ChiefsPlanet - View Single Post - Tournament: Worst Draft Choice of Peterson Era

**CosmicPal** · 12-13-2006, 12:22 PM

Well, to be honest, it isn't fair to just pick a player. Also, anyone picked in round 5 or later, shouldn't be allowed. Their chances of making the team aren't strong to begin with.

But, you have to make an honest assessment with each pick. For instance, Ryan Sims is everyone's favorite bashing toy right now. We moved up a spot to get him in the first round. We badly needed a Defensive Lineman that year, and we literally "stole" him away from Minnesota who took too long to make their pick. This doesn't look good.

BUT- you also have to consider who, of the defensive linemen ONLY, were taken after him. Is there another defensive linemen taken AFTER Sims from that draft year that is playing/performing better than Sims? If NOT, then you can blame the pick. Saying something like, Well Tom Brady was available in the 6th round that year...Well, here's something for you Sherlock- then that means that EVERY fuggen team *****ed up, not just the Chiefs.

It is not fair to say we missed players who turned out to be Pro Bowlers later when our needs that draft year didn't include those players. You have to be fair in your judgment here and if there was a defensive lineman taken after Sims that is performing well, then that only confirms the pick was a horrible choice.

I'm sorry, but I hate these stoopid "Who we shoud've drafted" threads, 'cause the fact of the matter is- every team is at fault for not picking up players they thought they should have drafted.

Think about every team in the NFL this past draft that drafted a WR and how all of them passed up on Marques Colston who is outshining every single WR taken above him. You don't think all of those team owners are shaking their heads in disbelief now and are considering firing their scouts, if they haven't already.

If you're going to go back and say Matt Blundin was a stinky draft choice, then you must be fair to yourself and first ask: Did we need to draft a QB that year, and if we did- then did any QB drafted AFTER him have any success as a starter. If so, then Blundin was a bad pick, if not, then Blundin's pick is irrelevant.

12-13-2006, 12:22 PM	#18
CosmicPal Learn it. Know it. Live it. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Casino cash: $10004900	Well, to be honest, it isn't fair to just pick a player. Also, anyone picked in round 5 or later, shouldn't be allowed. Their chances of making the team aren't strong to begin with. But, you have to make an honest assessment with each pick. For instance, Ryan Sims is everyone's favorite bashing toy right now. We moved up a spot to get him in the first round. We badly needed a Defensive Lineman that year, and we literally "stole" him away from Minnesota who took too long to make their pick. This doesn't look good. BUT- you also have to consider who, of the defensive linemen ONLY, were taken after him. Is there another defensive linemen taken AFTER Sims from that draft year that is playing/performing better than Sims? If NOT, then you can blame the pick. Saying something like, Well Tom Brady was available in the 6th round that year...Well, here's something for you Sherlock- then that means that EVERY fuggen team ****ed up, not just the Chiefs. It is not fair to say we missed players who turned out to be Pro Bowlers later when our needs that draft year didn't include those players. You have to be fair in your judgment here and if there was a defensive lineman taken after Sims that is performing well, then that only confirms the pick was a horrible choice. I'm sorry, but I hate these stoopid "Who we shoud've drafted" threads, 'cause the fact of the matter is- every team is at fault for not picking up players they thought they should have drafted. Think about every team in the NFL this past draft that drafted a WR and how all of them passed up on Marques Colston who is outshining every single WR taken above him. You don't think all of those team owners are shaking their heads in disbelief now and are considering firing their scouts, if they haven't already. If you're going to go back and say Matt Blundin was a stinky draft choice, then you must be fair to yourself and first ask: Did we need to draft a QB that year, and if we did- then did any QB drafted AFTER him have any success as a starter. If so, then Blundin was a bad pick, if not, then Blundin's pick is irrelevant. __________________ - - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - Four blessings upon my fellow planeteers: Older whiskey, younger women, faster horses, and more money.
Posts: 10,840