PDA

View Full Version : Best case scenario



texaschief
11-12-2008, 02:17 AM
The best of Texaschief and the Chiefs' front office put together. I'm really bored and I was going back and reading some of the stuff I posted about personnel moves and draft picks. Some of my picks are bad, but some of my trades would've been much better than what we are left with now.

In February of 2007, I started a thread called "Trades and the reset button." http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=392

In it, I suggest:
-trading Trent Green to Oakland for Warren Sapp and the 192nd pick in the 7th round.
Before Trent gets hurts.
-Trading Greg Wesley to Jacksonville for the 183rd pick in the 6th round.
Allowing Page to step in
-Trading Dante Hall to Tennessee (while they were shopping Pacman after his first couple incidents) for the 173rd pick in the 6th round.
In retrospect, that wasn't asking enough as he was traded to the Rams for a 5th rounder; 148. This would allow Webb to take over kick return duties. Didn't happen. lol
-Trading Sammy Knight to Houston for the 107th pick in the 4th round.
Probably asking too much
-Trading Jared Allen to Atlanta for the 10th pick in the first and the 105th pick in the 4th.
This was before his career season in 2007.
-Trading Larry Johnson to Tampa Bay for the #4 pick in the first and the #35 pick in the 2nd.
This was BEFORE his contract extension and before he got hurt and coming off an incredible 2006 season.

With the picks, I suggested:
Pick #
4-Gaines Adams-DE
10-Amobi Okoye-DT
23-Michael Bush-RB
35-Dwayne Jarrett-WR
54-Justin Blalock-OG
66-Tank Tyler-DT
84-Mason Crosby-K
103-Aundrae Allison-WR
107-Doug Datish-C
151-Anthony Arline-CB
173-C.J. Wilson-CB
179-Kasey Studdard-OG
183-Mike Otto-OT
211-Ramonce Taylor-RB/KR


Looking back, trading Green, would've been best for the Chiefs, even if we didn't bring back Sapp. But Let's say they get the pick and Sapp. Just for fun. (211)

Trading Wesley would've been best also. Netting #183.

What the Chiefs got for Dante is better than what I asked for, so we get the Ram's 148th pick in 2008.

Trading Knight would've been best. Netting the 107th pick.

What the Chiefs got for Allen in 2008 was better than what I asked for in 2007, so we keep him in 2007 and trade him in 2008.

Trading LJ to the Bucs would've been great for the Chiefs, no matter what we got in return. So, the Chiefs get the #4 pick and the #35 pick for LJ.

Taking the best of my 2007 draft and the actual draft, the Chiefs' new draft goes like this:

1-4-Adrian Peterson-RB (The Chiefs traded LJ and they take the best available RB. They still have Allen at this point and don't need a DE.)
1-23-Dwayne Bowe-WR
2-35-Justin Blalock-OG (Actually taken 39)
2-54-Turk McBride-DT
3-82-Tank Tyler-DT
5-148-Kolby Smith-RB
5-160-Mason Crosby-K (Actually taken 193)
6-183-Kasey Studdard-OG (Actually taken 183)
7-211-Mike Otto-OT (Actually taken 223)
7-231-Michael Allan-TE
*************************************

In a thread titled "My 7 round Chiefs Mock" http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4485



Without any trades, my picks for the 2008 draft were:
5-Sedrick Eliis-DT
35-Gosder Cherilus-OT
66-Justin King-CB
107-Barry Richardson-OT
136-Adrian Arrington-WR
140-Jerremy Zuttah-OG/C
172-Jack Williams-CB
183-Brad Roach-QB
211-Maurice Purify
239-Donald Thomas

Then, trading the #5 pick, my picks were:
14-Branden Albert-OT/OG
35-Gosder Cherilus-OT
44-Malcom Kelly-WR
66-Charles Godfrey-CB
75-Jordy Nelson-WR
107-Chevis Jackson-CB
136-Jeremy Zuttah-OG/OT
140-Frank Okam-DT
172-Jack Williams-CB
183-Adrian Arrington-WR
211-Brad Roach-QB
239-Brian Witherspoon


In 2008, The Chiefs trade Allen for a 1st and 2 3rd rd picks. Here is the best the 2008 draft could've looked between my picks and the Chiefs'.
1-5-Dorsey-DT
1-15-Albert-OT
2-35-Flowers-CB
3-73-Charles-RB
3-76-Cottam-TE
3-82-Jeremy Zuttah-OG (original pick: Morgan) *Zuttah picked 83rd
4-105-Franklin-WR
5-140-Carr-CB
6-170-Richardson-OT
6-182-Robinson-WR
7-210-Adrian Arrington-WR (original pick:Johnston) Arrington picked 237
7-239-Merritt-TE



Going into the 2008 season, the team looks like this:
QB-Croyle, Huard, Thigpen
RB-Peterson, Smith, Charles
WR-Bowe, Darling, Webb
LT-Albert/Otto
LG-Waters/Zuttah
C-Niswanger/Zuttah
RG-Blalock/Studdard
RT-McIntosh/Richardson
TE-Gonzo/Cottam
*****
MLB-Thomas
OLB-Johnson/Edwards
DT-Tank/Dorsey
DE-Hali/McBride
CB-Flowers/Carr
SS-Pollard
FS-Page/Morgan

K-Crosby
P-Colquitt
K/PR-Savage

Now for the 2009 draft:

The Chiefs don't really have anything to trade other than Larry Johnson or Tony Gonzalez. Let's say the Chiefs do decide to trade Gonzo and get a high 2nd rounder for him from the Cardinals. The undrafted Leonard Pope just isn't getting it done. Let's say, the end up giving us #55 in the 2nd round for Gonzo.

