Chiefs Secure Fifth Pick In 2008 Draft

RDOGuy · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

The Kansas City Chiefs secured the fifth overall selection in the
first round of the 2008 NFL Draft based on the outcome of a coin flip
conducted at the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, IN this
morning.

Kansas City currently holds a total of 10 picks in the 2008 NFL Draft,
owning an additional pick in the fifth round (Miami - QB Trent Green
trade), the sixth round (Tampa Bay - RB Michael Bennett trade) and the
seventh round (N.Y. Giants - K Lawrence Tynes trade).

Atlanta secured the third overall pick in this year's draft by winning
a coin flip with Oakland. Oakland was awarded the fourth overall
selection based on their finish behind Kansas City in the AFC West
standings. The Chiefs finished ahead of the Raiders in the division
standings based on a better record against common opponents.

2008 NFL DRAFT ORDER - FIRST 10 SELECTIONS (AS OF FEB. 22ND)

1. Miami
2. St. Louis
3. Atlanta
4. Oakland
5. Kansas City
6. N.Y. Jets
7. New England (from San Francisco)
8. Baltimore
9. Cincinnati
10. New Orleans

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>kc-chiefs

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

RDOGuy wrote:
> The Kansas City Chiefs secured the fifth overall selection in the
> first round of the 2008 NFL Draft based on the outcome of a coin flip
> conducted at the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, IN this
> morning.

From what I understand, the order of the three tied teams will rotate
each round. That is, the Chiefs will pick 3rd in the second round, 4th
in the third round, etc. That may or may not be significant.

--
"Would I like to have an offense that scores 30 points a game?
I sure would. I would love it." - Herm Edwards

RDOGuy · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

The thing I love about this is that the Patriots will pick seventh...
despite having to forfeit their first round pick. FWIW, I think the
commissioner should have specified that the Patriots had to forfeit
their first pick period... whether it was acquired through a trade was
simply in the regular order. Forfeiting the 32nd pick doesn't seem
like much of a price to pay... unless it was going to be their first
pick of the draft.

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

RDOGuy wrote:
> The thing I love about this is that the Patriots will pick seventh...
> despite having to forfeit their first round pick. FWIW, I think the
> commissioner should have specified that the Patriots had to forfeit
> their first pick period... whether it was acquired through a trade was
> simply in the regular order. Forfeiting the 32nd pick doesn't seem
> like much of a price to pay... unless it was going to be their first
> pick of the draft.

You can say it wasn't much of a price to pay (though Belichick received
the biggest fine in league history), but I counter that by saying I
don't think it was much of an infraction. Every team tries to steal
signals, which is why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays.
The Patriots just happened to do it the wrong way. And they were caught
early in the first game of the year, so no real harm done (at least this
year).

--
"I know. You're 7-Eleven. You're always open. You'll get the ball.
Relax. There's some other guys we've got to get the ball to, too."
- Herm Edwards on Dwayne Bowe's enthusiasm for wanting the ball

RDOGuy · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

On Feb 22, 10:38 am, Tarkus wrote:

> You can say it wasn't much of a price to pay (though Belichick received
> the biggest fine in league history), but I counter that by saying I
> don't think it was much of an infraction. Every team tries to steal
> signals, which is why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays.
> The Patriots just happened to do it the wrong way. And they were caught
> early in the first game of the year, so no real harm done (at least this
> year).

Well... in the grand scheme of things, I agree it doesn't seem like
much of an infraction. You're correct when you say that all teams
routinely try to understand the other team's signals. That being
said... there's a fair amount of difference between trying to figure
that out by observation during a game, and making a record of it
through videotape - which is precisely why it was prohibited. IMO,
the league hit Belichick and the Patriots hard for what is arguably a
fairly minor infraction because it is important for professional
sports to maintain the public perception that everything is done
within the rules.

