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

[jAZ]

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.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Again, I will ask why it's okay to consider a cornerback a legitimate "value" in the Top 5 in a draft, and a linebacker is not?

Cornerbacks, even the best, are only successful approximately 30% of the time, are usually not asked to support in run coverage and have shit for hands (it why they are playing defense instead of being a wide receiver). As well, because of the rules favoring the offense, a good quarterback is going to beat a great cornerback every time if given enough time. A linebacker, and more importantly a strong side linebacker, is responsible for pass coverage, run support, rushing the quarterback, etc. At least to me, it seems that the linebacker would have a higher priority than a cornerback for a defense and when selecting one in the draft.

Why is it okay for the Chiefs to select Jenkins at #3 (especially if the two quarterbacks are off the board) instead of someone like Curry, who our resident draft experts think would be a complete waste at #3 because of his position.

The "experts" here say that unless he's DT or LT, you don't pick a LB at that spot, but it seems to me that the best cornerback of the last ten years, Champ Bailey, hasn't done shit in terms winning playoff games or getting his team to the Super Bowl. I mean, if you are Mike Shanahan, then perhaps cornerbacks mean something because his ego was so incredibly enormous that he thought that if he got two Pro Bowl corners, that would let him beat Indy or New England and win the Super Bowl, but he didn't seem to realize that a cornerback doesn't win you jack squat.

Cornerbacks are better raw athletes than WRs because they don't know where the receiver is going. They have to react, they don't know that the receiver is running a 3 or a 7 route, so not only to they have to have more fluid hips, they generally have better straight line and make up speed.

You can ask Steve Young, who said that the '94 49ers won because of Deion.

He even said as much, "Deion made the difference in our defense."

No one here is equating a CB with a top flight tackle, end or QB, hell, even a DT, but a true lockdown corner changes the schemes that your D can run.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by philfree

Because of the position the Chiefs are in IMO drafting another OT in the 1st round isn't taboo. I want Stafford but he'll most likely be a Lion. Then there's Sanchez who I'd like if we can't get Stafford. IMO Sanchez is a little bit of a reach at #3. Right now anyway. That might change at the combine. So if both QBs are off the board and the very best player on the board is a OT then why not take him? Because we drafted Albert las year? Well Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert so I bet they don't give a rats ass. As far as Albert wanting LT money in 3 years is concerned we just franchise him and trade him for less then the two 1st round picks. Meanwhile we have developed a less expensive option for RT and we've also have a great O line. And remember this is an offensive league. I'm not saying it's ideal but it wouldn't be as bad as some make it seem.


PhilFree

You're right, Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert, and they wouldn't give a rat's ass if Albert didn't play well.

Carl and Herman ****ing Edwards would pass on a LT if they were still here if Albert didn't play well, because they would want to give him time to justify his selection.

But the fact is, Albert played exceptionally well, and Piloli and Haley will care about that.

They won't take another LT because it will be clear to them that we have a good one.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by milkman

You're right, Pioli and Haley didn't draft Albert, and they wouldn't give a rat's ass if Albert didn't play well.

Carl and Herman ****ing Edwards would pass on a LT if they were still here if Albert didn't play well, because they would want to give him time to justify his selection.

But the fact is, Albert played exceptionally well, and Piloli and Haley will care about that.

They won't take another LT because it will be clear to them that we have a good one.

That's the best counter reply I've read.



PhilFree

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

No one here is equating a CB with a top flight tackle, end or QB, hell, even a DT, but a true lockdown corner changes the schemes that your D can run.

One can make that argument with any position. A dominant player is going to make a difference regardless if they are a LB, CB, DE, DT, etc. My point is that with the changes and enforcement of pass interference rules since 2004, the overall impact a cornerback has on the game has been minimized to a certain degree.

As such, I would think that the days of the "shutdown" corner as an area of importance and "value" would be also minimized in terms of looking at a players relative value in the draft.

[orange]

For those of you stressing the "positional value" of draft picks - not one Cornerback has been drafted earlier than pick 5 in the last ten years. The one who was picked fifth - Terence Newman - was a bit of a reach.

Explanation?


[addendum] My quick count shows only 8 total going in the top ten picks during that entire decade.

