Chiefs onto something in drafting undersized ILBs?

[chiefzilla1501]

I thought it was curious that Dorsey would draft 2 undersized LBs. If there's anything we've learned about Dorsey, it's that he's always trying to exploit new tendencies in the NFL. He doesn't always pick the right guy to exploit the tendency, but it's interesting to hear his thought process. He might be modeling off of Chip Kelly, who knows a thing or 2 about spread offenses.

A few examples:

• Dee Ford was drafted because Dorsey believes in the new NFL, QBs get rid of the ball so quick that you need to get to the QB faster. Dee Ford has the first step to do that
• Fisher was drafted because Dorsey believed you need Tackles with arm length to more quickly bump off first step pass rushers
• Vance Walker was signed and Tyson Jackson was cut because Sutton evolved his thinking... the Ryan defense usually relies on a lot of 2-gap, but Dorsey began to realize it should start evolving into having 1-gappers at DE

So out of curiosity, I started looking into why a team might draft more undersized ILBs. Came across a really interesting article:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/201...spread-offense
Talks about how Chip Kelly is countering the spread. Basically, your typical thumpers might be liabilities against the spread. So now teams are looking for fast, rangy ILBs and to do that, they're looking for speed over size. An interesting observation that as RBs become more and more devalued, many of them are being converted to LBs to help counter the spread. Ryan Shazier is a terrific example. Let's think about Dorsey's reaction to this offseason:

• Cut Joe Mays, a thumper
• When scouts were asked to compare Nico Johnson to Ramik Wilson, the comment was that Johnson was too much of a thumper while Wilson is not

I would bet Dorsey hit the tendency on the mark. But historically, he hasn't always gotten the right player the first time, so these guys could still end up busting. What do people think?

[nychief]

Bubble screen league... Gotta have wheels to defend it.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Dee Ford is a failure?

The use of that draft pick was a failure. The timing of it was a failure.

We might pick a HOF kicker, and that's great, but doing it in the first round when we already have a pro bowl kicker is stupid...

[Faddy Yomama]

Maybe we can convert them to WRs down the line.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Rausch

The use of that draft pick was a failure. The timing of it was a failure.

We might pick a HOF kicker, and that's great, but doing it in the first round when we already have a pro bowl kicker is stupid...

Yea drafting pass rushers when they already had two was very stupid of the Seahawks and Giants also!

@ comparing drafting for depth at K to OLB. Just stop man.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Yea drafting pass rushers when they already had two was very stupid of the Seahawks and Giants also!

@ comparing drafting for depth at K to OLB. Just stop man.

I'm not comparing the two positions you tool, I'm comparing the use of draft picks.

I can't help that you're too dense to understand the difference between how draft picks are used, on draft day, and how good a player ends up being.

Drafting a 4th round value in the 1st, even if that becomes a HOF player, is still a mistake.

It's not a mistake because the guy didn't work out - it's a mistake because you could have had a guy with 1st round talent AND your HOF player later.

And it's also what you get for your pick/money. We're paying Ford to be a b/u that rarely see's the field for two years 1st round money. That's a waste of money and a pick because you get almost nothing out of it.

When you look at the Peters pick that's a guy with value ABOVE where we drafted him, he can come and compete for a starting job day one, and can influence the course of a game his first year.

People on here act like you can only draft for need OR BPA. That's not the case. The whole point is to do both.

This draft had less talent and depth than last year did and we did a much better job this year of doing both...

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Rausch

The use of that draft pick was a failure. The timing of it was a failure.

We might pick a HOF kicker, and that's great, but doing it in the first round when we already have a pro bowl kicker is stupid...

The use of the pick was fine. The use of the player is what sucked.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

The use of the pick was fine. The use of the player is what sucked.

Considering Hali's age and the fact he's likely gone after this year I'd like to see Ford get as much as 25% of the snaps.

Keep hali fresh during the game and hopefully for the post-season...

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I'm not comparing the two positions you tool, I'm comparing the use of draft picks.

I can't help that you're too dense to understand the difference between how draft picks are used, on draft day, and how good a player ends up being.

