Since it is likely that one of those players will sign with us, I have to be prepared to adjust the needs once again. I have been debating what to do, and I am on the fence. So Addicts, I am going to toss it out for opinions. It’s not a vote, it’s forming an opinion and making your case. I am very open to a well-reasoned argument.

Let’s go through the needs as I have them, I’ll talk about my general thought process. Then, I would love to read in the comments what people think and more importantly, why.

As it stands now. I have two needs slated on the offensive line. I went thought this is some detail in a previous article. If you are curious, you can read the whole thing here. To summarize, the needs are for one lineman (an OT, OG or C) and a second need of a OG. Both needs have the highest code (P3) assigned to any Chief need.

Here is what I am thinking so far. Wiegmann does not remove the need for a young center. We could take a center as high as 2A and Wiegmann can groom him. So, the center need hasn’t changed. If Lilja or Fraley signs, that should alter the guard need, but how much? Waters is old, so we could use a young lineman to work into his spot.

Now, it could be argued that signing Lilja or Fraley would remove the OT need from the equation. However, I don’t agree. We could still draft and start a LT, moving Albert to LG and Waters to center. Wiegmann could be here to help Waters learn the center position and back him up.

Signing Fraley over Lilja gives us even more flexibility. Fraley could play center or guard. He could start at guard, battle with Wiegmann to start at center or back up the three interior line positions.

Even if we sign Lilja or Fraley I still want to keep a single high priority need for the offensive line. The line has enough age on it that we need a high quality rookie to work in. Given our flexibility, the OT/OG/C pairing resulting in a single selection among those positions seems to be the best course of action. The question is, what to do with the second guard need. Currently, it is rated as a P3. That should change. I see two possible options. Option one is to change that to a P5. Option two is to eliminate the second guard need entirely. Let’s go through the practical effects of each change.

The best way to understand how the simulation works is to group the needs by code. That grouping looks like this:

P3: OT/OG/C, NT, ILB, SS

P4: WRS, TE

P6: OLB, FS, CB, WRF/WRP (paired with the WRS need, so only one WR will be taken)

How does this play out? The draft sim will try to fill the P3 needs first (taking the highest ranking player among those positions), then move on to the P4 needs. In round five, something interesting happens. All the P6 needs are elevated to a P4 code. When we get to round five, baring trades, we will have made five selections. So, five of these positions are eliminated, since they have already been filled. What positions? Well, we can’t be sure, but probably at least three of the P3 needs.

The question is, do we need a second offensive lineman (a guard in particular) or are the OLB, FS, CB needs more important? Keep in mind that we have three picks in round five and no more picks after that, baring the addition of a compensatory pick. So, what would you like to see, a second offensive lineman in round five possibly sacrificing some competition at FS or CB or OLB? Without the second guard need, we have nine needs and eight picks. So, I am leaning slightly to making the second guard need a P6 and letting the better athlete get picked instead if reaching more to fill another position. but I am not sold either way.

This is your turn Addicts. I am open to persuasion. What do you think and why? Make your case!

Pro Football Talk

The Cleveland Browns have already traded one defensive lineman this off-season, shipping Corey Williams to the Detroit Lions. Could they trade another?

Terry Pluto of the Cleveland Plain Dealer writes that they could and Shaun Rogers could be gone.

Pluto doesn’t name a source for the report, but writes that the Browns’ coaching staff dislikes Rogers’ tendency to freelance, rather than cover the area he is assigned.

What draft picks would you give in trade for him? I would be willing to give our third round pick for him. Our 2B would be hard to give up, but I would think about it. What do you think? Do you want him? What would you give in trade for him?

Merlin: Just to follow up on a couple of thoughts you raised. I have long suspected that the parts of the combine we don’t see, like the medical checks and interviews are more important than televised parts of the combine. It’s nice to get an accurate height and weight. Some players, like Michael Crabtree, seems to shrink quite a bit on the flight to Indy. Beyond that, as you mentioned, the game tapes are really more indicative of what a player can do. From an outside perspective, how do you evaluate the interviews? Do we get any leaks on that? How much stock can we put into what players a particular team talks to?

Longball: As far as evaluating the interview process, let’s use the QB interviews as an example – the coaches and/or scouts describe a hypothetical setting in a game to the prospect and then ask him to diagram a play that he believes will beat the defense. The ability to read a defense and determine its weakness is a highly desirable trait in a QB.

The information from the interviews is highly confidential; however, there are leaks on the prospects that each team is talking to. The interviews at the Combine can be prospects that the team is considering and some are just smoke. Prospect interviews at team headquarters are normally a little more revealing.

Merlin: You talked about Mike Mayock as someone to rely on. What does he bring to the table over more longstanding names like Mel Kiper?

Longball: Mel Kiper has become his own caricature – Mayock was a player and learned the evaluation game from Belichick. Now, I do not take everything he says as gospel,l as he has his own pet rocks, but normally his analysis is insightful. Another good, long-time source is Rick Gosselin – not that he is a talent evaluator per se, but he talks to all of the clubs and has a long standing rapport so that the information he gets is normally spot on.

Merlin: Something I have not mentioned to AA readers before is the value of an outside perspective. Long Ball is one of the non-Chief fans that I talk to about the Chiefs. Sometimes, fans can get caught up in a bubble and that bubble becomes an echo chamber. I touch base with Long Ball and others to try to keep me balanced. Long Ball, looking at it from outside, what do you see as the Chiefs primary needs? Do you care to toss out a thought for who the Chiefs should take at #5?

Longball: I’m not trying to ride the fence, but the answer depends on what management and the coaching staff are trying to accomplish. You have to believe that Charlie and Romeo have strong opinions as to the type of player that will fit their scheme(s). The Chiefs have been acquiring talent, as I recognize a number of players that I graded as prospects – some are starting, but not necessarily in a position that accentuates their strengths (Brandon Albert and Glen Dorsey) and some that are in back-up roles (Pierre Walters and Donald Washington). It’s high time that the coaching staff find out if they can play, and more importantly, will fit the scheme they are trying to implement. This may require some difficult decisions – perhaps trading players with value, or maybe you have to get rid of the “inhibitors”, veterans who are keeping the young talent off the field.

It is extremely difficult, requires different personnel and takes time and commitment to change from a 4-3 defense to a 3-4; likewise, there needs to be a definition as to what type of offensive team the Chiefs are going to be. From a defensive standpoint, I assume the Chiefs are going to run the “read, react and control” defensive line philosophy, similar to the Patriots, and allow their linebackers to run to the ball – if that’s the case, a nose tackle who can hold his ground is a must. The inside linebackers on the roster do not fit this scheme well, so that position is another consideration. On the offensive side of the ball, no matter what scheme is chosen, the offensive line should be revamped – it appears there are players playing out of position.

If the world turned upside down and Mr. Suh fell to Kansas City . . . but enough dreaming, let’s get back to reality. Rolando McClain is the prototypical ILB for a 3-4 defense, having played the position for Coach Saban at Alabama – the best offensive LT in this year’s draft is Bryan Bulaga from Iowa, which would allow Branden Albert to move back to his more natural position of OG. Either of those two prospects would be good value at #5.

Merlin: When I look at the Chiefs, I keep looking at the gaping hole at NT and scratching my head. In the draft, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of high profile options viable for the Chiefs. Baring a big reach or trading down several spots, Dan Williams is not possible. Terrance Cody has some major weight, motivation and lateral movement issues. What do you think of prospects like Cam Thomas or Torrell Troup? Can either one of them be a decent starting NT as rookies?

Longball: Dan Williams is the best NT prospect in this year’s draft; however, he would be a reach at #5 (but will be selected in the 1^st round). Unless Cody gets in shape, he will cost himself some major coin as he is only a 2 down player and will not be able to stay on the field if the opposing offense has a time-consuming drive.

Cam Thomas of North Carolina is the next best NT candidate and a space-eater (6’4”, 331 lbs) and would potentially be available to KC with their 3^rd round choice. Torrell Troup of Central Florida has that low center of gravity (6’3”, 317 lbs) and might be available at the Chiefs’ 4^th round selection – both prospects should be able to start fairly early in the season.

Merlin: I noticed with your personal rankings, you have Brian Baluga rated over Russell Okung. What are you seeing with Baluga or is this more of an indictment of Okung?

Longball: Bulaga has excellent footwork and applies his strength (Iowa has a weight training program second to none) to the football field with leverage and technique. Okung is a good player, good attitude and work ethic, coachable – but is lacking in strength. In addition, he has a tendency to get too high and lose leverage. The only reason Bulaga is not rated as high by some of the other pundits is the time he lost early in the season due to a thyroid condition (from which he is fully recovered) and the fact that he’s coming out as an underclassman.

Merlin: In closing, I would like to run a couple of players by you. If you could give me a sentence or so and a prediction of where they would go in the draft.

He is not really on the Chiefs radar, but he is probably going to be the story of the draft. Tim Tebow, can he be a good NFL QB?

Longball: Not initially – he has fundamental flaws in his footwork and passing motion. He is a leader, a fine young man and will work hard – but the days of a Joe Kapp type QB have passed us by. Having said that, someone will take a flyer on him in the 3^rd round.

Maukice Pouncey C/G Florida

Good size (6’5”, 318 lbs), footwork, strength and a student of the game – made all the line calls for the Gators. His ability to play all 3 interior positions increases his value – a 2^nd round choice for sure and maybe late 1^st round.

Mike Johnson OG Alabama

Smart, heady player – tall (6’6”) for OG; as a result, bends at the waist and loses leverage. Lacks footwork and athleticism of other guards in the draft – 3^rd round, maybe 4^th.

Cameron Sheffield OLB Troy

Not the second coming of DeMarcus Ware (smaller and slower), will have to work his way on to a team via special teams – 5^th round, maybe 6^th.

Jeremy Williams WR Tulane

Really showed me something at the Senior Bowl workouts – strong hands, crisp routes, does the “little things”, fairly elusive and blocks! Solid contributor, probably 3^rd round; however, if he runs a sub 4.5 at the Combine, could move up.

Darrell Stuckey S Kansas

Big hitter, in-the-box strong safety – made tackles in the East/West Shrine game, but is stiff in the hips in coverage. Probably 4^th, maybe 5^th round, but will be a special teams demon!

Merlin: Are there any sleepers in this draft that you have your eye on?

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z, eh, um, er – were you talking to me? Oh yeah, sleepers . . . well, let’s define them this way. 32 teams times 7 rounds equals 224 draft prospects (not including compensatory picks), so let’s start there and talk about players from colleges not considered traditional powerhouses and look at some developmental prospects:

OT – Tony Washington of Abilene Christian

OG – Matt McCracken of Richmond

OC – Austin Steichen of Northern Iowa

TE – Nathan Overbay of Eastern Washington

RB – LaMarcus Coker of Hampton

WR – David Reed of Utah

QB – Tim Hiller of Western Michigan

NT – Tommie Duhart of Valdosta State

DE – Linval Joseph of East Carolina

LB – Joe Pawelek of Baylor

CB – Patrick Stoudamire of Western Illinois

S – Barry Church of Toledo

Not all of these players will make it in the NFL; however, I would certainly invest a practice squad position to any of them.

Merlin: Thanks Long Ball!

Longball: Enjoyed our visit Merlin, and thanks for having me – I enjoy our conversations because you force me to think (have to stir up the old cobwebs every now and then) and justify my ratings. Good luck to the Chiefs in the upcoming draft – even though the front office certainly has the brain power and will do a good job, we can all use a little luck, especially when it comes to a crapshoot like the NFL Draft!

Longball has finished his Big Uglies series. You can read is final chapter here. Longball gave out some awards and your truly got an honorable mention for his off the wall defensive front seven allignment. Maybe I was channeling my inner Adam Best with that one.

After a beer bribe, he agreed to an interview with me. The first part covers how the Big Board is put together and some general questions about the draft class. Next week will cover the draft including Long Ball’s evaluation of Chiefs, his prediction of who the Chiefs may take in round one (teaser, one name is one we have not talked about before) and his take on some draft prospects. Long Ball does a great job and I value his opinion highly. I want to publicly thank Long Ball for doing this and welcome him to the nut house known as Arrowhead Addict.

Merlin: How do you go about formulating a draft board for Draft Tek? How does your personal philosophy affect how that board is done?

Long Ball: My normal routine starts 2-3 months after the draft – beginning in the summer I start compiling the senior data base for the following year, plus the top 150 to 200 underclassmen. During the course of the year, there will be more prospects removed from the data base than added – this year’s data base was close to 1,000 prospects deep before dropping to 725, the current count. From this data, I create my “games to watch” schedule for the college season.

I do a lot of reading and research, utilizing NFL Draft Scout, Scout.com, Pro Football Weekly, ESPN, National Football Post, to name a few. I load the prospects into a massive Excel spreadsheet that seems to grow by geometric proportions and generate a macro-driven weighted ranking based on rankings from those publications.

I then take the “blended” Big Board and pull out my grading cards from games I have watched. As to my personal philosophy, I played and coached football (before I became old, fat and grey LOL!) and my grading is not just based on athletic prowess, but also how fundamentally sound the prospect is, basic techniques such as footwork, leverage, to get an idea of how coach-able they may be. Now, can you tell all that by just watching a game or two and not having access to observe practices – of course not, but it will give you an idea of how competitive the player is and whether or not they are a “gamer”. I use this information as more of a “tie-breaker” or “massaging” the formula-driven Big Board.

Merlin: Many folks, including myself, expected a record number of underclassman to declare for the draft. The numbers just were not there. Is there a qualitative difference in the underclassman declaring this year?

Long Ball: Good question and so did I – the possibility of a new CBA that includes a more stringent rookie salary cap may not have had the decision-making impact that many of us thought it would. Normally, the advice given to underclassmen is if you do not receive a draft grade in the first two rounds, you should go back for your senior season. Less than 100 underclassmen remain in our data base, 53 have a projected draft grade and only 38 are in the top 100, which would equate to the first three rounds. So there are a number that are not heeding the standard advice.

Taking the underclassmen qualitative analysis a step further, in the top 100 there are 2 QB’s, 3 RB’s, 7 WR’s, 2 TE’s, 3 OT’s (that are LT candidates) and the best OC prospect on the offensive side of the ball and 5 safeties, 5 CB’s, 3 LB’s, 5 DE’s and 2 DT’s (who are all excellent pass rushers) on the defensive side of the ball. It appears to me that the underclassmen have strengthened the draft, as they are in skill positions or positions that rush or protect skill positions.

Merlin: How would you compare the overall strength and depth of this draft to the previous couple of drafts?

Long Ball: Although this draft class may not have strength and depth at the so-called “glamour” positions, there are going to be a number of picks in the second (and maybe even third) round that could have close to first round value on different team boards. To take that thought a step further, without the compensatory picks, 32 teams multiplied by 7 rounds equals 224 prospects – on our last Big Board, there are players to be had at #238, #250, #281, #288, and #316 (which may mean I need to re-evaluate my Big board LOL!)

Merlin: Every draft is uneven in it’s distribution of talent. How would you evaluate this draft? What are the strong areas and weak areas?

Long Ball: This draft class is deep in offensive linemen (some of the tackles may become guards), but not necessarily at the center position. There are a number of safeties throughout the draft class but the top 3 or 4 may be the best in recent history. There are quality 4-3 defensive tackles and/or 3-4 defensive ends to be had in all rounds, and the top 2, maybe 3, are top-notch. There are several 4-3 defensive ends that can get after the passer and some may convert to 3-4 OLB. This is not a particularly strong draft for QB, RB, or WR.

Merlin: The NFL draft combine are approaching. Fans and the media can get caught up with 40-times and bench press reps. How much value do you put on combine? What advice would you give for fans? Has the combine taken on an importance in the media that outweighs its value?

Long Ball: Information gathered at the Combine is used to substantiate what has been observed on the field of play or eliminate borderline prospects. Scouts and coaches view the bench press from a competitive and endurance point of view and then translate the application of that strength in the game film they have studied. 40 times are more important for WR’s and DB’s (separation versus recovery) – you will notice that times are taken for the first 5 yards (explosion) and then in 10-yard increments, which is more important for the other positions. Keep in mind that track speed does not always translate into running with pads. The “skills and drills” provide an idea about the prospect’s agility, footwork, but more importantly their coach-ability. Quite frankly, the personal interviews may be as important as any other part of the Combine.

The top prospects need to attend the Combine; otherwise, teams will wonder what they’re trying to hide or do they lack a competitive spirit. The Combine has value, but performance on the field outweighs the Combine results. My advice to the fans is to listen to Mayock and watch the film clips of the prospect playing football that they insert during the analysis.

If you want to read more of Long Ball’s thoughts, check out the DraftTek message board. Long Ball is writing a very good series titled ‘Return Of The Big Uglies”. I recommend it highly. The series currently has three parts, chapter 1, chapter 2 and chapter 3. The entire message board is also worth reading. It is a great way to chat about the draft with non-Chief fans.

There are many factors involved, so let’s break two players down. To keep emotions out of it, I will call them Player A and Player B. Both these players carry first round grades but play different defensive positions. Neither one plays on the defensive line, so run and pass support are both issues. I am going to take some quotes from their scouting reports done by the fine folks at New Era Scouting. I will reveal the players names and link to their full scouting reports at the end of the article.

Both players have very good 40 yard dash times. So, on pure track speed, they are pretty much the same. What happens when we look further? Let’s go through a hypothetical play and see how they stand up.

First the player has to recognize the play. Player A “ Likes to play it safe, which causes late reaction in the passing game.” So, Player A tends to wait a bit, to diagnose the play. This is an area that downgrades a player’s functional speed. What about Player B? “ Recognition skills are at an elite level.” So far, Player B has a bit of an edge. He recognizes fast, while Player A tends to wait a bit.

The play has been recognized. Do the players take the right angle to position themselves properly? Player A “ Takes outstanding angles”. This is very positive for Player A. He is smart and takes the right angle when he diagnoses the play. How does Player B stack up? “Is never out of place….He takes correct angles to the ball carrier. Both players score well here. Once they have recognized the play, they know where they need to be and how to get there.

Now the player needs to get there. How do they rate with acceleration and quickness? Player A “While he does really get going when running deep, his acceleration rate is average.” So, Player A can run with many players, but his acceleration is average. What about Player B? “Has a great first step off the snap that amplifies his ball recognition skills.” Player B keeps getting better. With Player A, it seems to take him some time to get up to his elite speed.

When I read the full scouting reports on these players, I get two very different pictures. Player A impresses me as the type of player that has performed well on the college level because he is a very good athlete. I question his ability to grow into a good football player in the NFL. For me, one really bad sign is this part of his scouting report: “gives a huge cushion because of his lack of ability to change direction”. This may kill him at the next level. You can’t give NFL receivers a huge cushion and a lack of ability to change direction will get you burned early and often.

Player B shows great skills that will translate well to the NFL level of play. He diagnoses a play fast, takes the right angles and gets going fast. This is the type of player that plays faster than his 40 time. Player A is the type of player that plays slower than his 40 time.

Personally, I wouldn’t touch Player A. He is fast and takes the right angles. However, he waits to make his decision and does not accelerate well. He will probably do very well during the Combine. So, I am waiting for the stories of his draft stock rising. I think the moral to this story is that track speed is only one factor in assessing a player’s functional speed. We should all keep that in mind every draft season.

Who are these players? Player A is Taylor Mays. Player B is Rolando McClain.

“I would trade down for sure and I think Pioli would, too …… but, yeah, the compensation issue would be a problem… it takes a LOT of picks to make that big of a move though, Pioli and I would probably consider less than the ‘chart’ says”

Well, that commenter might be willing to take less than the “chart” says, but would Pioli? Is this an example of the empty vessel syndrome or does that commenter have some insight or evidence to support his belief? It got me thinking. Does Pioli value the trade chart? Short of asking him directly and probably getting a non-answer answer, how do we find out? I decided to do some investigation and see if his history gives us any clues. Pioli has been involved in draft pick trades for years with the Patriots. What does that tell us and what conclusions can we draw from it?

First, we need to establish some methodology. The most direct and fairest evaluation of the Trade Chart and how closely Pioli adheres to it can be seen by looking at trades that involved draft picks being traded for draft picks in the same draft. I discarded all examples where players and/or draft picks in the following years draft were part of the compensation. Also, there was one trade that involved picks so low they were not even on the trade chart. This was due to compensation picks added and pushing down trade-able picks below the floor of the Trade Chart. After all that, we have ten trades that we can look at.

 Pioli’s Draft Picks Trades

There is a lot of information on that chart so lets go through it. What I did was list each trade by year, pick numbers given and received, Trade Chart points given up and received, The differential (Where Pioli gave more points than he received are listed as negative numbers and are in red), whether Pioli moved up or down (defined by the highest pick on each side) and the percentage differential (listed also in negatives for giving up more than he received or positive, getting more than he dealt. The percentage differential is important. It’s one thing to give up fifty points on an exchange when you are dealing with first round picks. It’s quite another to have that much of a differential when you are dealing with forth round picks. The differential percentage is calculated as the points differential divided by the higher points a team exchanges, not the entire sum of the trade. For example, Team A trades 500 points to Team B for 400 points. The differential (100 points) is divided by Team A’s points (500) and a percentage (20%) is derived. Team A got 20% less value than the trade chart says it should receive.

The general assumption is that the team that trades up has to overpay, go beyond the trade value to move up. So, we would expect the trade up percentages to be in negative territory (giving up more that the chart value) and the trade downs to be in positive territory (getting more value than the chart indicates). How well does Pioli hold up to that? Pioli has made seven trade ups. Three of those trades were essentially a wash with a percentage differential of ~3% or less. They were basically even trades. Twice Pioli went above chart value to move up. The largest percent differential (~15%) came in the 2003 trade moving from #41 to #36. Pioli gave up 710 points to get only 600 points back. Twice Pioli moved up and actually gained point value. If you are looking for evidence of people not following the trade chart, you have those two examples. The percentage differentials are between 8 and 12 percent. It’s a significant differential, but it doesn’t blow the chart out of the water. Out of the seven times Pioli moved up, He got either a break-even trade or had to overpay a bit five times. Only twice did he deviate significantly from the Trade Chart. That deviation was never more than ~12%. What happens when he moves down? Does he, as expected, gain points by doing so?

He only has three trade downs to look at. So, the sample size really isn’t enough to derive a pattern from. However, he did lose value twice and only gained value once. Two of the trades contained percentage differentials of ~12% or less. Only one trade exceeded that. That was the 2001 trade of a 5^th round pick for a 6^th and 7^th round selections. The point values (31.8 versus 24.4) are quite low so the percentage differential (~23%) is quite high.

Does one trade down of lower level picks destroy the value of the Trade Chart? No, I don’t think so. Does Pioli deviate from the Trade Chart? Yes, he does, not frequently though. However he rarely deviates by more than ~12% of trade value. I think the only fair conclusion we can draw from this is that the Trade Chart is still holds quite a bit of value for Scott Pioli. 

There are a couple of other interesting patterns in this study. I was struck by the trade up and trade downs. Does Pioli tend to move up or down in a draft? For this, we can add back in the trades I discounted for being below the trade chart or involving picks in another draft. For this, I created another table adding the designation ‘Out’ for when a trade was made purely for a pick in the following years draft. That table is below.

 With the sixteen trades in this chart, we can see some patterns. Pioli has move up in the draft nine times, moved down five times and move out twice. What does this tell us? It tells us that Pioli can move either way in the draft, but he is more likely to move up than down. For those of us who are hoping for a small move down from #5 this year, the data does not support that hope. It does not eliminate it, but the trend is against it.

The other thing that struck me was the years of these trades. With one exception, Pioli’s picks for picks trades all occurred between 2001 and 2003. Why is that the case? He has gone six drafts and made one trade solely comprised of draft picks. There are two possible answers here. Either Pioli traded a lot early to build the Pats to his liking or he has become more reluctant to do picks for picks trades as he has matured. He certainly hasn’t been shy about trading players for picks or vice versa. He traded for Cassel and Vrabel this past year. He traded Tony Gonzalez and traded for people like Randy Moss and Wes Welker. All this activity occurred in the last couple of years. Right now, I don’t think we have enough data to draw a firm conclusion on the last question. These next two drafts should provide some clearer answers.

What has this study revealed? It’s far to say that Pioli is not shy about trading picks, though his trades purely involving draft picks have decreased dramatically in the last few years. The jury is out as far as the reason why. Pioli does adhere to the trade chart, but will deviate though not more than ~12% of the trade chart value. This could be a result of variance in a particular draft or a willingness to be a bit flexible to get the player he wants. He tends to move up more than down but will move in either direction even moving completely out of the draft.

The empty vessel syndrome is when someone presents themselves in a vague manner. It is often seen in politics where politicians use vague language. In that context, it’s done by design. What it does is invite people who are inclined to support that politician to project their own positions and values onto that politician.

What does this have to do with football or the Chiefs in particular? The syndrome is seen all over life. It’s not confined to politics. We saw some of this last year, with Pioli and Haley coming in. They talked in high level terms. This wasn’t done to deceive the fans. It was done to keep their intentions hidden from the teams they compete with. That’s fine and I understand it. However, it does invite the empty vessel syndrome. So, why bring this up now? It’s because we are seeing the empty vessel syndrome, part two in KC. With the hiring of Weiss and Crennel, fans are once again engaging in the empty vessel syndrome.

Spotting this syndrome is not hard. The basic formula is as follows: (insert name of person in question, Pioli/Haley/Weiss/Crennel) is a smart guy. To fix our (offense, defense, team in general) he will (draft, sign, trade for) X. X just happens to be what the fan himself would do. It’s something we all fall into from time to time. Awareness is the first step to avoiding this syndrome. Before you come to the conclusion that the Chiefs will do X, ask yourself some questions. What reason do I have to think the Chiefs will do X? Is there anything in the track record of the decision maker in question that makes you believe that the Chiefs will do X? The important thing is not to project your preferences onto the Chiefs, but use the clues they give you to reach a conclusion based on their values, not yours.

A couple of other notes, since we are ramping up the draft. While bowls like the Senior Bowl is important, the Chiefs have years of tape on most players they are looking at. Don’t go to crazy with a good or bad performance from a particular player. There are always exceptions, and they tend to revolve around players coming from lesser schools. For those players, questions about level of competition are strong. A poor performance can really hurt their draft position. For example, Vladimir Ducasse the OT out of UMass showed during the Senior Bowl and practices that he is more of a project than a complete player at this point. He may have cooled the jets on his rise up the draft board.

In my previous article. I mentioned my five primary needs for the Chiefs. They were: NT, ILB, SS, OT/G/C and OG. With four choices in the prime first three rounds of the draft, something is going to get left out. OK, on to the picks and who I am looking at with each selection

Round one, pick #5: There are three viable choices here, Berrry, Okung and McClain. Okung is the best pick for positional value. Berry is the best player available. McClain (#8 on the big board) is my pick. A good case could be made for either Berry or Okung. Technically, Berry is out anyway. He is #2 on the big board. However, McClain has a couple of advantages. McClain was a coach on the field in college. He directed a complex NFL style 3-4 Defense. He can grow into that same level of player in the NFL. His learning curve is short, his football IQ and physical ability is high. Plus the longevity of an ILB is high. He could be the leader on defense we so badly need.

Round two, pick #36 – There are tons of great options with this pick. Players like Golden Tate, Earl Thomas and Sergio Kindle will all get lots of support and for good reason. They are fine players. My heart says Jon Asamoah, the guard from Illinois. My head says pick Terrance Cody (#36 on the big board), NT from Alabama. Personally, I am not in love with Cody. He is a two down player who plays in a phone booth and doesn’t get much of a push. However, no one makes a pile like he does and our NT position is a sieve. Cody occupies both A gaps just with his 375 lbs frame and his strength is immense. I am hoping to address this position in free agency, but per my rules, I can’t. I have to take Cody here. If I don’t, there isn’t another starting NT left in the draft and I am not comfortable with Ron Edwards starting next year. It’s not a pick that makes me happy, but that’s part of doing a good job. Sometimes you have to do what you think is right, not what you really want.

Round two, pick #51 - I just miss out on Asamoah here. He is #44 on the big board and I can’t reach that high. That’s part of any draft, you lose players you really like. There is another attractive player available. He is Maurkice Pouncey (#51 on the big board), C/G from Florida. Of all the center prospects, I like him the best. When you draft for a team, one thing to look at is teams in your division. With SD and Denver both playing 3-4 defenses, a larger center that could solo block a nose tackle is very important. Pouncey is 318 lbs and can handle a NT better than someone like Walton who is 305 lbs or Tennant who is 291 lbs. If I were the Chiefs, I would start him at left guard and move Brian Waters to center. Then, when Waters retires, we can slide Pouncey to center. This plan has a couple of advantages. It extends Waters’ career and it lets Pouncey learn the pro game without having to make all the line calls he would have to make a center. It’s a win/win and I am very happy with this pick.

