Pioli already knows who he's going to draft.

[googlegoogle]

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=115&f=1837&t=5669684

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

I understand, but it would have been just as big a reach for the Vikings as well as the Chiefs. It was one of those picks that was made because the guy had a really good week at the Senior Bowl and that's about it. I remember them talking about it - that he "blew it up" at the Senior Bowl.

But the facts remain, he played next to Peppers, who dominated even while facing constant double teams. It was the exact same type of reach that teams did in 2007 after Mario Williams was drafted. Two other NCS defensive line players were subsequently taken in the first round when the 49er's took Manny Lawson and the Bills took John McCargo.

Just because there were two teams stupid enough to burn a top ten pick on Sims doesn't mean it wasn't a reach.

Sims was highly regarded prior to the Senior Bowl. Lots of people thought he was worthy of a top 10 pick. Here is a story before the draft:

ProFootballWeekly.com asks Michael Holbrook, managing editor of special projects, and Jeff Reynolds and Nolan Nawrocki, associate editors of special projects, for their predictions regarding two of the more intriguing questions from the upcoming NFL draft.Which player will be the first defensive tackle selected?

Holbrook: If the Bills don’t take North Carolina run-stuffer Ryan Sims with the No. 4 pick, it sure looks like Tennessee’s Albert Haynesworth is going to be the first defensive tackle taken when the Cowboys select him at No. 6. When I heard that Dallas owner Jerry Jones loves Haynesworth, that was enough for me — what Jones wants, he usually gets. Haynesworth has soared up the draft boards of teams across the league since declaring his intention to enter the draft after a fine junior season. He’s a huge man at 6-5 5/8, 320 pounds and is quick off the ball and can be overpowering. The biggest question is his desire. He didn’t show much as a freshman and sophomore at Tennessee, then exploded onto the scene as a junior. He could be a heartbreaker or he could be a difference-maker for whichever team selects him.

Reynolds: I think the run on defensive tackles starts at No. 7 barring any movement by teams picking lower than the Vikings at the seventh spot. Though I feel the Vikings will look to Texas SS Roy Williams, they could easily go with another safe pick and land North Carolina DT Ryan Sims. If it is the Chiefs at No. 8 to take the first run-stuffer, it is likely Albert Haynesworth. But Sims has been consistent in workouts, as strong as he is quick, and would add a playmaker on the line. While Tennessee’s DT tandem of John Henderson and Haynesworth will get looks early, Henderson has had back problems and Haynesworth is green in terms of game experience. His size (6-6, 320) and athleticism make many feel his potential is too tough to pass up, but Haynesworth lends the impression that he will either be very good, or very bad. The safe bet is with Sims.

Nawrocki: Tennessee’s Albert Haynesworth has excellent quickness and a huge upside, but Wisconsin’s Wendell Bryant and North Carolina’s Ryan Sims are proven products with tremendous character. Both arrived on their campuses four years ago, made an immediate impact in big games and can be expected to contribute immediately at the next level. Both are extremely driven and intelligent. Bryant was known for staying after practice and hitting the sleds in the sweltering heat during two-a-days. Sims has been trying to escape the shadow of Julius Peppers for years. Bryant has great speed for a defensive lineman, but will need a few years to develop physically. Sims is a step slower, but can manhandle blockers with his brute strength. While Haynesworth is projected the highest on many boards around the league for his football IQ, I am a firm believer that character will take you much further than raw ability. My draft board reads: Sims, Bryant, Haynesworth.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Completely false that the pick was a reach. The Vikings were trying to take Sims as well. KC beat them to the podium.

By that standard there were teams right below KC ready to pick Tyson

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

By that standard there were teams right below KC ready to pick Tyson

Who?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Who?

IIRC Cleveland for one.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

IIRC Cleveland for one.

You don't really know if Cleveland wanted Jackson. It's a fact that Minnesota had Ryan Sims written on their draft card and KC's runner blocked the Minny guy from handing in his card.

[Saccopoo]

So, the gist of the article is support of Sims is that he's slower than Wendell Bryant and has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get out of Peppers shadow for years? That his strengths are a run stuffer with strength?

And that's not a reach in the top ten? A non-pass rushing run stuffer who was substantially less regarded than an elite pass rusher playing right next to him?

