That's fair; I was lumping OL together (as I have DL) into a mass to make for larger groups of players but if you want to break out OT and OG, that's fine.

DL, Edge, OT, TE are all standout groups. I'd put IOL a tick ahead of WR as pretty average for a given year. then I'd put CB and S about neck and neck at below average with QB just a tick after them. Then RB and LB as pretty poor.

DBs are on the backside of the bell curve here, IMO.

The Chiefs don't currently have a 2nd TE on the roster. Maybe we're missing the elephant in the room on who they want in round 1?

Depends on whether or not they're actually the BPA.

If the 6th best DE is ranked 32nd on the big board and the #1 center is ranked 40th, I take the 6th best DE.

Again, Garrett Bradbury isn't a consensus first round pick. So if you're taking him, you better be damn sure you're not passing up better talent just because he's the best player available at that position. This team has needs all over the field on both sides of the ball.

Hock and Fant ain't happening. Smith might but I doubt it.

But I could very easily see them going TE in the 2nd or 3rd.

I think it's gonna be a weird ass draft where we'll see guys who went in the 2nd of the mock in the mid first and vice versa etc.

That's fair.

Maybe not. I could see Irv being there at 29. If so, i'd take him.

That always happens. ;)

So if you could take that first and trade it for a current player, seeing as though you may end up taking a center there in the draft, do you do it?

True.

You dipshits are terrible at drafting. You're all lucky I sat out this year or i'd be just demolishing that thing.

Well I had my heart set on a CB/S in round 1 but this article and much of the other research, mock drafts and articles now have me thinking differently.
Unless we trade up in round 1 (edge/DL/CB), I see Bradbury as a viable even probable option.

I don't think they'd not take any of those players in round 1. Just have to wait and see.

A whole month from the draft? What the ****, why do they have so much time?

Mostly true.

But its worth pointing out that Bradbury IS the consensus top of his position. In a vacuum that's not a huge consideration but it is when discussing opportunity cost, especially in a draft where you have 2 second rounders.

If you can have the 30th ranked player on your draft board who's the top of the C position with a clear drop off after or the 25th ranked player on your draft board who's mashed in the middle of a group of 6 similarly situated corners, it's a worthwhile gamble to see who's gonna end up coming back around to you in the 2nd.

It isn't just 'take the guy at the top'. It's also a question of setting yourself up for the rest of the draft to avoid being duplicative or boxing yourself in. When the strength of the CB class is its depth with no real standout, if most of that depth is still sitting there when you pick, you're probably better served letting the depth do some heavy lifting for you, taking the top off a different position and getting a 1a, b, c, d or whatever at the deeper position in the 2nd.

Basic positional scarcity as applied to the NFL draft. Your best bet is to be in the back of a run on similarly situated players, IMO. I hate being the guy that kicks a run like that off because you've done nothing with your additional draft capital and you're no more likely than anyone after you of getting a stud from it.

But wouldn't you rather have the guy you have actually rated as the top of said supposed run of say, corners? Unless you have them all rated that similarly and if you do that, aren't you doing something wrong?

Still no.

Now if I were looking at a board with Lindstrom as the top of the position on the IOL and somehow my BPA, I'd probably do it.

But I think we're poopooing the responsibilities of a C a bit here. That's a toooouuuuugh position to play, especially in this system and with a young QB under center witha chance to build a half-decade or more of rapport there, I don't see C as any 'worse' a position to take as just about anything being suggested in the alternative.

It's just a less sexy one.