I agree re the 4th, that was my personal preference, or frankly a TE, RB etc. Not like there isn't gaps to fill or spots to improve.

But re moving up, is it not possible they moved up because he was one of a couple of guys left and they thought there might be a mini-run before them. 8 picks, easy to see a couple of going between 55 and 63, though they didn't.
[Reply]

Veach addressed the move ups.

Stated yes, normally good to have numbers drafting but at the end of the day, the staff spent all this time setting up the board and they acted on what their board told them.

They could be wrong but why spend time creating a board yourself if you aren't going to act on it?
[Reply]

Honestly? No, I've never hated a pick in May. Because while I enjoy looking at boards and videos and trying to guess who we'll take, I don't assume I'm smarter than the real GM.

I have guys that are my favorites every year, but I don't expect they will be our pick.

Because, again, I don't assume I'm as good as judging NFL talent beforehand as Brett Veach.

Clyde was a headscratcher, because I don't generally think running back is a position worth a first round pick, but I got behind the pick after the fact because I want my favorite team to succeed.
[Reply]

Hated a pick, no.

Wanted another player, Yes

DK over Hardman
Higgins over Clyde
Pickens over skyy
Fuck, even this year i wanted Mayer at 31.

Its not about what players i want. Theres a ton more that goes into this then just picking players that I like. the front office should get the benefit of the doubt, especially after a success rate like the last two years.
[Reply]

If you don't like a pick at the time, but sit on it to wait and see, and they turn out like CEH, it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to now say "Yeah, I think I was right on that one". You can take a victory lap on CEH and I'm not gonna think "this guy reckons he knows more than Veach and co" - you just got one right and they got one wrong, for whatever reason.
[Reply]

For me, there have been plenty of picks that seemed underwhelming at the time, but over the past few years, I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt. I think that’s been earned. Honestly, since Veach’s first draft (which basically sucked), I think almost all their picks have ranged from decent to good, outside of a few guys who were known to be developmental projects or late 7th rounders, etc. If you want to say the CEH pick was bad, I don’t necessarily disagree, but not because he’s a terrible player. Just a reach.
[Reply]

When you're mocking a draft for the Chiefs and how they have to operate under the cap constraints you have to take that into consideration. I didn't have specific players in mind, but my thought process was T, DE, or WR simply because those are premium paid positions these days. Keeping those positions stocked on rookie deals will help offset the cap greatly if you hit.
[Reply]

I thought the same, and did The Chiefs, apparently.
[Reply]

I held out hope for Clyde longer than most, but I think the injuries just sapped him of any plus potential.
[Reply]

Especially since “analysts” like Kiper have admitted that some of the “pay” in “paid analyst” is making shit up to influence a player’s draft stock.
[Reply]

Maybe - but they moved down last year w/ the Moore pick and risked a mini run.

And again, I just don't how anyone can be wholly confident Rice would've fallen to the back of the 2nd. I was among the folks entering this draft saying that I thought we should pass on WR in the first and move up in the 2nd to grab him. I thought 48-53 would be the sweet spot for him. He went almost exactly where I thought he would go.

The only surprise was that he went ahead of Hyatt but he also went behind Mingo, so he even 'ranked' among the WRs about where I expected him to.

This isn't some out of left field pick (as Conner was). This was always Rice's range, IMO. And while a perfect world has him falling to 63, Veach didn't want to risk it despite there being at least 3 other receivers on the board that were considered in the same tier as him by many. The odds of all 4 being gone in the next 7 picks were very remote given the depth at the position AND the depth still on the board elsewhere in the draft.

Veach wanted the guy more than everyone else (obviously) and in the end he went where I thought he would.
[Reply]

When we had not just one, but THREE different guys openly admit that they wanted to force a square peg into a round hole to 'start a discussion' on a guy, I just don't know how you can take anything they say as gospel.

This was a year the curtain was pulled back BIGGLY on these fucking 'draft gurus'. They may know more than we do (they may not) but whatever it is they say is influenced by who they are attempting to curry favor with.
[Reply]

Chris, no offense intended, but as per "not being smarter than a GM", you apparently were not around during King Carl's reign. You are CLEARLY smarter than him!

And let's not forget about Mr Pioli either.
[Reply]

I think this tells us something about how they viewed Rice vs. how they viewed Moore.

They actively wanted Rice (and clearly viewed him a step above Tillman, or they probably would have been more willing to roll the dice and not trade up).

With Moore, they could have taken him at 50 but chose to move down 4 spots and be happy with him or one of a few more dudes in that range (Pickens, Pierce).
[Reply]

Draft gurus seldom do their own work. It seems half of these profiles were created by 2-3 guys and then the rest of the industry parrots them.

Brugler at least does his own stuff as does Waldman. I suspect a lot of the ESPN and nfl.com rankings are talking heads asking others and that's why the furious moving up and down the boards on guys just before the draft.
[Reply]