What are your thoughts?

[2010chiefs]

I've seen many Mock drafts out there, and there all pretty much based on "Best player available" or "Team needs". What should the Chiefs do on draft day?


Draft the Best player available or a

Team needs pick???

[Hayvern]

Always take the best player available. Team needs do not always fit the player that is available at that part of the draft.

[TopekaRoy]

Draft the best player available, but only if he plays a position of need; otherwise, draft the best player available at a position of need! :lol:

But, seriously, I've always thought that in rounds one and two, you draft to fill desperate needs because that strategy is most likely to significantly improve the team. If a player who is "too good to pass up" drops several spots down to you then you break from that plan, of course.

In the later rounds, after your biggest needs are filled, you take the best player available, regardless. In the middle rounds you can go either way depending on how good available players are and how much you need someone at that position.

Am I making any sense at all here?

[jap1]

Ideally, there would be someone of need at a reasonable position in the draft. I think in the first round you draft for need. If there isn't anyone at a position of need then you try very hard to trade down. If there are no trade offers, go for the best player that will upgrade you somewhere, but you have to go for someone that in 1 yr you think will be a huge contributor.

It would be foolish for the Rams to draft RG3 since they have Bradford. Just as it would be foolish for us to draft one of the top CBs if they fell to us. I think it is worth it to reach by 5-10 picks if that person fills a critical need, especially now that the rookie contracts are limited and you aren't spending a huge contract on an unknown.

That's my philosophy ...

[texaschief]

I view the first 2 rounds as an extension to free agency. If you don't plug holes in FA, use the first 2 rounds to do so cuz they'll probably be starters... unless something stupid happens and Andrew Luck falls in your lap at #12 after you've already signed or traded for your "franchise" QB at some point prior. There are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, I think you help your team most by filling team needs in the first 2 rounds. After that, take the best player available.

[Coach]

I view the first 2 rounds as an extension to free agency. If you don't plug holes in FA, use the first 2 rounds to do so cuz they'll probably be starters... unless something stupid happens and Andrew Luck falls in your lap at #12 after you've already signed or traded for your "franchise" QB at some point prior. There are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, I think you help your team most by filling team needs in the first 2 rounds. After that, take the best player available.

I agree with Texas. Ideally, you fill holes through free agency and then just draft bpa. The last few years we have not been active in free agency so drafting position of need. In my opinion, last year was an example of drafting by position of need. And it was largely due to ghe laçk if free agency. BTW, I still love last years draft class. Baldwin has not worked out yet, but I think we will look back on that class with pride in a few more years.

[OPLookn]

Ideally, there would be someone of need at a reasonable position in the draft. I think in the first round you draft for need. If there isn't anyone at a position of need then you try very hard to trade down. If there are no trade offers, go for the best player that will upgrade you somewhere, but you have to go for someone that in 1 yr you think will be a huge contributor.

It would be foolish for the Rams to draft RG3 since they have Bradford. Just as it would be foolish for us to draft one of the top CBs if they fell to us. I think it is worth it to reach by 5-10 picks if that person fills a critical need, especially now that the rookie contracts are limited and you aren't spending a huge contract on an unknown.

That's my philosophy ...

I agree with that. Last year had it got to our draft pick and the best pick was a Safety it doesn't mean you take him because he's the best player available. If we'd done that we'd have Berry and then whoever the best Safety was...no you can't say that Berry went down and use that as proof. lol To me you draft in a combination of sorts for the first 3 rounds. The best player available at the highest spot of need. With that said if you have multiple positions of need don't just draft because your highest need is on your list.

To clarify we need a RT and LG(Lilja is getting older and to me he has regressed), my opinion is that we need a RT more than we need a LG. But if we get to our choice at RT and 3 RT's have already been selected you're pretty far into the bucket of RT's. If the #1 LG of the draft hasn't been taken then you take that over the #4 RT. Just my theory.

[Chiefster]

Typically the draft, weather out of best position available or need, is a crap shoot and filling holes through free agency often tend to be temporary, short term solutions at best. I am so glad we now have a rookie cap.

[okikcfan]

Typically the draft, weather out of best position available or need, is a crap shoot and filling holes through free agency often tend to be temporary, short term solutions at best. I am so glad we now have a rookie cap.

AMEN to that Chiefster! :yahoo:

[Jrudi]

I think there is a balance there from team to team...The situation just depends

For example...I feel that the last few years the Chiefs have been in the "Draft Best Player that Fits a specific need" situation...Whereas we would want to draft the Best player available, but there was a higher emphasis on finding players at specific positions. So For example even though we could have drafted a player like Russell Okung, Joe Haden, or Rolando McClain (who were viewed as great prospects) We took Berry (which by the way I am happy we did), but the reason for this was because Pioli realized that we had Albert, Flowers/Carr, and DJ at those positions and they were part of our plans moving forward and could man those positions, and basically no one at SS. Therefore we took best player available that filled a specific need.

Now I feel the chiefs are in a position to take best player available, and if it fills a need then great. Of course there are certain position groups which have a greater need for talent such as O-line and NT, but I feel that even if the Chiefs were to take a player like Richardson, who is the best talent as his position, but the need is not as large as the before mentioned position groups, I don't feel that it will have a negative impact on this team but a positive one.

[chief31]

It should be a combination of the two.

If the BPA is at a position you have filled, then you look at the next BPA.

And you weigh that against what is available at your positions of greatest need.

I am all about an OT. But, if the top three are gone, then you lose far too much value by going OT.

But, taking a RB who is the perceived BPA is a poor idea too.

And then there is the third factor, of positional value. You don't take a Kicker or Punter in the first round. I don't care that The Raiders got good Kickers and Punters that way. You get good Kickers and Punters in the later rounds, far more often than QBs, or LOTs.