PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs should pick #3



texaschief
12-28-2008, 09:49 PM
rams opponents won 136 games.
chiefs opponents won 137 games.

The Rams will have the weaker strength of schedule which puts them one pick ahead of us. So, unless I calculated wrong, we should be picking #3.

Bike
12-28-2008, 10:02 PM
Orapko from texas.

texaschief
12-28-2008, 10:04 PM
Orapko from texas.

Only if we can trade down. Orakpo isn't a top 3 talent IMO and I'm one of the biggest Texas fans around.

Bike
12-28-2008, 10:08 PM
Only if we can trade down. Orakpo isn't a top 3 talent IMO and I'm one of the biggest Texas fans around.
Then who do we grab? OL with 1st pick? Or Crabtree if he's there?

texaschief
12-28-2008, 10:20 PM
Then who do we grab? OL with 1st pick? Or Crabtree if he's there?

Honestly, I think it'll come down to a can't miss LT or Aaron Curry depending on how the combine goes. I just can't see this team taking that huge risk that comes with drafting a QB with a pick that early.

Bike
12-28-2008, 10:40 PM
Honestly, I think it'll come down to a can't miss LT or Aaron Curry depending on how the combine goes. I just can't see this team taking that huge risk that comes with drafting a QB with a pick that early.
Depends on new gm. Maybe he'll go for Stafford or Wells and build lines thru fa and later in draft. Either way, its gonna be an interesting off-season...

tornadospotter
12-28-2008, 10:46 PM
Depends on new gm. Maybe he'll go for Stafford or Wells and build lines thru fa and later in draft. Either way, its gonna be an interesting off-season...
:iagree: :schlacht: :lol: :drunkhb:

Coach
12-28-2008, 10:52 PM
Trade down is the best case scenario for the Chiefs. If not, I think the Chiefs will address their pass rush problems with the 3rd pick in the draft. They will be skewered by the media if they do something else.

texaschief
12-28-2008, 11:32 PM
Depends on new gm. Maybe he'll go for Stafford or Wells and build lines thru fa and later in draft. Either way, its gonna be an interesting off-season...

These would be disastrous picks for the Chiefs. I'd rather give Charles the chance to be the featured back if we can do something with LJ. He has the frame to be a featured back. Just because he's fast, doesn't mean he's too small. He's a bigger RB than a bunch of featured backs in the game right now. Stafford would be an awful pick. He'd be a younger Huard; immobile and poor decision making under pressure. Behind our line, that would be a recipe for disaster.

Bike
12-28-2008, 11:38 PM
Ok. Then sounds like ol for 1st pick. I don't have problem with that. I'm saying that because I don't think we will be able to trade down to p/u a lb worthy of 3rd pick...

texaschief
12-28-2008, 11:44 PM
This would've been the perfect year for Mario Williams to come out. lol

leaves
12-29-2008, 12:09 AM
Bikes got the idea here. It's all the new GM. I would like an OL or DE/LB (rather see Michael Johnson, GT, than Orakpo). If Crabtree's there, I think you gotta.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 12:15 AM
Once again the Chiefs will have a bundle of money to spend in the FA market. Will they continue their pathetic reputation for NOT being active???????? My guess is yes and they will continue to struggle until they decide to spend money on free agents!

Bike
12-29-2008, 12:20 AM
Once again the Chiefs will have a bundle of money to spend in the FA market. Will they continue their pathetic reputation for NOT being active???????? My guess is yes and they will continue to struggle until they decide to spend money on free agents!
My guess is no! Peterson is gone!!! New GM will go to fa to turn this thing around yesterday - as Parcels did in Miami. Got to.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 12:52 AM
I found this site. I thought it was pretty cool. It goes over the top prospects that the Chiefs might be looking at. Although, I've gotta say, a lot of the explanations for why the Chiefs would take certain players are just awful and made by people who obviously know nothing about the situation the Chiefs are in.

http://www.fantasyfootballjungle.com/y/nfl-draft/teams/index.php?steam=KC

theaxeeffect4311
12-29-2008, 04:40 AM
My guess is no! Peterson is gone!!! New GM will go to fa to turn this thing around yesterday - as Parcels did in Miami. Got to.

Agreed. Peterson is gone and the reputation that the Chiefs will sign bad free agents will stop. The new GM will bring a new face to the Chiefs.

As far as the third pick overall, it should probably be an OT or LB like Curry. I would be alright with either one of those.

yashi
12-29-2008, 11:25 AM
Trade down and take Orakpo. Otherwise, take Curry so we can have a big time playmaker on defense. Otherwise you can't go wrong with improving the OL.

I just hope and pray that they don't draft a skill position. The line is not good enough to warrant taking a RB, and I don't think having Crabtree this season would have won us any more games.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 11:52 AM
Trade down and take Orakpo. Otherwise, take Curry so we can have a big time playmaker on defense. Otherwise you can't go wrong with improving the OL.