Then, the Chiefs shop LJ. With his contract and off field problems, along with his injuries in recent years, I just don't see much trade value in him and think he's probably worth more on the team. But, let's say LJ goes off during the second half of the season and averages 100 yards on the ground from here to the end of the season. His trade value increases and perhaps the Chiefs land a 2nd and a 4th from the 49ers who are desperate need of a rushing attack. The Chiefs get #39 and #103.

With those additional picks, the Chiefs will probably be in the top 10 based on their record. I think the Chiefs end up with a 5-11 record. This puts them around pick 6. That said, the Chiefs do this in the draft:

1-6-Michael Crabtree-WR
2-38-Brian Orakpo-DE (he falls due to injury)
2-39-Brandon Spikes-ILB
2-55-Russell Okung-OT
3-70-Myron Rolle-S
4-101-Ryan Purvis-TE
4-103-Phil Loadholt-OT

Now, going into the 2009 season, after a couple free agent acquisitions, the Chiefs look like this:

QB-Thigpen, Gray, Croyle
RB-Peterson, Smith, Charles
WR-Bowe, Crabtree, Bradley
LT-Albert/Taylor/Otto
LG-Zuttah/Waters
C-Niswanger/Zuttah
RG-Blalock/Studdard
RT-Okung/Loadholt/Richardson
TE-Cottam/Purvis
*****
MLB-Spikes/Thomas
OLB-Johnson/Vilma
DT-Tank/Dorsey
DE-Hali/Orakpo
CB-Flowers/Carr
SS-Pollard/Morgan
FS-Rolle/Page

K-Crosby
P-Colquitt
K/PR-Savage

THAT would be a cool team to watch. Ok. I spent waaaaaay too much time on this. lol. I guess doing stuff like this is why I decided to pursue the degree and career i did. :lol:

texaschief
11-12-2008, 02:33 AM
Now, compare that roster to the one the Chiefs COULD have in 2009 if those same trades are made.

QB-Thigpen, Gray, Croyle
RB-Charles, Smith
WR-Bowe, Crabtree, Bradley
LT-Albert/Taylor
LG-Waters/OPEN
C-Niswanger
RG-OPEN
RT-Okung/Loadholt/Richardson
TE-Cottam/Purvis
*****
MLB-Spikes/Thomas
OLB-Johnson/Vilma
DT-Tank/Dorsey
DE-Hali/Orakpo
CB-Flowers/Carr
SS-Pollard/Morgan
FS-Rolle/Page

K-Crosby
P-Colquitt
K/PR-Savage

Besides the huge difference at RB and OG, there really isn't much difference. Depending on how the team feels about Charles or Smith as an every down back, you could sub someone like Chris Wells for Crabtree, but I'd rather just go with guys we have at RB if it meant Crabtree for Wells. Then, worry about RB and QB in the 2010 draft if necessary. Or, sign a free agent RB.

Bike
11-12-2008, 11:00 AM
Whats with your huge crush on Crabtree?
We got more pressing needs than wide reciever...

Drunker Hillbilly
11-12-2008, 12:40 PM
Crabtree is a stud and IMO when you have high draft picks (15 and below) you take the best players available regardless of position.

yashi
11-12-2008, 01:17 PM
Crabtree is a stud and IMO when you have high draft picks (15 and below) you take the best players available regardless of position.
This really didn't work for the Lions.

How does Crabtree improve this team more than a stud defensive player or a lineman? Bradley has played great since we signed him, so there is little room for improvement there, and a lot of room for improvement at other positions.

hardcorechiefsfan
11-12-2008, 01:24 PM
-Trading Dante Hall to Tennessee (while they were shopping Pacman after his first couple incidents) for the 173rd pick in the 6th round.
In retrospect, that wasn't asking enough as he was traded to the Rams for a 5th rounder; 148. This would allow Webb to take over kick return duties. Didn't happen. lol
I thought Dante Hall was gotten rid of because of his big head. What incidents are you talking about?

THAT would be a cool team to watch. Ok. I spent waaaaaay too much time on this. lol. I guess doing stuff like this is why I decided to pursue the degree and career i did. :lol:
What do you do for a living, sounds like you work in acquisitions and mergers in a big business.

texaschief
11-12-2008, 03:55 PM
[/B]
I thought Dante Hall was gotten rid of because of his big head. What incidents are you talking about?

