Some People Have Iowa OT Bryan Bulaga Graded As A Third Round Pick
by Joel Thorman on Apr 18, 2010 11:42 AM CDT
in 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Draft
Email
Print
It seems as if we've come full circle on Iowa OT Bryan Bulaga. A few months ago, he wasn't on our radar for the Chiefs pick but over the past weeks and months, the buzz on him has been building so much to the point where there's a large group of folks that feel he's the pick for the Chiefs at No. 5.
Now, SI.com draftnik Tony Pauline reports that Bulaga is slipping in the minds of some.
"I left him in my No. 6 slot to Seattle for now, but there are some NFL personnel men who believe Iowa offensive tackle Bryan Bulaga is the most overrated prospect in this year's draft and say he could be the second coming of Robert Gallery once he gets to the league," Pauline writes.
We've heard this comparison before but is is it made because their skill-sets are similar or because it sounds nice since they both went to Iowa? Frankly, any failed Raiders pick should be taken out of the discussion because anyone and everyone who has walked through those doors in the last eight years has failed.
(OK, that's a stretch but you know what I mean.)
"It'll shock you when I say this, but I know some people have him graded out as a third-round pick,'' one league personnel man told Pauline this week. "A lot of pass rushers beat him badly last year. And if you watch that film, and add in that his arms are shorter than you'd like a tackle to have, how high can you take him? I know he's well-coached and has (Iowa coach) Kirk Ferentz's stamp on him, but there are some question about him and he's falling a bit in some people's eyes.''
Pass rushers may have beaten him but if the Chiefs draft him, I see him playing right tackle (at least to start). Most teams have their top pass rushers pitted against the opponent's left tackle so that's not a huge concern for me.
Still, though, the disparity between some of the grades is concerning. Views of him as a left tackle have been mixed. However, more people seem to feel he can be an excellent right tackle. That said, it's interesting that are red flags being thrown on Bulaga only days before the draft when before this he was considered one of the "safest" picks in the draft.
148 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I've never been high on Bulaga and I live in the heart of Hawkeye country.
I sure hope we don’t take him.
me either, and me too
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
* KC will NOT draft a LT in the first round, and the draft WILL be heavy on defense
by stagdsp on Apr 18, 2010 2:03 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Some people have golden tate as 4th round or worse too.
Doesnt really matter what “some people” think though. I think we have a pretty good GM who has a real good grasp on what he wants and what he knows so I wouldnt be too worried about what “some people” think especially if those “some people” work for ESPN or NFLN.
"Success is never ending, failure is never final."
Difference with Tate and Bulaga is
Tate produced heavily n a pro style offense…Bulaga didn’t produce well and was beat a lot.
by Larryemcdaniel on Apr 18, 2010 12:20 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
And he was right.
Aaron Curry isnt a 3-4 LB and all he is is Derrick Johnson 2.0.
"Success is never ending, failure is never final."
by GenericBrand on Apr 18, 2010 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I have to say hell no to this.
While i like Tyson he wasn’t the best player we could have gotten. Curry came in as a rookie and became leading tackler on a poor team. The people who say he isn’t a 3-4 guy is like saying a safety no matter who isn’t worth a top 10 pick. The is no convincing me that a rookie LB wouldn’t benefit from having less ground to cover.
I would rather have a TOP 3-4 END that will do well with a NT, than a yo-yo LB that isnt made for our system...just saying...
there may be no convincing you…but I am completely satisfied with jackson as our pick over curry…why? he filled a need, he should improve, and hes a chief…as far as I know, Aaron Curry wasnt the defensive rookie of the year in a position that usually puts up big numbers(cushing)
Team Pioli/Haley
Eh...
Not sure where you are getting that Tyson is a TOP 3-4 end. While he didn’t disgust me, he wasn’t anything special either. Chiefs are very much in need of help at LB, and i’m not sure you can call Curry a yo-yo LB when he had the year he did.
individual stats don't mean anything
when talking about the D-line. OLB and DE’s get the glory when the middle is solid. Every 3-4 needs a vacuum cleaner for a NT – which the Chiefs don’t have. This makes the DE’s work harder, thus, less productive. Get a top grade NT, and Tyson/Dorsey will be “TOP” enough.
by David Winton on Apr 18, 2010 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
and of course...
If Tyson was the D rookie of the year id keep my mouth shut.
It's also easier
for a LB to come in and contribute well than it is for a DL. So, any comparison between the two doesn’t really hold up well. I’m not sure people here in Seattle where I live were all that impressed and excited by Curry. Of course, he’s a rookie just like Tyson and should also be allowed the time to grow.
New body. Same soul.
Name the last 3-4 DE that was Defensive Rookie of the Year.
"Success is never ending, failure is never final."
by GenericBrand on Apr 18, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Not saying Tyson should have been the Rookie of the year...
But saying that he was a better pick than Curry because Curry wasn’t the Defensive rookie of the year is a pretty poor argument.
The point is Brian Cushing was a better pick for us than Aaron Curry...
I was more of a fan of drafting BJ Raji, than going after Tyson Jackson. Yet Tyson Jackson filled a better need in our system than Aaron Curry did, and does…
Go Chiefs!!!!
Not sure about that
Curry would’ve filled a need in the linebacking corps, which was bad. Jackson filled a spot at a position that might not have been a very big need after all, and wasn’t a good prospect anyway.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 18, 2010 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Tyson will have you believing this year.
And I wouldn’t discount the lunchbucket foundation Pioli is laying with this kind of dedicated straight-ahead kind of kid.
"lunchbucket"?
I guess I’m not sure what that means. Tyson has never shown anything in his entire football career that should make anyone think that he’s anything but an average NFL prospect.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 19, 2010 7:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey Generic He said that he would keep his mouth shut.
I would too… as it would be VERY impressive.
(these aren’t 3-4 defensive ends but I’ll list them off)
Julius Peppers
Jevon Kearse
Simeon Rice
Hugh Douglas
Al Baker
A.J. Duhe
All of these guys were rookies of the year and essentially would have been consider 3-4 linebackers in a 3-4 scheme.
Go Chiefs!!!!
Tyson jackson was necessary
because had we not drafted him that year, that would have been another year that we’d have to develop a DL . It takes long enough as it is so why not build through the trenches. It wasnt like we competing in the superbowl in ’10 season
by CasselKiLLer on Apr 18, 2010 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly...
That is why I was wanting BJ Raji… Then they would would have hoped Alex Magee would develop this year, or draft their "Tyson Jackson’ this year.
Go Chiefs!!!!
-1
Disagree on both, not that DJ2 would be a bad thing, with capable coaching.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 18, 2010 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
... and how many years has this been going on?
Go Chiefs!!!!
Bad coaching in KC?
Let’s see…was it 1998 when Marty left the Chiefs? Since about then.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 18, 2010 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm concerned
if we are talking about using the #5 pick on a guy we are penciling in at RT. Not the best bang for the buck.
bulaga going to the chiefs
I think if the chiefs took bulaga they would be settling for less than they have 2. If they trade down they could get still get a real good player and not have to worry about if he’s gonna b a bust or not. Plus if they do find somebody to trade down with they’ll most likely get another second round pick and a good tackle in the second round.
by Dakota23 on Apr 18, 2010 11:54 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
I agree
Chiefs could trade down and get Iupati, and he would pretty much be the same guy.
I really don 't see
us taking OL in the first… just doesn’t make sense when you look at the improvement the offense made late in the year and the signing of two potential starting OL. We are consistently ranked worse on D than O. We will draft defense first and often in the first 4 rounds
The Chiefs will take a defensive player with 3 out of their first 4 picks in 2010
Some people are stupid
Bulaga’s arms ARE shorter than you’d like in an offensive tackle, but this talk of how he got beat all the time is just nonsense. Vernon Gholston roasted Jake Long repeatedly. Who’d you rather have on your team?
And if Bulaga is a 3rd round pick, then Derrick Morgan is a 4th or 5th, because Bulaga shut him down in their bowl game this year.
As a Raider fan, I can tell you Gallery was a bust at tackle because his arms were too short (Bulaga’s are longer) and because he was tossed onto some of the most inept teams in history, was poorly coached and constantly moved around.
Just like Jimmy Clausen is different than Brady Quinn, Bulaga is different than Gallery. He’s not the “safest” pick in the draft (that would be Okung, if indeed there is such a thing at all), but he’s a top 15 prospect easily.
"'Tis a bird I love, with its brooding note, And the trembling throb in its mottled throat; There's a human look in its swelling breast, And the gentle curve of its lowly crest; And I often stop with the fear I feel-- He runs so close to the rapid wheel." Nathaniel Parker Willis, "The Belfrey Pigeon"
"Vernon Gholston roasted Jake long reapetdly"
repeatedly as in once?
by Fourstrike89 on Apr 18, 2010 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
And how about we compare the NFL careers of those two
I think Gholston has been inactive for a lot of them, Long hasn’t left the lineup.
Cry Havoc! And let slip the Chiefs Defense of War!!!
by nateforchiefs on Apr 18, 2010 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
That was his point.
The translation to the pro game is what matters..not necessarily what they did in college.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
by KaloPhoenix on Apr 18, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I know, it was a round-about way of backing him up.
I failed evidently
Cry Havoc! And let slip the Chiefs Defense of War!!!
by nateforchiefs on Apr 18, 2010 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
his short arms don't help though
Team Pioli/Haley
How short are they?
