Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo
- - - - -

Tight end Gavin Escobar visiting Chiefs today


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 eraser

eraser

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,546 posts
  • LocationPaducah

Posted 01 April 2017 - 05:26 AM

but with so many TE's in the draft they could have waited....

I doubt it is guaranteed.



#22 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 05:42 AM

I have watched whiff way to many. He may get there, but right now he is not a good blocker at all.

They've asked him to block some elite edge rushers one on one.  I'm not saying Kelce is Tony Gonzalez.



#23 gochiefsgo

gochiefsgo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • LocationSaint Louis, Missouri

Posted 01 April 2017 - 12:20 PM

By filling every need the Chiefs "think" they have in free agency, I really hope they truly are going to draft BPA this time around. They could line up and play and compete right now with no glaring holes to fill and be competitive. A lot of other teams can't say that prior to the draft.

#24 DefensiveMan

DefensiveMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • LocationKansas City

Posted 02 April 2017 - 04:33 AM

I see the Chiefs drafting an OJ Howard or Njoku before they draft Zay Jones. Those two could be a steal in early second. Alex Smith, needs two solid pass catching TEs.



#25 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 06:17 AM

You don't spend a top pick on a back up Tight End. That's just fucking ludicrous.

#26 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 07:03 AM

You don't spend a top pick on a back up Tight End. That's just fucking ludicrous.

 

you do if you dont think your #1 will be around long



#27 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 07:56 AM

you do if you dont think your #1 will be around long

Are we intending for Kelce to get super aids or something?

He has a longterm contract and no reason to release him. It's absurd.

#28 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 02:35 PM

Are we intending for Kelce to get super aids or something?

He has a longterm contract and no reason to release him. It's absurd.

 

 

 I'm not the most Cap knowledgeable person but it appears to me that by this link 2019 is  the beginning of the time when cutting him for cap space reasons might be an option

 

http://www.spotrac.c...is-kelce-12344/



#29 DieHard

DieHard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 07:49 PM

Are we intending for Kelce to get super aids or something?

He has a longterm contract and no reason to release him. It's absurd.


I would suggest a 2 TE set might fit ideally with our offense. 3 sometimes. In this scenario you would be drafting a full time starter at a skill position. How is that absurd?

There is also that fact that Kelce is not the most stable guy. He threw a flag on and official and said public ally that another was not qualified to work at a Foot Locker. If you don't think he is on a short leash for suspension and ejections, I would struggle to understand that logic.

Also, TE is our leading receiving option. Should Kelce blow out a knee or some other season ending injury, who takes over? Shag? Bricks? Pablo? There is nothing besides Kelce.

I would argue we knee TE more than WR. That said, I am asking Santa for LB and an Olineman, but BPA every round regardless of need.
  • DefensiveMan likes this

#30 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 11:10 PM

I would suggest a 2 TE set might fit ideally with our offense. 3 sometimes. In this scenario you would be drafting a full time starter at a skill position. How is that absurd?
There is also that fact that Kelce is not the most stable guy. He threw a flag on and official and said public ally that another was not qualified to work at a Foot Locker. If you don't think he is on a short leash for suspension and ejections, I would struggle to understand that logic.
Also, TE is our leading receiving option. Should Kelce blow out a knee or some other season ending injury, who takes over? Shag? Bricks? Pablo? There is nothing besides Kelce.
I would argue we knee TE more than WR. That said, I am asking Santa for LB and an Olineman, but BPA every round regardless of need.

3? Not likely.

I don't see 2 being a base because Andy will look to spread it out, a lot. You're drafting in the first round for a surefire back up. That's stupid, no matter how hard you try to justify it.


I'm not the most Cap knowledgeable person but it appears to me that by this link 2019 is  the beginning of the time when cutting him for cap space reasons might be an option
 
http://www.spotrac.c...is-kelce-12344/

Are you implying that they should cut Kelce at his peak for cap space? Smh

#31 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 12:28 AM

3? Not likely.

I don't see 2 being a base because Andy will look to spread it out, a lot. You're drafting in the first round for a surefire back up. That's stupid, no matter how hard you try to justify it.


Are you implying that they should cut Kelce at his peak for cap space? Smh

 

 

 No & I don't imply.. I'm just saying that a good solid often team drafts for needs in 2-3 years.. its just an option that is open. Kelce could very well get more ate up with the dumbass than he already is..His personality  alone makes him  a "Not keep at all costs" type of player. I severe injury could hasten that decision.



