Tournament: Worst Draft Choice of Peterson Era

[ck_IN]

Personally I wouldn't call anyone drafted later then the 3rd round a bust and would therefore not be eligible for this question.

That said I'd say Sims has to be the winner. With all due respect to Jenkin's bustage, Sims was a 6th overall. Jenkins was a 31st overall pick.

[Chiefnj]

Originally Posted by ck_IN

Personally I wouldn't call anyone drafted later then the 3rd round a bust and would therefore not be eligible for this question.

That said I'd say Sims has to be the winner. With all due respect to Jenkin's bustage, Sims was a 6th overall. Jenkins was a 31st overall pick.

I don't think Sims should be the winner since he was highly regarded coming out of college. Minnesota thought he was the best DT in the draft as well. That makes Sims the biggest bust of a player, but not necessarily the worst pick by Carl. Carl at least had an arguably legitimate basis for selecting Sims.

omeone like Jenkins or Siavii on the other hand, they were busts plus they were reaches. That's the height of GM ineptitude.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

I don't think Sims should be the winner since he was highly regarded coming out of college. Minnesota thought he was the best DT in the draft as well. That makes Sims the biggest bust of a player, but not necessarily the worst pick by Carl. Carl at least had an arguably legitimate basis for selecting Sims.

omeone like Jenkins or Siavii on the other hand, they were busts plus they were reaches. That's the height of GM ineptitude.

The Siavii fiasco was worse than the Sims pick by far. Olshansky was on the board for us but Carl traded down and we missed him. Instead we got Siavii who was worthless and Wilson who likely could have been had much later. Those are serious draft blunders. Much worse than drafting the top rated player and having that player turn out to be a bust.

[CosmicPal]

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.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by CosmicPal

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?

You're kidding, right?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by CosmicPal

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.

We didn't steal Sims from Minnesota, we barely avoided having him stolen by Minnesota. We traded up late on the clock and it expired before we could get our pick in. Minnesota was on the clock then and was just a little too slow to get their pick in before one of our flunkies raced up to the podium (so to speak) with the Sims pick.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by CosmicPal

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.

Um minnesota almost stole him from us. It was dallas pick we traded up for and they took too long and time ran out. Minnesota was trying to get theirs in before we got ours in.

[JakeT]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

I don't think Sims should be the winner since he was highly regarded coming out of college. Minnesota thought he was the best DT in the draft as well. That makes Sims the biggest bust of a player, but not necessarily the worst pick by Carl. Carl at least had an arguably legitimate basis for selecting Sims.

omeone like Jenkins or Siavii on the other hand, they were busts plus they were reaches. That's the height of GM ineptitude.

I completely agree with this... The only thing I'll add is my vote goes to Siavii based on the fact the he was a reach with well know off field issues. Maybe Jenkins had off field issue too but for some reason I recall he at least wanted to play football.