Survey of Draft Websites: Chiefs will pick...
Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft0...odd&id=3803148 Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas http://www.draftseason.com/lupagus-nfl-mock-draft Sam Bradford, QB, Oklahoma http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2009.php Sam Bradford, QB, Oklahoma http://newnfldraft.com/ Aaron Curry, OLB Wake Forest http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Mock-Draft-A.php Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas http://www.footballsfuture.com/2009/nflmockdraft.html James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...raft-round-one This site compiles draft 'experts' picks. Out of the top 25, only 3 have Bradford falling to the Chiefs at #3 while 9 have Matt Stafford falling to the 3rd overrall (!) and 3 have Orakpo and 3 have Curry being selected as the 3rd overall pick. Just 12 of 25 project a QB to be selected as the 3rd overall (assuming most realize KC has the #3 pick). 10 of the 25 have defensive players being selected #3. The rationale provided by many of the draft websites is that the Chiefs should continue to develop Tyler Thigpen and draft to address the NFL's worst _efense which set an NFL record for fewest sacks in league history. Of course the X factor is the new GM, but I thought it was interesting that Sam Bradford was not a slam dunk for most draft web sites, and fewer than 50% see Kansas City drafting a QB at all. KCJohnny :arrow: |
I want nothing to do with:
Bradford, Laurnitis or Orakpo. |
Quote:
I really dont want Bradford, but wil take him over any of those guys... |
If Thigpen is not the answer, I like Bradford or Sanchez, who is not projected for the first round at all.
But we REALLY need help on _efense... Anyone have a scouting report on Curry? Apparently he's one of the best defensive players in the nation. |
Curry or Laurinaitis at 3 are pure insanity.
|
Curry doesn't get nearly enough credit for being the top pro prospect that he is. The #1 senior in the country and a legit Top 5 talent, Curry can basically do it all. A great all-around linebacker who can stuff the run, drop into coverage and rush the passer, Curry is also versatile enough to play outside or inside in either a 4-3 or a 3-4 defensive scheme. The guy is really the total package. With the Chiefs Curry could fit in on the strongside or in the middle and he would give their front seven the boost they need.
|
Stafford.
Yes please! |
If Bradford/Stafford go #1 and a QB is available along with Crabtree, we could be in a position to move down 3 or 4 spots and pick up more draft picks. Combine that with a potential LJ trade and I could see the following scenario:
First round: A defensive playmaker like Orakpo, Curry, Laurinitis, or Maulauga. Second round: Mark Sanchez And maybe we could get another 2nd if someone moves up, so we could continue to build our O-line. Still too early to know how these guys grade out, but I think it's going to be a very fun offseason for us. |
Quote:
|
If Mark Sanchez comes out, there is no possible way he will be available in the 2nd round.
|
Then perhaps we can grab him in the first round if we move down. I really like his skill set and leadership ability. I love Thigpen, but we need to draft a viable franchise QB.
|
Quote:
If there was even a remote possibility he would slide like Aaron Rodgers did, he would go back to USC. If he declares, it's because he's been told by the advisory committee and others that he's a very high pick. |
Doesn't Sanchez (and all other non-seniors) have to declare his eligibility by Thursday?
|
IF statistically speaking, Thigpen outplayed Ryan and Flacco as first year starters (which he did) why would we be talking about drafting his replacement?
Crabtree...Monroe...Oher...Brown...Orakpo should be our top choices this is all sure to change before the draft as we should be major players in free agency prior to the draft |
Quote:
|
Thigpen outplayed Ryan really.......is 54% better than 61% now?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whatever will we do! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You don't take LB's with top 5 picks unless you're a 3-4 team taking a rush backer which is like taking a DE in a 3-4, got it?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I commend both Ryan and Flacco for guiding their teams to 11-5 seasons and the playoffs. But they have far superior supporting casts. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So you're high enough on Sanchez to take him at 3? Quote:
|
Quote:
Dude, at Alabama he did both blitzing and coverage |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'd likely take Sanchez in the spot if he persay didn't come out, I'd then default to my opinion the best player best upside player in this draft and take Taylor Mays. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just to clarify I'm still on the Sanchez/Stafford bandwagon
|
Wins: Thigpen - 2; Ryan - 11; Flacco - 11
YPA: Thigpen - 6.2; Ryan - 7.9; Flacco- 6.9 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
TDs: Thigpen - 18; Ryan - 14; Flacco -14 Funny - TDs by the QB don't correlate to team scoring. |
Quote:
|
So KC Johnny wants to keep Herm, as the coach, and Thigpen as the starter.