But just out of curiosity... how would you feel about it if it was
revealed that the Patriots had been doing this for years? If they
had, it would be hard to maintain that it had no effect on their
success - after all, if it wasn't helping them, they'd stop doing it
of their own accord, wouldn't they? NFL coaching staffs have plenty
to do without spending their time on stuff that doesn't help them!
And how would you feel if turns out that this Walsh guy is telling the
truth: that the Patriots would go to the extreme of taping the
opposing team's run-throughs before a Super Bowl - or for that matter,
any other game?

Honestly... the thing that bothers me most about the whole deal is
that once the Patriots were accused of cheating, the commissioner
basically trusted the Patriots to fess up 100%. Maybe they did... but
then again, maybe they didn't. I mean... if someone is accused of
cheating, why should they be trusted to tell the truth about the
extent of it?

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

RDOGuy wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:38 am, Tarkus wrote:
>
>> You can say it wasn't much of a price to pay (though Belichick received
>> the biggest fine in league history), but I counter that by saying I
>> don't think it was much of an infraction. Every team tries to steal
>> signals, which is why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays.
>> The Patriots just happened to do it the wrong way. And they were caught
>> early in the first game of the year, so no real harm done (at least this
>> year).
>
> Well... in the grand scheme of things, I agree it doesn't seem like
> much of an infraction. You're correct when you say that all teams
> routinely try to understand the other team's signals. That being
> said... there's a fair amount of difference between trying to figure
> that out by observation during a game, and making a record of it
> through videotape - which is precisely why it was prohibited. IMO,

What's the difference betweeen videotaping it and having someone writing
it down on a piece of paper or speaking into a voice recorder, aside
from convenience?

> the league hit Belichick and the Patriots hard for what is arguably a
> fairly minor infraction because it is important for professional
> sports to maintain the public perception that everything is done
> within the rules.

Agreed, and that should have been the end of it. The fact that Congress
is involved in a rules violation (not an illegality) sickens me.

> But just out of curiosity... how would you feel about it if it was
> revealed that the Patriots had been doing this for years? If they
> had, it would be hard to maintain that it had no effect on their
> success - after all, if it wasn't helping them, they'd stop doing it
> of their own accord, wouldn't they? NFL coaching staffs have plenty
> to do without spending their time on stuff that doesn't help them!

It still wouldn't bother me. I'm sure it did help them; I just don't
think it helped them to any great degree. And I think it's incumbent
upon the opponent to hide, disguise or change up their signals if they
don't want them stolen. You know, like they were doing in MLB long
before the advent of videotape. And apparently some opposing coaches
were even waving at the cameraman, so it's not like they didn't know
about it.

You know, Jon Gruden and others don't cover their mouths when speaking
only when playing the Patriots. Trying to steal signals is part of the
game. The Patriots simply chose the method against the rules.

> And how would you feel if turns out that this Walsh guy is telling the
> truth: that the Patriots would go to the extreme of taping the
> opposing team's run-throughs before a Super Bowl - or for that matter,
> any other game?

I think that would be a more serious issue, but still none of Congress'
business.

> Honestly... the thing that bothers me most about the whole deal is
> that once the Patriots were accused of cheating, the commissioner
> basically trusted the Patriots to fess up 100%. Maybe they did... but
> then again, maybe they didn't. I mean... if someone is accused of
> cheating, why should they be trusted to tell the truth about the
> extent of it?

He's been heavy handed since day one, and this was no exception. So
unless someone can show some conspiracy between Goodell and the
Patriots, I'm not real concerned about it. He probably looked into it,
and found all he could, and had to take them on their word for the rest.

--
"Would I like to have an offense that scores 30 points a game?
I sure would. I would love it." - Herm Edwards

Jay.Martin60 · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 1

Somehow it seems fitting that the '07-'08 Chiefs managed to take third
place in a coin toss.

J

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Jay.Martin60@gmail.com wrote:
> Somehow it seems fitting that the '07-'08 Chiefs managed to take third
> place in a coin toss.

At best they could only get 2nd place anyway, because Oakland was going
to pick ahead of them no matter what.