Drafting a 4th round value in the 1st, even if that becomes a HOF player, is still a mistake.

It's not a mistake because the guy didn't work out - it's a mistake because you could have had a guy with 1st round talent AND your HOF player later.

And it's also what you get for your pick/money. We're paying Ford to be a b/u that rarely see's the field for two years 1st round money. That's a waste of money and a pick because you get almost nothing out of it.

When you look at the Peters pick that's a guy with value ABOVE where we drafted him, he can come and compete for a starting job day one, and can influence the course of a game his first year.

People on here act like you can only draft for need OR BPA. That's not the case. The whole point is to do both.

This draft had less talent and depth than last year did and we did a much better job this year of doing both...

I think its you that's missing the point. Funny how you ignored the part about the Seahawks/Giants doing the same exact thing. Drafting for depth at edge rusher in the first has been proven to be very effective not to mention it came after a season where we lost both Hali and Houston and it cost us. If it weren't for Hali being a team first guy he'd be gone and Ford would be starting this year. So basically you're complaining bc we didn't get much use in year 1. You don't ****ing draft for year 1 sorry man. It's a great "problem" to have this year, but you're somehow making it sound like drafting Ford was a waste. You are a moron plain and simple.

[rtmike]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Your a moron plain and simple.

FYP

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I think its you that's missing the point. Funny how you ignored the part about the Seahawks/Giants doing the same exact thing. Drafting for depth at edge rusher in the first has been proven to be very effective not to mention it came after a season where we lost both Hali and Houston and it cost us. If it weren't for Hali being a team first guy he'd be gone and Ford would be starting this year. So basically you're complaining bc we didn't get much use in year 1. You don't ****ing draft for year 1 sorry man. It's a great "problem" to have this year, but you're somehow making it sound like drafting Ford was a waste. You are a moron plain and simple.

The teams you mentioned ROTATE THEIR PASS RUSHERS.

We don't like they do. We knew when we drafted him he was only going to have any real time if someone got injured.

I'm not arguing against depth. I'm arguing against drafting a guy you know won't contribute at all his first year and ignoring huge, glaring weaknesses that cost our team.

We could have helped the team and added depth at other positions. AND won games.

Look at it this way: what if we had drafted Conley in the first instead of the 3rd?

Conley still would likely end up being a solid player but it means we missed out on a talent like Peters. The way it worked out we got both.

And this draft these guys are talented and will be able to contribute immediately. That's the goal: draft good players that can come in and make a contribution.

Stacking depth in one area and ignoring the huge weaknesses of others is why our offense sucked in the 90's and our defense sucked under DV.

This draft Dorsey seems to have changed his approach a bit. We got good value, good talent, and we could have 3 or even 4 of our top 5 picks starting THIS YEAR...

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Rausch

The teams you mentioned ROTATE THEIR PASS RUSHERS.

We don't like they do. We knew when we drafted him he was only going to have any real time if someone got injured.

I'm not arguing against depth. I'm arguing against drafting a guy you know won't contribute at all his first year and ignoring huge, glaring weaknesses that cost our team.

We could have helped the team and added depth at other positions. AND won games.

Look at it this way: what if we had drafted Conley in the first instead of the 3rd?

Conley still would likely end up being a solid player but it means we missed out on a talent like Peters. The way it worked out we got both.

And this draft these guys are talented and will be able to contribute immediately. That's the goal: draft good players that can come in and make a contribution.

Stacking depth in one area and ignoring the huge weaknesses of others is why our offense sucked in the 90's and our defense sucked under DV.

This draft Dorsey seems to have changed his approach a bit. We got good value, good talent, and we could have 3 or even 4 of our top 5 picks starting THIS YEAR...

I actually disagree with you there. But then, I'm huge on BPA based on positional value over drafting for need. If Ford becomes an impact pass rusher then it's a great pick. I don't care if he starts or even if it takes him 2 or 3 years to get there. When you draft high positional value players, you have to be patient with the learning curve.

I'm with you though that we've seen flashes of what he can do, but we need to see a hell of a lot more to justify the pick. For now, more than fair to question the pick until he proves it on the field.