Looking at OL in the Draft

[jap1]

Since the season has ended, I have been looking at the various personnel that we could target in the first and second rounds. In terms of OL, there are not many projected to be worthy of a first round pick that aren't LTs (which I don't think we will be looking at). All of the guards, according to a couple different websites, are rated as 2nd round picks. Same with C, and there are a couple RTs that could sneak into the end of the 1st round. Obviously, this may change after the Sr Bowl and the combine, but I doubt it is going to send anyone from 2nd round talent to mid first round. This means it will probably be unlikely for a OL to be a good value choice where we are picking.

With this in mind, I don't expect the team to be looking at OL in the first round. They very well may grab one in the 2nd and 3rd, as there are often pretty good OL prospects available then, with the exception being LT. I'm of the philosophy that you should always pick and OL or DL in the first three rounds every year. You have 8 positions to fill in the trenches, picking one every year allows you to have a good rotation and depth in the trenches (which we sorely lack).

I'm under the impression that this front office is very fond of the BPA strategy and using FA to fill in holes. I would expect to see us making a run at a top name LG, RT and/or multiple WRs in free agency.

[Stevie Ray]

With this in mind, I don't expect the team to be looking at OL in the first round.

I sure hope not.

I'm still not sure that the O-line, from a pure talent standpoint, is as big a problem as most perceive. Despite the number of rushing attempts being down for the Chiefs, they still finished in the top 10 in rushing yards, and top 5 in terms of yards per carry. I think the problems with pass protection have more to do with the QB, but I digress ......

With the exception of LT, I've never felt like throwing high draft picks at the O-line is the way to fix the problem. In fact, I'd say it's unnecessary. Of all the skills needed to be a good NFL football player, blocking is by far the simplest - and there are plenty of good blockers that can be had in later rounds or even guys that go undrafted.

Just look around the league and count the number of late round picks and undrafted free agents that comprise many of the good offensive lines. There is no shortage in the NFL of guys that are good blockers.

[N TX Dave]

Well you could look at the Cowboys their starting OL has the last three years first round picks and many in Dallas are saying that the OL improvement has caused the big improvement of Romo and his stats. His ratings have been in the 90's except 102 one year but this year it is 113. Also Murray lead the league in rushing by almost 500 yards.

[Stevie Ray]

Well you could look at the Cowboys their starting OL has the last three years first round picks and many in Dallas are saying that the OL improvement has caused the big improvement of Romo and his stats. His ratings have been in the 90's except 102 one year but this year it is 113. Also Murray lead the league in rushing by almost 500 yards.

Fair point, but there are specific examples that can be referenced to support any position. I'm speaking to a bigger picture than any one team.

[N TX Dave]

I am just saying that one size does not fit all is all. There are different ways to do things, sure there are pro bowl OL that went undrafted but there are many others that went in the 1st round. If there is a great LT at 18th pick and is the best player on the board I would not mind picking him. Eric Fisher is not the best LT in the league what is wrong with drafting competition if he is BPA, he could push Fisher to RT or LG and take over LT or at worst be a good RT or LG himself.

I am just saying if a great OL falls that is the BPA why not draft him? In the last 4 years draft there have been 26 OL drafted in the first round or 20% of all draft picks.

Also both Reid and Dorsey like to draft trenches (OL/DL) in the first round so don't be surprised if they do draft OL. I don't care one way or the other.

[Eydugstr]

Well you could look at the Cowboys their starting OL has the last three years first round picks and many in Dallas are saying that the OL improvement has caused the big improvement of Romo and his stats. His ratings have been in the 90's except 102 one year but this year it is 113. Also Murray lead the league in rushing by almost 500 yards.

Re-quoted for truth. Jones built a monster team around Romo. They did the same thing around Aikman, too.

If Dorsey & Reid decided to focus on the lines, I wouldn't complain, but WR is our biggest team need. If Dorsey follows a BPA mindset a lot of mock drafts go right out the window, though.

[Stevie Ray]

If there is a great LT at 18th pick and is the best player on the board I would not mind picking him. I'm just saying if a great OL falls that is the BPA why not draft him?

