Nick Bolton

[Direckshun]

Here's an interesting, perhaps-purely-academic question.

Nick Bolton was our pick at the bottom of the 2nd round. I was lukewarm on this selection at the time. I viewed him as the replacement strategy for Anthony Hitchens, and I saw him as a capable ILB. But, like Hitchens, I saw him as a two down LB, and I still think that view is warranted, given how weak he seems in coverage.

That being said, we've seen him get a ton of reps now, and he's had a good month, to say the least.

The potential we now see in him is still a player who is a liability in coverage, and probably always will be, but can probably make strides to make that a slight weakness rather than a glaring one in the long run.

In everything else: his ability to captain the defense, fill gaps, pound the run, and be the always-around-the-ball Mike that every defense needs... he's doing well right now and we can all expect, I think, that this will continue long term, barring health issues.

My projection of him, when we drafted him, was that maybe he can become a slight upgrade over Anthony Hitchens -- and that simply isn't worth a 2nd round pick.

But we've now seen a month of him playing damn well as a linebacker, and I think his projection could very well be London Fletcher. I mean, he may very well end up leading the league in tackles a couple times.

So here's the academic question, because it doesn't matter with Bolton anymore, but will matter in future drafts:

Is that worth a 2nd round pick?

You can get smart, physical linebackers that suck against the pass everywhere in the draft, but if you can nab one at the bottom of the 2nd, what're your thoughts?

[Chris Meck]

you CAN get that anywhere in the draft, but you DON'T necessarily.

I don't give a shit where they get a plus player, you just need to keep getting plus players.

I don't give a shit about positional value, I don't give a shit about any of drafturbator nonsense.

What you can't have are misses, particularly early in the draft where the better scouted, higher ceiling talent is.

you can't whiff on a first or second round pick. you just can't.

A center in the 2nd, when those can be found later in the draft? I don't care, I'm keeping Humphrey.

A MLB in the 2nd? Bolton's good. He's a good football player. I'll keep him too.

Just keep finding good football players.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So here's the academic question, because it doesn't matter with Bolton anymore, but will matter in future drafts:

Is that worth a 2nd round pick?

You can get smart, physical linebackers that suck against the pass everywhere in the draft, but if you can nab one at the bottom of the 2nd, what're your thoughts?

While I disagree with your underlying premise (that a slight upgrade on Hitchens isn't worth a 2nd rounder) my answer, even presuming your position to be sound, is absolutely yes.

We have a backwards view of 2nd round picks most of the time. Because most 2nd round picks don't profile like Hitchens and Humphrey do. Most 2nd round picks are guys with 1st round talent but red flags somewhere. They're typically boom/bust guys like Chris Jones. And MOST of those guys bust out.

So when we take someone with a lower ceiling but a high floor like Mitch Morse or Nick Bolton, people say "Aargh!! That's not worth a 2nd rounder!!" and I just don't buy it.

If all I EVER get from the 2nd round are solid starting caliber players at secondary positions, I'll take it. If it's nothing but year after year of Juan Thornhill, Creed Humphrey and Nick Bolton, that's a win every single time. Shit, if it's Derrick Nnadi and Rashad Fenton I'd be content. Solid 3-4 year starters at G are fine uses of the pick.

Expecting superstars in the 2nd round is folly.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

While I disagree with your underlying premise (that a slight upgrade on Hitchens isn't worth a 2nd rounder) my answer, even presuming your position to be sound, is absolutely yes.

We have a backwards view of 2nd round picks most of the time. Because most 2nd round picks don't profile like Hitchens and Humphrey do. Most 2nd round picks are guys with 1st round talent but red flags somewhere. They're typically boom/bust guys like Chris Jones. And MOST of those guys bust out.

So when we take someone with a lower ceiling but a high floor like Mitch Morse or Nick Bolton, people say "Aargh!! That's not worth a 2nd rounder!!" and I just don't buy it.

If all I EVER get from the 2nd round are solid starting caliber players at secondary positions, I'll take it. If it's nothing but year after year of Juan Thornhill, Creed Humphrey and Nick Bolton, that's a win every single time. Shit, if it's Derrick Nnadi and Rashad Fenton I'd be content. Solid 3-4 year starters at G are fine uses of the pick.

