Chiefs sign Zach Thomas

[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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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.

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm adding supporting evidence to the argument.

I know it must suck to realize that I'm right - Curry isn't worth the #3 overall pick.

FYI -Terrell Suggs played DEFENSIVE END in college.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm adding supporting evidence to the argument.

I know it must suck to realize that I'm right - Curry isn't worth the #3 overall pick.

FYI -Terrell Suggs played DEFENSIVE END in college.

Suggs, and Hawk, are examples of players who were drafted to play linebacker. Suggs was drafted to play LB and/or DE. Hawk WAS drafted in the top 5 and the Lions would certainly like to have drafted Suggs rather than Rogers.

WTF is so difficult about this for you people to grasp? You're all so damned caught up in the details that don't mean a damned thing that you can't see the blatantly obvious.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Suggs, and Hawk, are examples of players who were drafted to play linebacker. Suggs was drafted to play LB and/or DE. Hawk WAS drafted in the top 5 and the Lions would certainly like to have drafted Suggs rather than Rogers.

WTF is so difficult about this for you people to grasp? You're all so damned caught up in the details that don't mean a damned thing that you can't see the blatantly obvious.

Because you are still trying to suggest that Suggs is a LB (and/or DE), nevermind that he is one of 16 OLBs in the 3-4 who are DEs (who happen to play some LB). 16 of 16 OLBs in a 3-4 were DEs converted into LBs.

You don't understand why that's important? It's because NFL teams are saying... if you're going to be a 3-4 OLB, we're going to teach pass rushers how to play a little bit of LB.

Again, the fact that you don't see any difference between a 4-3 OLB and a 3-4 OLB suggests that you're the one that doesn't grasp defense.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Because you are still trying to suggest that Suggs is a LB (and/or DE), nevermind that he is one of 16 OLBs in the 3-4 who are DEs (who happen to play some LB). 16 of 16 OLBs in a 3-4 were DEs converted into LBs.

You don't understand why that's important? It's because NFL teams are saying... if you're going to be a 3-4 OLB, we're going to teach pass rushers how to play a little bit of LB.

Again, the fact that you don't see any difference between a 4-3 OLB and a 3-4 OLB suggests that you're the one that doesn't grasp defense.

Suggs IS a linebacker, in the 3-4. I never claimed he was identical to a 4-3 LB. Again, if you people would read posts rather than just jumping on people, this sort of wasted time could be avoided.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Suggs, and Hawk, are examples of players who were drafted to play linebacker. Suggs was drafted to play LB and/or DE. Hawk WAS drafted in the top 5 and the Lions would certainly like to have drafted Suggs rather than Rogers.

WTF is so difficult about this for you people to grasp? You're all so damned caught up in the details that don't mean a damned thing that you can't see the blatantly obvious.

The only player with a skillset even ROUGHLY equivalent to Curry's to be drafted in the Top 5 in the past 20 years is AJ Hawk.

And you're going to sit here and tell me you'd be HAPPY with AJ ****ing Hawk at #3 overall?

You're high, and it's not good shit either.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The only player with a skillset even ROUGHLY equivalent to Curry's to be drafted in the Top 5 in the past 20 years is AJ Hawk.

And you're going to sit here and tell me you'd be HAPPY with AJ ****ing Hawk at #3 overall?

You're high, and it's not good shit either.

Whoa! Slow down there, slick. I never said that I thought the Chiefs should draft Curry. Frankly, if I were the Chiefs, my first leaning would be to Raji. That's never been my point in all of this, which is why I kept asking you people to actually read my posts.

This is a terrible season for top end prospects. There's no real difference between #1 and #21, except at left tackle and, maybe, at QB. So, since nobody is likely to trade for the #3 spot as of now, bitching about whomever is picked based upon 'positional value' is moronic. This is the kind of year where you take the player that you feel will most likely succeeed in your system, taking need into account. Other than kicker or punter, position shouldn't mean a damned thing.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Other than kicker or punter, position shouldn't mean a damned thing.

Well it does.

At least to teams that care about winning.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Well it does.

At least to teams that care about winning.

No, it doesn't. That's pretty clear throughout history, actually.