Or, how much shorter than average are they?
Cry Havoc! And let slip the Chiefs Defense of War!!!
by nateforchiefs on Apr 18, 2010 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions
They are longer than Alberts.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
"Mr. Pioli is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately."
by Don Piolie's Consigliere on Apr 18, 2010 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know about that
But they’re longer than Jake Long’s, as I’ve pointed out in the past.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 18, 2010 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions
If it wasn't true I wouldn't have said it.
Look it up if you want.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
"Mr. Pioli is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately."
by Don Piolie's Consigliere on Apr 19, 2010 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions
At your urging, I did look it up
Albert: 33 5/8-inch arm length
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/historical/1243029
Bulaga: 33 1/4 in. arm length
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/bryan-bulaga?id=496988
It appears that it is indeed untrue, not to be a dick about it or anything.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 19, 2010 7:04 AM CDT up reply actions
I did look it up but your right. I can't find where I found it before.
Only thing I’m finding is Bulaga at 33.29 inches at the combine Same as Joe Thomas.
So I bow to you sir and I stand corrected.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
"Mr. Pioli is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately."
by Don Piolie's Consigliere on Apr 20, 2010 2:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I kid, I kid.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 20, 2010 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
pic fail...
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 20, 2010 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
I did.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
"Mr. Pioli is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately."
by Don Piolie's Consigliere on Apr 19, 2010 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions
OH...ARMS.....I was getting a little worried there guys!
Opinions are like A--holes, everyones got one.
by aPacificChief on Apr 19, 2010 1:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Bulaga is over-rated
3rd round sounds about right. Drafting him at #5 would be like just throwing a draft pick away. Pioli basically said that the O-Line is set anyway with Albert remaining at LT (moving him would be a mistake) and O’Callaghan at RT.
They will either take Berry or trade down.
by werewolf_1979 on Apr 18, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Bulaga's clearly a reach. But a Trent Williams or Brian Bulaga would give the OL championship-caliber talent in-depth.
With all the focus on starters, I can see the wheels coming off the entire offense if we lose one starter. And I’m not afraid to reach on these kinds of things.
That said, I think KC gets upgrade and upgrade-in-depth with numerous 2nd- or 3rd-round picks.
Safe pick
Pioli went to great lengths Friday to explain that not only is the player’s skills important, but the “type of person” he is will also weigh heavily into his decision. Thus the “safe pick,” based on reports we’ve heard, is Eric Berry, not only the best at his position but a quality individual, natural leader and someone who is widely admired by his teammates. I heard from one report about a “back peddle drill” they conduct at the combine…peddle backwards, turn and run…not sure how far. A great time was 4.4. sec. Berry did it in 4.1….fastest ever…Just sayin…
If he were somehow to fall into Round 3
I have no doubt we’d draft him to be the RT.
Ryan Succop will be the kicker for the AFC in the 2011 Pro Bowl
I wouldn't mind taking Bulaga even with our 2a pick
Opinions are like A--holes, everyones got one.
by aPacificChief on Apr 19, 2010 1:54 AM CDT up reply actions
i dont give a frogs fat ass where
Or who we pick all I got to say is we need to hit a home fun on every pick.
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 18, 2010 12:22 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Bulaga is really not that bad IMO
What impressed me is the fact that he held GT Derrick Morgan in check (let’s not forget)
I believe that i might be the only person in here that thinks he will be a solid tackle in the NFL.
My only knock on him is the short arms things but I really like this kid a lot.
If Pioli drafts him, this msg board will go crazy and then people will try to rationalize the pick.
Expect the unexpected and IF we do draft him, I would like him to battle BA in the offseason. Loser get kicked over to the right spot and our tackle problem is solved forYEARS.
Bye Bye Ocall. He is an avg player at best
by CasselKiLLer on Apr 18, 2010 12:23 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
ok lets expect the unexpected...KC wil lreach on cody...
see, I said something that wont happen at 5 either….
and ocall? yeah hes a similar player to buluga honestly.
Team Pioli/Haley
The only reason that I believe Pioli will not SELECT Bulaga
is because HE found O’call.. Had he been off of the other regime, i believe the chances in selecting bulaga is alot higher
by CasselKiLLer on Apr 18, 2010 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions
O'Callaghan would be a fine swing tackle.
And Bulaga’s wingspan doesn’t matter as much to me as his hands technique (quickness) and footwork. Arm length is less important if you’re active enough and powerful enough to make the proper counter-moves.
true to an extent
I do believe shorter arms hurt when he is going against elite pass rushers ( that can bullrush and get into his chest) but like you said, sound technique and everything else is good enough to where he comes up short in other areas
by CasselKiLLer on Apr 18, 2010 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Considering that it was said
that Bulaga played hurt in the Michigan game, one might have to take that outing with a grain of salt & Iowa won the game anyways. Bulaga dominated in the Orange Bowl, when the money was on the line & he was healthy.
by brdempsey69 on Apr 18, 2010 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Although admittedly I don't like the idea of picking Bulaga
Since we’d be paying Baluga (a little cavier reference) dollars for a RT, I’ll say that I trust what Pioli does. He knows more than all of us combined and I have faith in any direction he goes.
