On Record: Who do the Chiefs pick?

[the Talking Can]

lay it on the line, sometime before the draft:

Who do the Chiefs pick? If there is a trade down, say so....


this has nothing to do with your desires, you aren't advocating the pick, only a cold hard calculation on what our team does...


my pick is: Raji

[Coogs]

Two days before the draft...

Crabtree. Then offensive line. It's not a 1 year fix, defense will be taken care of next year.

Reasoning... Albert is fine at LT. We need a RT, but can get one of those in 3rd round, or 2nd if we trade down a few spots.

If TG is indeed going to be traded, then Cassel is going to need another WR. In fact it would be a must, as with just one WR threat in Bowe we would neither be able to pass or run the ball with any consistancy at all.

Two days out... Crabtree.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So don't limit it to this year.

Go back TWENTY years and look at the playoff teams that had more than 1 first round offensive lineman. You might find 1 or 2.

It's quite simple - statistics don't favor teams with multiple first rounders on the line.

Furthermore, draft a lineman with the #3 overall pick produces the INSTANT EXPECTATION that he's the starting LT, based on his draft position and especially on his salary.

The ONLY outcome of drafting a lineman at #3 is moving Brandon Albert to another position, when he's EARNED the starting LT job going away. It's not only not fair, to him or the team, but it's STUPID.

To call it stupid is silly. Anytime you have an opportunity to upgrade a position on your team, doing so is not stupid.

I am not sold, absolutely not sold on taking a OT at the spot. Nor, do I think the Chiefs will do so. However, if they do, I won't categorize the move as stupid.

We could go through the entire history of the NFL and look at Super Bowl teams and come up with the fact that Super Bowl winners, on average don't have more than one first rounder at ANY Position.

So, does that mean that a team 'shouldn't' have more than one first rounder at any position?

Every year is different. I hope that they don't select an OT, but I will understand the thinking if they do.

[Duck Dog]

We will trade down with the Skins. Not yet sure who we take.

10K posts in just 9 years. Yeeehaaa!

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Two days before the draft...

Crabtree. Then offensive line. It's not a 1 year fix, defense will be taken care of next year.

Reasoning... Albert is fine at LT. We need a RT, but can get one of those in 3rd round, or 2nd if we trade down a few spots.

If TG is indeed going to be traded, then Cassel is going to need another WR. In fact it would be a must, as with just one WR threat in Bowe we would neither be able to pass or run the ball with any consistancy at all.

Two days out... Crabtree.

I will give you props if Crabtree is the pick because I don't think there is any way the Chiefs go with Crabtree. Seriously, I don't see it as even a possibility.

I think Curry is the best pick because he is the best player, but I think Pioli will go with the defensive or offensive line.

And, since I don't think that any player on the defensive line is worth the #3 overall pick, I guess I think the Chiefs will take an OT... IF they can't trade down.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

To call it stupid is silly. Anytime you have an opportunity to upgrade a position on your team, doing so is not stupid.

I am not sold, absolutely not sold on taking a OT at the spot. Nor, do I think the Chiefs will do so. However, if they do, I won't categorize the move as stupid.

We could go through the entire history of the NFL and look at Super Bowl teams and come up with the fact that Super Bowl winners, on average don't have more than one first rounder at ANY Position.

So, does that mean that a team 'shouldn't' have more than one first rounder at any position?

Every year is different. I hope that they don't select an OT, but I will understand the thinking if they do.

This is just reeruned.

First of all, it's a bad argument to even suggest that the #2 LT in this class would be an upgrade over Albert at that position.

Secondly, let's assume that you call that a wash, assume that he can be as good, or better, and you move Albert inside. You've then spent a #3 pick on incrementally (if it works out perfectly) improving your blindside, and improving your interior line or bookend by a sizable margin. Meanwhile, you could spend a third round pick on a player who could play RT at a pro bowl level, and compensate him at 1/30th the rate of the guy you would take at three.

Again, I ask.

Would you rather dump 60 Million into Eugene Monroe, and move Albert and his decent salary to RT or LG, or 2 million into a RT in the third round, and draft someone at three who could possibly anchor the defense, or be a franchise signal caller for the next decade, and give you the opportunity to offload Cassel for more than what you paid for him?