I just hope and pray that they don't draft a skill position. The line is not good enough to warrant taking a RB, and I don't think having Crabtree this season would have won us any more games.

The Chiefs can't trade down. Teams can't trade their high picks anymore because of the large financial hit. We have to accept that we are stuck at number 3.

I like Curry and love Maualuga, but the 3rd pick is way too high for the LB position.

High WR picks almost never work out for rebuilding teams (Andre Johnson excepted). I like Crabtree a lot, but he need to go to a team with an established QB and OL. Seattle seems like the perfect fit for him.

No decent GM takes a RB in the top 10 picks anymore. RB is the easiest position to fill on a football team. With the exception of LT, no top-10 RB pick has been worth it in a decade.

Orakpo is too small for the NFL as a premier pass rusher. He'll only be good if a larger DE is on his opposite side, and he has significant LB support. I think he goes to the Raiders.

Stafford will be gone at either 1 or 2. I think the Lions or Rams will take one of Andre Smith or Oher. Which will leave one of those two for us at the three-spot. Yes, we have many, many needs, but our seven picks in the 2009 draft will not fill those. We can solve our OL problems for the next decade picking Smith or Oher here.

balto
12-29-2008, 12:50 PM
We can absolutely trade down!!!!!!

The Chiefs could trade down to around 7-10 and still get Rey Maualuga MLB.

I honestly see NO WAY we do not get a Stud DE in FA, we have the money and the draft this year does not have that "IT" DE in it.

So with our DE taken care of we still need a MLB and I believe Rey Maualuga is the only MLB in this draft with teh size and ability to come straight into the NFL and make a impact(James Laurinaitis might end up being the better one of the two, but not for at least 3-4 years)

Everyone says WE WON"T BE ABLE TO TRADE DOWN NOOOO WAAAAY!!!!!

Well if we get our DE taken care of and our next biggest need is a MLB then I'm sure the Chiefs are thinking about taking Rey or James with teh 3rd overall pick so why wouldn't they give up the 3rd for a 7-10 and a 2nd?

YES if we traded our 3rd for a 7-10th and a 2nd we would be LOOSING draft points value, but if we plan on taking a MLB with 3rd overall why not get our MLB (pay him less) and gain another HIGH 2nd rounder?

3rd over all= 2,200 draft points

7th= 1,500 draft points
39th= 510 draft points
Total= 2,010 draft points

So you see we woudl be loosing out on mid 3rd round pick from loosing 200 draft points. Not to mention if we traded for anything lower then 7th we woudl of course be loosing more value.

But getting screwed to be able to trade down would actually work out for BOTH teams. We get our guy and a extra 2nd and the team trading up (Browns I believe are 7th and alot of mocks have them taking Aaron Curry) To get there guy.

chief31
12-29-2008, 01:06 PM
We can absolutely trade down!!!!!!

The Chiefs could trade down to around 7-10 and still get Rey Maualuga MLB.

I honestly see NO WAY we do not get a Stud DE in FA, we have the money and the draft this year does not have that "IT" DE in it.

So with our DE taken care of we still need a MLB and I believe Rey Maualuga is the only MLB in this draft with teh size and ability to come straight into the NFL and make a impact(James Laurinaitis might end up being the better one of the two, but not for at least 3-4 years)

Everyone says WE WON"T BE ABLE TO TRADE DOWN NOOOO WAAAAY!!!!!

Well if we get our DE taken care of and our next biggest need is a MLB then I'm sure the Chiefs are thinking about taking Rey or James with teh 3rd overall pick so why wouldn't they give up the 3rd for a 7-10 and a 2nd?

YES if we traded our 3rd for a 7-10th and a 2nd we would be LOOSING draft points value, but if we plan on taking a MLB with 3rd overall why not get our MLB (pay him less) and gain another HIGH 2nd rounder?

3rd over all= 2,200 draft points

7th= 1,500 draft points
39th= 510 draft points
Total= 2,010 draft points

So you see we woudl be loosing out on mid 3rd round pick from loosing 200 draft points. Not to mention if we traded for anything lower then 7th we woudl of course be loosing more value.

But getting screwed to be able to trade down would actually work out for BOTH teams. We get our guy and a extra 2nd and the team trading up (Browns I believe are 7th and alot of mocks have them taking Aaron Curry) To get there guy.


The reson people don't think that we will be able to trade down is because noone will trade up, due to the contract that a #3 overall pick would demand.

Most people believe that there will be a rookie-cap in place next season and teams are not going to go ape-s**t to get one of the last over-priced draftees.

But then, that doesn't mean that it is impossible either. Maybe LJ could factor into some kind of trade-down scenario. :D

balto
12-29-2008, 01:34 PM
LOL I can see it now!!!!

