Arguments for a Left Tackle in the 2010 Draft.

[Saccopoo]

While the vast majority of drafturbators around here think that Branden Albert is doing a remarkable job and had a great last half of the season, some people believe that adding a competent offensive left tackle would be a prudent and viable selection for the Chiefs with their first pick in the 2010 NFL Draft.

Some supporting arguments for a left tackle:

Wes Bunting: Well, after Suh, McCoy and Berry, Russell Okung's a pretty safe pick. Sure, he might not be the sexiest of guys, but honestly Branden Albert was one of the highest rated guards I'd seen and yet he hasn't yet had the type of career because he's be a run-of-the-mill tackle. You'd be surprised how quickly that offensive line would improve if you got a legit offensive tackle in there and kick Branden Albert inside. Some good things could happen.

From Walters 2010 Mock:

Fortunately, Pioli, who is a big believer in positional value, can take Okung without sacrificing too much of his team's payroll into the left tackle position. Albert makes less than $1 million in each of the next two seasons, and was a guard at Virginia anyway.

Okung is the real deal. He could take the Chiefs' offense to the next level, though the team will ultimately struggle in the playoffs because of Cassel's limitations.

From Walters/Matt McGuire's Mock:

Russell Okung - This pick is a no-brainer and barring a huge screw-up, I think we can all be 99-percent assured the Kansas City Chiefs are handcuffed to taking a left tackle at this pick. It will be interesting to see whether it ends up being Okung, Anthony Davis or Bruce Campbell, as the battle for the No. 1 tackle spot is one of the best storylines of the 2010 NFL Draft.

Okung was the most consistent lineman in the nation this year and he will test out on a very high level athletically.

From Draftcountdown:

The Chiefs have plenty of needs and could go in a number of different directions here but their offensive line play has been particularly troubling. In fact, Kansas City ranked among the worst in the league when it comes to sacks allowed. Oklahoma State’s Russell Okung isn’t an elite prospect in the mold of Tony Boselli, Jon Ogden or Orlando Pace but he has clearly emerged as the top offensive tackle in this class and will likely be a Top 10 pick. With good size, long arms, great strength, above-average athleticism and feet as well as top-notch intangibles, Okung is just a very good all-around blocker. Okung could slide into the starting lineup at either left or right tackle for the Chiefs and any investment in keeping franchise quarterback Matt Cassel upright is money well spent.

From Mel Kiper:

I think the Chiefs could use help at safety as well, but Berry likely won't fall this far, and they'd be reaching on either of the two other safeties with first-round grades. Okung could solve two problems, making him a good value -- he could step in at LT and allow the Chiefs to move Brandon Albert to the right side. A pick that can pay immediate dividends for the Chiefs.

From Don Banks/Sports Illustrated:

If Berry should get this far, the Chiefs would be the benefactors, but Okung seems like the right fit in the right spot for Kansas City. The Chiefs have tons of needs, but in Okung they would be getting a franchise left tackle, allowing them to shift Branden Albert back to his more natural right tackle position.

It's damn near a cultural universal!

Also in opposition to people who believe that Branden Albert had a very good last four games, in the Buffalo game, he was penalized three times (tied for most in a game in 2009) and gave up a whopping five quarterback pressures. In the Cincinatti game, he was penalized twice and allow a hit on the quarterback. In actuality, taking out the fluke Denver game, which was a drive block fest as Jamaal Charles racked up a Chiefs single game rushing record, Albert did not perform well in the last quarter of the season. Yes, he didn't give up any sacks, but there were a lot of qb pressures and penalties.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Brock

They're not objectively analyzing, they're cursorily analyzing. They see that Matt Cassel has been sacked a lot and think that means the Chiefs need better protection on the blindside, when it should be pretty obvious that Matt Cassel takes a lot of sacks no matter how good the protection is.

That's completely hypothetical as Cassel didn't have "good protection" at any point during the 2009 season. Defensive players were in the backfield to take the handoff, coming from every single gap/point on the offensive line - including left tackle. It was just as bad at every position on the line. And no, they did not get "better" in the second half of the season. We just decided to have a running back run the ball with a bit more elusiveness and speed than a previous running back. That helped a ton. But the offensive line didn't have some miraculous epiphany. It was Charles. The line still sucked dog balls.

