Originally Posted by staylor26:
I’m so sick of this high floor bullshit about this year’s class.
Trent McDuffie isn’t just a high floor guy. He has a high floor and a high ceiling.
George Karlaftis isn’t just a high floor guy. He has a fairly high ceiling himself (Trey Hendrickson).
Skyy Moore has a high floor and a relatively high ceiling.
Bryan Cook is a high floor player with a limited ceiling.
Leo Chenal has a high floor and a high ceiling.
Most of these guys are just 21 years old and are already really fucking good football players. They are in no way tapped out at 21 years old. It’s just nonsensical to say otherwise.
Again - everything is relative.
I think McDuffie is a nice example and again fall back on the hockey scouting scale I like - a number (1-10) for the 'peak' and a letter grade for the odds of hitting it.
So I look at someone like Derek Stingley Jr. I think he has the potential to be a true shutdown boundary corner who can dominate at all levels against all manner of WR. He's not quiet Deion in terms of his ceiling, but he's the highest ceiling CB I've seen in a while. But he has obvious injury risks and some motiviation issues.
So I'd say he's probably a 9.5(D) - ungodly high ceiling but not the greatest odds of reaching it.
Meanwhile McDuffie simply doesn't have the frame or physicality to be that kind of shut-down boundary guy, IMO. He can do a shitload of things well and be an outstanding CB, but I don't see him ever being someone who can dominate larger WRs out on an island. As such, I think he has a lower ceiling. That said, I think his bust potential is damn near zero.
So if I'm grading McDuffie, I'm calling him an 8.0 (B).
Now that's not to say he can't be extremely valuable. It's not to say he won't be more valuable than Stingley. But when you compare him to Stingley, his value comes more in his floor than his ceiling. Stingley's comes in his ceiling rather than his floor.
Karlaftis (8.0B, IMO) vs. Ojabo (8.5C) is a similar sort of analysis. Moore (7.5B) vs. Pickens (9.0D) is an obvious one. It's not any sort of pejorative to say those guys, relative to other prospects the Chiefs passed on, get more of their value from their floor than their ceiling. And if so I don't think it's unfair to call them 'high floor' picks.
It's not an indictment on the respective prospects. It's not to say that the higher ceiling guys are more valuable or even that they're more likely to be decent players. It's not saying they're 'better' prospects or that they'll have better careers.
It's just to say that the Chiefs damn sure seemed to put a lot of focus on the letter rather than the number here. I think that's a pretty damn fair takeaway from this draft. [Reply]
DJ, you have always been one of my favorites on here and I’m not sure I’ve caught reasoning as to why Skyy Moore isn’t way up higher on your list.
Is it just based on his size?
Because besides size, I don’t see any other concerns for the kid and a much higher upside than a 7.5
He’s not 6’2 220, and that prevents him from being graded in the 8.7+ category…but he does EVERYTHING ELSE at a very high level.
He’s a crisp-corner route runner that cuts “on a dime”…this ability jumps off the screen. His mid route stutter step is devastating and will transition to the NFL. Especially in the coverage opposing defenses are going to use against us.
He beats press with similar twitchy acceleration to immediate full speed explosion off the snap. This skill will also transition to the NFL game. He’s just outstanding at this element of his game.
He simply doesn’t drop passes. You throw it to him and he catches it. Every time. Extremely dependable and trustworthy. Huge hands and goes and gets the ball. He doesn’t wait for it to get to his body. That absolutely translates.
Once he has the ball, he’s a running back in the way he carry’s it. His “forced miss tackles” stat was elite. He fights through contact to break tackles, gain extra yards and score.
I just don’t see the weaknesses some of you do.
Like Rich Eisen said in the Veach interview, when he watched Skyy Moire at the combine he told Daniel Jeremiah that Skyy Moore is perfect for the Chiefs. I said the same thing. He’s strong in the skills that translate to our offense. [Reply]
There are entire threads dedicated to arguing about Skyy Moore and I don't wish to see this devolve into another one. I've said my piece.
