Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3? - Page 3

**jAZ** · 02-12-2009, 11:37 PM

We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

Brock · 02-13-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

It has absolutely nothing to do with the players in the 2009 draft. Could be used as an indicator for what i'll call a soft rule but it ain't fool proof. If the guy is The Best Player On The Board why would you pick a lesser player and let another team have the better player? Because you just don't take LBs that high? There are times when it's O.K. to deviate from these unwritten rules.

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.

PhilFree

If the QBs are gone the most valuable player on the board is probably Malcolm Jenkins, at the risk of repeating myself. There is no way a non-rushing LB goes that high. None.

blaise · 02-13-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.

PhilFree

This is the question some people here don't like to answer. They have all their chips on Sanchez being there and the Chiefs liking him, and they're in denial that it might not happen.
I appreciate that Brock answered the question. Some people just start throwing "trade down" nonsense out there even though it's not going to happen.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?

I was really just exploring the different possibilities if the QBs are both already picked. IMO this draft is not set up very well for the Chiefs and the 3rd pick if the QBs are gone. I mean what would truly be the best/right pick for the Chiefs. If the QBs are gone it very well could be an OT. We can' punt.

PhilFree

ChiefsCountry · 02-13-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

This is the question some people here don't like to answer. They have all their chips on Sanchez being there and the Chiefs liking him, and they're in denial that it might not happen.
I appreciate that Brock answered the question. Some people just start throwing "trade down" nonsense out there even though it's not going to happen.

This has been answered a hundred times and the answer is Malcom Jenkins.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

If the QBs are gone the most valuable player on the board is probably Malcolm Jenkins, at the risk of repeating myself. There is no way a non-rushing LB goes that high. None.

Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?

PhilFree

Brock · 02-13-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?

PhilFree

It appears to me that he's the best CB in this class, which is a pretty good class. It makes a lot more sense to replace Carr/Leggett than it does to replace Branden Albert.

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?

PhilFree

No, Jenkins is not a safety. Teams wanting to move him to FS are crazy, IMO. It'd be a waste. Flowers played great but the others can move to nickle and dime. Corner is a position you can take top 5. RT is not.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

It appears to me that he's the best CB in this class, which is a pretty good class. It makes a lot more sense to replace Carr/Leggett than it does to replace Branden Albert.

Albert will still be on the field but so will both those CBs I would imagine. A team needs two starting CBs as well as two starting OTs. We have two starting CBs and it can be argued that we don't have two starting OTs.

IMO Pioli&Co are in a position to draft the BPA at #3. If we can't get the QB then I'm starting to lean that way and I won't care if the BPA is an OT, WR, LB or what ever. No a guard won't be the best player.

PhilFree

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Albert will still be on the field but so will both those CBs I would imagine. A team needs two starting CBs as well as two starting OTs. We have two starting CBs and it can be argued that we don't have two starting OTs.

IMO Pioli&Co are in a position to draft the BPA at #3. If we can't get the QB then I'm starting to lean that way and I won't care if the BPA is an OT, WR, LB or what ever. No a guard won't be the best player.

PhilFree

Clearly you don't understand positional value. You don't draft a RT in the 1st round, much less the top-5. You can get a RT later in the draft. You're a casual fan, it's ok.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Clearly you don't understand positional value. You don't draft a RT in the 1st round, much less the top-5. You can get a RT later in the draft. You're a casual fan, it's ok.

I understand it. I just don't think it's absolute and with the way this draft seems to be setting up this might be a year where we deviate from what are considered to be the draft rules. Or we can reach for a player that might not get picked till five picks or more later.

PhilFree

**DaKCMan AP** · 02-13-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I understand it. I just don't think it's absolute and with the way this draft seems to be setting up this might be a year where we deviate from what are considered to be the draft rules. Or we can reach for a player that might not get picked till five picks or more later.

PhilFree

Sorry, but no team is going to invest $25 million + guaranteed dollars in a rookie RT. It's just stupid.

**The Franchise** · 02-13-2009, 04:30 PM

If Stafford and Sanchez are gone......then I'm all for having these 4 as our CBs.

Flowers, Jenkins, Carr, Leggett

All young and good CBs.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 04:33 PM

This became a stupid argument.

There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone.

This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.

philfree · 02-13-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Sorry, but no team is going to invest $25 million + guaranteed dollars in a rookie RT. It's just stupid.

He's really a LT but he could play RT for a year or so. Or Pioli and Haley could move Albert to RT. Now remember this isn't what I want first and foremost. It's an alternative.

I do think since we have a new regime that something like drafting an OT is a possibility.

PhilFree

philfree · 02-13-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

This became a stupid argument.

There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone.

This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.

That's not true.

And yeah there's a good chance that one of the QBs will be there and both could be. I doubt both though.

PhilFree

02-12-2009, 11:37 PM
jAZ Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Tucson, AZ Casino cash: $9817493	Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3? We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them. If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one. Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.
Posts: 24,800

02-13-2009, 04:30 PM	#42
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2065047	If Stafford and Sanchez are gone......then I'm all for having these 4 as our CBs. Flowers, Jenkins, Carr, Leggett All young and good CBs.
Posts: 92,316

02-13-2009, 04:33 PM	#43
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2051115	This became a stupid argument. There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone. This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.
Posts: 60,758