...And as the roar of 80,000 red-clad great plains warriors fills the hallowed halls of Arrowhead, it will strike fear into the hearts of lesser men. For on that field, individual men toil for something greater than individual honors. They toil as brothers-in-arms, as 53 spirits striving towards a single purpose and driven by a single goal: The glory that comes with vanquishing your foes. They will achieve their birthright, they will be champions.
It's all BS, he's probably fine but not an early 1st rounder. I wonder who started the
first rumour for all the other experts to follow?
my favorite line from the article
…was also beaten like a rented mule last season by some of the best pass-rushers in this year’s draft
Please do not draft this guy. It simply would make no sense.
New body. Same soul.
Trade Down
Why is it Baluga is considered a safe pick at 5 but noone ever mentions his name with a pick after a trade down.
by KeyWestChief on Apr 18, 2010 12:49 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
evidently
we are the only team with any connection to his coach….therefore we MUST take buluga at 5 as a favor to ferenz…
Im starting to wonder who buluga PR team is because they have done a heck of a job considering that scouting report that includes such terms as “rented mule”
Team Pioli/Haley
Hahaha. I love it.
“Beat liked like a rented mule” or “whipped like a rented mule” was one of my grandfather’s favorite expressions, and thus is something my father, brother, and I say quite a bit too.
That and “wide open as a peanut hull”.
by alakan81 on Apr 18, 2010 2:49 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh, I mentioned him as a stronger candidate post-trade-down.
Others concurred, but that’s not where the debate lies.
Beluga is good corn fed stock from Iowa
How can anyone argue with that?
I give Trent Williams a slight edge over BB as the no 2 OT
Either one would be a solid pick for KC
Maybe Shannahan will pass on Okung out of his concern for the Chiefs
But I think Beluga or T Will will be the choice
OT is the most exciting pick because it will allow Cassell Charles TJ and Bowe to do their thing
Of course, Pioli could do something strange like last year …
He’s always open. He catches a lot of balls. He’s un-guardable, no matter how old he is
by WarWolf on Apr 18, 2010 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
OK, let's all say it again together
“The trouble with the OL last year was at C, RG, RT.” And RT got somewhat solidified after O’Call came. Further, we solidified C and RG with FA acquisitions. Granted C is short term fix but will be effective. We should still draft C and G in later rounds. Not in 1st.
New body. Same soul.
I 100% agree with you
but I feel like the negativity that BB has drawn upon himself from here is sad/bad. I’m probably the only one that thinks he will be very good in the NFL. I dont see the Robert Gallery bust in him but I 100% understand why. thats all with that being said we need defense
by CasselKiLLer on Apr 18, 2010 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions
And can we say it all together
FA did not address the need at OT, because there is no viable back-up at LT should Albert get hurt, and O’Call is not a long-term solution & OT at #5 whether it’s Okung or Trent Williams gives them a 2-fold upgrade to their O-Line & is a far better value pick than a safety at #5 and Pioli will not take a Safety at #5 because that would automatically make him the highest paid Safety in the NFL before he ever set foot on the field and they can draft a couple of Safeties in rounds 2 — 5. and it would cost less for 2 safeties in those rounds than it would for the #5 pick.
WRONG
Trent Williams or Russell Okung would be instant starters. Don’t know where the back-up theory is coming from.
you're theory
is that a rookie LT will be better than a No. 1 draft pick LT with 2 years of NFL experience. And, if you’re wrong then at best you have drafted a guy that you hope can at least be better than our RT and start there. If he can’t do that then you’ve drafted a backup T.
So, with #5 pick you have done one of the following:
1. made your former No 1 pick into a bust prematurely; or
2. drafted a RT at #5; or
3. drafted a backup T at #5.
All suck.
New body. Same soul.
Not correct again
and nothing to substantiate what you have said. Okung, barring any injury problem, would be just as good if not better & Williams has the versatility to play any position on the O-Line & they could start him out at RT and he would provide a viable backup to LT slot and then later on move him to LT in 1 or 2 years, and even if they didn’t, Williams versatility alone makes him worth it.
I just don't see it
The line played better as the year went on. Great? No, but they improved. Add in Albert having another year to get used to his new weight and get his technique down better, free agent additions and the hopeful development of guys already on the roster and we should be set as far as our starters go.