What do you do for a living, sounds like you work in acquisitions and mergers in a big business.

I'm about to get my first degree in Sports Business and Administration with a Minor in Architecture.

texaschief
11-12-2008, 04:01 PM
[/B]
I thought Dante Hall was gotten rid of because of his big head. What incidents are you talking about?

What do you do for a living, sounds like you work in acquisitions and mergers in a big business.

Pacman's incidents. Not Hall's.

jmlamerson
11-12-2008, 05:32 PM
The Chiefs don't really have anything to trade other than Larry Johnson or Tony Gonzalez. Let's say the Chiefs do decide to trade Gonzo and get a high 2nd rounder for him from the Cardinals. The undrafted Leonard Pope just isn't getting it done. Let's say, the end up giving us #55 in the 2nd round for Gonzo.

Then, the Chiefs shop LJ. With his contract and off field problems, along with his injuries in recent years, I just don't see much trade value in him and think he's probably worth more on the team. But, let's say LJ goes off during the second half of the season and averages 100 yards on the ground from here to the end of the season. His trade value increases and perhaps the Chiefs land a 2nd and a 4th from the 49ers who are desperate need of a rushing attack. The Chiefs get #39 and #103.

The problem with your scenarios is that you vastly overvalue Chiefs players. Leonard Pope was a 2nd round pick by the Cards, and they're still extremely high on him. They aren't going to trade a 2nd for Gonzo. A team like the Eagles, Panthers, or Pats might trade a 3rd for Gonzo this offseason, but that's probably all we could get for him. And, anyway, why would we trade him at the conclusion of the season if we weren't going to trade him at midseason? We'll get less than what we were offered at mideason, when teams are in the playoff hunt, not more after the season is done.

The 49rs are paying 1RB money to Frank Gore. They aren't taking on LJ's salary as well. Some teams would probably love LJ in the backfield (Broncos, Seahawks, Lions, Pats, or maybe Bengals), but they aren't going to trade a 2nd for him. LJ has a rap sheet, has been suspended, is an injury risk, and is a locker room distraction. Teams would sign him to a minimum contract, but they aren't trading a high pick for his high salary, even if he rushes for 700 yards over the last seven games.

And really, do the Chiefs really need the picks? We need to get more experience, especially on defense, not younger.

Coach
11-12-2008, 06:48 PM
Interesting work on those picks. I like Crabtree as well, but I think there will be great players available at more pressing needs. And the other thing that caught my eye is that you had the Chiefs finishing with 5 wins this year. That means they wins 4 games against the remaining opponents(Saints,Bills,Raiders,Broncos,Chargers,Do lphins,Bengals). Pretty bullish call, but I like it.

Chiefster
11-12-2008, 07:23 PM
texaschief for GM!

Who's with me?!!!

texaschief
11-13-2008, 05:26 AM
The problem with your scenarios is that you vastly overvalue Chiefs players.

Well, I overvalue them and you undervalue them, so they're probably in between somewhere. At least I'm not wanting to dump a bunch of rookie and 2nd year players because they're not playing like All-Pro's yet.

Leonard Pope was a 2nd round pick by the Cards, and they're still extremely high on him.

Pope has given VERY little production his 3 years in the league. His career year thus far has been 26 receptions for 238 yards and 5 TDs in 2007. In Gonzo's worst season in the past 5 years, (2006) he had 73 receptions for 900 yards and 5 TDs. If you want, we can compare Gonzo's 2nd year to Pope's. 59 receptions for 621 yards and 2 TDs. Or Gonzo's last season where he had 99 receptions for 1172 yards and 5 TDs. Or hell, even 9 games into this season where he already has 50 receptions for 544 yards and 5 TDs. Bottom line, if the Cardinals want to be taken seriously, they're going to need more production from their TE position than the 5 receptions for 36 yards that Pope has given them 9 games into this season.

They aren't going to trade a 2nd for Gonzo. A team like the Eagles, Panthers, or Pats might trade a 3rd for Gonzo this offseason, but that's probably all we could get for him. And, anyway, why would we trade him at the conclusion of the season if we weren't going to trade him at midseason? We'll get less than what we were offered at mideason, when teams are in the playoff hunt, not more after the season is done.

If he improves his numbers for the 3rd year in a row, the Chiefs will be in position to ask and receive what they want for him. Gonzalez is still one of the best TE's in the league and is the type of player that could put a legit contender over the top. A 2nd is not asking too much for a player who could propel a team to a Super Bowl.

The 49rs are paying 1RB money to Frank Gore. They aren't taking on LJ's salary as well. Some teams would probably love LJ in the backfield (Broncos, Seahawks, Lions, Pats, or maybe Bengals), but they aren't going to trade a 2nd for him. LJ has a rap sheet, has been suspended, is an injury risk, and is a locker room distraction. Teams would sign him to a minimum contract, but they aren't trading a high pick for his high salary, even if he rushes for 700 yards over the last seven games.

