Jump to content

Tired of ineptness of this team from the top down


valkrei

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, TedLavie said:

Yeah I can see a Peters trade happening but why would you trade the best TE in the NFL and a great young WR in his rookie deal. It just makes no sense

These 2 guys won't  bring more high DP's than they can now. The team is in a shambles. I want to return to respectability now. I want to give PMII some protection now. Without immediate changes, the Chiefs will be irrelevant for years. I don't think Clark Hunt will fire Reid. But Reid just might fire Sutton.

Trading Peters, Kelce, Hill could net the Chiefs THREE no.1 DP's (we have none), 1 no.2 (we'd have 2) and 1 no.3 (we'd have 2). That's 7 picks in the first 3 rounds. (we only have 2 now).

Release the driftwood currently on the roster and we'd have capital to pay our picks. I'm sure we can find great replacements for Peters, Kelce and Hill.

Just think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an absolutely terrible idea, Mayan. This year our offensive talent is what has kept the team somewhat afloat. Kelce and Hill are amazing weapons to be giving a young gunslinger like Mahomes when he takes over. There is virtually zero chance that you get back more in the draft than you're losing by pushing out players like those. It's a horrible, horrible idea. Dropping 3 stars is a quick way to decimate the talent level of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

That's an absolutely terrible idea, Mayan. This year our offensive talent is what has kept the team somewhat afloat. Kelce and Hill are amazing weapons to be giving a young gunslinger like Mahomes when he takes over. There is virtually zero chance that you get back more in the draft than you're losing by pushing out players like those. It's a horrible, horrible idea. Dropping 3 stars is a quick way to decimate the talent level of the team.

We get a no.1 DP for Peters is terrible? Uh, no. You prove my point. Someone will think he's a steal for a no.1 pick. Peters is a headcase and can't/won't tackle. Please give me that pick back. Peters is not a star anymore. He's proven to be beatable even when he plays 10 yds. off his receiver.

Kelce and Hill are great, but we need players who can play football on both sides of the LOS. Receiving 4 DP's can net 2 no.1's to replace Kelce and Hill and we'd still have a no.2 and a no.3 to use. We have many holes on our roster to fill. I'm sure PMII would love to see us draft another OT, OG to protect him. I'm sure K.Hunt would love another couple of blockers to free him up.

Just asking everyone to think outside the box. Don't be too quick to dismiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mayanfootball said:

We get a no.1 DP for Peters is terrible? Uh, no. You prove my point. Someone will think he's a steal for a no.1 pick. Peters is a headcase and can't/won't tackle. Please give me that pick back.

Kelce and Hill are great, but we need players who can play football on both sides of the LOS. Receiving 4 DP's can net 2 no.1's to replace Kelce and Hill and we'd still have a no.2 and a no.3 to use. We have many holes on our roster to fill. I'm sure PMII would love to see us draft another OT, OG to protect him. I'm sure K.Hunt would love another couple of blockers to free him up.

But you're missing two incredibly obvious problems. You get draft picks that MIGHT fill holes, in exchange for trading away great players, a move that will DEFINITELY create holes. You're swapping a sure thing for a maybe and the only net gain is another maybe. The odds of drafting another Travis Kelce are ridiculously slim. He's the best TE (or close to it) for a reason. If it was just a matter of using a first round pick to get a guy like him, every team would have a Kelce. And god forbid you draft a bust (and odds say you'd draft at least 1, if not more, with those first round picks) because then you really set the roster back. You only trade a player for draft picks if you can't afford to pay them, they're demanding to get out, or you already have their replacement on the roster. We already need to improve our depth at CB, WR, and TE, and you're talking about trading away the actual good players we have at those positions.

Question for you. Back in 2002 we had a similar roster situation and team result. 8-8 season, underperformed the expected W/L. Had some big wins, lost some shootouts because the defense couldn't stop anybody, and the few games the D stepped up the offense inexplicably fell apart. But the overall situation was a top scoring offense (a little better than ours) and a bottom end scoring defense (a bit worse than ours.) But the offense was immensely talented and the defense was riddled with holes. Would you have suggested trading Tony Gonzalez or Brian Waters at that time? Because that's the level of move you're suggesting here. Trading young all-pros that should be vital pieces to the roster for the next 5 to 10 years, because another part of the roster has problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one for you, Mayan. You say you'd gladly take the draft pick back that was spent on Marcus Peters. Have you glanced at who was taken after Peters in that draft? 5 guys taken after Peters in that draft have made a pro-bowl. None of them were in the next 14 picks. One of them was D.J. Alexander, who made it in special teams, and I think we all remember how you felt about him. There are maybe two players in that entire draft that were taken after Peters that were better than him. Those are the kind of odds you're looking at in terms of getting a player of his caliber with that pick. You'd have to have been borderline psychic to take Landon Collins or David Johnson instead. So odds are, you swap Peters for another pick at that level, you're getting someone like Cam Erving or Breshard Perriman or Malcom Brown. It's not likely that you're getting a CB of Peters caliber back, AND then hitting on whatever other pick you get in exchange for him. Peters has had a rough year. You don't just quit on a player that talented who has played as well as he has before because of a 6 or 7 game stretch of inconsistent effort and some struggles throughout one season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

You get draft picks that MIGHT fill holes, in exchange for trading away great players, a move that will DEFINITELY create holes. You're swapping a sure thing for a maybe and the only net gain is another maybe. The odds of drafting another Travis Kelce are ridiculously slim.

