Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3? - Page 2

**jAZ** · 02-12-2009, 11:37 PM

We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 10:58 AM

Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.

PhilFree

Brock · 02-13-2009, 11:05 AM

Drafting another first round tackle would be epic fail.

**DeezNutz** · 02-13-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

You "want to" what to all-world tackles?

?

oldandslow · 02-13-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

Drafting another first round tackle would be epic fail.

Not if Stafford and Sanchez go 1, 2 and we cannot trade down.

I would rather have the top OT (smith, I guess) than crabtree.

However, if either Stafford or Sanchez are on the board at 3, then you are correct.

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Sure it can. These days a RT is about as important as a LT, especially with all the team running a 3-4 and moving the best pass rushed around to find the weak sport(Like Atlanta did against us). I don't know if I would do it, but I think it makes more sense then Crabtree.

No, it can't. You're wrong.

Brock · 02-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Not if Stafford and Sanchez go 1, 2 and we cannot trade down.

I would rather have the top OT (smith, I guess) than crabtree.

However, if either Stafford or Sanchez are on the board at 3, then you are correct.

Nope. If that happens, then the best choice is probably Malcolm Jenkins.

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.

PhilFree

That's beyond reeruned. You want to run the Chiefs as a farm team like the Royals?

philfree · 02-13-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

That's beyond reeruned. You want to run the Chiefs as a farm team like the Royals?

No. And for you to get that out of my post is beyond reeruned. What I'm saying is if we can't resign Albert at a reasonable price then there are ways to handle it and in the end if we have to we can get something in retrurn if Albert signs else where. None the less the Chiefs will have a great O Line. Now I'm not really sure that taking Curry or Crabtree is bad either but it seems the draftniks around here think those are bad moves so I presented an alternative. In the end why take player who isn't worth the 3rd when you could get one that is. I mean why have just another "wasted pick".

PhilFree

keg in kc · 02-13-2009, 03:04 PM

Betcha they'd have taken Albert at 5 if Dorsey hadn't been there.

LT is done. You don't draft a right tackle at 5.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

No. And for you to get that out of my post is beyond reeruned. What I'm saying is if we can't resign Albert at a reasonable price then there are ways to handle it and in the end if we have to we can get something in retrurn if Albert signs else where. None the less the Chiefs will have a great O Line. Now I'm not really sure that taking Curry or Crabtree is bad either but it seems the draftniks around here think those are bad moves so I presented an alternative. In the end why take player who isn't worth the 3rd when you could get one that is. I mean why have just another "wasted pick".

PhilFree

Please explain why you think Curry is worth a Top 3 pick.

Have you formed your own opinion by watching him, or are you just taking what a couple of mocks say (in early February, no less) and taking it as gospel?

When you're done with that, let us know who was the last LB that wasn't a pass rush specialist taken in the Top 3.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Please explain why you think Curry is worth a Top 3 pick.

Have you formed your own opinion by watching him, or are you just taking what a couple of mocks say (in early February, no less) and taking it as gospel?

When you're done with that, let us know who was the last LB that wasn't a pass rush specialist taken in the Top 3.

Who the last LB taken at #3 doesn't matter. That's silly. As far as Curry i've only watched video of the guy. Of course the videos I get to see are to make players look good. He did look good. So there's that and then there are the draft gurus who seem to like him an awful lot. I've been studying this draft since about week 5 of the 2008 season so I guess I've done more than look at a few mock drafts.

Are you scout? Do you get to watch the same video as the NFL scouts do? That'd be cool. If you can get those type of videos you should share them with us.

PhilFree

Brock · 02-13-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Who the last LB taken at #3 doesn't matter.

Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

Exactly.

Nor should he.

blaise · 02-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?

philfree · 02-13-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

Yes, I'm sorry, but it does matter. Unless this guy is Derrick Thomas or Lawrence Taylor, he isn't going that high, period.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the players in the 2009 draft. Could be used as an indicator for what i'll call a soft rule but it ain't fool proof. If the guy is The Best Player On The Board why would you pick a lesser player and let another team have the better player? Because you just don't take LBs that high? There are times when it's O.K. to deviate from these unwritten rules.

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.

PhilFree

02-12-2009, 11:37 PM
jAZ Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Tucson, AZ Casino cash: $9817493	Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3? We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them. If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one. Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.
Posts: 24,800

02-13-2009, 10:58 AM	#16
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $-2243802	Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem. PhilFree __________________ [/SIGPIC]
Posts: 16,163

02-13-2009, 11:05 AM	#17
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Drafting another first round tackle would be epic fail.
Posts: 47,314

02-13-2009, 03:04 PM	#24
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Betcha they'd have taken Albert at 5 if Dorsey hadn't been there. LT is done. You don't draft a right tackle at 5.
Posts: 58,682

02-13-2009, 03:34 PM	#29
blaise In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Plano, TX Casino cash: $9989900	Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?
Posts: 22,189