Chiefs Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First Round - Page 32

TRR · 04-18-2010, 10:56 AM

Not sure if it has been posted.....

Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First*Round

by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 AM CDT in 2010 Campaign

Last year about this time, Michael Lombardi of the National Football Post first reported that the Chiefs were "in love" with LSU DE Tyson Jackson. A few days later and Jackson was the Chiefs pick in the draft.

Now Lombardi reports that the Chiefs are trying like hell to move down in the draft.

"The Chiefs are trying, and I mean really trying, to move down," Lombardi reports. "My sources tell me they'll be willing to go down as far as 15 for the right deal because they feel they can find a player in that range."

It's a fine line between trading down and trading down too far. According to Lombardi, our theory of the Eagles offering up the 24th and 37th picks for the Chiefs fifth pick doesn't look like it's happening. By staying around 15, they can still have a shot at a game changer -- Alabama LB Rolando McClain and Texas S Earl Thomas come to mind here -- as well as picking up extra selections.

That said, who's the Chiefs trading partner? SB Nation's Mocking The Draft takes an excellent look at this situation and comes to the conclusion that San Francisco might be the only team in that area that has a chance of moving up.

Lombardi reports the Chiefs are hoping someone wants to get in line to pick Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen.

Marcellus · 04-18-2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

No, I didn't.

You are correct Dane did. Got my assholes confused.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-18-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Seriously are you arguing the post or the poster? Why is it a stretch to ask that. We are going to dat HErm was great but he went 2-14 because of Vermiel but we can bitch we went 4-12 after 1 Pioli draft.

I understand the change in philosophy with player acquisition in 2008 but damn man, 2-14?

We won 4 games with a reeruned head coach and a non contributing 2009 draft.

Seriously, why are you even posting here? Seriously.

Dick Vermeil ****ED this franchise like no other head coach before him.

He chased defensive tackles in each draft. Instead of drafting Drew Brees, he traded the #12 overall for Trent Green, a nice player that didn't last beyond five years. He traded away talent like Scott Fujita and again chased DT's. He wanted Tyler Brayton instead of LJ.

By the time Herm took over, he inherited not only an aging roster, but an old roster.

If you can't see the damage done by Vermeil, you'd better research and get back to us.

chiefzilla1501 · 04-18-2010, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Seriously are you arguing the post or the poster? Why is it a stretch to ask that. We are going to say Herm was great but he went 2-14 because of Vermiel but we can bitch we went 4-12 after 1 Pioli draft.

I understand the change in philosophy with player acquisition in 2008 but damn man, 2-14?

We won 4 games with a reeruned head coach and a non contributing 2009 draft.

Herm made a bold step by cutting a ton of veterans and focusing on youth in 2008. It was a ballsy move and it was in the best interest of the team. It's not like he was trying to pretend the team was good.

For as much as people hate him, he made a move that was right for the team, even if it meant hurting his reputation. Hard to disrespect that.

Marcellus · 04-18-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Seriously, why are you even posting here? Seriously.

Dick Vermeil ****ED this franchise like no other head coach before him.

He chased defensive tackles in each draft. Instead of drafting Drew Brees, he traded the #12 overall for Trent Green, a nice player that didn't last beyond five years. He traded away talent like Scott Fujita and again chased DT's. He wanted Tyler Brayton instead of LJ.

By the time Herm took over, he inherited not only an aging roster, but an old roster.

If you can't see the damage done by Vermeil, you'd better research and get back to us.

Again, we go 2-14 because Vermiel ****ed the team. We go 4-12 1 year later and it is all Pioli's fault? Am I getting this straight?

You are defending going 2-16 because of Vermiel and then bitching because we went 4-12 1 ****ing year later?

We should have went 10-6 right? How fast should we have recovered genious?

JFC the double standard here is hilarious.

2-14 is fine because Vermiel ****ed Herm. 4-12 is unacceptable because we should have been what? 4-6 wins which is exactly what was predicted you ****ing assholes.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-18-2010, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

You are correct Dane did. Got my assholes confused.

Fortunately, the dumbass is abundantly clear.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-18-2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Again, we go 2-14 because Vermiel ****ed the team. We go 4-12 1 year later and it is all Pioli's fault? Am I getting this straight?

You are defending going 2-16 because of Vermiel and then bitching because we went 4-12 1 ****ing year later?

We should have went 10-6 right? How fast should we have recovered genious?

JFC the double standard here is hilarious.

2-14 is fine because Vermiel ****ed Herm. 4-12 is unacceptable because we should have been what? 4-6 wins which is exactly what was predicted you ****ing assholes.

You are so ****ing stupid that it's not even worth discussing.

How many players are on the Chiefs roster from 2001-2005?

chiefzilla1501 · 04-18-2010, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Again, we go 2-14 because Vermiel ****ed the team. We go 4-12 1 year later and it is all Pioli's fault? Am I getting this straight?

You are defending going 2-16 because of Vermiel and then bitching because we went 4-12 1 ****ing year later?

We should have went 10-6 right? How fast should we have recovered genious?

JFC the double standard here is hilarious.

2-14 is fine because Vermiel ****ed Herm. 4-12 is unacceptable because we should have been what? 4-6 wins which is exactly what was predicted you ****ing assholes.

Marcellus....
You're completely ignoring the fact that the Chiefs went 2-14 in Herm's final season because he made the bold decision to slash the roster and force the team to start young.

