If Curry is gone at the 3 spot...who do we take or what do we do?

[journeyscarab]

Say the Lions draft Curry, Rams draft Smith....do we take Monroe/Orakpo/or drop a few spots to get someone else?

[sedated]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

People have argued for Raji, and with sound logic, but it does EXACTLY what you're railing on: makes Dorsey a wasted #5 overall.

the current front office did not draft Dorsey.

it makes more sense for them to say "he's not our guy, sorry, we are going in a different direction", than to say "the former regime drafted this guy pretty high, he's been a disappointment so far, but let's mold our future around him, no matter what it takes, even though it differs from our natural philosophy."

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by sedated

the current front office did not draft Dorsey.

it makes more sense for them to say "he's not our guy, sorry, we are going in a different direction", than to say "the former regime drafted this guy pretty high, he's been a disappointment so far, but let's mold our future around him, no matter what it takes, even though it differs from our natural philosophy."

A disappointment? Really? Have you looked at his numbers?

I think expectations are too high around here.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

You ignored the key component: whether we're stuck at #3 or can trade down.

that wasn't the key component in my mind. You argue that Albert's value won't diminish by moving him to RT, but then later in the same post you admit that a quality RT can be had later in the draft.

But I'm glad you took the easy way out and went with the "you're stupid" smack.

[The Buddha]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

A disappointment? Really? Have you looked at his numbers?

I think expectations are too high around here.

DTs can't be measured in stats very well. I thought he was good. Anything near 40 tackles for an interior lineman is fine by me.

Besides, with the people on his line, I'd say he held his own, especially for this being his first year.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

3-4 easier to find players. You guys are on crack if you think that. There is reason why were ever Parcells goes he takes the same guys around with him.

I'm not on crack. Do some reading on it and tell me what you find. Almost every source you read will tell you that the reason teams like the 3-4 is because finding 2 stud DEs on both sides of the line has become extremely difficult. Finding even one is difficult. That's considering that these days, the best 4-3 defenses have not 2 but 3 solid pass rushers. It's impossible to find an every-down DE who is explosive enough to rush the passer, but also big enough to shed blockers and win in the trenches. You have light 255 lb edge rushers who get dominated against the run and you have 280 lb every down DEs who are usually half as explosive as a speed rusher. You also need to find stud LBs who are capable of doing everything--they can't just be good in pass coverage, they also have to be big enough to stop the run and shed blockers, and have the instinct to see the entire field. You also need two DTs who are capable of both engaging blockers, but also being explosive enough to rush the passer. Building a 4-3 is really, really difficult.

In a 3-4, it's significantly easier for several reasons. Because players play roles, they don't have to be versatile. You don't have to find a LB who's quick AND big; who can move in coverage AND can shed blockers in the running game. Why do you think Kendrell Bell was such a disaster in KC? In Pittsburgh, his role was purely to be a bowling ball and to shed blockers like a machine. It didn't matter that he was horrendous in pass coverage. It didn't matter that he wasn't intelligent. He was told to attack, attack, attack. That was his role. Vrabel and Bruschi would probably never make it in a 4-3. They have smaller zones to cover and because they have specific roles, they have less responsibilities. On the DE/OLB side, they're a hell of a lot easier to find than DEs because there is a surplus of "tweeners" coming out of college. These are guys who are too small to play every down on the NFL level, but too big to play LB. And there are a ton of them. It's like this: what do you think is easier to find? A person who's really good at math? A person who's really good at art? Or a person who's really good at math AND art? That's an easy question--many artists don't know jackshit about math and many mathematicians couldn't draw their way out of a paper bag.

The DEs are also easier to find because their role is really defined. They don't have to be outstanding pass rushers. They only have to be very good at occupying blockers. That's why standard DTs usually excel in a 3-4 defense. Case-in-point... Turk McBride is a so-so player in a 4-3 because he not only has to occupy blockers, but also have the speed to get to the QB. In a 3-4, he only has to occupy blockers. The only major challenging position to fill in a 3-4 versus a 4-3 is the nose tackle position. But I would argue that finding one nose tackle is a hell of a lot easier than finding 2 DEs, 2 solid DTs, and a versatile MLB.

The goal of a 3-4 is to have 3 linemen down low who are basically occupying blockers. These linemen then open up lanes and gaps for LBs and Safeties to attack the QB or ball carrier from unexpected directions. Arguably, the coaching is more important than the personnel, as it doesn't matter how talented your players as much as it matters how good your coach is at surprising offenses with interesting blitz packages.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by The Buddha

I always though it was because he gets annoyed at having to teach new players his style.

I am confused, though. What's the difference between a 3-4 MLB and a 4-3 ILB? Do you look for different things? Also, what about the difference between a 3-4 OLB and a 3-4 ILB. Do the outside guys really rush more than the inside guys, cause it seems like when I watch NE, you never know which of the LBs are gonna blitz. It looks very even to me.

Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

That's because the discussion has been about what we do if we're stuck at #3. Looking at the talent available and the positional needs, Monroe is the BPA who fits a need.

People have argued for Raji, and with sound logic, but it does EXACTLY what you're railing on: makes Dorsey a wasted #5 overall. Maybe he can play DE in a 3-4, maybe not. Chances are he becomes a backup/has no role at all and becomes trade fodder (good luck getting much value there when you consider where we took him).

