NFL Draft If Curry is gone at the 3 spot...who do we take or what do we do? - Page 20

journeyscarab · 02-28-2009, 11:07 PM

Say the Lions draft Curry, Rams draft Smith....do we take Monroe/Orakpo/or drop a few spots to get someone else?

**DeezNutz** · 03-01-2009, 11:52 PM

And factor in that Roaf is arguably one of, if not the, greatest LT's of all time.

I think Monroe has all the talent in the world, but it's unrealistic to expect him to be Roaf, and this is why it would be foolhardy to move another young player who looks to have Pro-Bowl potential.

philfree · 03-02-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

And factor in that Roaf is arguably one of, if not the, greatest LT's of all time.

I think Monroe has all the talent in the world, but it's unrealistic to expect him to be Roaf, and this is why it would be foolhardy to move another young player who looks to have Pro-Bowl potential.

If Stafford is on the board and we can't work out a trade with some team then I'd pick him. And then I'd dangle him in front of the other teams to see what happened. If nothing happened then we have two QBs. Heck Stafford's only 20 years old so he can sit for a while. And he'll hold his value for a few years.

PhilFree

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-02-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Why is it shitty? Almost every team that runs it is a top 10 defense.

What's dumber is refusing to change your scheme when there is only one key player on your roster who doesn't fit into it. The Chiefs are practically at square 1 on defense. If there was ever a time in their history to consider moving to a 3-4, last year would have been perfect, but this year is just as good. I like Dorsey, but sorry, a 3-4 defense is a ton easier to build than a 4-3 and it will be worth sacrificing that #5 pick that was wasted, assuming that he doesn't find a role in this defense.

This is completely false in every regard.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-02-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

Problem is we traded for a QB, so our leverage is lessened. Teams know we aren't a threat to take Stafford/Sanchez, so why trade up that high for one of them?

Every pick is in flux and EVERY pick risks being traded. Plus, Seattle is a possible taker for Sanchez or Stafford.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-02-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

This really isn't true. Look at the two ILB's in New England. 242lbs, 247lbs.

Look at the Steelers, 243lbs, 239lbs.

So, NO, the ILB's in a 3-4 AREN'T bigger. In FACT, they are typically smaller than a normal MLB, who plays around 255-260.

Brock · 03-02-2009, 08:33 AM

There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-02-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

This is completely false in every regard.

Sorry, pulled the trigger too quickly on the first point. But it does speak volumes that in spite of the fact that only 1/3 of the teams in the NFL run a 3-4, four of the top ten defenses are 3-4.

What's wrong about the second point? A 3-4 defense IS easier to build. If anything, the biggest obstacle is finding a nose tackle and a coach who can run it well. Finding LBs is significantly easier. Finding pass rushers is significantly easier because the defensive line does all the dirty work. Finding DEs is significantly easier because they're essentially DTs who don't have to worry too much about rushing the passer. You don't have to find versatile MLBS--you can just find role-playing LBs. This all points to the 3-4 being much easier to build.

**Reaper16** · 03-02-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.

Hell yeah!

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-02-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Sorry, pulled the trigger too quickly on the first point. But it does speak volumes that in spite of the fact that only 1/3 of the teams in the NFL run a 3-4, four of the top ten defenses are 3-4.

What's wrong about the second point? A 3-4 defense IS easier to build. If anything, the biggest obstacle is finding a nose tackle and a coach who can run it well. Finding LBs is significantly easier. Finding pass rushers is significantly easier because the defensive line does all the dirty work. Finding DEs is significantly easier because they're essentially DTs who don't have to worry too much about rushing the passer. You don't have to find versatile MLBS--you can just find role-playing LBs. This all points to the 3-4 being much easier to build.

Do you realize that there are 5 good nose tackles in the entire league, at most?

Why the hell do you think Parcells took Jason Ferguson's ass from the Jets to the Cowboys to the Dolphins?

Here's the thing about the 3-4: You need two good rush backers (who can also cover the flats and tight ends), a sledgehammer MLB, a coverage MLB, a nose tackle (about as tough to find as a quarterback, and two ends that are 6'5" and 300 lbs.

Teams had a damned hard time finding this personnel when there were 5 teams running this scheme. What do you think it's going to be like when there are 12-15 teams and they don't get to monopolize talent, and people realize that you can steamroll a 3-4 without elite talent up front in the running game?

02-28-2009, 11:07 PM
journeyscarab SHOCKERS BABY! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Overland Park, KS Casino cash: $1773555	If Curry is gone at the 3 spot...who do we take or what do we do? Say the Lions draft Curry, Rams draft Smith....do we take Monroe/Orakpo/or drop a few spots to get someone else?
Posts: 3,414

03-02-2009, 08:33 AM	#291
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	There isn't anything wrong with still drafting Stafford, and maybe not Sanchez either.
Posts: 47,314