:rolleyes:

But it takes one to see one or know it?

If I think you're point is dumb I'll tell you I think your point is dumb, I 99% of the time will go out of my way to talk about what you said as opposed to you personally. Now if you start with me that changes...

Am I a bit arrogant and abrasive, yea I admit that, it's just part of my general personality.

And during the offseason we talk about the same things over and over because really what else is there to do?

The only thing I honestly find aggravating is when a person who took 5 minutes out of their year to watch college football thinks their opinion should hold as much weight as mine during draft season.

Don't get so defensive. I just gave my opinion. Draft threads quickly degenerated into name calling where there was often very little, if any, actual discussion of relevant points.

You've never made any bones about it, and why should you? For most people, it isn't a big deal. For some it is.

But for guys like milk to act like it's surprising is, well, surprising. When you tell somebody what they said is dumb, 9 times out of 10 they're going to respond as if they were attacked.

How do you know that person took 5 minutes to watch? Nobody here admits "hey, I like such and such, but I never watched him play". The only way you could make such an assertion is to ASSUME that they only watched 5 minutes of college football. And to make that assumption, you'd have to had already judged that their take wasn't as good as yours. That's INHERENTLY condescending. I'm not saying necessarily that there's anything wrong with it, but it's easy to see why people react the way they do.

Hootie is a good example, he flat admitted he doesn't watch college football then spent the entire draft weekend telling everyone they were stupid, Pioli, yadda yadda.

The moment that it isn't allowed on CP to tell an idiot that they are an idiot is the moment I leave. Condescending? Sure. But when someone's take is idiotic its really obvious. And Mecca is right -- those posters opinions don't have equal value to someone's who has really watched a player/studied up on their point.

Bingo.

Hootie flabbergasted me that weekend, and yet posters were lining up in support of him.

You're not an NFL scout. You're some guy on a message board, like pretty much everyone else who's posting. You can look at every single college game ever played, break down film on everyone who's even thought of playing football, and write novels full of data files on everyone who's ever sniffed a football, and it doesn't make your opinion inherently worth anything more than some schmuck who's college knowledge consists of watching 5 minutes of highlight tapes. Your current opinion is generally worth the weight of past success, and it's generally not going to matter what that success was based upon.

Hootie wasn't claiming to know who to draft and putting himself above every NFL personnel man in existence. Mecca was. That was the problem.

So basically, in your view, if you don't work in the NFL you can take no time out of your day to do any studying and your opinion should hold as much weight as someone who does.

Frankly, I find that reeruned.

Allow me to draw up an analog to demonstrate how much you're off:

*said to a poster who studies astrophysics as a hobby*

''You're not an astrophysicist. You're some guy on a message board, like pretty much everyone else who is posting. You can read every new academic journal, break down mathematics from published studies, and write dissertations of comparative thought in the field and it doesn't make your opinion inherently worth anything more that some schmuck who's common knowledge consists of 5 minutes of reading a wikipedia article on Stephen Hawking."

I was saying that your opinion isn't inherently more accurate or worthy of being listened to just because you did more work to flesh it out. Your opinions and their 'weight' are only as good as the past has shown them to be. If you were an NFL scout, you'd already have some weight associated with that opinion. You aren't, and you don't. You, therefore, stand or fall based upon your success rate on the board.

Also, your reeruned comment just reinforces the point of why people jump down your throat. Nobody really gives a shit what you find reeruned, especially when you seemingly misunderstand the point of a post.

Your analogy fails: no offense intended. In theory, astrophysics is a semi-certain discipline: or an 'exact science' as it were. It's not quite as definitive as mathematics, but it's much farther down that path than scouting players to project their future success in an entirely different league. Drafting is not an exact science.

Do you take advice about mothering from a woman who's 5 kids have all ended up on drugs or in prison just because she's been a mother? That analogy sucks, too, but it's no worse than yours. For areas that have no definitive answers, you look to past success as a means of weighing possible current and future accuracy.

If he's YOUR GUY, you get him.

Whether it's a #3 or #15.

What about that do you NOT get?

That's the same mentality that Pioli used for Jackson.

Threatened? Who threatened you?

If the only qualification for posting on a message board is "You MUST work for an NFL Franchise", go ahead and shut this ****er DOWN.

Nice twist, but its not correct. A proper corollary would be: would you take advice about mothering from a man who has studied mothering and parenting to some degree over advice from a mother of 5 drug-using, prison-living kids? I would take the guy's advice.

So, you think the Bucs would have taken Freeman at #3 because he's their guy? Or the Ravens would have taken Flacco at #3 because he's their guy?

ROFL

The bolded part makes me laugh.

Again, that's not what I said.

I NEVER said don't tell them they're idiotic.

I said don't act like a victim when the lash at you for calling them an idiot.

