PDA

View Full Version : Football Gameplan's 2012 Draft Grades Video - Chiefs



EmDiggy
05-14-2012, 11:51 PM
Chiefs Draft Grades Video

Good evening KC fans!! Here's my Draft Grades video for you guys!

Enjoy!

Em

slc chief
05-15-2012, 12:06 AM
good breakdown you forgot about wylie and the impact he could have. i call it a solid b though ,thanks for the video

EmDiggy
05-15-2012, 10:00 AM
good breakdown you forgot about wylie and the impact he could have. i call it a solid b though ,thanks for the video

Thanks SLC Chief!! Wylie is a guy that I was kind of meh about.. He'll contribute don't get me wrong, but the other guys intrigued me more

#58ChiefsFan
05-15-2012, 08:23 PM
I agree with your grade Em although as a fan I see more upside to Poe given Romeo is going to work with him to push him tword being that guy. Was 11 too high? Probably, but it was our biggest need. I believe they got the best athlete at NT and I trust RACs ability to teach him technique.

EmDiggy
05-16-2012, 09:54 AM
I agree with your grade Em although as a fan I see more upside to Poe given Romeo is going to work with him to push him tword being that guy. Was 11 too high? Probably, but it was our biggest need. I believe they got the best athlete at NT and I trust RACs ability to teach him technique.

Lets hope he can teach him nastiness as well.. I just need to see a mean/aggressive streak from him on the field.

Now they have Poe & Powe, I can have so much fun with these names :)

OPLookn
05-16-2012, 12:29 PM
Lets hope he can teach him nastiness as well.. I just need to see a mean/aggressive streak from him on the field.

Now they have Poe & Powe, I can have so much fun with these names :)

I think playing in just one spot and finding he can excel when raw talent and good coaching is combined will give him that mean streak. Players that have usually got by on talent rarely show if they're powder puffs or mean SOB's until they're challenged. If Poe isn't challenged in the NFL then I think we have our answer on which way his streak runs.

Chiefster
05-16-2012, 12:55 PM
As always nice job Em! I completely agree with the analysis. I like the O-line acquisitions, but would have much rather seen us go for Decastro in the first round then Poe. Hopefully Pioli and company will prove me wrong.

Eydugstr
05-16-2012, 05:37 PM
Thanks Emdiggy - great breakdown as always.

Looking forward to these guys getting signed and getting into camp. The Chiefs really addressed the O-line and all the picks were geared towards team needs. Really looking forward to September.

It's understood that Poe was a risk (they're all risks at some point). My hopes are that Poe has a monster summer camp and lives up to his combine performance.
:chiefs:

texaschief
05-17-2012, 12:06 AM
Cyrus Gray could be one of those picks that adds a few more years to the GM's tenure. Could very well be the steal of the draft. It's absolutely INSANE that the Chiefs got him where they did.

I haven't talked much about this, but I wouldn't worry too much about Poe. He was already receiving high grades before the combine. You just started hearing his name more because guys like Kiper finally started paying attention after the combine. If you're expecting a N. Suh type impact player, that's not going to happen. Suh is a once a generation player. But getting elite NT production SHOULD be expected and he's more than capable. The criticism you hear about Poe is him not showing up in a weak conference. NTs won't impact spread offenses the way they impact NFL offenses and he played almost every defensive snap for his team at 340lbs. Give him a good rotation, some good Crennel coaching, a year or two to mature and play against NFL offenses and you're going to see a legit top 5 NT.

EmDiggy
05-17-2012, 06:07 PM
As always nice job Em! I completely agree with the analysis. I like the O-line acquisitions, but would have much rather seen us go for Decastro in the first round then Poe. Hopefully Pioli and company will prove me wrong.

Thanks Homie!! I just knew you guys were gonna snatch up Decastro! But, If Poe can play up to his draft stock, then I'll be the 1st one to eat crow!


Thanks Emdiggy - great breakdown as always.

Looking forward to these guys getting signed and getting into camp. The Chiefs really addressed the O-line and all the picks were geared towards team needs. Really looking forward to September.

It's understood that Poe was a risk (they're all risks at some point). My hopes are that Poe has a monster summer camp and lives up to his combine performance.
:chiefs:

Thanks Eydugstr!! It'll be interesting to see how he comes in and performs over the summer.. He's going to be the most watched 1st Rd pick in my eyes


Cyrus Gray could be one of those picks that adds a few more years to the GM's tenure. Could very well be the steal of the draft. It's absolutely INSANE that the Chiefs got him where they did.

I haven't talked much about this, but I wouldn't worry too much about Poe. He was already receiving high grades before the combine. You just started hearing his name more because guys like Kiper finally started paying attention after the combine. If you're expecting a N. Suh type impact player, that's not going to happen. Suh is a once a generation player. But getting elite NT production SHOULD be expected and he's more than capable. The criticism you hear about Poe is him not showing up in a weak conference. NTs won't impact spread offenses the way they impact NFL offenses and he played almost every defensive snap for his team at 340lbs. Give him a good rotation, some good Crennel coaching, a year or two to mature and play against NFL offenses and you're going to see a legit top 5 NT.

THIS!:punk: However, I have to respectfully disagree with the NTs wouldn't impact a Spread attack.. the way you defeat the spread is by dominating the center.. That's where my issue with Poe comes from. He should've been a lot more disruptive than he was

texaschief
05-17-2012, 08:31 PM
THIS!:punk: However, I have to respectfully disagree with the NTs wouldn't impact a Spread attack.. the way you defeat the spread is by dominating the center.. That's where my issue with Poe comes from. He should've been a lot more disruptive than he was

Spread offenses are based in shotgun formations and 2 to 3 second routes... how the hell can you expect a NT to get through an NCAA caliber Center and then run 8-10 yards to get to the QB in that amount of time? Expecting a 350lb NT to make that kind of disruption play in and play out isn't being fair to that position. The whole point of the spread is to take the DL and pass rush out of the equation while also not needing much of a rushing attack because the short passes are used instead.

I realize you needed a player "not to like" for your podcast, but this bombardment on Poe needs to be called out for the short-sighted, poor player evaluation that has been attached to Poe since the draft. Poe, like Jackson and Dorsey is going to do EXACTLY what Crennel's 3-4 expects of him. Just like Tyson Jackson isn't a pass-rushing DE, Poe isn't going to be N. Suh. He's going to do exactly what a NT is suppose to do... clog the run lanes, attack with an unrelenting motor, and keep the OL off his LBs, with the occasional QB pressure or sack. To expect anything more from a NT is not fair to the position.

It's not like the guy was taken in the top 5. There weren't a whole bunch of guys available for the Chiefs to take instead of Poe that would have benefitted this team more, you don't know what type of trade offers were available to the Chiefs to trade down, and being that they got GREAT OL value in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, you can't argue that they should've taken DeCastro who would've represented lesser value at #11 than Poe who fills a hole the Chiefs haven't addressed since implementing the 3-4 when Pioli was hired.

As I've said before, the difference between DeCastro (who was the only other player the Chiefs could have truly considered at #11) and Allen is MUCH less than the difference between Poe and the second best NT in that draft class. I'm tired of hearing how Poe was a "poor pick" without the author suggesting who they thought the Chiefs SHOULD have picked instead. You can't say a trade up or down would have been better because you don't know what the terms of those trades would have been. You can't say DeCastro because we know the Chiefs got GREAT value in Allen in the 2nd.

So, since you say Poe wasn't a good pick for the Chiefs, please, tell us ignorant Chiefs fans and front office personnel who would have impacted the franchise better than Poe at pick #11? A pass-rushing DE would've been a luxury pick with Houston and Hali on the team. Kuechly would've been nice but he wasn't available and Poe meant more than any other ILB at #11. WR would've been a luxury pick. No QB at #11 was worth the pick. They don't need RB. They don't need TE. No CBs or Safeties were available (which would've been luxury picks as well)... and despite what some people think, the Chiefs boast some really good DEs... so tell us... who SHOULD the Chiefs have picked?