[Saccopoo]

In fact, historically, the 2008 season was the highest in terms of yards per catch in NFL history. I think that we are in the middle of a transition in terms of how the game is played, coached, refereed, etc. Because of it's success on the college level, one is now seeing the influence of the spread type offense creeping into the NFL; the more stringent enforcement of pass interference rules (since the end of the 2003 season); a focus of more intricate offensive schemes involving multiple set offenses; an evolution of the tight end position from one of a primarily blocking responsibility to one of a multi-function receiving role; wildcat type formations, etc., I think that the "value" of a swiss-army knife linebacker would present a higher value than a cornerback in todays NFL. As such, and this is just my observation, a player with multiple skill sets at the linebacker position such as Curry would ultimately be viewed as having a greater value than a singular role type position such as corner back.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

As such, and this is just my observation, a player with multiple skill sets at the linebacker position such as Curry would ultimately be viewed as having a greater value than a singular role type position such as corner back.

Then please explain to me how teams like the Steelers routinely find linebackers in the 2nd round and later (or undrafted) but have had serious problems finding cornerbacks that stick.

They've gone through so many guys, free agents and draft choices, but have yet to find a true shutdown corner, let alone a guy with equal talent to their linebacker talent.

I don't buy that argument, at all.

Otherwise, guys like Asante Samuel wouldn't be so sought after in free-agency.

[mylittlepony]

Our RT next year has to go up against the likes of:

Justin Tuck, Greg Ellis, Sean Phillips, Lamar Woodley, Jarret Johnson

Now Im not saying I'd go Tackle in the first round. But I'm starting to question alot more if this is a position that can be "had" in the later rounds. The current trend in the NFL is to focus more on rushing the passer. With LDE increasing in value, so should the value of RT. If the chiefs manage to get a Franchise QB they need to look hard at this position. Now RT isnt as important as LT because the QB can get rid of the ball when they see the rush. But Im willing to guess just a few of the boys listed above will still make that franchise QB pay for getting rid of it a smidge to late (welcome to the league rook).

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Then please explain to me how teams like the Steelers routinely find linebackers in the 2nd round and later (or undrafted) but have had serious problems finding cornerbacks that stick.

They've gone through so many guys, free agents and draft choices, but have yet to find a true shutdown corner, let alone a guy with equal talent to their linebacker talent.

I don't buy that argument, at all.

Otherwise, guys like Asante Samuel wouldn't be so sought after in free-agency.

You don't have to buy the argument Dane - you are selling it for me.

The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the past four years without what people consider a "shutdown cornerback," and have based the focus of their defense on their linebacking corps.

Defensive player of the year this past season? LINEBACKER James Harrison.

When you talk about those Patriots teams that won Super Bowls, and reference their defense, are you talking about their cornerbacks or their linebackers? Ted Bruschi and Vrabel seem to get more airtime than Brady does.

Does anyone remember the names of the Bears cornerbacks from their Super Bowl team three seasons ago, or might it have been that their best defensive player was *gasp* a linebacker?

What position has won more NFL Defensive Player of the Year awards? By a large margin - the linebacker.

What we are talking about is perceived value in the draft. And by any consideration that I can think of, it is the cornerback position that is the most "over-valued," at least compared to the linebacker.

Look, I'd like the Chiefs to select a quarterback this draft. I think that they've got a chance to get one of two guys who look to be "franchise" level. But I believe that the original question was "What if those two were gone, and what would the Chiefs do in that particular scenario?"

I just couldn't possibly see Malcolm Jenkins being "the guy" in the situation. I'm sure he is a fine player, and seems to fit the bill for being a quality defensive back, but looking at the Chiefs, as well as looking at the importance of the various positions, I couldn't possibly envision Jenkins being a higher value pick to the Chiefs than someone like Aaron Curry.

[Brock]

The fact you think Brian Urlacher is the best player on the Bears defense makes me chuckle.

[HMc]

i heard roaf was coming back

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

You don't have to buy the argument Dane - you are selling it for me.

The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the past four years without what people consider a "shutdown cornerback," and have based the focus of their defense on their linebacking corps.

Defensive player of the year this past season? LINEBACKER James Harrison.

When you talk about those Patriots teams that won Super Bowls, and reference their defense, are you talking about their cornerbacks or their linebackers? Ted Bruschi and Vrabel seem to get more airtime than Brady does.

Does anyone remember the names of the Bears cornerbacks from their Super Bowl team three seasons ago, or might it have been that their best defensive player was *gasp* a linebacker?

What position has won more NFL Defensive Player of the Year awards? By a large margin - the linebacker.

What we are talking about is perceived value in the draft. And by any consideration that I can think of, it is the cornerback position that is the most "over-valued," at least compared to the linebacker.