You have the analogy wrong again, this time in my favor. The way you've framed it, you've now got evidence of failure on the part of the mother. In other words, you did precisely what I'm saying people do, and, if you're taking Mecca's side, you're trying to say that doing it that way is not correct.

Also, I admitted that my analogy sucked too.

What if he's NOT your guy? What if you think he MIGHT be your guy, but you're not sure so you'd rather play it safe?

I swear to God some of you think in binary.

But Mecca is not an NFL scout, therefore he's not a mother. This is some mixed metaphor mayhem.

But I'm going to drop this and come towards your argument for this next question: does Mecca have a bad predictive track record on this board? I wasn't aware that he did.

I'm always in favor of playing it safe. Except when I'm not. Which is pretty much all of the time.

His track record isn't any better or worse than most. He's been right about some and he's been wrong about some, just like most people here.

I'm guessing Pioli thinks Cassel is a better option than Thigpen. That does mean that Pioli thinks Cassle is the ONLY option, just one that was available.

Does he have a good one? I don't think the problem is that he has a bad track record, but he acts like he has some ridiculously good predictive track record, which I just don't see. There are plenty of others in that boat too, but the difference is that most of the don't go around beating their chest and acting like they know more than everyone else.

Also, shut up because I wanted Just Passing By to answer that question, not you guys.

Of course Cassel is a better option that Thigpen.

Thanks, Kotter. ;)

I don't know what his track record is. Others who've been here will give their interpretation of how they view his track record, but it will likely be skewed by how they feel about Mecca in the first place. I had to base my thoughts about his opinions based upon my pre-existing knowledge of the players and based upon his analysis, which left plenty to be desired.

Again, to be fair, he may have broken things down in more depth in the draft forum. I didn't frequent that area of the board. However, I could only go by what I saw.

Enough said.

When he's wrong, he's not as wrong as others because he thinks he watches more college football then everyone else.

My track record isn't bad...and no I'm not going to be right 100% of the time it's the draft, people paid to do it can't even pull that.

I absolutely hated the Hali, Pollard, Croyle draft and to this point I'm correct on that one.

Would someone like to point out all the times I've been wrong I'll tell you what I said and be frank there are plenty of players I was wrong about one way or the other.

Then there's reason to believe that he's worth the #34 pick but not worth the #3 pick.

Honestly, we've been through this before.

People will bring up things they think you had wrong and you'll have a thousand caveats as to why you're not quite wrong.

It doesn't prove anything.

I'll be dead honest, this whole idea that I don't think I'm ever wrong is a bit overblown.

Like I said, we went through this a couple of years ago. Like I said, it turns into a string of caveats and in the end proves nothing.

It's a football message board and none of us are professionals.

In the end, the point is that, when you attack people, they're going to respond in kind. Even if you don't feel that you're attacking them, your tone can induce a similar response.

Does that mean you should just up and leave? Hell no. I'm damn glad you came back.

Apparently, you didn't read the quote from Doomy where he stated that Sanchez wasn't good value at #3 but he'd choose him at #15.

I can't speak for them but I'd suppose they'd take Sanchez at #3, not Freeman.

As for the Ravens, Flacco was projected as a second rounder and Baltimore gave up picks to get him in the first.

I think if a team identifies a pick as "their guy", I don't think that 10-15 spots is going to stop them.

Perfect example: Tyson Jackson.

Yeah, I did, and to a lesser extent it still applies. The difference between #3 and #15 could be several players/picks. Cleveland got what 2 picks and THREE players to move from #5 to #17? You can't just throw that out and say "if he's worth the #15, he's worth the #3".

He compares Pioli to Dimitroff, but then said the Chiefs had reaches 'everywhere'.

Yeah, reaches everywhere, like the Falcons who 'reached' for Matt Ryan, and who reached for Sam Baker.

They got abused for trading up to take Sam Baker, and for NOT taking Glen Dorsey. I think that worked out pretty well.

I am not saying that the Chiefs draft will be as good as the Falcons, but the Falcons
'reached' in the mind of the 'experts'.... much like the Patriots have 'reached' over the years.

Odd that one of the things that are similar between the Chiefs drafts this year and the Falcons last draft and most of the New England drafts.... judge raised as a 'difference'.

I thought Ryan was the right pick....anyone that was here knows I was all for him going up there.

And when they moved up for Baker they put value on the LT position he was the best one left. But still it was a move to the early 20's.

I just don't see how these situations are the same.

Well then Pioli just screwed the Chiefs last month, right?

From all the reports I read and/or heard, the Chiefs tried to trade down and couldn't find any takers.

This is one giant Mecca, Hamas, and Dane Bukake thread...

It's only the mentality Pioli used for Jackson if you ignore/discount the reports that Pioli tried to trade down, specifically the story about trying to get Detroit's pick at #20. According to the details of that scenario, Pioli was supposedly willing to take a huge loss in value to get out of the 3rd pick.

