Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3?
 

We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

They are saying that because to people that understand positional value, the only OL position worth taking in the top half of the 1st round is a LT.

We already have our LT in Albert, so it would be a terrible value pick to take one of these guys and play him on the right side, or to take one of these guys and move Albert.

We definitely have a need for a RT, but that is a position that is generally filled in the middle or later rounds of the draft.

smart gms don't tie up 100 mill into a 'two-player' position, for the most part. if you draft a LT, he gets 50 mill. to play RT (dumb move). then, after albert's rookie contract is up, he wants to be paid like a top LT. so, there's your 100 mill.

same goes for a top 3 DT. you drafted dorsey last year, gave him a ton of money, and some here want to draft a DT again. so, that would be 100 mill.

Either this is a requisite football post or someone knows even less about football than he does about policy.

you don't spend consecutive top 5 picks on tackles....

does that really require explanation?

I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't mind it if it did happen. Best player out there thx

Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.

correct...but i'd amend my comment to consecutive first rounders...it still doesn't make any sense and is not necessary to build a championship team

How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

These.

We were lucky enough to find our LToTF with the 15th pick. It would be dumb to either move him and draft another LT or draft a RT with the #3 pick. You can easily fix your line and get more value of it with two moves.

FA - Jason Brown C Ravens
Draft - Kraig Urbik OT Wisconsin in the 3rd round

Leave Albert at LT
Leave Waters at LG
Brown moves to C
Niswanger moves to RG
Urbik starts at RT

There are some teams that don't have ANY first round picks on their line.

:spock:

I wouldn't totally rule it out. Carolina would have more $ invested in OT's this year then we would assuming we draft tackle and they were a top 5 team this year. So a case can be made.

No it can't be made. It's stupid.

Sure it can. These days a RT is about as important as a LT, especially with all the team running a 3-4 and moving the best pass rushed around to find the weak sport(Like Atlanta did against us). I don't know if I would do it, but I think it makes more sense then Crabtree.

Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.


PhilFree:arrow:

Drafting another first round tackle would be epic fail.

You "want to" what to all-world tackles? :whackit:?

:D

Not if Stafford and Sanchez go 1, 2 and we cannot trade down.

I would rather have the top OT (smith, I guess) than crabtree.

However, if either Stafford or Sanchez are on the board at 3, then you are correct.

No, it can't. You're wrong.

Nope. If that happens, then the best choice is probably Malcolm Jenkins.

That's beyond reeruned. You want to run the Chiefs as a farm team like the Royals? :spock:

No. And for you to get that out of my post is beyond reeruned. What I'm saying is if we can't resign Albert at a reasonable price then there are ways to handle it and in the end if we have to we can get something in retrurn if Albert signs else where. None the less the Chiefs will have a great O Line. Now I'm not really sure that taking Curry or Crabtree is bad either but it seems the draftniks around here think those are bad moves so I presented an alternative. In the end why take player who isn't worth the 3rd when you could get one that is. I mean why have just another "wasted pick".

PhilFree:arrow:

Betcha they'd have taken Albert at 5 if Dorsey hadn't been there.

LT is done. You don't draft a right tackle at 5.

Please explain why you think Curry is worth a Top 3 pick.

Have you formed your own opinion by watching him, or are you just taking what a couple of mocks say (in early February, no less) and taking it as gospel?

When you're done with that, let us know who was the last LB that wasn't a pass rush specialist taken in the Top 3.

Who the last LB taken at #3 doesn't matter. That's silly. As far as Curry i've only watched video of the guy. Of course the videos I get to see are to make players look good. He did look good. So there's that and then there are the draft gurus who seem to like him an awful lot. I've been studying this draft since about week 5 of the 2008 season so I guess I've done more than look at a few mock drafts.

Are you scout? Do you get to watch the same video as the NFL scouts do? That'd be cool. If you can get those type of videos you should share them with us.


PhilFree:arrow:

Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

Exactly.

Nor should he.

Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the players in the 2009 draft. Could be used as an indicator for what i'll call a soft rule but it ain't fool proof. If the guy is The Best Player On The Board why would you pick a lesser player and let another team have the better player? Because you just don't take LBs that high? There are times when it's O.K. to deviate from these unwritten rules.

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.


PhilFree:arrow:

If the QBs are gone the most valuable player on the board is probably Malcolm Jenkins, at the risk of repeating myself. There is no way a non-rushing LB goes that high. None.

This is the question some people here don't like to answer. They have all their chips on Sanchez being there and the Chiefs liking him, and they're in denial that it might not happen.
I appreciate that Brock answered the question. Some people just start throwing "trade down" nonsense out there even though it's not going to happen.

