This is where I’m at....RB or a stud LB would improve the team with the highest immediate impact imop.
Linebacker has the most room to upgrade, but a stud RB added to this offense would make it nearly unstoppable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

False

Also False

Speculation

False

Never draft for need. Take the best player available.

What if, andrew does make average backs look good? But what if, he could take a great back and make him look elite?

I think this draft is going to be wild and the places where kids get drafted will be incredibly wonky compared to where we see them before the draft. If I’m the chiefs, I pray one of Murray/Queen fall in the first. If not, I try to trade back to 34-42 and pick up and additional early 4th). We need to target one of Gay or Brooks later if neither of the first two are available

I’m also of the opinion that because of the depth in offensive talent in the draft, some RBs fall to round 2-3 that wouldn’t normally be there. One or two of swift, dobbins, Taylor or CEH will fall to our 63rd pick. If “our guy” is there at 63, it’s hard to imagine the staff passing on them given the smoke around us wanting to add offensive talent.

CB and OL will be addressed no doubt. But I still don’t feel like we need to reach on a prospect before his grade would indicate at those spots. If we hit on whichever positions of need we draft... it gives us another year or two to completely focus on positions of need. If you reach on prospects, it makes it less likely that you hit on them—and this you have more positions to fill.

The one guy I’m completely sold on as a 4-5th rounder is Antonio Gibson. That guy would be a weapon in our offense from day 1.

There are some really good options in this draft that will be available fitting major needs. Which means we'll probably go 1) TE, 2) DT, 3) OT. The majority of folks will be batshit crazy mad, but after further evaluation a year later everyone will be praising the evil genius of Burt.

My guess is that it won't be too bad. It is always a little wonky on a couple picks. I think the real problems are guys coming off injury. A lot of teams were not able to have their medical team examine the players so that might be more of a risk then teams are willing to take.

Do you really think teams go 100% BPA? Because I don't believe that for a second. Not everything is black and white as yourself and so many others seem to believe. There are more options than just 100% BPA or tunnel vision on a single position. What would be wrong with setting your sites on a certain number of positions. As the poster mentioned in the post you quoted, set your sites on BPA at RB, CB, LB or whatever position groups you feel are the biggest need. I guarantee there's going to be an elite talent at one of those 3 positions available. If you have 2 players available at the position then you probably allow positional value to come into play for the tiebreaker.

Sorry, I just don't believe any team goes entirely BPA without any regard at all for need. Again, that doesn't mean you narrow in on one position and reach for a need. It does mean that unless a generational, top 5 type talent somehow falls to you at 32, you probably don't end up taking a defensive tackle there seeing as we're already at least 4 deep at the position and set for the future. If you need a CB and Jerry Jeudy somehow falls to you at #32, then yeah by all means take him because he's a top 10 talent and is a huge value compared to a CB you have ranked in the 30-40 range. But if Mims and a CB are both available and you have both similarly ranked? Pretty sure the team is going to take a CB over Mims as that's the bigger need in both the short term and long term.

It's not as simple as just saying take BPA.

Food for thought: If the jags offer Pick 20 and 73 for Chris Jones, and you can guarantee Murray or Queen is there at 20... Do you accept that trade?

Smart teams, yes.

Dumb teams, like Dave Gettleman's Giants or Detroit or the Browns?

No.

Outside of QB, the best teams in the NFL draft BPA. Look at consistently good to great teams like the Ravens and Steelers. They're always taking BPA, which is why they're always in the upper echelon of NFL teams, year in and year out.

If a team drafts for need, they end up chasing after the same position, year in and year out. Look at the Chiefs drafts from 2000-2009. It's a constant theme of drafting defensive tackles and defensive ends in rounds 1, 2 and 3, none of whom amounted to jack shit.

So, if you want to draft for need, be prepared to fail, time and time again.

Dane,

Would you draft a RB at 32 (if all of them were available) or Delpit?

Both of those picks would be BPA in my eyes

I agree with drafting best player available, but normally there are multiple players right around the same level at different positions.

For instance, at 32 the Chiefs might see a corner, linebacker, and wide receiver with the same grade (or very close). In those cases, I think Veach/Reid use need as the tiebreaker.

It’s never a good idea to reach based on need though. I’d rather have another stud at a position where we’re already loaded than reach to fill a hole. Fill the hole later in the draft when the BPA fits that need.

Delpit, without hesitation.

His football IQ is sky high, he's 6'3 and ran a 4.39 40 and can play Safety, CB and be a Hybrid LBer on 3rd downs. He can cover tight ends and taller receives like Mike Williams. He offers so much value, maybe as much as Isaiah Simmons can, in the right defense.

That said, this is why it would be nice to have a 6th or 7th because I think there's a good chance that Akers is gone before #63. He would be my ideal 2nd round running back so if he's gone, the Chiefs may wait until the 3rd to make that selection because there may be better value at WR, CB or LB at #63, than running back.

Again, why are there only 2 options you're considering? It doesn't have to be 100% BPA or 100% need.

I agree, doing what the Cowboys did in 2017 and saying they had to take Taco Charlton because they needed a DE led to them drafting a bust. Don't zero in on a single position.

But I refuse to believe that Brett Veach doesn't take need into consideration. If they have a TE at #25 on their board and a CB/LB/RB at #30 on their board, do you really think they're going to take the TE because he's ranked just a little higher? I guess you believe that, I don't. I think they take the position that fills a need. Now if they had a TE ranked top 10 on their board and he somehow falls to #32, then yeah I do think there's a possibility he would be the pick as it's too good of a value to pass up. But under the assumption that doesn't happen, and they have a bunch of players ranked in a similar manner, my belief is that positional need would help to determine which player they take.

Isn't that the type of player we envisioned O'Daniel being? So what went wrong with O'Daniel? Is it him as a player that was the failure, or was it us trying to draft a hybrid player that couldn't excel at either position?

I've seen too many S/LB hybrids fail to believe it's such an easy position. Besides DOD, we've seen someone like Taylor Mays come out of USC with a similar skillset and fail to make it in the NFL.

It depends on whether you believe you will be able to sign Jones and make his contract work with the upcoming Mahomes contract.

If you don't then you make the trade. But realistically you need to make the trade prior to the draft. You need Jones signed before you can deal him and no team is going to deal for him unless they know what the numbers of his actual contract. So there won't be a guarantee.