The Kansas City Chiefs Select...

[Robcards]

Originally Posted by njx9

pretty sure it was a guy no one thought should've been a first round qb. weird, right?

oh, you meant their LAST first round pick.

They degressed to 4-12 when they picked Ponder. They improved to 10-6 from 4-12 when they picked Kalil.

[Wootylicous]

They were 3-13 by the way.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Robcards

They degressed to 4-12 when they picked Ponder. They improved to 10-6 from 4-12 when they picked Kalil.

right, because the ONLY thing that's relevant is the team's record with a player as a rookie. he can't possibly get better in his second year. i can't imagine you're actually serious right now.

[hockey619]

Originally Posted by WCH

I just flat-out don't think that a LT is worth the #1 overall pick anymore. I believe that the marginal utility of the position has fallen off considerably in the past 10 years, as teams have become more clever in their blitz packages and started moving their best pass rushers around.

quoted because otherwise its going to get lost in the sea of bull****. this is completely right

[findthedr]

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-other-myths/
N.F.L. Evolution: The Eminence of the Left Tackle and Other Myths
(highlights...though the entire read is far better)

What is losing importance is the almighty left tackle....With so much of the passing game now predicated on quick strikes, multiple spread patterns and the shotgun, a star left tackle is not vital.... The reality is that left tackles are nice, but they don’t correlate with winning and losing.While edge blockers are on the down trend, interior blockers are on the up.
--------------------------------
“You’ve got to really weigh your options,” coach Leslie Frazier told Dan Wiederer of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “Because the philosophy [in the NFL] has always been to get the game-changer. And left tackle is not necessarily the game-changer. Usually game-changers are the guys who can score you points. Receivers. Quarterbacks. So what are we measuring that left tackle against? It’s a loaded debate.”

--------------------------
Left tackle in the NFL is gradually becoming a less valued position

[findthedr]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--le...Te8MBPD5VDubYF
(highlights)

"The game has changed – and I know the quarterbacks are not going to like this – but it's making the game easy on the quarterbacks," Tuck said. "The ball comes out a lot faster. The rules on the [secondary] as far as what we can do to wide receivers, all these things allow quarterbacks to be way more potent than they used to be. It's handcuffing defensive players and I don't know if it has any correlation to offensive tackles, but I would like to see a graph of how long quarterbacks sit in the pocket now.

Ultimately, more teams are utilizing precision passing attacks that require quarterbacks to get rid of the ball much faster than ever before. With clubs using variations of four-receiver and/or two-tight end sets, quarterbacks don't necessarily need their linemen to hold their blocks as long. Increasingly, teams are devoting more resources at guard to keep the quarterback from getting rushed quickly up the middle.
"The pass rush is more about straight lines now," New York Jets coach Rex Ryan said. "In the past, you would loop an end inside, take a longer route, to confuse the blocking scheme, but you don't have time for that now. It's get there and get there fast."

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...-time-to-throw

PFF has a signature snapshot called Time till Throw. All but 4 of the starting Qbs were getting rid of the ball within 3 seconds. Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning get rid of the ball in ~ 2.5 seconds.

That really limits the ability of the pass rush to get to them....Specially if they are in shotgun (which is farther from the LOS, and thus puts greater distance between the QB and a pass rusher).

[Splat]

I guess the Chiefs should just pass on using the first pick since "no one" is worth it.

[ImBrotherCain]

Originally Posted by Splat

I guess the Chiefs should just pass on using the first pick since "no one" is worth it.

Ive been thinking for a while trading down makes a lot of sense... Although seeing as their is really no true #1 overall guy it might make it hard.

[findthedr]

Chiefs are doing alot of things that are unusual:
1. potentially trading the #1 overall pick. Extremely rare. Every team that did that (i.e. traded the player, etc.) lost

2. not drafting a QB #1....10 of last 12 #1 picks have been qbs. The 2 that were not are no longer with their original team.

3. potentially drafting a OT #1 overall. 1 of last 15 first overall picks has been a OT (Jake Long), and he has now left his original team.

