The Kansas City Chiefs Select... - Page 52

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

Herp derp, he's younger, so he has more potential. Herp derp. Thanks for playing.

What aspects of his current game lead you to to believe that he won't be better than Albert? I could play the same game, buddy.

KaneMarko · 02-22-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

And history shows that teams that draft based on need are the most successful ones, oh wait.

Seriously, if I'm a Chiefs fan I would be absolutely irate with them lighting a match to the #1 overall pick with a QB. BPA drafting is the proven way to success, not reaching based on need.

So if the Ravens re-sign Flacco and a QB is the BPA when they are on the clock....? I know, the easy answer is to trade the pick. But what if you can't?

I said this in another post, drafting 100% on BPA is just as dangerous as drafting 100% on need. If you are solid at a position why draft that position again just because it's the perceived best player on the board? Wouldn't it make more sense to move to your next biggest need and see if there is a player there that brings reasonable value with the pick? Especially if you are absent talent elsewhere?

vidae · 02-22-2013, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

What aspects of his current game lead you to to believe that he won't be better than Albert? I could play the same game, buddy.

I never said he wouldn't be better than Albert. I don't know. I've seen a lot of A&M games over the last two years and I don't know. But I'm not the one who is saying something and refusing to back it up. That's you, friend.

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaneMarko

So if the Ravens re-sign Flacco and a QB is the BPA when they are on the clock....? I know, the easy answer is to trade the pick. But what if you can't?

I said this in another post, drafting 100% on BPA is just as dangerous as drafting 100% on need. If you are solid at a position why draft that position again just because it's the perceived best player on the board? Wouldn't it make more sense to move to your next biggest need and see if there is a player there that brings reasonable value with the pick? Especially if you are absent talent elsewhere?

20-25th best prospect at #1 is reasonable value? Since when? Moving to the next player is one thing, I already said I agree if the BPA isnt a scheme fit or is a position youre 100% solid at, but that doesn't mean drop down 20 spots to take your biggest need, which is what vidae was suggesting

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

I never said he wouldn't be better than Albert. I don't know. I've seen a lot of A&M games over the last two years and I don't know. But I'm not the one who is saying something and refusing to back it up. That's you, friend.

Of course you are. You do it all the time. I said a simple statement that Joeckel can potentially be better than Albert, simply because hes a blue chip prospect who has yet to mature and receive NFL coaching, and that's a statement I need to back up all of a sudden?

LonghornsLegend · 02-22-2013, 02:39 PM

Feel like this thread deserves one of these:

This was from Scott Wright in the Matt Ryan thread:

Quote:

I agree, I don't see Matt Ryan as a Top 5 or 10 draft pick. In my mind he isn't in the same class as Brady Quinn was a year ago and is basically a poor-man's Matt Leinart. However, a lot of teams need quarterbacks and there isn't an "elite" signal caller available so just like in 2005 with Alex Smith guys are going to get pushed up.

I just wanted to use a play on words to see if it is still relevant to this thread:

Quote:

I agree, I don't see Geno Smith as a Top 5 or 10 draft pick. In my mind he isn't in the same class as RGIII was a year ago and is basically a poor-man's Sam Bradford. However, a lot of teams need quarterbacks and there isn't an "elite" signal caller available so just like in 2005 with Alex Smith guys are going to get pushed up.

Fits? Sounds eerily similiar.

KaneMarko · 02-22-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

Coincidentally, the cost for tagging Albert would be $15mil. That gives the Chiefs more than enough motive to move on and take Joeckel =)

Not really. Joeckel doesn't improve the team. You 're switching out one LT for another. The only real gain is the savings to the cap. And the cap can be manipulated a million different ways. Even if you rate, on a scale of 1-10 Albert a 7 and Joeckel a 9, how does that drastically make your team better?

And 5 years from now, if you draft Joeckel, and his contract comes up, what then? Let him go so you can draft another LT to replace him because it's cheaper? At some point you have to keep your homegrown talent and add to what you got. Not constantly let talent walk out the door so you can spend valuable resources replacing them. You only tread water when you do that. Not advance. Offensive linemen can play well into their 30s for the most part. Albert, assuming his back is indeed sound, can get a 5 year contract and potentially play the whole thing before his play starts dropping off.

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaneMarko

Not really. Joeckel doesn't improve the team. You 're switching out one LT for another. The only real gain is the savings to the cap. And the cap can be manipulated a million different ways. Even if you rate, on a scale of 1-10 Albert a 7 and Joeckel a 9, how does that drastically make your team better?