Expecting superstars in the 2nd round is folly.

Well let's not push me into positions that I don't have.

I am but a humble worshipper of the Temple of Positional Value. And I've been vocal on this site that Veach seems to completely spurn positional value in place of "tiers," and I think that's misguided. And it's one of the reasons we have to continue McGuyvering a passrush and cornerbacks out of a shoestring budget.

My problem with the Bolton pick at the time was not that he was not a high-ceiling player, though that was part of it, but that he had a skillset that's easier to replicate in later rounds compared to, say, an impact passrusher or an effective cornerback.

However, now that he's shown that he can emerge as a London Fletcher type, I think that may change that analysis some, which is what led to the OP.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

While I disagree with your underlying premise (that a slight upgrade on Hitchens isn't worth a 2nd rounder) my answer, even presuming your position to be sound, is absolutely yes.

We have a backwards view of 2nd round picks most of the time. Because most 2nd round picks don't profile like Hitchens and Humphrey do. Most 2nd round picks are guys with 1st round talent but red flags somewhere. They're typically boom/bust guys like Chris Jones. And MOST of those guys bust out.

So when we take someone with a lower ceiling but a high floor like Mitch Morse or Nick Bolton, people say "Aargh!! That's not worth a 2nd rounder!!" and I just don't buy it.

If all I EVER get from the 2nd round are solid starting caliber players at secondary positions, I'll take it. If it's nothing but year after year of Juan Thornhill, Creed Humphrey and Nick Bolton, that's a win every single time. Shit, if it's Derrick Nnadi and Rashad Fenton I'd be content. Solid 3-4 year starters at G are fine uses of the pick.

Expecting superstars in the 2nd round is folly.

You just have to keep adding good football players.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well let's not push me into positions that I don't have.

I am but a humble worshipper of the Temple of Positional Value. And I've been vocal on this site that Veach seems to completely spurn positional value in place of "tiers," and I think that's misguided. And it's one of the reasons we have to continue McGuyvering a passrush and cornerbacks out of a shoestring budget.

My problem with the Bolton pick at the time was not that he was not a high-ceiling player, though that was part of it, but that he had a skillset that's easier to replicate in later rounds compared to, say, an impact passrusher or an effective cornerback.

However, now that he's shown that he can emerge as a London Fletcher type, I think that may change that analysis some, which is what led to the OP.

HUGE disagreement on multiple fronts of this post.

1)'tiers' is more about talent levels at specific positions than anything else. This guy that has a 2nd round grade is only marginally better than this guy who will go in the 4th. That sort of thing. Maybe that 4th round guy played at a small school but has more athletic upside. It's entirely specific situation dependant.

2)Mcguyvering a pass rush? with a quarter of our cap spent on former pro bowl players who SHOULD be in their prime years? That's not patching bullshit together. Nobody would argue we've gotten our money's worth, but the front four SHOULD be elite. Spending #1's on proven players should have taken the guesswork and development process out of the equation and given you a plug and play stud line. It didn't work out-but that's not patching together a bunch of prayers. Super disappointing, but you can't fault the logic in the first place. We had the cap room at the time for Clark and Jones; it's just been disappointing returns since the '19 SB run. Moving forward, we will NOT be able to do things like that, as Mahomes starts to get expensive.

3)positional value is largely draftnik nonsense. What you can't have is a swing and a miss in the first round especially and to lesser extent the second round. If CEH had turned out to be Marshall Faulk (as was predicted) then would that be bad value? No. Because that single player would be the reason for multiple wins per season. The only time positional value is important is BECAUSE certain positions are in such short supply and of such import that you just rarely find them anywhere else. For instance, a stud DE/EDGE tends to be first round talent only. Even more so, a stud LT. You just can't find those guys later very often. So yeah, if Creed Humphrey is there in the 2nd, but so is Willie Roaf, you take Willie Roaf. It's a more important position, and much harder to find. But you don't take a guy who MIGHT develop into a decent LT over the C that is ready to rock. But everywhere else, there are frequent guys every year in any round. WR's, DT's, IOL, RB's, S, etc. Some guys just 'fit' different systems so well they were undervalued.