-Chiefs get extra, high DP's which we desperately need.

-There won't be holes, that is false. Use the new DP's to replace Kelce, Hill. Yes, they're a "sure thing", but that's why we receive extra picks.
-Chiefs don't need another Kelce. An Evan Engram or Njoku is great. Another JuJu Smith Shuster or similar would be great. Perfection isn't required. Then we have extra picks to improve CB and other.

Quote

 

you're talking about trading away the actual good players we have at those positions.

 

Yep. To get something, you have to give up something.

Quote

 

Would you have suggested trading Tony Gonzalez or Brian Waters at that time?

 

Chiefs offense ver.2017 isn't as great as you assume. Our Oline sucks. And Waters wouldn't bring more than 1DP. Waters was good for our system, not others.

Quote

 

  Trading young all-pros that should be vital pieces to the roster for the next 5 to 10 years, because another part of the roster has problems.

 

You assume way too much. Injuries happen all the time. Multiple injuries. Career ending injuries and concussions. The average NFL player doesn't last more than 4 seasons.

They should be vital pieces to other teams too. That's why we'd receive big payments for them. Except for Peters whose greatness is a mirage IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Another one for you, Mayan. You say you'd gladly take the draft pick back that was spent on Marcus Peters. Have you glanced at who was taken after Peters in that draft? 5 guys taken after Peters in that draft have made a pro-bowl. None of them were in the next 14 picks. One of them was D.J. Alexander, who made it in special teams, and I think we all remember how you felt about him. There are maybe two players in that entire draft that were taken after Peters that were better than him. Those are the kind of odds you're looking at in terms of getting a player of his caliber with that pick. You'd have to have been borderline psychic to take Landon Collins or David Johnson instead. So odds are, you swap Peters for another pick at that level, you're getting someone like Cam Erving or Breshard Perriman or Malcom Brown. It's not likely that you're getting a CB of Peters caliber back, AND then hitting on whatever other pick you get in exchange for him. Peters has had a rough year. You don't just quit on a player that talented who has played as well as he has before because of a 6 or 7 game stretch of inconsistent effort and some struggles throughout one season.

-I'd love to have that pick back. Look at last year's draft. I'd take almost anyone in the first 3 rounds over Peters. Peters is an emotional time bomb and a sloppy (at best) tackler. QB's can burn him too. Sutton's idea of making our CB's play 8-10yds. off their receiver hasn't helped but I think losing  Berry was devastating to Peters game and his learning curve. Berry may never play again. He's an injury red flag. Yes I'd take a good CB over the "great" Peters.

-Our defense doesn't have to be elite, just good, at least better than it is. I'm confident we can find GOOD players at TE, WR. Replace Fisher, Fulton with GOOD players to protect PMII and open holes for K.Hunt and our offense should still win us games.

-LOL Alexander was terrible unless he was on special teams. We got a better player in return for trading him. KPL has seen more, better action than Alexander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kingseanjohn said:

I've learned that sometimes you just need to let things go and agree to disagree. It's clear you aren't seeing the flaws in your plan.

I know this much - if the Chiefs don't do something drastic with the defense before next season, this team will be irrelevant. It won't matter how many  points the offense scores. KC has scored 19pts/gm while giving up 23pts/gm over the last 7gms.. K.Hunt has only run for 60yd/gm in that time. Here's an ESPN screen shot to show how dreadful the defense (and team as a whole) has become this season:

 
  FIRST DOWNS THIRD DOWNS FOURTH DOWNS PENALTIES
TEAM TOTAL RUSH PASS PEN MADE ATT PCT MADE ATT PCT TOTAL YDS
Chiefs 233 62 153 18 55 145 37.9 1 7 14.3 95 824
Opponents 280 90 159 31 69 163 42.3 6 10 60.0 76 659
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mayanfootball said:

-I'd love to have that pick back. Look at last year's draft. I'd take almost anyone in the first 3 rounds over Peters. Peters is an emotional time bomb and a sloppy (at best) tackler. QB's can burn him too. Sutton's idea of making our CB's play 8-10yds. off their receiver hasn't helped but I think losing  Berry was devastating to Peters game and his learning curve. Berry may never play again. He's an injury red flag. Yes I'd take a good CB over the "great" Peters.

-Our defense doesn't have to be elite, just good, at least better than it is. I'm confident we can find GOOD players at TE, WR. Replace Fisher, Fulton with GOOD players to protect PMII and open holes for K.Hunt and our offense should still win us games.