They had a perennial hole at NT and got the best NT prospect this draft had to offer. If Poe had gone later to a Pittsburgh or Green Bay team, the "draft experts" would have LOVED this guy for them and would be singing the praises of their respective front offices for "landing a guy who was projected to go in the middle of round 1." Believe me... I'm not a Chiefs "homer." I've been on the fence about Pioli and this front office since the moment he hired Todd Haley. But he has done some GREAT things for this franchise since he fired Haley. Promoting Crennel, his 2012 FA class and this draft are all things Pioli has done to make me, personally feel better about him as the GM of this franchise. There's only so long you can ignore the cornerstone position of the 3-4 defense.

If anything, this franchise deserves accolades for FINALLY pulling the trigger on one of the most talented NTs to come out in the draft in quite a while. Poe is explosive and quick off the snap. He's incredibly strong and is about to get the benefit of being coached by one of the best DL coaches in the history of the NFL.

EmDiggy
05-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Spread offenses are based in shotgun formations and 2 to 3 second routes... how the hell can you expect a NT to get through an NCAA caliber Center and then run 8-10 yards to get to the QB in that amount of time? Expecting a 350lb NT to make that kind of disruption play in and play out isn't being fair to that position. The whole point of the spread is to take the DL and pass rush out of the equation while also not needing much of a rushing attack because the short passes are used instead.

I realize you needed a player "not to like" for your podcast, but this bombardment on Poe needs to be called out for the short-sighted, poor player evaluation that has been attached to Poe since the draft. Poe, like Jackson and Dorsey is going to do EXACTLY what Crennel's 3-4 expects of him. Just like Tyson Jackson isn't a pass-rushing DE, Poe isn't going to be N. Suh. He's going to do exactly what a NT is suppose to do... clog the run lanes, attack with an unrelenting motor, and keep the OL off his LBs, with the occasional QB pressure or sack. To expect anything more from a NT is not fair to the position.

It's not like the guy was taken in the top 5. There weren't a whole bunch of guys available for the Chiefs to take instead of Poe that would have benefitted this team more, you don't know what type of trade offers were available to the Chiefs to trade down, and being that they got GREAT OL value in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, you can't argue that they should've taken DeCastro who would've represented lesser value at #11 than Poe who fills a hole the Chiefs haven't addressed since implementing the 3-4 when Pioli was hired.

As I've said before, the difference between DeCastro (who was the only other player the Chiefs could have truly considered at #11) and Allen is MUCH less than the difference between Poe and the second best NT in that draft class. I'm tired of hearing how Poe was a "poor pick" without the author suggesting who they thought the Chiefs SHOULD have picked instead. You can't say a trade up or down would have been better because you don't know what the terms of those trades would have been. You can't say DeCastro because we know the Chiefs got GREAT value in Allen in the 2nd.

So, since you say Poe wasn't a good pick for the Chiefs, please, tell us ignorant Chiefs fans and front office personnel who would have impacted the franchise better than Poe at pick #11? A pass-rushing DE would've been a luxury pick with Houston and Hali on the team. Kuechly would've been nice but he wasn't available and Poe meant more than any other ILB at #11. WR would've been a luxury pick. No QB at #11 was worth the pick. They don't need RB. They don't need TE. No CBs or Safeties were available (which would've been luxury picks as well)... and despite what some people think, the Chiefs boast some really good DEs... so tell us... who SHOULD the Chiefs have picked?

They had a perennial hole at NT and got the best NT prospect this draft had to offer. If Poe had gone later to a Pittsburgh or Green Bay team, the "draft experts" would have LOVED this guy for them and would be singing the praises of their respective front offices for "landing a guy who was projected to go in the middle of round 1." Believe me... I'm not a Chiefs "homer." I've been on the fence about Pioli and this front office since the moment he hired Todd Haley. But he has done some GREAT things for this franchise since he fired Haley. Promoting Crennel, his 2012 FA class and this draft are all things Pioli has done to make me, personally feel better about him as the GM of this franchise. There's only so long you can ignore the cornerstone position of the 3-4 defense.

If anything, this franchise deserves accolades for FINALLY pulling the trigger on one of the most talented NTs to come out in the draft in quite a while. Poe is explosive and quick off the snap. He's incredibly strong and is about to get the benefit of being coached by one of the best DL coaches in the history of the NFL.

The best way to stop Spread attack is pressure from the interior.

Poe did not dominate at all. 3rd round production not Top 11.

DeCastro would have been an excellent pick...or even a CB.

He may be Weight Room Strong...but it doesn't translate to the field. A guy 6'5 350lbs, while rushing the passer, shouldn't get stonewalled by a Running Back.. EVER

texaschief
05-17-2012, 09:43 PM
The best way to stop Spread attack is pressure from the interior.

Poe did not dominate at all. 3rd round production not Top 11.

DeCastro would have been an excellent pick...or even a CB.

He may be Weight Room Strong...but it doesn't translate to the field. A guy 6'5 350lbs, while rushing the passer, shouldn't get stonewalled by a Running Back.. EVER

ANY OG at #11 overall is a joke. There were no CBs available at #11 worth the pick. The best way to stop the spread is to disrupt the timing with bump coverage and clogging the pass lanes with hands in the air from your DL. Again, the spread is designed to neutralize the DL... so, the DL isn't going to have hardly ANY impact on a successful spread offense. The ONLY way the DL is going to be capable of getting to the QB is if there is disruption in the timing of the WRs and the QB has to progress through to at least their 3rd or 4th option... and even then, it'll be a stretch for a DOMINANT NT.

Memphis was a HORRIBLE team last year. The fact that they got ANY production and effort from a 350lb NT for 45+ plays EVERY GAME should just be a testament to Poe's character. They had ZERO talent in their defensive secondary, which did nothing to give Poe a chance or to make him think he had a legit chance to get to the QB. There were a ton of plays where he's reading the QB and trying to play the passing lanes to create disruption because his DBs weren't doing the job at the LOS. MOST of those plays were being made at a position OTHER THAN NT.

If you're hoping to stop the spread purely by DL pressure, your defense is going to get eaten up. PERIOD.

nigeriannightmare
05-17-2012, 11:21 PM
I would have to agrer woth texas. The mizzou tigers have had loads of talent on the defensive line but overall their defense suffered becaise the db's werent getting it done. It seens that the dl has little.to do with stopping the spread where as secondary play does it.

Chiefster
05-17-2012, 11:57 PM
Thanks Homie!! I just knew you guys were gonna snatch up Decastro! But, If Poe can play up to his draft stock, then I'll be the 1st one to eat crow!

You'll have to wait in line behind me buddy. :bananen_smilies046:

brdempsey69
05-18-2012, 12:59 PM
ANY OG at #11 overall is a joke.....

Is that so? HOF Guard John Hannah was taken #4 overall back in '73 by NE and they had 3 first round choices ( #11 was used for RB Sam Cunningham and #19 for WR Daryle Stingley ). Mike Munchak was taken at #8 by the Oilers back in '82.

Since when did it become truth that the Guard position wasn't a premium position in any football league in America? And we are talking about a team that used the #5 overall pick in 2010 to draft a Safety, so if they can draft a Safety at #5 ( and I might add, one whose overall skills are inferior to another Tennessee Safety that was drafted by the Chiefs back in '92 at #20, and I might also add that the Chiefs got a Safety in round 5 in 2010 who probably is just as good as the one they took at #5, overall ), then #11 would not have been too high for an elite Guard prospect, if they had wanted to take DeCastro.

With that said, though, I do agree that the Chiefs did take a better route by taking the best NT candidate available with exceptional physical ability ( which they won't get a lot of chances to do ), and then getting a Guard prospect with a world of potential in Jeff Allen in round 2 and another good O-Line candidate in round 3 in Stephenson. They had targeted these 3 players going into the draft and got them.

Some people are still upset that the Chiefs didn't take DeCastro, but that's just hero-worship junk -- especially given the players that they did get with their top 3 picks. Anyone who's willing to cast aside the hero-worship junk & step back and look at things objectively should be able to easily see that the Chiefs covered their 2 biggest needs with the top 3 choices & they did a pretty good job in rounds 4 through 7, as well.

texaschief
05-18-2012, 04:36 PM
Is that so? HOF Guard John Hannah was taken #4 overall back in '73 by NE and they had 3 first round choices ( #11 was used for RB Sam Cunningham and #19 for WR Daryle Stingley ). Mike Munchak was taken at #8 by the Oilers back in '82.

Since when did it become truth that the Guard position wasn't a premium position in any football league in America? And we are talking about a team that used the #5 overall pick in 2010 to draft a Safety, so if they can draft a Safety at #5 ( and I might add, one whose overall skills are inferior to another Tennessee Safety that was drafted by the Chiefs back in '92 at #20, and I might also add that the Chiefs got a Safety in round 5 in 2010 who probably is just as good as the one they took at #5, overall ), then #11 would not have been too high for an elite Guard prospect, if they had wanted to take DeCastro.

With that said, though, I do agree that the Chiefs did take a better route by taking the best NT candidate available with exceptional physical ability ( which they won't get a lot of chances to do ), and then getting a Guard prospect with a world of potential in Jeff Allen in round 2 and another good O-Line candidate in round 3 in Stephenson. They had targeted these 3 players going into the draft and got them.

Some people are still upset that the Chiefs didn't take DeCastro, but that's just hero-worship junk -- especially given the players that they did get with their top 3 picks. Anyone who's willing to cast aside the hero-worship junk & step back and look at things objectively should be able to easily see that the Chiefs covered their 2 biggest needs with the top 3 choices & they did a pretty good job in rounds 4 through 7, as well.

It's about value. Yes, you can spend a high draft pick on an OG and get a hall of famer. The problem is that you can get comparable talent later in the draft from second tier OTs who won't be cornerstone LTs at the next level. DeCastro will be a good/great player in all likelihood, but it's not like the 2nd-7th rounds don't produce all-pro OGs on the regular. OG isn't a premium position in the draft because there are SO many more players who can play that position than ANY other position in football. You've got guys who played the spot in college AND ALSO guys like Allen who played OT in college who are projected to play OG in the NFL. There isn't any other position in the league that have SO many guys to choose from. It's not that the position isn't a premium on the field, it's just that it's not a premium position in the draft because a good/great NFL starter can be found in the middle rounds.

brdempsey69
05-18-2012, 05:04 PM
It's about value. Yes, you can spend a high draft pick on an OG and get a hall of famer. The problem is that you can get comparable talent later in the draft from second tier OTs who won't be cornerstone LTs at the next level. DeCastro will be a good/great player in all likelihood, but it's not like the 2nd-7th rounds don't produce all-pro OGs on the regular. OG isn't a premium position in the draft because there are SO many more players who can play that position than ANY other position in football. You've got guys who played the spot in college AND ALSO guys like Allen who played OT in college who are projected to play OG in the NFL. There isn't any other position in the league that have SO many guys to choose from. It's not that the position isn't a premium on the field, it's just that it's not a premium position in the draft because a good/great NFL starter can be found in the middle rounds.

DeCastro would have been a great value pick had they chosen him at #11. Talent-wise and production-wise, he was a top 10 player. And he was DOMINANT through his college career --that can't be said about the guys in rounds 2 through 7. If Poe had not been available for the Chiefs at #11, then there would not have been a better value pick for them than DeCastro. Any other players besides Poe and DeCastro would have been luxury picks.

texaschief
05-18-2012, 06:42 PM
DeCastro would have been a great value pick had they chosen him at #11. Talent-wise and production-wise, he was a top 10 player. And he was DOMINANT through his college career --that can't be said about the guys in rounds 2 through 7. If Poe had not been available for the Chiefs at #11, then there would not have been a better value pick for them than DeCastro. Any other players besides Poe and DeCastro would have been luxury picks.

I think my point is supported by what happened in the draft. If he was top 10 talent and represented top 10 value, why did he get drafted in the mid 20's? Answer: OGs early in the first round represent poor value. The fact that he was drafted in the first AT ALL is a testament to his ability. You hardly EVER see OGs taken in the first... for this VERY reason.

brdempsey69
05-18-2012, 07:17 PM
I think my point is supported by what happened in the draft. If he was top 10 talent and represented top 10 value, why did he get drafted in the mid 20's? Answer: OGs early in the first round represent poor value. The fact that he was drafted in the first AT ALL is a testament to his ability. You hardly EVER see OGs taken in the first... for this VERY reason.

Rubbish !! Teams were drafting for need, not BPA. That was why DeCastro fell to the mid 20's. No other reason.

There's been Guards taken in the 1st, even recently. Mike Iupati at #17 in 2010, Mike Pouncey at #15 in 2011. Kevin Zeitler was taken by Cincy shortly after DeCastro was taken, Danny Watkins by Philly in 2011, Ben Grubbs by the Ravens in 2007, Davin Joseph by TB in 2006, Logan Mankins in 2005 -- the list goes on and on through the years.

WTF are you talking about saying "teams rarely take Guards in round 1"? I've repeatedly seen Guards drafted in the 1st round many times over the span of 4 decades. Even Branden Albert was a Guard in college that the Chiefs took at #15 in 2008, with only the hope that he might be able to play Tackle.

If a team has a need at Guard and the player is a potential stud at that position, teams will take a Guard in round 1, as I've just illustrated.

texaschief
05-18-2012, 09:27 PM
You're talking about ONE OG per year... compare that to EVERY OTHER non-special team position on a team. Just because teams take OGs in the first doesn't mean those picks represent good value as far as the draft is concerned. You're looking at this with tunnel vision as if the only thing that matters when you're making a selection is pure talent.

For every OG example that was drafted in the first round, I'll pull out 3 3rd round Will Shields and UDFA Brian Waters.

When you're making a decision on which player to draft, you can't just look at talent alone. You have to compare that talent to the talent you project to be available in the later rounds. In the case of OGs, the difference between the best OG on the board and what will be available to you in the next few rounds is quite minimal compared to the drop off between the best player at ANY other position on the field and what will be there for you for your next picks.

For example, let's say you have a hole at QB and a hole at ILB. Would you take Andrew Luck in the first if you knew you could get comparable talent like RG3 in the 2nd round, or would you take Kuechly if you knew the best ILB available in the 2nd round would be Bobby Wagner? In this scenario, Kuechly/RG3> than Luck/Wagner

That's what you're looking at when it comes to OGs. You COULD take Luck in the first and you'll get a great player. There's no denying that DeCastro projects to be a great OG. But if I could fill another hole with, say, Dontari Poe to anchor my 3-4 defense while still getting RG3 in the 2nd, THAT route would be the MUCH better way to go.

Again, this has less to do with DeCastro's talent and more to do with his talent compared to other available talent at his position... which is relevant when discussing the value of the pick. An OG in the first round is a HORRID waste of value. It doesn't matter how talented the player is if you have holes other than OG. The ONLY way I could understand taking an OG in the first is if that's the ONLY position where your team has a hole. Otherwise, you should be selecting BPA.

Three7s
05-18-2012, 11:49 PM
You're talking about ONE OG per year... compare that to EVERY OTHER non-special team position on a team. Just because teams take OGs in the first doesn't mean those picks represent good value as far as the draft is concerned. You're looking at this with tunnel vision as if the only thing that matters when you're making a selection is pure talent.

For every OG example that was drafted in the first round, I'll pull out 3 3rd round Will Shields and UDFA Brian Waters.

When you're making a decision on which player to draft, you can't just look at talent alone. You have to compare that talent to the talent you project to be available in the later rounds. In the case of OGs, the difference between the best OG on the board and what will be available to you in the next few rounds is quite minimal compared to the drop off between the best player at ANY other position on the field and what will be there for you for your next picks.

