*****2020 NFL DRAFT THREAD - NO SPOILERS*****

[Dante84]

Version 2020 - WORLD CHAMPION EDITION

We are now within 24 hours - Cincinnati is on the clock.

Let's ****ing do this.

Rules:
1. No spoiled picks in this thread, all weekend. This means that as tweets are leaking picks a few minutes before the selection is announced live, you don't post it in this thread (ex: embedded tweets), reference it in this thread (ex: Joe Slapdick says it's So and So to Green Bay) or hint at it (ex: "it's a RB!").

2. Don't be a dick.

Otherwise, have fun, talk shit, freak out and lose your goddamned minds. It's Draft Weekend. The hot takes in these threads are so funny. I'll also be starting player threads for each of our picks as they are made, with videos and notable stats/takes in the OP. Pure knee jerk gold to reference in the future.


Here is our current pick order:

• Round 1: Pick No. 32: CLYDE EDWARDS-HELAIRE, RB, LSU
• Round 2: Pick No. 63: WILLIE GAY, JR, LB, MISS. STATE
• Round 3: Pick No. 96: LUCAS NIANG, OL, TCU
• Round 4: Pick No. 138: L'JARIUS SNEED, DB, LA. TECH
• Round 5: Pick No. 177: MIKE DANNA, DE, MICHIGAN
• Round 6: No Picks
• Round 7: Pick No. 237: THAKARIUS BOPETE KEYES, CB, Tulane

Here is a list of the prospects the Chiefs have shown interest in this year.

View the 2019 Draft thread here
View the 2018 Draft thread here
View the 2017 Draft thread here

Time to grind! pic.twitter.com/FGn916qBq1

— Kansas City Chiefs (@Chiefs) April 24, 2020

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by JakeF

Swift can be used as a traditional back
Swift can be used as a 3rd down type back(passes, draws,screens etc)

CEH can be used as a 3rd down type back

I imagine that Andy plans on using Damien to start and CEH as the 3rd down back, pass-catcher back.


I'm not mad, just a bit confused.

CEH can be used as a regular back for the Chiefs because... well... they treat every down like the NFL has traditionally treated 3rd down.

He’s an every down guy for them in 11 personnel. And he certainly was effective as a runner in straight run plays. He has good vision, cuts sharply, and has great stop-start/burst.

[Basileus777]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

Every time Derrick Henry got the ball, he COST Tennessee points.

RBs do NOT add value. Even if RBs can catch passes, they do not add value.

**** me with a sandpaper dildo. This was a bad ****ing decision. KC should have drafted best available LB or CB or IOL. And no, I don’t care how many yards this guy runs for over the next few years. This is a bad ****ing draft choice and if you think otherwise, you don’t understand numbers and probability.

@ touting how RBs don't matter and then go and touting how we should have taken a less talented linebacker, a position which has been phased out even more.

[Pitt Gorilla]

CEH reminds me a little of Deebo Samuel, which is awesome.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

What if that running back ends up being one of your most reliable playmakers?

This team is loaded. It can afford to "splurge" on a RB.

This kid adds another dimension to this offense that we didn't have last season.

He gives us back everything Kareem Hunt gave us and then some.

I really feel like people don't understand that.

And when his contract is up you either trade him or let him walk and get a comp pick.

It’s 5 years of cheap and potentially great RB play.

[mr. tegu]

Who cares about defensive players when you can just out score everyone? Oh wow Ravens you scored 30 points today. How quant. You still lost by 10 but nice effort anyways.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by JakeF

Swift can be used as a traditional back
Swift can be used as a 3rd down type back(passes, draws,screens etc)

CEH can be used as a 3rd down type back

I imagine that Andy plans on using Damien to start and CEH as the 3rd down back, pass-catcher back.


I'm not mad, just a bit confused.

CEH was a 3 down guy at LSU.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

this is solid info. But, the bottom line is that....... in Veach we trust.

Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly on Veach.

CEH is going to make teams pay if they try to pay so much attention to Kelce and Hill. He gives them a third playmaker to pair with those two once Watkins is gone.

This was about attacking the way teams have tried to defend what the Chiefs DP so well.

[Kellerfox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm not a contracts guy, but I wonder if anyone from this draft would be positioned for a second contract. Mahomes will be peaking five years from now. So maybe the plan is that you load up short-term guys for a good two or three year run and then reload.

Bingo. Veach in his post-pick interview emphasized “we have him (CEH) under contract for 5 years.”

Recognizing that you are likely drafting an elite RB for just the rookie contract, do you want him for 4 years or 5 years? Easy answer. With that perspective, this pick is so much better at 32 than it would have been if we traded back to 33, 38, etc. and he would not have been there at 63.

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by fredflintrock

Did I miss something from the rules committee? Are TDs scored by running backs not worth as many point as TDs scored by LB, or CB or IOL. I laugh at people that make exaggerated statements. How could he have cost them points everytime he touched the ball? Didn't he have over 20 TDs last year...oops just looked, only 16 rushing and 2 passing.
How many more points could they have scored on those touches if he hadn't gotten the ball, I guess I'm confused. Numbers? Probability? Would for you to explain this further without a bunch of links, you know, like your thought on the subject, please, if you have time.

I’ve posted links to several articles, but the basic premise is a stat called “extra points added” or EPA. The basic gist is “How many extra points did the offense add on that play?” Its based upon analyzing NFL history to determine: in that play, with that down, distance, and distance to goal, what can a reasonable offense expect to get? If the offense gets more, they get a positive EPA. If they get less, they get a negative EPA.