You can easily get another tackle, guard or center in a later round (I’ll let those more knowledgeable on the draft fill in some names). You don’t draft depth at #5.
OT is one of the few picks that I wouldn’t be happy with.
That may be
But the problem isn’t Albert, who shut down Dumervil (the top pass rusher last year) twice.
I just don’t see the point in taking a tackle at 5 when we already have a really good (possibly great) one in Albert. You don’t take RT’s at 5.
Who said anything about a permenant RT?
and the Chiefs had a possibly great LT in 2002 in John Tait, but they still brought in Willie Roaf and moved Tait to RT and it worked out splendidly & why not try to bolster the OT position by taking a guy like Russell Okung or Trent Williams who can play LEFT TACKLE and give the Chiefs O-Line the same type of upgrade that Willie Roaf did when he was brought in in 2002. Honestly, not one of you has been able to provide a viable reason not to consider taking one of the top 2 OT’s at #5, it’s just a copout for drafting Eric Berry there, which is not going to happen. It’’s been reported that Pioli is trying to trade out of the #5 spot, which tells me he wants no part of Berry at #5. If he can’t trade out, he’s probably going OT.
I don't really care if it's Berry or not
I like him, yes but I don’t think he’s the only option either.
I personally see no reason to draft an OT because I personally think Albert is our guy. Moving him around, be it RT (which I don’t think he’d be good at) or LG (meaning Waters would have to move) just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Tait for Roaf is a different situation entirely. With Roaf, even with the injury questions, you knew you were getting a really good player and from what I remember, Tait was better suited for RT anyway. Sure Okung and Williams are rated high, but they could just as easily bust as anyone (Berry included). Meanwhile, Albert has two years in the league and has shown, in my opinion anyway, that he can handle the LT spot and handle it well.
If it happens, I’ll likely complain a bit the day of the draft, then accept it and hope the player becomes a long time stud on the line.
I'm prepared for a lot of things
Including the possibility of Clausen.
Clausen being drafted by the Chiefs?
Not going to happen. Drafting a QB has never worked for the Chiefs in their 50-year history. Every one of them has been a bust with Brodie Croyle being the latest casualty. Don’t believe me — he hasn’t won any game he has started & he can’t stay healthy and on the field. It doesn’t matter who they are, where they come from, what round the Chiefs take them in — they are destined for failure. History is working against them. In ‘83 if they had drafted Dan Marino or Jim Kelly or that buck-toothed, turd-out-of-the-back pocket pulling, son of a b!tch named Elway — they would have failed, same as Todd Blackledge. It’s one of those unexplainable phenoms.
How many shots have they really taken?
And you can’t use that argument to say they shouldn’t take a QB. How many D-line picks have they used and gotten nothing from them? They still took Dorsey and Jackson.
Clausen could arguably be the safest QB option this franchise will see in quite some time. No, I’m not saying he’s the best QB ever or anything, but he walks in day 1 knowing the offense having played in it for three years (and improving every year) under Weis. That’s an advantage no other QB they could draft will have.
How many shots?
Pete Beathard, Mike Livingston, David Jaynes, Steve Fuller, Todd Blackledge, Mike Elkins , Matt Blundin, Pat White, Brodie Croyle & there are others. Not one success from any QB they have drafted in their history. Doesn’t matter where Clausen comes from. History is working against him. All QB’s who have had success for the Chiefs in their 50-yr history have came via trade or FA. D-line is where they have had some success ( 1st rounders) — Buck Buchanan, Aaron Brown, Art Still, Mike Bell, Neil Smith. There were two busts in the form of Gene Trosch (1967) and Ryan Sims (2002). Can’t judge Dorsey or Jackson just yet.
You can't just go 1st round on D-Line
When you don’t limit the QB’s to the 1st.
If you go off somewhat recent history (limiting myself to the first three rounds), you have John Browning, Eric Downing, Sims, Eddie Freeman, Junior Siavii, Tank and Turk (not necessarily busts, but no longer with the team).
I could see why they’d be leery of another high D-line pick.
Meanwhile, they haven’t spent a 2nd rounder or higher on a QB since 1992 with Matt Blundin. Yes, you can find good QB’s later if you’re lucky (see Brady, Montana, etc) but your odds are better with a higher pick.
They didn’t even try to draft a QB after Pat Barnes (4th round) in 1997 until James Killian (7th round) in 2005, then Croyle (3rd) in 2006.
You can’t be afraid to take a chance on a possible franchise QB just because you haven’t had success doing so in the past. If the Chargers felt that way, they never would’ve taken Brees and then Rivers after Leaf blew up in their faces.
Doesn't matter
if they draft a QB, regardless of what round or where they’re from, they will fail. History has proven it. And why take Clausen, without giving Matt Cassell a fair chance and building a team around him? He did very well last year considering the circumstances.
