams with multiple first rounders on the line.

Furthermore, draft a lineman with the #3 overall pick produces the INSTANT EXPECTATION that he's the starting LT, based on his draft position and especially on his salary.

The ONLY outcome of drafting a lineman at #3 is moving Brandon Albert to another position, when he's EARNED the starting LT job going away. It's not only not fair, to him or the team, but it's STUPID.

Again, I am not in favor of drafting a OT at #3. But, I think you are way overstating things.

#1) I know that Mankins has not won a Super Bowl. But for someone to read your post, they may have assumed that the Pats didn't take OL in the first round, which would be incorrect.

#2) The Chiefs went 13-3 with Roaf and Tait. The Chiefs went 7-9 with Roaf and Welbourn. There was a HUGE dropoff to Welbourn. And, you aren't being intellectually honest if you are trying to argue otherwise. That, or you have no idea what you are looking at. The Chiefs gave up 11 more sacks in 2004 and Green had five more INT's.

The reality is that you can argue that teams can win a super bowl with late round picks at 'any' position. While I understand, and AGREE that taking an offensive lineman #3 overall is not ideal. The reality is that it is still a need for this team, and there will be a premier player available at the position.

Finally, the Chiefs teams won nothing with that offensive line, but they were able to get HOF production from a solid, not spectacular QB, and two less than great WR's. The failures of that Chiefs team were about the defense, and frankly, that was because of poor signings, not the lack of money spent on that side of the ball due to an offensive line that was paid too much.

Again, I agree with you in principle. However, there are not hard fast rules when building a team. Every year is a different group of players with a different group of strengths, and you have to make your picks based on the situation, not some set of arbitrary rules.

Chiefs stay at 3 and take Curry.

If KC falls to around the 10th pick - Jackson, Orakpo or A. Smith.

Two days before the draft...

Crabtree. Then offensive line. It's not a 1 year fix, defense will be taken care of next year.

Reasoning... Albert is fine at LT. We need a RT, but can get one of those in 3rd round, or 2nd if we trade down a few spots.

If TG is indeed going to be traded, then Cassel is going to need another WR. In fact it would be a must, as with just one WR threat in Bowe we would neither be able to pass or run the ball with any consistancy at all.

Two days out... Crabtree.

To call it stupid is silly. Anytime you have an opportunity to upgrade a position on your team, doing so is not stupid.

I am not sold, absolutely not sold on taking a OT at the spot. Nor, do I think the Chiefs will do so. However, if they do, I won't categorize the move as stupid.

We could go through the entire history of the NFL and look at Super Bowl teams and come up with the fact that Super Bowl winners, on average don't have more than one first rounder at ANY Position.

So, does that mean that a team 'shouldn't' have more than one first rounder at any position?

Every year is different. I hope that they don't select an OT, but I will understand the thinking if they do.

We will trade down with the Skins. Not yet sure who we take.

10K posts in just 9 years. Yeeehaaa!

I will give you props if Crabtree is the pick because I don't think there is any way the Chiefs go with Crabtree. Seriously, I don't see it as even a possibility.

I think Curry is the best pick because he is the best player, but I think Pioli will go with the defensive or offensive line.

And, since I don't think that any player on the defensive line is worth the #3 overall pick, I guess I think the Chiefs will take an OT... IF they can't trade down.

This is just reeruned.

First of all, it's a bad argument to even suggest that the #2 LT in this class would be an upgrade over Albert at that position.

Secondly, let's assume that you call that a wash, assume that he can be as good, or better, and you move Albert inside. You've then spent a #3 pick on incrementally (if it works out perfectly) improving your blindside, and improving your interior line or bookend by a sizable margin. Meanwhile, you could spend a third round pick on a player who could play RT at a pro bowl level, and compensate him at 1/30th the rate of the guy you would take at three.

Again, I ask.

