The Pats won 3 Super Bowls, and had no first rounders on their line
The '99 Rams had 1, Pace
The 2000 Ravens had 1, Ogden
The 2002 Bucs had 1, and it was their RT, Kenyatta Walker
The 2005 Steelers had 3, they were a 6 seed, and none were taken higher than 23.
The 2006 Colts had 1, Tarik Glenn
The 2007 Giants had 0.
The 2008 Steelers had 0.

So, If you average those out you get an average of .7 first rounders per Super Bowl champion.

Five teams had no first rounders, 4 had 1, 0 had 2, and one had 3.

Of those 7 first rounders, 4 were taken in the top 20 and two in the top 10.

We already have one. Logic would dictate that we are far better served addressing other needs rather than bloating our cap with OL that we are unable to retain (see the Steelers with Hartings, Faneca, and Simmons).

Remember, even when we had our best line, there was only one first rounder on it, Roaf, two UDFAs (Waters and Wiegmann), a third rounder, and a fourth rounder.

Yeah but those teams you listed had several years of a consistent unit and much better coaching than most of the chiefs have ever had.

If we aren't winning the Super Bowl next year, and 2009 isn't the last NFL season ever, I fail to see what your point is.

you know I guess my point was that with a truly good o-line coach and a consistent unit of players you don't need first round lineman
I wasn't disagreeing

Actually, the Chiefs best line was Tait and Roaf at the OT spot. So, there were two first rounders.

Ryan Douchebag, TE, Jackson State.

Damien Woody was a first round center. So, the Pats had one for two of their three Super Bowls. He left before their last one, I believe.

They also drafted another first rounder in 2005, Mankins.

Now, you are incorrect about the Chiefs offensive line. When they were the 'best', they have Roaf and Tait as the bookends, two first rounders.

They also had Shields and Waters, two pro bowlers. They had a ton of money in that line.

I am not a big fan of an OT at #3, but I won't be upset about it.

Something like the deal with Washington. Tyson Jackson
Posted via Mobile Device

I overlooked Woody, but Mankins has been on 0 SB winners.

The Chiefs line was no better with Tait than Welbourn at RT, and Welbourn was cheaper.

They scored 1 fewer point with Welbourn and Roaf at bookends, and led the league in yardage.

You also seem to lack reading comprehension. Waters=UDFA, Shields=3rd rounder. Whether or not they were pro bowlers only further undermines your argument, as it shows you don't need high picks to get elite production from your line.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical about what they truly invested in their line, Roaf was had for only a mid round pick, so even then they only truly had 3 draft picks worth of investment on that line, and none after '03, when it was at it's apex.

Moreover, the fact that we won shit with one of the best lines in NFL history should show you how important stacking your o-line really is.

Trade down,draft Orakapo,and use the additional picks for O line

How are these stats relevant without taking into consideration factors such as what those teams needs were and what was available in prior drafts?

Do you really think the stats would be that much different if you did it for RB, WR, DL or anything but QB?

Did you notice there's only 7 teams in that sample pool?

Come on Hamas, you're smarter than this.

I believe there were 8 teams this year of 32 that had 2 first round picks on their line. They averaged 7-9 and had 0 playoff victories.

The Cowboys dynasty never had a 1st round lineman starting for them.

The 49ers dynasty had one first round pick on their five SB teams, Harris Barton.

At what point do people realize that investing this much money is foolhardy?

So don't limit it to this year.

Go back TWENTY years and look at the playoff teams that had more than 1 first round offensive lineman. You might find 1 or 2.

It's quite simple - statistics don't favor teams with multiple first rounders on the line.

Furthermore, draft a lineman with the #3 overall pick produces the INSTANT EXPECTATION that he's the starting LT, based on his draft position and especially on his salary.

The ONLY outcome of drafting a lineman at #3 is moving Brandon Albert to another position, when he's EARNED the starting LT job going away. It's not only not fair, to him or the team, but it's STUPID.

Again, I am not in favor of drafting a OT at #3. But, I think you are way overstating things.

#1) I know that Mankins has not won a Super Bowl. But for someone to read your post, they may have assumed that the Pats didn't take OL in the first round, which would be incorrect.

#2) The Chiefs went 13-3 with Roaf and Tait. The Chiefs went 7-9 with Roaf and Welbourn. There was a HUGE dropoff to Welbourn. And, you aren't being intellectually honest if you are trying to argue otherwise. That, or you have no idea what you are looking at. The Chiefs gave up 11 more sacks in 2004 and Green had five more INT's.

The reality is that you can argue that teams can win a super bowl with late round picks at 'any' position. While I understand, and AGREE that taking an offensive lineman #3 overall is not ideal. The reality is that it is still a need for this team, and there will be a premier player available at the position.

Finally, the Chiefs teams won nothing with that offensive line, but they were able to get HOF production from a solid, not spectacular QB, and two less than great WR's. The failures of that Chiefs team were about the defense, and frankly, that was because of poor signings, not the lack of money spent on that side of the ball due to an offensive line that was paid too much.

Again, I agree with you in principle. However, there are not hard fast rules when building a team. Every year is a different group of players with a different group of strengths, and you have to make your picks based on the situation, not some set of arbitrary rules.

Chiefs stay at 3 and take Curry.

If KC falls to around the 10th pick - Jackson, Orakpo or A. Smith.