Draft Chat on draftcountdown.com

[KCrockaholic]

Begins soon. 6:30 CDT.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by philfree

I agree. If it were me and I was taking an OT I'd draft Andre Smith. I'd draft him if he passed a series of interviews that is. I'd put him at RT and leave Albert where he is. Our line would immediately become a strength.


PhilFree

If you're taking an OT please don't take the guy with all the question marks.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Again, it's not about the contract.

Albert not only proved he could play the position, he was arguably THE best LT taken in last year's draft.

...

DON'T ****ING MOVE HIM. It's as simple as that.

I've said the same thing numerous times. Moving a 2nd year guy who played VERY well at the most important and difficult to fill position on the line is beyond stupid.

Albert proved that he is capable of playing at a very high level. You don't **** with that. How stupid will we be if Monroe doesn't pan out and we have to try to move him back? That's stupid ****ing shit and it screams King Carl.

I'm done with that shit. Let's draft good talent and play the talent where it is supposed to be played.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mecca]

In fairness if you put them in the same draft Monroe would get picked ahead of Albert.

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

You are making a lot of assumptions in that process. The average NFL player's career is 3 years. And I know that we can reasonably believe that Albert will have a long career but thinking 4 years down the road about Albert's contract is a little bit ridiculous for the 2-14 Chiefs at this point. A lot of things can happen in 4 years. Albert's contract is currently a good value for a RT and Monroe would be a good value at LT with the #3 pick considering the other options that we have if we can't trade down.

Say Albert plays a good 4-years at RT and Monroe plays well at LT during that time as well. We would most likely have great o-line play during that 4 year period and the last time we had great o line play, we had the best offense in the league.

Another point is that if Albert doesn't want to resign for reasonable money, we can always franchise him and trade him for picks, the same way we did with Jared Allen. And if you ask me that's a great way to continue the success of your team because you don't end up having huge contracts tied up into one player and you can continue to build through the draft with the picks that you traded the franchise player for.

All the downside of Albert's contract being a problem 4-years down the road really aren't a problem at all when you consider the trade value that Albert will have and the compensation that we will receive.

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I think Al Groh, the guy who has coached them both for several years who is a good contact of Pioli's will tell Pioli who is better. If we do draft Monroe, I believe that Groh and Pioli have had enough conversations and watched enough tape to confirm that Monroe is an upgrade over Albert. I'm assuming you know that Pioli and Groh worked together for the Jets. These guys know more about Monroe and Albert than we do. Groh should know which one is better. He's coached them.

Many people have made the argument that you don't draft Albert due to value. I don't believe that because (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...20#post5675020).

I think the big question is this: is Monroe really a significant upgrade at LT over Albert? I don't think he is. I don't know that for sure, I haven't spoken to Al Groh, but the transition Albert made last season without the benefit of some TC and preseason was downright phenomenal. There's not a lot I think he can't do, given the time to work on it.

If it turns out Albert can be 100% the lt Monroe is, then it becomes a bad pick. You move Albert to the right side, 4 years later you franchse, trade him. Are you going to get the trade value of a probowl lt? Probably not, teams may not be sold after he spent the last 4 years on the right. If he was so good, why'd they draft Monroe? So then you spent the #3 on 4 years of great RT play and most likely a lower first round pick.

If Monroe is a significant upgrade at LT, the value could be there, but is still very questionable IMO. In the long term, you're taking a slight upgrade at LT, an upgrade at RT for a years, and probably a lower first-rounder in 4 years as opposed to taking Curry or someone else who could really help the defense.

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by Mecca

In fairness if you put them in the same draft Monroe would get picked ahead of Albert.

But Albert played G in college. The hypothetical question is where Albert would go in this draft compared to Monroe after having a solid NFL season and transition under his belt.

Or does that still stand, IYO?

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by bdeg

I think the big question is this: is Monroe really a significant upgrade at LT over Albert? I don't think he is. I don't know that for sure, I haven't spoken to Al Groh, but the transition Albert made last season without the benefit of some TC and preseason was downright phenomenal. There's not a lot I think he can't do, given the time to work on it.

If it turns out Albert can be 100% the lt Monroe is, then it becomes a bad pick. You move Albert to the right side, 4 years later you franchse, trade him. Are you going to get the trade value of a probowl lt? Probably not, teams may not be sold after he spent the last 4 years on the right. If he was so good, why'd they draft Monroe? So then you spent the #3 on 4 years of great RT play and most likely a lower first round pick.