-LOL Alexander was terrible unless he was on special teams. We got a better player in return for trading him. KPL has seen more, better action than Alexander.

The bold is just absolute non-sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mayanfootball said:

-Chiefs get extra, high DP's which we desperately need.

-There won't be holes, that is false. Use the new DP's to replace Kelce, Hill. Yes, they're a "sure thing", but that's why we receive extra picks.
-Chiefs don't need another Kelce. An Evan Engram or Njoku is great. Another JuJu Smith Shuster or similar would be great. Perfection isn't required. Then we have extra picks to improve CB and other.

Yep. To get something, you have to give up something.

Chiefs offense ver.2017 isn't as great as you assume. Our Oline sucks. And Waters wouldn't bring more than 1DP. Waters was good for our system, not others.

You assume way too much. Injuries happen all the time. Multiple injuries. Career ending injuries and concussions. The average NFL player doesn't last more than 4 seasons.

They should be vital pieces to other teams too. That's why we'd receive big payments for them. Except for Peters whose greatness is a mirage IMO.

They get extra high draft picks to spend on the players you're trading for them. You've already acknowledge your plan is to trade guys like Kelce and Hill in order to then use one of the draft picks acquired to replace them. That's a backwards move. Even if you hit, get a guy like Engram or Smith-Shuster (which is FAR from a guarantee), you're then downgrading from Kelce to Engram and Hill to JuJu in exchange for two mid round picks. That's completely irrational. You're downgrading from stars to just (maybe) good players for a chance to acquire more (maybe) good players. Like, do you not understand how much of a crap shoot the draft is? Instead of those two we're far more likely to get the rookie contributions of guys like Adam Shaheen and Curtis Samuel. You keep talking as though it's simple, take a slight downgrade at TE and WR by trading Kelce and Hill, and get an upgrade at other positions with mid-round picks. It does not work that way. At all. If the draft was that much of a sure thing we wouldn't have holes in the first place. If mid-round picks were all that were needed to improve the OL and CB and WR, those positions would already be solidified by Keivarae Russell and Jehu Chesson and Demarcus Robinson and Phillip Gaines. We've spent mid-round picks in just about every draft of the past few years on the positions that you're saying an extra mid-round pick or two is going to fix. They haven't panned out. Why would the ones you want to acquire just automatically pan out instead?

The average NFL player doesn't last more than 4 seasons because a lot of them suck and flame out. Try to find numbers for how many seasons the average first team all-pro lasts (both Kelce and Hill were.) I guarantee it'd be a heck of a lot longer. You don't trade because a player might get injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

They get extra high draft picks to spend on the players you're trading for them.

This is unintelligible to me. Who is "they" and "them".

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

You've already acknowledge your plan is to trade guys like Kelce and Hill in order to then use one of the draft picks acquired to replace them. That's a backwards move.

Yes. We should net 2 no.1's, a no.2 and a no.3. Hmmmm. We give up 2 fine players and receive 4. I like it. We can replace another lousy players on our team.

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

you're then downgrading from Kelce to Engram and Hill to JuJu in exchange for two mid round picks. That's completely irrational.

How do you figure  2nd. and 3rd. rd. picks are "mid round"?? That's irrational. That's how you build a team, with strong, early round picks. We just don't have enough after trading for PMII. Instead of just a 2nd. and a 3rd., we would have 7 picks for Peters, Kelce, Hill: 3 1st., 2 2nd., 2 3rd.. With due diligence I believe the Chiefs could vastly improve this current roster.

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Like, do you not understand how much of a crap shoot the draft is?

"oh yee of little faith". The crap shoot is in trying to draft a winning team with post 3rd.rd. picks. You seem to crave lousy DP's. I don't.

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Keivarae Russell and Jehu Chesson and Demarcus Robinson and Phillip Gaines.

None of those players are 1st. or 2nd. round picks: Chesson/4th, Robinson/4th, Gaines and Russell were 3rd. rd. I'd add that IMO, the Chiefs failed to do their due diligence on Russell.
You seem to fail to realize that as you climb higher to the front of the draft, a team improves it's odds of drafting good/great, competent players. It's not as much of a crapshoot if management is doing their jobs. The cream of the crop rises to the top.

Quote

 

You don't trade because a player might get injured.

 

Not my words. Your words. You stated that Kelce and Hill will play 5-10 years. You don't know this, that's high conjecture. I simply reminded you that counting on a player for 10 years let alone 5 years is not the norm. This info (3.5yr. NFL longevity) is supported by NFLPA stats. If you can find career info on a smaller pool of players (1st. year all-pro's) please share it with us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mayanfootball said:

Yes. We should net 2 no.1's, a no.2 and a no.3. Hmmmm. We give up 2 fine players and receive 4. I like it. We can replace another lousy players on our team.

If you really believe this is how it works, there's no discussion to be had here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...