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.

[Just Passin' By]

[QUOTE=chiefzilla1501;5666573]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, please tell me you've never bred, because this type of stupidity should never be passed on. Suggs plays DE in a 4-3, not OLB. Hence the comparison with Jason Taylor, for example.

The Ravens run a 3-4, genius. Type in "Baltimore Ravens" depth chart and tell me how many times you see Suggs listed as a DE.

Jason Taylor is a DE in a 4-3. He does not play even close to the same position as Suggs. Taylor plays all of his snaps with his hands on the ground. Suggs does not.



You have implied it. Trust me. Everyone on this board knows that this is exactly what you've been saying. You have been saying all along that Suggs and Mayo and Rivers are examples of linebackers who should have been drafted in the top 5. And what I am AGAIN reiterating is that Rivers and Mayo are traditional, hands-off-the-ground, LBs who are drafted because of their speed and instincts. Suggs was drafted to be a pass rusher first and foremost. You can't make that comparison. Again, 3-4 OLBs carry high draft value. 4-3 OLBs or 3-4 ILBs typically do not.



Yes, and almost all 3-4 OLBs are DEs, and almost all 3-4 ILBs are you're more traditional 4-3 LBs. Don't act like traditional LBs have sometimes played OLB or that DEs have sometimes played ILB. Bellichick used Mike Vrabel, who was a 4-3 DE at Ohio State, to be his OLB. Notice a trend? Again. 3-4 OLBs are not traditional LBs. Almost 100% of the time, they are DEs that play a little bit of linebacker. You apparently can't see the enormous difference between a traditional LB and a 3-4 OLB. 4-3 ROLB, MLB, LOLB are similar to 3-4 RILB and LILB. 3-4 ROLBs and LOLBs are entirely different.



You keep saying that Detroit should have drafted Terrell Suggs to play 4-3 DE. And I'm pointing out that there's a very good likelihood he wouldn't have been that good in Detroit, because he would play a COMPLETELY different position.

Ok, you're an idiot. Get back to me when you gain enough IQ points to put you in double digits.

Someone please tell me there's an ignore button around here.

P.S. Nevermind, I found it. Good Lord, what a dipshit this clown is.

[chiefzilla1501]

[QUOTE=Just Passin' By;5666588]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Ok, you're an idiot. Get back to me when you gain enough IQ points to put you in double digits.

Someone please tell me there's an ignore button around here.

P.S. Nevermind, I found it. Good Lord, what a dipshit this clown is.

That's pretty funny, given that you're arguing against the world right now.

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

Unfortunately true, I know it can be aggravating. Sometimes people just want to take one point about a prospect and assume that that one factor makes the decision black and white, when 90% of the time it's in the grey and other factors have to be taken into acccount.

ILB's don't usually go in the top 5, but whether you(I guess meaning "everyone else") like it or not this top 5 does suck, especially for us.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Yes, and almost all 3-4 OLBs are DEs, and almost all 3-4 ILBs are you're more traditional 4-3 LBs. Don't act like traditional LBs have sometimes played OLB or that DEs have sometimes played ILB. Bellichick used Mike Vrabel, who was a 4-3 DE at Ohio State, to be his OLB. Notice a trend? Again. 3-4 OLBs are not traditional LBs. Almost 100% of the time, they are DEs that play a little bit of linebacker. You apparently can't see the enormous difference between a traditional LB and a 3-4 OLB. 4-3 ROLB, MLB, LOLB are similar to 3-4 RILB and LILB. 3-4 ROLBs and LOLBs are entirely different.

While I now have you on ignore, this just had to be addressed. Tedy Bruschi was a defensive end for most of his college career. He became an ILB in the NFL.

Pierre Woods was a linebacker at Michigan and is an OLB in New England. Tully Banta-Cain played outside linebacker before shifting to defensive end in college, and then back to OLB in New England.

Details, details, I know.....

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

If positional value were all that mattered, no QB would make it past the first round.

When did I say that positional value is ALL that mattered? Talk about moving the goalposts.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

When did I say that positional value is ALL that mattered? Talk about moving the goalposts.

I'm amazed that you don't catch the irony of your own comment. It's the whole point.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I agree that teams take position into account. My initial point to htismaqe was that this was an unusual year and it shouldn't hold water this season. Naturally, instead of actually responding to that, he changed the argument to "winning teams" instead of remaining focused on one specific season.

The reality is that all teams value somewhat differently. That's why the Raiders drafted a kicker as high as they did, for example. However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

EVERY year is unusual when it comes to certain players or positions. You NEVER throw out historical context. EVER.

You want to talk about being blatantly stubborn - how about insisting that Curry is worth the #3 overall pick despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary...

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'm amazed that you don't catch the irony of your own comment. It's the whole point.

There was nothing ironic about my comment at all. You mischaracterized my statements, AGAIN, and now you're being deliberately obtuse in an effort to deflect away from it.

