ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Saccopoo Memorial Draft Forum (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202328)

jAZ 02-12-2009 11:37 PM

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.

OnTheWarpath15 02-12-2009 11:40 PM

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.

Ebolapox 02-12-2009 11:46 PM

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.

NickAthanFan 02-13-2009 12:20 AM

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

the Talking Can 02-13-2009 05:11 AM

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

does that really require explanation?

Demonpenz 02-13-2009 07:30 AM

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

blaise 02-13-2009 08:06 AM

Albert wasn't a top 5 pick.

the Talking Can 02-13-2009 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 5486824)
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

Brock 02-13-2009 09:21 AM

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

The Franchise 02-13-2009 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5486343)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by H5N1 (Post 5486349)
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.

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

The Franchise 02-13-2009 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 5486933)
How many first round picks do you need on the offensive line?

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

DaKCMan AP 02-13-2009 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ (Post 5486337)
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.

:spock:

BigCatDaddy 02-13-2009 09:56 AM

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.

DaKCMan AP 02-13-2009 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy (Post 5486998)
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.

BigCatDaddy 02-13-2009 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5487047)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.