Originally Posted by cripple creek:
read somewhere that a trade with the bears for #20 would make that possible:-)
That would require multiple dominoes to fall.
First, the Bengals would have to pass on Sewell allowing him to fall to the Dolphins. Then the Dolphins would have to pass, allowing him to fall to Carolina at #8, prompting LT hungry teams to trade up to #7. Sewell likely isn't getting past #8, which means the next domino would likely be Slater.
If Sewell drops all the way to Carolina, then the Cowboys would have to pass on Slater at #10. They need defense terribly but they also have a really expensive QB to protect and need help at tackle. If Slater gets past #10, then the Chargers sit at #13. They're almost certainly going to take a left tackle, so somebody is going to want to trade up to #12. If Slater should get past whoever sits at #12, then he will almost certainly go to the Chargers at #13.
That leaves Darrisaw. The Vikings at #14 have said they want to play Ezra Cleveland at LT but they've also reportedly called about Orlando Brown. One has to think that if all of the unlikeliness above plays out and Darrisaw falls into their lap, they'd think hard about taking him. If they don't, however, you have the Raiders at #17 who don't need a right tackle but do need a left tackle and probably wouldn't hesitate to take Darrisaw if he's there since he could play either position.
At #18, you have the Dolphins second spot in the first round and they might take a tackle there if they didn't earlier in the round. Washington at #19 needs a left tackle badly, almost as much as the Chargers, and Chicago at #20 also could use a tackle. Indy at #21 needs a tackle MORE than the Chargers - one could argue it's their only significant deficiency on what is otherwise a contending team.
The Jets at #23 could use another tackle and the Steelers at #24 definitely need one.
As you can see, the chances of us trading up to #20 and getting Darrisaw aren't very damn good. More than likely, you'd have to get to #12 to get Darrisaw unless Slater falls to the Chargers and then you're looking at trying to entice the Vikings to trade with you instead of taking him themselves.
Quite frankly, if you look at the board and the team needs, this is a draft where the Chiefs would be better served not to trade up at all.
With Indy and Pittsburgh sitting in front of them, they're going to be trading up for probably the 4th or 5th best tackle in this draft when they could stay at #31 and get the 5th or 6th, which isn't that much of a difference commensurate with the draft picks they'd have to give up.
The Chiefs would be best served by staying at #31, taking a playmaker in what is a really, really good class for CB's, DE's, and WR's and take a LT at the end of the 2nd round, where there is a cluster of developmental LT's that, even though they likely won't start day 1, project to be better pass blockers in an offense like the Chiefs than the guys likely to be available at #31. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
That would require multiple dominoes to fall.
First, the Bengals would have to pass on Sewell allowing him to fall to the Dolphins. Then the Dolphins would have to pass, allowing him to fall to Carolina at #8, prompting LT hungry teams to trade up to #7. Sewell likely isn't getting past #8, which means the next domino would likely be Slater.
If Sewell drops all the way to Carolina, then the Cowboys would have to pass on Slater at #10. They need defense terribly but they also have a really expensive QB to protect and need help at tackle. If Slater gets past #10, then the Chargers sit at #13. They're almost certainly going to take a left tackle, so somebody is going to want to trade up to #12. If Slater should get past whoever sits at #12, then he will almost certainly go to the Chargers at #13.
That leaves Darrisaw. The Vikings at #14 have said they want to play Ezra Cleveland at LT but they've also reportedly called about Orlando Brown. One has to think that if all of the unlikeliness above plays out and Darrisaw falls into their lap, they'd think hard about taking him. If they don't, however, you have the Raiders at #17 who don't need a right tackle but do need a left tackle and probably wouldn't hesitate to take Darrisaw if he's there since he could play either position.
At #18, you have the Dolphins second spot in the first round and they might take a tackle there if they didn't earlier in the round. Washington at #19 needs a left tackle badly, almost as much as the Chargers, and Chicago at #20 also could use a tackle. Indy at #21 needs a tackle MORE than the Chargers - one could argue it's their only significant deficiency on what is otherwise a contending team.
The Jets at #23 could use another tackle and the Steelers at #24 definitely need one.
As you can see, the chances of us trading up to #20 and getting Darrisaw aren't very damn good. More than likely, you'd have to get to #12 to get Darrisaw unless Slater falls to the Chargers and then you're looking at trying to entice the Vikings to trade with you instead of taking him themselves.
Quite frankly, if you look at the board and the team needs, this is a draft where the Chiefs would be better served not to trade up at all.
With Indy and Pittsburgh sitting in front of them, they're going to be trading up for probably the 4th or 5th best tackle in this draft when they could stay at #31 and get the 5th or 6th, which isn't that much of a difference commensurate with the draft picks they'd have to give up.
The Chiefs would be best served by staying at #31, taking a playmaker in what is a really, really good class for CB's, DE's, and WR's and take a LT at the end of the 2nd round, where there is a cluster of developmental LT's that, even though they likely won't start day 1, project to be better pass blockers in an offense like the Chiefs than the guys likely to be available at #31.
Your whole post list the teams that need Tackles. What if many of them use that same strategy and look to fill a playmaker in round 1 and get their LT in round 2? There may not be a LT left at the end of the 2nd round.
I couldn't fault a pick at 31 from Little (my choice), Brown, Foresythe, Radunz, Carman, or whoever if they feel like that player is a long term solution at LT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coogs:
Your whole post list the teams that need Tackles. What if many of them use that same strategy and look to fill a playmaker in round 1 and get their LT in round 2? There may not be a LT left at the end of the 2nd round.
I couldn't fault a pick at 31 from Little (my choice), Brown, Foresythe, Radunz, Carman, or whoever if they feel like that player is a long term solution at LT.
Not all of those teams need LT's. About half of them either need a RT or a guy that could play left or right.
The ones that really need a LT because they have nothing are Carolina, the Chargers, Indy and WFT. [Reply]