Chiefs trade there 3rd overall pick and Larry Johnson to the Browns for the 7th overall pick and Derek Anderson!!!!!

LOL I think both the Browns and Chiefs fans would kill them self's.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 01:41 PM
We can absolutely trade down!!!!!!

The Chiefs could trade down to around 7-10 and still get Rey Maualuga MLB.

I honestly see NO WAY we do not get a Stud DE in FA, we have the money and the draft this year does not have that "IT" DE in it.

So with our DE taken care of we still need a MLB and I believe Rey Maualuga is the only MLB in this draft with teh size and ability to come straight into the NFL and make a impact(James Laurinaitis might end up being the better one of the two, but not for at least 3-4 years)

Everyone says WE WON"T BE ABLE TO TRADE DOWN NOOOO WAAAAY!!!!!

Well if we get our DE taken care of and our next biggest need is a MLB then I'm sure the Chiefs are thinking about taking Rey or James with teh 3rd overall pick so why wouldn't they give up the 3rd for a 7-10 and a 2nd?

YES if we traded our 3rd for a 7-10th and a 2nd we would be LOOSING draft points value, but if we plan on taking a MLB with 3rd overall why not get our MLB (pay him less) and gain another HIGH 2nd rounder?

3rd over all= 2,200 draft points

7th= 1,500 draft points
39th= 510 draft points
Total= 2,010 draft points

So you see we woudl be loosing out on mid 3rd round pick from loosing 200 draft points. Not to mention if we traded for anything lower then 7th we woudl of course be loosing more value.

But getting screwed to be able to trade down would actually work out for BOTH teams. We get our guy and a extra 2nd and the team trading up (Browns I believe are 7th and alot of mocks have them taking Aaron Curry) To get there guy.

Think about it this way - why would any team trade up to our 3rd spot this year and take on the massive financial commitment? People may trade up for a Michael Vick or Eli Manning, but unless there's a can't-miss QB prospect, GMs don't give up picks and millions of dollars to move up. A team will sit at the seven spot and pick Eugene Monroe instead of trading up and picking Andre Smith.

No one uses that points chart anymore - it's a pre-salary cap relic. Look at the Pats/Saints trade last year, for example.

I love Maualuga, and think he's (by far) the best defensive player in this year's draft. I want him badly for this team. But the only way were getting him is by trading for an additional 1st rounder - not by trading down.

Nel Toille
12-29-2008, 02:32 PM
rams opponents won 136 games.
chiefs opponents won 137 games.

The Rams will have the weaker strength of schedule which puts them one pick ahead of us. So, unless I calculated wrong, we should be picking #3.
I think a lot more goes into it than that. I heard someone on the radio talking about it. They use computers to factor in not only the opponents wins and losses but also, points for and against, total offense and defense... pretty much every stat you can rank a team by.

chief31
12-29-2008, 03:16 PM
I think a lot more goes into it than that. I heard someone on the radio talking about it. They use computers to factor in not only the opponents wins and losses but also, points for and against, total offense and defense... pretty much every stat you can rank a team by.

There is a progression for tie-breakers here.

Last season, The Raiders, Chiefs and Falcons were all tied at 4-12. The head-to-head situation yielded no advantage. Nor did the divisional records. But the "common opponents records gave The Raiders an positional advantage on The Chiefs, while The Falcons remained tied with both. (They didn't play any of the same teams as either The Raiders, or The Chiefs.)

So, what happened? Did they continue on to the things that you mentioned? Nope. They went directly to a three-way coin toss.

With The Raiders having had the worse common opponents record than The Chiefs, but still tied with The Falcons, while The Falcons were still tied with The Chiefs, the three-way coin toss had another wrinkle.

First, The Falcons would have a coin toss against The Raiders. Since The Falcons won that toss, then that was been the end of it. The Falcons went ahead of The Raiders, who went ahead of The Chiefs.

But, had The Falcons lost that first toss, against The Raiders, then they would have had a second coin toss, against The Chiefs.

Basically, if you have the same record, then they use divisional records, then common opponents records to determine the draft order.

After that, they just flip a coin. Literally.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 03:23 PM
There is a progression for tie-breakers here.

Last season, The Raiders, Chiefs and Falcons were all tied at 4-12. The head-to-head situation yielded no advantage. Nor did the divisional records. But the "common opponents records gave The Raiders an positional advantage on The Chiefs, while The Falcons remained tied with both. (They didn't play any of the same teams as either The Raiders, or The Chiefs.)

So, what happened? Did they continue on to the things that you mentioned? Nope. They went directly to a three-way coin toss.

With The Raiders having had the worse common opponents record than The Chiefs, but still tied with The Falcons, while The Falcons were still tied with The Chiefs, the three-way coin toss had another wrinkle.

First, The Falcons would have a coin toss against The Raiders. Since The Falcons won that toss, then that was been the end of it. The Falcons went ahead of The Raiders, who went ahead of The Chiefs.

