Taking an Offensive Player in Round 1

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

There aren't as many holes as people insist there are, especially if we end up tagging Ford.

They could use a DL, safety, ILB and CB (and they may just be able to convert K-Pass or Speaks for the DL). Some depth on the OL and WR depth.

In terms of relative needs, that list is shorter than just about every team out there. The Chiefs will likely need to pull 2 starters from this draft and those odds are significantly improved by moving up higher in the draft, especially into the 1st.

I go back and forwards on what holes the Chiefs have. The week after Hunt was released, you could look at it and say the Chiefs needed: RB, 2nd TE, WR depth, Center, DL, OLB, ILB, Safety (maybe two depending on Berry health), CB x 2.

That's a lot of holes anyway you look at it. But since then, Damien Williams performance, the Reiter signing, Lucas and Wards play all cuts that list down quite a bit and maybe there aren't nearly as many holes as people first thought.

I can see the argument for shipping the two 2nd's for a 1st, but I think you can realistically expect a solid contribution from a 2nd round pick in their first year (See Leonard, Jessie Bates) if you pick the right guy. Speaks was always going to be a project, as was Kpass.

The key thing for me now is that whether or not you trade up those seconds, you absolutely have to get a contributor that you are expecting 3 and a half years of solid starter play from at least.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I go back and forwards on what holes the Chiefs have. The week after Hunt was released, you could look at it and say the Chiefs needed: RB, 2nd TE, WR depth, Center, DL, OLB, ILB, Safety (maybe two depending on Berry health), CB x 2.

That's a lot of holes anyway you look at it. But since then, Damien Williams performance, the Reiter signing, Lucas and Wards play all cuts that list down quite a bit and maybe there aren't nearly as many holes as people first thought.

I can see the argument for shipping the two 2nd's for a 1st, but I think you can realistically expect a solid contribution from a 2nd round pick in their first year (See Leonard, Jessie Bates) if you pick the right guy. Speaks was always going to be a project, as was Kpass.

The key thing for me now is that whether or not you trade up those seconds, you absolutely have to get a contributor that you are expecting 3 and a half years of solid starter play from at least.

Absolutely.

The bottom line, though, is that if you use the 2s you're probably hoping for someone that gives you 3(ish) years and the odds are that one of them gives you natch.

Whereas if you fold them into a 1st, you can realistically plan for 4 years and a shot at 5.

Honestly, if we still had Dorsey I might be more inclined towards keeping the 2s because I think he's a brilliant scout. Veach, OTOH, I just don't have as much confidence in. And it's not that I think he's bad in that regard, it's more that I think he's closer to average. And those average GMs are looking at a 40-50% bust rate on 2nd rounders. Additionally, I think we're looking for some pieces that are just damn hard to scout (DB and DL are notoriously difficult to project). In that case, I think I'd rather lower the degree of difficulty.

Again, it all comes down to the board. If there's nobody sitting there at the back of 1 that Veach and crew feel strongly about, then I'll defer to them. But if there's a potential Leonard or Bobby Wagner sitting there at the back of the 1st, I'd sure like to see them get aggressive and move up for the ceiling rather than lay back and hope to win via numbers.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Absolutely.

The bottom line, though, is that if you use the 2s you're probably hoping for someone that gives you 3(ish) years and the odds are that one of them gives you natch.

Whereas if you fold them into a 1st, you can realistically plan for 4 years and a shot at 5.

Honestly, if we still had Dorsey I might be more inclined towards keeping the 2s because I think he's a brilliant scout. Veach, OTOH, I just don't have as much confidence in. And it's not that I think he's bad in that regard, it's more that I think he's closer to average. And those average GMs are looking at a 40-50% bust rate on 2nd rounders. Additionally, I think we're looking for some pieces that are just damn hard to scout (DB and DL are notoriously difficult to project). In that case, I think I'd rather lower the degree of difficulty.

Again, it all comes down to the board. If there's nobody sitting there at the back of 1 that Veach and crew feel strongly about, then I'll defer to them. But if there's a potential Leonard or Bobby Wagner sitting there at the back of the 1st, I'd sure like to see them get aggressive and move up for the ceiling rather than lay back and hope to win via numbers.

The issue with the 2nds is that they're going to be at the absolute back ass end of the 2nd. It's not as if they have one of them at the top of the round, which would be nice.

I wonder if one of those 2nds could be turned into the next Mitch Morse, if they've decided to move on from him. That's usually a nice sweet spot to find some nice OL.

They need an ILB with Ragland being a free agent, if he would stay for reasonable price I'd keep him. He's not great but I can't think they were as bad as they showed thru this season right?