A deeper look at the team reveals that the middle of the defense is wet toilet paper and is the team's biggest problem by far.

I'm not saying that the middle of the defense isn't dog shit. It is. It was last year too. But let's have a ****ing conniption about drafting Curry last year because we all knew DJ was a passionate workhorse that gave 100% every game so it was a waste to burn a pick on a linebacker then.

We are going to be doing the same thing next year when we are going to desperately need a OT, and the only one of merit is going to be Joe Barksdale.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

That's completely hypothetical as Cassel didn't have "good protection" at any point during the 2009 season.

Untrue, and invalidates anything after.

[Nightfyre]

Dj wasn't why we had conniptions about curry. Curry projected way better to the 43. But please, continue to ignore facts in your "objective" analysis (which equates to an oline fetish if you ask me)
Posted via Mobile Device

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Dj wasn't why we had conniptions about curry. Curry projected way better to the 43. But please, continue to ignore facts in your "objective" analysis (which equates to an oline fetish if you ask me)
Posted via Mobile Device

Facts? Curry was a strong side linebacker in college (same as DJ) that had the size, speed and coverage skills to effectively transition to the middle in a 3-4 scheme. (Hell, he was probably overqualified to play inside in a 3-4.) The guy shed blocks amazingly well and was able to play sideline to sideline. He would have been a very good pick for the Chiefs in hindsight considering how ineffectual Mays has been, how inconsistent Johnson has been or how old Vrabel looked on the field at times from the LOLB spot.

However, he is not a edge rush backer (ROLB) and that's where people around here complained that you never take a MLB (especially a 3-4) or a SSOLB with a top ten pick unless they are the second coming of a modernized version of Dick Butkus or Derrick Brooks.

Curry is/would have been the same pick as McClain. (Although Curry is faster.)

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Facts? Curry was a strong side linebacker in college (same as DJ) that had the size, speed and coverage skills to effectively transition to the middle in a 3-4 scheme. (Hell, he was probably overqualified to play inside in a 3-4.) The guy shed blocks amazingly well and was able to play sideline to sideline. He would have been a very good pick for the Chiefs in hindsight considering how ineffectual Mays has been, how inconsistent Johnson has been or how old Vrabel looked on the field at times from the LOLB spot.

However, he is not a edge rush backer (ROLB) and that's where people around here complained that you never take a MLB (especially a 3-4) or a SSOLB with a top ten pick unless they are the second coming of a modernized version of Dick Butkus or Derrick Brooks.

Curry is/would have been the same pick as McClain. (Although Curry is faster.)

Surprisingly, I agree with about everything you just said.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Facts? Curry was a strong side linebacker in college (same as DJ) that had the size, speed and coverage skills to effectively transition to the middle in a 3-4 scheme. (Hell, he was probably overqualified to play inside in a 3-4.) The guy shed blocks amazingly well and was able to play sideline to sideline. He would have been a very good pick for the Chiefs in hindsight considering how ineffectual Mays has been, how inconsistent Johnson has been or how old Vrabel looked on the field at times from the LOLB spot.

However, he is not a edge rush backer (ROLB) and that's where people around here complained that you never take a MLB (especially a 3-4) or a SSOLB with a top ten pick unless they are the second coming of a modernized version of Dick Butkus or Derrick Brooks.

Curry is/would have been the same pick as McClain. (Although Curry is faster.)

You're rewriting history. What I remember reading is that you don't take a non pass-rushing linebacker in the top 3, which has pretty much been the case in the NFL draft. I remember defending taking a linebacker in the TOP 10. I wouldn't take McClain if the Chiefs were at 3 either.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Facts? Curry was a strong side linebacker in college (same as DJ) that had the size, speed and coverage skills to effectively transition to the middle in a 3-4 scheme. (Hell, he was probably overqualified to play inside in a 3-4.) The guy shed blocks amazingly well and was able to play sideline to sideline. He would have been a very good pick for the Chiefs in hindsight considering how ineffectual Mays has been, how inconsistent Johnson has been or how old Vrabel looked on the field at times from the LOLB spot.

However, he is not a edge rush backer (ROLB) and that's where people around here complained that you never take a MLB (especially a 3-4) or a SSOLB with a top ten pick unless they are the second coming of a modernized version of Dick Butkus or Derrick Brooks.