But, had The Falcons lost that first toss, against The Raiders, then they would have had a second coin toss, against The Chiefs.

Basically, if you have the same record, then they use divisional records, then common opponents records to determine the draft order.

After that, they just flip a coin. Literally.

He must be thinking of the BCS rankings, not the NFL draft rankings.

Coach
12-29-2008, 04:22 PM
I like Curry and love Maualuga, but the 3rd pick is way too high for the LB position.


Says who? I keep reading this across these forums, and I just don't buy it. Gholston went 6th last year and almost went #5 to the Chiefs, Keith Rivers went 9th. AJ Hawk went 5th in the 06' draft, Ernie Sims went 9th. Terrel Suggs was also a Top 10 pick. The list could go on and on. MLB is the centerpiece of a defense IMO. They almost always lead the team in tackles, they read offensive sets, call plays. Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, Junior Seau, they are legends. If we can get a guy like Maualuga that can immediately make this defense better, then you take him even if you are reaching.


I don't think having Crabtree this season would have won us any more games.

Excellent point. Having Crabtree probably doesn't help us win many, if any, more games this year. What would have helped us win more games this year? DE, MLB, OL, QB. In that order in my opinion. I think to ignore that during free agency and the draft would be ignorant.

The Chiefs will target DE/MLB during free agency. If they can fill one of the holes, then their first pick becomes much easier. If the Chiefs solve both DE/MLB positions in free agency, then they can make a luxury pick like Crabtree.

The Chiefs found their left tackle in last years draft with Branden Albert. Why waste that pick by taking another LT with the #3 pick just to move Albert to Rt or guard? The Chiefs can get a good guard, center, or RT in the later rounds of the draft. Use that #3 pick on someone that will have an immeidate impact on this team. Use the #3 pick on someone that would have helped you win more games this year.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 04:24 PM
My guess is no! Peterson is gone!!! New GM will go to fa to turn this thing around yesterday - as Parcels did in Miami. Got to.
The GM might have changed but the coach may not change and the guy "NOT" forking out the money certainly hasn't changed!! The Chiefs need to take a page out of the Vikings play book. Very talented RB (which we have haters) and they went out and paid 2 big time O linemen to block and the only thing that has happened is the RB has gone for massive yardage and a bundle of TD's the last 2 years!!

Coach
12-29-2008, 04:36 PM
The GM might have changed but the coach may not change and the guy "NOT" forking out the money certainly hasn't changed!! The Chiefs need to take a page out of the Vikings play book. Very talented RB (which we have haters) and they went out and paid 2 big time O linemen to block and the only thing that has happened is the RB has gone for massive yardage and a bundle of TD's the last 2 years!!

Yep, now that QB'less team is now in the playoffs.

I really hope the Chiefs don't take a QB with the #3 pick. If you could guarantee me that Stafford or Bradford were going to be great, then yes. But picking good 1st round QB's is a roll of the dice at best.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 04:38 PM
Yep, now that QB'less team is now in the playoffs.

I really hope the Chiefs don't take a QB with the #3 pick. If you could guarantee me that Stafford or Bradford were going to be great, then yes. But picking good 1st round QB's is a roll of the dice at best.
I think you just contradicted yourself. How can you garrantee any player drafted will be great? You want a certain position to be drafted right? Do you know for sure that player will be any good? I think not. If I were convinced the Chiefs would follow the Vikings lead, I would say keep Thigpen because he is a serviceable QB IF and I mean IF they were to get 2 stud O linemen from free agency in the next couple of years and keep LJ but I garrantee they won't get the help on the O line to compliment either the RB position or help the QB position that they need!

Coach
12-29-2008, 04:41 PM
I think you just contradicted yourself. How can you garrantee any player drafted will be great? You want a cretain posotion to be drafted right? Do you know for sure that player will be any good? I think not.

My point was that good line play will solve lots of problems, including a sub-par QB. A good line, makes a good RB, makes a good QB.
My point is that 90% of NFL fans couldn't tell you who the current starting QB is for the Vikings.
My point is that I would prefer to see the Chiefs address needs other than QB with the #3 pick.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 04:44 PM
My point was that good line play will solve lots of problems, including a sub-par QB. I would prefer to see the Chiefs address needs other than QB with the #3 pick.
Read the edited post.

Coach
12-29-2008, 04:48 PM
I think you just contradicted yourself. How can you garrantee any player drafted will be great? You want a certain position to be drafted right? Do you know for sure that player will be any good? I think not. If I were convinced the Chiefs would follow the Vikings lead, I would say keep Thigpen because he is a serviceable QB IF and I mean IF they were to get 2 stud O linemen from free agency in the next couple of years and keep LJ but I garrantee they won't get the help on the O line to compliment either the RB position or help the QB position that they need!