Herm inherited a team where the previous administration left the roster in horrible shape, with little flexibility to make it better.

Haley inherited a team where the previous administration left the roster in clean shape. And those 4 wins Haley earned were based almost exclusively on players Herm brought in, not based on anything Pioli did to improve upon Herm's roster.

That's where the problem lies.

Marcellus · 04-18-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You are so ****ing stupid that it's not even worth discussing.

How many players are on the Chiefs roster from 2001-2005?

WTF does 2001 -2005 have to do with now? 9 years ago has what to do with Pioli? 9 years ago has what to do with 2-14?

You ask why I post here?

Marcellus · 04-18-2010, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Marcellus....
You're completely ignoring the fact that the Chiefs went 2-14 in Herm's final season because he made the bold decision to slash the roster and force the team to start young.

Herm inherited a team where the previous administration left the roster in horrible shape, with little flexibility to make it better.

Haley inherited a team where the previous administration left the roster in clean shape. And those 4 wins Haley earned were based almost exclusively on players Herm brought in, not based on anything Pioli did to improve upon Herm's roster.

That's where the problem lies.

No I wasn't. I said I understood the change in direction. But we went 4-12 with with the same players basically playing a new defense, no offense, and having no contribution from the rookies.

I am just saying maybe they know what is going on.

chiefzilla1501 · 04-18-2010, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

WTF does 2001 -2005 have to do with now? 9 years ago has what to do with Pioli? 9 years ago has what to do with 2-14?

You ask why I post here?

Because the point is that Vermeil gave Herm nothing to work with.

They were all retired or moved on by 2008. The majority of Peterson's draft picks from 2001-2005 weren't just off the Chiefs' roster, they were out of the NFL.

The point being that Vermeil did a lousy job setting the table for Herm. He left him an old roster with no young talent and Carl made that worse by not giving Herm the flexibility to immediately start shaping that roster into a long-term vision.

Herm left Haley a young roster with some pretty decent young players with playing experience (due to Herm playing his young guys).

There is no way you can ignore that Herm left Haley in a considerably better situation than Vermeil left Herm with. How can you possibly argue with that?

Marcellus · 04-18-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Because the point is that Vermeil gave Herm nothing to work with.

They were all retired or moved on by 2008. The majority of Peterson's draft picks from 2001-2005 weren't just off the Chiefs' roster, they were out of the NFL.

The point being that Vermeil did a lousy job setting the table for Herm. He left him an old roster with no young talent and Carl made that worse by not giving Herm the flexibility to immediately start shaping that roster into a long-term vision.

Herm left Haley a young roster with some pretty decent young players with playing experience (due to Herm playing his young guys).

There is no way you can ignore that Herm left Haley in a considerably better situation than Vermeil left Herm with. How can you possibly argue with that?

He did win 2X as many games his rookie year right? Did I imagine that?

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-18-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

WTF does 2001 -2005 have to do with now? 9 years ago has what to do with Pioli? 9 years ago has what to do with 2-14?

You ask why I post here?

Hey Dumbshit: You're the one that complained about the Chiefs being 2-14 (of course, ignoring the 4-12 season before that). You're the one that's playing the fool here.

Look around the league: The DRAFT is the only way to build a Super Bowl contender, let alone a consistent winning team.

The Chiefs drafts were ****ing dogshit under Vermeil. He completely and totally ****ed this team.

And if you can't see that, you should cancel your Chiefsplanet account immediately because you're dumbassery is beyond reproach.

Marcellus · 04-18-2010, 11:37 PM

how many games did Vermiel win the first year?

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-18-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

He did win 2X as many games his rookie year right? Did I imagine that?

And Herm went 4-12 the year before that with the ****ing shittiest roster ever assembled.

They were also 4-3 and leading the AFC West when LJ was injured and out for the year.

So please explain how Todd Haley, with 45 new roster additions, barely eeked his way to 4-12.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-18-2010, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

how many games did Vermiel win the first year?

So, you're Mr. 8-8 I see.

Now it ALL makes sense.

04-18-2010, 10:56 AM
TRR The Priest and I Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CO Casino cash: $9420185	Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First Round Not sure if it has been posted..... Chiefs Are 'Badly' Trying To Trade Down To Middle Of First*Round by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 AM CDT in 2010 Campaign Last year about this time, Michael Lombardi of the National Football Post first reported that the Chiefs were "in love" with LSU DE Tyson Jackson. A few days later and Jackson was the Chiefs pick in the draft. Now Lombardi reports that the Chiefs are trying like hell to move down in the draft. "The Chiefs are trying, and I mean really trying, to move down," Lombardi reports. "My sources tell me they'll be willing to go down as far as 15 for the right deal because they feel they can find a player in that range." It's a fine line between trading down and trading down too far. According to Lombardi, our theory of the Eagles offering up the 24th and 37th picks for the Chiefs fifth pick doesn't look like it's happening. By staying around 15, they can still have a shot at a game changer -- Alabama LB Rolando McClain and Texas S Earl Thomas come to mind here -- as well as picking up extra selections. That said, who's the Chiefs trading partner? SB Nation's Mocking The Draft takes an excellent look at this situation and comes to the conclusion that San Francisco might be the only team in that area that has a chance of moving up. Lombardi reports the Chiefs are hoping someone wants to get in line to pick Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen.
Posts: 7,373

04-18-2010, 11:37 PM	#478
Marcellus Diablo Negro Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $-577338	how many games did Vermiel win the first year?
Posts: 74,439