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I will give you props if Crabtree is the pick because I don't think there is any way the Chiefs go with Crabtree. Seriously, I don't see it as even a possibility.

I think Curry is the best pick because he is the best player, but I think Pioli will go with the defensive or offensive line.

And, since I don't think that any player on the defensive line is worth the #3 overall pick, I guess I think the Chiefs will take an OT... IF they can't trade down.

In my mind, I am thinking if it is not Crabtree then it is going to be an OT.


Which pretty much seals the deal that the pick will be a defensive player.

[Chiefnj2]

Offload Cassel - ha, ha, ha.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Of the last 10 teams to win a Super Bowl, how many had more than 1 first rounder on the line?

You are the master of taking interesting data and making really big leaps with it to where it's just completely unsupportable.

How many teams over the last 10 years had more than 1 first rounder on the line? I really doubt it's a very high percentage of the league. Certainly Centers and Guards are infrequent 1st rounders at best. You'll see 1 or 2 guys a year at most. The positional value isn't there.

But honestly, if they think one of these OTs is the second coming of Munoz or whatever, then of course they'll take him.

[Amnorix]

I think the order of thinking goes like this:

1. TRADE BACK IF POSSIBLE.

2. Did I mention trade the hell back?

3. Take defense, preferably a pass-rusher.

The Chiefs have a huge hole in their draft. After the #3 pick they don't go again until what? 62. They're definitely going to want to slide back and fill that gap if they can, or otherwise get value. The Chiefs are talent deficient, and need to grab some extra picks to help start to catch up on the talen gap.

[TommyHawk69]

I am all for the trade back scenario.

What about bills after trading away Peters?

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by TommyHawk69

I am all for the trade back scenario.

What about bills after trading away Peters?

The Bills will most likely need a LOT. At #11 they have a good shot at Oher, and an outside shot at A. Smith. Would they think that Monroe/J. Smith (whoever the Rams don't take) is worth the loss of their later 1st round pick? I doubt it.

[CoMoChief]

- Trade down with DEN in 1st rd
- Trade Tony Gonzalez (as much as it hurts to say that) to ATL for 2nd rd pick.
- Trade Larry Johnson for 3rd rd pick
- Trade next season's 1st to ARZ for Boldin

1 - OT Oher (Ole Miss)
1 - DE Jackson (LSU)
2 - RB Bown (UConn)
3 - NT Brace (Boston Coll)
3 - OL Caldwell (Bama)
4 - TE Coffman (MU)
5 - WR Wallace (Ole Miss)
6 - OT Watkins (Florida)
7 - K Louie Sakoda (Utah)

[Mr. Kotter]

My pick: I don't know....

Because, IMHO Pioli is pulling out all the stops to trade away that Number 3 pick.

If we get stuck at three, I suspect it's gonna be Curry, if he's available....or a "reach" for an impact NT, or pass-rushing DE or OLB.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

This is just reeruned.

First of all, it's a bad argument to even suggest that the #2 LT in this class would be an upgrade over Albert at that position.

Secondly, let's assume that you call that a wash, assume that he can be as good, or better, and you move Albert inside. You've then spent a #3 pick on incrementally (if it works out perfectly) improving your blindside, and improving your interior line or bookend by a sizable margin. Meanwhile, you could spend a third round pick on a player who could play RT at a pro bowl level, and compensate him at 1/30th the rate of the guy you would take at three.

Again, I ask.

Would you rather dump 60 Million into Eugene Monroe, and move Albert and his decent salary to RT or LG, or 2 million into a RT in the third round, and draft someone at three who could possibly anchor the defense, or be a franchise signal caller for the next decade, and give you the opportunity to offload Cassel for more than what you paid for him?

Okay, I don't see a franchise signal caller available at #3 because the only one in the draft, IMO is Stafford and he will be gone.

The only defensive player that I am completely sold on is Curry.

Raji is more like Glen Dorsey than anyone in here seems to understand. I know he is a 'bigger' guy, but he is still more of a penetrator than a guy that will just eat up blockers.

I like Jackson, but he is a reach at #3.

I don't think that taking an ILB is any smarter than a guard/RT at #3 (which I agree is effectively what the Chiefs would be doing).

My problem is that I don't like Sanchez or Raji.

[Rain Man]

It'll be Monroe unless they do some gymnastics to draft and trade Sanchez.