Chiefs Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First Round - Page 22

TRR · 04-18-2010, 10:56 AM

Not sure if it has been posted.....

Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First*Round

by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 AM CDT in 2010 Campaign

Last year about this time, Michael Lombardi of the National Football Post first reported that the Chiefs were "in love" with LSU DE Tyson Jackson. A few days later and Jackson was the Chiefs pick in the draft.

Now Lombardi reports that the Chiefs are trying like hell to move down in the draft.

"The Chiefs are trying, and I mean really trying, to move down," Lombardi reports. "My sources tell me they'll be willing to go down as far as 15 for the right deal because they feel they can find a player in that range."

It's a fine line between trading down and trading down too far. According to Lombardi, our theory of the Eagles offering up the 24th and 37th picks for the Chiefs fifth pick doesn't look like it's happening. By staying around 15, they can still have a shot at a game changer -- Alabama LB Rolando McClain and Texas S Earl Thomas come to mind here -- as well as picking up extra selections.

That said, who's the Chiefs trading partner? SB Nation's Mocking The Draft takes an excellent look at this situation and comes to the conclusion that San Francisco might be the only team in that area that has a chance of moving up.

Lombardi reports the Chiefs are hoping someone wants to get in line to pick Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-18-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Completely agree.

Teams like Pitt, NE, and the Eagles are competitive year after year (including SB runs) because of their ability to find talent outside the top 10 picks CONSISTENTLY...

Pitt drafted a QB who would have been a top 5 pick in a lot of other drafts at 12 because of the depth of the position in the draft.

The Eagles had a #2 overall QB for over a decade

New England hit on the luckiest pick of all time at QB and when they were winning SBs, their two best defenders were picked 6th (Seymour) and 4th (McGinest)

**Saul Good** · 04-18-2010, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Yawn.

When does the mantra stop that we need quantity over quality? Have you seen how void of real playmakers this team is?

It just ****ing amazes me that this many fans believe that trading down every year is the best way to go about things.

Teams that trade down are generally the teams that have a lot of top end talent (Eagles, Patriots). The Chiefs can't afford not to get a serious playmaker out of THIS draft.

The draft is a lot more about who you pick than where you pick. If a GM believes that he has the draft pegged, it would almost always make more sense to take 2 players early than one player really early. There's plenty of talent out there. I don't know if Pioli's a great GM or not, but I'd take a great GM picking at 10 over a crappy GM picking at 5, especially if you give the great GM an extra first or second rounder.

Titty Meat · 04-18-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

There is a massive myth on here that Herm was a really good drafter for this team.

Yea well people think Brodie Croyle and Bernard Pollard were good.

tk13 · 04-18-2010, 08:33 PM

If your personnel people know what they're doing, then it's not a bad thing to get them as many picks as possible. There will always be superstar caliber players that fall out of the top 10. Merriman, Ware, Roethlisberger, Polamalu... probably will be some from last year's draft. Brian Cushing had a good year for the Texans and he was mid-first round.

But your personnel people have to know what they're doing. And dropping to 10-20 makes me wonder if they're targeting a LB too. And your personnel people have to know what they're doing.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-18-2010, 08:35 PM

In a draft this deep, the second round carries even more value, and as such, you aren't going to get a great offer to move down. So even if it was worth passing on an elite talent for that extra pick, you aren't getting it because those picks have more value this year.

Of course, what we also forget is that multiple second round picks benefit teams whose cores are largely built and are in need of good, but not great, players to fill holes cheaply for 3-5 years.

We still don't have our core.

DJ's left nut · 04-18-2010, 08:36 PM

How the hell can this turn into another Cassel/Clausen discussion?

It shouldn't even get that far -- trading down is MFing stupid by any barometer.

If you think Matt Cassel is a viable NFL QB, then your pick is a simple one -- Eric Berry. Cassel/Clausen is completely immaterial when discussing a trade down into the ****ing teens.

The Chiefs draft is stunningly easy.

And dumb **** coattail rider is still going to screw it up.

I hate that fat piece of shit.

ChiefsCountry · 04-18-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Pretty good job? Based on what grading scale?

Just because Vermeil sucked that doesn't give Herm a pass.

He had one draft that was very productive.