And 5 years from now, if you draft Joeckel, and his contract comes up, what then? Let him go so you can draft another LT to replace him because it's cheaper? At some point you have to keep your homegrown talent and add to what you got. Not constantly let talent walk out the door so you can spend valuable resources replacing them. You only tread water when you do that. Not advance. Offensive linemen can play well into their 30s for the most part. Albert, assuming his back is indeed sound, can get a 5 year contract and potentially play the whole thing before his play starts dropping off.

Believe it or not, 15 mil in cap space can drastically improve a team as well. It's not just about this year, its about next year as well. Sure you can restructure contracts but that money just goes towards the cap in later years.

It sucks that free agency is before the draft, but as it stands you have to let the upcoming draft dictate who you re-sign and what free agents you go after. If in 4 years when Joeckel's rookie contract runs out, and the Chiefs likely BPA in the 1st round will be a LT and Joeckel is an average LT with lingering injury concerns, then yes let him walk and take the LT again instead of tagging him.

KaneMarko · 02-22-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

20-25th best prospect at #1 is reasonable value? Since when? Moving to the next player is one thing, I already said I agree if the BPA isnt a scheme fit or is a position youre 100% solid at, but that doesn't mean drop down 20 spots to take your biggest need, which is what vidae was suggesting

And I'm not saying reaching for the 20-25th best prospect is what anyone should do either. My argument is with the Chiefs taking Joeckel only as I don't see him as making the team better. It's debatable whether or not he'll be a better player with more individual success than Albert. But individuals should come secondary to team success for any franchise or fan. If Albert's back is medically sound, then the best move is to re-sign him, bypass Joeckel and move on to the next biggest need and see if there is someone there that brings reasonable value to the pick. Notice, no where in this post or any of my post did I mention QB. Although that is, by far, the largest hole on the team.

The Chiefs may be in dire need at DE if things fall a certain way. If so, Star Lotulelei comes into the picture. They have no starting caliber corner on the roster outside of Brandon Flowers. Although it goes against conventional wisdom, but if Dee Milliner is a top 5ish prospect, he's in the discussion too. And so on.

Like I said in a previous post, it's a weird draft year where conventional rules may have to be bent some in order to make the best pick possible to improve your team.

gpngc · 02-22-2013, 02:54 PM

Sharrif Floyd at 1, trade a 3 to Lombardi for Brandon Weeden and take a QB in 2, 3, or 4.

Now yell at me for proposing this absolutely possible shot in the dark.

EDIT: Also I'd consider this.

- Chiefs will listen to offers (or maybe even actively shop) No. 1.
- Philly picks 4th and has a QB KC might want.
- Cleveland picks 6th and has a QB KC might want.

KC may end up getting a QB by trading down with No. 1. Just a thought.

EDIT2: I know how you guys are. First response will be (MOVE FROM 6 TO 1 FOR ******* WEEDEN ARE YOU HIGH!?!??!?!). Obviously more would be involved, perhaps a lot.

vidae · 02-22-2013, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

Sharrif Floyd at 1, trade a 3 to Lombardi for Brandon Weeden and take a QB in 2, 3, or 4.

Now yell at me for proposing this absolutely possible shot in the dark.

That would be really sucky as a Chiefs fan. Suuuuper sucky.

KaneMarko · 02-22-2013, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

Believe it or not, 15 mil in cap space can drastically improve a team as well. It's not just about this year, its about next year as well. Sure you can restructure contracts but that money just goes towards the cap in later years.

It sucks that free agency is before the draft, but as it stands you have to let the upcoming draft dictate who you re-sign and what free agents you go after. If in 4 years when Joeckel's rookie contract runs out, and the Chiefs likely BPA in the 1st round will be a LT and Joeckel is an average LT with lingering injury concerns, then yes let him walk and take the LT again instead of tagging him.

In theory it could. But the fact is that they have that money available to re-sign Albert AND Bowe and Dustin Colquitt. And they could have much more if they deem Tyson Jackson, who has had less than stellar play his entire career, isn't worth his $14+ million dollar cap figure.

And, keep in mind, the Chiefs are not an organization that makes big splashes in free agency. They just haven't done it since the Vermeil retired. By CBA rules, they are going to have to spend that money. They can no longer operate as far under the cap as they have the past handful of years.

