Interview with HE on 38 Sports Spot last night.

[phxchief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

How about some balance for a change?

How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

[shaneo69]

Originally Posted by phxchief

How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

I agree. We have solid starters for 2006 at every position on offense, provided T-Rich is re-signed.

Our first round pick needs to be an immediate starter on defense.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by phxchief

How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

And I'm not saying ignore the defense completely. Where we differ is that I think the priority should be on the best available player instead of bypassing an offensive player in favor of an inferior defensive player.

The top performing player taken at the top of the draft by the Chiefs in recent memory is Larry Johnson, an offensive player that they took when defense was clearly the most pressing need. While it's true that that hasn't been enough to win a superbowl, where would the Chiefs be now if they didn't have LJ? By contrast, they took Junior Siavii to address their glaring DT need in '04 and we all know how that's turned out so far. If a Derrick Johnson falls to them this year then hell yes, pick a defensive player. But if they have the choice against a stud offensive lineman or a defensive lineman who is a reach, I say take the stud. All else being equal, take the player at the position of most need where we have the least potential already on the roster.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by patteeu

And I'm not saying ignore the defense completely. Where we differ is that I think the priority should be on the best available player instead of bypassing an offensive player in favor of an inferior defensive player.

The top performing player taken at the top of the draft by the Chiefs in recent memory is Larry Johnson, an offensive player that they took when defense was clearly the most pressing need. While it's true that that hasn't been enough to win a superbowl, where would the Chiefs be now if they didn't have LJ? By contrast, they took Junior Siavii to address their glaring DT need in '04 and we all know how that's turned out so far. If a Derrick Johnson falls to them this year then hell yes, pick a defensive player. But if they have the choice against a stud offensive lineman or a defensive lineman who is a reach, I say take the stud. All else being equal, take the player at the position of most need where we have the least potential already on the roster.

It should ALWAYS be best available player...reaching, as KC consistently does, is a huge mistake. Drafting for need is also a mistake, because I think teams that are desperate for a position will 'build up' a player, in their minds, that really isnt all that good.