Chiefs Trade Rumor Is Swirling

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, Spoot-Face said:

lmao

I thought I got the gist of it within the first minute.

No.

It gets better.

The cider bit is so good

[The Crusher]

6 hours ago, dbatesman said:

I don’t have anything to add except that this Fescoe guy was for a time known as BULLDOG BOB and during the Todd Haley era had exactly the kind of rant you’d expect from a guy who calls himself BULLDOG BOB

 

I needed this guy as a divorce attorney 20 years ago, 

[derp]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but it's hard to say what he does. Until we saw it happen, no one imagined he'd be one to offer so much - in both draft picks and then in a record-shattering contract - for Tyreek Hill (let alone when he just drafted his prototype not 12 months earlier). 

A year earlier he was only the type that wanted to trade down & hoard picks -- then he stays at #2 instead of taking a windfall of picks, and then further trades away a pair of 3rd rounders to move up 8 slots for a guard (in an OL-rich draft). 

The wisdom of doing these things is a separate discussion; I don't think we all know his m-o or philosophy as well as we think. It seems he'd do different things in the start of a tear-down or in year-one of a build-up, and may do things differently-still a year later.

I don't know what he'd do & what he wouldn't, beyond his pattern of not using super-high cap or draft resources on lower-paid positions (e.g. trading Adams, merely tagging Maye, trying to get half-pregnant with his TEs, staying away from high pick & high pay RBs, and more). I'm happy with that - especially while the team still has serious needs at high-dollar positions that are harder to fill/find - but he still needs to choose wisely after weeding out those lower-value positions; not to mention find a healthier medium between not-overpaying and barely paying anything at all. 

But yeah, I'd hate to see him miss on a serious playmaking WR (playing for cheap for 4 seasons) because an OT he doesn't presently need had a draft grade 0.2 points higher. 

I am only speaking for myself, but I think most of the “WR at 10 doesn’t make sense” crowd thinks that it’s much more than a 0.2 point difference between the best player on the board (or even the best non tackle) and the best WR.

[Sperm Edwards]

36 minutes ago, derp said:

I am only speaking for myself, but I think most of the “WR at 10 doesn’t make sense” crowd thinks that it’s much more than a 0.2 point difference between the best player on the board (or even the best non tackle) and the best WR.

I'm not the one to grade anyone, but I'm much more of a draft for need guy when it's this early in the draft and you're choosing among premium prospects. BAP/BPA I think is a much better philosophy as you get further into the draft, when the number of really good prospects is cut by 50-75% (if not more), so it's senseless to further handicap one's ability to pick the few good ones left by eliminating non-need positions.

Provided he's good, a badly-needed player is going to help us win more games than a higher-rated player at a position we don't need so badly (or won't need until some other starter goes on IR). Their careers should be long enough either way, provided it isn't a RB I guess, and it'll be a better move so long as you didn't take someone who just sucks or plays a position that's easily replaced in FA in any offseason without crippling the team's ability to improve or maintain talent elsewhere.

Not everyone agrees with this. That's ok. 

[derp]

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not the one to grade anyone, but I'm much more of a draft for need guy when it's this early in the draft and you're choosing among premium prospects. BAP/BPA I think is a much better philosophy as you get further into the draft, when the number of really good prospects is cut by 50-75% (if not more), so it's senseless to further handicap one's ability to pick the few good ones left by eliminating non-need positions.

Provided he's good, a badly-needed player is going to help us win more games than a higher-rated player at a position we don't need so badly (or won't need until some other starter goes on IR). Their careers should be long enough either way, provided it isn't a RB I guess, and it'll be a better move so long as you didn't take someone who just sucks or plays a position that's easily replaced in FA in any offseason without crippling the team's ability to improve or maintain talent elsewhere.

Not everyone agrees with this. That's ok. 

That's interesting, I actually think the opposite - the differences in quality of player are going to be more pronounced earlier in the draft, and once it's later everything kind of muddies together. The Jets also need...everything. On the board we've decided that they need a WR and a DE but they also could upgrade at several other positions - some premium, some not - but they need help all over the field. I think those are needs that fans have elevated to being larger than other positions more than they're actually bigger needs.

But certainly don't need to agree, the different perspectives make things interesting.

[TuscanyTile2]

"Swirling" is a word I associate with the Jets (usually with their season).

[More Cowbell]

6 hours ago, doitny said:

i agree that this draft isnt good , but doesnt it make sense to keep your top pick in the draft to get the best players in it? 

so we give them 4 and now have 10, 27, 35, 38 and 50. 

at 10 there is no Sause, no OL if thats your thing. there a good chance the #1 WR is taken before 10. Hutch and Thibs are gone. maybe even the 3rd best Edge. KT is gone. you just took yourselve out of some of the best players in this draft.

at 27, 5-6 WRs and Edges are probably off the board by then.

your trading 4 for 27 which sucks. you add a 50 which in a crappy draft im not sure what you think your getting and a 1st next year which will be around 30. its not a good deal.

its not that KC is one player away and we are not, its that they understand its a crappy draft and they need to get to the top to draft the best player they can. and we are already there and we want to move back to get more picks in a crappy draft? makes no sense.

4,10,35, and 38 are enough to turn this team into a better team. losing 4 for 27 and 50 and 30 next year is a bad move IMO

 

You are going to get both of KC's first, and a second from this season and a pick next season which would be a first or second. Also, let me rephrase. The draft overall is not bad, just the first round is bad. I really only see one or two impact players. There will be plenty of solid starters in round one and 2 which we need. I just don't  see a Chase or Waddle and there are no Lawrence, Wilson, Lance type QB's. 

[nickfoshizal]

11 hours ago, PackerNation said:

You seem to care a lot. You swing from my balls in practically every thread I post in.

You’re honestly the worst troll in the history of this site. I miss raiderholic or whatever his name was.