What if Fisher sucks at RT?

[CoMoChief]

Who replaces him there? Stephenson, Schwartz, Allen???

I know he's a rookie, but from what I've been hearing is that he's been struggling in 1on1 drills etc. I know he's switching sides which can be a factor, esp at that high of a level expecting to do as well as you would from your strong side. But should an overall#1 pick be struggling like this, esp at an important position to where he kinda has to be thrown to the wolves early?

And if he ends up having a shitty season. Does this team invest in another tackle early in the draft again next season or go FA? That would drive this board ****in nuts LOL.

[El Jefe]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The **** it's not.

Tyson Jackson was drafted with the 3rd overall pick and given 57 million dollars. He was drafted and paid like a player who should be a franchise cornerstone, not a one-dimensional defensive end.

By all means, if you want to finish 2-14 continue to load up on top three picks like Tyson Jackson. Meanwhile, teams that actually win in the playoffs will take players who can give you that level of production in the 3rd-5th rounds.

For the level of investment, Tyson Jackson is a horrible ****ing player, just like for the level of investment Matt Cassel was a horrible ****ing player. If Cassel was given the league minimum and told to battle it out for the 3rd QB spot he's an asset. When he's your franchise player, you be ****ed.

The mere fact that this has to even be explained is absolutely flabbergasting.

Your elitist mentality is actually quite entertaining. I never said T-Jax wasn't a good pick, but comparing it to an R&D department is border line reeruned.

[El Jefe]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Thanks.

Grab a chair, and listen while father Hamas educates us on his "opinions". (Which are never wrong!).

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by El Jefe

Grab a chair, and listen while father Hamas educates us on his "opinions". (Which are never wrong!).

You should try refuting them instead of just standing there like a moron and bitching about how Hamas seems like an arrogant jerk to you.

[MahiMike]

Last night they ran about 2,000 screens to the right side. About another 100 runs to the right side.

I think we're ok here.

[saphojunkie]

First off, I love that this is now about Tyson Jackson. But sure, let's run with it.

You're right - under the old rookie wage (non-existent) system, Tyson Jackson's contract vastly outweighed his contribution on the field.

Guess what? That contract was renegotiated and his compensation lowered to an amount that IS COMMENSURATE WITH HIS PRODUCTION.

If you are trying to compare his contract/production to Fisher's then you're spinning your wheels. The contracts are nowhere near the same level.

In fact, Fisher has a lower cap hit than Winston would have, and while his play is also lower, his potential is much greater. He was a better investment financially than keeping Winston was.

So, since we have a finite number of assets including draft picks, where would you have preferred using that asset?

[El Jefe]

Originally Posted by SNR

You should try refuting them instead of just standing there like a moron and bitching about how Hamas seems like an arrogant jerk to you.

I have learned it is better not to get into an argument with Hamas. It's like getting into an argument with Dane, all they do is cuss and tell you how stupid you are. Also, I am not standing anywhere, I am actually sitting in my chair currently. I will say why I believe is point is invalid.

When comparing sacks that Tyson Jackson gets to what he is paid, and how Hamas compared that to his R&D scenario you have a couple discrepancies. You really cannot put a tangible value on sacks collected. Because how can you truly value sacks? What if the sack is at the end of the game where you are down or up by 30 points? Those sacks are nothing that changed the outcome of the game are they? So these sacks would really have no bearing on whether he was worth the money or not. So, what if he has 10 sacks that are in games that were decided before he obtained those sacks. Are those sacks worth more than 1 sack that was a decided factor in a game where a team is driving for a tying score? You can't quantify a true value on what sacks are worth with what he is paid. An argument saying "if he doesn't have 5-10 sacks a year, then he is not worth the money" is fair, but comparing it to a tangible R&D budget, it isn't applicable. Tackles and QB pressures and eating up blockers are also a very big component to what he is expected and paid to do, but what are the values on those?

Now trying to compare this to his R&D scenario is absolutely silly. I am not saying T-Jack is worth the money, but his argument between Sapho is silly.

[saphojunkie]

No one is here trying to say that Fisher is actually playing like a first overall pick. Or that he is playing like a $4 million right tackle.

But we aren't on page 28 of the "What if Jeff Allen sucks LG?" thread. Or the "What if Jon Asamoah sucks at RG?" thread. And both of those dudes are just as big of concerns on the field. Contractually, no, they aren't as big of commitments, but the only thing that matters is the team's success. Not the allocation of assets. If we spent 95% of our assets on the secondary and go 19-0, what the **** do I care? If we perfectly allocate it based on advanced metrics and miss the playoffs, again, what the **** do I care?