The Chiefs aren't trading LJ to the Broncos. The Seahawks wouldn't be a bad option, but if they aren't giving Alexander money, they're not gonna give it to LJ. The Lions would be a great place. The Pats have Maroney. The Bengals have enough bad attitudes on that team. I doubt they'd make a move with Benson and Henry already in their backfield.

And really, do the Chiefs really need the picks? We need to get more experience, especially on defense, not younger.

Yes. The Chiefs REALLY need the picks. Any team wanting to rebuild through the draft, needs picks. I realize you buy into the Al Davis method of overpaying free agent cast-offs, but that isn't a successful method of building a perennial contender. The Chiefs need one more draft like the one they had in 2008, then in the spring of 2010, sign a couple free agents to compliment the core group of players they have established.

I agree. The Chiefs DO need more experience. But that would be if they were trying to win a Super Bowl THIS season or the next. I honestly think the whole plan behind this rebuild is to be a contender in 2010. Spend two years building thru the draft and letting the team mature and gain EXPERIENCE, then sign a few free agents in 2010, get one more good draft in and contend for a division and conference title in 2010.

If you start spending money now on high-priced free agents, you're not going to be able to keep the young talent that you've developed, later on. If we have a bunch of Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson/Pat Surtain/Ty Law type contracts on the books, there won't be much money to offer the young players who might become studs like Dorsey, Albert, Flowers and Bowe. Keeping the salary low is essential to being able to sign free agents in the future when they could best help the Chiefs to win. Bringing in a bunch of free agents would give us a 7-9 to 10-6 team at the best. That's not what the Chiefs are trying to accomplish with this rebuild.

The Chiefs are trying to build a team that in consistently 13-3 or better every season going into the playoffs. We don't a wild-card contender. We want that first week off every year and making the road to the Super Bowl go thru Arrowhead. Spending money every year like the Raiders do will put us in the cellar with them EVERY year. If it takes a couple years being down there with them to build the team back up to where we never have to be there again, then so be it. The Chargers did it for a couple years and now they're probably the most talented team in football. Good thing they let Norv take over. He's awful.

I hate losing. I hate losing probably more than anyone I've ever met. I hate losing more than I like winning. I'm the type of person who can't enjoy wins too much because I'd rather prepare for the next game. I FREAKIN HATE LOSING. But this plan, this "building thru the draft" plan, is the right plan. It's ALWAYS the right plan when you're trying to establish a LONG-TERM winner. You identify the right players and give them opportunity to mature and gain experience. This plan is successful because young talent is cheap talent. When you have a solid team full of cheap, young talent, you can afford to go out and get those complimentary pieces that make you a champion.

It works in every sport. There are flash in the pan teams that win once or twice, but then they're gone... for a REALLY long time because they bought free agents and traded away youth. Look at the 2003 Chiefs. The 2002 Raiders. The 2000 Giants. The 1998 Falcons. The 2006 Miami Heat. The 2001 Diamondbacks. The 2006 Tigers. The 2002 SF Giants. The fact is, you CAN go out and buy a championship. The Yankees and RedSox have proven that theory over and over. It's pretty easy to do it in baseball without a salary cap. It's a little harder to be the Patriots, Colts, Spurs, Chargers, Giants, and Steelers without building your foundation thru the draft.

If you look at the successful teams in pro sports right now, the majority of them built their teams thru the draft. The majority of them are stalwarts for the long-term. Why do you think the Tampa Rays won the World Series? Their stars are all home grown. Same goes for the NY Giants. Same for the San Antonio Spurs. Throughout this decade, that was true for the Patriots. Do you think they could've competed this long if that team was majority free agents in 2000?

While I'm not completely against bringing in a free agent or two that could contribute to the long-term success of this team (Jonathan Vilma), the amount of free agent acquisitions that you've suggested runs in direct contrast to the plans and goals of this franchise. While you may want to see a winner right now for a couple years, I want to see a winner in a couple years that will contend year after year for the decade that follows. I think this is the biggest philosophical diffence between those who support the rebuilding plan and those who think the team is heading in the wrong direction.

texaschief
11-13-2008, 05:26 AM
texaschief for GM!

Who's with me?!!!

Oh yeah, I'm sure you'll find support on this board.

texaschief
11-13-2008, 05:38 AM
Interesting work on those picks. I like Crabtree as well, but I think there will be great players available at more pressing needs. And the other thing that caught my eye is that you had the Chiefs finishing with 5 wins this year. That means they wins 4 games against the remaining opponents(Saints,Bills,Raiders,Broncos,Chargers,Do lphins,Bengals). Pretty bullish call, but I like it.

I think they beat the Broncos, Raiders, Chargers and Bengals at least. I'm 50/50 on the Saints and Dolphins games. I think those could go either way. I think the Chiefs have a chance at the Bills after watching them this past week. I think projecting 4 wins was more on the Bear side actually. But, hey. I'm an optimist.

Guru
11-13-2008, 08:08 AM
Oh yeah, I'm sure you'll find support on this board.:lol::funnypost:

chief31
11-13-2008, 10:06 AM
texaschief for GM!

