NFL Draft Even while McCluster succeeds, this continues to be my concern about that pick... - Page 10

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.

**DeezNutz** · 10-04-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

How so?

ravens?

chiefs during the 90's?

Exactly.

But that Q sure was tasty.

Pitt Gorilla · 10-04-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.

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.

I still can't believe that anyone would take Cody over Dex. That makes no sense whatsoever.

-King- · 10-04-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

5th.

Kobe, LeBron, Howard, Wade, then Durant.

Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Wade, Carmelo.......................................Howard.

**Reaper16** · 10-04-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I still can't believe that anyone would take Cody over Dex. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Good argument. I, for one, am convinced.

-King- · 10-04-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

How so?

ravens?

chiefs during the 90's?

Taking a running game over a QB is ****ing stupid. Would you rather have Joe Montana or Barry Sanders?

Pitt Gorilla · 10-04-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Good argument. I, for one, am convinced.

Help me understand it. The Chiefs want to win and Dex gives them a good chance of doing that every Sunday. What does Cody do for the Chiefs?

**DeezNutz** · 10-04-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Help me understand it. The Chiefs want to win and Dex gives them a good chance of doing that every Sunday. What does Cody do for the Chiefs?

Not help them win, apparently.

Pitt Gorilla · 10-04-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Not help them win, apparently.

I don't know, maybe he would. I just don't see the advantage of having Cody over Dex.

**Reaper16** · 10-04-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Help me understand it. The Chiefs want to win and Dex gives them a good chance of doing that every Sunday. What does Cody do for the Chiefs?

Be a dominant nose tackle?

**ShortRoundChief** · 10-04-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Exactly.

But that Q sure was tasty.

We had teams in the 90's that should have won championships, the problem wasn't the formula, the problem was the coaching staff went ultra conservative.

Mecca · 10-04-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

We had teams in the 90's that should have won championships, the problem wasn't the formula, the problem was the coaching staff went ultra conservative.

You don't win bowls with QB's like Steve Bono, what happens is what happened to us.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-04-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

We had teams in the 90's that should have won championships, the problem wasn't the formula, the problem was the coaching staff went ultra conservative.

And the only time we won games in said playoffs?

Direckshun · 10-04-2010, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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

**ShortRoundChief** · 10-04-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

You don't win bowls with QB's like Steve Bono, what happens is what happened to us.

I dunno I was talking to Trent Dilfer the other day. He liked Steve Bono.

I get your point, and I agree to a point. However, I mean Eli freaking manning won a superbowl.

**ShortRoundChief** · 10-04-2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

And the only time we won games in said playoffs?

yes, I know montana was the qb

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