Chiefs Joeckel vs. Alberts - Page 10

**FRCDFED** · 02-22-2013, 10:32 PM

I know I probably misspelled his name but I want to get everyones true opinion of Joeckel. We want to sign Alberts but I believe most on here are in agreement that he isn't worth top 5 money. At the moment we don't know his demands.

Ever since Alberts was drafted we have debated on here whether or not he should be playing T or G. Mostly because he was a G in college. Most on here would agree that he is a pretty solid LT just not elite.

With that being said.........how does everyone really feel about potentially having a prototipical LT in Joeckel? Put the whole QB situation aside for a minute and just think of the OL.

If we came out of the draft with Joeckel and potentially Barkley if we traded back up or he fell for some reason then wouldn't that be a great start?

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:04 AM

Quote:

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 · 02-23-2013, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

I think he's referring to Gallery and I'm not sure about the Cardinals.

Leonard Davis

NJChiefsFan · 02-23-2013, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

If you throw a crap load of money at your LT and LG you will need those types to show up at your doorstep for other positions.

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:12 AM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan

If you throw a crap load of money at your LT and LG you will need those types to show up at your doorstep for other positions.

You wouldn't be throwing a crap load of money at your LT and LG. You'd only be paying one player big LT money. The other guy would be getting good rookie money, but it's not big money in the overall scheme.

**Tribal Warfare** · 02-23-2013, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

Leonard Davis

He was drafted to be a LT and failed at it

O.city · 02-23-2013, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

Well I don't think it would be worth using that top pick to improve those two spots when the outcome would be somewhat negligible.

Actually of the opinion that our best lg is Hudson who was actually better in college at g than Albert ever was. So in reality we should probably be lookig for a center.

While we do have cap space, you can't look just short term because we have it we have to spend it. I don't think a lg should eat up that much space so that other, more important positions can't be spent on in free agency etc.

So yes while joeckel and Albert might improve that side, it seems to me it would be a waste of money and a valuable pick when we already have an adequate lt and lg on the roster

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

He was drafted to be a LT and failed at it

Yeah, I know. He was paid LT top dollar and played guard.

O.city · 02-23-2013, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

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

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.

Yeah I get that.

I'm just not sure the impact of a top 10 lt vs a top 5 lt is a huge difference so I say don't mess with it.

O.city · 02-23-2013, 01:22 AM

Actually iirc didnt Davis start at lg then go to lt?

O.city · 02-23-2013, 01:24 AM

Biggest problem we are overlooking is that I don't think Albert would ever sign on knowing he might play guard

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Well I don't think it would be worth using that top pick to improve those two spots when the outcome would be somewhat negligible.

Actually of the opinion that our best lg is Hudson who was actually better in college at g than Albert ever was. So in reality we should probably be lookig for a center.

While we do have cap space, you can't look just short term because we have it we have to spend it. I don't think a lg should eat up that much space so that other, more important positions can't be spent on in free agency etc.

So yes while joeckel and Albert might improve that side, it seems to me it would be a waste of money and a valuable pick when we already have an adequate lt and lg on the roster

I don't have a problem with your conclusion, but I have three problems with the other things you said.

1. Drafting Joeckel and keeping Albert wouldn't be a short term move though. It would be a long term move because the centerpiece would be that you're theoretically improving LT while getting 5 years younger.

2. Whether he plays G or T, Branden Albert will be eating up the same amount of cap space and preventing the signing of the same free agents.

3. I'm also not sure why you say so emphatically that Rodney Hudson was a better guard in college than Branden Albert.

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Actually iirc didnt Davis start at lg then go to lt?

He was drafted to play LT but ended up playing G for his first several seasons because his coaches weren't impressed enough with him.

patteeu · 02-23-2013, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Biggest problem we are overlooking is that I don't think Albert would ever sign on knowing he might play guard

That's already been mentioned. Albert will either be signed or tagged before the draft in all likelihood.

Sorter · 02-23-2013, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't have a problem with your conclusion, but I have three problems with the other things you said.

1. Drafting Joeckel and keeping Albert wouldn't be a short term move though. It would be a long term move because the centerpiece would be that you're theoretically improving LT while getting 5 years younger.

2. Whether he plays G or T, Branden Albert will be eating up the same amount of cap space and preventing the signing of the same free agents.

3. I'm also not sure why you say so emphatically that Rodney Hudson was a better guard in college than Branden Albert.

Because he was?

02-22-2013, 10:32 PM
FRCDFED Line'em up Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: somewhere out there Casino cash: $8966297	Joeckel vs. Alberts I know I probably misspelled his name but I want to get everyones true opinion of Joeckel. We want to sign Alberts but I believe most on here are in agreement that he isn't worth top 5 money. At the moment we don't know his demands. Ever since Alberts was drafted we have debated on here whether or not he should be playing T or G. Mostly because he was a G in college. Most on here would agree that he is a pretty solid LT just not elite. With that being said.........how does everyone really feel about potentially having a prototipical LT in Joeckel? Put the whole QB situation aside for a minute and just think of the OL. If we came out of the draft with Joeckel and potentially Barkley if we traded back up or he fell for some reason then wouldn't that be a great start?
Posts: 3,200

02-23-2013, 01:22 AM	#145
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-775936	Actually iirc didnt Davis start at lg then go to lt?
Posts: 84,249

02-23-2013, 01:24 AM	#146
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-775936	Biggest problem we are overlooking is that I don't think Albert would ever sign on knowing he might play guard
Posts: 84,249