Who's with me?!!!

I'll stick with CP, thanks. :lol:

jmlamerson
11-13-2008, 11:36 AM
Yes. The Chiefs REALLY need the picks. Any team wanting to rebuild through the draft, needs picks. I realize you buy into the Al Davis method of overpaying free agent cast-offs, but that isn't a successful method of building a perennial contender. The Chiefs need one more draft like the one they had in 2008, then in the spring of 2010, sign a couple free agents to compliment the core group of players they have established.

I agree. The Chiefs DO need more experience. But that would be if they were trying to win a Super Bowl THIS season or the next. I honestly think the whole plan behind this rebuild is to be a contender in 2010. Spend two years building thru the draft and letting the team mature and gain EXPERIENCE, then sign a few free agents in 2010, get one more good draft in and contend for a division and conference title in 2010.

If you start spending money now on high-priced free agents, you're not going to be able to keep the young talent that you've developed, later on. If we have a bunch of Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson/Pat Surtain/Ty Law type contracts on the books, there won't be much money to offer the young players who might become studs like Dorsey, Albert, Flowers and Bowe. Keeping the salary low is essential to being able to sign free agents in the future when they could best help the Chiefs to win. Bringing in a bunch of free agents would give us a 7-9 to 10-6 team at the best. That's not what the Chiefs are trying to accomplish with this rebuild.

The Chiefs are trying to build a team that in consistently 13-3 or better every season going into the playoffs. We don't a wild-card contender. We want that first week off every year and making the road to the Super Bowl go thru Arrowhead. Spending money every year like the Raiders do will put us in the cellar with them EVERY year. If it takes a couple years being down there with them to build the team back up to where we never have to be there again, then so be it. The Chargers did it for a couple years and now they're probably the most talented team in football. Good thing they let Norv take over. He's awful.

I hate losing. I hate losing probably more than anyone I've ever met. I hate losing more than I like winning. I'm the type of person who can't enjoy wins too much because I'd rather prepare for the next game. I FREAKIN HATE LOSING. But this plan, this "building thru the draft" plan, is the right plan. It's ALWAYS the right plan when you're trying to establish a LONG-TERM winner. You identify the right players and give them opportunity to mature and gain experience. This plan is successful because young talent is cheap talent. When you have a solid team full of cheap, young talent, you can afford to go out and get those complimentary pieces that make you a champion.

It works in every sport. There are flash in the pan teams that win once or twice, but then they're gone... for a REALLY long time because they bought free agents and traded away youth. Look at the 2003 Chiefs. The 2002 Raiders. The 2000 Giants. The 1998 Falcons. The 2006 Miami Heat. The 2001 Diamondbacks. The 2006 Tigers. The 2002 SF Giants. The fact is, you CAN go out and buy a championship. The Yankees and RedSox have proven that theory over and over. It's pretty easy to do it in baseball without a salary cap. It's a little harder to be the Patriots, Colts, Spurs, Chargers, Giants, and Steelers without building your foundation thru the draft.

If you look at the successful teams in pro sports right now, the majority of them built their teams thru the draft. The majority of them are stalwarts for the long-term. Why do you think the Tampa Rays won the World Series? Their stars are all home grown. Same goes for the NY Giants. Same for the San Antonio Spurs. Throughout this decade, that was true for the Patriots. Do you think they could've competed this long if that team was majority free agents in 2000?

While I'm not completely against bringing in a free agent or two that could contribute to the long-term success of this team (Jonathan Vilma), the amount of free agent acquisitions that you've suggested runs in direct contrast to the plans and goals of this franchise. While you may want to see a winner right now for a couple years, I want to see a winner in a couple years that will contend year after year for the decade that follows. I think this is the biggest philosophical diffence between those who support the rebuilding plan and those who think the team is heading in the wrong direction.

The problem is that you confuse signing bad free agents (like Law and LJ) with signing good free agents (like Vilma and Ndami would be). Not all free agents are created equal. Hard and fast rule - sign free agents on the upside of their careers, not the downside. Which is why Al Davis and Daniel Snyder usually fail, and Scott Pioli and Bill Parcells usually succeed. There is a great middle ground between signing free agents like Al Davis and building through the draft like Herm Edwards. That great middle ground is where contenders and championship teams are found.

Do you really think the Tampa Bay Rays won the World Series? You may want to watch some baseball before writing things like that. Anyway, you can't compare baseball (with its farm system) or basketball (with its small rosters) with football when talking about building a champion.

Our team is massively under the cap. Any argument that we can't sign FAs because it will prevent our signing our young guys long term is ridiculous. Who, exactly, is going to be demanding a large contract from our ownership? DJ? Page? Pollard? Those guys aren't going to be demanding large contracts. Bowe and Albert might, but they aren't going to demand that they get paid like the top 5 at their position or anything. Flowers (albiet due to injury) and (especialy) Dorsey haven't proven anything yet.

