OK lets see it

[philfree]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

No, Phil - it doesn't apply to me.

I'm not the one spouting off all over this board that the Chiefs HAVE to take a particular player.

I'm also not the one that is incapable of watching games and forming my own opinion.

Everyone wants to turn this into Curry v. Sanchez, when in all reality, the Curry backers are the only folks who see it this way.

To them, it's Curry or nothing.

To the Sanchez backers, they'll be thrilled if we take him, but will also accept other players. Curry just doesn't happen to be one of those players, and it chaps the ass of you guys that think Curry walks on ****ing water.

Obviuosly you haven't comprehended everything I've posted on the subject. I have no problem taking Curry or Sanchez or any other player who is worth our pick but the arguments against Curry are not very sound IMO so I've refuted them. Got it?

PhilFree

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by philfree

Obviuosly you haven't comprehended everything I've posted on the subject. I have no problem taking Curry or Sanchez or any other player who is worth our pick but the arguments against Curry are not very sound IMO so I've refuted them. Got it?

PhilFree

The arguments against Curry aren't sound?

You mean THESE arguments?

There has been ONE MLB/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

He won't have the impact of a player like Patrick Willis, who was taken 11th overall in a bad class, Brian Urlacher who was taken 9th in a bad class, or Ray Lewis who was taken 26th, the 4th LB taken in his class?

MLB is one ofthe least important positions on the front 7?

Should I go on?

[RustShack]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The arguments against Curry aren't sound?

You mean THESE arguments?

There has been ONE MBL/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

He won't have the impact of a player like Patrick Willis, who was taken 11th overall in a bad class, Brian Urlacher who was taken 9th in a bad class, or Ray Lewis who was taken 26th, the 4th LB taken in his class?

MLB is one ofthe least important positions on the front 7?

Should I go on?

I can't believe how draft stupid some people are... Its OK when they know they don't know, but its sad when they think they know.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by RustShack

I can't believe how draft stupid some people are... Its OK when they know they don't know, but its sad when they think they know.

There's the genious again. Don't fall off your pedestal you might burst your bubble.


PhilFree

[philfree]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The arguments against Curry aren't sound?

You mean THESE arguments?

There has been ONE MLB/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

He won't have the impact of a player like Patrick Willis, who was taken 11th overall in a bad class, Brian Urlacher who was taken 9th in a bad class, or Ray Lewis who was taken 26th, the 4th LB taken in his class?

MLB is one ofthe least important positions on the front 7?

Should I go on?

Those things have nothing to do with the players available in the 2009 draft. We can only pick from the players available and the ones who play the positions of greater value aren't that good. Except Stafford, Sanchez and a couple OTs. And you don't know what impact Curry will have period so that line of argumentation is just a bunch of BS. And there's no value at #3 for Curry? LOL There's a whole lot of people who make their living working the draft who think other wise.

PhilFree

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by philfree

Those things have nothing to do with the players available in the 2009 draft. We can only pick from the players available and the ones who play the positions of greater value aren't that good. Except Stafford, Sanchez and a couple OTs. And you don't know what impact Curry will have period so that line of argumentation is just a bunch of BS. And there's no value at #3 for Curry? LOL There's a whole lot of people who make their living working the draft who think other wise.

PhilFree

Wow, way to "refute" those arguments.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Wow, way to "refute" those arguments.

Well you haven't made a valid point about the players in this draft so I guess we're even. LOL How silly.


PhilFree

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by philfree

Well you haven't made a valid point about the players in this draft so I guess we're even. LOL How silly.


PhilFree

And that has WHAT to do with refuting these arguments, as you claimed you've already done?

Let's go through one by one:


There has been ONE MLB/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

So, NFL decision makers think so highly of taking a MLB in the Top 3, that it's happened ONCE in the past twenty years? The best MLB of that timeframe was taken TWENTY SIXTH. Others of comparable talent went no higher than NINTH.

Please, explain.

There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

See above. Also, there are quite a few LB's that WERE taken Top 3, primarily because they COULD rush the passer, and EXCELLED at it in college.

