To all you McFadden supporters

[AtlCB]

your talking about Marcus Spears and Jared Allen right?

if so, I think your wrong on both things...Spears could easily play LDE in a 4-3, its what he did very well at LSU...and I dont see how Allen would ever fit at OLB in a 3-4, he doesnt have that kind of aathletic ability...RB's and TE's would run circles around him on passing downs

David

Spears is not a pass rusher in the NFL; he is more of a run stuffer. The Chefs need somebody to come in and produce some of the sacks that they lost when they traded Allen.

Also, I think Allen is a little more athletic than you give him credit for.

 

[dbair1967]

Spears is not a pass rusher in the NFL; he is more of a run stuffer. The Chefs need somebody to come in and produce some of the sacks that they lost when they traded Allen.

Also, I think Allen is a little more athletic than you give him credit for.

They do have Tamba Hali....and Spears did get some good sack production at LSU

David

 

[AtlCB]

They do have Tamba Hali....and Spears did get some good sack production at LSU

David

Ekubust also got good sack production at UNC - it didn't translate in the NFL.

 

[ndanger]

It's Switzerland that has a history of neutrality, but it's nice to know you're Swedish.

Maybe he meant "sweetish". Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[ctrous25]

good post, you make mucho points

 

[Rampage]

they already have 13 draft picks. I doubt they want more especially 2 more in the late 1st round. it's either we trade with oakland or maybe new england.

 

[playmakers]

If you think about it, thats how we built our Superbowl teams with Minnesota's picks. KC has a chance here to be good for a very long time if they draft right. Im just saying it makes sense if both teams are willing.

About Swedish, whatever(jk), I just said that because of the fierce debate over Mcfadden in here. It should be interesting tomorrow.

 

[Sarge]

We are NOT trading up fpr McFadden - PERIOD.

 

[Rockytop6]

First, let me say, Im like Sweden when it comes to Mcfadden, Im open either way. Im neutral. With that being said I think theres only one trade partner that makes sense.

If a deal should go down the only team it would go through, imo, is the Chiefs. For starters, they have been trade partners before and think highley of each other.(Jones and Peterson) Secondly, other teams around the top 5 have nothing in common with the Cowboys. In common, I mean, have the pieces in place for both parties to be happy in a trade. So, why the Chiefs?

The Chiefs are rebuilding and just traded away their best defensive player. There in no shape to win a Superbowl next year. With this draft having a weak top 10 but a strong back 20, why would they want to pay a player money thats really not much better than a player picked say 17th. I seen many mocks having them take Brandon Albert( I think thats his name) the Olineman from Virginia. Albert, is rated by many scouts between 15-20 best player. They might be able to grab him at 17 or 21 and save some space and add some picks.

Now, since the Chiefs are rebuilding what would be the most intelligent way to go? You can pick at 5,17 and 35? Or, at 17, 21, 28 and 35? If your the Chiefs I think you do this hands down. You can get a Cromartie at 17, Devin Thomas at 21 and Quetion Groves or Phillip Merling at 28. Those are some nice building blocks. Then at 35 in the second round you can add a Gosder Cherlieus, Dan Conner etc if they fall. Someone will fall in their laps in the begining of the second round, they always do. We got Gurode etc etc. Thats not bad for a rebuilding team and makes alot of sense imo for them. The final trade would probably look like 21-28 and Spears[because they just lost Allen, they need a reliable, veteran body) for the 5?


Whats you guys take on this.

Again the question is value. Will the picks we have bring the most value to the team or will McF bring the most value to the team?

My preference if all things are equal would be (1) McF, (2) Mendenhall, (3) Stewart. I would prefer McF over any back in the draft. Since we don't know who Jerry will pick with the picks it will take to get McF (whether he stays put or trades down for additional picks), it is difficult to know which will be the best value.

If we knew what JJ does with the picks in the other scenarios then we could make a good judgment on this.

If you had a gold coin worth $1,000 and asked if I would trade silver coins for it I would want to know the value of the silver. If the silver measured out $950 then I would do the deal, but if the asking price was $1,200 of silver then I wouldn't do it.

I hear guys on the board willing to pay any price for McF or for one of the WRs (RW, Chad, etc.) and I keep saying what is the price and what can we get with the picks if we keep them? The kicker is that it is difficult to determine because we don't know what will be available at the time.

However, if due diligence has been done, an educated guess can be made on what can be acquired and balance it against the value of what you are trading for.

I know I took several paragraphs to say nothing but the bottom line is who can really say which is better? What might look good today might turn sour tomorrow. I have my "druthers" like all of you but when the picks JJ makes fly in the face of what we thought should have been done doesn't mean that he made the wrong decision. We will know in the next year or so.

 

[CF74]

First, let me say, Im like Sweden when it comes to Mcfadden, Im open either way. Im neutral. With that being said I think theres only one trade partner that makes sense.

If a deal should go down the only team it would go through, imo, is the Chiefs. For starters, they have been trade partners before and think highley of each other.(Jones and Peterson) Secondly, other teams around the top 5 have nothing in common with the Cowboys. In common, I mean, have the pieces in place for both parties to be happy in a trade. So, why the Chiefs?

The Chiefs are rebuilding and just traded away their best defensive player. There in no shape to win a Superbowl next year. With this draft having a weak top 10 but a strong back 20, why would they want to pay a player money thats really not much better than a player picked say 17th. I seen many mocks having them take Brandon Albert( I think thats his name) the Olineman from Virginia. Albert, is rated by many scouts between 15-20 best player. They might be able to grab him at 17 or 21 and save some space and add some picks.

Now, since the Chiefs are rebuilding what would be the most intelligent way to go? You can pick at 5,17 and 35? Or, at 17, 21, 28 and 35? If your the Chiefs I think you do this hands down. You can get a Cromartie at 17, Devin Thomas at 21 and Quetion Groves or Phillip Merling at 28. Those are some nice building blocks. Then at 35 in the second round you can add a Gosder Cherlieus, Dan Conner etc if they fall. Someone will fall in their laps in the begining of the second round, they always do. We got Gurode etc etc. Thats not bad for a rebuilding team and makes alot of sense imo for them. The final trade would probably look like 21-28 and Spears[because they just lost Allen, they need a reliable, veteran body) for the 5?


Whats you guys take on this.

It makes for excellent speculation, maybe you should write a letter to Kansas City...encil: