Teicher:Chiefs should have a short list of top draft pick candidates

[Mecca]

Who knew Mike Mayock was a true fan...


http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chi...y/1028585.html


Chiefs should have a short list of top draft pick candidates
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star


Hundreds of players are available in this year’s NFL draft, but the Chiefs will have to investigate only a fraction of them when it comes to their first pick.

NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock said only about 10 players are worthy of the Chiefs’ consideration with their top pick, which is third overall.

“There’s probably a total of 10 guys they’ll have to look at and evaluate and then say, ‘OK, here’s our list one, two and three,’ ” Mayock said. “They know they’re getting one of those guys.”

Mayock’s list is heavy on offensive players, which is unfortunate for a team that needs plenty of help on its defensive front seven. It includes quarterbacks Matt Stafford of Georgia and Mark Sanchez of Southern California, wide receivers Michael Crabtree of Texas Tech and Jeremy Maclin of Missouri, running backs Knowshon Moreno of Georgia and Chris Wells of Ohio State and offensive tackles Eugene Monroe of Virginia and Jason Smith of Baylor.

The only defensive players are Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and Texas defensive end Brian Orakpo.

While the Chiefs are closer to being competitive on offense than defense, they have few positions where they couldn’t use some help. Perhaps the only one is cornerback, where rookies Brandon Carr and Brandon Flowers moved into the lineup last season and looked like part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Picking third, their highest position since taking Neil Smith with the second pick in 1988, would allow the Chiefs a chance at a long-elusive franchise quarterback. Stafford will likely be selected by Detroit with the first pick, but Sanchez could well be available to the Chiefs.

“The potential franchise quarterback is the most important position on your team,” Mayock said. “If I’m building a franchise, the first thing I’m going to do is (investigate) the quarterback position. This year, the guys you better evaluate are Stafford and Sanchez. I’m not trying to tell you they should take them at (No.) 3. I’m saying they had better understand what they are.

“I wish Sanchez went back (to USC) for another year. He needed another year. He’s a kid that only started 16 games, but he’s got the ability and the toughness and the arm strength and can learn the pro game and be a starter.”

Moreno and Wells are the best of the running backs, and the Chiefs could be in the market for a featured back if they dispose of Larry Johnson, who is unhappy in Kansas City and wants out.

The Chiefs drafted Branden Albert in the first round last year, and he looks like their left tackle for several seasons. That’s why the Chiefs probably wouldn’t seriously consider Monroe or Smith, but it’s not impossible because they could use an upgrade on the right side of their line.

With so many other needs, wide receiver probably won’t be a priority. But faced with the opportunity of grabbing a playmaker like Crabtree or Maclin, could the Chiefs turn it down?

Of all the players on Mayock’s list, Curry might make the most sense for the Chiefs. They didn’t get any reliable play from their linebackers last season and lacked a playmaker after trading Jared Allen.

“I’m a big believer that Aaron Curry might be the safest pick in the entire draft,” Mayock said. “I hate to say that, but when you’re sitting at (No.) 3, the thing you can’t afford to do is make a mistake. Worst-case scenario: He’s got to be a good football player. Aaron Curry is that kind of guy.

“He played (strong side) linebacker in college. He dominated the tight end. But I could very easily see him converting to a 3-4 outside linebacker because he can rush the passer well, he drops in coverage well. He’s a fifth-year kid. He’s mature. I just think he’s the safest guy out there.”

Boy that's how I'd wanna make my picks based on the fear of a bust so I reach for a devalued position brilliant!

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Brock

He drafted Chad Pennington in the first round too.

Yep. After he had resigned, with the third of four first round picks.

But, when he was building the team, what did he do? He brought in Vinny Testeverde.

Everyone wants to make everything 'absolute'. There is no absolute.

I am not saying that Haley won't ever draft a QB in the first round.

But, the position that the Chiefs need a QB, and therefore will draft one #3 overall this year.... is based on flawed logic in my opinion.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by suds79

Yeah sure you need good protection. But franchise QBs are pretty hard to find. We got our franchise LT picking in the mid 1st.

No way one could spin it. It's still early but assuming Ryan continues to do what he did, that was a bad pick.

Yep!

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Absolutely.

No one is claiming that either Stafford or Sanchez has to start game #1.

Croyle will hurt himself in a meeting, so can we please filter his name on this forum? Replace it with a smilie of a crutch or wheelchair?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Book it. Lose the beard, and we have a new addition.

[RustShack]

Why do people think Parcells is running the Chiefs right now?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by RustShack

He got a full seasons worth of snaps. Yeah he would be better with another year, but that doesn't mean he isn't ready now. Hell Cassell didn't even play when he went to school there.

Yet they set him up to be successful when his opportunity knocked.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Yep. After he had resigned, with the third of four first round picks.

But, when he was building the team, what did he do? He brought in Vinny Testeverde.

Everyone wants to make everything 'absolute'. There is no absolute.

I am not saying that Haley won't ever draft a QB in the first round.

But, the position that the Chiefs need a QB, and therefore will draft one #3 overall this year.... is based on flawed logic in my opinion.

Let's take a closer look.

In '97, when Parcells took over the Jets, Jim Druckenmiller was the first QB taken in the draft, and Jake Miller was the second.

