Chiefs Meet With Otah

[KC4EVER]

Chiefs | Team meets with Otah
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:13 -0700

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Kansas City Chiefs met with University of Pittsburgh OT Jeff Otah Monday, March 24.

I think the chiefs hope they can grab him in the second, wich is considerable since we pick early in most rounds.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

Any thought that we are fine on the defensive line is absurd.

And even after those points argued we were still respectable on defense with a (admit it) dog$#it pair of DT's.

Our offense was bottom 5. Terrible. As bad as the defense was under DV.

We need huge helpings of help on offense and the biggest area of need is O line. We don't have to go there 1st round but we do have to go there early and very often.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by KC4EVER

Chiefs | Team meets with Otah
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:13 -0700

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Kansas City Chiefs met with University of Pittsburgh OT Jeff Otah Monday, March 24.

I think the chiefs hope they can grab him in the second, wich is considerable since we pick early in most rounds.

22 posts in and no one has asked this obvious question

What the hell are you smoking?

Otah won't make it out of the top 15 picks, much less into the second round.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Everyone, arguing w/ Mecca and Brock is a waste of finger strength...both are idiots. Mecca thinks he's an all world analyst, and all of his post are full of condecending tones, when all he really knows about anyone he writes his opinions on is what he's read somewhere else. If he really knew anything, someone would employ him for his opinion. Brock is a BPA or die guy, who would twist any comment you make to support his own argument. Reminds me of the guy who says you hate america because you oppose the war. Stupid logic. Arguing w/ them is just dumb.

Brock, all anyone is saying is that Long and Clady are not "reaches" at the #5 spot. Even if McFadden or Ryan or whoever it is you would like to draft is there, it would still be VERY smart to solidify the MOST IMPORTANT position on ANY football team first. The offensive line IS what hindered the offense so much this year, solidify it and production will go up. Also, Croyle needs a chance, would you like him to go 0-whatever next year, get cut, and go somewhere else and become a good QB? That's what happens when you don't give guys a chance, the Chiefs owe it to themselves to find out what they do or do not have. Not to find out would be dumb.

If Long is gone and we don't want Clady, trading down would be a VERY smart move. We will still get a first round quality player, albeit w/o all the glitz and glam, plus more early choices to help solidify this teams many needs. And you can't say "trading down's not that easy!" like all of your cronies either, if Mcfadden and Ryan are still there, or any other good guys, the possibility is always there, not definate, but the possibility is there just the same. Just like all the possibilities of the guys we all want being there for us to take.

Drafting a stud DT is not a bad idea either, it may instantly improve our defense, which is great. I'd be all for it. Although, our defensive unit does not suck as bad as you and Mecca would like to think. While their not great statistically, they only gave up what, 20 points per game? Not stellar but fairly servicable if you ask me. they gave up the run, gave up the pass, and the occasional long run or pass, but not typically a long run or pass for a TD. I think it's the first time in recent memory bend but don't break has worked in KC. Even if that is just happenstance and not our philosiphy.

If the Chiefs were to hold our opponents to 20 ppg next year, and raise our average from 14ppg, we will win more games, period. Possibly 8-8 or better. That's not a prediction, just a condecending remark aimed at those of you who oh so hate 8-8. Guess what?!?! WE ALL DO, but 8-8 IS, not an opinion, a fact, IS better that 4-12

You do make a good point though...a stud OT will not get us to the superbowl next year. Neither will any player you would like for the Chiefs to take. Just so happens our biggest need, is any teams biggest need, and you don't like it. If the Chiefs take "your guy" whoever that might be, good. Frankies, good. Great!

All I know is, for the first time in a LONG time, I know I will be comfortable w/ a very good portion of our draft. I always hated Vermeils illogical picks (I.E. Kris Wilson or Svitek) and always hated taking important positions in late rounds HOPING they would turn out b/c we would rather spend our early picks on pretty players. Taking linemen in late rounds CAN work out...sometimes. The last 5 or more years though, tell us that is hasn't for the Chiefs.

Herm has impressed me not only w/ his solid picks, but with his involvement, commitment and faith in scouting. Not just getting the prettiest player, but the right player, not the best player, but the best for us. His draft resume looks pretty good for the Chiefs so far, 4 of Herms 7 picks last year played ALOT, and played well. Medlock, we'll chalk up to stupid "loyalty", and Herb Taylor played a little bit and showed promise. What becomes of Michael Allen, I promise we'll see this season. Also, 5 of Herms 7 picks in 2006 have played substantial amounts of time, while I'm sure we'll see Marcus Maxey and Tre' Stalling get their shots in camp to compete for starting jobs, or they will probably make good/decent backups.

