ChiefsPlanet

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 11:52 PM

And factor in that Roaf is arguably one of, if not the, greatest LT's of all time.

I think Monroe has all the talent in the world, but it's unrealistic to expect him to be Roaf, and this is why it would be foolhardy to move another young player who looks to have Pro-Bowl potential.

philfree 03-02-2009 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5545775)
And factor in that Roaf is arguably one of, if not the, greatest LT's of all time.

I think Monroe has all the talent in the world, but it's unrealistic to expect him to be Roaf, and this is why it would be foolhardy to move another young player who looks to have Pro-Bowl potential.


If Stafford is on the board and we can't work out a trade with some team then I'd pick him. And then I'd dangle him in front of the other teams to see what happened. If nothing happened then we have two QBs. Heck Stafford's only 20 years old so he can sit for a while. And he'll hold his value for a few years.



PhilFree:arrow:

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-02-2009 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5544767)
Why is it shitty? Almost every team that runs it is a top 10 defense.

What's dumber is refusing to change your scheme when there is only one key player on your roster who doesn't fit into it. The Chiefs are practically at square 1 on defense. If there was ever a time in their history to consider moving to a 3-4, last year would have been perfect, but this year is just as good. I like Dorsey, but sorry, a 3-4 defense is a ton easier to build than a 4-3 and it will be worth sacrificing that #5 pick that was wasted, assuming that he doesn't find a role in this defense.

This is completely false in every regard.

SenselessChiefsFan 03-02-2009 07:21 AM

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?

Every pick is in flux and EVERY pick risks being traded. Plus, Seattle is a possible taker for Sanchez or Stafford.

SenselessChiefsFan 03-02-2009 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 5544888)
Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

This really isn't true. Look at the two ILB's in New England. 242lbs, 247lbs.

Look at the Steelers, 243lbs, 239lbs.

So, NO, the ILB's in a 3-4 AREN'T bigger. In FACT, they are typically smaller than a normal MLB, who plays around 255-260.

Brock 03-02-2009 08:33 AM

There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.

chiefzilla1501 03-02-2009 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5546009)
This is completely false in every regard.

Sorry, pulled the trigger too quickly on the first point. But it does speak volumes that in spite of the fact that only 1/3 of the teams in the NFL run a 3-4, four of the top ten defenses are 3-4.

What's wrong about the second point? A 3-4 defense IS easier to build. If anything, the biggest obstacle is finding a nose tackle and a coach who can run it well. Finding LBs is significantly easier. Finding pass rushers is significantly easier because the defensive line does all the dirty work. Finding DEs is significantly easier because they're essentially DTs who don't have to worry too much about rushing the passer. You don't have to find versatile MLBS--you can just find role-playing LBs. This all points to the 3-4 being much easier to build.

Reaper16 03-02-2009 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 5546126)
There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.

Hell yeah!

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-02-2009 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5546157)
Sorry, pulled the trigger too quickly on the first point. But it does speak volumes that in spite of the fact that only 1/3 of the teams in the NFL run a 3-4, four of the top ten defenses are 3-4.

What's wrong about the second point? A 3-4 defense IS easier to build. If anything, the biggest obstacle is finding a nose tackle and a coach who can run it well. Finding LBs is significantly easier. Finding pass rushers is significantly easier because the defensive line does all the dirty work. Finding DEs is significantly easier because they're essentially DTs who don't have to worry too much about rushing the passer. You don't have to find versatile MLBS--you can just find role-playing LBs. This all points to the 3-4 being much easier to build.

Do you realize that there are 5 good nose tackles in the entire league, at most?

Why the hell do you think Parcells took Jason Ferguson's ass from the Jets to the Cowboys to the Dolphins?

Here's the thing about the 3-4: You need two good rush backers (who can also cover the flats and tight ends), a sledgehammer MLB, a coverage MLB, a nose tackle (about as tough to find as a quarterback, and two ends that are 6'5" and 300 lbs.

Teams had a damned hard time finding this personnel when there were 5 teams running this scheme. What do you think it's going to be like when there are 12-15 teams and they don't get to monopolize talent, and people realize that you can steamroll a 3-4 without elite talent up front in the running game?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 AM.

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