And evidence shows that over the past 15-20 years, the game has substantially shifted to the point that passing plays have generally positive EPAs and running plays have generally negative EPAs. Put another way, the biggest variable in a team’s running game is not the RBs. It is the O line. In fact, the biggest predictor of whether a running play will be successful is not the particular RB. It is instead the O line. The identity of the RB does NOT matter when determining which play or player would be best in a particular situation. That means, if you have a good O line, it does not matter who is your running back. Nor do passes to RBs make up the difference. You’re better off making a WR a RB than a RB a WR.

Argue with me all you want. Tell me I’m having a meltdown (which is somewhat true). Ridicule me. Fine. I’m just saying what the evidence shows. And that evidence shows that a first round pick should be used for players and positions that can contribute a positive EPA.

I’m a big boy. I can take the slings and arrows. And if this guy runs for 4000 yards, feel free to post a link to any of my posts. But if you want offensive production, you’re better off with WRs, TEs, or O-linemen than a RB based upon the current evidence.

(BTW, nobody has challenged my data. Nobody has produced any analysis showing that drafting an RB in the first round is worth it. It’s just “calm down, dude.” That, though, is not an argument.)

[RealSNR]

Glad we didn't take that pedestrian mother****er Dobbins.

Clyde the Glide is going to rape

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly on Veach.

CEH is going to make teams pay if they try to pay so much attention to Kelce and Hill. He gives them a third playmaker to pair with those two once Watkins is gone.

This was about attacking the way teams have tried to defend what the Chiefs DP so well.

We saw this last year where defenses didn't really respect our running game and now they have to again.

[VAGOMO 4 LIFE!]

Brett Veach told us on the livestream that #Chiefs' OC Eric Bieniemy started texting him about six picks before they were on the clock about "going & getting him," with "him" being Clyde Edwards-Helaire.

Dave Toub texted a couple of minutes after the pick.

Everyone's fired up.

— BJ Kissel (@ChiefsReporter) April 24, 2020

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

I’ve posted links to several articles, but the basic premise is a stat called “extra points added” or EPA. The basic gist is “How many extra points did the offense add on that play?” Its based upon analyzing NFL history to determine: in that play, with that down, distance, and distance to goal, what can a reasonable offense expect to get? If the offense gets more, they get a positive EPA. If they get less, they get a negative EPA.

And evidence shows that over the past 15-20 years, the game has substantially shifted to the point that passing plays have generally positive EPAs and running plays have generally negative EPAs. Put another way, the biggest variable in a team’s running game is not the RBs. It is the O line. In fact, the biggest predictor of whether a running play will be successful is not the particular RB. It is instead the O line. The identity of the RB does NOT matter when determining which play or player would be best in a particular situation. That means, if you have a good O line, it does not matter who is your running back. Nor do passes to RBs make up the difference. You’re better off making a WR a RB than a RB a WR.

Argue with me all you want. Tell me I’m having a meltdown (which is somewhat true). Ridicule me. Fine. I’m just saying what the evidence shows. And that evidence shows that a first round pick should be used for players and positions that can contribute a positive EPA.

I’m a big boy. I can take the slings and arrows. And if this guy runs for 4000 yards, feel free to post a link to any of my posts. But if you want offensive production, you’re better off with WRs, TEs, or O-linemen than a RB based upon the current evidence.

(BTW, nobody has challenged my data. Nobody has produced any analysis showing that drafting an RB in the first round is worth it. It’s just “calm down, dude.” That, though, is not an argument.)

I think the basic argument and the reason people aren’t much interested in breaking down the data is because our eyes tell us that if everyone treated and used RBs like Reid then the data would look way different.

[JakeF]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

CEH was a 3 down guy at LSU.

Let's hope it all works out.

GoChiefs

[Basileus777]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

I’ve posted links to several articles, but the basic premise is a stat called “extra points added” or EPA. The basic gist is “How many extra points did the offense add on that play?” Its based upon analyzing NFL history to determine: in that play, with that down, distance, and distance to goal, what can a reasonable offense expect to get? If the offense gets more, they get a positive EPA. If they get less, they get a negative EPA.

And evidence shows that over the past 15-20 years, the game has substantially shifted to the point that passing plays have generally positive EPAs and running plays have generally negative EPAs. Put another way, the biggest variable in a team’s running game is not the RBs. It is the O line. In fact, the biggest predictor of whether a running play will be successful is not the particular RB. It is instead the O line. The identity of the RB does NOT matter when determining which play or player would be best in a particular situation. That means, if you have a good O line, it does not matter who is your running back. Nor do passes to RBs make up the difference. You’re better off making a WR a RB than a RB a WR.

Argue with me all you want. Tell me I’m having a meltdown (which is somewhat true). Ridicule me. Fine. I’m just saying what the evidence shows. And that evidence shows that a first round pick should be used for players and positions that can contribute a positive EPA.

I’m a big boy. I can take the slings and arrows. And if this guy runs for 4000 yards, feel free to post a link to any of my posts. But if you want offensive production, you’re better off with WRs, TEs, or O-linemen than a RB based upon the current evidence.

(BTW, nobody has challenged my data. Nobody has produced any analysis showing that drafting an RB in the first round is worth it. It’s just “calm down, dude.” That, though, is not an argument.)

Mentioning first round is just empty rhetoric, it's the 32nd pick. You take the most talented player that you think can help your team at that point. Most of the other positions of need had already had a run of picks. Veach and Reed thought their top rated RB was the best player available. It does not conflict with the idea that passing produces more efficient offense than running the ball in any way. Hell, this is coming from a regime that has passed the ball on first down more than any other in NFL history. They know the value of passing the ball.



This is the danger of taking generalities too far. RBs should not not taken with premium picks, but the 32nd pick is not one of them. It's in the range where the best running back in the draft can contribute more than the leftovers from other positions.