I was really just exploring the different possibilities if the QBs are both already picked. IMO this draft is not set up very well for the Chiefs and the 3rd pick if the QBs are gone. I mean what would truly be the best/right pick for the Chiefs. If the QBs are gone it very well could be an OT. We can' punt.


PhilFree:arrow:

This has been answered a hundred times and the answer is Malcom Jenkins.

Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?


PhilFree:arrow:

It appears to me that he's the best CB in this class, which is a pretty good class. It makes a lot more sense to replace Carr/Leggett than it does to replace Branden Albert.

No, Jenkins is not a safety. Teams wanting to move him to FS are crazy, IMO. It'd be a waste. Flowers played great but the others can move to nickle and dime. Corner is a position you can take top 5. RT is not.

Albert will still be on the field but so will both those CBs I would imagine. A team needs two starting CBs as well as two starting OTs. We have two starting CBs and it can be argued that we don't have two starting OTs.

IMO Pioli&Co are in a position to draft the BPA at #3. If we can't get the QB then I'm starting to lean that way and I won't care if the BPA is an OT, WR, LB or what ever. No a guard won't be the best player.

PhilFree:arrow:

Clearly you don't understand positional value. You don't draft a RT in the 1st round, much less the top-5. You can get a RT later in the draft. You're a casual fan, it's ok.

I understand it. I just don't think it's absolute and with the way this draft seems to be setting up this might be a year where we deviate from what are considered to be the draft rules. Or we can reach for a player that might not get picked till five picks or more later.


PhilFree:arrow:

Sorry, but no team is going to invest $25 million + guaranteed dollars in a rookie RT. It's just stupid.

If Stafford and Sanchez are gone......then I'm all for having these 4 as our CBs.

Flowers, Jenkins, Carr, Leggett

All young and good CBs.

This became a stupid argument.

There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone.

This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.

He's really a LT but he could play RT for a year or so. Or Pioli and Haley could move Albert to RT. Now remember this isn't what I want first and foremost. It's an alternative.

I do think since we have a new regime that something like drafting an OT is a possibility.


PhilFree:arrow:

That's not true.

And yeah there's a good chance that one of the QBs will be there and both could be. I doubt both though.


PhilFree:arrow:

Albert's NOT a right tackle. He plays in space very well. Ideally, your right tackle should be 6'5 to 6'6 and around 325 pounds He should also be a freaking road grader. The right side is your power side and is not suited for finesse players.

Furthermore, the Chiefs would be ****ing idiots to have $75 MILLION dollars wrapped in TWO left tackles. ****ing dumb. Is this what you think of Pioli and Hunt? Two ****ing morons?

I swear, if an unbelievable kicker was sitting at the #3 overall pick, there would be a large portion of the fan base screaming for the Chiefs to draft a kicker at number 3.

Bank on it.

Our entire line could be set for the next 10 years (minus Brian Waters) and people would want to draft a LT at #3 and move Albert to LG. I don't get it.

Counting backups?

LMAO

I expect Herb Taylor to step right in when Waters is injured or retires without missing a beat.

LMAO

Awesome.

I don't think anyone should pass a guy over solely on position. Is a QB more valuable? Heck, yeah. If the prospects are both projected to be very good, take the QB. But if the best QB projects out to be an average NFL QB and the best RT projects out to be Thor the god of thunder, I'd take the RT.

I have no idea what the Chiefs are gonna do but I'm sure if they don't do what you think they should you'll be the first to call them "****ing idiots". Now I never said I wanted to draft an OT what I said is that it may be more of an option then alot of people think if the QBs are gone. Sling all the F bombs you want though.

PhilFree:arrow:

Thanks, I will.

If the Chiefs draft a Left Tackle with the number three overall pick, I'll go absolutely ballistic.

And I hardly doubt I'd be the only one.

Malcolm Jenkins has the realistic probability of being significantly better than any of the CB's currently on the Chiefs, you'd be pretty hard pressed to get a rookie OT to play better than Albert did last year.

So who's the best pick if it's not a QB?And remember I want a QB. My posts on this thread are about if one isn't available.



PhilFree:arrow:

I think it's been covered several times now.

So is Jenkins worthy of the 3rd pick in your not so humble opinion?


PhilFree:arrow:

That was specific for Dane. So you think it's Jenkins?


PhilFree:arrow:

If it's not a QB Jenkins is really the only other player you can justify based on team and positional value.

At this point in time (before the Combines), I'd agree with Mecca.

You have to admit, our secondary would rival the secondary of the 80's with Jenkins back there.

I'm not against that. Jenkins never really was mentioned the few times I watched Ohio State play. That don't mean anything though.


PhilFree:arrow:

You should have seen him when they played Purdue he was the only reason they won...