Actually, looking at that draft, Carl should have been shot on the spot for taking Sims over Freeney, especially when you look at the Chiefs roster at that point. Our RDE rush guy was R-Kal Truluck? Are you ****ing kidding me? And he takes Ryan Sims after drafting Freeman and Downing the two years prior?

I will bust anyone in the chops that even remotely tries to defend the Sims pick. It was classic Peterson, who had an unhealthy fascination with shitbag defensive tackles.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Fair enough I was just curious because you said that isn't what you meant which in all honesty it is what you meant. And if you think CP didn't have worse drafts then you have bad memory.

2002 Draft

2001 Draft

Here's the problem - all 3 of those drafts will turn out better than last season's.

The Sims draft sucks because of Sims, he was a lazy jackass, but he was also the consensus pick at the time. I have a hard time faulting Peterson because NOBODY had Sims being that bad. Fujita is a better player than anyone that will come from the 2009 draft.

2001 is a completely lost draft, but IIRC, we gave up our 1st and 2nd pick in that draft for Vermiel and Green. Ultimately, I'd have preferred take Brees with the first but Vermiel wanted his guy and the trades weren't pure busts; they did make the Chiefs an enjoyable team again.

2000 is a defensible draft - Morris was going to be a good player but blew out his knee; shit happens. Wesley was a better player for longer than anyone we'll get from 2009 and Hall was an absolute difference maker.


Seriously, don't underestimate how stunningly horrible Scott Pioli was at every facet of his job last offseason. Carl Peterson never had an offseason as bad as the one Pioli just put out there as his first impression. From assembling a roster to assembling a coaching staff, one would be hard pressed to come up with a more epic fail than the one put forward by Pioli.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

You don't really know if Cleveland wanted Jackson. It's a fact that Minnesota had Ryan Sims written on their draft card and KC's runner blocked the Minny guy from handing in his card.

You are correct I am not 100% sure but IIRC there were some stories after the draft that stated they wanted to draft him.

[Saccopoo]

I mean, seriously. People want to point to the '02, '03, '04, '05 Chiefs in terms of a team having a great offensive line and not winning playoff games, but just take a look at the defense and then at Carl's drafts. Sims instead of Freeney. Trading down and taking Larry Johnson when they could have had Polamalu. Kawika Mitchell instead of Chris Kelsay. The 2003 draft was so amazingly bad in terms of what could have been, but no...let's take ****ing playmakers with "potential" instead of solid guys who proved it on the field. **** Carl. **** potential. Anyone who drafts or wants to draft for "potential" versus proven production is just sucking at the tip of Carl's wrinkled old dick.

[Saccopoo]

[QUOTE=DJ's left nut;6572834]

2000 is a defensible draft - Morris was going to be a good player but blew out his knee; shit happens. Wesley was a better player for longer than anyone we'll get from 2009 and Hall was an absolute difference maker.

Seriously, don't underestimate how stunningly horrible Scott Pioli was at every facet of his job last offseason. Carl Peterson never had an offseason as bad as the one Pioli just put out there as his first impression. From assembling a roster to assembling a coaching staff, one would be hard pressed to come up with a more epic fail than the one put forward by Pioli.

[DJ's left nut]

People sure are quick to hop on Succop's nuts just because he was the only marginal useful player from last year's draft.

Among rookies he had the worst average kickoff distance in the league and the worst TB% by far. Among all kickers he was significantly below average. He's a liability as a kickoff man.

As a placekicker, His 86% success rate this year was only marginally better than Conner Barth the season before (y'know, the guy we cut to make room for this kicking miracle). Though there was really no other rookie placekicker in the league this year (the others were KO specialists), he is pretty average when compared to the 2008 crop of rookies. He was roughly equal to Dan Carpenter (who?) and nowhere near Garrett Hartley in 2008. Going back to 2007, he was pretty much Nick Folk (though better than Mason Crosby, Crosby kicks in the worst environment in football).

All told, we got ourselves a guy that's likely going to be a slightly above average kicker. Huzzah, we drafted Lawrence Tynes. He actually looks a lot like Dan Carpenter...who was undrafted. Don't get me wrong, I like Succop and think he'll stick, but I do not understand how much love this dude gets for merely being pretty decent.