You and I agree, I think, that we should build our offense through the draft, even if we disagree about the players we should draft. The reason is that players we have drafted (Bowe and Albert) or signed young FAs (Thigpen and Bradley) on offense are turning out well. I trust Chan Gailey to rebuild this unit, as long as he is given the personnel and the time. He's done great things this season - moving to the spread to reduce the impact of the bad parts of our OL, trusting Thigpen, somehow managing a running game, building Bradley into a legitimate no. 2 WR - but he isn't a miracle worker, and our offense won't work next season unless we get some talent on the OL. We actually have the chance this offseason to rebuild our offense for the next five to seven years by drafting good personnel on offense.

The exact opoosite is true on our defense. Whether it is because Herm and Gunther don't mesh, whether it is because of strength and conditioning, or whether it is because the personnel just aren't good, our defense is oft-injured. Even when healthy, it's still near the last in the league in run and in the bottom third of pass defense. Our starting defense is made up of three first round picks (DJ, Dorsey, and Hali), three second round picks (McBride, Pollard, Flowers), one third round pick (Tank), three lower picks (Page, Carr, and Thomas), and one FA (Edwards, this time around at least). That is an awful amount of high picks that have been spent on our defense over the past three years (seven in the first three rounds - including Morgan, and not includng Vermeil's DJ) since Herm's came into town. My motto can be summed up as such:

I DO NOT TRUST HERM EDWARDS TO DRAFT DEFENSIVE PLAYERS.

Flowers has looked good when in, but he is hurt. Carr has looked OK in the first half of games, but is getting torched in the second halves. Pollard's been OK, and may turn out well when we stop fooling around with the Cover 2 (a defense he is not suited for). The rest are not even close to living up to their draft status as impact rookies. Why exactly do you want Herm Edwards to draft more defensive players? There isn't a starter on our defense who will demand Jared Allen money. We desparately need help on our DL, which has been pretty hopeless. Do you really think that a DE Herm drafts will have any sort of impact?

You're right, in a way, when you say that contender uses the draft to rebuild a team, rather than shipping those picks in trades (like David or Snyder). You misjudge the number of FAs on football championship teams (the Giants, Rams, Pats, and Bucs all had a number of impact free agents at important positions), but you're correct that we should replenish our players through the draft. But I direct you to my motto:

I DO NOT TRUST HERM EDWARDS TO DRAFT DEFENSIVE PLAYERS.

To be fair, I don't trust him on offense either - I just trust Gailey to turn lead into gold if need be.

The Chiefs defense is like the Lions offense - a lot of high picks for no results.

What we have right now is Vermeil-lite. We have a competent offense (obviously not to Vermeil levels, but still) that is being let down by a horrendous defense. The difference is that people aren't calling this defense out.

And I mean this without any sarcasm and with real curiosity - do you really believe that Herm Edwards will ever lead this team to 13-3 and multiple conference championships? And if you do, do you believe this for any concrete reason (past job performance, coaching skills, etc.) or just because you want to believe that the past three years weren't wasted?

jmlamerson
11-13-2008, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by jmlamerson http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/redbar/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?p=106095#post106095)
The problem with your scenarios is that you vastly overvalue Chiefs players.

Well, I overvalue them and you undervalue them, so they're probably in between somewhere. At least I'm not wanting to dump a bunch of rookie and 2nd year players because they're not playing like All-Pro's yet.

Leonard Pope was a 2nd round pick by the Cards, and they're still extremely high on him.

Pope has given VERY little production his 3 years in the league. His career year thus far has been 26 receptions for 238 yards and 5 TDs in 2007. In Gonzo's worst season in the past 5 years, (2006) he had 73 receptions for 900 yards and 5 TDs. If you want, we can compare Gonzo's 2nd year to Pope's. 59 receptions for 621 yards and 2 TDs. Or Gonzo's last season where he had 99 receptions for 1172 yards and 5 TDs. Or hell, even 9 games into this season where he already has 50 receptions for 544 yards and 5 TDs. Bottom line, if the Cardinals want to be taken seriously, they're going to need more production from their TE position than the 5 receptions for 36 yards that Pope has given them 9 games into this season.

They aren't going to trade a 2nd for Gonzo. A team like the Eagles, Panthers, or Pats might trade a 3rd for Gonzo this offseason, but that's probably all we could get for him. And, anyway, why would we trade him at the conclusion of the season if we weren't going to trade him at midseason? We'll get less than what we were offered at mideason, when teams are in the playoff hunt, not more after the season is done.

If he improves his numbers for the 3rd year in a row, the Chiefs will be in position to ask and receive what they want for him. Gonzalez is still one of the best TE's in the league and is the type of player that could put a legit contender over the top. A 2nd is not asking too much for a player who could propel a team to a Super Bowl.

The 49rs are paying 1RB money to Frank Gore. They aren't taking on LJ's salary as well. Some teams would probably love LJ in the backfield (Broncos, Seahawks, Lions, Pats, or maybe Bengals), but they aren't going to trade a 2nd for him. LJ has a rap sheet, has been suspended, is an injury risk, and is a locker room distraction. Teams would sign him to a minimum contract, but they aren't trading a high pick for his high salary, even if he rushes for 700 yards over the last seven games.