For example, let's say you have a hole at QB and a hole at ILB. Would you take Andrew Luck in the first if you knew you could get comparable talent like RG3 in the 2nd round, or would you take Kuechly if you knew the best ILB available in the 2nd round would be Bobby Wagner? In this scenario, Kuechly/RG3> than Luck/Wagner

That's what you're looking at when it comes to OGs. You COULD take Luck in the first and you'll get a great player. There's no denying that DeCastro projects to be a great OG. But if I could fill another hole with, say, Dontari Poe to anchor my 3-4 defense while still getting RG3 in the 2nd, THAT route would be the MUCH better way to go.

Again, this has less to do with DeCastro's talent and more to do with his talent compared to other available talent at his position... which is relevant when discussing the value of the pick. An OG in the first round is a HORRID waste of value. It doesn't matter how talented the player is if you have holes other than OG. The ONLY way I could understand taking an OG in the first is if that's the ONLY position where your team has a hole. Otherwise, you should be selecting BPA.
Don't even bother. I already had this debate. It's like talking to a wall.

brdempsey69
05-19-2012, 03:35 PM
You're talking about ONE OG per year... compare that to EVERY OTHER non-special team position on a team.


And right there you just contradicted yourself. You had said "Any OG at #11 was a joke" and "you hardly ever see Guards taken in the 1st round'. I proved that was not the case. And I never said anything about other positions as to whether or not Guards where taken more or less frequently.

My point was, if you need it, you draft it. Guard was a major need for the Chiefs, and as I said, if Poe wasn't there, then DeCastro would have been a great value pick anywhere between 11 - 20, regardless of YOU thinking that it isn't. The Chiefs had a major need to address their O-Line in the draft and the fact that they did in rounds 2 and 3 is all the proof anyone needs.


Just because teams take OGs in the first doesn't mean those picks represent good value as far as the draft is concerned.

Very interesting. In one post you had stated to the effect that Guards weren't taken in the 1st round & now you are acknowledging that they are. Well, which is it?

As far as "good value" goes, common sense should tell you it depends on how the player works out & that applies to any position.

I could make the same case against taking a Safety in the top 10 & yet, the Chiefs did just that in 2010.


You're looking at this with tunnel vision as if the only thing that matters when you're making a selection is pure talent.



Neither EmDiggy or myself have implied any such thing. EmDiggy simply stated that he thought DeCastro would have been a better selection. Contrary to your belief, O-Line was just as big a need for the Chiefs, as a NT was. Go watch the last 3 games after Crennel took over & you will see that Chiefs Defense played championship-caliber ball, while their Offense didn't.

True, there were key players missing last year, but that doesn't erase the fact that better blocking ( especially pass-blocking ) is needed for this team. Not to mention, those key players were on the field in the final two games at Arrowhead at the end of the 2010 season when the Chiefs O-Line was decisively dominated by the Raiders and Ravens.

Like myself, EmDiggy can clearly see that interior O-Line was a need area & if the Chiefs had taken DeCastro, they would have gotten both, a need player & one of the best football players in the draft, and thereby it would have been good value & blows your "tunnel vision" argument all to hell.




For every OG example that was drafted in the first round, I'll pull out 3 3rd round Will Shields and UDFA Brian Waters.


That's absolute BS. Will Shields was a one-of-kind player who was a stud right from the get-go, and had a great 14-yr career with 12 Pro Bowl appearances. You'd have a better chance of pulling that type of player out of your arse, than drafting 3 of them in the 3rd round over a 25 year span. I wish anyone luck getting 3 Guards like Shields in the 3rd round, because that's about as likely as a blizzard happening in Hawaii.

And Waters simply benefited from playing next to Willie Roaf and once Roaf left town, Waters looked like a UDFA, not a Pro Bowler, with opposing D-Lineman continually getting by him unblocked, game in and game out, and year in and year out.





When you're making a decision on which player to draft, you can't just look at talent alone. You have to compare that talent to the talent you project to be available in the later rounds. In the case of OGs, the difference between the best OG on the board and what will be available to you in the next few rounds is quite minimal compared to the drop off between the best player at ANY other position on the field and what will be there for you for your next picks.

For example, let's say you have a hole at QB and a hole at ILB. Would you take Andrew Luck in the first if you knew you could get comparable talent like RG3 in the 2nd round, or would you take Kuechly if you knew the best ILB available in the 2nd round would be Bobby Wagner? In this scenario, Kuechly/RG3> than Luck/Wagner

That's what you're looking at when it comes to OGs. You COULD take Luck in the first and you'll get a great player. There's no denying that DeCastro projects to be a great OG. But if I could fill another hole with, say, Dontari Poe to anchor my 3-4 defense while still getting RG3 in the 2nd, THAT route would be the MUCH better way to go.



Well, no screaming eagle sh!t!! I believe I already touched that base in my first post in this thread:


....I do agree that the Chiefs did take a better route by taking the best NT candidate available with exceptional physical ability ( which they won't get a lot of chances to do ), and then getting a Guard prospect with a world of potential in Jeff Allen in round 2 and another good O-Line candidate in round 3 in Stephenson. They had targeted these 3 players going into the draft and got them.

Some people are still upset that the Chiefs didn't take DeCastro, but that's just hero-worship junk -- especially given the players that they did get with their top 3 picks. Anyone who's willing to cast aside the hero-worship junk & step back and look at things objectively should be able to easily see that the Chiefs covered their 2 biggest needs with the top 3 choices & they did a pretty good job in rounds 4 through 7, as well.
^^What part of that didn't you get ??

All you are doing is rehashing what was already touched on. What's being refuted, by me, is your statements "Any OG at #11 was a joke" and "you hardly ever see Guards taken in the 1st round' -- not what the Chiefs actually did with their top 3 picks. Therefore, where I am concerned, your rehash is not only off-base, but not even remotely in the ballpark, and doesn't in any way support your statements that are being refuted.




Again, this has less to do with DeCastro's talent and more to do with his talent compared to other available talent at his position... which is relevant when discussing the value of the pick.

No, it has to do with the potential that Poe possesses and his rare physically that he brings to NT position and the fact that the Chiefs won't get many chances to pick up a prospect like him for that position. Not DeCastro's talent. Again, if Poe had been off the board, DeCastro would have been an excellent value pick & addressed a major need.

BTW, it'll be interesting to see the Chiefs game in Pittsburgh when Poe has to face DeCastro and his sidekick C Maurkice Pouncey ( who incidentally can play C and OG and was taken at #18 by Pitt. in 2010 ).



An OG in the first round is a HORRID waste of value. It doesn't matter how talented the player is if you have holes other than OG. The ONLY way I could understand taking an OG in the first is if that's the ONLY position where your team has a hole. Otherwise, you should be selecting BPA.

Again, the statement "An OG in the first round is a HORRID waste of value" is absolute BS. Especially regarding a team that had the terrible Offensive output that the Chiefs had in 2011 with the main problem of opponents blowing through the middle of the Chiefs O-Line.

Therefore, only somebody living in fantasy-football world would think that DeCastro would not be a good value pick as he would have addressed the teams biggest Offensive need and would most likely have been a Day One starter and instant upgrade to the interior of the Chiefs O-Line.


Don't even bother. I already had this debate. It's like talking to a wall.

Not really. Your problem was trying to put up a phony argument combined with a false accusation. In other words, trying the "urinate on his head, tell him it's raining" approach -- only to find that the urine was falling on your own head, not mine.

nigeriannightmare
05-19-2012, 03:47 PM
You guus should give MMO pointers on debating. This is goood stuff.

Three7s
05-19-2012, 09:00 PM
Again, I said that because you kept banging the drum for the 1st round year after year. I'm all for the OL we took because WE DIDN'T WASTE A 1ST ROUNDER ON A GUARD!