Bottom line is I don't see the size or high-end athleticism of a true #1 wideout. Does that mean he won't be successful here? No, not at all. But I see him as a Y. A good one, yes. But a Y who's success will be largely scheme dependent.
So to try to keep with the theme of the thread here, again I ask - he was the 13th WR taken. I've given him a B likelihood of reaching his upside. Should I give him an 8.5(B)? Because there are maybe 3 guys in this draft I'd be comfortable giving that grade to. I don't see a legitimate 9+ in this draft outside of maybe Williams and even Williams I'd give a 9(C) to.
I mean lord, just how high a grade do you want me giving a guy who wasn't among the first dozen receivers taken in his class? And just how highly do you think Veach TRULY valued the guy if he was able to risk losing him for a mere 5th round pick? Because he knew at least 2 teams somewhere between 50 and 54 were VERY likely to be taking WRs. Yet Veach was willing to risk moving back. If this is an 8.5(B) kind of player, why would Veach take that risk for a 3rd day pick?
Short and simple answer is he wouldn't. Because that's not how Veach saw Moore either. I'd venture a guess that Veach saw Moore in a very VERY similar light to how I see him. If that weren't the case, he'd have never gambled like he did, especially not for a mere 5th round pick (one that was put to very good use, but you wouldn't haven expected Kinnard to be available where he was when the pick was made).
If the guy has Wes Welker's career thats a win 100 times out of 100, no? And would anyone call Welker a legit #1 wideout? Or was he a slot WR put in an ideal position to succeed?
Everyone wants to take anything but fawning praise as an insult. It isn't. It's a simple 'in a vacuum' sort of analysis devoid of team-specific context. It doesn't mean he can't play well here, but it is saying - again - that the floor he brought (strong hands, good short area burst) was more valuable to this team than the ceiling that Perkins would've brought (size, long-speed, higher level explosion/body control).
He, like a few others in this draft, was a pick more fueled by floor than ceiling. That's not an indictment, it's just a statement. [Reply]
I just think 7.5 is awfully low. I’d give him a solid 8 and maybe 8.2, but I get it.
Veach taught class in this draft by identifying the talent pockets and predictions of when those pockets would evaporate very accurately. He moved back because I’m sure he was fine taking Skyy, Pickens or Pierce and he mentioned after the draft that he wanted a pick in the 5th or 6th because they didn’t have 1. It was advantageous for Skyy to fall to us, but he moved back with a “small move” because he didn’t feel comfortable moving any further.
Skyy has also not had the elite coaching he will get in KC and has only played WR for 3 years. I think his ceiling is being a 3 level WR.
Originally Posted by BossChief:
Welker is exactly who I think he is.
I just think 7.5 is awfully low. I’d give him a solid 8 and maybe 8.2, but I get it.
Veach taught class in this draft by identifying the talent pockets and predictions of when those pockets would evaporate very accurately. He moved back because I’m sure he was fine taking Skyy, Pickens or Pierce and he mentioned after the draft that he wanted a pick in the 5th or 6th because they didn’t have 1. It was advantageous for Skyy to fall to us, but he moved back with a “small move” because he didn’t feel comfortable moving any further.
Skyy has also not had the elite coaching he will get in KC and has only played WR for 3 years. I think his ceiling is being a 3 level WR.
I guess we will all see how it plays out.
And again, I think if Veach saw him as Wes Welker, he isn't "fine taking Skyy, Pickens or Pierce..."
His actions speak to how he viewed that pocket in the draft. Wes Welker had 900 receptions for 10,000 yards. I'm pretty sure he didn't look at a pile of 3 WRs available at that spot and think all 3 were 10K yard receivers. I think there's a pretty good chance he looked at this entire DRAFT and didn't see one.