You HAVE insinuated Albert's value is diminished.... when you talk about how RT is not as valuable. I disagree with that assessment! Our OL is in SERIOUS need at RT. If we are stuck at #3, cannot trade out, and don't wish to waste Dorsey, it is not inconceivable we draft Monroe and move Albert.

If we can trade down, all bets are off. Forget Monroe... the dude will be gone anyway, and we have many more needs. We can pick up a RT in later rounds.

My post was specific.

You said we'd be bemoaning doing exactly the same thing with Albert if we drafted Monroe as we are doing to Dorsey by switching schemes.

But it isn't doing exactly the same thing.

We are not diminishing Dorsey's value because of who we draft, we are diminishing his value by switching schemes.

We could switch to any scheme on offense, it in no way would diminish Albert's value at LT.

We would, however, be diminishing Albert's value by who we draft, and regardless of need, a RT is not as valuable as LT.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by sedated

that wasn't the key component in my mind. You argue that Albert's value won't diminish by moving him to RT, but then later in the same post you admit that a quality RT can be had later in the draft.

But I'm glad you took the easy way out and went with the "you're stupid" smack.

No, you intentionally omitted key components of my take. You cherry-picked to make an invalid point. That WAS stupid.

If KC is stuck at #3 and they take the best player available, most likely Monroe, that means either he goes to RT (not likely for the #3 overall pick), or Albert gets moved there. The latter is not a stretch, considering he was the #16(?) overall. Not optimal, but a realistic scenario.

Trade down, no need to draft Monroe. No need to move Albert. The top at OT are off the board. You can then target an RT in later rounds.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Size, inside linebackers in the 3-4 are generally bigger guys. Its why the Jets got rid of Vilma.

To some extent. Usually you have one who moves very well in coverage (aka, Zach Thomas in Dallas) and a guy who relentlessly attacks the line of scrimmage (aka Kendrell Bell in Pittsburgh). The coverage guy is a little lighter while the run guy is usually a little heavier. But not nearly as heavy as the OLBs in a 3-4, who usually weigh over 260 lbs.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by milkman

My post was specific.

You said we'd be bemoaning doing exactly the same thing with Albert if we drafted Monroe as we are doing to Dorsey by switching schemes.

But it isn't doing exactly the same thing.

We are not diminishing Dorsey's value because of who we draft, we are diminishing his value by switching schemes.

We could switch to any scheme on offense, it in no way would diminish Albert's value at LT.

We would, however, be diminishing Albert's value by who we draft, and regardless of need, a RT is not as valuable as LT.

Fair enough... I'm arguing positional specifics in relation to need & position in the draft, you're arguing positional specifics in regards to scheme changes. I see your point and agree that it is valid.

Originally Posted by The Buddha

DTs can't be measured in stats very well. I thought he was good. Anything near 40 tackles for an interior lineman is fine by me.

Besides, with the people on his line, I'd say he held his own, especially for this being his first year.

Agreed. He had 46 tackles (32 solo), 1 sack, and 1 FF. Those numbers are very good, especially when you consider the variables: poor defensive scheme, poor coaching, poor surrounding talent, rookie season.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

No, you intentionally omitted key components of my take. You cherry-picked to make an invalid point. That WAS stupid.

If KC is stuck at #3 and they take the best player available, most likely Monroe, that means either he goes to RT (not likely for the #3 overall pick), or Albert gets moved there. The latter is not a stretch, considering he was the #16(?) overall. Not optimal, but a realistic scenario.

Trade down, no need to draft Monroe. No need to move Albert. The top at OT are off the board. You can then target an RT in later rounds.

Whether he "cherry picked", he's right.

[milkman]

The fact that Dorsey's value is going to be diminished is why some are pissed that we likely will be switching schemes.

I can't say I'm pissed, but it is dissappointing that we will have essentially wasted the pick, and he's a guy with huge upside.

[craneref]

I would take Crabtree! Keep TG on the team and Cassel would have plenty of targets! This would also open up the running game. Drafting that high I think you need to take the BEST available athlete and not get caught up in drafting for need. I would be estatic for Curry or Crabtree, of course would not be disappointed if the CHIEFS moved down and picked up some good extra picks!

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by milkman

Whether he "cherry picked", he's right.

I must be typing in a different language.

It's not that complicated.

The key is being stuck at #3 overall. If that were to happen, a realistic scenario is KC drafting an OT. If an OT is drafted that high, it is typically a LT (RT if your QB is a southpaw).

If that were to happen, what happens to Albert? Now, does that "diminish" him as a player when he has proven he can play any position? No.

Now, you following me camera guy? We're going to do this in real time: if KC TRADES DOWN, the OT scenario odds are greatly diminished. The need for a RT still remains. What does that mean? Bueller? Bueller? It means KC can draft for another need, then address RT at another time. OR, if a stud RT is available when they DO pick, perhaps they take him then. Depends on the position and the player now, doesn't it?

I can draw you a picture if you like.

[HMc]

This is mad, but I'd say if Sanchez is there you take him, then open up the phones to offers (for him or cassel).