This has nothing to do with my perception of what you type of pick brings good value. It has everything to do with the fact that I would never draft a player that doesn't have a chance to be a cornerstone in the 1st round. Will DeCastro be a great player and probably pro bowler? Yes! Will he be a cornerstone that can continue to be built around for the next decade? Heck no.

And before you bring in the whole "Berry is terrible value because he's a safety" argument, let me just say this. The NFL has evolved since the old days. Safety is a play-making position and can be one of the main focal points of a defense. A guard has absolutely no chance of that.

texaschief
05-20-2012, 06:03 AM
You REALLY should have just stopped.

But, because I'm such a nice guy, I'll try once again to give you an education because OBVIOUSLY trying to appeal to your common sense isn't working.

So, here it is in black and white:

http://thedailyviz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nfl-picks-by-position.png

Notice where OGs are on the chart. Out of 1600 players taken in the first round since 1939, roughly 70 of them were OGs. That's about 4% of 1st round players. I'm sorry you took my comment as OGs "never" being taken in the first round SO literally. But in my defense, I was only 4% off. My bad.

Back to the point.

Here are the starting OGs in 2011 and where they were drafted:

Arizona:
Colledge-2nd-47
Lutui-2nd-41
Atlanta:
Blalock-2nd-39
Hawley-4th-117
Baltimore:
Grubbs-1st-29th (2007)
Yanda-3rd-86
Buffalo:
Andy Livitre-2nd-51
Chad Rinehart-3rd-96
Carolina:
Wharton-3rd-94
Hangartner-5th-169
Chicago:
Williams-UDFA
Spencer-1st-26 (2005)
Cincinnatti:
Livings-UDFA
McGlynn-4th-109
Cleveland:
Pinkston-5th-150
Lauvao-3rd-92
Dallas:
Dockery-3rd-91
Kosier-7th-248
Denver:
Beadles-2nd-45
Kuper-5th-161
Detroit:
Sims-4th-128
Peterman-3rd-83
Green Bay:
Dietrich-Smith-UDFA
Sitton-4th-135
Houston:
Smith-3rd-78
Caldwell-3rd-77
Indianapolis-
Richard-7th-236
Diem-4th-118
Jacksonville:
Rackley-3rd-76
Nwaneri-5th-149
Kansas City:
Lilja-UDFA
Asamoah-3rd-68
Minnesota:
Berger-6th-207
Herrera-UDFA
New England:
Mankins-1st-32 (2005)
Waters-UDFA
New Orleans:
Nicks-5th-164
Evans-4th-108
NYG:
Boothe-6th-176
Snee-2nd-34
NYJ:
Slauson-6th-193
Moore-UDFA
Miami:
Incognito-3rd-81
Carey-1st-19 (2004)
Oakland:
Wisniewski-2nd-48
Carlisle-4th-112
Philidelphia:
Mathis-3rd-79
Watkins-1st-23 (2011)
Pittsburgh-
Essex-3rd-93
Foster-UDFA
San Diego:
Green-4th-133
Vasquez-3rd-78
San Francisco:
Iupati-1st-17 (2010)
Snyder-3rd-94
Seattle:
Gallery-1st-2 (as a LT)
Jeanpierre-UDFA
St. Loius:
Brown-4th-125
Mattison-UDFA
Tampa Bay:
Zuttah-3rd-83
Joseph-1st-23 (2006)
Tennessee:
Harris-4th-115
Scott-5th-141
Washington:
Hurt-7th-217
Chester-2nd-56


There were 253 picks in the 2012 NFL draft, so Iím going to give the UDFAs a pick # of 254 (and thatís being EXTREMELY generous.) The average draft position of the starting NFL OG was #114.

The 2012 NFL Pro Bowl OGs:
Mankins-32
Waters-254
Yanda-86
Evans-108
Nicks-164
Joseph-23

Average Pro Bowl OG draft spot- #111

Starting Super Bowl OGs:
Mankins-32
Waters-254
Boothe-6th-176
Snee-2nd-34

Average Super Bowl OG draft spot- #124


Of the 8 OGs that have been taken in the first round that are on this list, only 3 of them were taken in the first 2/3rds of the first round. One of them was Robert Gallery who should be disqualified purely by the fact that he was picked by Al Davis. But if thatís not reason enough, he was originally drafted to be a LT. OMG!! DID YOU HEAR THAT?? A WASHOUT LT is now an OG?? I swear someone said that good college LTs could also be used as good OGs a few posts back. The second, Iupati, was chosen in 2010 by a coaching staff that no longer have jobs with the organization in San Francisco. The third was Carey, who was taken in Miami in 2004, who just like the kid in San Francisco, was taken by a staff that no longer have their jobs.

The other 5 first rounders were taken with the last 9 picks of the first round at 23rd, 26th, 29th, and 32nd. As Iíve said numerous times before now, a starting, Pro Bowl, or even Super Bowl OG does not need to come from the middle of the first round.

Now, even though Iím sure youíll try and argue some off the wall BS argument about this information meaning nothing, why in the hell would ANY self-respecting GM who wants to KEEP their job, spend a mid-first round pick on an OG when the information shows you could, on average, spend a pick somewhere around the middle of the 4th round and EXPECT to draft a starting NFL offensive guard? It doesnít make sense. At some point, your owner is going to come to you and say, ďwe just had a poor year and you spent our mid-first round pick on an offensive guard when you could have filled that hole later in the draft, while upgrading an impact position in the first. Why?Ē The truth is, you wonít have a good answer and youíll lose your damn job.

Letís not forget that we had a at least one Pro Bowl OG here for the past decadeÖ it didnít impact this team for $hit! THAT is the primary reason why you take guards in rounds later than the first. The OG position doesnít IMPACT the game the way almost ANY other position does.

If you were hired as the Chiefs GM before the 2012 draft and Clark Hunt asked you which position you would spend the #11 pick, would you REALLY say youíd take DeCastro? Thereís absolutely no defending that answer. You donít take a freakin OG at #11 overallÖ itís stupidity!

Do yourself a favor and stop arguing this point. You are DEAD wrong. The value represented by selecting an OG at #11 overall is ridiculously poor. You donít plug a hole 103 picks (on average) BEFORE you need toÖ it doesnít make ANY sense!

Donít get angry, improve your argument.

brdempsey69
05-21-2012, 12:35 AM
Again, I said that because you kept banging the drum for the 1st round year after year. I'm all for the OL we took because WE DIDN'T WASTE A 1ST ROUNDER ON A GUARD!



Is that so? I only joined this site in 2010. That would make 2 times. Do take note of the fact that there are quite a few Chiefs fans in that same time span that also were calling for O-Lineman to be drafted, not just me.

Why don't you cut through the smokescreen and tell it like it is: You posted what you did because of a debate regarding Eric Berry back in early 2011 & you are still puked out about it. You were coming off at the time with responses along the lines of "how dare you commit sacrilege regarding my false god that I worship so reverently" just because I don't see things from YOUR perspective regarding him.

I like the O-Lineman we drafted also, but that does NOT mean that taking DeCastro would have been a wasted pick or bad value -- that is where the misconception is. But read on, and I'll explain that.



This has nothing to do with my perception of what you type of pick brings good value. It has everything to do with the fact that I would never draft a player that doesn't have a chance to be a cornerstone in the 1st round. Will DeCastro be a great player and probably pro bowler? Yes! Will he be a cornerstone that can continue to be built around for the next decade? Heck no.


"Cornerstone", generally would be along the lines of Franchise QB's, which you are not going to be able to get every year. Is Baldwin, Berry, TJ, Dorsey, Albert what you would call cornerstones? No way. Solid players, yes, but not irreplaceable or cornerstones.

Hali would be the closest thing to what you call cornerstone because opposing Offenses must account for him in obvious passing situations because of his pass rush skills. But, prior to 2010, nobody would have looked at Hali as a cornerstone. Even Bowe may not be considered as such by the Chiefs brass, in spite of the Franchise Tag as that doesn't guarantee a long-term contract.




And before you bring in the whole "Berry is terrible value because he's a safety" argument.....