Results matter. That is all. Results. Everything else is idle debate.

Fisher is a lightning rod for criticism because of his draft spot, and that is irrational. Shit, I'd way rather have Fisher at right tackle from 1.1 than Donald Stephenson at backup tackle from 3.74, because that pick could have been Russell Wilson. Should have been Russell Wilson.

But of course, the only thing anyone will talk about is Fisher and it's silly. It's silly after three games. It was even more ridiculous on August 2nd, which is when this reeruned thread was started.

We will see how the year plays out. If he doesn't improve throughout the course of the season, then yeah... we might have a serious problem. As it stands now, Fisher hasn't cost this team a win, so I'm not freaking out.

He hasn't cost Jamaal Charles getting injured. In fact, Jamaal scored our only offensive touchdown behind Fisher. So, no. I'm not panicking yet.

[El Jefe]

Originally Posted by SNR

Also, Fisher was supposed to stabilize our changing OT situation amidst Albert's contract issues, right?

Does anybody feel comfortable moving him to LT, now? I sure as **** do not.

At the end of the season, Branden Albert may as well print out the details of Duane Brown's contract, waltz over to Dorsey's office, and say, "The bidding starts here, mother****er."

A lot changes in a season.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

First off, I love that this is now about Tyson Jackson. But sure, let's run with it.

You're right - under the old rookie wage (non-existent) system, Tyson Jackson's contract vastly outweighed his contribution on the field.

Guess what? That contract was renegotiated and his compensation lowered to an amount that IS COMMENSURATE WITH HIS PRODUCTION.

If you are trying to compare his contract/production to Fisher's then you're spinning your wheels. The contracts are nowhere near the same level.

In fact, Fisher has a lower cap hit than Winston would have, and while his play is also lower, his potential is much greater. He was a better investment financially than keeping Winston was.

So, since we have a finite number of assets including draft picks, where would you have preferred using that asset?

I'm not comparing Jackson's contract and production to Fisher's, I'm talking about how high draft picks aren't just them little bitches on a chessboard.

But, since nearly every poster on ChiefsPlanet seems to have scored a 7 on their ACT Reading, let's go back to step one, again:

Jackson was a huge investment financially. He was also a huge investment with the draft pick used to get him. When you pick Tyson Jackson #3 you are saying that you believe him to be a more valuable player than every other player in the draft who isn't Matt Stafford or Jason Smith (and possibly better/more valuable than them as well).

Since you were talking about Jackson and his comparison to a hypothetical sixth rounder in post #369 of this thread I used him as a point of comparison to demonstrate your fallacious line of reasoning. I didn't grasp him out of the ether, you mentioned his relative production after BigCatDaddy said he sucked for 1.3.

Regarding the shit show that has been Eric Fisher: Even if he gets paid $1 this year, he's still a massive investment for the Chiefs because they chose him over every one else. They didn't pick him in the third round; they didn't sign him as an UDFA; the Chiefs brass said in making that pick that, "Of all the draft-eligible players available this year, this guy is the absolute best."

They passed on every other player to take him. That means that his production will be weighed against Sheldon Richardson, Barkevious Mingo. EJ Manuel, Geno Smith, Luke Joeckel, Lane Johnson, and any other player in that draft, just like Robert Gallery was judged not as a fourth round pick, but as the second overall pick.

It's not just about who you take, it's also about who you pass on when you take who you take.

Finally, I appreciate the, "Well, why aren't you a GM?" that the final line of your reply evokes. It's an oft-repeated axiom of the stupid and defeated here.

My response is that I would have taken about 10-12 guys before Fisher. Go ahead and look at my posts from around the draft. They're right there.

[tomahawk kid]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Last night they ran about 2,000 screens to the right side. About another 100 runs to the right side.

I think we're ok here.

Kid's up and down. When he's good, he's good - when he's bad, he's very very bad.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by SNR

You should try refuting them instead of just standing there like a moron and bitching about how Hamas seems like an arrogant jerk to you.

What if that's all he knows?

[saphojunkie]

Having said all of that, I'm rewatching the game and Fisher is getting his ****ing ass handed to him.

[saphojunkie]

It's not on the stat sheet, but he gave up a ton of pressures.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I'm not comparing Jackson's contract and production to Fisher's, I'm talking about how high draft picks aren't just them little bitches on a chessboard.

But, since nearly every poster on ChiefsPlanet seems to have scored a 7 on their ACT Reading, let's go back to step one, again:

Jackson was a huge investment financially. He was also a huge investment with the draft pick used to get him. When you pick Tyson Jackson #3 you are saying that you believe him to be a more valuable player than every other player in the draft who isn't Matt Stafford or Jason Smith (and possibly better/more valuable than them as well).

