Curry or OT?
by Eric Allen on Apr 22, 2009 10:21 PM CDT
45 comments
I am of the opinion we should go OT in the draft, I do not think we have what we need upfront yet for Curry to make the impact an offensive tackle would make. With all the transition this team is going through at this time, whomever we select needs to make an immediate impact. The only other scenario would be for us to trade down, this has beengone over a lot, I will not include that here. My reasoning against Curry is that if we do not have the guys up front to (protect) him he will not be effective. We all know the need for help on the o-line, Sacintosh is gonna get Cassel killed. So I think we get more of an imediate impact from a tackle. PT, if you wanted to attach a poll to this it would be cool.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
0 recs |
45 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I think there will..
be some decent OT prospects in the next few rounds. I am a big fan of Curry and would love to see him in red and gold, however, I am more for trading out of this spot and getting multiple picks to contribute. All I know is this, with all of the Gonzo/Waters trade talk or other teams moving trying to move up, we are in for a pretty exciting weekend. I think we could take Curry and if these trades happen, pickup o-line help later…or…..take O-line help first and still get a decent linebacker later. We’re in a pretty good spot. Should be a great draft.
by loyalchfsfan35 on Apr 22, 2009 10:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think our draft positioning sucks this year
Linebacker isn’t worth a top 3 pick. We already have a good Left Tackle. We already have our QB for at least the next year or two (hopefully longer) and there are no good pass rushers.
Really we’re in a horrible spot for our needs and the players worthy of our draft position.
Given the situation I’d probably take the Tackle. I don’t like it and I think its a waste of a pick, but its less of a waste than the other options.
by ChiefDJ on Apr 22, 2009 10:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess what I'm sayin' is that
I won’t be disapointed with any of the picks there at # 3. Any of them will make an impact, I think Tyson Jackson is a bit of a reach, but I wouldn’t mind that pick either.
by loyalchfsfan35 on Apr 22, 2009 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The part that sucks
Is we take who we think will help us most and the media says we blew it and will say he’s a bust for a # 3 even though we all know that we might have had him a # 8 but could’nt get there to take him.
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 22, 2009 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also think tyson is a reach.
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 23, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
big time
He’s solid, not great.
get Potter or someone else in the later rounds
by stagdsp on Apr 23, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just think guys like that are hard to find but you could get guys like
that later in the draft in my opinion they are not blazers they are just guy that can hold guys off.
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 23, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still say it comes down to
Curry = playmaking LB = an upgrade over DJ
Monroe or Smith = franchise LT = a minor upgrade (maybe) over Albert
Brown or Orakpo = big time pass rusher = a MAJOR upgrade over Hali
Jackson = 3-4 end that stops run and applies some pressure = a MAJOR upgrade over McBride or Boone
Raji = true NT = a MAJOR upgrade over Tank
It just doesn’t look to me like Curry or a LT fills a major hole and justifies the kind of money you will have to pay them. So to me it comes down to, if we can’t trade down (first choice) how close are Brown, Orakpo, Jackson, and Raji to Curry and the LT on their board. If they have any of those 4 rated close to them I would be prepared for them to fill the area of bigger need (and break a lot of loyal AP posters hearts). If they have a big gap between those players then they probably take the highest rated guy regardless of position (which most experts have as Curry).
Ten sacks in a season! For crying out loud that's what I used to average per game using DT in Tecmo Bowl!
by KCporkchop on Apr 22, 2009 11:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with Curry as upgrade over DJ until Curry plays as OLB for Chiefs
And with Raji over Tank.
The rest is probably true
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 22, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
notice I didn't put the MAJOR in front of DJ
If Curry is as good as everybody and their mother says he is, he should be an upgrade. My point is that Curry is not enough of an upgrade over DJ to make that a great pick, so I think we are actually closer on that point then you think.
Ten sacks in a season! For crying out loud that's what I used to average per game using DT in Tecmo Bowl!
by KCporkchop on Apr 23, 2009 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry is a Major upgrade over Zach Thomas
basically the argument that Curry is not that big of an upgrade to DJ is like comparing Monroe to Brian Waters. They play totally different postions
by DBOWESHOW on Apr 23, 2009 3:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
If you break down the 2 ILB spots in the 4-3 under, one is for a run stuffer that takes on OL men that are unblocked (Thomas) and the other is free to roam the field and get after the ball (DJ). There is no way we draft a LB at #3 and play him at the run stuffer position where he’s going 1 on 1 with OG all day long. He would play where DJ is currently lining up and DJ would probably move outside.
Ten sacks in a season! For crying out loud that's what I used to average per game using DT in Tecmo Bowl!
by KCporkchop on Apr 23, 2009 6:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
DJ as predator instead of Will linebacker?