You're the one that wants to speak in absolutes, not me.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There was nothing ironic about my comment at all. You mischaracterized my statements, AGAIN, and now you're being deliberately obtuse in an effort to deflect away from it.

You're the one that wants to speak in absolutes, not me.

I quoted your statements. I did not mischaracterize them. You're the person with the ridiculous take on positional value and Curry, not me. You post against Curry at #3 and you post against O-line at #3. So, other than QB, what's there to take at #3?

Just as an example, Kiper's Big Board (as of 4/9) has Crabtree, Orakpo, Pettigrew and Maclin as the only players besides Curry that are not QB or OL in his top 10.

Not one of them is a top 10 pick in a lot of years. Which one of them is your choice for the #3 pick?

[Just Passin' By]

As one league source explained it, there are three issues making the top-ten teams want to get out, and keeping other teams from wanting to get in.

First, the money paid at the top of the draft has gotten out of hand. Even hard-core agent types who previously have argued with us about this issue are now admitting that the values of the contracts at the top of the process are too high.

Second, there’s no “bell cow” in the draft — no must-have player in the view of one or more teams.

Third, there’s no real separation between the top players at each position. For example, Michael Crabtree isn’t $20 million better than Hakeem Nicks. But if Crabtree goes within the first seven picks of the round and Nicks goes in the last ten, the dollar value of their respective contracts will entail a gap potentially that large, if not larger.

Ditto for the tackles and the quarterbacks.

So why take a guy at No. 2 when a comparable player can be gotten — for much less money — at No. 20?

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...f-the-top-ten/

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I quoted your statements. I did not mischaracterize them. You're the person with the ridiculous take on positional value and Curry, not me. You post against Curry at #3 and you post against O-line at #3. So, other than QB, what's there to take at #3?

Just as an example, Kiper's Big Board (as of 4/9) has Crabtree, Orakpo, Pettigrew and Maclin as the only players besides Curry that are not QB or OL in his top 10.

Not one of them is a top 10 pick in a lot of years. Which one of them is your choice for the #3 pick?

We were talking about Curry and LB's. Not offensive linemen. Don't try to change the subject again.

I've said I'd take Crabtree ahead of Curry.

Furthermore, you and alot of the other Curry advocates continuously want to remove QB from the discussion, as if that's either fair or relevant and it's neither. I'd absolutely take Sanchez over Curry.

As for my stance on Curry being ridiculous, that's easy to say when you're willing to throw the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window. Talk about ridiculous.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...f-the-top-ten/

Wow, so they agree with me. Imagine that.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Wow, so they agree with me. Imagine that.

What are you talking about? Other than including the tackles, that's basically word-for-word what I've been saying.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

We were talking about Curry and LB's. Not offensive linemen. Don't try to change the subject again.

I've said I'd take Crabtree ahead of Curry.

Furthermore, you and alot of the other Curry advocates continuously want to remove QB from the discussion, as if that's either fair or relevant and it's neither. I'd absolutely take Sanchez over Curry.

As for my stance on Curry being ridiculous, that's easy to say when you're willing to throw the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window. Talk about ridiculous.

1.) I'm not changing the subject at all. You've made the same statements about not taking OL as about not taking Curry at #3.

2.) And, AGAIN, I'm not a Curry advocate. I pointed out that I'd look to Raji at #3 before anyone else. Seriously, if you're not going to bother reading, what's the point of this?

3.) It's not throwing the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window, as you well know.

4.) Of course I'm removing QB from the discussion. If Pioli takes a QB at #3, that would be far more groundbreaking than taking Curry there, unless you can remember a time that a team has ever drafted a QB in round 1 after trading for a franchise tagged QB. I believe that, if it happens, it'll be a first, unlike a LB being drafted in the top 5.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

1.) I'm not changing the subject at all. You've made the same statements about not taking OL as about not taking Curry at #3.

2.) And, AGAIN, I'm not a Curry advocate. I pointed out that I'd look to Raji at #3 before anyone else. Seriously, if you're not going to bother reading, what's the point of this?

3.) It's not throwing the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window, as you well know.

4.) Of course I'm removing QB from the discussion. If Pioli takes a QB at #3, that would be far more groundbreaking than taking Curry there, unless you can remember a time that a team has ever drafted a QB in round 1 after trading for a franchise tagged QB. I believe that, if it happens, it'll be a first, unlike a LB being drafted in the top 5.

How many times has anybody traded for a franchise QB? I honestly can't remember one. So trading for a franchise QB is unprecedented in and of itself. Therefore the idea of taking a QB at #3 just jumped the shark.

As for a LB being drafted in the top 5, that's a much different situation. There's been 15 drafts since the inception of the franchise tag (to make it a fair comparison) and how many non-pass rushing LB's have been taken? 1? 2?

Anyway, I'm done fighting about Curry. In the end, it looks like the two of us agree and we've entered this argument not because we believe deep down but we saw some compulsion to argue on merit alone.