Then there is clear data about the importance of a QB position over the value of a LT. Trading for a QB instead of developing your own. ALL these moves historically have a smaller percentage chance of succeeding.

Essentially the chiefs are going against all the recent metrics, and are "playing against the odds."

[WCH]

Originally Posted by ImBrotherCain

Ive been thinking for a while trading down makes a lot of sense... Although seeing as their is really no true #1 overall guy it might make it hard.

I'm sure that somebody would be willing to trade up if KC was willing to throw the trade value chart out the window.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by Robcards

I'm just refuting the point that drafting a LT with the top 5 pick won't help your team win. It clearly did for the Vikings

And since you like using 1 random example to make your point, what's been the Browns & Dolphins record since taking Joe Thomas and Jake Long?

[Black Bolt]

Originally Posted by WCH

I'm sure that somebody would be willing to trade up if KC was willing to throw the trade value chart out the window.

You know what is ironic about the Chiefs moves? In their effort to fill holes, they have dimished the value of the #1 pick to them. They could potentially get some value back if they can trade down, but I doubt that they can.

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by findthedr

“You’ve got to really weigh your options,” coach Leslie Frazier told Dan Wiederer of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “Because the philosophy [in the NFL] has always been to get the game-changer. And left tackle is not necessarily the game-changer. Usually game-changers are the guys who can score you points. Receivers. Quarterbacks. So what are we measuring that left tackle against? It’s a loaded debate.”

in retrospect this was bull crap. The Vikings took the tackle in Kalil and he led that team to 10-6.

people talk crap about Jake Long, the Dolphins went 11-5 as a rookie and won their only AFC East title since the days of Marino.

yes QB is more important than LT. All things being equal. You'd rather have Luck than Kalil.

but there are 2 great LT prospects this year and I'd bet money both go before the top QB, who isn't on their tier in terms of draft grade.

[vidae]

Originally Posted by bitonti

in retrospect this was bull crap. The Vikings took the tackle in Kalil and he led that team to 10-6.

Matt Kalil led no one to 10-6. Adrian Peterson did. Kalil is part of the equation, but it's the AD show and it always will be.

And it isn't like he was terrible before Kalil got there, AD has been the #1 back in the NFL since he was drafted.

You're completely overrating Kalils impact on the Vikings last year and that is lulzy.

[findthedr]

Originally Posted by bitonti

in retrospect this was bull crap. The Vikings took the tackle in Kalil and he led that team to 10-6.

I have never heard of a LT leading a team.

Originally Posted by bitonti

people talk crap about Jake Long, the Dolphins went 11-5 as a rookie and won their only AFC East title since the days of Marino.

because of Chad Pennington. Without him the Dolphins are crap, even with Jake Long.

Originally Posted by bitonti

but there are 2 great LT prospects this year and I'd bet money both go before the top QB, who isn't on their tier in terms of draft grade.

I'd take that bet. how about we put it on escrow.com and the loser pays the fees?

[princefielder28]

Kalil stabilized the Vikings' line considerably. It allowed Charlie Johnson to slide inside, and while Johnson wasn't great at guard, Kalil's presence at tackle help stop the revolving door that that position had become for Minnesota.

Kalil may not have been the catalyst to the Vikings success last season, but the impact he made by stabilizing the line can't be discounted.

[zachsaints52]

For the Saints, our OGs are more important than our OTs. Which is one of the reasons we have let our past two LTs go (Brown and Bushrod). We usually have a chip with a TE or RB to the outside, and its more important our guards can hand their player do to our quick strikes.

[KaneMarko]

Originally Posted by bitonti

in retrospect this was bull crap. The Vikings took the tackle in Kalil and he led that team to 10-6.

people talk crap about Jake Long, the Dolphins went 11-5 as a rookie and won their only AFC East title since the days of Marino.

yes QB is more important than LT. All things being equal. You'd rather have Luck than Kalil.

but there are 2 great LT prospects this year and I'd bet money both go before the top QB, who isn't on their tier in terms of draft grade.

I disagree with most of your post. Kalil led the Vikings to nothing. AD has been a star since he got to the NFL. Now, he "might" not have threatened the NFL rushing record last year without Kalil (very debatable). But with or without Kalil, AD is arguably the premiere running back in the league. I don't think you give Kalil a lot of credit there.