His 2006 draft was a pretty big pile of shit. There are just 3 picks from that draft still on the roster - Hali (good pick), Croyle (ehh), Page (good pick considering).
From the 2007 draft, we have TWO players still on the roster - Bowe (good pick), Kolby Smith (nothing great).

Think about that for one second. The 2006 and 2007 drafts gave us just 5 players with only 2 being starters. 2 ****ing players in drafts from 3-4 years ago. That's horrendus.

The 2008 draft was very good. Generally though, having 2 first round picks is a big advantage. Hitting on Flowers and Charles though is big time.

There is a massive myth on here that Herm was a really good drafter for this team.

To be fair switching to the 3-4 ****ed alot of Herm's picks. Tank would be on the team still in a 4-3, Pollard should be our SS. We would be averaging 3 solid starters a year which isn't too bad drafting wise. 2008 was a ****ing jackpot though.

Titty Meat · 04-18-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

To be fair switching to the 3-4 ****ed alot of Herm's picks. Tank would be on the team still in a 4-3, Pollard should be our SS. We would be averaging 3 solid starters a year which isn't too bad drafting wise. 2008 was a ****ing jackpot though.

Herms players won two games and were the worst defense in the league. Pollard should be the starter based upon what? He played here three years and sucked.

RedThat · 04-18-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Yawn.

When does the mantra stop that we need quantity over quality? Have you seen how void of real playmakers this team is?

Yes I realize that. I understand it too. But, in the Chiefs case, it's about both, quantity and quality. One player imo isn't going to change everything. Will an elite talent make a difference? possibly. not ruling it out at all. Adding Berry could help. But if you don't have a passrush, can't stop the run or better yet don't have the players that can do those things, in all honesty how much of a difference is that one player really going to make?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

It just ****ing amazes me that this many fans believe that trading down every year is the best way to go about things.

Teams that trade down are generally the teams that have a lot of top end talent (Eagles, Patriots). The Chiefs can't afford not to get a serious playmaker out of THIS draft.

I've always believed this, it's just about drafting well overall. Elite talent exists anywhere. It doesn't necessarily have to come from the top 5. It can come from anywhere. I find it ridiculous sometimes when I see people complain that we need to have that top draft pick to recruit an elite talent. It's like some people's minds are fixated towards that philosophy and believe it wholeheartedly. If that's the case, then the Tom Brady's of the world shouldn't even exist.

Im more focused on having a good draft overall period. And that's what most should do. Why should we overreact to situations like this? If they trade out it could serve them? Besides, the draft is a crapshoot anyway. They pimp guys left, right and center every year but the reality is, nobody really knows how certain players are going to adjust/adapt to the pro level.

TheGuardian · 04-18-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Pretty good job? Based on what grading scale?

Just because Vermeil sucked that doesn't give Herm a pass.

He had one draft that was very productive.

His 2006 draft was a pretty big pile of shit. There are just 3 picks from that draft still on the roster - Hali (good pick), Croyle (ehh), Page (good pick considering).
From the 2007 draft, we have TWO players still on the roster - Bowe (good pick), Kolby Smith (nothing great).

Think about that for one second. The 2006 and 2007 drafts gave us just 5 players with only 2 being starters. 2 ****ing players in drafts from 3-4 years ago. That's horrendus.

The 2008 draft was very good. Generally though, having 2 first round picks is a big advantage. Hitting on Flowers and Charles though is big time.

There is a massive myth on here that Herm was a really good drafter for this team.

Hali, Flowers, Carr, Page, Albert, Dorsey are all starters. Letting go of Pollard was also a big mistake. So WTF are you talking about?

**The Bad Guy** · 04-18-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

To be fair switching to the 3-4 ****ed alot of Herm's picks. Tank would be on the team still in a 4-3, Pollard should be our SS. We would be averaging 3 solid starters a year which isn't too bad drafting wise. 2008 was a ****ing jackpot though.

I don't think the 3-4 ****ed Pollard. I think his attitude and Clancy being stupid ****ed it up.

Tank was a fringe player at best. He was never really good at anything. Taking someone like him in the 2nd round is lunacy.

DJ's left nut · 04-18-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

To be fair switching to the 3-4 ****ed alot of Herm's picks. Tank would be on the team still in a 4-3, Pollard should be our SS. We would be averaging 3 solid starters a year which isn't too bad drafting wise. 2008 was a ****ing jackpot though.