Sounds better than Hali or Robinson to me
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 23, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's completely incorrect
If you break down the 2 ILB spots in a classic 34 one of them is a run player and the other is a pass player. That statement does not hold true in a 43 under. In the under front one of the OLB (predator/jack backer) play almost exclusively as a pass rusher. The remaining 3 LB’s play classic 43 roles of Sam/Mike/Will. That means you have to put a 43 style MLB at the ILB position that can play both pass and run and cover a significant area of the field.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Apr 23, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So could Derrick Johnson be the Jack or is he to small at 250?
I know you put him at Will before aquisition of Thomas.
Curry to Mike Vrabel at Sam Thomas at Will?
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 23, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not in the first year...
Thomas at Mike and comming off the field in obvious passing situations and 3rd downs.
DJ at Will
Vrabel at Sam
Curry at Jack/Predator (to see if he can be a pass rusher initially) and shifting to Mike on 3rd downs and passing downs. Maybe Hali sliding in to Jack/Predator when Curry swaps??
Of course, that’s just my best guess.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Apr 23, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Really?
Because I’m getting that straight from one of the Arz. coaches that ran this system last year with our new coordinator. Here’s the link.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Super+Bowl/2008/wwhi013009.htm
Half way down he describes his “Mike” as a “thumper” who has to be able to take on 300 pound linemen that come unblocked from between the NT and strongside DE. Then he describes how the “Will” lines up behind the 3 technique DT so that he is free to roam and chase the ball. If you look at the diagram that KaloPhoenix provided in his recent post on this scheme you can see what I’m talking about.
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/4/14/835982/a-look-into-the-4-3-under
Ten sacks in a season! For crying out loud that's what I used to average per game using DT in Tecmo Bowl!
by KCporkchop on Apr 23, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
to kcporkchop
Monroe or smith= minor upgrade over albert true but would be a major upgrade to the line with albert moving over to RT
Raji= MAJOR upgrade over tank. I think tank can be a very good nose tackle hes been playing at 305 which is prolly a good weight for a DT in the 43. In college tank played closer to 325 or 330, he slimmed down alot to upgrade his combine numbers. If we can get him back to 330 and at 6’2 he has identical body as vince wilfork. He is also very strong repping 225 42 times at the combine. I really think if tank can get the weight back on he can be a dominating NT in the 34
by cassel4prez on Apr 22, 2009 11:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Okay, but...
you can take a RT in the third round and he’ll probably be a MAJOR upgrade over Sackintosh. There’s no need to use the #3 overall there when you can upgrade it later. On the other hand, I just don’t see any dominant pass rushers still on the board in the third round.
I agree that Tank COULD be a good NT. I would be more then fine with giving him another year to prove he can be the man. My first choice would be trade back to the 8-13 range and get a pass rusher and a second round pick where you could still get a very good OL upgrade.
Ten sacks in a season! For crying out loud that's what I used to average per game using DT in Tecmo Bowl!
by KCporkchop on Apr 22, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I would like to trade down and somehow get a tackle in the second, i dont know if we can ask a third rounder to come in and start from day one, but half of us could be an upgrade from sackintosh.
And I agree tank deserves a chance if he can get his weight up
by cassel4prez on Apr 23, 2009 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is what I see.
1) The most ideal situation would be for the Chiefs to trade down to get more picks. With how hard it is to trade out of the top 5 I dont see this happening.
2) Take Curry. Pioli has drafted a LB in the top 10 before and it worked out quite well for him.
3) Curry is gone (Detriot sings him). We take the best OT on the board.
4) Take Raji or Jackson. (This might be the way the Chiefs really should go, but likely wont).
by KCChiefs on Apr 22, 2009 11:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i dont no
as we get closer 2 the draft i kind of been lost the best thing to do is trade down.why do i say this because theres been talk that Curry cant rush the passer in thats what we need on D we need 2 no that he can do that as of now we dont..In B-Alberts he is a good LT in will just get better so why move him when we can get a good RT in a later round.a WR is good but not a pick 3 yall might say Crabtree but im say no to Crabtree he is like Bowe to me in he cant get down the filed so best bet we take J-Macklin but the 3rd pick is to high for him in my eyes so why not trade down a fre spots in take the best guy there get back in the 2rd.so it a loot like this 1st round we take WR/KR/PR 2nd round we take rushing LB or DE 3rd round we go RT or it can be the other way around.doing this we will fill in alot of needs for the chiefs in alot if there good players that can come n strat from day 1
~I AM HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF MY LIFE AS A FOOTBALL STAR IT'S LIKE I MY EYES IS HD~
by Da Chiefs Guy on Apr 23, 2009 12:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It works if we can trade down
that is not a fact
I like the playmaker but without a trade down we can’t get a guy we can think of as a legitimate RDE
the RT could be found in 4th
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 23, 2009 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we go WR
we have to take crabtree i dont think we will.
