Taking an Offensive Player in Round 1

[kccrow]

What would be your thoughts if the Chiefs passed on taking a defensive player in round 1?

What would be your prerequisite offseason prior to the draft to make this okay with you? Is it sign a DB? Etc.

I've been toying with the idea a bit. My thoughts were sign a CB in FA then use the 1st round pick to get an OG like Lidstrom or a WR like Campbell.

I've also had the idea bouncing in my head about the what if scenario of a good TE falling to KC in round 2, such as San Jose State's Josh Oliver. Feel free to comment on that as well.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd be on board with that as a fallback position if I don't think White or Thompson are viable trade-up targets. And I might actually prefer that to Thompson (who I think is good, but maybe just a product of being my favorite target at a position that has murdered us this season more than being a truly elite prospect).

I still just keep drooling over what this offense could be with a guy like Irv Smith running alongside Kelce. That's a serious failure to keep my eye on the ball; I get it. It's some Mike Martz shit. But this offense could be absolutely unstoppable with Smith out there with Kelce, Hill and Watson. And while nobody likes to think of what life without Kelce may look like, I still remember our offense dying when he got hurt against TN. A viable backup and potential replacement if a contract can't be reached would be nice.

And when a defensive guru like Belichick still exists and specializes in taking away the thing you most want to have - good luck with that one, BB. You go ahead and try to figure out how to neutralize Kelce when you have another specimen like Smith roaming the field and Hill looking to take the top off.

It would be nice to have another TE just for the simple fact that Kelce isn't going to play forever. And then for all the reasons you stated above.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chargem

PFF's latest mock draft has us taking Kristian Fulton (CB, LSU) in the first, they say he may be getting as much hype as Greedy if he didn't get caught cheating on a drug test.

That's the kind of guy I want to fall out of the first round, get taken by the Chiefs and then get his shit together and play like a 1st round talent.

Fulton stayed at LSU. Kinda screwed that plan up a bit.

Probably a smart decision though; a healthy year puts him in the top 15, IMO. That kid has incredible talent.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd be on board with that as a fallback position if I don't think White or Thompson are viable trade-up targets. And I might actually prefer that to Thompson (who I think is good, but maybe just a product of being my favorite target at a position that has murdered us this season more than being a truly elite prospect).

I still just keep drooling over what this offense could be with a guy like Irv Smith running alongside Kelce. That's a serious failure to keep my eye on the ball; I get it. It's some Mike Martz shit. But this offense could be absolutely unstoppable with Smith out there with Kelce, Hill and Watson. And while nobody likes to think of what life without Kelce may look like, I still remember our offense dying when he got hurt against TN. A viable backup and potential replacement if a contract can't be reached would be nice.

And when a defensive guru like Belichick still exists and specializes in taking away the thing you most want to have - good luck with that one, BB. You go ahead and try to figure out how to neutralize Kelce when you have another specimen like Smith roaming the field and Hill looking to take the top off.

Tight end would be a place to look for sure. Irv Smith is just a monster, I doubt he's there when we pick though. I wouldn't be opposed.

I know the whole RB issue. I personally wouldn't take one there or anywhere close to that and i'm pretty sure Andy shares a similar thought process.

Ideally, I'd really like to have a 3 down badass at MLB. Is there any way there is one of those there?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Tight end would be a place to look for sure. Irv Smith is just a monster, I doubt he's there when we pick though. I wouldn't be opposed.

I know the whole RB issue. I personally wouldn't take one there or anywhere close to that and i'm pretty sure Andy shares a similar thought process.

Ideally, I'd really like to have a 3 down badass at MLB. Is there any way there is one of those there?

Probably not. White's the only one in the draft with pedigree, production and measurables (lots of guys with 2 of the 3 that may pan out). It would be a minor miracle of he made it into the late teens and if he does I think you need to go get him.

[RunKC]

Not sure if it will be the 1st rd, but I can see Andy wanting another weapon due to Sammy Watkins inconsistency.

I like Robinson, but he isn’t a big difference maker. A big target receiver with more lateral athleticism to get open quickly would be a great value. It would also allow us to trade Watkins in the last year of his deal if necessary.

I think Veach wants someone like JuJu. Very similar to Sammy but cheap for 5 years.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Not sure if it will be the 1st rd, but I can see Andy wanting another weapon due to Sammy Watkins inconsistency.

I like Robinson, but he isn’t a big difference maker. A big target receiver with more lateral athleticism to get open quickly would be a great value. It would also allow us to trade Watkins in the last year of his deal if necessary.

I think Veach wants someone like JuJu. Very similar to Sammy but cheap for 5 years.

I mentioned AJ Brown earlier in this thread and I think that may be the guy there. He's not the same kind of WR as JuJu because he's not that quick, but he's a big, physical target with good hands. More of a Demaryius Thomas type.

Not sure that's what Veach or Reid look for in their WRs, but he'll probably be the best WR that may be available late in the 1st.

[O.city]

I'm sure he wants to play QB but if Kyler Murray was there where the Chiefs are picking and was open to playing RB/WR/ QB would you do it?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'm sure he wants to play QB but if Kyler Murray was there where the Chiefs are picking and was open to playing RB/WR/ QB would you do it?

**** no.

[O.city]

You're no fun.

I wouldn't want that headache though.

What DL or S is gonna be the best bet to be there when we pick?

[carcosa]

Originally Posted by O.city

Not a 30 year old RB.

But a late first round pick on a RB? I dunno. No?

Maybe a 2nd?

Only way I do that is if a Gurley or Barkley level talent fell to 32... but there are still too many teams stupid enough to take RBs early in the 1st for that to ever happen. And even if it did happen, I'd only take the RB if there weren't a clear starter in a more valuable position.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'm sure he wants to play QB but if Kyler Murray was there where the Chiefs are picking and was open to playing RB/WR/ QB would you do it?

**** you.

[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?

[O.city]

One area I think the Chiefs need to dip their toe is the pick swap for a player. Seems to be some market inefficiency there