By that logic
We might as well become fans of another team. They haven’t won a Super Bowl since 1969, why should we think they’ll do it again?
I’m not saying to give up on Cassel. I like him. Statiscally though, he got worse down the stretch after Charles got hot. His completion percentage went down, his INT’s went up. 11 of his 16 INT’s came in the last half of the season.
There’s nothing wrong with getting a backup plan in place now in case he doesn’t step up this year. Clausen can sit behind him and learn.
If Cassel has a great year, it just means Clausen gets more time to get ready. If Cassel doesn’t do well, Clausn’s there to step in as our next big hope.
Best case scenario, Cassel plays well, Clausen shows he’s got it in limited action and we can trade Cassel for a pick or two.
Worst case, both suck and we’re…well, basically where we are now.
I guess it's a bad reason
but I don’t want to draft Clausen just by looking at his picture! He seems like a real dildo.
;-)
New body. Same soul.
They would be better off
to acquire a backup via trade or free agency. Sorry, but you can’t fight history on this one.
Our track record's not a whole lot better there
We haven’t won a playoff game since 1994.
here's where we can mostly agree
I think the Chiefs have a DISMAL record of drafting QBs and it runs through several regimes. I don’t agree that we are always destined to fail but I do agree that it is scary for the Chiefs to draft QBs, especially high.
But, I totally agree that Cassel deserves a full opportunity and I think he will be successful with a good team around him.
New body. Same soul.
It's scary for any team to draft a QB high
How do you think the Chargers felt going after Rivers after Leaf blew up and Brees wasn’t working out all that great (at the time)?
You can’t just avoid taking a chance on a QB because you haven’t had any luck with one in the past.
Is Clausen the guy to break that streak? I have no clue. Do I want them to draft him? Not necessarily. Will I be upset if they do? Not one bit.
Sorry but I've got to go
with history on this one. Best way to get Clausen would be to let some other team draft him & then trade for him next year. What the Chargers have done has no bearing on the Chiefs history when it comes to drafting QB’s.
There's correlation, but that doesn't indicate causation
The Chiefs’ being the Chiefs hasn’t caused the organizational failure to develop a quarterback; that’s been the fault of staff. There’s an entirely new staff. It’s simply not rational to operate within imaginary parameters, like the Lions with their Bobby Layne curse or the Chiefs and the failure to develop a QB. The fact is that Carl Peterson was in control of the Chiefs for a really long time, and didn’t bother to invest legitimate resources into developing a QB, so right there is a more rational explanation for the failure over the past 20 years. Before that, well, I don’t know, because I really can’t remember much about the Chiefs in the pre-Peterson era.
But no, I absolutely don’t want Clausen at #5.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 19, 2010 7:10 AM CDT up reply actions
But would that apply to
Trent Williams or Russell Okung? I don’t think so. Bulaga, probably so & if the Chiefs want him they’d ’be better served to try to trade down, first.
by brdempsey69 on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions
You are accusing me of "no substantiation"? That's rich.
All I said was that you are making a huge assumption. You’re the one saying
Okung, barring any injury problem, would be just as good if not better. How ridiculous. That is pure speculation and this guy could be a bust as easily as anyone else. Let’s draft for positions of REAL need.
New body. Same soul.
also
You state elsewhere that it’s a “copout” so that we can draft Berry. I would say that it is almost 100% sure that Berry would START on our team. Okung? I’m not at all sure he would start.
New body. Same soul.
further
I am no big fan of Cody. However, I would HUGELY welcome picking him at 5 over any of the OT available. At least it is a position of real need.
New body. Same soul.
You have got to be kidding
how can you say that Berry would start if taken at #5 and that Okung wouldn’t if he were taken at #5. That’s pure BS. Okung would be an instant starter from Day 1 and so would Williams. Do think they would take any player at #5 and sit him on the bench? How can you say OT is not a position of need with Cassel getting sacked 42 times & getting hit while throwing the ball countless times. It’s not a case of the Chiefs not needing an OT — which they do — it’s a case of you not wanting the Chiefs to take an OT. And Cody would be way too big a reach at #5, so the statement of taking him at #5 over Okung or Williams is pure nonsense. BTW, the bust rate among OT’s taken in the top 15 since 1993 is the lowest of any position.
I will agree
That Okung would start somewhere. You can’t take an OT at 5 and sit him.
However…
How can you say OT is not a position of need with Cassel getting sacked 42 times & getting hit while throwing the ball countless times.
Just because he’s getting hit/sacked a lot doesn’t instantly mean OT. I think the general consensus is the interior of the line was the weakest part of the line last year, which hopefully will be helped out by the Wiegmann and Lilja signings.
