Survey of Draft Websites: Chiefs will pick...

[KCJohnny]

Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft0...odd&id=3803148

Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas
http://www.draftseason.com/lupagus-nfl-mock-draft

Sam Bradford, QB, Oklahoma
http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2009.php

Sam Bradford, QB, Oklahoma
http://newnfldraft.com/

Aaron Curry, OLB Wake Forest
http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Mock-Draft-A.php

Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas
http://www.footballsfuture.com/2009/nflmockdraft.html

James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...raft-round-one

This site compiles draft 'experts' picks. Out of the top 25, only 3 have Bradford falling to the Chiefs at #3 while 9 have Matt Stafford falling to the 3rd overrall (!) and 3 have Orakpo and 3 have Curry being selected as the 3rd overall pick. Just 12 of 25 project a QB to be selected as the 3rd overall (assuming most realize KC has the #3 pick). 10 of the 25 have defensive players being selected #3.

The rationale provided by many of the draft websites is that the Chiefs should continue to develop Tyler Thigpen and draft to address the NFL's worst _efense which set an NFL record for fewest sacks in league history.

Of course the X factor is the new GM, but I thought it was interesting that Sam Bradford was not a slam dunk for most draft web sites, and fewer than 50% see Kansas City drafting a QB at all.

KCJohnny

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

funny those other 2 teams ACTUALLY have a run game

Because they have a good OL, position coaches and a head coach that appears to know what he is doing.

[Rigodan]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

so this"gimmick" let an unknown small school loser score 22 td's in his first year starting yet should be scrapped??

Loser is a little harsh but yea the offense needs to be scrapped. The odds of an offense like that winning a Lombardi Trophy are slim to none. It's not effective enough inside the red zone.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

Because they have a good OL, position coaches and a head coach that appears to know what he is doing.

That and the fact that they run a realistic NFL offense. Comparing Thigpen to Ryan and Flacco is dumb. Thigpen ran the spread offense which allowed him to score more TDs due to the fact that we hardly ran the ball and we were always down.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Mark M

That is the smartest thing about the draft ever posted on this site.



The Chiefs had horrific drafts during the Gun and DV years due to poor scouting, and then relying on that poor scouting to draft a player of dire need. So instead of wisely using FA to fill true needs and using the draft to stockpile talent, they've whiffed in FA and over-reached in the draft. It's drafting based on desperation -- even fear -- and it's been an absolute failure.

Granted, one still doesn't spend a high pick on a position if one already has the position filled with a truly talented player. But one should always be looking to upgrade any position when the chance comes, and that's something the Chiefs simply haven't been able to do.

I guess that's what happens when your GM thinks the draft is a "crapshoot," rather than, you know, an essential way to stock your roster.

MM
~~

I agree with what you're saying here, but there is a third option.

Option 1: Draft the best player on your board regardless of position and need.

Option 2: Draft the best player available that fills a position of need.

Option 3: Trade up/down until the best player on your board is at a position of need.


In my opinion, option 3 is the ideal situation. That seems to be what the Patriots have done, and it's worked out well for them. If they had a healthy Brady and a healthy Cassel and the best player on their board was a QB when it was their turn to pick, they would back up a few spots, get an extra pick or 2, and still get the player they wanted.

Conversely, if the player they really wanted likely wasn't going to fall to them, they would be willing to deal pick in order to get the right guy instead of settling for what was left.

If the Chiefs were to be totally focused on drafting a DE, let's say Brian Orakpo, but they had him as the 15th best player on their board, they would be smart to trade down to the 8-12 rage and pick up a pick. Even if they didn't get "fair value" for the pick, it wouldn't matter because they would have gotten the guy that they wanted and accumulated additional value in the process. Then, they could package their second round pick with the pick they just acquired and grab the next player that they covet.

I just think that it's a mistake to play the cards that you are dealt unless it just so happens that you are dealt a royal flush. The odds that a team just happens to be in the perfect spot based on their initial draft position are slim. Why not try to posture yourself into a better spot?

[KChiefs1]

So the draft pecking order for QB is this:

1. Matt Stafford
2. Mark Sanchez
3. Sam Bradford

Am I reading everyone's opinion right?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

So the draft pecking order for QB is this:

1. Matt Stafford
2. Mark Sanchez
3. Sam Bradford

Am I reading everyone's opinion right?

I think that Sanchez is ahead of Stafford.
But its pretty close.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

But we REALLY need help on _efense...

We have to have a change in the coaching on the defense. How many more first day draft picks are we going to give Gun and get virtually no return on our investment. And if we wind up stuck with this clown outfit for the next year, Krumrine should not be allowed to go on college campus evaluations where the single most important drill he seems to believe in is the hand slap drill. There has to be a better talent device than that.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by milkman

I think that Sanchez is ahead of Stafford.
But its pretty close.

A lot of posters are starting to say the same thing. I think this is a classic case of Stafford being so hyped that he gets over-scrutinized. Everyone knows his positives, so they stop really watching for those, and they start looking for the negatives.

If Sanchez comes back, the same thing will happen to him. People will hype him up, and everyone will take the pluses for granted. If you're looking for faults in a college QB, you're going to find them eventually.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

A lot of posters are starting to say the same thing. I think this is a classic case of Stafford being so hyped that he gets over-scrutinized. Everyone knows his positives, so they stop really watching for those, and they start looking for the negatives.

I'm pretty sure that for some, if not most, of us, and certainly for me, there was a feeling throughout most of the season that sanchez would return for his senior season, while Stafford would declare, so there wasn't much point in discussing Sanchez.

But as the season wound down, there appeared to be som indicators that he might decalre, so he then entered the discusion.

If Sanchez comes back, the same thing will happen to him. People will hype him up, and everyone will take the pluses for granted. If you're looking for faults in a college QB, you're going to find them eventually.

I think it's gonna be harder to find too much to question in his game than it is for Stafford and Bradford.