Joeckel vs. Alberts

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

Because you would essentially be paying your RG, LT money. It would make more sense to keep Albert at LT and draft Warmack, who's actually a guard.


Albert isn't a guard. He's a LT.

Albert can play guard or tackle. It doesn't matter which positions are being paid as long as the total fits within your financial concept.

Keeping Albert at LT and drafting Warmack would be a similar alternative. Between the two options, you'd have to decide whether your team is better with an Albert/Warmack combo or a Joeckel/Albert combo. And the other advantage of taking Joeckel is that you'd have two solid options at LT if your starter gets injured.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Albert can play guard or tackle. It doesn't matter which positions are being paid as long as the total fits within your financial concept.

Keeping Albert at LT and drafting Warmack would be a similar alternative. Between the two options, you'd have to decide whether your team is better with an Albert/Warmack combo or a Joeckel/Albert combo. And the other advantage of taking Joeckel is that you'd have two solid options at LT if your starter gets injured.

When has Albert played guard in the NFL? We have no idea if he can or not.


You don't pay a G LT money, even if you have the cap space. Thats just not smart.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

When has Albert played guard in the NFL? We have no idea if he can or not.

Please.

Originally Posted by O.city

You don't pay a G LT money, even if you have the cap space. Thats just not smart.

Saying it's not smart doesn't make it not smart. What's not smart about it?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Please.



Saying it's not smart doesn't make it not smart. What's not smart about it?

What team has paid a LG LT money? Ever? LG isn't viewed as a high impact position, therefor people don't pay big money for that position. There is a reason (right or wrong) why LT's make that much money.


Why do you think Albert can play LG?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

What team has paid a LG LT money? Ever? LG isn't viewed as a high impact position, therefor people don't pay big money for that position. There is a reason (right or wrong) why LT's make that much money.


Why do you think Albert can play LG?

I asked you a question. Do you have an answer that actually addresses it?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I asked you a question. Do you have an answer that actually addresses it?

Actually I did in a previous post.


LG isn't a high impact spot, you can get good play for much cheaper, which allows you to spend said money elsewhere.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

Actually I did in a previous post.


LG isn't a high impact spot, you can get good play for much cheaper, which allows you to spend said money elsewhere.

The Chiefs have been plugging guys in as replacements for Will Shields and Brian Waters for a few years now and it's not clear to me that they've found anyone that would be as good as Albert is likely to be. I could be wrong about that, and if the Chiefs think they've got a better alternative at G for less than Albert would be making then they shouldn't sign/draft Albert/Joeckel. I think your theory has merit but I think in practice these low cost, high performance people don't just show up on your doorstep.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

What team has paid a LG LT money? Ever? LG isn't viewed as a high impact position, therefor people don't pay big money for that position. There is a reason (right or wrong) why LT's make that much money.


Why do you think Albert can play LG?

BTW, both the Raiders and the Cardinals have done it. I'm sure there are others. Not that that makes any difference in this argument.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by patteeu

BTW, both the Raiders and the Cardinals have done it. I'm sure there are others. Not that that makes any difference in this argument.

They have? When?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by patteeu

BTW, both the Raiders and the Cardinals have done it. I'm sure there are others. Not that that makes any difference in this argument.

Well, IIRC, they did it because their LT wasn't good enough to play LT, so yeah, this is a different situation. We would be doing it because we found a better LT, which IMO, isn't necessary because Albert is very much above average at LT, so that first pick could be used to get a better player elsewhere.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

Well, IIRC, they did it because their LT wasn't good enough to play LT, so yeah, this is a different situation. We would be doing it because we found a better LT, which IMO, isn't necessary because Albert is very much above average at LT, so that first pick could be used to get a better player elsewhere.

I'm not against getting a better player elsewhere. I want you to read my first post in this thread again:

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why trade him? The Chiefs have a ton of money to spend. Sign Albert for LT money and draft Joeckel for cheap rookie money and play them wherever you want to. Eventually, if not initially, move Albert and let Joeckel take over at LT. A few years down the road, either force Albert to take a pay cut or release him because you've got someone cheaper ready to take his spot. If all goes according to plan, then it will be time to resign Joeckel to his LT 2nd contract.

FTR, I'm not advocating this, but it wouldn't bother me if something like this happened as long as QB was also addressed in some fashion. It would be infinitely better than intentionally letting Albert walk and replacing him with Joeckel.

That was in response to the argument that Kevin Keitzman has been making (and that BossChief made in this thread) that to draft Joeckel it means you have to be willing to trade Brandon Albert and the 1st pick overall for him. It doesn't and I explained why. That doesn't mean that the alternative I described is the absolute best course of action and it doesn't mean that I want it to happen. But some of the arguments against it are less than compelling.