PDA

View Full Version : 1st Round Pick - QB?



RockRocks787
12-29-2008, 10:33 AM
I was watching ESPN this morning and according to one of their analysts, the Chiefs will draft Matt Stafford. I saw on a website that Sam Bradford will be selected by the Chiefs. Is it really another quarterback that we need the most right now?

Hayvern
12-29-2008, 11:21 AM
I was watching ESPN this morning and according to one of their analysts, the Chiefs will draft Matt Stafford. I saw on a website that Sam Bradford will be selected by the Chiefs. Is it really another quarterback that we need the most right now?

No its not, however, I would not put anything past Edwards. Lets hope our new GM has a head on his shoulders.

Of course, last year they had us taking a QB as well.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 11:24 AM
I was watching ESPN this morning and according to one of their analysts, the Chiefs will draft Matt Stafford. I saw on a website that Sam Bradford will be selected by the Chiefs. Is it really another quarterback that we need the most right now?

I think Stafford goes to the Lions at number 1. The Rams might pick him if he drops to number 2. No way does he last to us at number 3.

Sam Bradford isn't worth a first round pick in my opinion. He isn't ready to play next year, or probably in 2010. I think he'll drop into the teens before someone drafts him as a project QB (Jets make a lot of sense).

I think the Chiefs should pick Oher or Andre Smith and move Albert inside. Albert did very well this year - when we ran the spread. Everypone forgets how bad he was early in the year when we tried to run a traditional offense. As we're probably going back to a traditional offense in 2009, I have no problems moving him to LG and drafting Andre Smith as our LT. We could than draft Alex Mack as our C in the 2nd, and the left side of our OL would be pretty well set for the next decade. McIntosh and Waters would be our stopgap at RT and RG for 2009, until replacements could be found for 2010.

I'm most afraid that we reach for Michael Johnson or Brian Orakpo to help our pash rush. Neither has the size to be a premier pass rusher or run defender in the NFL.

jap1
12-29-2008, 04:21 PM
I think Stafford goes to the Lions at number 1. The Rams might pick him if he drops to number 2. No way does he last to us at number 3.

Sam Bradford isn't worth a first round pick in my opinion. He isn't ready to play next year, or probably in 2010. I think he'll drop into the teens before someone drafts him as a project QB (Jets make a lot of sense).

I think the Chiefs should pick Oher or Andre Smith and move Albert inside. Albert did very well this year - when we ran the spread. Everypone forgets how bad he was early in the year when we tried to run a traditional offense. As we're probably going back to a traditional offense in 2009, I have no problems moving him to LG and drafting Andre Smith as our LT. We could than draft Alex Mack as our C in the 2nd, and the left side of our OL would be pretty well set for the next decade. McIntosh and Waters would be our stopgap at RT and RG for 2009, until replacements could be found for 2010.

I'm most afraid that we reach for Michael Johnson or Brian Orakpo to help our pash rush. Neither has the size to be a premier pass rusher or run defender in the NFL.

Things like this dont make sense to me. Why move a Pro-Bowl guy to a position he has not played in years (if ever) and move a good tackle (debatable whether he is great) to guard. On top of all that, people think that McIntosh will do well at RT.

This ruins ANY chemistry that was had on the line. And for those of you who dont know, chemistry on the line is probably 2nd most important to that between a WR and QB. The line has to know and trust each other about when a double team is needed/wanted and when it is not.

IMHO, it is ridiculous to move Waters to RG. He has been a dominant force at LG and probably makes the C and LT look a little better. If you think Albert cant hack LT, move him to RT. He has the footwork and size to play tackle. The argument you make for moving Albert (you claim his inability to pass block was masked by the spread) is the same argument I make for either dumping McIntosh or moving him to RG if we cannot pick up a better guard (he has the size and strength to overpower most DTs, and his lack of footwork doesnt make him a liability if he is on the interior of the line).

In my dream world, we would trade down and draft a LB. Since I probably wont be the GM next year (Mr. Hunt, I am still waiting for you to call me back) if the GM decides to draft another Tackle, then move Albert or the new guy to the RT spot. The "anchor" of an O-line is the tackles. It would give us some great anchors. And the interior can always be filled in later rounds.

Thats my two cents, feel free to tear it apart.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 04:30 PM
I am really really perplexed at the fact that most on here are satisfied with Thigpen at QB!!!!!! The guy didn't win ONE FRICKEN GAME for god sakes!!!!!! At SOME POINT in the hstory of the Chiefs organization, they have to draft what is considered a "future QB"!!! Nobody and I mean NOBODY considered Croyle to be the QOTF for the Chiefs!!!! There will be a few linemen later in the draft and if they spend money in the FA market like I have been saying they will have a productive off season.

Coach
12-29-2008, 04:32 PM
Things like this dont make sense to me. Why move a Pro-Bowl guy to a position he has not played in years (if ever) and move a good tackle (debatable whether he is great) to guard. On top of all that, people think that McIntosh will do well at RT.

This ruins ANY chemistry that was had on the line. And for those of you who dont know, chemistry on the line is probably 2nd most important to that between a WR and QB. The line has to know and trust each other about when a double team is needed/wanted and when it is not.

IMHO, it is ridiculous to move Waters to RG. He has been a dominant force at LG and probably makes the C and LT look a little better. If you think Albert cant hack LT, move him to RT. He has the footwork and size to play tackle. The argument you make for moving Albert (you claim his inability to pass block was masked by the spread) is the same argument I make for either dumping McIntosh or moving him to RG if we cannot pick up a better guard (he has the size and strength to overpower most DTs, and his lack of footwork doesnt make him a liability if he is on the interior of the line).

In my dream world, we would trade down and draft a LB. Since I probably wont be the GM next year (Mr. Hunt, I am still waiting for you to call me back) if the GM decides to draft another Tackle, then move Albert or the new guy to the RT spot. The "anchor" of an O-line is the tackles. It would give us some great anchors. And the interior can always be filled in later rounds.

Thats my two cents, feel free to tear it apart.

I agree. Why replace the engine, when all it needs is a new set of rings? Why replace the wardrobe, when you just need some new jeans? Whatever. No worthwhile coach would ask pro-bowl LG Brian Waters to move. It is one of the very few positions on this team that doesn't need to be addressed. And Brian Waters would probably retire if asked to do it.


I was watching ESPN this morning and according to one of their analysts, the Chiefs will draft Matt Stafford. I saw on a website that Sam Bradford will be selected by the Chiefs. Is it really another quarterback that we need the most right now?

The analyst you saw was Todd McShay. It would be nearly impossible for an analyst to truly understand every team's needs. It is pretty obvious IMO, that Todd needs to spend some time watching Chiefs videotape before putting together his next mock draft.

I would expect someone that didn't follow the Chiefs this year to automatically assume the Chiefs need a QB with their pirst pick.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 04:45 PM
I am really really perplexed at the fact that most on here are satisfied with Thigpen at QB!!!!!! The guy didn't win ONE FRICKEN GAME for god sakes!!!!!! At SOME POINT in the hstory of the Chiefs organization, they have to draft what is considered a "future QB"!!! Nobody and I mean NOBODY considered Croyle to be the QOTF for the Chiefs!!!! There will be a few linemen later in the draft and if they spend money in the FA market like I have been saying they will have a productive off season.

Thigpen won the Oakland game, remember?

Coach
12-29-2008, 04:54 PM
I'm not convinced that Thigpen is the long-term answer right now either. But I think this team would get better quicker by drafting another position. I think Thigpen showed us some things this year. He can lead, he has heart, he can run, he can read defenses.....he can underthrow balls, he can overthrow balls, he can make poor decisions. But he is a rookie. Overall I thought he was a world of improvement over Brodie Croyle, who most people wanted to make our franchise QB.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 04:59 PM
Things like this dont make sense to me. Why move a Pro-Bowl guy to a position he has not played in years (if ever) and move a good tackle (debatable whether he is great) to guard. On top of all that, people think that McIntosh will do well at RT.

This ruins ANY chemistry that was had on the line. And for those of you who dont know, chemistry on the line is probably 2nd most important to that between a WR and QB. The line has to know and trust each other about when a double team is needed/wanted and when it is not.

IMHO, it is ridiculous to move Waters to RG. He has been a dominant force at LG and probably makes the C and LT look a little better. If you think Albert cant hack LT, move him to RT. He has the footwork and size to play tackle. The argument you make for moving Albert (you claim his inability to pass block was masked by the spread) is the same argument I make for either dumping McIntosh or moving him to RG if we cannot pick up a better guard (he has the size and strength to overpower most DTs, and his lack of footwork doesnt make him a liability if he is on the interior of the line).

In my dream world, we would trade down and draft a LB. Since I probably wont be the GM next year (Mr. Hunt, I am still waiting for you to call me back) if the GM decides to draft another Tackle, then move Albert or the new guy to the RT spot. The "anchor" of an O-line is the tackles. It would give us some great anchors. And the interior can always be filled in later rounds.

Thats my two cents, feel free to tear it apart.

You're right about most things.

Waters will probably retire in the next year or three. He's (by far) our best lineman, and I think he'd be able to make the move to RG with few problems. I want to move Albert inside because I think he can be a top-3 guard in the NFL, but only a top-20 tackle. I think that drafting a premier C and LT and moving Albert to LG makes the left side of our line one of the strongest in the league for the next decade. I think that moving Waters to RG is a good fix for the next couple years until a replacement can be groomed.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want McIntosh as our RT. I'd love nothing more than for us to get a good RT in the draft or FA (Gross). However, I do think that moving Waters to RG will help him be adequate until 2010.

I think that we are jumping to conclusions on how this line will perform in a traditional offense, especially Albert at LT. We should be shaking up its chemistry, and we should replace our C, RG, and RT at least. I think the spread has masked their deficiencies (which is the whole reason we moved to the spread), and that, if anything, we have slowed Albert's learning curve as a starting LT by using this offense.

Coach
12-29-2008, 05:03 PM
You're right about most things.

Waters will probably retire in the next year or three. He's (by far) our best lineman, and I think he'd be able to make the move to RG with few problems. I want to move Albert inside because I think he can be a top-3 guard in the NFL, but only a top-20 tackle. I think that drafting a premier C and LT and moving Albert to LG makes the left side of our line one of the strongest in the league for the next decade. I think that moving Waters to RG is a good fix for the next couple years until a replacement can be groomed.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want McIntosh as our RT. I'd love nothing more than for us to get a good RT in the draft or FA (Gross). However, I do think that moving Waters to RG will help him be adequate until 2010.

I think that we are jumping to conclusions on how this line will perform in a traditional offense, especially Albert at LT. We should be shaking up its chemistry, and we should replace our C, RG, and RT at least. I think the spread has masked their deficiencies (which is the whole reason we moved to the spread), and that, if anything, we have slowed Albert's learning curve as a starting LT by using this offense.

Much better argument.

jap1
12-29-2008, 05:31 PM
You're right about most things.

Waters will probably retire in the next year or three. He's (by far) our best lineman, and I think he'd be able to make the move to RG with few problems. I want to move Albert inside because I think he can be a top-3 guard in the NFL, but only a top-20 tackle. I think that drafting a premier C and LT and moving Albert to LG makes the left side of our line one of the strongest in the league for the next decade. I think that moving Waters to RG is a good fix for the next couple years until a replacement can be groomed.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want McIntosh as our RT. I'd love nothing more than for us to get a good RT in the draft or FA (Gross). However, I do think that moving Waters to RG will help him be adequate until 2010.

I think that we are jumping to conclusions on how this line will perform in a traditional offense, especially Albert at LT. We should be shaking up its chemistry, and we should replace our C, RG, and RT at least. I think the spread has masked their deficiencies (which is the whole reason we moved to the spread), and that, if anything, we have slowed Albert's learning curve as a starting LT by using this offense.

The big problem I have with this plan, is that essentially you would have a rookie at LT, LG AND C (unless we get that in FA or keep Niswanger). Moving Albert inside pretty much makes him a rookie again. He will be playing a different position and (if they fire herm and start a new run-based offense) likely in a new offense. We would have a new rookie LT from the draft. And possibly a new C. I am worried that it would leave the left (QB's blindside) more vulnerable.

If you move Albert to the RT spot you have a good veteran tackle (RT compared to LT is less different than LT is to LG). You have a veteran LG, and hopefully a good LT.

But, this is all speculation. Who knows what will happen from now until the draft.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 05:52 PM
The big problem I have with this plan, is that essentially you would have a rookie at LT, LG AND C (unless we get that in FA or keep Niswanger). Moving Albert inside pretty much makes him a rookie again. He will be playing a different position and (if they fire herm and start a new run-based offense) likely in a new offense. We would have a new rookie LT from the draft. And possibly a new C. I am worried that it would leave the left (QB's blindside) more vulnerable.

If you move Albert to the RT spot you have a good veteran tackle (RT compared to LT is less different than LT is to LG). You have a veteran LG, and hopefully a good LT.

But, this is all speculation. Who knows what will happen from now until the draft.

Very true. And that OL would probably have a rough couple of games in 2009. But they'd be better than what we have currently. And in 2010, they would be among the best in the league.

Just one point - Albert played RG in college in a NFL-style offense. One might argue that he will adapt to LG in a NFL-style offense coming from the spread better than to RT in a NFL-style offense coming from the spread.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 06:17 PM
I was watching ESPN this morning and according to one of their analysts, the Chiefs will draft Matt Stafford. I saw on a website that Sam Bradford will be selected by the Chiefs. Is it really another quarterback that we need the most right now?

Do you actually read the other threads on this board?

KottkeKU
12-29-2008, 07:21 PM
Chemistry on the OLine IS very important...but were talking about a team that is completely rebuilding...we need multiple offensive lineman in the next few years, so shaking things up isnt such a bad idea if we add some pieces...(atleast thats my opinion)...id say albert is pretty much the only one who has the potential to be a good lineman for us in the next 5-10 years...waters will be gone soon, so chemistry wont be there...i think albert is fine at LT personally though...

DRAFT: What we really need to do is draft a MLB (via trade), and sign a DE in the market...then draft your "future" qb in the mid rounds and try to groom him...if thigpen doesnt work out (i think he deserves to be next years starter at the very least...what better is a rookie qb going to do?) then you can always go to your project qb, and worst case you have a solid backup...i really dont think it makes sense to waste a top 3 pick on a qb when we have so many needs...

trade for more picks! and get a baller MLB....


I do think we have to draft a QB though, at some point...

nigeriannightmare
12-29-2008, 07:35 PM
I am really really perplexed at the fact that most on here are satisfied with Thigpen at QB!!!!!! The guy didn't win ONE FRICKEN GAME for god sakes!!!!!! At SOME POINT in the hstory of the Chiefs organization, they have to draft what is considered a "future QB"!!! Nobody and I mean NOBODY considered Croyle to be the QOTF for the Chiefs!!!! There will be a few linemen later in the draft and if they spend money in the FA market like I have been saying they will have a productive off season.

I don't know that he's the QB of the future but I think that he can play his role and not lose us games. had our defense not been so terrible he would have won more. Tony G likes him, which I would say speaks volumes and with the contract the number 3 pick is going to warrant drafting a QB that may or may not be good would be a bad choice for an organization that needs to turn things around.

RockRocks787
12-29-2008, 08:03 PM
Do you actually read the other threads on this board?

Yes I do read the other threads, but I woke up this morning watching ESPN and the fact that someone thought that KC would draft a QB in the first round kind of surprised me. Just wanted to get some opinions on these analysts and whether they are very accurate or not.

theaxeeffect4311
12-29-2008, 09:05 PM
The big problem I have with this plan, is that essentially you would have a rookie at LT, LG AND C (unless we get that in FA or keep Niswanger). Moving Albert inside pretty much makes him a rookie again. He will be playing a different position and (if they fire herm and start a new run-based offense) likely in a new offense. We would have a new rookie LT from the draft. And possibly a new C. I am worried that it would leave the left (QB's blindside) more vulnerable.

If you move Albert to the RT spot you have a good veteran tackle (RT compared to LT is less different than LT is to LG). You have a veteran LG, and hopefully a good LT.

But, this is all speculation. Who knows what will happen from now until the draft.

I think that Albert moving would not be that bad. Since he has only been in the league for one year, this would be the best time to move him. He got great experience out on the LT spot, so I would think if he moves anywhere it would be RT unless we pick up a RT through free agency. I do not think Waters will move from LG because if we get a new LT, then he can help them out.

Like someone else said, Albert did play OG in college and moved from there when he came to the NFL. He has done a great job and has the potential to stay there. He did good at covering power rushes like that from Albert Haynesworth, but struggled slightly with the speedy DEs. Therefore, if he moved inside, he could probably handle it. I think with him moving to say the right side, he can better help with the running game.


LT is a position that looks very good in this year's draft. So if the Chiefs decide to go that direction, I would agree. However, if they do that then they may go defense in the second round, which I think the Chiefs could benefit more in getting OC Alex Mack.

denverfan1
01-05-2009, 04:28 AM
i think tyler thigpen could be a really good qb if kc hired a good qb coach. not saying this bc im a "donkey" fan.

Sn@keIze
01-05-2009, 05:50 AM
Until we get our GM. Its hard to say who (or what positon) we will draft.

Canada
01-05-2009, 08:45 AM
Mixing up the O line is another good reason to keep Thigpen and his legs as our QB for another year.

Pro_Angler
01-05-2009, 10:54 AM
any pick other then crabtree at #3 would be a total $&^$&^%$Y%$#%Y#$%^ up by the chiefs!!!!!!!!!

jmlamerson
01-05-2009, 12:41 PM
any pick other then crabtree at #3 would be a total $&^$&^%%$#%Y#$%^ up by the chiefs!!!!!!!!!

Good franchises don't pick WRs in the top 5. Perennial losers do.

tornadospotter
01-05-2009, 12:58 PM
Good franchises don't pick WRs in the top 5. Perennial losers do.
:sign0153:

jmlamerson
01-05-2009, 01:07 PM
:sign0153:
Since 1993, the following franchises have taken a WR in the top 5:

Browns
Texans
Bengals
Redskins
Lions
Cardinals
Jets
Seahawks

Of those teams, only the Seahawks have made a SB in the past 15 years, and it was a few years after their pick (Joey Galloway) was off the team. The other teams haven't even come close to sniffing a SB.

Some of those picks have been great players (Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson) and some show great promise (Calvin Johnson and Braylon Edwards), but on the whole, WR is a glamour pick in the top 5 that ties up badly needed salary and cap room.

Bad teams are the ones picking in the top-5. Bad teams draft QB, OL, and DL - not WR - if they want to become good teams.

If we draft Crabtree instead of OL or DL, be prepared for him to put up decent to great stats on a number of bad teams.

balto
01-05-2009, 01:30 PM
It all comes down to FA

If we do not get our DE and MLB in FA then you can forget about Oline with our first pick and maybe second as well.

If our FA SUCKS then look for something like this:

No matter if we are able to trade down or not our first pick will be the best

DE/MLB on the Board. No question about it.

If we have an good FA then look for something like this:

If we only get our DE in FA then we must do what ever it takes to trade down to around 7-10 to gain an extra 2nd then we would draft the best MLB on the board (Rey Maualuga MLB would be my choice, since it seems he is teh most NFL ready) and use that extra 2nd to get our RT. If we can not trade down then we still take the best LB on the board (this is where we might take Curry over Maualuga just to get the value a little better on our side IF the scouts think Curry grades out better then Maualuga).

If we only get our MLB in FA then we still try and trade down. We woudl be able to trade down even further to gain more picks with thsi option, because I feel all three DE's (Brian Orakpo, Everette Brown, and Michael Johnson) all have thier up and downs of how ready they are for the NFL. I think all three will do about the same on the next level with each needing a few years to start to make an impact. If we can not trade down then a lot of mocks have Orakpo being the top DE, but I think its so close that I would trust our scouts to decide on which of the three grades out the best.

If we are able to get BOTH our DE and MLB in FA then this is what I would do. Trade down to around 15th (probably able to get an extra 2nd and 3rd). Draft Duke Robinson (stud Guard) then Alex Mack C with our earlier 2nd, and use our extra 2nd to get Eben Britton OR Phil Loadholt (phil being my first choice) for our future RT for years to come.

I HATE spending our first 3 picks on the Oline, but if our DE/MLB needs are taken care of in FA then why not?

With our D upgraded a TON with new DE and MLB and a Oline like this, how can we loose HEHEHE.

Albert/Waters/Mack/Robinson/Phil

Both Robinson and Phil come from Oklahoma so it would be an even easier move for them since they have worked together for so many years already. Next year we draft Waters replacement.

I honestly do not think Thigpen is our QOTF, but the QB's are gonna be so much better in next years draft so why not give thiggy a chance to prove himself with a better line and a better D? Worst case is he sucks and we are able to get a stud next year in the draft, best case he ROCKS and we win most our games and Thiggy is our QOTF!!!

I'm not one of those guys who say its a crazy idea to move Albert to Guard and draft the best LT. I honestly think Albert would be better value at guard for us and I think any of the top 3 LT's in this years draft will be better then Albert at LT!!! Drafting a LT woudl upgrade three spots with one pick since you move waters to RG, Albert to LG and have a new LT. BUT

The Chiefs have so many needs that trading down and taking Duke Robinson and gaining more picks would benifit our team the best. With taking a LT with our 3rd pick we would not be gaining that extra 2nd (maybe a 3rd too) so we woudl be out of luck on getting BOTH Alex Mack C and one of the top RT's.

This is why I would do all I could to trade down if we get our DE/MLB in FA and NOT draft one of the stud LT's with our first pick.

Albert/Waters/Mack/Duke/Phil plus an extra 3rd

OR

Oher/Albert/Mack/Waters/MaCintosh or late round RT

I think you will agree option 1 looks way better and we need to do what ever it takes to

A. Sign a DE in FA
B. Sign a MLB in FA
C. Trade down our 3rd pick to get Duke Robinson and extra picks.


EDIT: If you must get a QB then use that extra 3rd you get from trading down and take the best on the board.

jmlamerson
01-05-2009, 02:07 PM
It all comes down to FA

If we do not get our DE and MLB in FA then you can forget about Oline with our first pick and maybe second as well.

If our FA SUCKS then look for something like this:

No matter if we are able to trade down or not our first pick will be the best

DE/MLB on the Board. No question about it.

If we have an good FA then look for something like this:

If we only get our DE in FA then we must do what ever it takes to trade down to around 7-10 to gain an extra 2nd then we would draft the best MLB on the board (Rey Maualuga MLB would be my choice, since it seems he is teh most NFL ready) and use that extra 2nd to get our RT. If we can not trade down then we still take the best LB on the board (this is where we might take Curry over Maualuga just to get the value a little better on our side IF the scouts think Curry grades out better then Maualuga).

If we only get our MLB in FA then we still try and trade down. We woudl be able to trade down even further to gain more picks with thsi option, because I feel all three DE's (Brian Orakpo, Everette Brown, and Michael Johnson) all have thier up and downs of how ready they are for the NFL. I think all three will do about the same on the next level with each needing a few years to start to make an impact. If we can not trade down then a lot of mocks have Orakpo being the top DE, but I think its so close that I would trust our scouts to decide on which of the three grades out the best.

If we are able to get BOTH our DE and MLB in FA then this is what I would do. Trade down to around 15th (probably able to get an extra 2nd and 3rd). Draft Duke Robinson (stud Guard) then Alex Mack C with our earlier 2nd, and use our extra 2nd to get Eben Britton OR Phil Loadholt (phil being my first choice) for our future RT for years to come.

I HATE spending our first 3 picks on the Oline, but if our DE/MLB needs are taken care of in FA then why not?

With our D upgraded a TON with new DE and MLB and a Oline like this, how can we loose HEHEHE.

Albert/Waters/Mack/Robinson/Phil

Both Robinson and Phil come from Oklahoma so it would be an even easier move for them since they have worked together for so many years already. Next year we draft Waters replacement.

I honestly do not think Thigpen is our QOTF, but the QB's are gonna be so much better in next years draft so why not give thiggy a chance to prove himself with a better line and a better D? Worst case is he sucks and we are able to get a stud next year in the draft, best case he ROCKS and we win most our games and Thiggy is our QOTF!!!

I'm not one of those guys who say its a crazy idea to move Albert to Guard and draft the best LT. I honestly think Albert would be better value at guard for us and I think any of the top 3 LT's in this years draft will be better then Albert at LT!!! Drafting a LT woudl upgrade three spots with one pick since you move waters to RG, Albert to LG and have a new LT. BUT

The Chiefs have so many needs that trading down and taking Duke Robinson and gaining more picks would benifit our team the best. With taking a LT with our 3rd pick we would not be gaining that extra 2nd (maybe a 3rd too) so we woudl be out of luck on getting BOTH Alex Mack C and one of the top RT's.

This is why I would do all I could to trade down if we get our DE/MLB in FA and NOT draft one of the stud LT's with our first pick.

Albert/Waters/Mack/Duke/Phil plus an extra 3rd

OR

Oher/Albert/Mack/Waters/MaCintosh or late round RT

I think you will agree option 1 looks way better and we need to do what ever it takes to

A. Sign a DE in FA
B. Sign a MLB in FA
C. Trade down our 3rd pick to get Duke Robinson and extra picks.


EDIT: If you must get a QB then use that extra 3rd you get from trading down and take the best on the board.

I'm not disagreeing that the Chiefs should trade down. I just don't think they can. No team will be dumb enough to offer us anything real to move up and pay the big 3rd pick salary - especially because there isn't a sure fire winner at that spot.

I'm on the fence whether to go with Maualuga or Oher/Smith at the 3 spot. Frankly, that's a good problem to have. I think Maualuga will be the best defensive player of this draft and will be the next great MLB. But my sensible side just screams that we need to fix our OL as our first priority - we can't just keep putting this off every year. I wouldn't complain about either pick, truth be told, as long as we leave the first four rounds with two OL starters. BTW, I don't dislike Curry, but I just think Maualuga is better.

I think Orakpo will be an awful pro. He's too small and Texas players have not fared well in the pros these past few years. Michael Johnson is even smaller, and I don't like him much anyways as a player.

I don't want to draft DL. We've sunk way too many picks into that pit over the past three years, to the extent that our LB, QB, and OL positions were held together this year with duct tape (albiet suprisingly adequately). If we don't fix our DL problems in FA, they aren't getting fixed, no matter who we draft. I'm all for sinking most of our FA spare cash into Suggs, Peppers, and Haynesworth on the DL and Dansby as our ROLB. We could then use the draft to solve our lingering, festering offensive problems.

I agree that giving Thigpen the shot in 2009 and drafting a QBOTF in 2010 (if necessary) makes immensely more sense than drafting Bradford and Stafford this year.

I said it before, and I don't care if it sounds crazy, but I think our draft should go, assuming we get some decent FA help on defense:

LT
C
RT
RB
QB
WR
LG

I don't think we can solve our defensive problems (except LB) in this draft. We have seven picks to fill 11-12 starter spots. We need to be big players in FA, or we can chalk up 2009 as well.

balto
01-05-2009, 02:48 PM
Agree all of the DE's are gonna take a few years to help us and right now we need a DE that comes in and produces.

I'm glad you agree with me about Rey Maualuga, he is gonna be a stud and has the size and speed to make a impact right now unlike the other DE/MLB's in this draft.

I think your wrong about us trading down. If we plan to take Rey Maualuga with our first pick why not trade down a few spots and gain a 2nd? It would actually be a BAD deal for us to give up the 3rd overall (teams will want Crabtree/one of the stud LT's) for just a later 1st and a 2nd, but who cares if we get the bad deal if we plan on taking Maualuga anyways.

I also amd glad you agree with me on taking care of DE in FA and focusing on the Oline, but you have us taking our RT in the 3rd and we could get a SOOO MUCH better one with a mid 2nd in Phil Loadholt so why not trade down to around 15th and get Duke Robinson and JUST an extra 2nd to grab Loadholt? Ya the NFL would luagh at us for giving up the 3rd overall for a 15th and mid round 2nd, but it would honestly be a better value for us.

Duke/Phil

or

Oher

See what I mean?

jmlamerson
01-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Agree all of the DE's are gonna take a few years to help us and right now we need a DE that comes in and produces.

I'm glad you agree with me about Rey Maualuga, he is gonna be a stud and has the size and speed to make a impact right now unlike the other DE/MLB's in this draft.

I think your wrong about us trading down. If we plan to take Rey Maualuga with our first pick why not trade down a few spots and gain a 2nd? It would actually be a BAD deal for us to give up the 3rd overall (teams will want Crabtree/one of the stud LT's) for just a later 1st and a 2nd, but who cares if we get the bad deal if we plan on taking Maualuga anyways.

I also amd glad you agree with me on taking care of DE in FA and focusing on the Oline, but you have us taking our RT in the 3rd and we could get a SOOO MUCH better one with a mid 2nd in Phil Loadholt so why not trade down to around 15th and get Duke Robinson and JUST an extra 2nd to grab Loadholt? Ya the NFL would luagh at us for giving up the 3rd overall for a 15th and mid round 2nd, but it would honestly be a better value for us.

Duke/Phil

or

Oher

See what I mean?

Don't get me wrong - I agree that we should follow your plan of trading down if we can do it. I think trading down, accumulating picks, and filling several of our big holes at LB and OL is by far the best way to go. I just don't think anyone will trade with us and give us a 1st and 2nd to move up 10-12 spots. We're in the final two years of mammoth rookie contracts - by 2011 we'll have a rookie scale. I like Crabtree (although not for us and certainly not in the top 5) and the OTs, but I wouldn't make that trade if I were a GM.

To put it another way, I don't think the difference between Michael Oher and Jason Smith is enough to warrant to trading my 2nd rounder if I'm a GM. I'd rather keep my second and get Percy Harvin than spend it and move up for Crabtree. And that isn't even factoring in cap concerns if you're a GM.

If we can do it, by all means do it. I like your proposed OL plan. I just think that GMs have become wise to the fact that trading draft picks away to move up is usually a bad move.

yashi
01-05-2009, 03:56 PM
Once again people are so down on Orakpo. Too small, etc... The guy is unbelievably strong for his size and is really explosive. Orakpo gets to the QB, that's all that matters. He's the exact same size as Terrell Suggs, and people are already calling for Suggs to be wearing the red, white, and gold next year. I actually think Suggs is a good comparison because of their size, explosiveness, and because they're both LB/DE tweeners. You don't have to be 6'7" 290 lbs to be a good DE, just ask Dwight Freeney, Aaron Kampman, Osi Umenyiora, John Abraham, Derrick Burgess, and of course Suggs.

Trading down would be awesome, but like mentioned I don't think it will happen. The only standout in this class that I could see a team trading up for is Crabtree, and the only team I could see trading up for him is Chicago at 14. I can picture one of the top tackles falling there (maybe), but Maualuga and Orakpo will certainly be off the board. Taking the best player available at 14 would likely be a bad thing if that person isn't an LT.

The possibility of a Chiefs offensive line that contains Albert, Waters, Mack, and Robinson/top LT makes me lick my chops... but I see Mack being gone by our 2nd pick. We would likely have to settle for Unger, who would still be an upgrade over Niswanger.

For me, if we don't end up with Suggs or Peppers AND don't trade down, then I would be completely OK with either Orakpo or an LT.

jmlamerson
01-05-2009, 04:29 PM
Once again people are so down on Orakpo. Too small, etc... The guy is unbelievably strong for his size and is really explosive. Orakpo gets to the QB, that's all that matters. He's the exact same size as Terrell Suggs, and people are already calling for Suggs to be wearing the red, white, and gold next year. I actually think Suggs is a good comparison because of their size, explosiveness, and because they're both LB/DE tweeners. You don't have to be 6'7" 290 lbs to be a good DE, just ask Dwight Freeney, Aaron Kampman, Osi Umenyiora, John Abraham, Derrick Burgess, and of course Suggs.

Trading down would be awesome, but like mentioned I don't think it will happen. The only standout in this class that I could see a team trading up for is Crabtree, and the only team I could see trading up for him is Chicago at 14. I can picture one of the top tackles falling there (maybe), but Maualuga and Orakpo will certainly be off the board. Taking the best player available at 14 would likely be a bad thing if that person isn't an LT.

The possibility of a Chiefs offensive line that contains Albert, Waters, Mack, and Robinson/top LT makes me lick my chops... but I see Mack being gone by our 2nd pick. We would likely have to settle for Unger, who would still be an upgrade over Niswanger.

For me, if we don't end up with Suggs or Peppers AND don't trade down, then I would be completely OK with either Orakpo or an LT.

I'd probably be a lot more amenable to taking Orakpo if we were picking lower in the draft and he weren't from Texas. The UT bust rate is awfully high in the pros, and we already have an undersized DL. I think we need to get bigger on defense, not smaller. Orakpo may do OK on a bigger DL, but not on the Chiefs. Tell the trth, I admit I'm pretty worried about getting Suggs at the DE position - I'm betting more that he's improved his skill and strength over the last time he tried it.

Right now, this team has so many needs that we need to hit this one right out of the park. The only sure things (IMO) are Maualuga, Curry, Oher, Smith, and Monroe. I'm not kicking up a fuss if we get any of these five, as all are pretty safe picks and all fit a position of need on this team.

I don't mind trading down to the 14 spot with Chi-town, but I'll agree its unlikely. I wouldn't mind getting Robinson there, trading back into the 1st (our 2nd and 4th, maybe) to get Mack, and using the Bears 2nd to getting Loadholt or Britton. Our OL would be set for a decade.

I'm a firm believer that fixing this OL is the first step to fixing this team. A good OL allows our team to move back to a NFL offense. In turn, we can establish a running game and use the clock. This in turn preserves our defense and prevents 4th quarter collapses. It'll save us injuries at QB and RB, and it will allow us to groom a young QB (Thigpen or otherwise). It is, in short, the magic pill. Our decline these past three years equated to the decline in our OL - this is not a coincidence.

yashi
01-05-2009, 04:56 PM
I'd probably be a lot more amenable to taking Orakpo if we were picking lower in the draft and he weren't from Texas. The UT bust rate is awfully high in the pros, and we already have an undersized DL. I think we need to get bigger on defense, not smaller. Orakpo may do OK on a bigger DL, but not on the Chiefs. Tell the trth, I admit I'm pretty worried about getting Suggs at the DE position - I'm betting more that he's improved his skill and strength over the last time he tried it.

Right now, this team has so many needs that we need to hit this one right out of the park. The only sure things (IMO) are Maualuga, Curry, Oher, Smith, and Monroe. I'm not kicking up a fuss if we get any of these five, as all are pretty safe picks and all fit a position of need on this team.

I don't mind trading down to the 14 spot with Chi-town, but I'll agree its unlikely. I wouldn't mind getting Robinson there, trading back into the 1st (our 2nd and 4th, maybe) to get Mack, and using the Bears 2nd to getting Loadholt or Britton. Our OL would be set for a decade.

I'm a firm believer that fixing this OL is the first step to fixing this team. A good OL allows our team to move back to a NFL offense. In turn, we can establish a running game and use the clock. This in turn preserves our defense and prevents 4th quarter collapses. It'll save us injuries at QB and RB, and it will allow us to groom a young QB (Thigpen or otherwise). It is, in short, the magic pill. Our decline these past three years equated to the decline in our OL - this is not a coincidence.

I was looking at an out of date mock draft. The Bears actually pick 18th, which would likely still let us get Duke.

I completely agree that fixing the O-Line is the most important step for the team, or any rebuilding team for that matter. With a good line we could still have a very good offense with mediocre QB, RB, WRs. Positions I'd like to think we're at least average at currently.

Personally, I'm learning towards taking a top LT and moving Albert to guard where he played in college. All the scouts kept saying that he's versatile and could be a good NFL tackle, but would be a pro bowler at guard. I think having Albert at guard would create some nice holes to open up the running game up the middle. Add in Mack/Unger with our 2nd pick and then the only things we should have to worry about for the next 10 years are replacing Waters and finding someone suitable for RT. 3-4 more solid years from Waters would be huge.

Of course, the whole plan blows up if the new GM decides to go QB with the #3. I'll say it again, I REALLY hope that doesn't happen.

I'll ask this of anyone who thinks going QB is a good idea. What good is Carson Palmer if the blocking is so bad that he ends up missing the whole season due to injury? Or David Carr if his timing becomes permanently off from never having time to throw?

balto
01-05-2009, 05:00 PM
jmlamerson,

You and I seem to be thinking alike. We must get a seasoned DE in FA. Even if Suggs is the same size as the other DE's in the draft Suggs has Experience AND a proven record.

I also love the idea of trading back up to get Mack and still having a 2nd to grab Phil.

This draft should not be hard. The hard part will be getting a DE like Suggs and a MLB like Vilma to come here IMO. If we do this our draft will be cake.

Man I would love this line

Albert/Waters/Mack/Duke/Phil

BTW look how much bigger our Right side would be:

Adrian Jones: 6-4 296
to
Duke Robinson: 6-5 330

Damion MCintosh: 6-4 328
to
Phil Loadholt: 6-8 350

MAN our Right side would be SOOO much better, plus if we got Alex Mack too........ Maybe LJ would stay then HEHE

balto
01-05-2009, 05:47 PM
MAN I just thought of something funny as hell.

I'm a MU fan and not to big on OU, BUT how funny would it be if we trade down and grab Duke Robinson in the first. Then Phil Loadholt OT in the 2nd. Then wait till round 5 and take Jon Cooper C from Oklahoma LOL

So you get

Duke- G from Oklahoma
Phil- OT from Oklahoma
Cooper- C from Oklahoma

Think how good these guys would be working together. They have been playing with each other for years and of course they play well together just look at how good they are now.

Cooper would be the only question out of those 3, but if we got Duke and Phil I think Cooper would be way better because he has played with Duke/Phil and would have Waters on his other side. Cooper could be a GREAT value pick for us IF we get Duke and Phil in rounds 1 and 2 IMO

This would allow us to use our other 2nd'er on another need and maybe even a QB like Tebow/Freeman/Sanchez if you really want to draft a QB this year.

Hmmm I really like the idea of drafting the 3 OU guys and using our other 2nd on another need.

leaves
01-05-2009, 06:11 PM
wow, in the two/three days I havent been on, people went from gungho Orakpo, to skippin the bid...interesting. Anyway, I'll be pretty content with any LB/DE/OL/maybe even WR we get in the pick. I'm good without Stafford. For the mock's sake, it should also be said that Todd McShay is annually wrong on many of his picks.

RedZones
01-05-2009, 10:36 PM
I haven't read much of the posts on this thread yet, but saw that it was about the draft.

I can see that may of the mock drafts on the net are projecting Us to pick a top QB.... But honestly I don't believe that is the answer to all of our problems.

Our offense has been productive with Thigpen (who was basically a rookie this year) under center. At the beginning of the season we were struggling just to get a first down, and now with him under center our offense has no problem moving up and down the field (I would add that a few OL would be nice in this draft as well).

But honestly, our problem was our defense... We have a lot of young talented players on our D, but there are two positions in particular that need help.

I believe that our top pick in this draft should either be Arron Curry LB from Wake Forrest who is a beast and rated as one of the top senior LB's this year. Not only can he play inside and outside, he is a great pass rusher and in coverage, he has 4 years of playing experience without missing any gametime due to injuries. Our linebacking corp has been missing a bad A** player that will hit you in the mouth, and cause you to game plan around him since D. Thomas (RIP) and I believe that drafting him will significantly improve many areas of our defense. The second player that I feel would help out in this position, but not nearly as much would be Ray Maualuga LB USC, similar to Curry but has had injury problems.

I also feel that if the Cheifs can trade up to try and get Michael Johnson DE Georgia Tech, or pick him up in the second round, our pass rush will improve and the defense will be set. With a year of experience together, these two additions and possibly a free agent spot filled here or there, I think we could contend within the next two years.

Any thoughts?

theaxeeffect4311
01-06-2009, 12:19 AM
I haven't read much of the posts on this thread yet, but saw that it was about the draft.

I can see that may of the mock drafts on the net are projecting Us to pick a top QB.... But honestly I don't believe that is the answer to all of our problems.

Our offense has been productive with Thigpen (who was basically a rookie this year) under center. At the beginning of the season we were struggling just to get a first down, and now with him under center our offense has no problem moving up and down the field (I would add that a few OL would be nice in this draft as well).

But honestly, our problem was our defense... We have a lot of young talented players on our D, but there are two positions in particular that need help.

I believe that our top pick in this draft should either be Arron Curry LB from Wake Forrest who is a beast and rated as one of the top senior LB's this year. Not only can he play inside and outside, he is a great pass rusher and in coverage, he has 4 years of playing experience without missing any gametime due to injuries. Our linebacking corp has been missing a bad A** player that will hit you in the mouth, and cause you to game plan around him since D. Thomas (RIP) and I believe that drafting him will significantly improve many areas of our defense. The second player that I feel would help out in this position, but not nearly as much would be Ray Maualuga LB USC, similar to Curry but has had injury problems.

I also feel that if the Cheifs can trade up to try and get Michael Johnson DE Georgia Tech, or pick him up in the second round, our pass rush will improve and the defense will be set. With a year of experience together, these two additions and possibly a free agent spot filled here or there, I think we could contend within the next two years.

Any thoughts?

I do like Curry. I think if he has a good Combine, he may realistically be the choice for the Chiefs. However, if the Chiefs go for defense in the first round, they have to go O-line in the second. Here is my reasoning. There will be many FA additions worth taking in the offseason. I see the Chiefs being active this year seeing that there are many young studs to acquire. Vilma (ILB) and Suggs (DE) are the top two on my list. However, there are almost no free agents when it comes to the O-line. Most teams look to re-sign their linemen.

But there is no way the Chiefs should go for a QB. I am thinking that the Lions will go for a QB with the first overall pick, which means the Chiefs would be getting the second best, but also means the Chiefs will also have to pay a similar contract. Not worth it for an unproven player. If the Lions do not go for a QB, it is still not worth it because I agree with you that it is not the QB that is our problem. It is the O-line and defense. That is what the Chiefs need to focus on in the free agency and draft.

Bike
01-06-2009, 08:49 AM
Maybe since we are revamping ol its time to bring in ol coaches with some coaching AND playing experience to bring these guys along. Our coaching staff sucks.

RedZones
01-06-2009, 04:59 PM
I agree Vilma would be a good addition, and a legit starter for years to come but with the view of building through the draft they might not go that route.

One other option that I wouldn't mind seeing is to Get rid of LJ in a trade (He doesnt want to be here and frankly I dont want him here) for either a top starter and any position needed, some high draft picks or both. Use those picks on what we have all been talking about (LB, OL, DE) and then signing a free agent RB like Derrick Ward (Giants) both him and Brandon Jacobs are free agents, and I doubt that they will be able to afford to keep both. I see them keeping Jacobs, and using Bradshaw as their change of pace back.

Ward could be a starter right away and would be able fit the in the spread if the Chiefs decide to keep it or run btwn the tackles too. Another guy that might be worth bringing in that we dont really have a need for since we have Charles would be Sproles (A bit small, but showed he can carry a load in the Wildcard game) He is originally from Oletha KS, played College ball at KState, and it might be a good reason for him to come back home. (Long shot but you never know haha)

Pro_Angler
01-06-2009, 09:04 PM
all the talk about the d and stuff stil leaves us without a great WR. Crabtree or bust...

yashi
01-06-2009, 09:39 PM
all the talk about the d and stuff stil leaves us without a great WR. Crabtree or bust...

Really? Bowe just had a 86 catch, 1000 yard season with 7 TDs in his second year in the league. He doesn't have great hands, but we can pick up a possession receiver a lot cheaper than a #3 pick.

jap1
01-07-2009, 01:42 AM
all the talk about the d and stuff stil leaves us without a great WR. Crabtree or bust...

A great WR wont guarantee any kind of success in this league. See Detroit, Houston, and the Raiders. With Crabtree, we MAY be able to put more points on the board. But with a better defense or offensive line (so we can run a 4 minute offense and kill the clock with our running game) we wont even NEED to put up as many points as we already did this season.

The only way I personally will be happy with a Crabtree selection is if we use FA to fully upgrade the defense with YOUNG and stellar players and get AT LEAST one good lineman. By fully upgrade I mean a DE, and two LBs. If we get one lineman, we can probably fill the rest of the OL spots in the 2nd-3rd rounds.

jmlamerson
01-07-2009, 11:30 AM
A great WR wont guarantee any kind of success in this league. See Detroit, Houston, and the Raiders. With Crabtree, we MAY be able to put more points on the board. But with a better defense or offensive line (so we can run a 4 minute offense and kill the clock with our running game) we wont even NEED to put up as many points as we already did this season.

The only way I personally will be happy with a Crabtree selection is if we use FA to fully upgrade the defense with YOUNG and stellar players and get AT LEAST one good lineman. By fully upgrade I mean a DE, and two LBs. If we get one lineman, we can probably fill the rest of the OL spots in the 2nd-3rd rounds.

Absolutely right. I like Crabtree a lot. I'd love him on this team. But we're not exactly one player away from greatness here. We have three spots on our OL and DL and two on our LBs that need to be filled before we start making glamour picks like Crabtree or project picks like Bradford.

The 1999 Rams (Holt - draft pick), 2007 Giants (Burress - a FA) and the 2002 Bucs (Keyshawn - by trade) are the only recent championship team I can think of that had a great high pick WR on it. The Pats didn't. The Steelers had Ward, but he wasn't a high pick. The Ravens didn't.

Teams win championships without great WRs all the time. And the Rams are the only recent team (since 1995) I can think of that found championship success wth a WR drafted in the top-10.

RedZones
01-07-2009, 01:51 PM
I agree, there is no need for Crabtree. Our Receiving corp this year was decent enough. Actually the best combo that I could think of since Kennison was young.

Bowe is becoming an elite WR. he was like 9 yds shy of 1000 yds his rookie season (The best in his class) and then had a 1000+ yd season this year. Proving he can consistenly play well. Darling didn't work out, but Mark Bradley played very well before he got injured, and Will Franklin showed much promise in the preseason before getting hurt. I think when he's healthy and has this year of experience under his belt, he will be an excelent slot reciever or hell, throw charles in the slot on certain formations....

But Yes, WR picks in the Top 10 are glamor picks, it is supposidly the 2nd hardest position transition from college to NFL only behind the QB, not many pan out and we need help in other areas way more than WR.

balto
01-07-2009, 02:42 PM
I would honestly rather have Maclin over Crabtree IF we pick a WR. Maclin is that FAST WR we need to complement Bowe. Maclin would also be that return guy we SO desperately need. So if we MUST take a WR then trade down and grab Maclin IMO. Or better yet trade down and grab Duke Robinson :)~

yashi
01-07-2009, 03:26 PM
I would honestly rather have Maclin over Crabtree IF we pick a WR. Maclin is that FAST WR we need to complement Bowe. Maclin would also be that return guy we SO desperately need. So if we MUST take a WR then trade down and grab Maclin IMO. Or better yet trade down and grab Duke Robinson :)~

After watching Bowe this season, I would actually disagree that a speed receiver is what we need.. it's clear that Bowe is excellent at bodying up and making the highlight reel catches, but he drops WAY too many catchable balls. For this reason I would argue that we need more of a possession receiver, especially with TG likely being gone in the next year, someone with great hands and route running in the mold of Houshmanzadeh or Welker. I'm scared to think what would have happened if Thigpen didn't have Tony as a safety valve this season.

So long story short, I think the Chiefs would find Crabtree much more beneficial than Maclin. :) But we shouldn't draft either one...

KottkeKU
01-07-2009, 03:55 PM
I'm scared to think what would have happened if Thigpen didn't have Tony as a safety valve this season.

So long story short, I think the Chiefs would find Crabtree much more beneficial than Maclin. :) But we shouldn't draft either one...


my thoughts exactly...without Tony G, our offense is DOOMED....i think you will see Bowe stop dropping so many balls, like you said they are easy balls, and i think once he gets more acclimated (hes only in his 2nd season) in the NFL he will stop dropping the easy ones..a speedy receiver that can retun also would be much more beneficial imo, and would give us a deep threat that we do not have right now...

Chiefstillidie
01-07-2009, 05:45 PM
i don't see why we need to draft a Qb. We already have thigpen and that quinn gray isn't a bad backup. Why waste a draft pick on another QB

Bike
01-07-2009, 06:30 PM
i don't see why we need to draft a Qb. We already have thigpen and that quinn gray isn't a bad backup. Why waste a draft pick on another QB
Exactly.:bananen_smilies046:

jmlamerson
01-07-2009, 06:45 PM
i don't see why we need to draft a Qb. We already have thigpen and that quinn gray isn't a bad backup. Why waste a draft pick on another QB

Well, people are worried that Thigpen won't be a good QB in a NFL-style offense - that his modest successes this year are more based on our running his college style offense than anything else. People also worry about his ability to finish games.

Personally, I think we don't have many options this year other than to stick with Thigpen at QB, simply because there is no one worth drafting and no good FAs. We aren't MN who are a QB away from a SB. We need to fix our lines first and foremost.

If we fix our DL, LB, and OL problems this season, and Thigpen still leads us to another terrible record, then we draft a replacement in 2010.

One thought I do have is that Pioli as our GM might lead to our trading for Cassel (maybe swap 1sts and a 2nd). I'm not saying this is a good thing - just a very possible one.

Bike
01-07-2009, 06:47 PM
Why would NE trafe Cassel when Brady likely to be out again next year?

jmlamerson
01-07-2009, 06:51 PM
Why would NE trafe Cassel when Brady likely to be out again next year?

Very true that if Brady is out for 2009, Cassel isn't traded. The final word on Brady's recovery isn't in yet, as to whether he'll be playing in 2009 or not. If Brady's prognosis is positive, then they have to trade Cassel's suddenly-large salary.

Bike
01-07-2009, 07:00 PM
Yeah but still think if Pioli lands here he doesn't try to throw huge contract at Cassel with so many holes he'll need to address his 1st couple years here...

texaschief
01-07-2009, 07:48 PM
Cassel was franchised and shouldn't be considered as a candidate here in KC. That would make very little sense and very difficult to justify signing or trading for him.

texaschief
01-07-2009, 07:49 PM
On another discouraging note.... Matt Stafford declared today. Here's hoping Bradford doesn't declare.

m0ef0e
01-07-2009, 07:51 PM
I haven't put my two cents in this thread yet so here goes:

My first penny says that I don't want us to spend our best pick on a QB.

The talking Lincoln head on my second penny tells me that we do not want Cassel, either.

End of discussion. :D

Bike
01-07-2009, 07:52 PM
On another discouraging note.... Matt Stafford declared today. Here's hoping Bradford doesn't declare.
No doubt. Lets fix our lines this off-season.:bananen_smilies046:

texaschief
01-07-2009, 07:54 PM
I REALLY don't want to spend the #3 pick on a LT. But for where we're at in the draft, if we can't trade down, LT is where we'll get the best value from out pick.

m0ef0e
01-07-2009, 07:55 PM
I REALLY don't want to spend the #3 pick on a LT. But for where we're at in the draft, if we can't trade down, LT is where we'll get the best value from out pick.

So we can move Albert back to guard?

Bike
01-07-2009, 08:05 PM
I would leave Albert and Waters alone and whoever we get put them on the right side. With the right coaching why not do this to a rookie fresh out the gates..jmho.

texaschief
01-07-2009, 09:46 PM
So we can move Albert back to guard?


I would leave Albert and Waters alone and whoever we get put them on the right side. With the right coaching why not do this to a rookie fresh out the gates..jmho.

If a LT is taken #3, he absolutely needs to be the LT. While Albert did a good job this season, a #3 LT will be better over the long haul. Plus, I'd much rather spend a #15 pick on a guard than a #3 pick. If Albert gets moved he'll just be going back to a position he's played more over the last four years. Moving Albert back to guard would be a much less dramatic move than making a LT who's never played another position, learn a new position.

Moving Albert to guard wouldn't a horrible decision and could put three pro bowl caliber OLinemen on this line in 2009 IF we don't draft Mack in the 2nd. Otherwise, we could be looking at 4 Pro Bowl caliber Olinemen.

If the Chiefs can't trade down, as of 1/7/09 I'd take:

1-Smith
2-Mack
3-Loadholt

and just be done with the O-line for the next decade.

With the assumption we filled the two LB spots and DE spot thru free agency.

kcmostwanted
01-08-2009, 06:32 PM
Let's say:
-We can't trade out of the #3 spot
-Stafford or Bradford gets taken #1 overall
-Smith gets taken w/ the #2 pick

and we're left at #3 to choose between the Lions left-over... or should we just grab a tackle instead??
I mean this draft is pretty deep w/ OTs ...

In my opinion, We're better off drafting someone like Mark Sanchez in the 2nd round if he's still available... I don't think there's a very big gap between Sanchez, Bradford and Stafford. All have good size, pretty smart and a strong arm...I Would prefer going w/ a Big OT in the 1st and going Sanchez in the 2nd (hoping he's still there).

I know some might think i'm crazy to think Sanchez will still be available in the 2nd but look at how Brian Brohm, Chad Henne, Andre Woodson and John David Booty dropped last year after they were all projected to be 1st or 2nd round draft picks by the analysts

KristofLaw
01-08-2009, 06:36 PM
Concerning drafting a quarterback, my concern is always the same, the duds. At #3 we would be looking at a Ryan Leaf or Dan Marino, then there's all the in-betweens. I would hate it if Bradford ended up as the next P.Manning and he wasn't on the Chiefs. One of these years we have to get that QB again, and yes, I realize all our other needs... it's just that what if scenario is running through my mind. I mean, we aren't going to be in that dream spot to pick the guy. At least I hope not, but then, if a QB is taken that would leave an awful lot of holes, and too many QBs vying for the job. Whatever the case, whichever QB Detroit drafts... that's too bad... too bad... By the way, my 1st post, I LOVE THE CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leaves
01-08-2009, 06:46 PM
On another discouraging note.... Matt Stafford declared today. Here's hoping Bradford doesn't declare.

Haha, here's to that. It'd be nice to not even have to worry about a 3rd pick qb, maybe after Florida whales on them, he'll feel obligated to carry them next year.

jmlamerson
01-08-2009, 06:53 PM
Let's say:
-We can't trade out of the #3 spot
-Stafford or Bradford gets taken #1 overall
-Smith gets taken w/ the #2 pick

and we're left at #3 to choose between the Lions left-over... or should we just grab a tackle instead??
I mean this draft is pretty deep w/ OTs ...

In my opinion, We're better off drafting someone like Mark Sanchez in the 2nd round if he's still available... I don't think there's a very big gap between Sanchez, Bradford and Stafford. All have good size, pretty smart and a strong arm...I Would prefer going w/ a Big OT in the 1st and going Sanchez in the 2nd (hoping he's still there).

I know some might think i'm crazy to think Sanchez will still be available in the 2nd but look at how Brian Brohm, Chad Henne, Andre Woodson and John David Booty dropped last year after they were all projected to be 1st or 2nd round draft picks by the analysts

Did Sanchez ever declare?

windwalker
01-09-2009, 09:27 AM
Did Sanchez ever declare?

If he hasn't officially, he stated he was thinking about it.

Again, underclassmen college players have to declare by Jan. 15th... let's wait until then to really discuss the draft.

hardcorechiefsfan
01-09-2009, 11:37 PM
Cassel was franchised and shouldn't be considered as a candidate here in KC. That would make very little sense and very difficult to justify signing or trading for him.
When we injured Brady, Cassel stepped right up to bat. As good as he was he didn't make the fuss that Gannon did. Not that I wanted Gannon to go but the chiefs ended up letting him go. Well, that is water under the bridge.
Brady is going to start next season putting Cassel back into his shadow. Cassel is great and I would LOVE to have him in KC.

greg3564
01-10-2009, 12:25 AM
When we injured Brady, Cassel stepped right up to bat. As good as he was he didn't make the fuss that Gannon did. Not that I wanted Gannon to go but the chiefs ended up letting him go. Well, that is water under the bridge.
Brady is going to start next season putting Cassel back into his shadow. Cassel is great and I would LOVE to have him in KC.

The Chiefs are not going to invest in a high dollar QB until the other problems are fixed. ie the defense, the o-line, special teams. Thigpen will most likely get at least another year. I still think they'll go after Orakpo. He brings an intensity to the defense that Allen brought, and also took with him to the Vikings.

Coach
01-10-2009, 01:39 AM
Concerning drafting a quarterback, my concern is always the same, the duds. At #3 we would be looking at a Ryan Leaf or Dan Marino, then there's all the in-betweens. I would hate it if Bradford ended up as the next P.Manning and he wasn't on the Chiefs. One of these years we have to get that QB again, and yes, I realize all our other needs... it's just that what if scenario is running through my mind. I mean, we aren't going to be in that dream spot to pick the guy. At least I hope not, but then, if a QB is taken that would leave an awful lot of holes, and too many QBs vying for the job. Whatever the case, whichever QB Detroit drafts... that's too bad... too bad... By the way, my 1st post, I LOVE THE CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome!

Pro_Angler
01-12-2009, 09:58 PM
crabtree 1st rd. tebow 2nd rd. then ot and De

tornadospotter
01-12-2009, 10:19 PM
crabtree 1st rd. tebow 2nd rd. then ot and De
I though I read that tebow was not going to declare for the draft?

Bike
01-12-2009, 10:25 PM
I though I read that tebow was not going to declare for the draft?
Yeah Tebow staying at Florida...

RedZones
01-12-2009, 10:46 PM
How many times do people have to post on here, before they realize we don't need Crabtree. It's a waist of that high of a pick!

I know more people agree with me I've seen the posts.

we have higher need at other positions before WR such as OL, DE, and LB!

Coach
01-12-2009, 11:09 PM
How many times do people have to post on here, before they realize we don't need Crabtree. It's a waist of that high of a pick!

I know more people agree with me I've seen the posts.

we have higher need at other positions before WR such as OL, DE, and LB!

Easy. Everyone has their own opinions. You can easily make an argument for taking the best player available(BPA), which by many critics is Michael Crabtree. If you draft based upon team need, then I'd agree that the Chiefs have larger needs than WR.

greg3564
01-12-2009, 11:13 PM
How many times do people have to post on here, before they realize we don't need Crabtree. It's a waist of that high of a pick!

I know more people agree with me I've seen the posts.

we have higher need at other positions before WR such as OL, DE, and LB!

While it would be nice to get a guy like Crabtree, we do indeed have more pressing needs. That first pick really needs to be a defensive player. The offense showed they could put points up and with some work they can get better. But the defense is in terrible need of talent. The last thing we should be wasting a first round pick on is a QB or WR.

Bike
01-12-2009, 11:13 PM
Easy. Everyone has their own opinions. You can easily make an argument for taking the best player available(BPA), which by many critics is Michael Crabtree. If you draft based upon team need, then I'd agree that the Chiefs have larger needs than WR.
You bet. If Crabtree is available and we take him, I'll deal with that. I was against taking Bowe 2 years ago and posted we should had drafted OL then, too. Bowe turned out to be a good pick and Crabtree probably would, too. But if it was my draft, I would take Andre Smith...

Bike
01-12-2009, 11:17 PM
While it would be nice to get a guy like Crabtree, we do indeed have more pressing needs. That first pick really needs to be a defensive player. The offense showed they could put points up and with some work they can get better. But the defense is in terrible need of talent. The last thing we should be wasting a first round pick on a QB or WR.
We surely need help on D, but I hope we can deal with that more through FA than draft. We need veteran leadership on D that can produce sooner than later...
I really don't see LB, DL, or DE worthy of 3rd pick right now, but could change after combines or come draft time...

leaves
01-12-2009, 11:28 PM
I have my own personal opinions on everyone to take, but the one positive note about our drafts is that no matter the 1st pick, he will be used. That's one thing I love about our drafts, every single pick is exciting and while I don't care for getting a 1st rd qb or snatching Crabtree just to grab him... I'm looking deathly forward to it.

Bike
01-12-2009, 11:34 PM
I have my own personal opinions on everyone to take, but the one positive note about our drafts is that no matter the 1st pick, he will be used. That's one thing I love about our drafts, every single pick is exciting and while I don't care for getting a 1st rd qb or snatching Crabtree just to grab him... I'm looking deathly forward to it.
You bet draft day is fun to watch and is like a chess match waiting to see who is going to move where. Who ever we pick 1st will provide immediate impact for us just don't know if it will be Smith, Oher, Crabtree, Stafford, Orapko, Currey, who knows what new gm will do...

tornadospotter
01-12-2009, 11:39 PM
You bet draft day is fun to watch and is like a chess match waiting to see who is going to move where. Who ever we pick 1st will provide immediate impact for us just don't know if it will be Smith, Oher, Crabtree, Stafford, Orapko, Currey, who knows what new gm will do...

:11: I will let you know after I sign the contract that Clark is surely drawing up for me. :D

Bike
01-12-2009, 11:45 PM
:11: I will let you know after I sign the contract that Clark is surely drawing up for me. :D
Does that mean free beer and season tickets for upstanding ChiefsCrowd members? (and me, too?) after you sign for the big cash??

tornadospotter
01-13-2009, 12:19 AM
Does that mean free beer and season tickets for upstanding ChiefsCrowd members? (and me, too?) after you sign for the big cash??
I will add it to the contract!:D

Bike
01-13-2009, 12:26 AM
TS for GM.

RedZones
01-13-2009, 12:31 PM
I do agree.

I wouldn't complain about getting crabtree, but I do feel we need the help on defense more.

If there isn't a top Def. player worth a #3 pick, then I wouldn't complain about getting crabtree (look at Arizona with Boldin, and Fitzgerald)

I think your starting to open my eyes. Veteran leadership on the D would be nice, and I agree anyone we choose will be an exciting pick, and will more than likely step in right away.

So here we go, I hope its a good pick!

m0ef0e
01-13-2009, 03:34 PM
I believe in taking the best player on the board, period. Hopefully it's a position we desperately need and the guy can step in right away. If the best player available isn't what you need then trade down or something. Just don't over-pay for sub-par talent as a band-aid.

TheLombardiTrophy
01-13-2009, 07:07 PM
With Pioli on board you can bet the Chiefs 1st rounder won't be a QB. That's a good thing because the Chiefs have more pressing areas of concern namely the o-line.

nigeriannightmare
01-13-2009, 07:11 PM
I do agree.

I wouldn't complain about getting crabtree, but I do feel we need the help on defense more.

If there isn't a top Def. player worth a #3 pick, then I wouldn't complain about getting crabtree (look at Arizona with Boldin, and Fitzgerald)

I think your starting to open my eyes. Veteran leadership on the D would be nice, and I agree anyone we choose will be an exciting pick, and will more than likely step in right away.

So here we go, I hope its a good pick!

Word. That's what I've been saying. Gald to hear there are others who thnk like me.