#32 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,883 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 03 April 2017 - 12:31 AM

I would draft another TE, because why put all of your eggs in one basket. ;)



#33 Calichief

Calichief

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,749 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 12:40 AM

I'm not the most Cap knowledgeable person but it appears to me that by this link 2019 is the beginning of the time when cutting him for cap space reasons might be an option

http://www.spotrac.c...is-kelce-12344/


No way

#34 xen

xen

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,420 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 02:04 AM

Tight end is smart. If not the other reasons people have listed, how about the fact that the best stretch of Alex's chiefs tenure came when we ran heavy 2 and 3 tight end sets for about half a season or so.

Plus this is a deep tight end class and we have shit after kelce.
  • oldtimer likes this

#35 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 02:43 AM

No & I don't imply.. I'm just saying that a good solid often team drafts for needs in 2-3 years.. its just an option that is open. Kelce could very well get more ate up with the dumbass than he already is..His personality  alone makes him  a "Not keep at all costs" type of player. I severe injury could hasten that decision.


Teams don't spend a first round pick to have a future starting TE years later. Drafting a depth TE, in a deep TE class when you really don't have a quality starting ILB or QB is fucking nuts.

 

They are also going to be minus 2 pass-rushers (Hali and Ford if they decline his option year), 2 starting DL (Howard and Logan) and maybe Ron Parker.  They may not have a starting QB either.

 

This team has more pressing needs. 



#36 eraser

eraser

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,546 posts
  • LocationPaducah

Posted 03 April 2017 - 03:25 AM

Why not just cut all the good players. We could be Cleveland, but just think how many high picks the Chiefs would get..



#37 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 12:24 PM

Teams don't spend a first round pick to have a future starting TE years later. Drafting a depth TE, in a deep TE class when you really don't have a quality starting ILB or QB is fucking nuts.

 

They are also going to be minus 2 pass-rushers (Hali and Ford if they decline his option year), 2 starting DL (Howard and Logan) and maybe Ron Parker.  They may not have a starting QB either.

 

This team has more pressing needs. 

 

 all good arguments & I'm not soliciting that they do. I'm not a Draft Nerd. I gather my info from what is on this board and since I only have Antenna TV  I'm pretty ignorant until  I get the reviews from who they do pick. I agree they do need more pressing needs but thats just my opinion and it dont mean squat.



#38 DieHard

DieHard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 10:50 PM

3? Not likely.

I don't see 2 being a base because Andy will look to spread it out, a lot. You're drafting in the first round for a surefire back up. That's stupid, no matter how hard you try to justify it.

We already try 3 TE sets and more so 2 TE sets. I don't know why it is stupid. Don't tell NE it's stupid because they really tore it up with 2 TEs when they had 2 studs. Just an opinion, but 2 TE sets tend to make teams play the run and it's easier to get mismatches. We rarely uses a FB and I would take 2 stud TEs with 2 WRs over 3 average WRs every day of the week.

Not saying that TE is there in the first or second or third, just saying it really opens up your options.

#39 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 12:00 AM

We already try 3 TE sets and more so 2 TE sets. I don't know why it is stupid. Don't tell NE it's stupid because they really tore it up with 2 TEs when they had 2 studs. Just an opinion, but 2 TE sets tend to make teams play the run and it's easier to get mismatches. We rarely uses a FB and I would take 2 stud TEs with 2 WRs over 3 average WRs every day of the week.
Not saying that TE is there in the first or second or third, just saying it really opens up your options.

That's why they loaded up on scrappy white receivers and went back to spreading things out.

I'm not saying 2 TE sets are bad, I am saying Andy prefers to spread it out like McDaniels but doesn't because his QB struggles with progression.

You can't in a million years convince me, or anyone with a logical thought process, that drafting a TE with the top pick makes any form of sense for this squad. It's absolutely absurd.

Anyone who advocates it doesn't understand the strengths of this draft or what shape the Chiefs are in. Or how Dorsey drafts with the top pick.

 

Now with that said, I do think they will draft one.  It's just not going to be the first round.  Why in the hell would they feel pressed to go TE early in a very deep class?  Why would Dorsey buck his trend of drafting for replacing a current starter in the next year, to do that move?  Why would they go heavy emphasis on this mystical 2 TE set, for a QB they aren't committing themselves to beyond 2017?  It just doesn't mesh.



#40 DieHard

DieHard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 10:01 AM

That's why they loaded up on scrappy white receivers and went back to spreading.


I think Hernandez going to prison for murder is why they stopped. They were loaded with small white receivers when they were doing it. Outside of TE, 3 of the top 4 in receiving yards were Welker, Edelman and Woodhead.

How does releasing Welker and signing Amondola qualify as loading but on scrappy? Sounds like getting less scrappy to me.

See I disagreed with you without calling you stupid. You can do it too. I have faith in you.
  • oldtimer and West like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users