ChiSox_Sonix Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Because this should be separate from the NFL thread since the draft usually drives so much conversation and because I'm a Chiefs fan and we have the first pick. Keep hearing that KC is trying to trade out of the first spot. Whether or not they will be able to probably depends on whether or not teams want Dion Jordan or Geno Smith. Supposedly Jordan is #1 on KC's board right now and Jacksonville is believed to be ready to take him if KC doesn't or Smith if they do. A team trading up to #1 could certainly shake up the draft a bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I think there is a couple of teams at the top that would love to trade down. It doesn't seem like the talent at the top is what is has been in previous years. I just don't think any teams will want to give up that much to get into the top 5. I still think KC goes with Joeckel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Trading up is almost always a bad deal and I think most teams know it. I think it's going to be hard for KC (or anybody else near the top) to find a taker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) Trading up is almost always a bad deal and I think most teams know it. I think it's going to be hard for KC (or anybody else near the top) to find a taker. The new CBA has helped with this some. If the #1 pick is an average player, he's not the top paid player at his position any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 09:09 AM) Trading up is almost always a bad deal and I think most teams know it. I think it's going to be hard for KC (or anybody else near the top) to find a taker. I don't think the Redskins regret trading up last year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 07:46 AM) I don't think the Redskins regret trading up last year! I think the Falcons are pretty happy with Julio Jones, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I think trading up for a QB, if you think he is going to be really good is worth it. Trading up for Julio Jones, I'm not so sure of. Sure he is a great player, but the Falcons pretty much have no talent on defense because they had to give up five draft picks to get him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) I don't think the Redskins regret trading up last year! Unless RGIII is never the same again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 There's no Luck, or RGIII in this draft. KC doesn't even know how to suck properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 KC had the pick before Russell Wilson was drafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted April 15, 2013 Author Share Posted April 15, 2013 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) KC had the pick before Russell Wilson was drafted. I can't get mad about that because 32 NFL teams passed on him at least twice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 KC on the whole has good talent, but unfortunately this is not a QB draft and boy do they need a QB and more skill position players in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Please no Te'o, Bears. I couldn't handle the media coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) I posted in the NFL thread about how the Bears have "interest" in a TE and that I would love for them to do so. Well here's my reasoning behind it (Copied and pasted from my post on talkbears so it may seem a little out of sync)... The thing I like about drafting a BIG TE (emphasis on the big) to play over ERod is the mismatch it could/would create. Rodriguez, according to this scouting report I'm looking at, is only 6'1" so he doesn't really force other teams defenses to put a LB on him. If you put Bennett out there with an Eifert (6'6"), Ertz (6'5"), Escobar (6'6"), Toiolo (6'8"), or Fauria (6'8"), opposing defenses would be forced to drop 2 LBs into coverage to D up on those 2 guys. If they don't then the big TE's can give corners or safeties a headache with their size. When a defense is forced to put 2 LBs into coverage AND have to worry about Forte coming out of backfield to catch the ball it creates all sorts of mismatches. I think the ace package that lines up Forte in the backfield and lines up Marshall, Jeffery, Bennett, and another big 6'5"+ TE would cause all sorts of headaches for defenses to defend. It's possible that the other team would have to use all 3 of their LBs in coverage, one on Bennett, one on the new big TE, and one on Forte. LBs are the guys who gave the Bears OL the most problems in pass blocking last year, so if they can eliminate that problem by forcing LBs into coverage then you can keep Cutler from "running like hell". That's my reasoning behind why I think drafting a big TE wouldn't be a "waste" and why I think the Bears are still looking at TEs in the draft. Thoughts? (I mentioned Toiolo and Fauria because I like them in the later rounds) Edited April 18, 2013 by 2nd_city_saint787 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I honestly don't think height matters as much for a tight end as a pass catcher (as long as it's satisfactory, which 6'1 is just fine). It's nice to have a big target, but they are going to be bigger players to begin with and they're either going to be covered or not covered, height be damned. The reason you want your tight ends to be taller is to be punishing run blockers. If they put an effective block from a 6'5'' frame onto an oncoming linebacker, said linebacker isn't going to do anything because all of their leverage is sapped. At 5'10''-6'1'', the linebackers can move around a little bit more and they are quite a bit less helpless, allowing them to shed the blocks a bit easier. I'm not saying big tight ends aren't nice - Gronkowski is 6'6'' monster when he's healthy - but Aaron Hernandez is plenty effective at 6'2''. You just have to realize that they would get manhandled as a straight-on blocker, so they have to become jokers where you move them all over the formation to create mismatches, and if you need them to block, expecting anything more than a chip is expecting too much (unless taking on a CB). In an Ace set like you were talking about, Rodriguez would struggle, but if you were to run an Ace Strong or even lineup in the straight ace and motion it to an I, Strong, or Weak formation, you can begin to confuse defenses a bit more. Rodriguez seems to be athletic enough to handle the joker position and a team could get quite a bit of use out of him if he were to refine his route running techniques. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 The main point is forcing LBs onto both big TEs. Rodriguez can be covered by a CB or a S. Can the same be said about a guy like Tyler Eifert who is 6'6" with solid leaping ability? Most teams nickles tend to be "undersized", lets use the Packers for example. Casey Hayword is 5'11", would he be able to cover a guy who is 7 inches taller than him? That to me would create a big mismatch over using the 6'1" Evan Rodriguez. If Trestman runs the same kind of offense he had in San Fran years ago I wouldn't be too angry to see Evan used as the FB. I know a lot of people frown upon this because they hate to see their 4th round pick relegated to the FB position, but if you look at what the FBs did in SF while Trestman was there I don't think it would be such a bad thing. In the 2 years Marc was there the FBs caught 112 passes for 802 yards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogua Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Apr 18, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) The main point is forcing LBs onto both big TEs. Rodriguez can be covered by a CB or a S. Can the same be said about a guy like Tyler Eifert who is 6'6" with solid leaping ability? Most teams nickles tend to be "undersized", lets use the Packers for example. Casey Hayword is 5'11", would he be able to cover a guy who is 7 inches taller than him? That to me would create a big mismatch over using the 6'1" Evan Rodriguez. If Trestman runs the same kind of offense he had in San Fran years ago I wouldn't be too angry to see Evan used as the FB. I know a lot of people frown upon this because they hate to see their 4th round pick relegated to the FB position, but if you look at what the FBs did in SF while Trestman was there I don't think it would be such a bad thing. In the 2 years Marc was there the FBs caught 112 passes for 802 yards. So this is a jumbo set we're talking about here? 2 TE, FB, HB, 1 WR? How often do you actually think we would call plays out of that formation. Why bench a big WR like Alshon for another TE? I mean, sure, theoretically it gives us more flexibility, but I just don't see us utilizing it all that much. I feel like the pick could be better used elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 QUOTE (Boogua @ Apr 18, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) So this is a jumbo set we're talking about here? 2 TE, FB, HB, 1 WR? How often do you actually think we would call plays out of that formation. Why bench a big WR like Alshon for another TE? I mean, sure, theoretically it gives us more flexibility, but I just don't see us utilizing it all that much. I feel like the pick could be better used elsewhere. No this would be the before mentioned Ace formation. Forte out of the backfield, Marshall and Jeffery lined up on the outside, and M. Bennett and let's just say Tyler Eifert lined up in the slot on both sides. No FB in this formation, I just brought up Rodriguez as the FB for different formations. Work him as a run blocker and periodically throw to him out of the same formation to keep defenses guessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogua Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Apr 18, 2013 -> 02:32 PM) No this would be the before mentioned Ace formation. Forte out of the backfield, Marshall and Jeffery lined up on the outside, and M. Bennett and let's just say Tyler Eifert lined up in the slot on both sides. No FB in this formation, I just brought up Rodriguez as the FB for different formations. Work him as a run blocker and periodically throw to him out of the same formation to keep defenses guessing. Then we would be missing out on a lot of Rodriguez's versatility. When the two TEs are out there he would be on the bench (more often than not). I feel like he was drafted to be much more than just a blocking FB with the occasional reception. How many FBs are even drafted? Why not take a guy that can play every snap at an actual position of need like OL or LB? Also, Lovie seems to dislike playing rookies for the most part. Me and my friends used to always joke about players taking a "redshirt" their rookie season. We don't really know what Evan is capable of yet. Edited April 18, 2013 by Boogua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I have to think Trestman's offense would be great running two TE sets, especially when the two TEs are WR-type talents catching the football. If they think Eifert is an All-Pro type of player, I can't blame them for taking him at 20. We're in a position where there is no position that HAS to be drafted for us to have a starter, so if the ND TE is by far the BPA, then take him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Apr 18, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) The main point is forcing LBs onto both big TEs. Rodriguez can be covered by a CB or a S. Can the same be said about a guy like Tyler Eifert who is 6'6" with solid leaping ability? Most teams nickles tend to be "undersized", lets use the Packers for example. Casey Hayword is 5'11", would he be able to cover a guy who is 7 inches taller than him? That to me would create a big mismatch over using the 6'1" Evan Rodriguez. If Trestman runs the same kind of offense he had in San Fran years ago I wouldn't be too angry to see Evan used as the FB. I know a lot of people frown upon this because they hate to see their 4th round pick relegated to the FB position, but if you look at what the FBs did in SF while Trestman was there I don't think it would be such a bad thing. In the 2 years Marc was there the FBs caught 112 passes for 802 yards. Routes are primarily about getting open. Hayward can absolutely cover someone that's 7 inches taller than him if he can follow the route the receiver is running. The most important time when height makes a difference is in jumpballs, and how often do you really see those? Otherwise, size is nice because there's generally a larger margin for error when throwing passes, but if a guy's open, he's open, and if he's covered, don't throw him the damn ball. The Bears just got rid of one of the tallest tight ends in the league because he was one of the worst players in the NFL this past season. Personally, I think the Bears drafting a tight end in the first would be a waste of a pick, especially with only 5 selections in the entire draft. If I'm the Bears, I'm looking linebacker and OLine with my first two picks. You can go BPA from there, but a CB is probably necessary in that next group of picks too because the Bears have all kinds of CBs that are free agents at the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 09:53 AM) I think the Falcons are pretty happy with Julio Jones, too. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan99 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) I still can't believe how much the change to the 3 day format ruined the draft for me. Just no where near the excitement for the draft that I used to have. Edited April 22, 2013 by whitesoxfan99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 22, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) I still can't believe how much the change to the 3 day format ruined the draft for me. Just no where near the excitement for the draft that I used to have. Agreed its terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Still too much time between pics. Imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.