Football Gameplan's 2012 Draft Grades Video - Chiefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

You're talking about ONE OG per year... compare that to EVERY OTHER non-special team position on a team.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

^^What part of that didn't you get ??

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three7s

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

---

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

You guus should give MMO pointers on debating. This is goood stuff.

Again, I said that because you kept banging the drum for the 1st round year after year. I'm all for the OL we took because WE DIDN'T WASTE A 1ST ROUNDER ON A GUARD!

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

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

You REALLY should have just stopped.

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

So, here it is in black and white:

http://thedailyviz.com/wp-content/up...y-position.png

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

Back to the point.

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

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


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

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

Average Pro Bowl OG draft spot- #111

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

Average Super Bowl OG draft spot- #124


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

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

Now, even though I’m sure you’ll try and argue some off the wall BS argument about this information meaning nothing, why in the hell would ANY self-respecting GM who wants to KEEP their job, spend a mid-first round pick on an OG when the information shows you could, on average, spend a pick somewhere around the middle of the 4th round and EXPECT to draft a starting NFL offensive guard? It doesn’t make sense. At some point, your owner is going to come to you and say, “we just had a poor year and you spent our mid-first round pick on an offensive guard when you could have filled that hole later in the draft, while upgrading an impact position in the first. Why?” The truth is, you won’t have a good answer and you’ll lose your damn job.

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

If you were hired as the Chiefs GM before the 2012 draft and Clark Hunt asked you which position you would spend the #11 pick, would you REALLY say you’d take DeCastro? There’s absolutely no defending that answer. You don’t take a freakin OG at #11 overall… it’s stupidity!

Do yourself a favor and stop arguing this point. You are DEAD wrong. The value represented by selecting an OG at #11 overall is ridiculously poor. You don’t plug a hole 103 picks (on average) BEFORE you need to… it doesn’t make ANY sense!

Don’t get angry, improve your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three7s

Again, I said that because you kept banging the drum for the 1st round year after year. I'm all for the OL we took because WE DIDN'T WASTE A 1ST ROUNDER ON A GUARD!

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three7s

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three7s

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three7s

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

You REALLY should have just stopped.

---

What for? I'm thoroughly enjoying this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

So, here it is in black and white:

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

Now, even though I’m sure you’ll try and argue some off the wall BS argument about this information meaning nothing....

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

...why in the hell would ANY self-respecting GM who wants to KEEP their job, spend a mid-first round pick on an OG when the information shows you could, on average, spend a pick somewhere around the middle of the 4th round and EXPECT to draft a starting NFL offensive guard? It doesn’t make sense.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

At some point, your owner is going to come to you and say, “we just had a poor year and you spent our mid-first round pick on an offensive guard when you could have filled that hole later in the draft, while upgrading an impact position in the first. Why?” The truth is, you won’t have a good answer and you’ll lose your damn job.

---

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

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

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

(continued in next post)

continued:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

Here they are:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaschief

Don’t get angry, improve your argument.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three7s

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

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

---

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

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

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