MLB is one of the least important positions on the front 7?

Please, refute this. I'd like to know why you consider the MLB position so valuable, more valuable than DE, pass rushing OLB or DT.

I'll wait. Shouldn't take long, as you claim you have already refuted these points. Please forgive me for missing said post.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And that has WHAT to do with refuting these arguments, as you claimed you've already done?

Let's go through one by one:


There has been ONE MLB/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

So, NFL decision makers think so highly of taking a MLB in the Top 3, that it's happened ONCE in the past twenty years? The best MLB of that timeframe was taken TWENTY SIXTH. Others of comparable talent went no higher than NINTH.

Please, explain.


There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

See above. Also, there are quite a few LB's that WERE taken Top 3, primarily because they COULD rush the passer, and EXCELLED at it in college.

MLB is one of the least important positions on the front 7?

Please, refute this. I'd like to know why you consider the MLB position so valuable, more valuable than DE, pass rushing OLB or DT.

I'll wait. Shouldn't take long, as you claim you have already refuted these points. Please forgive me for missing said post.

You really don't get reality do you? The players in this draft and how the teams view them is all that matters. What happened in the past or a bunch of unwritten draft rules don't mean squat. Also at some point BPA will have greater value then a player with PV. If that wasn't the case every team would pick a QB in the 1st round of the draft.

PhilFree

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And that has WHAT to do with refuting these arguments, as you claimed you've already done?

Let's go through one by one:


There has been ONE MLB/ILB taken in the Top 3 in the past TWENTY years, and he was a monumental bust?

So, NFL decision makers think so highly of taking a MLB in the Top 3, that it's happened ONCE in the past twenty years? The best MLB of that timeframe was taken TWENTY SIXTH. Others of comparable talent went no higher than NINTH.

Please, explain.

Perhaps the NFL decision makers feel that Curry is better than the others and justifies a top three pick? That he transcends what is generally considered a position of less importance, at least when drafting unproven college players.

There is no value at the #3 slot for a LB that would have to learn how to rush the passer?

See above. Also, there are quite a few LB's that WERE taken Top 3, primarily because they COULD rush the passer, and EXCELLED at it in college.

In the past ten years, here are your top 3 rushers:

1998: Andre Wadsworth
1999: N/A
2000: Courtney Brown, Lavarr Arrington
2001: N/A
2002: Julius Peppers
2003: N/A
2004: N/A
2005: N/A
2006: Mario Williams
2007: N/A
2008: Chris Long

Whoops. Wait a minute. You said linebackers. Okay. So scratch Wadsworth, Brown, Peppers, Williams and Long from that list.

So in the past ten years, the NFL decision makers thought that only Lavarr Arrington was worth a top three NFL draft pick. I wonder if they feel that the rush backer position is a position of little importance considering that there has only been one outside linebacker taken in the top three in the past ten years?

I'm not sure how only Arrington translates into "quite a few" though...hmmmm.

MLB is one of the least important positions on the front 7?

Please, refute this. I'd like to know why you consider the MLB position so valuable, more valuable than DE, pass rushing OLB or DT.

Because the MLB must have the knowledge to quickly recognize the offensive sets and call adjustments to them quickly. They also have to possess excellent instincts as they are responsible for finding the ball on every play and stopping the play as quickly as possible. They have to be athletic enough to support both the run and the pass, and cover tight ends, receivers and backs. Their area of responsibility on the field is much greater than other positions.

A rush end has one simple task. Get the quarterback. If they do it but once a game, they are considered a great success. A defensive tackle, depending upon the scheme is basically required to tie up blockers to allow the more athletic players to make plays. It's not asking much for a big fat dude to stand in the middle of the field and waddle towards another big fat dude. However, a ILB is requried to do so much more. And that's why I consider it a position of high importance on the defensive side of the ball.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by philfree

Those things have nothing to do with the players available in the 2009 draft.

What?

Originally Posted by philfree

There's a whole lot of people who make their living working the draft who think other wise.

You do realize that many of the draftniks with Curry in their Top 5 start their analysis with "This really isn't good value for an ILB, but..."?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

What?



You do realize that many of the draftniks with Curry in their Top 5 start their analysis with "This really isn't good value for an ILB, but..."?

But? The players who have positional value aren't good enough to surpass him on their draft boards?

PhilFree

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by philfree

Obviuosly you haven't comprehended everything I've posted on the subject. I have no problem taking Curry or Sanchez or any other player who is worth our pick but the arguments against Curry are not very sound IMO so I've refuted them. Got it?

PhilFree

It's the same thing with people around here saying that the Chiefs would be stupid to draft Brian Orakpo because he's from Texas.

A generalization that has nothing to do with the player himself. There have been plenty of players from Texas who have gone on to quality careers, and there have been plenty who have been what people considered "busts." A perfect example is the 2001 draft, when Leonard Davis was selected #2 and Casey Hampton was selected #19......although, Davis did go to the Pro Bowl in 2007 and Dallas thought well enough of him to pay him 7 million a year on a seven year contract...perhaps that's a bad example. A better one might be the 2002 draft with Mike Williams and Quentin Jammer. Jammer has had a pretty decent career, but Williams is now out of the league.

Anyway, people around here are so quick to discount the opinions of those interested in the Chiefs possibly drafting Curry, but are refuted by others saying that you don't draft a ILB that high even if he's the best player in the draft. They'd rather it be a DE or OLB, but just as long as it's not Brian Orakpo - the guy who was the Big 12 Defensive freshman of the year, on AP's first team Freshman All-American team, and by the time he was a senior ended up being an unanimous First Team All-American while winning the Bill Willis award, the Lombardi Award, the Ted Hendricks Award and the Bronco Nagurski Trophy. Guy must suck something fierce...wait...I don't think that they had those things out to people who suck. Maybe these CP insiders have super secret knowledge and while bagging on people who want Curry, because these CP Insiders know that Curry will have no impact on a game because the ILB is worthless and that the defense should be really only played with 10 guys because the ILB is such a meaningless position, they also bag on a guy like Orakpo, who, while playing a meaningful position such as ROLB/RDE and winning such accolades as the Lombardi, Nagurski and Hendricks Trophies for being the best RDE/ROLB in college, sucks bags of doggie poo because he played at Texas. So the best ROLB/RDE sucks balls, the ILB position in general sucks dog balls and so does Curry.

At least to me, from analyzing the CP Insiders opinions, we will be drafting Mark Sanchez, because we need our QBOTF because Matt Cassel, while going to the same school as Sanchez and learning under Brady and going 11-5 his first season on the field, is not an acceptable alternative to the quarterback position. Only Sanchez can fill that void. Cassel will be his understudy, and the Chiefs will finally go to the Superbowl because we have drafted Sanchez and Cassel will be his backup. The Chiefs using their first two draft picks now have that depth at quarterback that finally gets them over the hump and into the annals of NFL football history! I smell dynasty with that awesome 1-2 punch at quarterback!!!!

That or Michael Crabtree.

I'm glad I've finally found the light. Thanks CP Insiders!

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

It's the same thing with people around here saying that the Chiefs would be stupid to draft Brian Orakpo because he's from Texas.

What about the people that could care less where he played, and think he's not worth the pick because he disappeared in big games?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

It's the same thing with people around here saying that the Chiefs would be stupid to draft Brian Orakpo because he's from Texas.

When you start to reach the 80th-percentile range, one would be wise to take a closer look.

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

A generalization that has nothing to do with the player himself.

Generalizations like this one don't generally appear out of thin air.

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Jammer has had a pretty decent career, but Williams is now out of the league.

Jammer is one of the biggest disappointments on that team. The fans by and large are disappointed with him, and the team thinks so much of him that they've spent THREE FIRST ROUND PICKS (and one 2nd) since they drafted him.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think the Chiefs NEED to do anything. They could pick just about anybody and I can't do a damn thing about it.