I would argue that the draft success rates are different for the different positions. I would also argue that the 1st round draft success rate for QB's is among the worst of any position.

yashi
12-29-2008, 05:12 PM
I would argue that the draft success rates are different for the different positions. I would also argue that the 1st round draft success rate for QB's is among the worst of any position.

exactly..

Vince Young, Ryan Leaf, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman... all 1st round busts, and that's just in the last 5 years. We have a QB that has shown he can put points on the board. I want to see what he can do when he has more time to throw and a running game to help out...... in other words, draft a lineman.

And in the meantime, get some quality pass rushers and run stoppers on the team.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 05:55 PM
I would argue that the draft success rates are different for the different positions. I would also argue that the 1st round draft success rate for QB's is among the worst of any position.
I would bet you money that the percentages of QB's to ANY other position drafted are not even close. Yes, you could say it is because all other positions have twice as many players drafted but the success rate is far worse for other positions.

Yashi, please don't make me start listing the number of failures from lets say...defensive players drafted!

theaxeeffect4311
12-30-2008, 01:37 AM
I would bet you money that the percentages of QB's to ANY other position drafted are not even close. Yes, you could say it is because all other positions have twice as many players drafted but the success rate is far worse for other positions.

Yashi, please don't make me start listing the number of failures from lets say...defensive players drafted!

Please start.

Because the Chiefs should not draft a quarterback. We need a first rounder who will not be a bust.

chief31
12-30-2008, 10:52 AM
Also, the pricetag on a top-three QB flop will be far beyond that of any other positional flop. :D

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 12:22 PM
Please start.

Because the Chiefs should not draft a quarterback. We need a first rounder who will not be a bust.
In the league? Are you serious????? Its not close! This is like talking football with someone wh has never watched a game!

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 12:26 PM
Also, the pricetag on a top-three QB flop will be far beyond that of any other positional flop. :D
And this matters why? Because we have don't have money under the cap? Or is it that we just want to keep up with the history of the organization by never drafting a potention QBOTF? God knows we won't spend the money in free agence so why not a QBOTF? I know, we should draft 4 O linemen with our first 4 picks!!!!! Very productive!

chief31
12-30-2008, 12:41 PM
In the league? Are you serious????? Its not close! This is like talking football with someone wh has never watched a game!

You aren't going to look it up, are you?


And this matters why? Because we have don't have money under the cap? Or is it that we just want to keep up with the history of the organization by never drafting a potention QBOTF? God knows we won't spend the money in free agence so why not a QBOTF? I know, we should draft 4 O linemen with our first 4 picks!!!!! Very productive!

Well, then why not just keep the money? You seem to think that is all just fine to throw away. So throw it away.

You generally don't want to waste any more cap space than you have to.

I'm not saying that you don't draft a QB if you need one. Sometimes, you just have to take that risk.

I'm just saying that there is a bigger financial penalty to a QB flop, then there is for a FS flop.

KcChiefsForever58
12-30-2008, 12:47 PM
As long as we don't go anywhere near Tim Tebow (if he declares) I'll be happy. I think if he does declare, he'll end up in a Lions uniform. :sign0104:

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 12:48 PM
And this matters why? Because we have don't have money under the cap? Or is it that we just want to keep up with the history of the organization by never drafting a potention QBOTF? God knows we won't spend the money in free agence so why not a QBOTF? I know, we should draft 4 O linemen with our first 4 picks!!!!! Very productive!

I agree with you that the Chiefs need to draft a QBOTF at some point. The problem is that:

1. We have needs at almost every position, and we'll get a rookie QB killed behind our current OL.

2. Stafford is the only QB worth a top-10 pick, and he'll be gone by the third spot (probably Lions or if not Rams will scoop him up). Bradford and Tebow (if they even come out) are the defintions of project QBs and aren't worth the 3rd pick. Sanchez, Nate Davis, and Freeman are sticking in school. Chase Daniel is probably not NFL material. So how are we to use this draft to get our QBOTF?

Isn't it better that we build our OL in this draft, give Thigpen a shot in 2009, and if he fails, draft a QBOTF in the more QB-heavy draft of 2010?

And you know my opinion - I'm perfectly happy to spend our first three picks on OL, as that's the main area we'll not be able to fix through FA. I still believe we should draft:

LT
C
RT
RB
QB
WR
RG

Move Albert to LG and Waters to RG, and you have a decent young offense for the first time in a long time.

KcChiefsForever58
12-30-2008, 12:55 PM
Isn't it better that we build our OL in this draft, give Thigpen a shot in 2009, and if he fails, draft a QBOTF in the more QB-heavy draft of 2010?


Now that's the quote of the day IMO.

I agree with you completely...BUT...I don't think Stafford is the only option. I think Daniels is a good option despite this year (and no I'm not a Mizzou fan lol actually I'm a KU fan). He's got the mindset to develop into a NFL QB. As for Tebow...I think he's done in college, not going to survive in today's NFL. I would LOVE to see us pick up a mammoth like Duke Robinson of OU. I would also like to see us pick up a WR like Macklin or Crabtree to compliment Bowe.

chief31
12-30-2008, 12:57 PM
I still believe we should draft:

LT
C
RT
RB
QB
WR
RG

Move Albert to LG and Waters to RG, and you have a decent young offense for the first time in a long time.

Wow! That's pretty extreme.

You don't mention a single defensive position there.

Also, why aren't we moving Albert to RG?

We were pretty effective with Roaf at LT and Shields at RG. You can't construct an O-line to just one side.

tornadospotter
12-30-2008, 12:57 PM
I like Macklin.

KcChiefsForever58
12-30-2008, 12:58 PM
Dude's got wheels!

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 01:11 PM
Wow! That's pretty extreme.

You don't mention a single defensive position there.

Also, why aren't we moving Albert to RG?

We were pretty effective with Roaf at LT and Shields at RG. You can't construct an O-line to just one side.

I don't think we can help our defense by infusing it with more youth except in the LB position. We already have an extremely young front four and secondary, and I don't see our draft picks making those two positions much better. Anyway, this is not a good draft for DEs, DTs, or FSs, and we don't need young CBs or SSs.

We could use some young LBs, I'd be the very first to admit. I think we can fix our MLB and ROLB positions in FA a whole lot easier than our OL. And we only have seven picks - we can fix the positions I listed (LT, C, RT, RB, 3QB, 3WR, and 2RG) in this draft. We can't fix all of them. I don't want to throw a 6th rounder into our ROLB spot and pretend that we've fixed anything. We need a massive surge of FA if we even want to pretend to be competitive in 2009.

I want to move Waters to RG to prop up the right side of the line. He's our best OL, and will hopefully anchor that side. I think a line of:

Oher (or Smith)/Albert/Wade/Waters/Rookie

is much stronger because we'll have Waters on the right side helping the rookies at C and RT. I think Albert on the left side works because we'll be building a left side that will hopefully be together for the next decade.

balto
12-30-2008, 01:23 PM
I agree IF we get our DE/MLB in FA and we can't trade down then I'm up for taking the best LT on the board and moving Albert to LG and Watters to RG. Upgrades 3 spots with only 1 pick!!!!!

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 01:43 PM
I agree with you that the Chiefs need to draft a QBOTF at some point. The problem is that:

1. We have needs at almost every position, and we'll get a rookie QB killed behind our current OL.

2. Stafford is the only QB worth a top-10 pick, and he'll be gone by the third spot (probably Lions or if not Rams will scoop him up). Bradford and Tebow (if they even come out) are the defintions of project QBs and aren't worth the 3rd pick. Sanchez, Nate Davis, and Freeman are sticking in school. Chase Daniel is probably not NFL material. So how are we to use this draft to get our QBOTF?

Isn't it better that we build our OL in this draft, give Thigpen a shot in 2009, and if he fails, draft a QBOTF in the more QB-heavy draft of 2010?

And you know my opinion - I'm perfectly happy to spend our first three picks on OL, as that's the main area we'll not be able to fix through FA. I still believe we should draft:

LT
C
RT
RB
QB
WR
RG

Move Albert to LG and Waters to RG, and you have a decent young offense for the first time in a long time.
I think it would be a HUGE mistake to draft O linemen with the first 3 or 4 picks!

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 01:47 PM
You aren't going to look it up, are you?



Well, then why not just keep the money? You seem to think that is all just fine to throw away. So throw it away.

You generally don't want to waste any more cap space than you have to.

I'm not saying that you don't draft a QB if you need one. Sometimes, you just have to take that risk.

I'm just saying that there is a bigger financial penalty to a QB flop, then there is for a FS flop.
Do I really need to look up how many busts there have been at different positions than QB? Ya know your right, I'm not going to because it would be ridiculous! Everyone on here with the exception of 1 guy knows there are far more busts at other positions than QB!!:D

I understand your point about the cap loss but as you say, sometimes you just have to take a chance!

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 01:48 PM
I think it would be a HUGE mistake to draft O linemen with the first 3 or 4 picks!

Why? OL and RB are traditionally the two positions in which a rookie can make an immediate and positive impact. And OL doesn't usually burn out in 4-5 years. Percentage wise, OL has a much lower bust rate than other positions drafted. And this year, there are only 2-3 worthwhile FA OL, and several worthwhile FA defensive players.

My question is this - who do you want instead? Do you really want to plug more young players onto a very young DL? Do you see a QB worth drafting in the first few rounds (we could get Harrell or Daniels in the 5th)? Wouldn't you rather fix our OL than draft a RB or WR high?