Again - just seems like treated Moore the same way I would've. Another 'nice' prospect. I had him as a 3rd round caliber prospect in an ordinary draft and in a draft where WRs didn't skyrocket up the draft board because the market went haywire, that's where the 13th WR taken is going to go. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And again, I think if Veach saw him as Wes Welker, he isn't "fine taking Skyy, Pickens or Pierce..."
His actions speak to how he viewed that pocket in the draft. Wes Welker had 900 receptions for 10,000 yards. I'm pretty sure he didn't look at a pile of 3 WRs available at that spot and think all 3 were 10K yard receivers. I think there's a pretty good chance he looked at this entire DRAFT and didn't see one.
Again - just seems like treated Moore the same way I would've. Another 'nice' prospect. I had him as a 3rd round caliber prospect in an ordinary draft and in a draft where WRs didn't skyrocket up the draft board because the market went haywire, that's where the 13th WR taken is going to go.
I really appreciate your perspective; but you're really coming off as a curmudgeon [Reply]
Originally Posted by JPH83:
That's fine if you think sacks are the only measure of competence. Anybody who saw our defence last year before and after Ingram, and also watched him play, would have to be blind to not see the impact.
Seth Keysor had an article on Melvin Ingram, focusing on his high motor and all of the chaos that he brings to the defense. [Reply]
Some of you are funny. First you want him resigned. Then when he doesn't resign - he sucks, Frank Clark is better, we don't need him, etc...
I don't think it's a huge loss but the D was clearly better when he was on the field. I think Chiefs best bet - don't sign a vet just go out there with what we got and see how things go for now.
This is a rebuild/stay competitive year to me. I don't think Chiefs are banking on winning the SB this season. I think they are building for future. I could be wrong but that's how I see it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Willie Lanier:
I really appreciate your perspective; but you're really coming off as a curmudgeon
Okay. But again I ask, in the most measured way possible - what would you have expected?
As those who engage in pre-season/draft discussion will confirm, there were 2 areas that I probably spoke to most extensively coming into this draft:
1) My desperate desire to see a massive infusion of youth and talent to this defensive line. I think it's an absolutely paramount need and it's something we simply did not do.
Spoiler!
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
All of it. Do ALL of it.
3 new veteran DEs that can contribute right away. A 1st round DL and a 3rd round DL that can backfill (hell, make it a 2nd round DL).
Fix this MFing line. 1 sack against a dude that got sacked 18 times in his 3 other post-season games is just the most embarrassing damn thing I've ever seen.
And man, when you have a 3-score lead against a team you KNOW has to throw the ball, that defense should be able to grab them by the throat and shake them till they die. Yeah, the offense killed us, but it sure would've been nice had the defense done more than bleed out slowly and instead really put their foot on Cincy's throat. It's what good defenses do and what we should've expected from ours with the resources we've put into that DL.
Originally Posted by :
You're absolutely right - Buffalo is the blueprint to target. Our from a different angle, our OL is the blueprint. Get a splash FA if possible, a reliable young veteran, another fallback older veteran with a little gas left in the tank and throw draft capital at a long-term solution.
Just friggen fix it already.
Originally Posted by :
And with Nnadi/Jones back this year, you can probably pass on the early DT and maybe someone like Hall (or even Jones) slides to the 3rd. Some of those space-eater types really start falling down draft boards when the bullets start flying.
Williams, Thomas, Williams would be an easy W for me. Then if Jones is there at 62, great. If not I would consider Hall there (he does fit what we do pretty well). Obviously I'd be on board with Dulcich in the third.
Then look at CB w/ the 4th as I think there are some nice value plays likely to be there. McCollum, Taylor-Britt, Armour-Davis, Alontae Taylor, Mario Goodrich; one of those guys will fall from that group. Marcus Jones has size issues that could push him but he'd be a nice slot replacement if you're committed to Fenton out wide. And double dip at CB or shift to S w/ the other 4th.
Originally Posted by :
Maybe I’m just not in a proper headspace right now but there’s damn near no limit to the attention I’d give the defensive line. It’s absolutely killing us. And if those early season struggles on defense contributed to plays from Mahomes that shook his confidence, then those are issues we never truly cleared.