I’d like to see O’Callaghan upgraded, but not with the 5th pick. I think Albert is just fine at LT, which once again leads me back to not wanting an OT at 5. Of course, what I think means nothing to the front office, so I’ll deal with whatever the pick may be.
Very well
but who would be a better value at #5 than an OT like Williams or Okung? And that’s, of course, assuming that Bradford, Suh, and McCoy are off the board. Picking a Safety at #5 makes no sense because they would have to make him the highest paid Safety in the NFL before he ever set foot on the field. Many sacks on Cassel came off the edge, too. Albert may be fine at LT, but he was a Guard in college and there’s no reason to believe he couldn’t handle the RT or one of the Guard positions. What I’m trying to point out is that taking the OT at #5 is the best value because of the potential ( and all draftees are drafted on potential ) 2-fold upgrade to their O-Line as Albert may be fine at LT, but he could be a better RT or Guard. Is there any other position on the Chiefs that they would have a potential 2-fold upgrade with just one pick? None that I can think of. Berry would help in the secondary, but not be a 2-fold upgrade to that area.
I don't care about the salary personally
No matter who we pick, he’s going to get paid much more than he should, just like Jackson last year.
I think you’re underselling how hard it is to switch sides on the line. Albert took a good portion of last year to adjust to his new playing weight and the techniques they wanted him to focus on.
Move him to RT and he’s likely going to spend at least half the season (if not more) adjusting to playing on the other side. On top of that, you now have a rookie LT adjusting to the speed of the NFL, weakening two spots on the line for at least a portion of the season.
Even LG would take some adjustment, simply because he hasn’t played there in two years. I imagine he’d pick it up faster than RT but still, you’re shuffling the line where chemistry is just as important as talent.
What about Waters? Albert slides to LG, where does Waters go? I don’t see him moving to center this late in his career, which means he’s competing with Lilja for the RG spot. If he can handle it, great but then you’re essentially wasting a free agency pickup that was (in theory at least) brought in to upgrade the line.
I’m certainly not saying OT isn’t an option, I could very well see it happening. It’s just not my top choice.
Half the season getting adjusted?
very doubtful. Getting adjusted during during training camp and preseason much more likely as far as Albert going to RT. And Albert did not have a new playing weight — he reported And rookies don’t mean a weakening of the OT position — more often than not it happens in the reverse — they strengthen the position.
Sorry I meant to say
Albert reported last year overweight and was told to get down to the playing weight he was at when the Chiefs drafted him.
Half the season may have been an exaggeration
But it’s still not easy.
As for the weight, I can’t prove it so I could very well be wrong, but I’m pretty sure he played at a higher weight under Herm than where Haley wanted him, on top of learning a new scheme and being taught different techniques.
and if you take Okung/Williams
they will be the highest paid at their position too. That’s just the unfortunate set up of the league right now.
New body. Same soul.
ok, we're talking past each other
I agree with you that Cody is a huge reach at 5. My point is that he fills a need.
As to Berry, I think he is clearly better than our existing talent and would automatically start based sheerly on talent -even ignoring his huge contract.
I agree that Okung/Williams would start. But, I think it’s very possible that they would be starting just because of the monetary investment rather than outright winning the position. Yes, I could be wrong but that’s what I see as the risk. Because the position is already ably filled.
New body. Same soul.
KC offensive line - ranked 27th in 2009
Consider how we got the offensive line starters and their drawbacks:
G Waters old and cut by the Cowboys
C Casey old and cut by the Broncos
G Lilja small and cut by KC and the Colts
OT O’Callingan injury history and cut by the Pats
OT Albert college guard expected to play LT in the NFL
Pretty obvious the offensive line needs upgrading
He’s always open. He catches a lot of balls. He’s un-guardable, no matter how old he is
by WarWolf on Apr 18, 2010 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes
offensive line needs upgraded but NOT at the tackle position and definitely NOT with the #5 pick
I'll bet Pioli thinks differently
after seeing Cassell get sacked 42 times & constantly being put under pressure all year long.
Uh huh.
And, after Albert adjusted to his new weight in a new scheme, he allowed precisely 0 sacks in the last 6 games of 2009, two of which were against the League’s leader in Sacks.
And as to pressures, Albert actually allowed less last year than he did in his Rookie season.
Our line has problems, yes. Albert isn’t one of them.
To kabrink & bh13
do you not agree that trading down ( if possible ) to a reasonably lower slot & getting an extra pick or two would be better than picking at #5? Sorry, but you have not convinced me that there is a better value at #5 than OT, nor named a player or position, that would be better value than Trent Williams or Russell Okung. Certainly not Berry or Clausen, forget it !!
I would gladly trade down
If the only other options were OT. I just don’t see the value there.
Move back, get someone like McClain or Graham or maybe Thomas…I don’t know, depends how far they go back. Heck, it’s very possible you could move back and still get Berry at a more reasonable price, which would be great.