Maybe not a tackle at #3 due to what you'll have to pay him at that spot, but if you can take that pick and trade down to the 10-15 range and pick up an extra 1st or 2nd rounder there's no reason you wouldn't look at a tackle with one of those picks. Hell, Carolina spent 2 first rounders last year on Otah and they already had a franchise left tackle.

I would have no problem at all with this ball club trading down into the teens and picking up someone like a Michael Oher to play right tackle, providing they get at least another 2nd rounder out of the deal.

Ah yes because trading out of the top 5 is easy...uh huh.

And if you'd drop 10 spots for just a 2nd rounder...I don't have words for the tardedness of that.

If they trade down 10+ spots and only get a 2nd in return, things will get ugly around here.

I mean, they're only leaving 1700 points on the table. (equal to the 5th overall pick)

Why is is so god damn hard for people to understand if you trade out of 3 and drop more than 2 spots what you get back should be a ridiculous haul?

It comes back to not understanding the draft.

A lot of people don't understand value of picks.

A lot of people don't understand positional value.

People play too much Madden.

People just aren't knowledgeable about it, but want to fit in and act like they are. Instead of reading and learning, they can't resist jumping into the fray.

It would be like me going to a math forum and trying to act like I know the first goddamn thing about sine, cosine and tangent.

After 5 minutes of that act, some math geek would probably tell me to walk into an AIDS tree...

You'd then tell them that their math chart is dumb.

ROFL

Pythagoras is an idiot. Let ME tell you how you should do this.

Is he that much better than Vonte Davis?

The difference is - math is useful.

Again, I will ask why it's okay to consider a cornerback a legitimate "value" in the Top 5 in a draft, and a linebacker is not?

Cornerbacks, even the best, are only successful approximately 30% of the time, are usually not asked to support in run coverage and have shit for hands (it why they are playing defense instead of being a wide receiver). As well, because of the rules favoring the offense, a good quarterback is going to beat a great cornerback every time if given enough time. A linebacker, and more importantly a strong side linebacker, is responsible for pass coverage, run support, rushing the quarterback, etc. At least to me, it seems that the linebacker would have a higher priority than a cornerback for a defense and when selecting one in the draft.

Why is it okay for the Chiefs to select Jenkins at #3 (especially if the two quarterbacks are off the board) instead of someone like Curry, who our resident draft experts think would be a complete waste at #3 because of his position.

The "experts" here say that unless he's DT or LT, you don't pick a LB at that spot, but it seems to me that the best cornerback of the last ten years, Champ Bailey, hasn't done shit in terms winning playoff games or getting his team to the Super Bowl. I mean, if you are Mike Shanahan, then perhaps cornerbacks mean something because his ego was so incredibly enormous that he thought that if he got two Pro Bowl corners, that would let him beat Indy or New England and win the Super Bowl, but he didn't seem to realize that a cornerback doesn't win you jack squat.

Physically no Jenkins isn't that much better if at all...but Davis has character concerns and he's Vernon Davis brother...Jenkins is off the charts with intangibles and leadership and knowing how to play his position.

A CB is much more valuable than a LB is...who gets bigger contracts CB's or LB's...there ya go. A top notch CB is very valuable because he opens the rest of your defense even the very best LB is playing a role.

Cornerbacks are better raw athletes than WRs because they don't know where the receiver is going. They have to react, they don't know that the receiver is running a 3 or a 7 route, so not only to they have to have more fluid hips, they generally have better straight line and make up speed.

You can ask Steve Young, who said that the '94 49ers won because of Deion.

He even said as much, "Deion made the difference in our defense."

No one here is equating a CB with a top flight tackle, end or QB, hell, even a DT, but a true lockdown corner changes the schemes that your D can run.

You're right, Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert, and they wouldn't give a rat's ass if Albert didn't play well.

Carl and Herman ****ing Edwards would pass on a LT if they were still here if Albert didn't play well, because they would want to give him time to justify his selection.

But the fact is, Albert played exceptionally well, and Piloli and Haley will care about that.

They won't take another LT because it will be clear to them that we have a good one.

That's the best counter reply I've read.



PhilFree:arrow:

One can make that argument with any position. A dominant player is going to make a difference regardless if they are a LB, CB, DE, DT, etc. My point is that with the changes and enforcement of pass interference rules since 2004, the overall impact a cornerback has on the game has been minimized to a certain degree.

As such, I would think that the days of the "shutdown" corner as an area of importance and "value" would be also minimized in terms of looking at a players relative value in the draft.

For those of you stressing the "positional value" of draft picks - not one Cornerback has been drafted earlier than pick 5 in the last ten years. The one who was picked fifth - Terence Newman - was a bit of a reach.

Explanation?


[addendum] My quick count shows only 8 total going in the top ten picks during that entire decade.