Fix the DL, dammit.
I mean I don't see it as being a debbie downer when I spent the offseason pleading for an infusion of young talent on the DL and am annoyed that we evidently saw third safety as a more critical issue.
2) That I didn't see WR as the immediate, pressing need that many others did and of all the WRs I spoke to, I spoke most extensively to Skyy Moore and my belief that he was about the 12/13th best WR prospect in this draft.
Pretty sure this thread encapsulates my stance fairly well.
And the only other thing I'm grousing about w/r/t the draft is the Cook pick. And again, pre-draft I spoke fairly directly to my belief that S simply wasn't a pressing or immediate need and that what needs we did have there could be dealt with fairly easily on the 3rd day.
Spoiler!
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And again - we used Dan Sorensen in that role.
EFFECTIVELY, I will add, until last season.
It's a tweener position. Spags uses guys that aren't fast enough to be a dedicated FS, not big enough to be a LB, not agile enough to be a NCB. He finds an undervalued hybrid player (not unlike Deon Bush) and gets good results out of them.
You don't need a 1st round caliber talent there. And the Chiefs seem to agree as they haven't been nearly as aggressive with that position as many have predicted they would be since Spags got here.
To me we have a 'market inefficiency' at both S3 and at CB. We are able to get really good productivity out of those positions without expending substantial cap/draft capital on them. So why alter course there?
Especially when we HAVEN'T had nearly that kind of success on the DL. So we need to be hunting blue-chippers or at least safer bets there.
I think we get RAPIDLY diminishing marginal returns on our draft capital when it comes to S3. We can put a guy who fell through the cracks that we picked up in the 4th round or even as a UDFA there and get 80% of the productivity we'll get from a 1st rounder. Someone like Hill is just enormous overkill, IMO.
Originally Posted by :
I just don't think 'BPA' is a vacuum analysis. I think raw talent is the most critical component, yes. But scheme fit and yes - need - is also a part of it.
And when I think we can get a guy on the 3rd day or cheap on the FA market to play the S3 role for us, I simply cannot see any scenario where, once that's taken into account, Hill is the 'BPA' for the purposes of this exercise.
Might he have the most raw talent of the available players? Maybe. There's a non-zero chance there. But you DO have to consider what it is your organization does well and what it is your organization needs when determining who the 'best' player for your organization is.
Now time will tell if I'm right or wrong, but nothing I've said/done since betrays any of the thoughts I had pre-draft. Everything I'm saying now, I said BEFORE these picks were made.
Man - having an opinion and believing in it is real curmudgeonly shit. Guess I should just take the Sapho approach to the off-season, say nothing, wait until things happen and then jump on my desk and proclaim every decision made to be the greatest of all possible decisions that could've been made. [Reply]
I'm finding it HILARIOUS, that despite the fact that the Kansas City Chiefs had the most money dumped into DL last year (a staggering 25% of the cap) and got **** all in return, that the bitching and moaning about not going hard enough on DL continues.
Are we going to pretend that the highest paid dl unit in football didn't pull off a spectacular theft last season?
Veach has addressed the entire defensive unit across all three levels. The unit overall is going to be much better.
You want more dl?
Get rid of playoff invisible and thug life's hilariously overpaid asses and turn those two clowns into four players that are willing to play every down, but you don't just not address linebackers and secondary. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Draft picks are great, but we're likely again gonna be in the position where the high end dudes are out of reach.
Could trade up, but it's tough to get up that high.
What they really need is for Kaindoh or Danna or someone they already have to really take a step forward and become a good solid DE>
Agreed.
That's why you throw numbers at the problem.
Danna is what he is. He's not taking a step forward. He's just too limited.
As for Kaindoh - man, name a guy who's looked as bad as he looked in limited run last season (with pretty dire need) and amounted to much of anything. I think at this point you're lucky if he becomes K-Pass.