As an aside, even though we don’t agree on the OT thing, I’ve enjoyed our discussion. It’s nice being able to debate things a bit without anyone taking it personally.
Believe me I've studied hard
to see if there was a better value pick at #5 than the OT’s Williams & Okung and it just isn’t there with the other players and positions. ILB McClain has gotten mixed reviews, NT Dan Williams is a stretch at #5, because there are players that can be had in the 2nd round at NT, Safeties are deep in this draft and the Chiefs could easily take two of them in rounds 2 through 5 and pay them less overall then what they would pay a #5 pick. They way it’s added up is they either take the OT at #5 and get decent value or run a huge risk with another player with the reward being questionable — except maybe WR Dez Bryant. If he hadn’t gotten suspended last year, he’d have to be considered at #5 and would fill a huge need for a playmaker at WR. I wouldn’t complain if Pioli showed some balls & took a chance on him, even at #5 and that would keep him out of Denver, because they want him.
Williams would immediately make an impact at RT, and possibly push Albert for starting role.
I’m not thrilled about moving Albert inside, but I’d be thrilled with a left tackle who was so good that this were seriously considered by the org.
The problem is:
The Tackle you describe does not exist in this draft; what we have currently is better than what’s currently available in the draft.
Disagree, but it's debatable either way
I think Albert’s good enough that it would be understandable if KC didn’t want to go for a new left tackle. Last year I certainly didn’t want them to draft Eugene Monroe or Michael Oher, although in hindsight I would’ve preferred either of them to Tyson freaking Jackson.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 20, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
No Way No How
How could Pioli justify drafting a RT in the top 5. Buluga is the 3rd or 4th rated OT in this draft. I would much rather see Berry or McClain.
Berry yes.
McClain we could hope to trade down for.
Pure garbage
as there is no way Bulaga will go in the 3rd round. Whoever is projecting that has had too many intimate sessions with his neighbors dog. Although Bulaga probably will not be the Chiefs pick at #5, there is no way he’s going to slide out of the 1st round.
its not that he WILL go in the 3rd...
They had a 3rd round GRADE on him, meaning he isn’t worth a high pick
* KC now has the best coaching staff in the league
* 9-7 is a real possibility in 2010 IF the Chiefs get 4 new starters
* KC will NOT draft a LT in the first round, and the draft WILL be heavy on defense
by stagdsp on Apr 18, 2010 3:06 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Yep
It’s a way of saying what his value is to that specific team. For them, he’s not worth the pick early, so if he was on the board at their pick, they wouldn’t take him because they don’t value him that high.
Must be Al Davis of the Raiders
saying that, given some of the overwhelmingly brilliant draft decisions that he’s made recently (sarcasm).
I was shocked the artivle on Spoon today said he's projected first to FIFTH round
that’s one big spread … one th three is big enough, but not like a 1-5 range
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
"It's always easier to sell 'em some shit than it is to give 'em the truth" - Shel Silverstein, The Perfect High
Whitlock Rocks!
hi, Mo! 5 minutes!!!
The Pioli Pre-draft press conference was a thing of beauty to watch...just brilliant!
In the words of Pioli…..“WHAT DOES A FIRST ROUND GRADE MEAN? I never understood giving grades according to rounds.”
Teams will view players how they view them, and what does that really mean? Can he play or not is what I want to know!
If teams follow their own draft boards 60 percent of the time, it works every time?
Opinions are like A--holes, everyones got one.
comparison with Gallery
I doubt Pioli takes this guy. You can’t draft a right tackle higher than you drafted your left…
by liquorstoreclerk on Apr 18, 2010 7:52 PM CDT reply actions
Pioli
didn’t draft his LT. Herm did.
And with the 5th pick of the 2010 NFL Draft the Kansas City Chiefs pick........
There have been no reports that Pioli
or the Chiefs have had a private visit/workout with Bulaga, so don’t anyone get their underwear in a twist, just yet. They have had private workouts with Russell Okung, Mike Iupati, and Vladimir Ducasse. Honestly, the whole scenario of picking at #5 is starting to stink & I’m hoping they can trade down in a reasonable manner.
I wouldn't mind Bulaga
in the third. He and Duccasse are two of my faveorite linemen in the draft. If we could get Bulaga in the third, that would be pretty awesome.
by BetterRedThanDead on Apr 18, 2010 9:38 PM CDT reply actions
Hahaha
This is sweet! lol
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
I agree with this article...Short arms are a killer in the NFL.
I will be pee’d off if the Chiefs take him at #5. It will be a wasted pick. You can get a RT in the 5th round…
by NFL season ticket holder on Apr 19, 2010 1:32 AM CDT reply actions
The premise that Bulaga has unusually short arms is a false one.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 20, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