--
"We've got to score touchdowns. Period." - Herm Edwards

Andre · Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 5

On Feb 22, 6:19 pm, Jay.Marti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Somehow it seems fitting that the '07-'08 Chiefs managed to take third
> place in a coin toss.
>
> J

I hope we can still get Long with the fifth pick.

Andre

Nunya Bidnits · Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 17

"Tarkus" wrote
> Every team tries to steal
> signals, which is why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays.
> The Patriots just happened to do it the wrong way. And they were caught
> early in the first game of the year, so no real harm done (at least this
> year).

Yeah, well, you know that spy satellite they just shot down? I hear it had a
Patriots logo painted on the side of it......

MartyB in KC

Nunya Bidnits · Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 17

wrote in message@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Somehow it seems fitting that the '07-'08 Chiefs managed to take third
> place in a coin toss.
>
> J

ROFLMAO! And there was probably a bird turd on their side of the coin when
it came down out of the air.

MBKC

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Tarkus" wrote
>> Every team tries to steal
>> signals, which is why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays.
>> The Patriots just happened to do it the wrong way. And they were caught
>> early in the first game of the year, so no real harm done (at least this
>> year).
>
> Yeah, well, you know that spy satellite they just shot down? I hear it had a
> Patriots logo painted on the side of it......

Did they use a Patriot Missile? Wink

--
"I've been around the game for a few years. I think I've got the basic
concept that you need to score points to win. I want to throw the ball.
I want to score touchdowns." - Herm Edwards

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> wrote in message
> @t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Somehow it seems fitting that the '07-'08 Chiefs managed to take third
>> place in a coin toss.
>>
>> J
>
> ROFLMAO! And there was probably a bird turd on their side of the coin when
> it came down out of the air.

I don't believe they had a coin at all. Since the Falcons won the toss
against the Raiders, there was no reason to have a second coin flip,
because the Raiders had to pick ahead of the Chiefs. If the Raiders won
their toss, then the Chiefs would have flipped the Falcons for 4th.

--
"Would I like to have an offense that scores 30 points a game?
I sure would. I would love it." - Herm Edwards

Nunya Bidnits · Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 17

"Tarkus" wrote in message@corp.supernews.com...
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> > "Tarkus" wrote
> >> Every team tries to steal
> >> signals, which is why coaches cover their mouths when calling plays.
> >> The Patriots just happened to do it the wrong way. And they were
caught
> >> early in the first game of the year, so no real harm done (at least
this
> >> year).
> >
> > Yeah, well, you know that spy satellite they just shot down? I hear it
had a
> > Patriots logo painted on the side of it......
>
> Did they use a Patriot Missile? Wink

ROFL! No, they wanted to, but Dubya took them all to Iraq, so they just had
some guy named Eli toss a long pass and knock it down.

MartyB in KC

Chiefs Agree to Terms with Seven Reserve/Future Free Agents Chiefs Agree to Terms with Seven Free Agents Feb 18, 2008, 1:40:03 PM Chiefs President Carl Peterson announced on Monday that the club has agreed to terms with seven Free Agents. The list of players who agreed to terms of two

Chiefs not expected to go for older free agents Chiefs not expected to go for older free agents By ADAM TEICHER The Kansas City Star This year’s list of potential NFL free agents carries an enticing bounty for any team. Imagine what it looks like to the Chiefs, who not only lost their final nine games

Chiefs to release Law, Bell, Reed, Dunn Chiefs to release Law, Bell, Reed, Dunn By ADAM TEICHER The Kansas City Star The Chiefs continued their rebuilding process by telling four more veteran players they would be released, sources said. One, cornerback Ty Law, was a starter last season. Two, l

Chiefs sign first round draft pick The KC Chiefs have signed their first round draft pick - Larry Johnson to a 7 year $8.8 million deal with a $3 million bonus. He was the 27th pick in the first round and the second first rounder to be signed so far this year. Expect to see the pace of fi

Draft pick I have heard that the Packers are seriously considering drafting J.P. Loseman (spelling?), as a first round draft pick selection. Anybody think this is a wise move? I am in Canada and do not get as much Green Bay or college info, so I am interested in you