Guess what? I am going to bring in the "Berry is terrible value because he's a safety" argument, because a blind man with a cane can see the contradiction here -- and to illustrate that I don't follow your lead.

Peoples Exhibit A:
Berry was drafted at #5 in 2010 and given a 6-year 60-million dollar contact with a 34.5 mil guarantee ( old CBA ). If DeCastro had been taken by the Chiefs at #11, he would receive a contract somewhere around 4 years for about 11.5 mill ( about what Poe is going to get ). Given those numbers, DeCastro doesn't sound like a wasted pick or bad value to me, if the Chiefs had gone that route.

DeCastro possesses the capability to have a big impact on both, the running & passing game for ANY teams Offense, and barring injury, he most likely will for the Steelers. By contrast, the Chiefs defense played lights out after RAC took over as HC, and even before that had turned in some good performances WITHOUT Berry and do take note of the fact that Berry was on the field in the final two games in 2010 at Arrowhead when they were decisively defeated.

Peoples Exhibit B:
The #5 overall pick in the 2011 draft -- CB Patrick Peterson. He lists about 6-1 and 220 lbs. and ran 4.32 at the combine in 2011. He has the speed to run with just about any WR in the NFL and returned 4 punts for TD's in 2011. That type of player is more worthy of being selected at #5 than ANY Safety ( and so is a good pass-blocking LT like Okung ).

He's already made a bigger impact for the Cardinals than Berry will EVER make for the Chiefs. Peterson was regarded by everybody as the top DB in the 2011 draft class and some thought he could go #1 overall. Berry wasn't even rated the top Safety coming into the 2010 draft by Mike Mayock and many highly questioned the Chiefs drafting Berry at #5, both before and after the draft.

If you had both of these players available to you at #5 in a hypothetical situation, are you going to tell me that you would take Berry over Peterson? Forget it -- Peterson is clearly the superior talent, hands down.





....let me just say this. The NFL has evolved since the old days. Safety is a play-making position and can be one of the main focal points of a defense.

Copout, born out of hero-worship regarding Berry. The game hasn't changed that much over the past 25 years to where Safety is one of the main focal points of a Defense. The main focal point of any good Defense is a good front 7 that can stop the run and rush the passer. That has never changed. Good DB's can help, but back in the 80's when the Chiefs had Lewis-Ross-Burruss-Cherry without a decent front 7, they still ranked near the bottom of the NFL Defensively from 1984 through 1988. As good as those 4 were, they could only do so much without good front 7 support.

Bottom line is nobody can rightfully say "Berry was a good pick at #5 ( under old CBA ), but DeCastro at #11 is a wasted pick ( under new CBA )". It is completely illogical.


You REALLY should have just stopped.


What for? I'm thoroughly enjoying this.




But, because I'm such a nice guy...

I don't care about your persona. In fact, I don't care if you rape nuns and suck their eyeballs out.

We're discussing the NFL draft & perspective viewpoints regarding draft selections.




I'll try once again to give you an education because OBVIOUSLY trying to appeal to your common sense isn't working.



You haven't educated me at all & you aren't likely to, because all you've done is post a bunch of drivel to support your "Any OG at #11 was a joke" and "you hardly ever see Guards taken in the 1st round" statements, but it's already been proven incorrect.

And you aren't trying to appeal to anyone's common sense -- you're being rigid in your opinion & like a horse with blinders on, unable to see the complete horizon.




So, here it is in black and white:

Chart and "just so happens" numbers under the chart.



That chart and numbers do NOT support your opinion that drafting DeCastro at #11 would have been stupid, in any way shape or form. Nor does it refute the points that I provided as to why DeCastro would have been a good pick at #11, if the Chiefs had gone that route & I will provide more points, so read on.

Of course, you could consider printing out that chart & numbers and if you run out of toilet paper, then the printed chart and numbers will come in handy.




Of the 8 OGs that have been taken in the first round that are on this list, only 3 of them were taken in the first 2/3rds of the first round. One of them was Robert Gallery who should be disqualified purely by the fact that he was picked by Al Davis. But if thatís not reason enough, he was originally drafted to be a LT. OMG!! DID YOU HEAR THAT?? A WASHOUT LT is now an OG?? I swear someone said that good college LTs could also be used as good OGs a few posts back. The second, Iupati, was chosen in 2010 by a coaching staff that no longer have jobs with the organization in San Francisco. The third was Carey, who was taken in Miami in 2004, who just like the kid in San Francisco, was taken by a staff that no longer have their jobs.



So what's your point? How does that validate that DeCastro would have been a bad pick by the Chiefs at #11 according to your opinion? It doesn't. Common sense should tell you that none of those coaches lost their jobs because they drafted Guards in the 1st round -- it's because their teams overall played poorly. Do you really think that Singletary and his staff were let go by SF because of selecting Iupati?

You mentioned earlier about "appealing to my common sense", but I would highly suggest trying to muster some common sense on your own side first, before trying to "appeal" to someone else's.




The other 5 first rounders were taken with the last 9 picks of the first round at 23rd, 26th, 29th, and 32nd. As Iíve said numerous times before now, a starting, Pro Bowl, or even Super Bowl OG does not need to come from the middle of the first round.


Nobody implied any of that. What was implied was addressing a need area -- specifically their interior O-Line -- with the best interior O-Line prospect to come out in the over a decade. Big difference, there.





Now, even though Iím sure youíll try and argue some off the wall BS argument about this information meaning nothing....


Not "off the wall" at all. It just so happens that it doesn't mean anything. Plain and simple.



...why in the hell would ANY self-respecting GM who wants to KEEP their job, spend a mid-first round pick on an OG when the information shows you could, on average, spend a pick somewhere around the middle of the 4th round and EXPECT to draft a starting NFL offensive guard? It doesnít make sense.


1) They identify it as an area of need on their football team. See Pittsburgh & Cincinnati in 2012 draft. Try telling them it doesn't make any sense.

2) They don't EXPECT any 4th rounder to become a starter -- it's a bonus if they do, but there are many that don't.



At some point, your owner is going to come to you and say, ďwe just had a poor year and you spent our mid-first round pick on an offensive guard when you could have filled that hole later in the draft, while upgrading an impact position in the first. Why?Ē The truth is, you wonít have a good answer and youíll lose your damn job.


Rubbish !! I have never heard of a specific case like that, EVER. The only case that might come close to what you're describing is when Mike Ditka traded his entire draft in 1999 to move up to take RB Ricky Williams.

The likelihood of any owner going to a GM and saying "we just had a poor year and you spent our mid-first round pick on an offensive guard when you could have filled that hole later in the draft, while upgrading an impact position in the first" is about as likely as a blizzard happening in Hawaii.

GM's get sacked most often because the team isn't progressing anywhere over the course of multiple years or an ownership change.

(continued in next post)

brdempsey69
05-21-2012, 12:36 AM
continued:




Let’s not forget that we had a at least one Pro Bowl OG here for the past decade… it didn’t impact this team for ! THAT is the primary reason why you take guards in rounds later than the first. The OG position doesn’t IMPACT the game the way almost ANY other position does.


Guess again !! All one has to do is look at rushing numbers of the Chiefs top 2 rushers in 2006 ( Will Shields last season ) and the numbers of the Chiefs top 2 rushers of 2007 ( after Shields retired ):

2006:
Att Yds Avg LG TD
Larry Johnson 416 1789 4.3 47 17
Michael Bennett 36 200 5.6 41 0

2007:
Larry Johnson 158 559 3.5 54 3
Kolby Smith 112 407 3.6 19 2

Shields absence not only effected the games, it effected the entire 2007 season. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise. And Waters did not play anywhere near Pro Bowl level after Roaf and Shields retired.

And, do you really think that Ben Roethlisberger saw things from your perspective when the Steelers took DeCastro? Or that Matt Cassel would have seen things from your perspective if the Chiefs had taken DeCastro at #11? FAT CHANCE !!