The Chiefs aren't trading LJ to the Broncos. The Seahawks wouldn't be a bad option, but if they aren't giving Alexander money, they're not gonna give it to LJ. The Lions would be a great place. The Pats have Maroney. The Bengals have enough bad attitudes on that team. I doubt they'd make a move with Benson and Henry already in their backfield.

And really, do the Chiefs really need the picks? We need to get more experience, especially on defense, not younger.

1. It isn't that I want to dump all of our rookies and 2nd year players. I just don't see anything in them that makes me think they are NFL viable starters. Kepp them as backups? Sure. But we need actual NFL worth starters on defense and on the OL, and we don't have them. The fact that were drafted high does not mean they are talented.

2. Pope is exactly the right TE for the Cardinals offense. He's tall, can block well, and can catch passes in the end zone. The Cardinals are running a Greatest Show on Turf offense which doesn't requie a Tony G. sort of TE. The Cardinals don't need, and won't trade a 2nd rounder for, Tony G.. They probably wouldn't sign him as a free agent. It's a pipe dream to make a plan to rebuild the Chiefs using that as a cornerstone.

3. No team is going to trade a 2nd for Tony G. this offseason. Look, we'd be lucky to get a 3rd for him. I love him and think he's the best player on our team, but the traditional teams that trade picks (the Raiders, the Saints, the Redskins) already have TEs or we won't trade with. The savvier teams don't trade high draft picks for TEs - it isn't that important of a position for the height of the pick for teams like the Pats or Eagles.

4. I wasn't proposing trades for LJ - I was saying who would pick him up as a free agent. No one is going to trade for LJ. And we probably won't cut him and admit the financial loss. It's a bad situation.

Seriously, do you think we should go into next season with the worst front four in the league? With the slowest secondary in the league? With probably the worst LB corps in the league? These are all Herm's guys, and they just aren't enough for us to field a competitive team, whether these players are in their 3rd to 4th year, or if they're in their 10th to 11th.

texaschief
11-13-2008, 05:50 PM
The problem is that you confuse signing bad free agents (like Law and LJ) with signing good free agents (like Vilma and Ndami would be). Not all free agents are created equal. Hard and fast rule - sign free agents on the upside of their careers, not the downside. Which is why Al Davis and Daniel Snyder usually fail, and Scott Pioli and Bill Parcells usually succeed. There is a great middle ground between signing free agents like Al Davis and building through the draft like Herm Edwards. That great middle ground is where contenders and championship teams are found.

Do you really think the Tampa Bay Rays won the World Series? You may want to watch some baseball before writing things like that. Anyway, you can't compare baseball (with its farm system) or basketball (with its small rosters) with football when talking about building a champion.

lol... that's funny. the sad part is a went back over and proof read this post and didn't catch it. I meant teams MAKING a championship game. I think I mentioned a few other teams as examples that didn't WIN the championship, but made the game.

Our team is massively under the cap. Any argument that we can't sign FAs because it will prevent our signing our young guys long term is ridiculous. Who, exactly, is going to be demanding a large contract from our ownership? DJ? Page? Pollard? Those guys aren't going to be demanding large contracts. Bowe and Albert might, but they aren't going to demand that they get paid like the top 5 at their position or anything. Flowers (albiet due to injury) and (especialy) Dorsey haven't proven anything yet.

You and I agree, I think, that we should build our offense through the draft, even if we disagree about the players we should draft. The reason is that players we have drafted (Bowe and Albert) or signed young FAs (Thigpen and Bradley) on offense are turning out well. I trust Chan Gailey to rebuild this unit, as long as he is given the personnel and the time. He's done great things this season - moving to the spread to reduce the impact of the bad parts of our OL, trusting Thigpen, somehow managing a running game, building Bradley into a legitimate no. 2 WR - but he isn't a miracle worker, and our offense won't work next season unless we get some talent on the OL. We actually have the chance this offseason to rebuild our offense for the next five to seven years by drafting good personnel on offense.

The exact opoosite is true on our defense. Whether it is because Herm and Gunther don't mesh, whether it is because of strength and conditioning, or whether it is because the personnel just aren't good, our defense is oft-injured. Even when healthy, it's still near the last in the league in run and in the bottom third of pass defense. Our starting defense is made up of three first round picks (DJ, Dorsey, and Hali), three second round picks (McBride, Pollard, Flowers), one third round pick (Tank), three lower picks (Page, Carr, and Thomas), and one FA (Edwards, this time around at least). That is an awful amount of high picks that have been spent on our defense over the past three years (seven in the first three rounds - including Morgan, and not includng Vermeil's DJ) since Herm's came into town. My motto can be summed up as such:

I DO NOT TRUST HERM EDWARDS TO DRAFT DEFENSIVE PLAYERS.