Thigpen will be the starter for a few games until our QBOTF is ready to play. |
Quote:
|
This also concerning drafting strategy if KC believes Albert is cemented at LT, and Sanchez/Stafford isn't there. I'm kind of expecting them making the team trading up sell there soul which would mean next years 1st round pick and another day 1 pick if they just totally fell in love with a specific player.if they won't do that pick the BPA even if it's an LT and move Albert to RT. I rather do that then allow a team to believe we need to trade down to fill a need because then you'd get the bad end of the deal because of the undercutting.
|
Quote:
|
Hey Mecca, just curious who you would take if everyone relevant but Sanchez declared and Stafford and Mays were off the board. What do you do then? Do you settle for Bradford?
I know Mays likely won't be gone but I am skeptical the chiefs would take him there. I could definately live with Mays though. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I wouldn't mind trading down and taking Mays, but at 3 he is horrible value. |
mocks are fun!!!!
all look to be good players at this level, but who knows.... not terribly happy/upset with some of them |
Quote:
So who is the QBotF for the Rams? Isn't Bulger about 32? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Getting top 15 talent with a top 3 pick (just because of the position he plays) is bad value. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
No, seriously, I don't really know. I just think they were eyeing Jake Long last year and didn't get what they wanted, so THIS year's premier LT that's even better should be drafted. |
Quote:
:clap: The Chiefs had horrific drafts during the Gun and DV years due to poor scouting, and then relying on that poor scouting to draft a player of dire need. So instead of wisely using FA to fill true needs and using the draft to stockpile talent, they've whiffed in FA and over-reached in the draft. It's drafting based on desperation -- even fear -- and it's been an absolute failure. Granted, one still doesn't spend a high pick on a position if one already has the position filled with a truly talented player. But one should always be looking to upgrade any position when the chance comes, and that's something the Chiefs simply haven't been able to do. I guess that's what happens when your GM thinks the draft is a "crapshoot," rather than, you know, an essential way to stock your roster. MM ~~:shrug: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I like I said if Stafford is available KC will select him
|
I think Crabtree will drop quite a bit when he runs a 4.55
|
If we get Pioli, he's not a BPA guy. It's more of a coach-centered approach. Can the guy fit into the system that the coach runs?
|
Quote:
Dont you think? Plus I have a feeling we wont be saddled with Rejects like Marty, Gun, DV or shit for brains coaches like Herm... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Option 1: Draft the best player on your board regardless of position and need. Option 2: Draft the best player available that fills a position of need. Option 3: Trade up/down until the best player on your board is at a position of need. In my opinion, option 3 is the ideal situation. That seems to be what the Patriots have done, and it's worked out well for them. If they had a healthy Brady and a healthy Cassel and the best player on their board was a QB when it was their turn to pick, they would back up a few spots, get an extra pick or 2, and still get the player they wanted. Conversely, if the player they really wanted likely wasn't going to fall to them, they would be willing to deal pick in order to get the right guy instead of settling for what was left. If the Chiefs were to be totally focused on drafting a DE, let's say Brian Orakpo, but they had him as the 15th best player on their board, they would be smart to trade down to the 8-12 rage and pick up a pick. Even if they didn't get "fair value" for the pick, it wouldn't matter because they would have gotten the guy that they wanted and accumulated additional value in the process. Then, they could package their second round pick with the pick they just acquired and grab the next player that they covet. I just think that it's a mistake to play the cards that you are dealt unless it just so happens that you are dealt a royal flush. The odds that a team just happens to be in the perfect spot based on their initial draft position are slim. Why not try to posture yourself into a better spot? |
So the draft pecking order for QB is this:
1. Matt Stafford 2. Mark Sanchez 3. Sam Bradford Am I reading everyone's opinion right? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.