'06, '07 and '08 will all be better drafts than what Pioli is going to give us.

'09 is an absolutely epic cluster**** and if '10 isn't it will be by sheer luck because evidently nobody was kind enough to allow Pioli to **** us any worse than he already has.

Just let Sunday get here so I can quit on this asshole already.

**The Bad Guy** · 04-18-2010, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

Hali, Flowers, Carr, Page, Albert, Dorsey are all starters. Letting go of Pollard was also a big mistake. So WTF are you talking about?

Figure it out genius. You are obviously the only one who can comprehend that the 2 drafts prior to 2008 were horrible.

**BossChief** · 04-18-2010, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'll be shocked if Clausen is the choice at #5.

That said, I think they might pull a 2000 Bill Parcells and trade down so many times they end up with four first rounders.

That year, they got Pennington, Abraham, Shaun Ellis and Anthony Becht in the first round.

Becht was the only player of the three to disappoint.

Al Groh, not Parcells. Herm replaced Groh after one year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Jets didn't trade down that year. They got a pick from Pats for getting Belichick and two from Bucs for Keyshawn, and one of those was from the Chargers for drafting Bryan Still a POS receiver.

this

Ralphy Boy · 04-18-2010, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'll be shocked if Clausen is the choice at #5.

That said, I think they might pull a 2000 Bill Parcells and trade down so many times they end up with four first rounders.

That year, they got Pennington, Abraham, Shaun Ellis and Anthony Becht in the first round.

Becht was the only player of the three to disappoint.

Oh yeah and just who would they be trading down with?

04-18-2010, 10:56 AM
TRR The Priest and I Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CO Casino cash: $9420185	Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First Round Not sure if it has been posted..... Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First*Round by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 AM CDT in 2010 Campaign Last year about this time, Michael Lombardi of the National Football Post first reported that the Chiefs were "in love" with LSU DE Tyson Jackson. A few days later and Jackson was the Chiefs pick in the draft. Now Lombardi reports that the Chiefs are trying like hell to move down in the draft. "The Chiefs are trying, and I mean really trying, to move down," Lombardi reports. "My sources tell me they'll be willing to go down as far as 15 for the right deal because they feel they can find a player in that range." It's a fine line between trading down and trading down too far. According to Lombardi, our theory of the Eagles offering up the 24th and 37th picks for the Chiefs fifth pick doesn't look like it's happening. By staying around 15, they can still have a shot at a game changer -- Alabama LB Rolando McClain and Texas S Earl Thomas come to mind here -- as well as picking up extra selections. That said, who's the Chiefs trading partner? SB Nation's Mocking The Draft takes an excellent look at this situation and comes to the conclusion that San Francisco might be the only team in that area that has a chance of moving up. Lombardi reports the Chiefs are hoping someone wants to get in line to pick Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen.
Posts: 7,373

04-18-2010, 08:33 PM	#319
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1987500	If your personnel people know what they're doing, then it's not a bad thing to get them as many picks as possible. There will always be superstar caliber players that fall out of the top 10. Merriman, Ware, Roethlisberger, Polamalu... probably will be some from last year's draft. Brian Cushing had a good year for the Texans and he was mid-first round. But your personnel people have to know what they're doing. And dropping to 10-20 makes me wonder if they're targeting a LB too. And your personnel people have to know what they're doing.
Posts: 56,746

04-18-2010, 08:35 PM	#320
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7129572	In a draft this deep, the second round carries even more value, and as such, you aren't going to get a great offer to move down. So even if it was worth passing on an elite talent for that extra pick, you aren't getting it because those picks have more value this year. Of course, what we also forget is that multiple second round picks benefit teams whose cores are largely built and are in need of good, but not great, players to fill holes cheaply for 3-5 years. We still don't have our core. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083

04-18-2010, 08:36 PM	#321
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $-920901	How the hell can this turn into another Cassel/Clausen discussion? It shouldn't even get that far -- trading down is MFing stupid by any barometer. If you think Matt Cassel is a viable NFL QB, then your pick is a simple one -- Eric Berry. Cassel/Clausen is completely immaterial when discussing a trade down into the **ing teens. The Chiefs draft is stunningly easy. And dumb ** coattail rider is still going to screw it up. I hate that fat piece of shit. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 66,904