I'm on the clock for the #36 pick. I'm pretty sure who I'm going to pick, but wanted to check in here at Arrowhead Pride first. Thanks for all your help so far!
Here is who was taken in the 1st Round.
Here's the discussion here so far.
Additionally, these 3 players were taken so far in the 2nd Round.
#33 WR Arrelious Benn
#34 RB Ryan Mathews
#35 WR Golden Tate
Thanks to all the help from the good people at Arrowhead Pride, the majority opinion seemed to be that the primary "positional value" positions were well-covered, and that this would be more of a purely "needs-driven" draft, with an emphasis also on a safe pick with low Bust Potential who fit the scheme. I compared it to the 2008 NE draft that took LB Jerod Mayo at #10 to fill a huge need. The majority opinion seemed to be that the 3 major positions of need were DT, ILB, and safety. It was suggested that the minor positions of need were WR-slot, C-zone blocking, OT-swing, OG-zone blocking, TE-blocking, and maybe OLB, in that order. A few people even suggested some "can't-pass-up" players for Round 2, including some at OLB. The 3 finalists for the #5 pick in the 1st Round were NT Terrence Cody, ILB Rolando McClain, and S Eric Berry, who most of the AP people considered to be the best player and the best fit for the scheme at each of the 3 positions of major need. I judged Eric Berry to be the best player and safest pick both, and selected him at #5. On to Round 2.
Since then, I had thought that the #36 pick would boil down to one fundamental question. Should I take the best player that fits the scheme (even if he's a slight "Pioli reach") at one of the 2 remaining positions of major need (DT and ILB), or should I take one of the "can't-pass-up" players at a position of minor need?
Then 2 surprising things happened. The first thing is that almost every one of the suggested "can't-pass-up" players fell off the board. Ok, maybe that's not so surprising. Sean Weatherspoon, Sergio Kindle, Maurkice Pouncey, Dez Bryant, Golden Tate......all gone. Jerry Hughes is the only one remaining of the "can't-pass-up" players who were suggested to me. I thought this would come down to Jerry Hughes vs. a good solid safe NT like Cam Thomas........and then the 2nd surprising thing happened.
The second thing that happened is even more surprising, and may make this decision very easy. Terrence Cody is still on the board at #36! There he is, quietly munching cheeseburgers in The Green Room. For the purposes of this POD Community Mock Draft, there are no trades, so I can't trade down.......but a solid and well-spoken minority at AP were willing to reach for Mt. Cody at #5 in order to anchor the Chiefs' 3-4 defense. To them, that makes NT the biggest of the 3 major needs. To me, Mt. Cody's level of risk seemed too high for the #5 pick, but his risk/reward ratio seems more appropriate for the #36 pick, even for Pioli. Pioli wants a HUGE NT. Cody was 351 Lb at his Pro Day, down from 370 Lb at the Combine. Like the AP people said, think huge, think Vince Wilfork (who is listed at 325 Lb but looks heavier), think 340-350 Lb. That's why some at AP had reservations about Torrell Troup.....great strength for his size, but not enough bulk at 314 Lb to clog the middle, stuff the run and absorb the double-teams all game long that 3-4 NT's have to do in order to free up the LB's behind them.
So it looks like this pick boils down to Jerry Hughes vs. Mt. Cody. For the Chiefs, this looks like an easy choice. Mt. Cody looks likely to be the popular choice of the Arrowhead Pride, and something Scott Pioli could also do at #36. Cody's level of risk/reward looks acceptable at #36. Cody fits the Chiefs' defense much better than the other NT's available in what looks to me like a thin NT class. Where's the beef? Cody fills a huge need, which most at Arrowhead Pride see as the biggest need of the 3 major positions of need.
Where's the beef? On top of Mt. Cody.
Let me know ASAP if you agree with this, so I can send in my pick to Sean Yuille at POD. Thanks for your help!
Do you approve of this pick?
Yes (86 votes)
No (15 votes)
101 total votes