Would you rather dump 60 Million into Eugene Monroe, and move Albert and his decent salary to RT or LG, or 2 million into a RT in the third round, and draft someone at three who could possibly anchor the defense, or be a franchise signal caller for the next decade, and give you the opportunity to offload Cassel for more than what you paid for him?

In my mind, I am thinking if it is not Crabtree then it is going to be an OT.


Which pretty much seals the deal that the pick will be a defensive player. :)

Offload Cassel - ha, ha, ha.

You are the master of taking interesting data and making really big leaps with it to where it's just completely unsupportable.

How many teams over the last 10 years had more than 1 first rounder on the line? I really doubt it's a very high percentage of the league. Certainly Centers and Guards are infrequent 1st rounders at best. You'll see 1 or 2 guys a year at most. The positional value isn't there.

But honestly, if they think one of these OTs is the second coming of Munoz or whatever, then of course they'll take him.

I think the order of thinking goes like this:

1. TRADE BACK IF POSSIBLE.

2. Did I mention trade the hell back?

3. Take defense, preferably a pass-rusher.

The Chiefs have a huge hole in their draft. After the #3 pick they don't go again until what? 62. They're definitely going to want to slide back and fill that gap if they can, or otherwise get value. The Chiefs are talent deficient, and need to grab some extra picks to help start to catch up on the talen gap.

I am all for the trade back scenario.

What about bills after trading away Peters?

The Bills will most likely need a LOT. At #11 they have a good shot at Oher, and an outside shot at A. Smith. Would they think that Monroe/J. Smith (whoever the Rams don't take) is worth the loss of their later 1st round pick? I doubt it.

- Trade down with DEN in 1st rd
- Trade Tony Gonzalez (as much as it hurts to say that) to ATL for 2nd rd pick.
- Trade Larry Johnson for 3rd rd pick
- Trade next season's 1st to ARZ for Boldin

1 - OT Oher (Ole Miss)
1 - DE Jackson (LSU)
2 - RB Bown (UConn)
3 - NT Brace (Boston Coll)
3 - OL Caldwell (Bama)
4 - TE Coffman (MU)
5 - WR Wallace (Ole Miss)
6 - OT Watkins (Florida)
7 - K Louie Sakoda (Utah)

My pick: I don't know....

Because, IMHO Pioli is pulling out all the stops to trade away that Number 3 pick.

If we get stuck at three, I suspect it's gonna be Curry, if he's available....or a "reach" for an impact NT, or pass-rushing DE or OLB.

Okay, I don't see a franchise signal caller available at #3 because the only one in the draft, IMO is Stafford and he will be gone.

The only defensive player that I am completely sold on is Curry.

Raji is more like Glen Dorsey than anyone in here seems to understand. I know he is a 'bigger' guy, but he is still more of a penetrator than a guy that will just eat up blockers.

I like Jackson, but he is a reach at #3.

I don't think that taking an ILB is any smarter than a guard/RT at #3 (which I agree is effectively what the Chiefs would be doing).

My problem is that I don't like Sanchez or Raji.

It'll be Monroe unless they do some gymnastics to draft and trade Sanchez.

You are trading what will most likely be a top 10 pick for Anquan Boldin?

**** me with a rubber hammer.

You dont know that.


Btw - why not a real hammer? Aren't you man enough?

Think about how much bigger a rubber hammer is, dumbass.

That's the equivalent of trading for Boldin. But hey, the world doesn't exist beyond 2009, so let's flush it all and WINRIGHT****INGNOW!!

A real hammer would hurt more. esp if it were to get broken off in your ass.

Theres nothing wrong with winning right now as long as you draft well while doing it.

Actually the Mayan calendar is predicting we may not exist beyond 2012.

Now doubt Yellowstone will erupt jettisoning the kicker that shall go unnamed's lifeless corpse into Indianapolis Stadium with 2 seconds left in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl altering the trajectory of the would be winning field goal for the Chiefs in one final act of tragic irony for Chiefs fans before we're wiped out of existence.

