ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Peter King: Chiefs will listen to trade offers for Albert (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=271265)

Bewbies 03-18-2013 08:24 PM

I'm sure this is Q but it should be noted that the last 2 players taken at #1 that were not QB's:
1. Saw their front offices and coaching staffs fired before the end of their first contract.
2. Signed 2nd contracts with a team that didn't draft them.

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9512206)
I think tackles are important. Probably more important than we act on here... because everyone is so QB focused. Willie Roaf took the Chiefs to another level offensively... it's an important position. There are plenty of instances of Super Bowl teams having 1st round LTs.

The catch is we already had two good tackles, and a 1st round LT.

Yeah I don't think our 2003 team would be as effective in today's NFL as it was then...

I'd still take a flyer on the #1 QB prospect at 1 when you need a QB rather than 10 guaranteed years of Willie Roaf. I don't think Joeckel even has Joe Thomas potential.

But if Joeckel turns into Joe Thomas and we take him I won't hold a forever grudge against him...it'll just make for a disappointing draft day 2013.

If we must take an OT I hope we can at least trade down to do so.

tk13 03-18-2013 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9512220)
Not nearly as often as there used to be.

In a league where DBs can't be physical with receivers, pass catchers get better, cleaner releases, which gets them open sooner, which obviates the need for several seconds of pass protection.

That's a fair point too. And to be fair, we're supposedly trying to run a WCO.

It just depends. The Ravens had former 1st round picks at each tackle position. It worked for them. But their passing offense was let's run downfield for a long time and have Flacco chuck it up it there.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512222)
Yeah I don't think our 2003 team would be as effective in today's NFL as it was then...

Why not?

I think the offense would be better, the defense would obviously be worse.

tk13 03-18-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512222)
Yeah I don't think our 2003 team would be as effective in today's NFL as it was then...

I'd still take a flyer on the #1 QB prospect at 1 when you need a QB rather than 10 guaranteed years of Willie Roaf. I don't think Joeckel even has Joe Thomas potential.

But if Joeckel turns into Joe Thomas and we take him I won't hold a forever grudge against him...it'll just make for a disappointing draft day 2013.

If we must take an OT I hope we can at least trade down to do so.

Our 2003 offense would be dominant in any era, I think.

Doesn't mean they'd win a Super Bowl... but even though the league has entered another level of passing offense... the top rushing teams the last few years have still made the playoffs.

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512230)
Why not?

I think the offense would be better, the defense would obviously be worse.

well this league has turned into a total passing league

Vermeil's offenses were always predicated by the run. Maybe they would still work. Meh what am I saying. They probably would still be badass.

at least half of that team was fun to watch

tk13 03-18-2013 08:30 PM

Look at the Niners, they can maul people up front. They finished 4th in rushing, 23rd in passing offense. And who's the guy designing their schemes up front? Mike Solari. He's still dominating.

The top 4 teams in rushing this year all made the playoffs. 6 of the top 8. That's half the playoff teams.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9512242)
Look at the Niners, they can maul people up front. They finished 4th in rushing, 23rd in passing offense. And who's the guy designing their schemes up front? Mike Solari. He's still dominating.

The top 4 teams in rushing this year all made the playoffs. 6 of the top 8. That's half the playoff teams.

They also spent three first rounders on their line.

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-18-2013 08:38 PM

The Colts, Saints, Packers, Steelers, Cardinals, Steelers, Patriots, and Giants were on average below average to terrible rushing teams.

:shrug:

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:38 PM

I don't doubt the 49ers have a good line...

but how did the two teams that made the Super Bowl get there?

Amazing QB play.

spades 03-18-2013 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512267)
I don't doubt the 49ers have a good line...

but how did the two teams that made the Super Bowl get there?

Amazing QB play.

and some horrible safety play

The Franchise 03-18-2013 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512250)
They also spent three first rounders on their line.

And Smith still took a shitload of sacks.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9512426)
And Smith still took a shitload of sacks.

That's what happens when you don't have dick as your perimeter players.

And before you or anyone else says "Kaepernick", I'll remind you that Alex Smith is not a dual threat, nor is he a threat to run for a touchdown from the 20 yard line, let alone 50 yard line.

cdcox 03-18-2013 09:28 PM

QBs are about equally responsible for sacks as their offensive line. Alex Smith is a sack machine.

NJChiefsFan 03-18-2013 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512267)
I don't doubt the 49ers have a good line...

but how did the two teams that made the Super Bowl get there?

Amazing QB play.

So perhaps I took it the wrong way when you told me yesterday that you don't think QB's are clutch and that it's a team sport?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 PM.

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