Flowers has looked good when in, but he is hurt. Carr has looked OK in the first half of games, but is getting torched in the second halves. Pollard's been OK, and may turn out well when we stop fooling around with the Cover 2 (a defense he is not suited for). The rest are not even close to living up to their draft status as impact rookies. Why exactly do you want Herm Edwards to draft more defensive players? There isn't a starter on our defense who will demand Jared Allen money. We desparately need help on our DL, which has been pretty hopeless. Do you really think that a DE Herm drafts will have any sort of impact?

Depends where he drafts him. If he's a top 10 pick, then yeah. Hali isn't nearly as bad as you make him out to be. I think he'd benefit from another pass rushing DE like Allen opposite of him. It's easier to miss on players taken later in the first round than it is to miss on players WORTHY of a top 10 selection.

You're right, in a way, when you say that contender uses the draft to rebuild a team, rather than shipping those picks in trades (like David or Snyder). You misjudge the number of FAs on football championship teams (the Giants, Rams, Pats, and Bucs all had a number of impact free agents at important positions), but you're correct that we should replenish our players through the draft. But I direct you to my motto:

I DO NOT TRUST HERM EDWARDS TO DRAFT DEFENSIVE PLAYERS.

To be fair, I don't trust him on offense either - I just trust Gailey to turn lead into gold if need be.

The Chiefs defense is like the Lions offense - a lot of high picks for no results.

What we have right now is Vermeil-lite. We have a competent offense (obviously not to Vermeil levels, but still) that is being let down by a horrendous defense. The difference is that people aren't calling this defense out.

And I mean this without any sarcasm and with real curiosity - do you really believe that Herm Edwards will ever lead this team to 13-3 and multiple conference championships? And if you do, do you believe this for any concrete reason (past job performance, coaching skills, etc.) or just because you want to believe that the past three years weren't wasted?

People who "hate" Herm could very well be right and end up being right with everything they've said. I just don't think there is sufficient evidence of his coaching abilities from the past to make a definitive conclusion about his coaching abilities. That's why I haven't argued much or tried to defend Edwards. I am an advocate of the plan that's being implemented. I would be for it if any other coach were here as well. The plan is a good one and will bear fruit. Even if they bring in a different coach, I'd still be railing and praying that the Chiefs held the course they're currently on.

I've seen things during the games the past couple seasons from Herm's coaching that I didn't agree with. There IS part of me that wishes we had another coach. But ONLY IF the new coach continues on the same path (building thru the draft). Again, it's not so much that I love Herm as a coach as it is, I love the plan and have seen teams in the recent past where this plan has worked out VERY well and I'm excited it was brought to Arrowhead. I also think Herm's ability to identify the correct players in the draft is one of his strengths. Although, I didn't like the Turk McBride pick. If there was ONE pick I could do over, it would be that 2nd round pick. The other picks, I think were solid picks and a GIANT leap forward compared to the last coaching regime. I think the Chiefs could've done a lot worse than hiring Herm Edwards.

texaschief
11-13-2008, 06:15 PM
[/I]



Seriously, do you think we should go into next season with the worst front four in the league? With the slowest secondary in the league? With probably the worst LB corps in the league? These are all Herm's guys, and they just aren't enough for us to field a competitive team, whether these players are in their 3rd to 4th year, or if they're in their 10th to 11th.

Again, Tank and Dorsey might be below average right now in their rookie and 2nd seasons in the league, but those guys are going to studs at DT and should be cornerstones while we rebuild the defense. Hali, again, isn't as bad as you think he is. Yes, I would love another DE, but only if he's a young, stud FA or top 6 draft pick.

The LB's ARE playing really bad this year, but DJ will be a Pro Bowl OLB. I said I'd like to sign Vilma to be the other OLB and drafting a ILB in the first two rounds should be a priority.

Do you have any evidence that the combo of Flowers, Carr, Pollard and Page are "the slowest defensive backfield in the league?" You suggested signing Dawan Landry from the Ravens while railing against Page saying he can't tackle. But, Page has better numbers this season than Landry because Landry has only played in two games. I guess he's hurt. The last thing this team needs is another injury prone player. Page has 40 tkls 2 INTs and 1FF. The free safety for the Colts who run the same defense, Antoine Bethea, has 62 tkls and 1 INT and no FF. Bethea was a 6th round pick in 2006.

Pollard has 53 tkls, 1INT and 1FF compared to the Pro Bowl SS, Bob Sanders who has missed 5 games this season with an injury. Sanders has 28 tkls and 1INT. If you extrapolate those numbers, Pollard's 53 tkls in only 3 short of Sanders and only 1 less INT. Sander's best season in 2007 had him with 96 tkls and 2 INTs. Pollard's numbers this season project him as having 90 tkls and 2 INTs this season. I'm ok with Pollard as our SS if he's putting up comparable numbers to Sanders and keeping himself healthy and in the lineup. Pollard hasn't missed a game in 3 years. I like his durability and effort to keep himself in the game.

Chiefster
11-14-2008, 01:07 AM
I'll stick with CP, thanks. :lol:

He couldn't possibly do wrose then CP. :lol: :lol: