[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYzu-2Ykae0"]Chiefs Draft Grades Video[/ame]
Good evening KC fans!! Here's my Draft Grades video for you guys!
Enjoy!
Em
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYzu-2Ykae0"]Chiefs Draft Grades Video[/ame]
Good evening KC fans!! Here's my Draft Grades video for you guys!
Enjoy!
Em
I saw you responded but I'm no longer wasting my time with you. It's obvious to anyone not blinded by their own bias that I've supported my position well and completely owned you in this discussion. I've received more rec in this thread than any other discussion I've had on this board since I arrived seven years ago.
You've done NOTHING to support you claim that an OG at #11 presents good relative value to draft position. Your claims are based in opinion and salary figures... neither of which are relevant when discussing talent available relative to pick number.
That being said, this is the last post I'll make on the subject of OG value. Either you don't comprehend the topic with have a firm grasp of the point at hand, or you just believe in black and white that "need filled=good value." Either way, I'm satisfied that I've made my point.
Bottom line, you are WHOLE HEARTEDLY arguing that taking a starting OG at #44 represents WORSE value than taking a starting OG at #11. There's no arguing with that kind of "logic." You win. Enjoy the last word on the issue.
That is a pretty telling chart. For a position that there will be two of in the starting 22 positions, and with the only positions behind OG being ILB, after separating them from MLB, it is basically listed as dead last here. Even FB and Center rank higher.
I agree that many of the starting OGs in The NFL would be OTs that just can't hold a spot on the outside, and are moved inside, where the job is a bit easier.
Why? I suspect it may because of the difficulty refuting the points that I provided.
I'll bet money that there's more that don't see it that way than do.
So what? That doesn't refute any of the points that I provided as to why DeCastro would have been a good pick at #11, if the Chiefs had gone that route.
That is a crock of BS. We both know that I've provided many valid points as to why it would okay to take DeCastro at #11.
Talent-wise, many pundits had DeCastro rated in their top 10 as far as BPA.
Speaking of salary, go look at the contracts that Carl Nicks and Ben Grubbs got from their respective teams they signed with via FA, and then consider that the Chiefs would not have had to pay anywhere near that to DeCastro.
On the contrary, I comprehend it just fine. And speaking of "black and white", it's obvious that your of the black and white mindset that "taking any Guard at #11is stupid", but that is where I don't see it that way -- not when it fills a need & given the fact that DeCastro is the highest rated interior O-Lineman to come out in over a decade. Mike Pouncey went at #15 the year before. DeCastro was a higher rated prospect than he was.
Rubbish!! I never implied any such thing. You are ripping things completely out of context. I said "it would have been a good pick if they had taken DeCastro, if the Chiefs had taken him"
However, they would have missed out on Poe & how many chances are they going to get to draft a NT candidate with his physical ability?
What I implied was if Poe had not been on the board, then why not take DeCastro.
Taking DeCastro , if Poe wasn't available, would have been OK. Getting Poe and Allen was better, to me. You seem to have to have trouble figuring that out, but now you know.
You're saying in one sentence that you've "owned" me in this thread & then in a later sentence telling me that I win ? Sorry but that doesn't quite add up.
And nobody is trolling here. You've provided your perspective on the draft and I've provided mine. Plain and simple.
I would have been fine with us taking Fletcher Cox to replace Dorsey and then shopped the heck out of him. Dorsey isn't a true 3-4 DE. He's just used the talent he has to adapt to that role.
We had the chance to pick up a true 3-4 DE, trade for a guy who more than likely is going to leave next year and pick up Ta'amu who ended up dropping to the 4th round.
I'm liking the Poe pick a lot better now than when it happened. Then again I was absolutely furious when it happened so I guess there's really no where to go but to deflate a bit. Did the Chiefs take a position of need absolutely. Did they take the best player available...we won't know for several years. But I think with Cox we would have known sooner than we will with Poe.
Good points and I also didn't like the Poe selection at first, but after a couple of minutes, I took a couple of steps back and realized that there was still 7 more picks to come and that the selection of Poe didn't make or break the entire 2012 draft for the Chiefs.
It also dawned on me that the Chiefs were not going to get many chances to draft a NT candidate with the type of physical ability that Poe has. Plus, it's going to be a whole different world in KC than it was at Memphis, as far as what Poe is being asked to do.
Also, I remember back in 1996 when the Dolphins took Baylor DE Daryle Gardener at #20 & he wasn't any more productive in college than Poe was, but had great physical ability. The Fins put him at DT and he was a far better player in the NFL, than he ever was in college. The point being, that a player CAN be a better player in the NFL than they were in college.
I've seen many posts around the web stating along the lines that the Chiefs "couldn't justify taking Poe at #11", but however, I suspect they are doing so without considering what the Chiefs got in rounds 2 through 7, the FA's they signed, and the players they already have on their roster.
I was an advocate for shopping Dorsey before free agency even started so that perhaps the Chiefs could fill the spot in free agency or the draft. It's not because I think Dorsey isn't a serviceable 3-4 DE, but because I think teams who play with 4-3 defenses would've payed a premium for a guy like Dorsey to play DT. Dorsey would probably be a dominant 4-3 DT. However, with Dorsey still on the roster when their first round pick came up, it would be harder to justify taking another DE with their first pick than taking even an OG. There's not even a hole at the position with Dorsey and Jackson entrenched.
A lot of people like to evaluate 3-4 DEs by how much pressure they put on the QB. But the more you look at Crennel's particular style of 3-4, his DL seems to be more about stopping the run than creating pressure, essentially turning them into hand on the ground LBs while relying on his OLBs to get to the QB and creating pressure up the middle with blitzes by his CBs and safeties.
If you have an impact NT who can hold his ground, it basically takes away the middle for a team to run through. When you have the kind of beef that Jackson, Dorsey, and Poe-Powe bring, all collapsing down on the 4 middle gaps, it basically shuts down the middle of the field. If a team wants to run outside, they first need to dodge the pass rushing Hali or Houston and then HOPE they can outrun Derrick Johnson and whoever lines up next to him, to the edge. This is why you see Dorsey and Jackson at the top of the run-stopping DEs in the league. If they can get substantial impact from the PO's at NT, this defense could lead the league in rushing defense. Don't discount the speed the Chiefs have at ILB... that's obviously a crucial part of the success.
The Chiefs are getting what they want out of their DEs. There's a case to be made that the Chiefs may not be getting the most value out of Dorsey that they COULD be, but he's doing what they ask of him and throwing away the good in pursuit of the perfect probably isn't a good way to go... ESPECIALLY considering the Chiefs filled a perennial hole at NT instead of another DE they'd have to wait a couple years to impact the game while STILL having a hole at NT. Ta'amu WOULD have been a nice pick in the 4th even with the Poe selection in the first. I liked Ta'amu a lot and would've been thrilled to see him in Red.
Bookmarks