Worrying about positional value is how you end up with busts. Take the good player, plug him in, and roll. We have a top heavy team, and we just need to get adding good football players that are cost-controlled.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

HUGE disagreement on multiple fronts of this post.

1)'tiers' is more about talent levels at specific positions than anything else. This guy that has a 2nd round grade is only marginally better than this guy who will go in the 4th. That sort of thing. Maybe that 4th round guy played at a small school but has more athletic upside. It's entirely specific situation dependant.

2)Mcguyvering a pass rush? with a quarter of our cap spent on former pro bowl players who SHOULD be in their prime years? That's not patching bullshit together. Nobody would argue we've gotten our money's worth, but the front four SHOULD be elite. Spending #1's on proven players should have taken the guesswork and development process out of the equation and given you a plug and play stud line. It didn't work out-but that's not patching together a bunch of prayers. Super disappointing, but you can't fault the logic in the first place. We had the cap room at the time for Clark and Jones; it's just been disappointing returns since the '19 SB run. Moving forward, we will NOT be able to do things like that, as Mahomes starts to get expensive.

3)positional value is largely draftnik nonsense. What you can't have is a swing and a miss in the first round especially and to lesser extent the second round. If CEH had turned out to be Marshall Faulk (as was predicted) then would that be bad value? No. Because that single player would be the reason for multiple wins per season. The only time positional value is important is BECAUSE certain positions are in such short supply and of such import that you just rarely find them anywhere else. For instance, a stud DE/EDGE tends to be first round talent only. Even more so, a stud LT. You just can't find those guys later very often. So yeah, if Creed Humphrey is there in the 2nd, but so is Willie Roaf, you take Willie Roaf. It's a more important position, and much harder to find. But you don't take a guy who MIGHT develop into a decent LT over the C that is ready to rock. But everywhere else, there are frequent guys every year in any round. WR's, DT's, IOL, RB's, S, etc. Some guys just 'fit' different systems so well they were undervalued.

Worrying about positional value is how you end up with busts. Take the good player, plug him in, and roll. We have a top heavy team, and we just need to get adding good football players that are cost-controlled.

1.) I don't agree with your analysis -- guys in the 2nd round are generally much better prospects than guys in the 4th. Veach puts guys in tiers and, naturally, the most valuable positions in each tier get eaten up first, leaving him to burn high picks on less valuable positions.

(This is just repeating part of the conversation we had on tiers, honestly. I have little interest in re-exploring it and having the exact same pile-on happening twice.)

So however you want to quantify it, it has led to us drafting two LBs, a RB, and an interior OL with our last 4 1st/2nd round picks. I cannot stress the risk that poses to critical positions longterm. (I will note that he's respected positional value in trades, weirdly, trading 1sts for a DE/LT. I don't know why that can't carry over to actual draft picks.)

2.) I stand by my original point. Prior to the Ingram trade, when Clark went down, our starting defensive ends were Okafor/Danna. That's may legitimately be the worst starting DE combo in the NFL -- because we absolutely knew Clark was going to be injured at some point, because he always was going to be. And I'm on record as seeing the Jones-at-DE mistake from the jump -- that was yet another pile-on we all had to experience.

3.) I think it's reasonable to assume that CEH was not going to be Marshall Faulk, who is arguably a Top 10 RB in the history of the NFL, and that if he were, that pick would have been good value. But I personally thought CEH was going to be Joseph Addai, and I'm honestly not sure that would have been good value either with talented WRs and CBs on the board that I liked at the time.

But this thread isn't about CEH.

We agree on positional value more than you may think, honestly. But I'll reiterate a point I made from the "tiers" thread: if you gave me a choice between a "B defensive end + B interior lineman" vs. an "A interior lineman + C defensive end," I go with the latter. It's always player-dependent, though, which is why I started this thread about Bolton, because there's a chance Bolton may have played himself into justifying a 2nd rounder this season; I'm just not entirely sure that's the case yet.