Greg Wesley gave us 5 years of well above average play and a couple more solid years beyond that. Considering the value of the respective skills and the difficulty of replacing their respective positions, I think Wesley will give us the better career.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

All told, we got ourselves a guy that's likely going to be a slightly above average kicker. Huzzah, we drafted Lawrence Tynes. He actually looks a lot like Dan Carpenter...who was undrafted. Don't get me wrong, I like Succop and think he'll stick, but I do not understand how much love this dude gets for merely being pretty decent.

Kicking dissertation aside (which was superb by the way), you asked for a guy from the 2009 draft that will be with the Chiefs longer than Wesley. Unless his leg falls off, Succop will easily be that guy.

Greg Wesley gave us 5 years of well above average play and a couple more solid years beyond that. Considering the value of the respective skills and the difficulty of replacing their respective positions, I think Wesley will give us the better career.

I don't know...the Chiefs have struggled to find a kicker of any merit since Anderson. Add to that that it's a position that ends up with most points scored, and can mean the difference between a win and a loss at the most crucial time, I'd place the importance of a quality kicker higher than I would a mediocre strong safety. Kickers need to have a certain mental makeup to survive in this league. While it's always been the vogue to downplay their role, it most certainly is an important one.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Kicking dissertation aside (which was superb by the way), you asked for a guy from the 2009 draft that will be with the Chiefs longer than Wesley. Unless his leg falls off, Succop will easily be that guy.



I don't know...the Chiefs have struggled to find a kicker of any merit since Anderson. Add to that that it's a position that ends up with most points scored, and can mean the difference between a win and a loss at the most crucial time, I'd place the importance of a quality kicker higher than I would a mediocre strong safety. Kickers need to have a certain mental makeup to survive in this league. While it's always been the vogue to downplay their role, it most certainly is an important one.

I actually put a fair amount of value on kickers in today's NFL.

At the same time, it's not terribly difficult to find an average to slightly above average kicker if you just keep plugging away at it. Like I said, a guy like Dan Carpenter was undrafted, as was Tynes. Succop himself would've been but/for us.

I guess it's like the Closer in MLB. A good team absolutely has to have a good closer. At the same time, many of your best closers are just failed starters or guys that didn't have a 3rd pitch to make it in the rotation. A good closer isn't hard to find or develop if you're willing to keep plugging away at it. There are many guys out there that could close games effectively that just haven't been found for whatever reason. I think that's less so for starting pitchers, centerfielders and ultimately, Strong Safeties.

Kicker's just not as tough a position to fill as most.

And I thought about Succup which was why I tried to qualify it by saying 'better for longer' rather than just 'longer'...poor attempt by me. What I really meant was Wesley's career will be, on aggregate, more valuable than Succop's will be to the Chiefs.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Here's the problem - all 3 of those drafts will turn out better than last season's.

The Sims draft sucks because of Sims, he was a lazy jackass, but he was also the consensus pick at the time. I have a hard time faulting Peterson because NOBODY had Sims being that bad. Fujita is a better player than anyone that will come from the 2009 draft.

2001 is a completely lost draft, but IIRC, we gave up our 1st and 2nd pick in that draft for Vermiel and Green. Ultimately, I'd have preferred take Brees with the first but Vermiel wanted his guy and the trades weren't pure busts; they did make the Chiefs an enjoyable team again.

2000 is a defensible draft - Morris was going to be a good player but blew out his knee; shit happens. Wesley was a better player for longer than anyone we'll get from 2009 and Hall was an absolute difference maker.


Seriously, don't underestimate how stunningly horrible Scott Pioli was at every facet of his job last offseason. Carl Peterson never had an offseason as bad as the one Pioli just put out there as his first impression. From assembling a roster to assembling a coaching staff, one would be hard pressed to come up with a more epic fail than the one put forward by Pioli.

The 2009 offseason was horrendous. Though, I would easily put the 2004 season as close to its equal, given that they sat on their hands while they were maybe a few players away from a Super Bowl contender. I would also argue that making 4-5 marquee moves (e.g. offseason with Barber, Holliday, McCleon, etc...) that cost a lot of money and bust is just as bad if not worse as not spending a ton of money and having those players bust.

But the main point is that it's ludicrous for anyone to suggest that we're worse off with Pioli than with Peterson. Pioli has had one F-minus season. Peterson had 15+ seasons where his offseason earned a D-minus. Until Pioli does this for several seasons in a row, there's no way he's worse than Peterson.

[BossChief]

Last offseason was the worst we have had as a team in 20 years.

Argue that.