If you were hired as the Chiefs GM before the 2012 draft and Clark Hunt asked you which position you would spend the #11 pick, would you REALLY say you’d take DeCastro? There’s absolutely no defending that answer.


Bet me !! I could easily give justifiable reasons to take DeCastro if Poe wasn't on the board.

Here they are:

1) Too much pressure up the middle by opposing Defenses in 2011 with two (2) QB's getting hurt.
2) 32nd in the league in 3rd and short conversions & way too many 3 and outs.
3) 31st in the league in points per game, in spite of the skill position talent that was there ( Charles & Moeaki's injuries not withstanding, but those two had combined for 11 of the Chiefs 44 TD's in 2010 )
4) 27th in the league in yards per game.
5) An all-time franchise low of 18 Offensive TD's.
6) 5 consecutive losses to the Raiders at Arrowhead with one of the biggest problems being the middle of the Raiders Defense obliterating the middle of the Chiefs O-Line.
7) Ryan Lilja being in the last year of his contract & coming off a very poor 2011 season. Plus, he's undersized, on the downside of his career, and at this stage no better than a backup. Won't be surprised if Allen beats him out quickly.
8) DeCastro being the the best interior O-Line prospect to come out in a decade. Great character guy & work ethic and loves football. You know what you are getting with him.
9) If a Safety can by drafted #5 under the old CBA, 2 years ago, then why not the best interior O-Line prospect to come out in over a decade at #11 under the new CBA, to help the teams biggest Offensive need.
10) Other teams aren't offering good trade down value like in previous drafts. Jacksonville only gave a 4th rounder to move from #5 to #7 to take Justin Blackmon. Highly doubtful that anyone picking below the Chiefs was willing to give up a 3rd rounder to move up to #11, that called the Chiefs regarding a trade.



You don’t take a freakin OG at #11 overall… it’s stupidity!


According to whom? Tell you what, if you were on board with the Chiefs taking a Safety at #5 in 2010 under the old CBA, but opposed to taking the best interior O-Line prospect to come out in over a decade at #11 under the new CBA, then the stupidity is clearly on your side.



Do yourself a favor and stop arguing this point. You are DEAD wrong.


A blind man with a cane can see through that. It's not me that I'd be doing the favor, it's YOU who I'd be doing the favor if I stopped the debate.

I haven't been wrong about anything -- it's just simply not what you want to hear because it opposes your "horse with blinders on" perspective.



Don’t get angry, improve your argument.


I'm laughing at you, not getting angry. And I don't need to improve my argument, as you haven't as of yet substantially refuted any of my points as to why DeCastro wouldn't have been a good pick at #11.

Three7s
05-21-2012, 12:47 AM
Wow, you'll probably call me a liar but I can't even remember arguing with you about Berry. Maybe I was so mad about it that I had amnesia? Or it could be that I don't take football as seriously as you think I do. All I know is by reading your novel, I came up with one conclusion.

You are desperate to be proven right. Like I said tex, not worth it.

brdempsey69
05-21-2012, 12:59 AM
Wow, you'll probably call me a liar but I can't even remember arguing with you about Berry. Maybe I was so mad about it that I had amnesia? Or it could be that I don't take football as seriously as you think I do. All I know is by reading your novel, I came up with one conclusion.

You are desperate to be proven right. Like I said tex, not worth it.

There is no desperation at all. Just calling it like I see it.

Amnesia, huh? And yet you came out of the blue and stated to me "We could have the best O-Line in history and you'd still say we need O-Lineman" like somebody had rattled your cage or stolen the surprise out of your cereal box.

Must have been puked out about something to come out of the blue with that type of statement.

texaschief
05-21-2012, 05:36 PM
I saw you responded but I'm no longer wasting my time with you. It's obvious to anyone not blinded by their own bias that I've supported my position well and completely owned you in this discussion. I've received more rec in this thread than any other discussion I've had on this board since I arrived seven years ago.

You've done NOTHING to support you claim that an OG at #11 presents good relative value to draft position. Your claims are based in opinion and salary figures... neither of which are relevant when discussing talent available relative to pick number.

That being said, this is the last post I'll make on the subject of OG value. Either you don't comprehend the topic with have a firm grasp of the point at hand, or you just believe in black and white that "need filled=good value." Either way, I'm satisfied that I've made my point.

Bottom line, you are WHOLE HEARTEDLY arguing that taking a starting OG at #44 represents WORSE value than taking a starting OG at #11. There's no arguing with that kind of "logic." You win. Enjoy the last word on the issue.

:bananen_smilies046:

:troll31:

chief31
05-22-2012, 02:03 PM
http://thedailyviz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nfl-picks-by-position.png



That is a pretty telling chart. For a position that there will be two of in the starting 22 positions, and with the only positions behind OG being ILB, after separating them from MLB, it is basically listed as dead last here. Even FB and Center rank higher.

I agree that many of the starting OGs in The NFL would be OTs that just can't hold a spot on the outside, and are moved inside, where the job is a bit easier.

brdempsey69
05-22-2012, 02:43 PM
I saw you responded but I'm no longer wasting my time with you.

Why? I suspect it may because of the difficulty refuting the points that I provided.


It's obvious to anyone not blinded by their own bias that I've supported my position well and completely owned you in this discussion.



I'll bet money that there's more that don't see it that way than do.



I've received more rec in this thread than any other discussion I've had on this board since I arrived seven years ago.


So what? That doesn't refute any of the points that I provided as to why DeCastro would have been a good pick at #11, if the Chiefs had gone that route.



You've done NOTHING to support you claim that an OG at #11 presents good relative value to draft position. Your claims are based in opinion and salary figures... neither of which are relevant when discussing talent available relative to pick number.


That is a crock of BS. We both know that I've provided many valid points as to why it would okay to take DeCastro at #11.

Talent-wise, many pundits had DeCastro rated in their top 10 as far as BPA.

Speaking of salary, go look at the contracts that Carl Nicks and Ben Grubbs got from their respective teams they signed with via FA, and then consider that the Chiefs would not have had to pay anywhere near that to DeCastro.



That being said, this is the last post I'll make on the subject of OG value. Either you don't comprehend the topic with have a firm grasp of the point at hand, or you just believe in black and white that "need filled=good value." Either way, I'm satisfied that I've made my point.


On the contrary, I comprehend it just fine. And speaking of "black and white", it's obvious that your of the black and white mindset that "taking any Guard at #11is stupid", but that is where I don't see it that way -- not when it fills a need & given the fact that DeCastro is the highest rated interior O-Lineman to come out in over a decade. Mike Pouncey went at #15 the year before. DeCastro was a higher rated prospect than he was.



Bottom line, you are WHOLE HEARTEDLY arguing that taking a starting OG at #44 represents WORSE value than taking a starting OG at #11. There's no arguing with that kind of "logic."


Rubbish!! I never implied any such thing. You are ripping things completely out of context. I said "it would have been a good pick if they had taken DeCastro, if the Chiefs had taken him"

However, they would have missed out on Poe & how many chances are they going to get to draft a NT candidate with his physical ability?

What I implied was if Poe had not been on the board, then why not take DeCastro.

Taking DeCastro , if Poe wasn't available, would have been OK. Getting Poe and Allen was better, to me. You seem to have to have trouble figuring that out, but now you know.



You win. Enjoy the last word on the issue.


You're saying in one sentence that you've "owned" me in this thread & then in a later sentence telling me that I win ? Sorry but that doesn't quite add up.

And nobody is trolling here. You've provided your perspective on the draft and I've provided mine. Plain and simple.

OPLookn
05-22-2012, 02:46 PM
Spread offenses are based in shotgun formations and 2 to 3 second routes... how the hell can you expect a NT to get through an NCAA caliber Center and then run 8-10 yards to get to the QB in that amount of time? Expecting a 350lb NT to make that kind of disruption play in and play out isn't being fair to that position. The whole point of the spread is to take the DL and pass rush out of the equation while also not needing much of a rushing attack because the short passes are used instead.