[kccrow]

If I'm reading what you're trying to get at correctly, here's my thoughts...


1. The goal of the 1st round, in my mind, is to get your Plus-level starters, preferably at core positions.

2. The goal of the 2nd and 3rd rounds is to get starting-caliber players at any position.

3. There should absolutely be a level of positional value taken into account but it's not the end-all-be-all. You have to balance that value with team need and player grade.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

1.) I don't agree with your analysis -- guys in the 2nd round are generally much better prospects than guys in the 4th. Veach puts guys in tiers and, naturally, the most valuable positions in each tier get eaten up first, leaving him to burn high picks on less valuable positions.

(This is just repeating part of the conversation we had on tiers, honestly. I have little interest in re-exploring it and having the exact same pile-on happening twice.)

So however you want to quantify it, it has led to us drafting two LBs, a RB, and an interior OL with our last 4 1st/2nd round picks. I cannot stress the risk that poses to critical positions longterm. (I will note that he's respected positional value in trades, weirdly, trading 1sts for a DE/LT. I don't know why that can't carry over to actual draft picks.)

2.) I stand by my original point. Prior to the Ingram trade, when Clark went down, our starting defensive ends were Okafor/Danna. That's may legitimately be the worst starting DE combo in the NFL -- because we absolutely knew Clark was going to be injured at some point, because he always was going to be. And I'm on record as seeing the Jones-at-DE mistake from the jump -- that was yet another pile-on we all had to experience.

3.) I think it's reasonable to assume that CEH was not going to be Marshall Faulk, who is arguably a Top 10 RB in the history of the NFL, and that if he were, that pick would have been good value. But I personally thought CEH was going to be Joseph Addai, and I'm honestly not sure that would have been good value either with talented WRs and CBs on the board that I liked at the time.

But this thread isn't about CEH.

We agree on positional value more than you may think, honestly. But I'll reiterate a point I made from the "tiers" thread: if you gave me a choice between a "B defensive end + B interior lineman" vs. an "A interior lineman + C defensive end," I go with the latter. It's always player-dependent, though, which is why I started this thread about Bolton, because there's a chance Bolton may have played himself into justifying a 2nd rounder this season; I'm just not entirely sure that's the case yet.

I think we probably do, other than I think you tend to look at things in absolutes and in a vacuum.

Take like...Jalen Tolbert, the WR from S. Alabama. probably a 2nd round pick. if he was coming from ALABAMA instead of S. Alabama, he's a no doubt first round pick. If he'd played at Coastal Carolina or something, he'd probably be a 4th round pick. Same kid. Same measurables, same mental capacity and character make-up. Is he really four levels down from a Chris Olave? And what about how this particular player projects into your specific offense as opposed to others? Maybe this player is a BETTER fit than a kid most people agree is a first round talent.

So that's where 'tiers' come into play. If you've carefully scouted Olave and Tolbert, and feel like Tolbert is just as good or better fit than Olave and can be had a round later, you don't take Olave in the first because you really ought to go Edge/DE in round one if there's a guy there that you like. Because **** Mel Kyper.

and before anyone skewers me, I know little about Olave or Tolbert other than a couple of scouting reports, I'm just using them as an example and actually have little idea of how each individual player would or would not fit in a KC offense. I'm just saying, you can't look at these things in a vacuum.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by kccrow

If I'm reading what you're trying to get at correctly, here's my thoughts...


1. The goal of the 1st round, in my mind, is to get your Plus-level starters, preferably at core positions.

2. The goal of the 2nd and 3rd rounds is to get starting-caliber players at any position.

3. There should absolutely be a level of positional value taken into account but it's not the end-all-be-all. You have to balance that value with team need and player grade.

I would totally agree with all of that, personally.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by kccrow

If I'm reading what you're trying to get at correctly, here's my thoughts...

1. The goal of the 1st round, in my mind, is to get your Plus-level starters, preferably at core positions.

2. The goal of the 2nd and 3rd rounds is to get starting-caliber players at any position.

3. There should absolutely be a level of positional value taken into account but it's not the end-all-be-all. You have to balance that value with team need and player grade.

