Rishaw Johnson penciled in as RG starter

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

No elite QB
Average line (at best)
One WR (or none if you believe the dirtbag Alex Smith homers who hate Bowe)
No TE

Not a recipe for success.

In fact that is a recipe for "how ****ed are we?"

Someone PLEASE respond to this post with some bullshit about how Alex Smith is elite or AJ Jenkins is going to break out or some piece of shit tight end is going to crap gold this year.

If we are talking longer-term, if this leads to a strategy where we stop wasting high picks and big money on offensive linemen and decide to trust guys like Rishaw Johnson to play non-critical roles, then awesome. But it doesn't help when flip floppers on CP bitch about the Chiefs paying too much attention to the position, then bitch when the team decides to test a young guy out.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If we are talking longer-term, if this leads to a strategy where we stop wasting high picks and big money on offensive linemen and decide to trust guys like Rishaw Johnson to play non-critical roles, then awesome. But it doesn't help when flip floppers on CP bitch about the Chiefs paying too much attention to the position, then bitch when the team decides to test a young guy out.

We are basically going with a bunch of unproven ballsacks on the OL this year. That's worthy of bitching, sorry.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

We are basically going with a bunch of unproven ballsacks on the OL this year. That's worthy of bitching, sorry.

So then we should spend millions or high draft picks on proven starters?

Anyone else is going to be unproven. Sorry, these are low priority positions. I don't care if we play unproven guys if it means saving money for plyamakers.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

So then we should spend millions or high draft picks on proven starters?

There is a happy medium between Rishaw ****ing Johnson and Eric Fisher.

I'd be fine with spending a 3rd on a guard. Or even a 2nd on an OT. I loved the Geoff Schwartz signing. I would have given money to our stud LT who left.

But without fail, the Chiefs find ways to piss me off.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

We are basically going with a bunch of unproven ballsacks on the OL this year. That's worthy of bitching, sorry.

So, you don't want to draft them high, and "waste the picks". You also don't have confidence in anyone that is drafted low and developed. Proven talent on the line is looking to GET PAID, and at least on paper, the Chiefs don't have a ton of room in the cap with impact players coming up for extension very soon. How else do you fill holes in the line?

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by temper11

So, you don't want to draft them high, and "waste the picks". You also don't have confidence in anyone that is drafted low and developed. Proven talent on the line is looking to GET PAID, and at least on paper, the Chiefs don't have a ton of room in the cap with impact players coming up for extension very soon. How else do you fill holes in the line?

2nd, 3rd, 4th round

cheap veteran FA

your arguments suck

[temper11]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

2nd, 3rd, 4th round

cheap veteran FA

your arguments suck

I didn't offer an argument... I was trying to cliff-notes your argument so I could better understand it. You don't consider a 2nd (which the Chiefs don't have this year) a high pick? 3rd or 4th... Do we know that adding Rishaw means that we won't take an OL in the 3rd or 4th rounds? We signed Williams and Dressler too... does that indicate that we aren't going to pick up a WR in the draft?

The only thing that we know for sure is that they didn't think Albert, Schwartz and Asamoah were worth what they received on the FA market - either because they think they know what they have in the ranks behind those guys, or they believe they can get what they need in the draft.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by temper11

Do we know that adding Rishaw means that we won't take an OL in the 3rd or 4th rounds? .

Jesus I hope not.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by temper11

So, you don't want to draft them high, and "waste the picks". You also don't have confidence in anyone that is drafted low and developed. Proven talent on the line is looking to GET PAID, and at least on paper, the Chiefs don't have a ton of room in the cap with impact players coming up for extension very soon. How else do you fill holes in the line?

I would have given Schwartz the contract he got from the Giants. That shit is nothing.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by SNR

I would have given Schwartz the contract he got from the Giants. That shit is nothing.

Fair enough... I didn't pay that much attention to Schwartz and didn't notice him much (which is probably pretty good indication that you are right). Nor am I all that versed in contract stuff and what is appropriate for what players.

What I do know, is that it is impossible that everyone will agree, regardless of the board, team or player. If we'd have signed these guys that left, and then had less money to make other moves, the boards would be filled with a million people stating that we paid to much and could have found suitable talent to fill in for the exiting starters elsewhere.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If we are talking longer-term, if this leads to a strategy where we stop wasting high picks and big money on offensive linemen and decide to trust guys like Rishaw Johnson to play non-critical roles, then awesome. But it doesn't help when flip floppers on CP bitch about the Chiefs paying too much attention to the position, then bitch when the team decides to test a young guy out.

There isn't a single person that has dismissed the importance of the O-Line, except for your dumb ass.

Every one of the posters that you are suggesting does only dismisses the idea that you must spend high draft picks on them every ****ing year.

You are doing what you always do to prop up your side of a debate, which is over stating the arguments of the opposite side.

It's stupid and dishonest.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by milkman

There isn't a single person that has dismissed the importance of the O-Line, except for your dumb ass.

Every one of the posters that you are suggesting does only dismisses the idea that you must spend high draft picks on them every ****ing year.

You are doing what you always do to prop up your side of a debate, which is over stating the arguments of the opposite side.

It's stupid and dishonest.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

There isn't a single person that has dismissed the importance of the O-Line, except for your dumb ass.

Every one of the posters that you are suggesting does only dismisses the idea that you must spend high draft picks on them every ****ing year.

You are doing what you always do to prop up your side of a debate, which is over stating the arguments of the opposite side.

It's stupid and dishonest.

And you are doing what you always do, which is to undersell how exaggerated your side of the debate has been.

Give me a ****ing break. If one side believes you shouldn't burn high draft picks on linemen (and I'm one of them), then that means you don't think the position is important. If one side believes linemen aren't playmakers or difference makers (and I'm one of them), then that means you don't think the position is important.

If you truly believe in what you're saying, then you should have no hesitation to give a guy like Rishaw Jackson, Eric Kush, or Rokevius Watkins a shot at starting at Guard. Instead, we're going to hear people bitch about not paying $5M for a Guard or spending $9M for a Left Tackle.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And you are doing what you always do, which is to undersell how exaggerated your side of the debate has been.

Give me a ****ing break. If one side believes you shouldn't burn high draft picks on linemen (and I'm one of them), then that means you don't think the position is important. If one side believes linemen aren't playmakers or difference makers (and I'm one of them), then that means you don't think the position is important.

If you truly believe in what you're saying, then you should have no hesitation to give a guy like Rishaw Jackson, Eric Kush, or Rokevius Watkins a shot at starting at Guard. Instead, we're going to hear people bitch about not paying $5M for a Guard or spending $9M for a Left Tackle.

One side gets ****ing tired of true fan and media dildo telling us that we need to draft a lineman in the first round every year.

I personally think interior lineman are undervalued, but I also believe that you can find those guys in the mid rounds far more consistently than playmakers on the outside of an offense or the back end of a defense.

And I personally have not complained about giving Rishaw Johnson an opportunity.

Would I have liked to re-sign Shwartz?
Sure.

But I am not overly concerned with it.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

One side gets ****ing tired of true fan and media dildo telling us that we need to draft a lineman in the first round every year.

I personally think interior lineman are undervalued, but I also believe that you can find those guys in the mid rounds far more consistently than playmakers on the outside of an offense or the back end of a defense.

And I personally have not complained about giving Rishaw Johnson an opportunity.

Would I have liked to re-sign Shwartz?
Sure.

But I am not overly concerned with it.

You are not in the majority then. I agree with everything you said here.