The logic of drafting OT in the 1st. - Page 15

Direckshun · 01-21-2021, 01:23 PM

What we know about this team is that it typically likes to fill its roster out as much as possible in free agency and then spend its highest picks on potential replacements for job openings a year down the road, and that includes Veach.

I doubt I even need to run down the list but:

2020: CEH --> Williams
2019: Hardman --> Hill/Watkins
2018: Speaks --> Ford/Houston
2017: Mahomes --> Smith

Fisher will be on the last year of his contract, and most of us suspect Schwartz retiring.

The Chiefs obviously like Niang but going OT 1st gives them the options:

Niang vs. the rookie for starting RT
if the rookie wins, Niang can slide into guard or hold the swing tackle position
if Niang wins, the rookie can slide into guard or hold the swing tackle position
the Chiefs love Fisher but if both Niang and the rookie excel, maybe they cut bait
if only one of them excel, the Chiefs can extend Fisher

It just seems like the kind of move that gives them the flexibility in future decisions that they like to have.

I'd rather they go DE, even if it means trading up for one. But based on what we know, OT could ostensibly solve up to two different OL spots in 2021 and gives them all kinds of options in 2022 based on how 2021 goes.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-27-2021, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

That’s good numbers. It still was a shitty draft pick.

Running backs are easily found and easily replaced. Don’t draft them in the first round

So, you think that the Rams would have won the NFC in 2018 without Gurley?

What are you smoking?

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-27-2021, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Running backs are easily found and easily replaced. Don’t draft them in the first round

If they're so easy to find, why the did the Chiefs running game suck ass in 2019?

If they're so easy to find, why did the Chiefs need to draft a running back in the first round this year?

If they're so easy to find, why does any team bother paying their running back after their contracts expire?

This is a really dopey narrative that's just spun out of control on Chiefsplanet. Sure, teams can hit on guys in the 2nd and 3rd rounds but there's generally a reason as to why running backs that are drafted from the 4th-7th generally don't do dick in the NFL.

And while there have been a few undrafted guys that will play well for a year or two, the reason why they went undrafted usually rears its ugly head sooner rather than later.

This is almost as bad as you saying that if Mahomes needed to sit for year, you wouldn't spend anything more than a 3rd rounder on him.

htismaqe · 01-27-2021, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

5 linebackers were taken in the first round last year. The most first round picks of any one position last year was 6. So I guess there are some NFL front offices that would disagree with you. (Including Seattle and Baltimore.)

If you're in the top 15 and can draft a blue chip prospect, that's one thing. After those guys, the value of LB drops off DRAMATICALLY.

You have to look at positional value versus draft slot.

staylor26 · 01-27-2021, 07:59 PM

I totally understand the philosophy of not taking a RB early is the 1st.

But this idea that you can’t/shouldn’t do it late in the 1st is silly. There’s a huge difference between taking a RB in the top 15 and taking one anywhere from 20-32.

For instance, there’s no reason Najee Harris should make it out of the 1st. He’s a top 15 talent, and teams like the Dolphins and Steelers should definitely have him high on their list for those picks.

htismaqe · 01-27-2021, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26

I totally understand the philosophy of not taking a RB early is the 1st.

But this idea that you can’t/shouldn’t do it late in the 1st is silly. There’s a huge difference between taking a RB in the top 15 and taking one anywhere from 20-32.

For instance, there’s no reason Najee Harris should make it out of the 1st. He’s a top 15 talent, and teams like the Dolphins and Steelers should definitely have him high on their list for those picks.

Exactly. It's the inverse of LB.

O.city · 01-27-2021, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If they're so easy to find, why the did the Chiefs running game suck ass in 2019?

If they're so easy to find, why did the Chiefs need to draft a running back in the first round this year?

If they're so easy to find, why does any team bother paying their running back after their contracts expire?

This is a really dopey narrative that's just spun out of control on Chiefsplanet. Sure, teams can hit on guys in the 2nd and 3rd rounds but there's generally a reason as to why running backs that are drafted from the 4th-7th generally don't do dick in the NFL.

And while there have been a few undrafted guys that will play well for a year or two, the reason why they went undrafted usually rears its ugly head sooner rather than later.

This is almost as bad as you saying that if Mahomes needed to sit for year, you wouldn't spend anything more than a 3rd rounder on him.

The running game was good enough to win a super bowl.

They didn’t need to draft one in the first round.

There are running backs in the 2nd and third round every single year man. Good ones. Take one there, play him for four years and find another one.

The position takes such a beating they break down quick and the value just isn’t there.

And I don’t remember saying that about Mahomes but I’ve been wrong before probably will be again

O.city · 01-27-2021, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So, you think that the Rams would have won the NFC in 2018 without Gurley?

What are you smoking?

Their leading rusher in the playoffs was cj Anderson who they plucked off the street

O.city · 01-27-2021, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26

I totally understand the philosophy of not taking a RB early is the 1st.