Since you were talking about Jackson and his comparison to a hypothetical sixth rounder in post #369 of this thread I used him as a point of comparison to demonstrate your fallacious line of reasoning. I didn't grasp him out of the ether, you mentioned his relative production after BigCatDaddy said he sucked for 1.3.

Regarding the shit show that has been Eric Fisher: Even if he gets paid $1 this year, he's still a massive investment for the Chiefs because they chose him over every one else. They didn't pick him in the third round; they didn't sign him as an UDFA; the Chiefs brass said in making that pick that, "Of all the draft-eligible players available this year, this guy is the absolute best."

They passed on every other player to take him. That means that his production will be weighed against Sheldon Richardson, Barkevious Mingo. EJ Manuel, Geno Smith, Luke Joeckel, Lane Johnson, and any other player in that draft, just like Robert Gallery was judged not as a fourth round pick, but as the second overall pick.

It's not just about who you take, it's also about who you pass on when you take who you take.

Finally, I appreciate the, "Well, why aren't you a GM?" that the final line of your reply evokes. It's an oft-repeated axiom of the stupid and defeated here.

My response is that I would have taken about 10-12 guys before Fisher. Go ahead and look at my posts from around the draft. They're right there.

Yes, I brought up Jackson in RESPONSE to post 363. I didn't decide to turn the discussion there.

And I didn't insinuate or imply the "derp why aren't you a GM, you're so smart!"

Go and look at MY POSTS. (because either of us are actually gonna do that) I don't ascribe any mythical genius to football front office guys. Usually they are in their position because they grew up in football, either playing or sons of personnel men and coaches. They aren't geniuses like, I don't know, a physicist studying dark matter. If they were, Jamarcus Russell wouldn't have been a professional quarterback.

However, it is really easy to say that Eric Fisher has to be better than THE FIELD. Sure, dude. You're talking about 253 other players. The odds that one of the them will have a more successful career than Fisher are staggering. In fact, if you draft 1.1 and actually select the best player in the draft, you have beaten such insane odds - especially when factoring in all of the changing factors that come AFTER the draft - that it boggles the mind.

Every draft pick is a gamble. Every draft pick is a guess. Fisher has flashes of elite talent. Great lateral movement. Athleticism. But he is getting worked over like a rag doll on too many plays.

If he pulls it together and ends up as an elite tackle, then it won't bother me that it took him a season to do it. If he starts costing us games, then yeah... we need to seriously consider benching him. The whole point was that a tackle was solid and secure.

But hey man. We'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. Haven't lost a game yet, despite his struggles. And contract. And the investment of a draft pick.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

No one is here trying to say that Fisher is actually playing like a first overall pick. Or that he is playing like a $4 million right tackle.

But we aren't on page 28 of the "What if Jeff Allen sucks LG?" thread. Or the "What if Jon Asamoah sucks at RG?" thread. And both of those dudes are just as big of concerns on the field. Contractually, no, they aren't as big of commitments, but the only thing that matters is the team's success. Not the allocation of assets. If we spent 95% of our assets on the secondary and go 19-0, what the **** do I care? If we perfectly allocate it based on advanced metrics and miss the playoffs, again, what the **** do I care?

Results matter. That is all. Results. Everything else is idle debate.

Fisher is a lightning rod for criticism because of his draft spot, and that is irrational. Shit, I'd way rather have Fisher at right tackle from 1.1 than Donald Stephenson at backup tackle from 3.74, because that pick could have been Russell Wilson. Should have been Russell Wilson.

But of course, the only thing anyone will talk about is Fisher and it's silly. It's silly after three games. It was even more ridiculous on August 2nd, which is when this reeruned thread was started.

We will see how the year plays out. If he doesn't improve throughout the course of the season, then yeah... we might have a serious problem. As it stands now, Fisher hasn't cost this team a win, so I'm not freaking out.

He hasn't cost Jamaal Charles getting injured. In fact, Jamaal scored our only offensive touchdown behind Fisher. So, no. I'm not panicking yet.

I agree. Look, Fisher wasn't an ideal pick and I'd rather they picked someone else. But he's here now. I don't want to evaluate him on whether he's worth the #1 pick because he never will be. And no rookie should be judged by whether they are fulfilling their current contract. They should be evaluated on whether they have the upside to fulfill their entire contract, which Fisher certainly can.

I really don't care if he struggles this year and picks it up next year, which he could very likely do.