If Monroe is a significant upgrade at LT, the value could be there, but is still very questionable IMO. In the long term, you're taking a slight upgrade at LT, an upgrade at RT for a years, and probably a lower first-rounder in 4 years as opposed to taking Curry or someone else who could really help the defense.

Bookends for 4-5 years isn't a bad thing and it helps turn the team around on offense. You can develop your QB and establish your running game. I still say they take Curry.

[KCrockaholic]

So if Jason Smith finds a way to be available at #3 should we consider taking him? I really like Jason Smith and wouldnt mind taking him over Monroe. I dont want a LT at #3 but if we took Smith I would not be mad.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

So if Jason Smith finds a way to be available at #3 should we consider taking him? I really like Jason Smith and wouldnt mind taking him over Monroe. I dont want a LT at #3 but if we took Smith I would not be mad.

I've said before.

I've watched the combine workouts over the last couple of years, which included Jake Long, Ryan Clady, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, and ,of course, Albert.

The guy who had the quickest and most graceful feet, without question, was Albert.

So if we had the opportunity to select Smith, and did so, I'd still be pissed.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by milkman

I've said before.

I've watched the combine workouts over the last couple of years, which included Jake Long, Ryan Clady, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, and ,of course, Albert.

The guy who had the quickest and most graceful feet, without question, was Albert.

So if we had the opportunity to select Smith, and did so, I'd still be pissed.

this is how you get good feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHkAdusbwuA

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by milkman

I've said before.

I've watched the combine workouts over the last couple of years, which included Jake Long, Ryan Clady, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, and ,of course, Albert.

The guy who had the quickest and most graceful feet, without question, was Albert.

So if we had the opportunity to select Smith, and did so, I'd still be pissed.

Monroe's got great feet. start the video at about 1:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBfpUP4JTc

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Monroe's got great feet. start the video at about 1:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBfpUP4JTc

And Albert has BETTER feet. Please go back to pimping Curry, at least it makes marginal sense.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by bdeg

I think the big question is this: is Monroe really a significant upgrade at LT over Albert? I don't think he is. I don't know that for sure, I haven't spoken to Al Groh, but the transition Albert made last season without the benefit of some TC and preseason was downright phenomenal. There's not a lot I think he can't do, given the time to work on it.

If it turns out Albert can be 100% the lt Monroe is, then it becomes a bad pick. You move Albert to the right side, 4 years later you franchse, trade him. Are you going to get the trade value of a probowl lt? Probably not, teams may not be sold after he spent the last 4 years on the right. If he was so good, why'd they draft Monroe? So then you spent the #3 on 4 years of great RT play and most likely a lower first round pick.

If Monroe is a significant upgrade at LT, the value could be there, but is still very questionable IMO. In the long term, you're taking a slight upgrade at LT, an upgrade at RT for a years, and probably a lower first-rounder in 4 years as opposed to taking Curry or someone else who could really help the defense.

Like I've said before, I still think the best option is trading down. But if we have to take the pick, I can understand their planning if they pick Monroe and I hope they are right about him and I assume that they have done their homework and received confirmation from their friend Al Groh that Monroe is an upgrade over Albert.

I think if we end up having two great tackles with Albert and Monroe, that we have a great problem to deal with in terms of getting value in a trade. That's like saying, "I don't enough time to count all my money." Good problem. Similar to the problem the cardinals are having with Fitz and Boldin. They have 2 great receivers, but have reaped the benefits for the last few years. I'm sure many people said that you don't take Fitz when you have Boldin.

And when you said:

In the long term, you're taking a slight upgrade at LT, an upgrade at RT for a years, and probably a lower first-rounder in 4 years.

I think that is pretty valuable. If we get 4 years of great o-line play and a lower first round pick as trade compensation for Albert, I think that is worth it when you consider our other selection options without trading.

I do still like Curry and I think he is a safe pick and that doesn't bother me, especially with our lack of depth at linebacker. I know a player like him is normally at about 10, but with this draft, I don't see any other options.

Hopefully we can trade down, but if we can't, I can be happy with either of those players.

[htismaqe]

What's funny about this whole STUPID discussion is that Albert isn't even going to move to RT. He's perfectly-suited to play LT. But if they are going to move, it's going to be to Guard. He doesn't have the skill set to play RT.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

What's funny about this whole STUPID discussion is that Albert isn't even going to move to RT. He's perfectly-suited to play LT. But if they are going to move, it's going to be to Guard. He doesn't have the skill set to play RT.

What skill set does he lack to play RT?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

What skill set does he lack to play RT?

He doesn't have a mean streak. It's one of the most common criticisms in his scouting report from last year.

Furthermore, he's just better-suited to play on the left side and in space, either at LT or LG.