But this idea that you can’t/shouldn’t do it late in the 1st is silly. There’s a huge difference between taking a RB in the top 15 and taking one anywhere from 20-32.

For instance, there’s no reason Najee Harris should make it out of the 1st. He’s a top 15 talent, and teams like the Dolphins and Steelers should definitely have him high on their list for those picks.

The end of the first round is atleast tolerable in that you get 5 cheap years.

But you could get 5 cheap years of a more valuable position as well.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-27-2021, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

The running game was good enough to win a super bowl.

They didn’t need to draft one in the first round.

No, it was not. Damien Williams hasn't been healthy for a full 16 game season, EVER. And he opted out AFTER the draft.

There is absolutely no way the Chiefs would be heading to the Super Bowl without CEH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

There are running backs in the 2nd and third round every single year man. Good ones. Take one there, play him for four years and find another one.

If you're picking at #64, you're taking a huge risk that the guy that fits your system just isn't there. So then what? What until the 4th, 5th or 6th and hope that the running back drafted can stay healthy and fit the system?

That's a shitty approach to management. The best managers are PROACTIVE, not reactive, and sitting around thinking you can get a guy later is a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

The position takes such a beating they break down quick and the value just isn’t there.

The value is most certainly "there". The Chiefs wouldn't be headed to the Super Bowl without CEH, the Rams wouldn't have been in the Super Bowl without Gurley, the Patriots wouldn't have been in the Super Bowl without Sony Michel and so on.

The Bills have tried the "Budget Running Back" deal for the past two years. The result? They can't run the ****ing football and they're sitting at home on February 7th.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

And I don’t remember saying that about Mahomes but I’ve been wrong before probably will be again

I can pull up the post if you'd like

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-27-2021, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Their leading rusher in the playoffs was cj Anderson who they plucked off the street

I think that's because Gurley had a bone-on-bone knee but regardless, you can't just discount 70 TD's in 5 years.

Jamal Charles had 64 in 11 years.

T-post Tom · 01-28-2021, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

If you're in the top 15 and can draft a blue chip prospect, that's one thing. After those guys, the value of LB drops off DRAMATICALLY.

You have to look at positional value versus draft slot.

Ravens & Patrick Queen might disagree with you.

Chargem · 01-28-2021, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Ravens & Patrick Queen might disagree with you.

I'm not sure what point you think that proves, Queen has been pretty bad this year. The Ravens also needed a starting linebacker, the Chiefs don't.

duncan_idaho · 01-28-2021, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chargem

I'm not sure what point you think that proves, Queen has been pretty bad this year. The Ravens also needed a starting linebacker, the Chiefs don't.

They also run most of their defensive snaps out of alignments that have 3-4 LB on the field at a time.

The Chiefs run most of their snaps from nickel or dime alignments.

htismaqe · 01-28-2021, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Ravens & Patrick Queen might disagree with you.

Chargem beat me to it but we got a similar quality of production out of Willie Gay a full round later than Queen.

He was terrible and the only advantage he has over Gay right now is that he got more snaps, which I would argue might not be a good thing. You don't just shove a raw guy out there and let him learn in a live fire situation.

T-post Tom · 01-28-2021, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chargem

IThe Ravens also needed a starting linebacker, the Chiefs don't.

Things will be changing fast in the off-season. Especially with the impending reduction in salary cap. Time will tell.

01-21-2021, 01:23 PM
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2083447	The logic of drafting OT in the 1st. What we know about this team is that it typically likes to fill its roster out as much as possible in free agency and then spend its highest picks on potential replacements for job openings a year down the road, and that includes Veach. I doubt I even need to run down the list but: 2020: CEH --> Williams 2019: Hardman --> Hill/Watkins 2018: Speaks --> Ford/Houston 2017: Mahomes --> Smith Fisher will be on the last year of his contract, and most of us suspect Schwartz retiring. The Chiefs obviously like Niang but going OT 1st gives them the options: Niang vs. the rookie for starting RT if the rookie wins, Niang can slide into guard or hold the swing tackle position if Niang wins, the rookie can slide into guard or hold the swing tackle position the Chiefs love Fisher but if both Niang and the rookie excel, maybe they cut bait if only one of them excel, the Chiefs can extend Fisher It just seems like the kind of move that gives them the flexibility in future decisions that they like to have. I'd rather they go DE, even if it means trading up for one. But based on what we know, OT could ostensibly solve up to two different OL spots in 2021 and gives them all kinds of options in 2022 based on how 2021 goes.
Posts: 59,692

01-27-2021, 07:59 PM	#214
staylor26 In Search of a Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Casino cash: $-1950960	I totally understand the philosophy of not taking a RB early is the 1st. But this idea that you can’t/shouldn’t do it late in the 1st is silly. There’s a huge difference between taking a RB in the top 15 and taking one anywhere from 20-32. For instance, there’s no reason Najee Harris should make it out of the 1st. He’s a top 15 talent, and teams like the Dolphins and Steelers should definitely have him high on their list for those picks.
Posts: 52,872