I think any philosophy you embrace on the draft cannot stand without being at least a little bit negotiable.

The goal is BPA at appropriately valued positions of need. But every now and again the talent of available players can scramble that equation.

Me personally, I just don't agree with some of the folks on this board that positional value isn't a valuable way to handicap prospects.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

I think we probably do, other than I think you tend to look at things in absolutes and in a vacuum.

Take like...Jalen Tolbert, the WR from S. Alabama. probably a 2nd round pick. if he was coming from ALABAMA instead of S. Alabama, he's a no doubt first round pick. If he'd played at Coastal Carolina or something, he'd probably be a 4th round pick. Same kid. Same measurables, same mental capacity and character make-up. Is he really four levels down from a Chris Olave? And what about how this particular player projects into your specific offense as opposed to others? Maybe this player is a BETTER fit than a kid most people agree is a first round talent.

So that's where 'tiers' come into play. If you've carefully scouted Olave and Tolbert, and feel like Tolbert is just as good or better fit than Olave and can be had a round later, you don't take Olave in the first because you really ought to go Edge/DE in round one if there's a guy there that you like. Because **** Mel Kyper.

and before anyone skewers me, I know little about Olave or Tolbert other than a couple of scouting reports, I'm just using them as an example and actually have little idea of how each individual player would or would not fit in a KC offense. I'm just saying, you can't look at these things in a vacuum.

I have quibbles with the example you just provided, but overall I understand how tiers work. It's a reasonable system, but I don't like it, and I especially don't like how Veach utilizes them.

Let me just ask you this: the specific players we took aside, is spending 4 1st/2nd round picks on RB/LB/LB/IOL a smart use of resources for an NFL football team?

My guess is your answer would be no, but you'd be open to it if the players we selected met their ceilings.

Which is pretty close to my answer (my answer: it's absolutely not okay, unless you're selecting four slam dunks). I just don't think a player of Bolton's ability (which I had in the Hitchens neighborhood) is worth that, but I'm open to re-evaluating if he ends up in the London Fletcher neighborhood, thus inspiring the OP.

Hope that makes sense.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I have quibbles with the example you just provided, but overall I understand how tiers work. It's a reasonable system, but I don't like it, and I especially don't like how Veach utilizes them.

Let me just ask you this: the specific players we took aside, is spending 4 1st/2nd round picks on RB/LB/LB/IOL a smart use of resources for an NFL football team?

My guess is your answer would be no, but you'd be open to it if the players we selected met their ceilings.

Which is pretty close to my answer (my answer: it's absolutely not okay, unless you're selecting four slam dunks). I just don't think a player of Bolton's ability (which I had in the Hitchens neighborhood) is worth that, but I'm open to re-evaluating if he ends up in the London Fletcher neighborhood, thus inspiring the OP.

Hope that makes sense.

I would say, no on CEH and yes on the rest. I don't care how ****ing good a RB is, the positional value issue kills it in my eyes. RBs have extremely low positional value in round 1 and I'd even argue in round 2. There isn't any level of talent or need to offset it in my opinion.

Now, that's MY opinion. Obviously not all GMs and teams see it like I do.

Do I consider two LBs and an OC good value in round 2? Yes, so long as they are starting-caliber players. I'd argue they are, pending Gay actually getting the hell out of the tub and onto the field consistently.

What I personally would have wanted or done with those picks may be different, but I don't think position is a reason to call them bad. Sure, I would have taken a Z receiver or a different LB with the Gay pick. I don't see WR as a position that you take in round 1 that often either, so the value level by position wouldn't have changed for me. I would have taken a CB instead of Bolton. Now, sure, that changes positional value but I was enamored with Paulson Adebo for this system. That doesn't mean Bolton may not end up being the better pick or a bad value.

[htismaqe]

Currently has the most tackles of any rookie. Legit.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Currently has the most tackles of any rookie. Legit.

Yep, great pick! Bolton + Gay = we actually have a couple of decent to good LBs WITH UPSIDE!!!!!!!!!!! Now we need Gay to stay healthy, and add another LB to replace Hitchens. Add more depth as well so we can get rid of that POS, Niemann.