Curry is/would have been the same pick as McClain. (Although Curry is faster.)

Curry didn't have strong lateral agility. He had good straight line speed and was disruptive up the middle, but he lacked fluidity in his hips. I dunno where you are getting your stuff.
Posted via Mobile Device

[RustShack]

Is it just me, or is it mildly funny that Saccapoo claims he watches football games, yet he sees something completely different than everyone else?

As for Curry, Jesus Christ shut the **** up. McClain is a way better Mike prospect than Curry was. Sure hes not as fast, but that doesn't matter because he does everything else so much better. There is a lot more to football than a 40 time.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by RustShack

Is it just me, or is it mildly funny that Saccapoo claims he watches football games, yet he sees something completely different than everyone else?

As for Curry, Jesus Christ shut the **** up. McClain is a way better Mike prospect than Curry was. Sure hes not as fast, but that doesn't matter because he does everything else so much better. There is a lot more to football than a 40 time.

Man, if there was anyone who needed a dose of Prozac, it's you.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Curry didn't have strong lateral agility. He had good straight line speed and was disruptive up the middle, but he lacked fluidity in his hips. I dunno where you are getting your stuff.
Posted via Mobile Device

Holy shit. Seriously? You are breaking it down to the minutia of lacking fluidity in his hips? And this is in comparison to McClain? And since he had the best time out of all linebackers in the combine in not only the 40 yard dash, but also the 3 cone drill, the 20 yard shuttle, the 60 yard shuttle, the vertical jump, the broad jump as well as the top reps in the bench press, I'd say that if there was a lacking of fluidity in his hips, he'd have not posted such good times in the cone and shuttles.

But as someone stated, it's history.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

But let's have a ****ing conniption about drafting Curry last year because we all knew DJ was a passionate workhorse that gave 100% every game so it was a waste to burn a pick on a linebacker then.

It didn't have anything to do with DJ. Curry was similar to Okung, a player who'd be a mid- to low round pick in any other draft. The dearth of top-level talent in the draft inflated his value (and the value of everybody else drafted in the top half of the round) an insane amount, much like the dearth of blue-chip tackle talent in this year's draft is overvaluing Okung.

[WildTurkey]

Aaron Curry again....

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It didn't have anything to do with DJ. Curry was similar to Okung, a player who'd be a mid- to low round pick in any other draft. The dearth of top-level talent in the draft inflated his value (and the value of everybody else drafted in the top half of the round) an insane amount, much like the dearth of blue-chip tackle talent in this year's draft is overvaluing Okung.

I doubt Curry was a mid-to-low rounder. He was the Butkus award winner and possessed superb measurables. He was a better prospect than Derrick Johnson at the same position. But I digress...

Other than Suh, and potentially Berry, there's not any players that you could say, at this point, are real "elite" level players in this draft, although it is a very deep draft with excellent players into the later rounds. If you are forced to take a top five pick, you might at well get the most value out of it that you can and address a position of need. And while there is some arguments about the actual need of a LT on the current Chiefs roster, I feel that it is a position that needs upgrading and gives you the opportunity to upgrade two positions on the line with a single pick.

He might not be heads and shoulders above anyone else in this draft at his position, but it's generally regarded that he's the best tackle prospect in this draft. Even if you are pleased with Albert at LT, RT (which is an incredibly important position in it's own right) still needs to be addressed, whether that's Albert or Okung is of little consequence.

For those people who want a safety or a MLB with the #5 pick, they need to realize that those positions aren't going do to anything to improve the Chiefs until they get a NT anyway. The 3-4 defense is reliant on that position more than anything else, but no one is going to convince me that Williams or Cody is better at their position than Okung is. And they might be able to pick up Cody with the first pick in the second round anyway.

[The Franchise]

FFS....

Moving Albert to RT would = FAIL
Drafting Okung to play RT = FAIL/reerunED

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

For those people who want a safety or a MLB with the #5 pick, they need to realize that those positions aren't going do to anything to improve the Chiefs until they get a NT anyway. The 3-4 defense is reliant on that position more than anything else, but no one is going to convince me that Williams or Cody is better at their position than Okung is. And they might be able to pick up Cody with the first pick in the second round anyway.

Good thing there's 7 rounds in the draft, so they can address other needs after the first round.

You know, like nose tackle. And right offensive tackle.