Which comments?

That spending the 3rd overall pick on a 5-technique is terrible value?

That ignoring our 2 biggest needs (OL and LB) when there was tremendous value at those positions was a huge mistake?

That had Carl Peterson been responsible for this draft, people would be going full-blown apeshit - but because Pioli was responsible everything is A-OK?

I said:

You said:

How did you come up with me rationalizing the draft? I really don't like what we did. I DON'T LIKE IT!

I wasn't necessarily referring to you, OTW, but let's address your points one by one:

1. Your comment about the five technique is bogus. If you're going to a 3-4, you HAVE to have THAT guy, and hopefully two of them. Denver was waiting for this guy, so were several other teams, or so we're told. There was no trading down and getting him, and Pioli thinks he has the stuff to be his Richard Seymour in time. As Pioli put it, until Seymour became the great player he became, their 3-4 wasn't very good.

2. I agree that the OL is the biggest need, but LB wasn't. I would have loved to have a dominant left tackle out of this draft, but until KC can stop anybody, the defense has to be addressed. You can't plug all the holes at once. Our LBers aren't great, but we have bigger areas of need.

3. Pioli has earned the slack...Carl proved that he didn't know what he was doing.

You could always root for Seattle.

The 5 technique is much like the RT position - yeah, you need one, but it's not a position worthy of such a high pick. You'll get the same results out of a guy like Jarron Gilbert, 90 picks later. (A guy that will take up space and allow your LB's to make plays) Now, if we were playing a 4-3, and Jackson was expected to rush the passer, I'd be more in tune with the pick because he's expected to make an IMPACT. (Even though I don't think he fits as a 4-3 DE)

LB is a HUGE need. We have NO ONE to rush the passer. And FWIW, we already have a dominant LT - I was referring to guys like Luigs, Topou, Slauson and Jamon Meridith being passed over for guys like O'Connell and Brown.


He earned it in NEW ENGLAND. With Belichick and Demitroff at his side. He's earned nothing with the Kansas City Chiefs to this point. Forgive me for not thinking highly of this draft for no other reason than who was responsible for it.

Hate it all you want, OTW...however, you are dead wrong on your assessment of the value of great five techs in a 3-4.

We do need off-the-corner pressure...yes, I couldn't agree more. Who was that person in the draft and who was going to protect that guy from the five tech? The fact is that you can't just find any tomato can to play that position. Could you get lucky down in the middle rounds? Yes, you could at any position. However, the odds are against you.

I don't think this is the best draft by a long shot, but I think Pioli put some key guys in place.

I do know this, if you can't stop the other team, the rest of it really doesn't matter. We found that out pretty clearly last year. As bad as our o-line was, KC COULD score out of that hybrid spread. We couldn't stop anybody. The defense is job #1 right now.

Let's see how things look in a month or two...more moves are coming.

Richard Seymour was/is a "great" 5-technique DE.

He might be the only one. The point is twofold:

1) You don't need great at that position. Solid accomplishes the same job - occupying blockers.

2) Tyson Jackson is no Richard Seymour.

Pioli has said nothing of the sort. He was asked point blank whether Tyson compares to Seymour and Pioli didn't think so, choosing oddly to compare him to Russell Maryland instead.

Richard Seymour wasn't RICHARD SEYMOUR for about the first 2-3 years he was in the NFL. That's not an opinion...that's a fact.

You don't have to be great at any position, I suppose. However, you have to do quite a bit more than "occupying blockers" to be a great five tech. Your fives are the key defenders in defending the running game, as well as being the guy to attack the B gaps while the speed rushers come around the end.

The Chiefs see Jackson as a three down guy, who can play the five and also flip inside on certain passing downs. IF they are right, that's a very valuable commodity.

There are a lot of teams switching to the 3-4 now, but there haven't been many 3-4 teams in recent years. Seymour is the best, but there aren't that many out there to compare him too right now.

Jackson may not end up being another Seymour, or he could be better. You don't know how it's going to work out and neither do I. I never claimed he was that good, but I think he has a shot at being that good. You, on the other hand, don't allow for the possibility.

Reaper, I heard what he said and he came right out and said that he won't compare Jackson to Seymour for a variety of reasons. However, let's think about this for a second...he's not going to take a guy like Jackson at #3 if he doesn't think that he could become as good as Seymour did in time. Right? It just makes sense.

I didn't think he compared him to Maryland. I think he used Maryland as an example of the importance of the position.

I'd like to think that he wouldn't. But after this draft's purposeful ignorance of draft value, I don't see why he would take value into consideration at #3 but not anywhere else.

I think Tyson is going to be a good player in the scheme and a key cog for the Chiefs defense... but I see him as a Ty Warren-type, not a Richard Seymour-type. I would spend the #3 overall (in the 2009 draft) for Seymour, but not for Warren.

Actually, I believe Pioli said that somebody else compared him to Maryland in a conversation between that person and Pioli.

How does one earn an F- ?

Just an observation, but not drafting Sanchez may give you a head start.