Trade down to 12/13, select DE Tyson Jackson, LSU.

Do you think Jackson fits into the 4-3 under scheme?

I hope we move down to 13, and get Maualuga, and land larry english, or connor barwin later with a trade going up a few spots.

I'm sticking with my earlier today prediction.

I'd rather slit my wrist with a plastic spoon than listen to anyone trying to justify taking a tackle with the #3 pick. I would take Curry before I would take an OT, and I do not want Curry at all.

Well, if we can't trade down, it will be Raji or Crabtree (now that Tony's gone).

Crabtree does seem a more likely now and he's about the only top prospect the Chiefs haven't been linked to, maybe Pioli has smokescreened everyone.

I don't think they needed a smokescreen to get Crabtree.

If we stay at 3 - Curry.

If we trade down - Tyson Jackson.

As of right now, Pettigrew. :Poke:

:deevee:

I'm guessing it's someone in the middle of the round that nobody expects.

i am stumped

i think it is Raji, but I don't think he fits the profile of an uber-committed player...jackson seems like a smoke screen....

Crabtree is the sexy pick now that tony is gone......

If they traded next years 1st for Boldin that would blow. Next years class has a ton of top end elite defensive players in it...

And if we draft Orakpo I will puke.

The tony g move supports the braylon edwards trade scenario! Woo woo!
Posted via Mobile Device

Great.

The top two pass dropping players in the league.

I'm changing my tune and saying Crabtree is the pick at 3.

Man if they want a WR we could significantly drop and get a player who is rated similar to Crabtree.

Crabtree did nothing to distance himself from the pack.

I'll put some trust in Haley with this one. The guy has been around the best in the NFL. If he feels Crabtree is worth it, I'll take my chances in supporting the move.

Tyson Jackson is my guess.

Are there any players in the Big 12 that you like?

I agree with this totally. I am, however, on the other side of the fence on Crabtree. I would love a Bowe and Crabtree combo with some O-line help early Saturday and Sunday.

Major players on the defensive side of the ball next year.

Hey, they are having a slump. And Haley can make them catch. I am confident in that.

Edit: Edwards value is low, but his ceiling is HIGH! C'mon, buy low, sell high!

:thumb:

I would rather 69 with a goat carcass than draft Tyson Jackson.

Have fun with that. :p

Uh, that would be a 68

Only one minor flaw with your theory, sir: his/her transgendered body wouldn't be hard or sturdy enough to breach the dome's roof.

1/4 of the league last year had two 1st round OL on them and they averaged 7-9 with 0 playoff wins.

Raji

We're in a pretty tough situation. Pretty tough, indeed.

I like Curry. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if we take a QB should we remain stuck at 3.

I'm going to say Curry. We have needs everywhere (including TE, as it happens), but the fastest way to get this team over the hump will be to fix the defense.

FAX

Trade down to 13, Maualuga

Aaron Curry.

Trade our first round pick for Boldin?

or fitz?

A krabby patty
Posted via Mobile Device

I want Sanchez...

silly sanchez writing on his face....

Draft Sanchez if he is there and trade Cassel...

I wonder if it might not be a good idea to take Sanchez. Washington might just stay where they are if they think he's going to fall. That way we could be sure to get the trade proceeds. More than one team would be interested.

I think Pioli will make a trade happen either way.

The Chiefs don't want Sanchez. I know you do, but the Chiefs wanted Cassel and he is our QB.

You hope.

You don't know that this is true anymore than the people on the other side do.

I think it's far more likely that we could draft and trade Sanchez.

If things pan out like the "experts" on ESPN say they should, then I may have to actually go through with this whole goat carcass 69'ing thing to prevent this Jackson bullshit from happening.

God Damnit.... what if Pioli calls me and seriously asks me to?

I'd have no choice.

Is his daughter getting married today?