We do not know if Albert has "lingering" back issues. A report came out a couple weeks ago that he passed a physical. And he was suited up and just not playing for a couple of those games he missed with the back injury. So it's VERY debatably how serious his back issues are. On the surface, they don't look overly serious. But I'm not a doctor nor do I or anyone else have access to the reports on his back. But, for the sake of the discussion, lets just say it's some kind of bruise and is not a "lingering" issue. The smart move is still to sign him to an extension and use that pick to get better elsewhere because you are potentially already solid at LT assuming his back is indeed medically sound.

Cigaro · 02-22-2013, 02:56 PM

This thread should be set on fire.

pierce2walker · 02-22-2013, 03:11 PM

Every time I come into this thread I regret it

findthedr · 02-22-2013, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

What aspects of his current game lead you to to believe that he won't be better than Albert? I could play the same game, buddy.

1. the fact that he HASNT played in the NFL. There are plenty of LT that dominated college and had less than stellar NFL careers. (reference Jason Smith, Andre Smith as a LT, Oher as a LT, Chris Williams, Sam Baker, Levi Brown, Tony ugoh, Alex Barron, and of course Robert Gallery).

2. He is a great pass blocker but not a great run blocker. Some would say he is a finesse player that needs to get stronger.

3. Has to adjust from playing in a 2 point stance from a spread to a 3 point stance.

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by findthedr

1. the fact that he HASNT played in the NFL. There are plenty of LT that dominated college and had less than stellar NFL careers. (reference Jason Smith, Andre Smith as a LT, Oher as a LT, Chris Williams, Sam Baker, Levi Brown, Tony ugoh, Alex Barron, and of course Robert Gallery).

2. He is a great pass blocker but not a great run blocker. Some would say he is a finesse player that needs to get stronger.

3. Has to adjust from playing in a 2 point stance from a spread to a 3 point stance.

I was asking vidae, way to cover for him :P

vidae · 02-22-2013, 03:27 PM

Cover for me? I already answered your question.

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaneMarko

And, keep in mind, the Chiefs are not an organization that makes big splashes in free agency. They just haven't done it since the Vermeil retired.

New coach and new GM so that is very likely to change.

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

Cover for me? I already answered your question.

You avoided the question because your answer would have been worse than my answer to your question.

SunTzu_22 · 02-22-2013, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

I'd rather see you back there than Cassel or Quinn, but that's mostly because I think your ass will pop in the uniform pants.

Since we´re going down this road, I would like to be the Chiefs new QB.
Im 6´4, 215 pounds, and been a pretty succesfull QB for my local flag football team. I am also younger than Brandon Weeden.
Give me a call if interested.

vidae · 02-22-2013, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunTzu_22

Since we´re going down this road, I would like to be the Chiefs new QB.
Im 6´4, 215 pounds, and been a pretty succesfull QB for my local flag football team. I am also younger than Brandon Weeden.
Give me a call if interested.

Expect a call shortly.

findthedr · 02-22-2013, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

Coincidentally, the cost for tagging Albert would be $15mil. That gives the Chiefs more than enough motive to move on and take Joeckel =)

The franchise tag for Albert would be $9.66 million.

According to Sportrac the chiefs are currently $16.5 million under the cap. By cutting Tyson jackson and Matt Cassel, the chiefs would be ~$37 million under the cap (and that would be accounting for dead money). That is plenty of money for the chiefs to play with.

FA and the draft are both expected to be DEEEEEEP at LT. The chiefs dont need to waste their #1 pick on a LT.

Robcards · 02-22-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by findthedr

The franchise tag for Albert would be $9.66 million.

Rotoworld said it'd be 15 for Albert and 15 for Long, wonder where they're getting that from.

P-L · 02-22-2013, 03:42 PM

Not really taking sides here, but that scouting report of Matt Ryan that everyone was talking about was written mid-December. By the time the draft rolled around, Scott had Matt Ryan as his #6 prospect.

findthedr · 02-22-2013, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

Rotoworld said it'd be 15 for Albert and 15 for Long, wonder where they're getting that from.

15 is NOT accurate. It is $9.66 million.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/15/broncos-will-use-franchise-tag-on-ryan-clady/

buffalobills.com/news/article-2/Nix-Franchise-tag-an-option-for-Byrd-Levitre/0e6a41f4-c098-4972-af19-1f3fbddae7a5

thedenverchannel.com/sports/broncos/denver-broncos-to-place-franchise-tag-on-offensive-linemen-ryan-clady

sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/combine-jeff-ireland-says-dolphins-undecided-franchise-tag-192105384--nfl.html