We have to get both a DE and OLB and RT and i think we need a center before we need another wide out
by cassel4prez on Apr 23, 2009 12:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Vermeil
would take Maclin and try to outscore the enemy
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 23, 2009 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Vermeil would still lose in the playoffs
to the Colts because the D couldn’t stop anybody.
Ten sacks in a season! For crying out loud that's what I used to average per game using DT in Tecmo Bowl!
by KCporkchop on Apr 23, 2009 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OT
Take the tackle at three, if you can’t trade down, Move Albert to LG and draft that RT in the third or fourth round. You don’t pick at three very often, hopefully, and that is the price for an elite LT. Imagine the left side of the line. Could remind every one of Willie and Will.
David Logue
by dklogue1 on Apr 23, 2009 12:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Guys, I know that we COULD have book end takles for the next 10 years, but...
…the reason we only won 2 games last year was because our Defense SUCKED stank eggs! We need to go D early and often in this draft if we want to ever have a shoot at the playoffs, let alone a Super Bowl. My 2 cents
by KCChiefs on Apr 23, 2009 12:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the difference is...
Tackles are that much harder to find….Best Tackle in the league last year was a top pick….best LB was undrafted…
by woodman212 on Apr 23, 2009 3:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
our D was horrendous and are O sucked
by cassel4prez on Apr 23, 2009 1:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
IMO
Our defense lost us a lot of games. I myself am on the Curry bandwagon for many reasons not in any particular order:
1. We signed 2 older LBs who are on their last legs and getting another good young LB who can be mentored by these guys is a great idea for our future.
2. Aaron Curry is a great run stopper, look at his stats in college he was in the backfield a lot. Also on a side note: the reason he is not a “pass rusher” is because he was rarely asked to do so at Wake Forest. Going back to point 1 on this but Vrabel could teach him some techniques and pointers on rushing the QB
3. Like everyone who has watched a game this past year Our Defense was (pardon the french) fucking horrible. Granted I know that the sack total for our team was 10 for the year and we didn’t have a real pass rushing threat but don’t you think that having a terrible run defense helped contribute to that? Seriously think about it why pass on a team when you’re running the ball down the other teams throat….. I mean damn LenDale White’s fat ass ran UNTOUCHED 80 yards for a score…. that dude is slow.
I just think we need to address our defense and get it back to respectable at least this year, and I think drafting Aaron Curry would be a step in the right direction.
by scharny on Apr 23, 2009 3:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1,000
We need to build our defense. A RT will come later in the draft. Our defense needs help…NOW!! They’re that bad. My little brother could be a starting LB for the Chiefs…and he’s 14 and going into high school next year! Defense first…the offense will get their help as the draft goes along.
There's no hope with dope...
by chrisjo07 on Apr 23, 2009 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've always liked the 3rd pick to used on Curry............. Since Ever Since!
and now after reading this part from another fanpost I’m almost certain that Curry should be our pick…IF…we don’t deal the pick for additional picks (which I support more)
How do this year’s OTs compare to last year’s? (A fan to Nolan Nawrocki)
1:48 Tim, last year’s OT class was significantly deeper and stronger overall than this year’s. Some NFL evaluators argue that this year’s best offensive tackle ― whether it be Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe or Andre Smith ― was not better than the fourth or fifth offensive tackle drafted in last year’s class. Last year’s OT class was as good as their may ever have been in NFL history, with eight first rounders, most of whom stepped into the starting lineup readily and played at a high level as rookies. It’s unlikely to be duplicated, this year or down the road.
Opinions are like A--holes, everyones got one.
by aPacificChief on Apr 23, 2009 4:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I dont know if he is considering albert as a LT because he was a LG in college, but theres a reason the younger monroe started at LT over albert in college
by cassel4prez on Apr 23, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was due to timing
Virginia had a LT when Albert arrived so Albert to LG. then for continuity they left him there when Monroe showed up and was going to be there for awhile unlike Albert
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 23, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's good to see a fanpost about this topic
there really hasn’t been ANY debate about Curry or Monroe on this site.
I was really wondering what everyone thought.
to quote my favorite movie ever “are you picking up my sarcasm? i should hope so, because I was laying it on pretty thick back there”
Seriously, though.. either pick is good… either way the Chiefs need to upgrade both positions, and will likely do so in the draft. The only question is which one gets the #1 pick, and which gets a later round pick. Remember, the Chiefs will call at least 7 names on Saturday and Sunday… the draft doesn’t end with the #3 pick.
by stagdsp on Apr 23, 2009 10:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah Tommy Boy, but ease up, let the kids blog
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Apr 23, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it wasn’t that harsh, I don’t think… and I did throw in my opinion :)
by stagdsp on Apr 23, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im at the point I dont even care if we pick top three ill be happy if we trade down
it will be interesting . either way im looking to bbq that day hang with friends and watch the cheifs run the draft.
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 23, 2009 10:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