Round three, pick #68 – I was hoping Darrell Stuckey would still be available here. He flew all the way up to #60 on the big board, so he is out of reach. I’ll settle for Mike Johnson (#69 on the big board), OG from Alabama, yet again. I have no love for Alabama. It’s just the way this board is falling. Johnson is a very versatile lineman and Pioli loves versatility. He could make me revise my plan about Pouncey playing left guard. I would just toss both Pouncey and Johnson at guard and let Haley and Muir sort out who plays on which side.

At the end of the traditional first day of picks, I am pretty happy. Strong safety was the position that was not filled and I can live with that. It does highlight the need for a vet FA signing in at least one of those five positions. Moving onto the second day of the draft, now I can work in my second level of needs. Those would be WR, RB and TE. If the value is there, I can even look at my tertiary needs of OLB, CB and FS. At this point in the draft, I am looking more for players rather than positions.

Round four, pick #99 – Toby Gerhart gets a look here, but I can’t pass on Jordan Shipley (#102 on the big board), WR from Texas. He shouldn’t be here and will not last past my pick. He is a very good slot receiver prospect and is the best value at this spot. He can also help out as a return guy.

Round five, pick #132 – Aaron Hernandez (#128 on the big board), TE from Florida has fallen pretty far. Hard to pass up his value here. Charlie Weiss should be pretty happy with the passing game weapons he is picking up.

Round five, pick #138 – Cameron Sheffield (#141 on the big board) OLB from Troy is the selection here. He is a small school prospect with some good pass rushing skills. I like his value here and we could use someone to pair with Tamba at OLB in passing downs.

Round five, pick #144 – Strong safety is a need I really wanted to fill earlier, but the way the board fell, it waited till this pick. Kurt Coleman (#144 on the big board), SS/CB Ohio State is my pick here. He is a bit undersized for SS, but could also play nickel back. Either way, he has a chance of helping and that’s all you can ask from a fifth round pick.

Overall impression. It has a good feel to me. I tried to do this real time and not reach far in either direction. So, it feels like a solid real draft. I didn’t get everything I wanted, but I hit the most of the major needs. The biggest disappointment was not having a strong safety I liked in the first three rounds of the draft. Also, I really wanted a running back to pair with Charles. That’s another need that just didn’t get filled. That’s what a real draft is like. The draft rarely falls perfectly for you. I was very happy to get Pouncey in the second round. Shipley and Hernandez available that late were bargains I just couldn’t pass on. What an exercise like this highlights is just how many players we are away from being a contending team. It seems pretty clear that we need a couple of free agent signings. Trading down a couple of slots from #5 would also be very helpful. We could still pick up McClain and grab another second or third round pick. It all depends on who the trading partner is and how far back we move. Pioli certainly has his work cut out for him this offseason. There are too many holes to fill on this team and not enough picks to address them all.

For two years now, I have served as the Chiefs Analyst. What I do is set priority codes for all the positions. This year, I want to open up my thought process and invite comments. This is a work in flux. I have changed the priority codes every week or so.

 The Priority Codes are as follows:

Team Needs Code Descriptions

In this article, I am going to go through the how I have set the priority codes at the moment. However, I do want to mention some base assumptions I am making. Until a new collective bargaining agreement is reached, I am acting as if there will be no agreement in place. Also, all current Chief free agents will be retained. I grant anyone that is a bit of an assumption, but I can’t pick and choose. The hardest part of an outside analyst’s evaluation is evaluating the growth of players that do not play much. For example, will Donald Washington claim the nickel job? Unless I get credible information, I can’t assume that any player is going to step up. So, I am assuming they will not. Let’s go through the positions, defense first, of course.

Defensive Ends: This is one of the deepest positions on the Chiefs. Dorsey played well last year. Jackson and Magee were unspectacular in their rookie seasons, but that’s fairly common. Gilberry flashed as a situational pass rusher. I am not looking to bring in more young players here. I coded this position as a P9.

Nose Tackle: Ron Edwards is a nice rotational player, but he shouldn’t be starting. The Chiefs have a serious need for starting caliber talent here. It is very reasonable to code this as a P2, but I have it as a P3. There is a method to my madness, but I will get to that later.

Outside Linebacker: Hali has done well here. Vrabel is slowing down, but the Chiefs like Studebaker. We could use another outside linebacker, but it’s more for depth and development. So, I assigned a P6 code here.

Inside Linebacker. This group played their hearts out. However, they generally did not get the job done. I am not sure Corey Mays should be a starting player in the NFL. Demorrio Williams played well, but he may not be suited to starting either. Derrick Johnson remains an enigma, but I do like Jovan Belcher as a developing player. This position was assigned a P3 code and I was sorely tempted to ask for more than one pick here. Currently, I have not because we have so many needs at so many other positions.

