Cheifs don’t find a trading partner at #3 and with the selection take Tyson Jackson. Pioli’s reputation as an out of the box thinker is discussed incessantly.

basically, if we do get a trade out of 3, then there is no need to trade Tony or Brian. Iam hoping we are out of the rebuilding stage. I think the 3rd overall will come cheap, maybe just move back with a 2nd…..if we get that, theres no need for crying.

prob. I have with trading Tony is not having a “great” number 2 people would drap all over Bowe with no Tony, then not having a burner down field,we wouldnt be able to spread the D at all. Also I think it would be great to have Sanchez, a top OT, and Curry on the board at #3 that would open our trade options even more…..and I could see Curry falling out of the top 5 also very interesting point.

If there were a solid QB available, I could see a desperate team move up to #3 to get him, but I can’t see anyone gambling that much on Sanchez.

Now if the Lions take Curry and Stafford is on the board at #3, I think the chance increases slightly, but it’s still VERY likely that no one will trade up with us.

1) We find a trading partner for the #3 and move to the middle of the 1st round while acquiring multiple 2nd day picks.

2) Tony G is traded to either Philly or Atlanta for a 2nd round pick or a 3rd & 5th rounder.

3) Waters gets a diaper change and remains a Chief.

Good Day.

I’ve read that it’s nearly impossible to find a trade partner when your picking #1, 2, or 3.

The only team behind the Seahawks that desperately needs a QB is the Niners, and they are picking at #10. The cost of moving up to snag a guy that could pontentially fall to the #10 spot anyway may be too great.

Just not in the 1st round. I don’t think we will be able to move the 3rd pick.

More than anything. This is my first year watching the draft in detail and I wanna be excited. If we can’t get rid of the 3rd round pick, we don’t pick again until the second day =[

That being said, I think there are decent odds that we will be able to get out of the top 3, but I don’t think it will be a deal where Pioli has turned shit to gold. If anything it will be below chart value, and I’m fine with that.

We just really need some first day bodies.

But there will be no trade partners for the #3 pick. We take Curry and he’s a stud for years, making players around him better as well. We’ll try to get a 2nd rounder for Tony or Waters but it won’t happen because the best offer we’ll get is a 3rd and 5th and taking that deal could be perceived as caving. I don’t see Pioli doing it. This is not the scenario I want, just the one I see happening.

They don’t have a starting QB, have the cap space and plenty of pics available.

1) We say F the draft value chart and move down. Who cares what the pick is “worth”? Pioli will be willing to move down for less than the chart says because he understands getting good fits for the team and filling needs is more important than sticking to an old system.

2) Waters gets traded for a 2/3. As primetime has stated many times before, he is getting old. He wants out and is still a pro bowl player. This is the perfect time to dump him and a top guard with a few good years left could mean a lot to teams that are close.

3)Tony stays. Unless someone offers a low 1 or early 2 plus something next year he is way more valuable to us.

4)Thigpen gets traded and we draft Pat White to take his place. Okay, this one probably isn’t realistic, but I’d like to see it happen. We’ve discussed how important it is for a QB to play a lot of games in college and White has been the starter for almost 4 seasons.

and use him as trade bate I will really be checking my kansas city credentials at the door that would be the dumbest move in football history that would be = to the mike ditka move where he traded every pick and the next year picks for ricki williams . When i seen that i was like wow this guy better be the next jesus. hahahah

just been seeing a couple guys saying thats what we should do which makes no sense at all.

Can the Chiefs move down if they want? Of course. Absolutely. Guaranteed. But only by lowering their price. They have zero chance of moving down if they hold themselves to the “standard” draft value chart that has been in operation; I just don’t see any team out there being willing to pay that price.

So it really comes down to, what is the minimum Pioli & co. are willing to take in order to move down? How important is moving down for financial reasons to the Chiefs? How important is it to get additional picks?

In fact, let’s play a “what if” scenario. Pretend you’re Pioli. San Fran contacts you about switching #10 for #3 (so they can take Sanchez, presumably). What’s the minimal additional compensation you’d be willing to take from them? Would their third-rounder (#74 overall) be enough? Or would you refuse for anything less than their second-round pick (#43)?

Or how about the same scenario with the Jets? If you switched first round picks with them (thus getting #17), again, what is the minimum you would want back? Would you do the switch and be satisfied getting (only) their second-round pick (#52) back? Or would you demand even more than that?

I’m really curious about your answers; but I am also asking the questions just to make the point: there is no such thing as “can’t” move down. Trust me, if the Chiefs offered to switch places with any other team in the draft (with a first-round pick) and only asked for a 7th rounder in addition, you’d have 29 trading partners lined up in a heartbeat. All it comes down to is, whether you can get enough value in return. And that’s a judgment call.

So it really comes down to, what is the minimum Pioli & co. are willing to take in order to move down?

“Don Pioli” doesn’t deal in absolutes. He’ll get the maximum and give the minimum.

How important is moving down for financial reasons to the Chiefs?

Zero. Plenty of cash and an owner (Hunt), that wants his Dad’s trophy.

How important is it to get additional picks?

A lot. It’s was the NE way and now the KC way. Also important to note is we’ll take some vet’s off teams hands if Pioli likes the trade for #3.

I’ll address the Jets:

If you switched first round picks with them (thus getting #17), again, what is the minimum you would want back? Would you do the switch and be satisfied getting (only) their second-round pick (#52) back? Or would you demand even more than that?

If Sanchez is available and the Jets need him since they don’t have a viable QB, I’d want the 17th pick, third round pick and D’Brickshaw. They can keep the second.

The problem doens’t lie with us moving down, because we can draft almost anyone we want for #3. It’s a win-win for us. We have all those rookies just waiting there.

The problem (for the lower ranked teams), is that a number of them deperately need a QB. So they’re the ones that’ll be bidding…and the highest bid wins.

If the bid isn’t high enough, Pioli won’t bite. We have enough money to pay a #3 and Pioli will not do any team on the board any favors.

who will be 33 & 36 years old would not be prudent without a serious backup plan. The LB corps was in flux when Edwards couldn’t take the field. Especially if the injury bug starts hanging around the two veteran LB’s, we’ll be in the same boat again like last year.

Scott Pioli and Todd Haley are comfortable using older linebackers, at least for the time being.

If we do keep the 3rd pick, and select OLT we won’t be in a position again to address the LB position til the #67 pick. That would not be wise at all considering that we would be playing a hybrid 3-4/4-3. The LB’s would need at least 2-3 years to be groomed to learn how to properly play LB in a 3-4.