I realize you needed a player "not to like" for your podcast, but this bombardment on Poe needs to be called out for the short-sighted, poor player evaluation that has been attached to Poe since the draft. Poe, like Jackson and Dorsey is going to do EXACTLY what Crennel's 3-4 expects of him. Just like Tyson Jackson isn't a pass-rushing DE, Poe isn't going to be N. Suh. He's going to do exactly what a NT is suppose to do... clog the run lanes, attack with an unrelenting motor, and keep the OL off his LBs, with the occasional QB pressure or sack. To expect anything more from a NT is not fair to the position.

It's not like the guy was taken in the top 5. There weren't a whole bunch of guys available for the Chiefs to take instead of Poe that would have benefitted this team more, you don't know what type of trade offers were available to the Chiefs to trade down, and being that they got GREAT OL value in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, you can't argue that they should've taken DeCastro who would've represented lesser value at #11 than Poe who fills a hole the Chiefs haven't addressed since implementing the 3-4 when Pioli was hired.

As I've said before, the difference between DeCastro (who was the only other player the Chiefs could have truly considered at #11) and Allen is MUCH less than the difference between Poe and the second best NT in that draft class. I'm tired of hearing how Poe was a "poor pick" without the author suggesting who they thought the Chiefs SHOULD have picked instead. You can't say a trade up or down would have been better because you don't know what the terms of those trades would have been. You can't say DeCastro because we know the Chiefs got GREAT value in Allen in the 2nd.

So, since you say Poe wasn't a good pick for the Chiefs, please, tell us ignorant Chiefs fans and front office personnel who would have impacted the franchise better than Poe at pick #11? A pass-rushing DE would've been a luxury pick with Houston and Hali on the team. Kuechly would've been nice but he wasn't available and Poe meant more than any other ILB at #11. WR would've been a luxury pick. No QB at #11 was worth the pick. They don't need RB. They don't need TE. No CBs or Safeties were available (which would've been luxury picks as well)... and despite what some people think, the Chiefs boast some really good DEs... so tell us... who SHOULD the Chiefs have picked?

They had a perennial hole at NT and got the best NT prospect this draft had to offer. If Poe had gone later to a Pittsburgh or Green Bay team, the "draft experts" would have LOVED this guy for them and would be singing the praises of their respective front offices for "landing a guy who was projected to go in the middle of round 1." Believe me... I'm not a Chiefs "homer." I've been on the fence about Pioli and this front office since the moment he hired Todd Haley. But he has done some GREAT things for this franchise since he fired Haley. Promoting Crennel, his 2012 FA class and this draft are all things Pioli has done to make me, personally feel better about him as the GM of this franchise. There's only so long you can ignore the cornerstone position of the 3-4 defense.

If anything, this franchise deserves accolades for FINALLY pulling the trigger on one of the most talented NTs to come out in the draft in quite a while. Poe is explosive and quick off the snap. He's incredibly strong and is about to get the benefit of being coached by one of the best DL coaches in the history of the NFL.

I would have been fine with us taking Fletcher Cox to replace Dorsey and then shopped the heck out of him. Dorsey isn't a true 3-4 DE. He's just used the talent he has to adapt to that role.

We had the chance to pick up a true 3-4 DE, trade for a guy who more than likely is going to leave next year and pick up Ta'amu who ended up dropping to the 4th round.

I'm liking the Poe pick a lot better now than when it happened. Then again I was absolutely furious when it happened so I guess there's really no where to go but to deflate a bit. Did the Chiefs take a position of need absolutely. Did they take the best player available...we won't know for several years. But I think with Cox we would have known sooner than we will with Poe.

brdempsey69
05-22-2012, 05:01 PM
I would have been fine with us taking Fletcher Cox to replace Dorsey and then shopped the heck out of him. Dorsey isn't a true 3-4 DE. He's just used the talent he has to adapt to that role.

We had the chance to pick up a true 3-4 DE, trade for a guy who more than likely is going to leave next year and pick up Ta'amu who ended up dropping to the 4th round.

I'm liking the Poe pick a lot better now than when it happened. Then again I was absolutely furious when it happened so I guess there's really no where to go but to deflate a bit. Did the Chiefs take a position of need absolutely. Did they take the best player available...we won't know for several years. But I think with Cox we would have known sooner than we will with Poe.

Good points and I also didn't like the Poe selection at first, but after a couple of minutes, I took a couple of steps back and realized that there was still 7 more picks to come and that the selection of Poe didn't make or break the entire 2012 draft for the Chiefs.

It also dawned on me that the Chiefs were not going to get many chances to draft a NT candidate with the type of physical ability that Poe has. Plus, it's going to be a whole different world in KC than it was at Memphis, as far as what Poe is being asked to do.

Also, I remember back in 1996 when the Dolphins took Baylor DE Daryle Gardener at #20 & he wasn't any more productive in college than Poe was, but had great physical ability. The Fins put him at DT and he was a far better player in the NFL, than he ever was in college. The point being, that a player CAN be a better player in the NFL than they were in college.

I've seen many posts around the web stating along the lines that the Chiefs "couldn't justify taking Poe at #11", but however, I suspect they are doing so without considering what the Chiefs got in rounds 2 through 7, the FA's they signed, and the players they already have on their roster.

texaschief
05-22-2012, 05:04 PM
I would have been fine with us taking Fletcher Cox to replace Dorsey and then shopped the heck out of him. Dorsey isn't a true 3-4 DE. He's just used the talent he has to adapt to that role.

We had the chance to pick up a true 3-4 DE, trade for a guy who more than likely is going to leave next year and pick up Ta'amu who ended up dropping to the 4th round.

I'm liking the Poe pick a lot better now than when it happened. Then again I was absolutely furious when it happened so I guess there's really no where to go but to deflate a bit. Did the Chiefs take a position of need absolutely. Did they take the best player available...we won't know for several years. But I think with Cox we would have known sooner than we will with Poe.

I was an advocate for shopping Dorsey before free agency even started so that perhaps the Chiefs could fill the spot in free agency or the draft. It's not because I think Dorsey isn't a serviceable 3-4 DE, but because I think teams who play with 4-3 defenses would've payed a premium for a guy like Dorsey to play DT. Dorsey would probably be a dominant 4-3 DT. However, with Dorsey still on the roster when their first round pick came up, it would be harder to justify taking another DE with their first pick than taking even an OG. There's not even a hole at the position with Dorsey and Jackson entrenched.

A lot of people like to evaluate 3-4 DEs by how much pressure they put on the QB. But the more you look at Crennel's particular style of 3-4, his DL seems to be more about stopping the run than creating pressure, essentially turning them into hand on the ground LBs while relying on his OLBs to get to the QB and creating pressure up the middle with blitzes by his CBs and safeties.

If you have an impact NT who can hold his ground, it basically takes away the middle for a team to run through. When you have the kind of beef that Jackson, Dorsey, and Poe-Powe bring, all collapsing down on the 4 middle gaps, it basically shuts down the middle of the field. If a team wants to run outside, they first need to dodge the pass rushing Hali or Houston and then HOPE they can outrun Derrick Johnson and whoever lines up next to him, to the edge. This is why you see Dorsey and Jackson at the top of the run-stopping DEs in the league. If they can get substantial impact from the PO's at NT, this defense could lead the league in rushing defense. Don't discount the speed the Chiefs have at ILB... that's obviously a crucial part of the success.

The Chiefs are getting what they want out of their DEs. There's a case to be made that the Chiefs may not be getting the most value out of Dorsey that they COULD be, but he's doing what they ask of him and throwing away the good in pursuit of the perfect probably isn't a good way to go... ESPECIALLY considering the Chiefs filled a perennial hole at NT instead of another DE they'd have to wait a couple years to impact the game while STILL having a hole at NT. Ta'amu WOULD have been a nice pick in the 4th even with the Poe selection in the first. I liked Ta'amu a lot and would've been thrilled to see him in Red.