Look, I'd like the Chiefs to select a quarterback this draft. I think that they've got a chance to get one of two guys who look to be "franchise" level. But I believe that the original question was "What if those two were gone, and what would the Chiefs do in that particular scenario?"

I just couldn't possibly see Malcolm Jenkins being "the guy" in the situation. I'm sure he is a fine player, and seems to fit the bill for being a quality defensive back, but looking at the Chiefs, as well as looking at the importance of the various positions, I couldn't possibly envision Jenkins being a higher value pick to the Chiefs than someone like Aaron Curry.

Are you really this dense? Your dreamboy James Harrison was UNDRAFTED. Mike Vrabel was drafted in the THIRD ROUND. Teddy Bruschi was drafted in the THIRD ROUND.

I'd take Tommie Harris and/or Lance Briggs over Urlacher. By the way, Briggs was drafted in the THIRD ROUND.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Brock

The fact you think Brian Urlacher is the best player on the Bears defense makes me chuckle.

On their 2006 Super Bowl team he was.

[orange]

Urlacher named AP Defensive Player of the Year

NEW YORK -- Brian Urlacher, the latest leader of the Monsters of the Midway, won The Associated Press NFL Defensive Player of the Year award Friday.


The Chicago Bears' star middle linebacker and the face of a ferocious defense that allowed the fewest points in the league this season, Urlacher adds the honor to his 2000 AP Defensive Rookie of the Year award.

Chicago's turnaround from the bottom of the NFC North pack to 11-5 and division winner was paced by the defense, which yielded 202 points, 45 fewer than Indianapolis, the next-stingiest team. He had 121 tackles, six sacks and a fumble recovery, but stats don't define Urlacher.

Full-field coverage, intimidating hits and big plays do.

"People are realizing we have some good players here," Urlacher said. "Anytime you lose, nothing really matters except winning. ... People realize that when you win, you obviously have some good players on your team."

Chicago has enough of them on defense to draw votes for four. Urlacher's 34 votes from a nationwide panel of 50 sports writers and broadcasters who cover the NFL gave him a runaway victory. Teammates Alex Brown at end, Lance Briggs at outside linebacker, and Nathan Vasher at cornerback each received one vote.

"Best player on the best defense. He should be the defensive MVP," Pro Bowl safety Mike Brown said. "He makes a lot of impact plays, but just him being on the field, teams have to scheme against us. They have to do different things to stay away from him. He's the leader of our team."

Second to Urlacher was Colts DE Dwight Freeney with four votes. Also receiving votes were Steelers safety Troy Polamalu (3), Cardinals safety Adrian Wilson (2), Giants end Osi Umenyiora (2), Broncos cornerback Champ Bailey (1) and Jaguars tackle Marcus Stroud (1).

But Urlacher was unchallenged.

"He's the best linebacker in the league," said Briggs, who plays next to Urlacher and had a breakout season himself. "He's making it happen all day, every day."

Added DE Adewale Ogunleye: "I don't think anyone in the league deserves that award more than him. "He's busted his tail inside and out. Everybody's saying he's overhyped and overrated. He really did everything he had to do to be a leader."

Chicago's defense had to be overwhelming for the Bears to become winners. The offense has been mediocre at best, inept at times.

So it was left to Urlacher and crew to carry the team. They did, allowing fewer than 14 points 10 times. At home, the Bears went 7-1 and yielded a mere 61 points in those games. Only Cincinnati, which beat the Bears 24-7 in Game 3, scored more than nine points at Soldier Field.

And guess where the Bears play their first playoff game next week.

"He runs all over the field," Briggs said. "He chases down guys like Michael Vick. He creates havoc."

The only other Bear to win the award was another great middle linebacker, Mike Singletary, in 1985 and '88.

Urlacher is the fifth player to win a top defensive rookie award and also the AP Defensive Player of the Year. Pittsburgh's Joe Greene was rookie of the year in 1969 and defensive player in '74. The Steelers Jack Lambert did it in 1974 and '76. Lawrence Taylor had the rarest double, winning both honors in 1981. He also was the top defensive player in 1982 and '86 for the Giants. San Francisco's Dana Stubblefield was top rookie in 1993 and No. 1 defensive player in '97.

Last year's winner was Baltimore safety Ed Reed.

But I'm sure random fans on a Chiefs site know better....

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

On their 2006 Super Bowl team he was.

If that's true (it's not), it's only because Tommie Harris wasn't playing. I know casual fans of the game don't really notice what's really going on, so I won't waste anyone's time arguing with you about it.