ChiefsFanFromNY
12-30-2008, 02:00 PM
I've done some flip-flopping on this subject over the past few weeks. This is a quarterback league and I noticed something interesting last night. 9 out of the 12 QB's in the playoffs were drafted in the first round. With 5 of them being drafted in the top 5. You get a failure sometimes, but I think this team has to take that risk if Stafford is on the board. He has all the tools and potential to be a franchise QB in this league. I think Bradford should be passed on if he comes out. If Stafford is not there then we should draft a LT and move Albert to G or RT. Late round QB's RARELY work out. Thigpen has been great, but I don't see him leading us to a Super Bowl. I'm not a big fan of the spread either.

balto
12-30-2008, 06:25 PM
You are 100% correct on risk to reward on first round QB's. Sure there have been a ton of bust BUT if you make that right choice it could mean playoff after playoff. If you wanna talk about bust QB's then maybe the scouts for the team that took them should be blamed?

If we take Stafford or Bradford with the 3rd overall pick and they turn out to be Busts then I would put the blame on our Scouting crew. They should know a million times more about a QB's chance of busting then ANY of us and our high light videos and watched games of the player.

texaschief
12-30-2008, 08:14 PM
Now that's the quote of the day IMO.

I agree with you completely...BUT...I don't think Stafford is the only option. I think Daniels is a good option despite this year (and no I'm not a Mizzou fan lol actually I'm a KU fan). He's got the mindset to develop into a NFL QB. As for Tebow...I think he's done in college, not going to survive in today's NFL. I would LOVE to see us pick up a mammoth like Duke Robinson of OU. I would also like to see us pick up a WR like Macklin or Crabtree to compliment Bowe.

You are no longer allowed to "think." There's NO EFFING WAY you could convince ANYONE that a franchise should build around a 5'11 QB. UGH!!!

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 08:41 PM
You are no longer allowed to "think." There's NO EFFING WAY you could convince ANYONE that a franchise should build around a 5'11 QB. UGH!!!
Agreed!!!

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 12:54 AM
I've done some flip-flopping on this subject over the past few weeks. This is a quarterback league and I noticed something interesting last night. 9 out of the 12 QB's in the playoffs were drafted in the first round. With 5 of them being drafted in the top 5. You get a failure sometimes, but I think this team has to take that risk if Stafford is on the board. He has all the tools and potential to be a franchise QB in this league. I think Bradford should be passed on if he comes out. If Stafford is not there then we should draft a LT and move Albert to G or RT. Late round QB's RARELY work out. Thigpen has been great, but I don't see him leading us to a Super Bowl. I'm not a big fan of the spread either.

Late round quarterbacks are not that bad. Rothlisberger, Flacco, Cutler, and Quinn are those that come to mind. It is hard to tell what the rule is. Sometimes the first choice is right (Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan). Other times the first choice is wrong (David Carr and Alex Smith).Sometimes the first choice is wrong and the second choice is right (Tim Couch was chosen over Donovan McNabb). Of course the second choice is not always right (Todd Blackledge). The point is that it is hard to tell unless we have good scouting, so we'll see how this draft turns out.


Do I really need to look up how many busts there have been at different positions than QB? Ya know your right, I'm not going to because it would be ridiculous! Everyone on here with the exception of 1 guy knows there are far more busts at other positions than QB!!:D

I understand your point about the cap loss but as you say, sometimes you just have to take a chance!

While you still have not said any player at any position who has been a bust, I'll let that slide because you seem to talk without any depth into what you say.

That being said, the Chiefs could fix the team this season for a solid foundation through the draft and FA. I do not know why you keep saying the Chiefs or Clark Hunt is cheap. Peterson is gone. This is the first big season for Clark Hunt and I see him being more involved in the offseason. I know this does not matter to many but Peterson said, before he resigned, the Chiefs will be more engaged in free agency.

There are many key players that could be added through free agency. More defensive than the O-line. Most teams do not let go of good offensive linemen. As far as quarterbacks, that may be the only position that cannot be helped from free agency. That being said, I still support Thigpen because he deserves a chance to start for the season. While the spread may not be permanent, if we get another linemen, we may be able to run a pro offense again.

texaschief
12-31-2008, 12:57 AM
It really didn't matter who was going to be the HC or GM, the team was set up to be able to acquire a bunch of FAs this off season, no matter what. I honestly don't think it'll matter who comes in, money WILL be spent.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 01:30 AM
Late round quarterbacks are not that bad. Rothlisberger, Flacco, Cutler, and Quinn are those that come to mind. It is hard to tell what the rule is. Sometimes the first choice is right (Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan). Other times the first choice is wrong (David Carr and Alex Smith).Sometimes the first choice is wrong and the second choice is right (Tim Couch was chosen over Donovan McNabb). Of course the second choice is not always right (Todd Blackledge). The point is that it is hard to tell unless we have good scouting, so we'll see how this draft turns out.