1 year Jake Long was in the playoffs. ONE. And what about Joe Thomas, who is an even better LT than Jake Long was those first 3 years? How many playoff appearances does Joe Thomas have?

The question is the importance of the LT position. And there's mounting evidence that the importance is diminishing.

[NMfootball85]

If KC Goes O-Line with Number one. I think it will be Lane Johnson.. He is just as good of a blocker as fisher and Jokel , but is more valuable in your run game and could be used as a Tight end in a double tight end set. or goal line packages yes at 6'6 , and a 4'7 40 Id make him earn his money and catch some passes.. He was a tight end after he was a QB and Before he was a Tackle.. lol

[Robcards]

Originally Posted by NMfootball85

If KC Goes O-Line with Number one. I think it will be Lane Johnson.. He is just as good of a blocker as fisher and Jokel , but is more valuable in your run game and could be used as a Tight end in a double tight end set. or goal line packages yes at 6'6 , and a 4'7 40 Id make him earn his money and catch some passes.. He was a tight end after he was a QB and Before he was a Tackle.. lol

Johnson is far less of a finished product than Joeckel and Fisher are. More upside, sure, but far more bust potential. He would be a stretch at #1

[WCH]

Originally Posted by NMfootball85

If KC Goes O-Line with Number one. I think it will be Lane Johnson.. He is just as good of a blocker as fisher and Jokel , but is more valuable in your run game and could be used as a Tight end in a double tight end set. or goal line packages yes at 6'6 , and a 4'7 40 Id make him earn his money and catch some passes.. He was a tight end after he was a QB and Before he was a Tackle.. lol

This is a pretty good idea for a team that has three OTs who can play.

Mike Sherman likes to line up the backup RT as a TE in his power formation, so he might make some sense for Miami if he's still there at 12.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by Robcards

Johnson is far less of a finished product than Joeckel and Fisher are. More upside, sure, but far more bust potential. He would be a stretch at #1

There's no bust potential for Lane Johnson. Don't trip.
He's a better prospect than Trent Williams who went 4th overall in 2010.

Give Lane a couple offseasons to build up his strength and I think he's going to be the premier LT in the game.

SInce there's no clear cut 1/1, I have no problem if KC selects the guy with the highest upside regardless of position.

Lane Johnson is in the conversation.

[findthedr]

chiefs already have an OU LT combine star in Donald Stephenson.

[bitonti]

this dude quoted a article from 2012 draft about how LT isn't important which quoted the vikings.

It was all a smoke screen. The vikings took the LT. And it proved to be very important.

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by KaneMarko

I disagree with most of your post. Kalil led the Vikings to nothing. AD has been a star since he got to the NFL. Now, he "might" not have threatened the NFL rushing record last year without Kalil (very debatable). But with or without Kalil, AD is arguably the premiere running back in the league. I don't think you give Kalil a lot of credit there.

1 year Jake Long was in the playoffs. ONE. And what about Joe Thomas, who is an even better LT than Jake Long was those first 3 years? How many playoff appearances does Joe Thomas have?

The question is the importance of the LT position. And there's mounting evidence that the importance is diminishing.

bashing Joe Thomas doesn't make geno Smith better. In other words yes I agree that QB is the most important position but sometimes there aren't any QB worthy of the 1 pick. It does happen from time to time. I also like how Jake Long is supposedly a bad pick who made 4 Pro Bowls in 5 years. Here comes the "pro bowl is a joke and so are you" arguments. Regardless he's a really good player and taking a really good player at 1 is ok. It's not as good as taking Andrew Luck but it's not as bad as taking Jamarcus Russell. Alot of it has to do with desperation. If Buddy Nix and the Bills were picking 1, i'd feel more comfortable projecting Geno there. Cause Buffalo is desperate and Nix is on the hot seat. Andy Reid isn't desperate he just got there. For a guy who has to turn it around in 1 year or get fired, Geno becomes a gamble worth taking (because what's the downside if you get fired in a year either way).