The sad thing is this line could be just as bad next year

[B_Ambuehl]

It really needs 4 new starters. Waters is close to being done. He's about where Shields was his last year. Just watched a replay of the SD game and he made their practice squad reject d-line look like world beaters. Goff is done. Niswanger has nothing. O-lines are usually 3 year rebuilding projects and we haven't even started on year 1. Clark obviously won't pay anybody who can really come in here and play football. He had plenty of opportunities to pick up a viable center and right tackle and passed on all of them. You can draft a bunch of rookies, but it takes them 2-3 years to get going (see Jacksonville). Unfortunately, it's looking like this line will be the death of Todd Haley.

[TrickyNicky]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Here, I think Dane's out shagging three 18-year old nymphomaniacs while driving 140 mph in his Ferrari, eating caviar and drinking Dom, so allow me:

YOU ****ING MORON!

WHAT PART OF UNCAPPED YEAR DO YOU NOT ****ING UNDERSTAND?

NONE OF THOSE ****ING LINEMEN (THEY ALL SUCK BTW) WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE CHIEFS TO SIGN!

YOU ****ING MORON!

You are missing at least 3 Jesus Fried Chickens for good measure...

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

I think Dane's out shagging three 18-year old nymphomaniacs while driving 140 mph in his Ferrari, eating caviar and drinking Dom, so allow me:

Lucky bastage!

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by milkman

No, they didn't improve the sacks numbers because of a scheme change.

The sack numbers are improved because Dorsey is devloping into a player that is disruptive on the D-Line.

Had they remained in a 43, and used Dorsey as the UT with Hali as the LDE, the improvement would very likely be much the same as it is now.

The last draft should have been dedicated to offense.
The next to defense.

They appear to be ass backwards.

I didn't say that that sacks numbers changed because of a scheme change. My point was that the defense sucked in the 4-3 last season, so bitching about the change to a 3-4 is just idiotic. Bitching about changing if the 4-3 had been working would at least make sense.

As for the "ass backwards" claim:

• The Steelers are considered a top drafting team. They took corners with picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds, and defensive tackles in the 1st and 6th.



• The Giants went with defensive backs in rounds 6 and 7, as well as going linebacker in round 2, RB in the 4th and QB in the 5th.



• The Colts went DT in rounds 2 and 4, and CB in round 3.



• The Patriots were loaded with 12 picks and could take some gambles, but the team used 6 of those picks on defense, along with one on a long snapper, one on a player recovering from ACL surgery (Tate), and one that was a QB conversion gamble (Edelman)

All that 'great' offense, and top drafting teams were taking multiple defensive players, often at the top of the draft. That's because teams draft according to their plan, and their draft board. That plan differing from a message board poster's preference is not the same as that plan being wrong.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I didn't say that that sacks numbers changed because of a scheme change. My point was that the defense sucked in the 4-3 last season, so bitching about the change to a 3-4 is just idiotic. Bitching about changing if the 4-3 had been working would at least make sense.

As for the "ass backwards" claim:

• The Steelers are considered a top drafting team. They took corners with picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds, and defensive tackles in the 1st and 6th.
  
  
• The Giants went with defensive backs in rounds 6 and 7, as well as going linebacker in round 2, RB in the 4th and QB in the 5th.
  
  
• The Colts went DT in rounds 2 and 4, and CB in round 3.
  
  
• The Patriots were loaded with 12 picks and could take some gambles, but the team used 6 of those picks on defense, along with one on a long snapper, one on a player recovering from ACL surgery (Tate), and one that was a QB conversion gamble (Edelman)

All that 'great' offense, and top drafting teams were taking multiple defensive players, often at the top of the draft. That's because teams draft according to their plan, and their draft board. That plan differing from a message board poster's preference is not the same as that plan being wrong.

You looking at 4 of the top teams in the league to justify the Chiefs' plan?

You're telling me that because those teams, teams with fewer holes combined than the Chiefs, can be used to illustrate that the Chiefs draft wasn't backasswards?

This team has more holes than the PGA tour.

Thier plan may work, but the value in the last draft was on offense, the value in the next draft is on defense.

A team with as many holes as the Chiefs should have followed a plan that took advantage of that value.

But they pissed on that value because they had to switch immediately.

Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Pioli is any better than Carl.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by milkman

Thier plan may work, but the value in the last draft was on offense, the value in the next draft is on defense.

A team with as many holes as the Chiefs should have followed a plan that took advantage of that value.

But they pissed on that value because they had to switch immediately.

Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Pioli is any better than Carl.

Even though this has been stated hundreds of times these past few months...

THIS!

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by milkman

You looking at 4 of the top teams in the league to justify the Chiefs' plan?

You're telling me that because those teams, teams with fewer holes combined than the Chiefs, can be used to illustrate that the Chiefs draft wasn't backasswards?

This team has more holes than the PGA tour.

Thier plan may work, but the value in the last draft was on offense, the value in the next draft is on defense.

A team with as many holes as the Chiefs should have followed a plan that took advantage of that value.

But they pissed on that value because they had to switch immediately.

Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Pioli is any better than Carl.

[Toad]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Todd Haley could probably find a guy off the street to replace him...

Hell, he thinks he can find 5 OL off the street...If we only win 2 games this year, that quote will come back to bite him in the arse.