Not only doesn't that fit the mentality of "If he's your guy, you get him", Jackson would have been long gone by #20. They wouldn't have gotten him at all.

Jackson was clearly Pioli's guy if they were stuck at #3 and couldn't move back. But that doesn't mean Pioli wanted him no matter what.

They're almost exactly the same in terms of the reactions.

People might not have used the word "reach" to describe the Falcons taking Ryan last year, but far more people (particularly Falcons fans) thought taking Dorsey was the better move. Then you throw in Baker, who they surrendered a pantload to move up for, and there was a whole lot of doubt surrounding those first few picks.

For Judge to mention Pioli and Dimitroff in the same breath, and then cricitize Pioli over the draft, displays a staggering lack of insight on events that only occured a year ago. Dimitroff's moves (passing on Dorsey, giving up a lot for Baker) were questioned far more than Pioli reaching on Jackson.

No where have I seen a legitmate football writer detail the Chiefs draft day and their effort to move back. If you can link us to that, please do.

Pure conjecture.

Conjecture.

On draft day, Pioli and Haley said they got "their guy". Most people had Jackson at between 17-20. He was "their guy" and there's no way to argue that he wasn't.

I didn't act surprised.

I merely pointed out the real reason the namecalling and aggressive posting escalated over the last several months.

You're just jealous

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...to-trade-down/

http://chiefsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/787

Wes Bunting is a 22 year-old kid in Pennsylvania that's pretty much full of completely shit.

Adam Teicher? Teicher doesn't know a football from a baseball.

If Peter King (who was in KC at Arrowhead during the draft) said it, I'd believe it.

From these two knuckleheads? No way.

Detroit rejects KC's offer
The Chiefs are apparently trying hard to move down from the number three spot. I'm hearing they offered the Lions that pick plus a fourth-round choice in return for Detroit's other first-rounder (#20) and Detroit's second-rounder (#33).

The Lions rejected the offer. Too bad for the Chiefs. Since they don't have a second-round pick, this stands a chance of being a one-player draft for the Chiefs. And they need more than one player from this draft.

http://chiefsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/787

Of course, you will now say that Adam Teicher is not a "legitimate football writer" because his access to Chiefs' coaches, scouts, players, and executives cannot equal your all-seeing perch on the internet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit] I call REPOST on myself. Didn't realize that tab had sat open so long. Nonetheless, my points are still valid.

Most mock drafts had Jackson going to the Broncos at #12 for at least a month before draft day. Pioli no doubt knew this and had to think he would have to stay under #12 to get Jackson.

Again, speculation.

He said "he's got a feeling". There's been no actual documented proof that the Chiefs tried to trade out. And Pioli himself has denied it.

Actually, your point is not valid.

Having been a life-long Chiefs fan, Adam Teicher has to be the worst beat reporter of ALL time. He NEVER has a scoop and is extremely far behind in reporting (for example, the Boston Globe had the scoop on Pioli going to KC and Adam was way behind in his reporting).

If you think that the Pioli/Haley think-tank suddenly let Adam Teicher in on a secret, you're crazy.

King notes it and two others verified it. You asked for writers and I gave you writers. You asked for King and I gave you King. What you claim is "speculation" was confirmed by others. You can choose to believe it or not, but your requests, that you could have dealt with yourself, were met.

Even if it didn't happen, your initial point is still not accurate, so it's no skin off my back.

The reason I said I don't see how it's the same is Atlanta made moves to get players at 2 of the 3 most important positions on the team with their moves.

A DE isn't even the most important position to the Chiefs defense...

There is way too much emphasis on draft position. As if these mock boards by draft geeks predicting Jackson falling to Denver means that Jackson isn't a top 10 pick. Look... #1--none of you know that. Not even Mel Kiper or Mike Mayock. Think anyone predicted Heyward-Bey to go in the top 10? #2--Jackson, like many defensive players, was undervalued because most scouts believed his place was in a 3-4 defense. He does zero good in Detroit or Oakland, where he'd be asked to play as either an undersized DT or a slow DE.

I'm not saying I'm doing cartwheels. But there's way too much scrutiny around a pick that we haven't even seen in training camp yet, let alone on the field. Like I've said before, if Sanchez doesn't become a star or if Cassel becomes a terrific pro in KC, then this is a great pick. Unless anyone can point to a player that KC should have taken other than Jackson, apart from Sanchez.

Given the Cassel trade, I would have selected Raji.

I like Heyward-Bey and that's just not a good example there's no way he should have gone there.

It isn't, but I believe it has high enough positional value to justify taking the pick, if you believe the player is good enough. I would have liked Raji, but I'm willing to see if Jackson is as good as Pioli believes he is. I don't think that's blind homerism. I think that's just saying that like draft grades, any praise or criticism of a draft pick is worthless until you see what they do on the field. This time a few years ago, there were several screaming about picking Bowe over Meachem.