I agree - as I stated, LT is the undoubted exception -- and if an O-lineman is absolutely the BPA on your board; by all means take him.

I'm just not so convinced that the talent along the Chiefs' O-line is as bad as it's being made out to be. Even if it is; good blockers are relatively easy to come by. For instance - roughly 50% of the starting offensive linemen for the 12 playoff teams this year were drafted in the 4th round or later. 12 of the 60 were undrafted.

I just don't think the Chiefs should over-extend themselves for O-line help - whether in the draft or free agency (not to say that anyone is suggesting otherwise).

[Stevie Ray]

Re-quoted for truth. Jones built a monster team around Romo.

Personally, I don't think the Cowboys are a monster team, but that's beside the point.

I remember how much different they looked, particularly on offense, when Romo was out with his back issues.

[N TX Dave]

I'm just not so convinced that the talent along the Chiefs' O-line is as bad as it's being made out to be. Even if it is; good blockers are relatively easy to come by. For instance - roughly 50% of the starting offensive linemen for the 12 playoff teams this year were drafted in the 4th round or later. 12 of the 60 were undrafted.

I just don't think the Chiefs should over-extend themselves for O-line help - whether in the draft or free agency (not to say that anyone is suggesting otherwise).

First off I agree that they should not over-extend themselves but according to most ranking the Chiefs OL was not good even for run blocking.

Football Outsiders have the Chiefs OL rated as the 7th best for rushing and 28th for passing.

According to Fantasy Automatic the OL is 32nd overall rated at -46.6 Pass Blocking 31 and Run Blocking 31.

Even NFL Stats has the Chiefs ranked 26th in rushing can not find passing rating but sure it is lower.

According to Pro Football Focus the Chiefs 30. Kansas City Chiefs (20th)PB: 24th, RB: 32nd, PEN: 1st
Stud: The only man earning a positive grade this year is center Rodney Hudson. He’s the veteran of this group and it’s most reliable player.
Dud: Perhaps it’s time to start worrying about Eric Fisher? Switched to the left side he’s still allowing too much pressure and has yet to step up in the run game. To justify that first overall pick he needs to really step it up.
Summary: It was always likely to be a bumpy road after losing Branden Albert, Jon Asomoah and Geoff Schwartz and so it has proved. Will have to suck up the fact they’ve got youngsters gaining experience, while knowing journeymen Mike McGlynn and Ryan Harris are not long-term answers.

[matthewschiefs]

I don't think it's a lack of talent on the O line that's was the issue.

They are a very young group. Young O lines are more often then not inconsistent. They would be looking fine in some games and then suddenly seem to fall a part for a while. That's not a talent thing. It's a side effect of having a very young line.

People forget that the Chiefs were the 2nd youngest team in the NFL this past season. Young teams are not finished products yet. Like I've said wih Kelce,DAT,Wilson there is still some growing as players to be done. That is also the case with the O line. They are trying to build talent on the offensive side of the ball with young guys. Patience is something that has to be shown.

[N TX Dave]

I don't think it's a lack of talent on the O line that's was the issue.

They are a very young group. Young O lines are more often then not inconsistent. They would be looking fine in some games and then suddenly seem to fall a part for a while. That's not a talent thing. It's a side effect of having a very young line.

People forget that the Chiefs were the 2nd youngest team in the NFL this past season. Young teams are not finished products yet. Like I've said wih Kelce,DAT,Wilson there is still some growing as players to be done. That is also the case with the O line. They are trying to build talent on the offensive side of the ball with young guys. Patience is something that has to be shown.

I think they looked good against average and lower DL and teams that did not send extra people and looked like open doors against better DL that blitzes because they were young and did not know who to take and who to pass off but that was only part of it because they did have a couple of veteran OL. I have not looked at film or anything to verify that but I bet if you do you will find that. Look at the teams we had a hard time with Steelers, Cardinals, even Raiders, Seahawks and Broncos they all have a good pass rush with blitzing.