Cornerback: Flowers is a developing stud and Carr has been pretty good. We could use a nickel back here, but that’s not as important as other spots. P6 is the code here.

Strong Safety: I have seen enough of Mike Brown as a starter and Morgan seems to have been buried, P3.

Free Safety: McGraw should not be a starting player. I still like Page, so I gave this a P6. I debated this position quite a bit. I did have it coded P4 for a while. In the end, it comes down to so many needs and a limited number of picks.

Placekicker: Mr. Irrelevant made this need irrelevant. P9

Quarterback: Matt Cassel has been OK and Brodie Croyle looked good as a backup. P9

Running Back: Draft Tek distinguishes between two type of running backs, feature backs and change of pace backs. Charles is a great speed back, but he needs to be paired with a between the tackles kind of runner. That back needs to be more of a thumper, thunder to Charles’ lightning. That’s more of a feature back. I like Kolby Smith, but he can’t seem to stay healthy. I assigned a P4 to feature back and P9 to change of pace back.

Fullback: I am OK with Cox and Castille here. It could be upgraded, but we have bigger fish to fry: P9.

Wide Receiver: Draft Tek has three types of wide receivers: feature, possession and speed receivers. With Chambers and Bowe, we have feature and possession set, but we need a speed receiver to play the slot. Also, we could use a player to groom as a replacement for Chambers. Speed receiver is coded as a P4 while possession and feature were coded P6. Due to so many other needs and the presence of Lawrence and Long on the roster limits the amount of receivers I want to draft. I only want to draft one receiver. This introduces another Draft Tek concept: Pairs. Pairs are when you have needs at two or three positions but only want to draft one player for those positions combined. So, I set the WRF/WRP/WRS ‘pair’ to YES. That way, we will only get one receiver. It will probably be a speed receiver, unless a feature or possession receiver has a very high value. The pairs function gives us the flexibility to grab a high value without overloading a position with multiple picks.

Tight End: It’s a fairly undistinguished group, but not as important as other needs. A P4 was coded here. I am fine with taking a tight end if the value is high.

Offensive line: We have two holes on the offensive line: center and right guard. The line play did improve towards the end of the year. I am not seduced by that. Most of the improvement was due to Jamaal Charles. Charles is the kind of back who can make defenders miss and take advantage of small creases. Better offensive line play is crucial to the development of the Chiefs offense. It’s easy to just code for center and guard and call it a day. However, the flexibility of Branden Albert and Brian Waters creates some opportunities. Albert can play left tackle and either guard spot. I don’t think he is enough of a mauler to play right tackle. O’Callaghan is serviceable there. Waters can play either guard spot and center. Since he is slowing down a bit, but is still a smart player, he may be better served by a move to center. Essentially, we need two lineman. One can be a tackle, guard or center, the other one needs to be a guard. Fortunately, Draft Tek has a ‘pair’ for OT/G/C. Also, it allows multiple picks at a position. The code for that is M (for multiple) and the priority number of the second pick. So, what I did was coded OT as a P3, OG as a P3 with a M3 (multiple guard picks, the second guard pick would have a P3 code as well) and center as a P3. Then I went ahead and set the OT/G/C pair to ‘YES”. This allows the Draft Tek program to draft a tackle, guard or center with one pick. Then another guard could be selected, as early as the next pick. We could end up with a tackle and guard, two guards or a guard and a center.

Overall impressions. The Chiefs have so many needs, I don’t use a P1 code. P1 is used when you have one glaring need you have to get filled. You will also notice that there are no P2 needs. There is a method to my madness. It’s best seen by looking at the Chief needs grouped by priority code:

P3: NT, ILB, SS, OT/G/C, OG

P4: TE, RBF, WRS (paired with the other WR designations)

P6: OLB, CB, FS, WRF, WRP

P9: DE, PK, QB, FB

There is no difference within a priority code level. All needs at a given level are treated as equals. The draft strategy that I am setting the Chiefs up for is best player available at a position of need. This is done to maximize the useful talent infusion. While folks could argue for elevating a need or two out of the P3 group, that could result in some large reaches. For example, if the NT need was coded P2, the simulation could end up grabbing a 3^rd round talent in round two and passing up a big value at SS. I do consider the NT need to be perhaps the most critical need on the Chiefs. However, I don’t want to reach for that need. The draft class also plays a role in this strategy. The NT crop is very thin. Essentially, there are two mid-late first round prospects and then nothing until you hit third and fourth round talents. If, for example, we were drafting #17 and there were four early to mid-first round talents at NT, I might have the NT need as the only P2 or even a P1. The priority codes are not set in a vacuum.

These codes do change, weekly in most cases. I am very open to a well-reasoned case for a change. I value that input. Keep in mind, we only have so many bullets in our draft gun. Hard choices need to be made.

So, fire away. Thoughts, critiques, comments?