While you still have not said any player at any position who has been a bust, I'll let that slide because you seem to talk without any depth into what you say.

That being said, the Chiefs could fix the team this season for a solid foundation through the draft and FA. I do not know why you keep saying the Chiefs or Clark Hunt is cheap. Peterson is gone. This is the first big season for Clark Hunt and I see him being more involved in the offseason. I know this does not matter to many but Peterson said, before he resigned, the Chiefs will be more engaged in free agency.

There are many key players that could be added through free agency. More defensive than the O-line. Most teams do not let go of good offensive linemen. As far as quarterbacks, that may be the only position that cannot be helped from free agency. That being said, I still support Thigpen because he deserves a chance to start for the season. While the spread may not be permanent, if we get another linemen, we may be able to run a pro offense again.
Really? You must stop spouting off before you read all the posts in all the threads!!!! I named several in another post. I'll give you 1 of them. Robert Gallery. Enough of a bust for you???

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 01:48 AM
Really? You must stop spouting off before you read all the posts in all the threads!!!! I named several in another post. I'll give you 1 of them. Robert Gallery. Enough of a bust for you???

He was bad. Good, that is one. Good job. Keep going. Because you said in this thread that you would talk about defensive players. I'm waiting.

Also, you keep saying things that no one else even mentioned. Like earlier in this thread you mentioned something about drafting offensive linemen with the first 4 picks. No one proposed that idea. Stop exaggerating and continue the discussion.

ChiefsFanFromNY
12-31-2008, 01:17 PM
Late round quarterbacks are not that bad. Rothlisberger, Flacco, Cutler, and Quinn are those that come to mind. It is hard to tell what the rule is. Sometimes the first choice is right (Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan). Other times the first choice is wrong (David Carr and Alex Smith).Sometimes the first choice is wrong and the second choice is right (Tim Couch was chosen over Donovan McNabb). Of course the second choice is not always right (Todd Blackledge). The point is that it is hard to tell unless we have good scouting, so we'll see how this draft turns out.

I was referring to the later rounds (2-7) not the late first round, but point taken.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 01:41 PM
He was bad. Good, that is one. Good job. Keep going. Because you said in this thread that you would talk about defensive players. I'm waiting.

Also, you keep saying things that no one else even mentioned. Like earlier in this thread you mentioned something about drafting offensive linemen with the first 4 picks. No one proposed that idea. Stop exaggerating and continue the discussion.
You really need to read the other posts and other threads!!!! Hows Mike Williams doing? You don't even know who he is do you? My point exactly!!

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 05:09 PM
I was referring to the later rounds (2-7) not the late first round, but point taken.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Yes, there is a world of difference between a first round quarterback and a fifth round quarterback. We should not waste a fifth round, especially when we can find good linemen or cornerbacks.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 05:16 PM
You really need to read the other posts and other threads!!!! Hows Mike Williams doing? You don't even know who he is do you? My point exactly!!

There were two Mike Williams that are currently free agents who were first round selections. Mike the O-lineman or Mike the WR (chosen by of course the Lions).

So even if you did know that there were two of them, that's two. Good for you. Keep going because you have not gone to defense yet.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:39 PM
There were two Mike Williams that are currently free agents who were first round selections. Mike the O-lineman or Mike the WR (chosen by of course the Lions).

So even if you did know that there were two of them, that's two. Good for you. Keep going because you have not gone to defense yet.
UHHH if you read the previous posts you will see that I was talking about the O lineman, hence the Gallery comment! Now you want me to name the defensive player busts? Are you serious?

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:09 PM
I would bet you money that the percentages of QB's to ANY other position drafted are not even close. Yes, you could say it is because all other positions have twice as many players drafted but the success rate is far worse for other positions.

Yashi, please don't make me start listing the number of failures from lets say...defensive players drafted!

This is the quote I was talking about where you mentioned defensive players.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:29 PM
This is the quote I was talking about where you mentioned defensive players.
Got it. I guess you are telling me there are no defensive players that are busts?

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:36 PM
Got it. I guess you are telling me there are no defensive players that are busts?

No, I merely brought it up because that is what you said you would do. But I'm over it now.

I think with the third pick we should go OT. Monroe and Oher both look like LTs for any franchise. They have great size, leverage, footwork, strength, and fundamentals. I'm not sold on Smith since he needs to lose weight.

I also like Curry, but it may be too high to take him.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:38 PM
No, I merely brought it up because that is what you said you would do. But I'm over it now.

I think with the third pick we should go OT. Monroe and Oher both look like LTs for any franchise. They have great size, leverage, footwork, strength, and fundamentals. I'm not sold on Smith since he needs to lose weight.

I also like Curry, but it may be too high to take him.
I believe I said "don't make me start listing the number of failures from lets say...the defensive side" not "I am going to start naming failures from the defensive side".