NFL Draft Even while McCluster succeeds, this continues to be my concern about that pick... - Page 9

Direckshun · 10-04-2010, 03:07 PM

He is a gadget guy, yes. Who can provide tons of different things for your offense. And he's someone who can contribute immediately.

But is he someone you can build around?

I hesitate still, even now, to say yes.

What's the track record of really small football players in the NFL?

Don't they typically peter out after a few years? Even if they are very good -- as Sproles, a thicker back than McCluster, was very good -- won't they eventually flame out in a few years, rather than providing the sustained level of ability that virtually any other position on the football field would?

I am prepared to endure your scorn.

-King- · 10-04-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

That's what you said. You said that Dexter McCluster was a unique, gamebreaking talent and that some people would want any player at a foundational position instead of him for some reason. It is just one of many posts from you lately that demonstrate either a complete lack of understanding of the arguments presented since draft day or a lack of interest in being honest.

The same people that are against McCluster are the same ones who said they'd be ok with us drafting Spiller at 5. And now they're mad that we got play makers instead of drafting for need. And now that "need" turns out to be not much a need because the defense is doing pretty ****ing good even without Terrence Cody and Darryl Washington.

Simply Red · 10-04-2010, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Marty?

Dude, if you want to have a cold one at Tanner's, I'm game.

pete going full-Carl psychology.

you have Rick Tanners in KC?

Micjones · 10-04-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

You heard it here first, folks: Dexter McCluster is equivalent to Kevin Durant. In one to two years, Dexter McCluster will be the best player in the entire NFL.

You heard it here first, folks: Kevin Durant is the best player in the NBA.

WhitiE · 10-04-2010, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

You heard it here first, folks: Kevin Durant is the best player in the NBA.

ahahaa thats what i was thinking......

**DeezNutz** · 10-04-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

You heard it here first, folks: Kevin Durant is the best player in the NBA.

hmm...

Interesting aside. Where would he rank? Considering all players? Starting a franchise today? Dude is ridiculously special.

MadMax · 10-04-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Exhibit A as to why it's so easy to be a hater.

Nah I'm not a hater.

**DeezNutz** · 10-04-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

The same people that are against McCluster are the same ones who said they'd be ok with us drafting Spiller at 5. And now they're mad that we got play makers instead of drafting for need. And now that "need" turns out to be not much a need because the defense is doing pretty ****ing good even without Terrence Cody and Darryl Washington.

Not true.

Depending on how things fell, I would have been ok with Spiller, and I was ok with DMC. I hated the Arenas pick.

-King- · 10-04-2010, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

hmm...

Interesting aside. Where would he rank? Considering all players? Starting a franchise today? Dude is ridiculously special.

Depends. Are you building for the future? Or are you trying to win now?

In the future, he will be the best player in the league. But not now. He's not enough of a defensive presence to be #1.

**Reaper16** · 10-04-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

The same people that are against McCluster are the same ones who said they'd be ok with us drafting Spiller at 5. And now they're mad that we got play makers instead of drafting for need. And now that "need" turns out to be not much a need because the defense is doing pretty ****ing good even without Terrence Cody and Darryl Washington.

1.) There is a difference, multiple differences actually, between the top 5 and the 2nd round.
2.) No one smart was arguing from a needs-based standpoint. There were prospects that people felt were better players, regardless of need. That percieved positional need just so happened to overlap made those prospects all the more desirable.
3.) I've said as much and I'll say it again: my perception of Dex and Javi as luxury picks drafted a couple of years too early has been harmed by the unforeseen progress of the Chiefs' front 7. It's early but I seem to have been off on how far away this defense is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

You heard it here first, folks: Kevin Durant is the best player in the NBA.

I said "in one to two years." Kobe is getting older and Durant is still ascending. Durant will take the mantle within a few years, I feel.

Chiefs Rool · 10-04-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

You heard it here first, folks: Kevin Durant is the best player in the NBA.

It's hard to argue that, was that his 2nd or 3rd year last year? He's only gonna get better and that is SCARY.

Marcellus · 10-04-2010, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

A true rushbacker opposite Hali.

If the Chiefs had a James Harrison/Lamar Woodley type OLB, this defense would be freakin' scary.

I don't mind either McCluster or Arenas in the second round but if the Chiefs would have taken Koa Misi with one of those picks, I wouldn't have been unhappy about that, either.

This is the likely weak link outside of QB.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-04-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

We have what every good team has.... a running game

Teams like Denver that cannot run the ball are not going to last

If given a choice between a great running game or a great QB I take the running game hands down.

You'd be surprised what a stout defense coupled with a stout running game and an average QB can do.

Your body should be burned in a ****ing trash bin for saying something that stupid.

ChiefsCountry · 10-04-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

hmm...

Interesting aside. Where would he rank? Considering all players? Starting a franchise today? Dude is ridiculously special.

5th.

Kobe, LeBron, Howard, Wade, then Durant.

**ShortRoundChief** · 10-04-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Your body should be burned in a ****ing trash bin for saying something that stupid.

How so?

ravens?

chiefs during the 90's?

**DeezNutz** · 10-04-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

5th.

Kobe, LeBron, Howard, Wade, then Durant.

If you're starting a franchise today, it's either Durant or James. No one else close.

10-04-2010, 03:07 PM
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2033447	Even while McCluster succeeds, this continues to be my concern about that pick... He is a gadget guy, yes. Who can provide tons of different things for your offense. And he's someone who can contribute immediately. But is he someone you can build around? I hesitate still, even now, to say yes. What's the track record of really small football players in the NFL? Don't they typically peter out after a few years? Even if they are very good -- as Sproles, a thicker back than McCluster, was very good -- won't they eventually flame out in a few years, rather than providing the sustained level of ability that virtually any other position on the football field would? I am prepared to endure your scorn.
Posts: 59,693