#26 and 42 overall respectively.

Danny Wuerful was the third QB picked.

#99 overall.

'98 was the Manning-Leaf draft and the Jets did not have a first round pick.

QBs taken after the Jets first pick, 2nd round #56 overall included Charlie Batch, #60, Jonathon Quinn, #86 and Brian Greise, #91.

Let's go to Dallas.

In '03, he did pass on Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman, all taken in the first round after the Cowboys took Terrence Newman with the #5overall pick.

The Boys did not have a first round pick in '04.

So the only QB you could make an argument that he passed on, really, is Leftwich, who went #7 overall after the "Boys took Newman.

And I don't think you could honestly make a legitimate argument that Leftwich was on the same level as a prospect as Stafford and Sanchez.

So using Parcells draft history really isn't relevent.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by RustShack

Why do people think Parcells is running the Chiefs right now?

Cause Pioli is ****ing his daughter. Maybe right now.

Get her, Pioli!

[ChiefRon]

Wow, what a shocker, another thread filled with arguments about taking a QB.

Sigh. April is a long time away...

Here's the response I'm going to use until the draft.

Do we have a franchise QB?

Is there a potential franchise QB available?

The end.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

But, the position that the Chiefs need a QB, and therefore will draft one #3 overall this year.... is based on flawed logic in my opinion.

And IMO, the logic is flawed if we pass on one of the two if they are available since it is a position of need, and these two are damn good QB's. This years QB draft class would have been weak if these two had stayed in college. But they didn't, and therefore the QB class is not weak at the top. It gets pretty weak fast once these two are gone.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by ChiefRon

Wow, what a shocker, another thread filled with arguments about taking a QB.

Sigh. April is a long time away...

Here's the response I'm going to use until the draft.

Do we have a franchise QB?

Is there a potential franchise QB available?

The end.

That pretty much sums it up.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

Let's take a closer look.

In '97, when Parcells took over the Jets, Jim Druckenmiller was the first QB taken in the draft, and Jake Miller was the second.

#26 and 42 overall respectively.

Danny Wuerful was the third QB picked.

#99 overall.

'98 was the Manning-Leaf draft and the Jets did not have a first round pick.

QBs taken after the Jets first pick, 2nd round #56 overall included Charlie Batch, #60, Jonathon Quinn, #86 and Brian Greise, #91.

Let's go to Dallas.

In '03, he did pass on Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman, all taken in the first round after the Cowboys took Terrence Newman with the #5overall pick.

The Boys did not have a first round pick in '04.

So the only QB you could make an argument that he passed on, really, is Leftwich, who went #7 overall after the "Boys took Newman.

And I don't think you could honestly make a legitimate argument that Leftwich was on the same level as a prospect as Stafford and Sanchez.

So using Parcells draft history really isn't relevent.

Great work.

So when he was in position to draft a franchise QB (and needed one), he's taken one 50 percent of the time. Yes to Bledsoe. A no ****ing doubt about it lock. And no to Ryan, whom a lot of people had questions about coming out.

I bet he regrets the no.

[ChiefRon]

Originally Posted by milkman

Let's take a closer look.

In '97, when Parcells took over the Jets, Jim Druckenmiller was the first QB taken in the draft, and Jake Miller was the second.

#26 and 42 overall respectively.

Danny Wuerful was the third QB picked.

#99 overall.

'98 was the Manning-Leaf draft and the Jets did not have a first round pick.

QBs taken after the Jets first pick, 2nd round #56 overall included Charlie Batch, #60, Jonathon Quinn, #86 and Brian Greise, #91.

Let's go to Dallas.

In '03, he did pass on Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman, all taken in the first round after the Cowboys took Terrence Newman with the #5overall pick.

The Boys did not have a first round pick in '04.

So the only QB you could make an argument that he passed on, really, is Leftwich, who went #7 overall after the "Boys took Newman.

And I don't think you could honestly make a legitimate argument that Leftwich was on the same level as a prospect as Stafford and Sanchez.

So using Parcells draft history really isn't relevent.

Um, did we hire Bill Parcells? I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I must have missed it. I know he can opt out of Miami, so maybe he did and he's now running the show here? I need to turn on ESPN i guess...

[Basileus777]

Originally Posted by Mecca

This sounds an awful lot like the Carl Peterson way of doing business, do you realize that?

You're talking to the guy who started the first I miss Carl thread.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm curious as to who likes Curry because he's high on mocks, and who's actually seen him play.

Wake Forest isn't exactly a team that gets a lot of TV time.

Maybe it's just because I live on the East Coast, but I get plenty of Wake games.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by ChiefRon

Um, did we hire Bill Parcells? I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I must have missed it. I know he can opt out of Miami, so maybe he did and he's now running the show here? I need to turn on ESPN i guess...

The argument is that Pioli comes from the Parcell's tree, so Parcell's draft history shows us how Pioli might think when the draft rolls around.

But as that history shows, he hasn't had many opportunities to draft a franchise QB, so it has no bearing on this draft and how Pioli might approach it.

Add in the fact that Pioli is in this for the long haul, while Parcells is really short term in Miami, it makes Parcells even more irrelevent to the discussion.