Bowe was one of the picks I didn't complain about...so I got that one!

Tyson Jackson is a very low risk pick basically but I don't know if he will ever justify his draft position or the contract he'll get especially when you consider we're probably looking at atleast 1 more 1st round lineman being taken by this team.

No, I agree. But people always make the argument that a player would have been available at a certain spot, and I hate that. Nobody ever knows who's going where on what board. Nobody knows if a team will reach. Nobody knows if maybe there was a sudden last-minute jump or drop in player value on mock boards.

NOBODY knows if Cleveland or Green Bay would have considered Jackson in the top 10. Especially given how hush-hush teams are about the players they covet. Do people think that their GMs are going to give their hand away to John Clayton?

Point being... we all talk about reaches and draft values, knowing zero about what GMs are putting on their boards. For all we know, Jackson could have been #1 on Cleveland and Green Bay's board. Can anyone prove otherwise?

New England has 3 first rounders on their defensive line, and they're all getting well paid. Wilfork is due for a new contract, as a matter of fact. Despite this, they still added Brace. It's how Belichick (and, by extension, likely how Pioli) goes about setting up a defense. Defensive line is of utmost importance. Given that approach, I fail to see how your assertion makes sense.

Well, I would have loved to trade down. I can only trust that there wasn't a good enough offer. There's reason to doubt that they passed up a good trade--as you know, I was always the absolute, positive supporter of a trade down (and by the way, ironic that many of the same people that completely thrashed me--and that's a huge understatement--for wanting a trade-down are the same who are pissed at Pioli for passing it up, regardless of the trade value. Ironic, isn't it?). I hope they didn't. And if they did, then yes, I disagree with the trade.

But at the same time, I was always clear that if there is a guy you want and you believe that there is a good chance you'll lose him if you trade down, then that changes the whole story. I don't know who was on the board in the top 5, nor do I know what the Chiefs were offered in trade value. So yeah, good reason to doubt, but I think a lot of people are criticizing the refusal to trade down without really knowing what actually happened.

And if Cleveland had taken him 5th I'd have likely have had the same reaction I had to the Chiefs taking him 3rd, of wow that's awfully high.

None of them were top 5 guys correct? Ron Brace was a good pick for them at the top of the 2nd round.

I know people bring up this under thing all the time but I fully suspect they want to build a pure 3-4 team, now Jackson fits that and that'll leave us needing a nose and Terrance Cody being in next years draft...problem is I'm not sure where any of those other guys fit.

Plus it hurts because when you have to take a NT instead of one of the many playmakers that will be available next year it's frustrating.

I think he's saying that we could have traded down and gotten an extra lineman in addition to a top 10 pick (maybe still getting Jackson in the process).

Jackson isn't even the pick that frustrated me the most, that one you can atleast reason with to understand it.

So what one pissed you off? Magee?

Yea that one I didn't like, I feel like if they wanted another guy to play end, there was a better prospect still available.

I also didn't like some of the later picks I feel like they could have gotten better value for the picks and more pressing positions.

Seymour was taken at 6, but why does that matter? You keep acting as if all drafts are static when they aren't. It's been the problem with your complaints the entire time.

Draft position does matter....your top picks need to be franchise players not role players.

There was not a single "lock" franchise pick available in this draft (remember, that's your assertion about Curry). It's tough to pick what isn't there. Furthermore, in a Patriots-style 3-4 sytem, the defensive linemen are the keys to the defense. They aren't "role players", they're what makes the defense work or fail.

You can keep making the same erroneous comments on thread after thread, but that's never going to make them correct.

he makes a good point that every draft is different and the optimal choice isn't always(usually) available. sure jackson would've been better at 10, butthat wasn't an option. as for Raji, beside the fact he's not the solid high-floor pick Jackson is, i think Tank may have kept them from selecting a NT. I think they want to see what they've got in him first. I really hope he steps up, think he can if he is truly 340 as some have claimed.
i know you wanted gilbert in the third. i sympathize with not understanding a pick, but how many of gilbert's game have you seen? sure he sounds good on paper, but i think it's a little silly to think we know something about these guys that they don't when they've seen every snap he(+Magee)'s ever taken. im gonna assume they had something they didn't like about him we couldn't see.

I saw Gilbert several times.....

When you compare them the only thing you can really give Magee is that he went to Purdue while Gilbert went to San Jose State. Gilbert is a guy who is 3 inches taller, is basically the prototype of a 3-4 end in physical build. He's more naturally athletic, he's played inside and outside productively.

Gilbert won the defensive player of the year award for his conference and led the nation in tackles for loss.

That's just something I will never really understand on how Magee was taken in front of him.