*****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

[JakeF]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

I can't disagree with that.

Andy's quirkiness will benefit us when it comes to CEH.

[carcosa]

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.)

How about this: in terms of value the 32nd pick is essentially a second rounder, except you get a fifth year on the cheap rookie contract at which point you can tag and trade if you don't want to pay him

Also calm down dude

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

They got their #1 rated RB.

Hard to argue with the #1 player at #32.

Correct.

[dirk digler]

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.)

So based on your analysis teams should never run the ball they should just throw it every down?


And when would you draft a RB?

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by Basileus777

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.

The guy could be a great RB. Knowing Veach and Reid, he probably will be. But that’s not the point. Don’t draft RBs in the first round.

I have a few iron-clad rules in my job: don’t put nurses or teachers on juries. Every time I’ve broken that rule, I’ve regretted it. And the analytics say don’t draft an RB in the first round. The only saving grace is that we have the best QB/player in the league, which makes our room for error larger than other teams.

[RealSNR]

"But we needed...."

We had several positions where we could use an upgrade at starter + depth. RB was one of those positions. So about need. We had a need, and this pick fills it.

"But we had needs at LB and CB..."

Do you want a Carl Peterson draft? Because that's how you get a Carl Peterson draft.

You never ****ing draft for need. ****. Did some of you just start watching football yesterday?

[carcosa]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

The guy could be a great RB. Knowing Veach and Reid, he probably will be. But that’s not the point. Don’t draft RBs in the first round.

I have a few iron-clad rules in my job: don’t put nurses or teachers on juries. Every time I’ve broken that rule, I’ve regretted it. And the analytics say don’t draft an RB in the first round. The only saving grace is that we have the best QB/player in the league, which makes our room for error larger than other teams.

Jesus Christ dude they took the BPA with the 32nd ****ing pick, nobody gives a **** about your little rules you ****in nerd lmao

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So based on your analysis teams should never run the ball they should just throw it every down?


And when would you draft a RB?

Throw on pretty much every down. I’d run if it were short yardage situations.

And if it were me, I’d not draft an RB before 5th round and preferably UDFA. I’d spent my attention on an O line, TEs, and WRs after having a great QB (like Mahomes).

Do a quick check to see what percentage of top RBs in the last 5 years were UDFAs.

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

The guy could be a great RB. Knowing Veach and Reid, he probably will be. But that’s not the point. Don’t draft RBs in the first round.

I have a few iron-clad rules in my job: don’t put nurses or teachers on juries. Every time I’ve broken that rule, I’ve regretted it. And the analytics say don’t draft an RB in the first round. The only saving grace is that we have the best QB/player in the league, which makes our room for error larger than other teams.

You've picked an odd hill to die on my friend. Probably should have stuck to whether or not ketchup goes on a hot dog you'd have swung more votes your way.

[Sassy Squatch]

If CEH was listed as a WR would you still shit on the pick this badly?

[carcosa]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

"But we needed...."

We had several positions where we could use an upgrade at starter + depth. RB was one of those positions. So about need. We had a need, and this pick fills it.

"But we had needs at LB and CB..."

Do you want a Carl Peterson draft? Because that's how you get a Carl Peterson draft.

You never ****ing draft for need. ****. Did some of you just start watching football yesterday?

Buh buh buh buh but the MATH NUMBERS!!!!!

[duncan_idaho]

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.)

That’s all well and good. But Andy Reid is an outlier in the way he calls plays, the amount of times he throws the ball, and how he uses his RB in the passing game.

He’s an exception to the rule.

Numbers matter. I’m a stats guy myself. But matchups matter, too.

Because of his elusiveness as a route runner, CEH is a major upgrade to what Reid can do with his RB in routes. Go watch him run angle routes. There are plenty of highlights of it.

CEH is going to make it harder for teams to sit with two high or three high DBs, because he will ROAST LBs in space in passing routes. He’s going to make it more difficult for teams to bracket both Hill and Kelce because he will dominate LBs in space.

[smithandrew051]

TRUST VEACH OR DRINK BLEACH!!!!!!!!

[KC_Connection]

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.)

Thanks for advising everyone that passing is better than running (which all NFL teams started recognizing over a decade ago and which Andy Reid recognized just about earlier than anyone else in the league). Unfortunately for you, that isn't evidence of this being a bad pick.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by tk13

The biggest thing people are going to miss is they're thinking of him as a RB. You gotta remember this is Andy Reid we're talking about. The RB is an extension of the passing game for Reid.

Even last year, in what you'd consider a weak RB regular season by Reid standards, our RBs caught like 80 passes.

In Westbrook's prime in Philly they used to target him 100 times a year.

Exactly and it looks like he may be a kick returner as well.