Chiefs sign Zach Thomas

[phisherman]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/break...y/1137526.html

The Chiefs have agreed to terms with linebacker Zach Thomas.

Thomas, 35, is a 13-year veteran who started 14 games for the Dallas Cowboys last season and has made 20.5 career sacks. He spent the first 12 years of his career with the Miami Dolphins.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

AJ Hawk was a top 5 pick. That alone kills your argument.

Yeah, because we really NEED AJ Hawk.

This is crazy stupid. Crazy stupid.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

One has nothing to do with the other. This is a terrible year for top prospects outside of the left tackle position. While Smith may be a cautionary tale regarding Sanchez or Stafford, that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to get across is that, even if you generally don't believe that a linebacker should go in the top 5, this year that sort of thinking doesn't apply. Unless you need a left tackle, there is no 'typical' top 5 prospect in this draft. This draft is great for first and second round depth, but it's terrible for prospects at the very top.

That type of thinking ALWAYS applies. Unless you want to be like the Lions and Bengals forever.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

On a team with precious few holes.

Come on, use your head.

I am using my head. Sadly, far too many people here, who complain about "business as usual" under Peterson, are arguing that the Chiefs should conduct "business as usual" in the draft.

The irony involved seems to have been missed.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

This draft is great for first and second round depth, but it's terrible for prospects at the very top.

"Well, I REALLY wanted a cheeseburger with lettuce, onions, and mayo. But since the only thing you have on the menu is a shit sandwich, I guess I'll take that."

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I am using my head. Sadly, far too many people here, who complain about "business as usual" under Peterson, are arguing that the Chiefs should conduct "business as usual" in the draft.

The irony involved seems to have been missed.

Taking a non-pass rushing LB and giving him $50M before he's ever played a down is precisely the type of thing Carl would do.

This is nothing at all like Carl Peterson's business as usual, unless you're wanting it to be.

[SBK]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

One has nothing to do with the other. This is a terrible year for top prospects outside of the left tackle position. While Smith may be a cautionary tale regarding Sanchez or Stafford, that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to get across is that, even if you generally don't believe that a linebacker should go in the top 5, this year that sort of thinking doesn't apply. Unless you need a left tackle, there is no 'typical' top 5 prospect in this draft. This draft is great for first and second round depth, but it's terrible for prospects at the very top.

There is absolutely a top 5 typical prospect in the draft. They play QB, WR, LT, DE and from time to time DT.

The teams that stray from that more often than not regret it later. When you draft in the top 5 you suck, and you need to take core positions, not complimentary ones.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Let me refer you back to post #299, because this has now become a circular argument.

I was purposely ignoring it because it doesn't prove anything.

First of all, Vernon Gholston played DE in college and he was drafted to play 3-4 OLB. That's not the same thing as drafting an OLB like Curry.

Second, you are completely ignoring positional value. Rivers and Mayo would NOT be drafted in the top 5 even knowing what we know now because even LBs that grade very highly in the draft almost never get a top 5 pick. Patrick Willis had ironclad credentials and STILL didn't get drafted in the top 10. Because LB HAS LOW POSITIONAL VALUE.

But okay, let's play your game. Knowing what you know now, would you draft Rivers or Mayo over Jake Long, Chris Long, Matt Ryan, McFadden or Dorsey? I wouldn't, when you factor in the top 5's potential.

Let's play your other game. Assume we had a re-draft knowing what we know now. You're really going to draft Mayo or Rivers above Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Ryan Clady, Branden Albert, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Leodis McKelvin, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Eddie Royal, Sam Baker, Brandon Flowers, Steve Slaton? Those are at least 10 players who would easily be drafted higher than either of those two.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That type of thinking ALWAYS applies. Unless you want to be like the Lions and Bengals forever.

The problem with the Lions was that they DID choose the normal positions.

Care to bet that the Lions would like to have taken Suggs or Barnett instead of Rodgers, just for one example?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The problem with the Lions was that they DID choose the normal positions.

Care to bet that the Lions would like to have taken Suggs or Barnett instead of Rodgers, just for one example?

Why would they have done that when hindsight says they could have traded down and not only got Suggs and another player? Furthermore, Suggs is a pass rusher and has far more value than Curry.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The problem with the Lions was that they DID choose the normal positions.

Care to bet that the Lions would like to have taken Suggs or Barnett instead of Rodgers, just for one example?

First of all, Suggs was a DE in college. Second of all, Suggs would have been a disaster in Detroit, given that they run a 4-3.

Finally, Barnett's a decent player. But a top 3 pick and top 3 money? You must be outside your mind. The Lions probably regret the Rogers pick, but not because they passed on Nick Barnett. There are dozens of other names you would put above that. The funny thing is, one of the few draft picks they hit on was Ernie Sims. He's obviously been a very big difference maker for that franchise.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I was purposely ignoring it because it doesn't prove anything.

First of all, Vernon Gholston played DE in college and he was drafted to play 3-4 OLB. That's not the same thing as drafting an OLB like Curry.

Second, you are completely ignoring positional value. Rivers and Mayo would NOT be drafted in the top 5 even knowing what we know now because even LBs that grade very highly in the draft almost never get a top 5 pick. Patrick Willis had ironclad credentials and STILL didn't get drafted in the top 10. Because LB HAS LOW POSITIONAL VALUE.

But okay, let's play your game. Knowing what you know now, would you draft Rivers or Mayo over Jake Long, Chris Long, Matt Ryan, McFadden or Dorsey? I wouldn't, when you factor in the top 5's potential.

Let's play your other game. Assume we had a re-draft knowing what we know now. You're really going to draft Mayo or Rivers above Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Ryan Clady, Branden Albert, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Leodis McKelvin, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Eddie Royal, Sam Baker, Brandon Flowers, Steve Slaton? Those are at least 10 players who would easily be drafted higher than either of those two.

Ok, thanks for posting this. It lets me know that you know nothing about football.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Why would they have done that when hindsight says they could have traded down and not only got Suggs and another player? Furthermore, Suggs is a pass rusher and has far more value than Curry.

Why do you people keep trying to move the goalposts? Taking the "normal" value position was a mistake. Taking either of the top LBs taken would have been the smarter play. It's why this nonsense about "positional value" is stupid in general, and more stupid than usual when there are no top prospects separating themselves from the pack.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

First of all, Suggs was a DE in college. Second of all, Suggs would have been a disaster in Detroit, given that they run a 4-3.

Finally, Barnett's a decent player. But a top 3 pick and top 3 money? You must be outside your mind. The Lions probably regret the Rogers pick, but not because they passed on Nick Barnett. There are dozens of other names you would put above that. The funny thing is, one of the few draft picks they hit on was Ernie Sims. He's obviously been a very big difference maker for that franchise.

Suggs was drafted with the ability to play both positions. Furthermore, the Ravens have played both the 4-3 and the 3-4 during Suggs' tenure there. That is, in fact, one of the reasons they had the hassle with his franchise tag:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394771

[Mecca]

Did someone really throw out Suggs as an example? The guy put up 20+ sacks in 1 year, please don't ever compare him to someone like Curry...

Suggs also hurt himself a bit going into that draft because he put on weight to show he could play DE and he ended up running really bad 40 times with the extra weight.

[booger]

suggs contract hassle was about money. LB gets paid less than DE.

When Dan williams got tagged Carl argued he was basically a DT even though listed as a DE in the Hybrid scheme when DT played the Falcon.