BPA is a luxury. Drafting BPA hasn't worked out too well for the year in and year out cellar dwellers has it? Too many costly mistakes made too high, b/c of hype. B/c of BPA a lot of cellar dweller have stayed cellar dwellers. BPA is a strategy I believe works best for teams w/ very few gaping holes in their roster. The attitude is "We don't NEED anyone, we'll just take whomever we like." BPA could result in the Chiefs having two good, highly paid runningbacks, or a good DE who will sit on the sidelines. Who's to say Long or Clady won't be a "star", or for that matter that Dorsey, Ellis, or Ryan will? Noone knows.

Fact is, I'll be happy w/ anything we take, even if it's not what I want. Sorry Brock if any of this came off as too condecending, but hey, at least I'm not Mecca.

____aturnis (wishing he was Mecca)

Nice post!

[milkman]

Originally Posted by RedBull

Would it make any sense if lets say Matt Ryan fell to NE and NE should draft him because he is the BPA at #7? Of course not! That would be stupid.

Actually, the Pats drafting Matt Ryan might be an excellent idea.

They could use some good young LBs, and corners, but who do they have backing up Brady.

Matt Cassell.

If Brady goes down, they're ****ed.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Nice post!

Really?

I thought it was a shitty post.

I fell asleep halfway through.

[Brock]

It's several paragraphs worth of rationalization for simplistic thinking, but other than that, I liked it.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by milkman

Actually, the Pats drafting Matt Ryan might be an excellent idea.

They could use some good young LBs, and corners, but who do they have backing up Brady.

Matt Cassell.

If Brady goes down, they're ****ed.

So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by RedBull

So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

Good move?

No.

I'm saying it isn't a suckass move that actually kind of makes sense.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by RedBull

So lets draft a top rated quarterback as an insurance policy in case our franchise player gets hurt? Knowing that Brady will probably be there the next 10 years or so, meanwhile the other kid can just sit on the bench, and waste his career. You'd call that a good move?

You really think Tom Brady is going to play until he's 41?

People forget that they guy turns 31 in August. He has 3 rings, a shit-ton of money and is the type to retire earlier in his career, not later.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You really think Tom Brady is going to play until he's 41?

People forget that they guy turns 31 in August. He has 3 rings, a shit-ton of money and is the type to retire earlier in his career, not later.

At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

[Sure-Oz]

I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck till he got his brains beat in

[milkman]

Originally Posted by RedBull

At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

But he did have an ankle injury in the AFC Championship that was underplayed
going into the SB.

One of the reasons that he takes so few hits is his pocket awareness and ability to slide away from pressure.

Watching him the SB, that bothered him a hell of a lot more than anyone is willing to admit.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by RedBull

At the rate he is going now, sure.

I don't see any signs of him slowing down? I watched a few NE games last year, he hardly gets touched. Their offensive line is underrated.

QB position is one where their is a lot of longevity. guys can play up to their late 30's, even early 40's.

Originally Posted by Sure-Oz

I'd say brady has atleast 6 more years considering Trent played till 37 and is still trying. He didn't suck till he got his brains beat in

COULD he play until he's 41? Probably.

WILL he WANT to?

What else is there to play for?

I'd really be surprised if he plays more than 3-4 more years.

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

COULD he play until he's 41? Probably.

WILL he WANT to?

What else is there to play for?

I'd really be surprised if he plays more than 3-4 more years.

He'll retire when the Pat's have no o-line and start coming back down to earth, so probably within a 3 or 4 year window you'd think?

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Please, Frankie. Tell us where you see ACTUAL talent on this team.

Not "I think this guy MIGHT be talented," but TRUE talent.

Then tell us how many of those guys are age 28 or over.

You mean aside from TG, LJ, DJ, JA, Hali, Waters, Bowe, et al.? We also have players like Boone and McIntosh and Donny Edwards who are at least good for holding the fort while we are rebuilding. How about players who are developing who at least have a 50-50 chance to become solid? People like our two safeties, Croyle, Smith, Webb (yes, Webb), Tank and Turk. I'm pretty excited about seeing which ones will become contributors. Your cup is all empty. Mine is half full.