Warpaint Roundtable – Offseason Edition VI

This week we discuss Tim Krumrie, trading up for Matt Stafford, the 2009 win total, and Glenn Dorsey

What is your opinion on the decision to keep defensive line coach Tim Krumrie? What could the new staff have seen that the old one did not see or did not utilize?

Nick Athan: I'm not a fan of the move but at this point it's not a lock that Krumrie makes the final cut. Todd Haley recently said he's still trying to hire two more assistant coaches. One should be a quarterbacks coach and the other should be someone on defense. Romeo Crennel could still be in the mix somewhere and if so, Krumrie could be on the outside looking in.

My issue with Krumrie is that his in-your-face style of coaching didn't work last year. He messed with Glenn Dorsey and the Chiefs got little production from any defensive lineman. The new staff will have a fresh approach and based on how poor the defensive coaching was a year ago, it certainly can't hurt.

Michael Ash: I made my displeasure with Krumrie pretty clear during the season, so I'm certainly not thrilled by the fact he's still around. But considering the late start Todd Haley had in putting together his staff, it's not a total surprise. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking, but the Chiefs may not have been able to get the defensive line coach they wanted and opted to keep Krumrie for the final year of his contract instead.

C.E. Wendler: I've often thought Krumrie received a bad rap, simply based on his association with Gunther Cunningham, who yelled quite a bit, and failed in his return to Kansas City as a defensive coordinator. Cunningham chose Krumrie, so naturally people came to associate the two. But watching Krumrie during training camp, he always struck me as a great teacher, especially when he lowered the volume.

Maybe I'm completely off my rocker, but if the Chiefs plan to keep Krumrie around, it may be a sign the talent on the defensive line is worse than we had previously thought. Perhaps Scott Pioli or Todd Haley watched tape of Turk McBride, Tamba Hali and Glenn Dorsey and thought, "Wow, how can I fire the defensive line coach now? He had almost nothing to work with whatsoever." Ask yourself this question – is it really Krumrie's fault Hali and McBride are too slow to consistently beat offensive tackles around the corner?

Any chance the Chiefs trade up with Detroit for the top pick if they fall in love with Stafford? I know Detroit needs a quarterback but they seem to have a lot of holes.

Nick Athan: Stafford is likely going to be the top pick and the Chiefs would have to give up their second round pick to move up. The Lions could trade the pick but it's not likely the Chiefs would be the team to make that move. A team like Seattle, that picks fourth, might have a better shot to get it done.

If the Chiefs are not locked in on Wake Forest Linebacker Aaron Curry, they could slide down four or five slots. In fact, this could be the draft where they trade down twice in round one because honestly, there is little difference in talent from pick #3 to #20. But to answer your question, I don't see the Chiefs moving up.

Matt Stafford: Should the Chiefs trade up?
Doug Benc - Getty

Michael Ash: I don't think there's any chance at all. For one thing, it's not a guarantee that Detroit will even take a quarterback. There's plenty of speculation that they'll opt for a safer pick like one of the left tackles, which would work out beautifully for the Chiefs. There's even been recent talk that Detroit is seriously considering trading for Matt Cassel. But putting that issue aside, unless there was a player involved in the trade, such a move would probably cost the Chiefs too much to make it feasible.

C.E. Wendler: If the Chiefs think Stafford is the guy, sure, why wouldn't there be a chance? What would it really cost to move up from #3 to #1 anyway? According to the value chart, the Chiefs would need 800 points to move up to the top spot, or their second and third-round choice. That might be too costly for one draft, so perhaps the Lions would take future picks in the deal, or a player. We just don't know.

But if the Chiefs think Stafford is the guy, no price is too high, when you consider what a franchise quarterback does for your team. The Denver Broncos gave up quite a bit to get Jay Cutler in 2006 – was it worth it? At this point it's hard to argue it wasn't.

Will the Chiefs win more than two games next year? The staff is fresh and there are holes to fill, but what do you think the magic number of wins is in order for Chiefs Nation to be happy?

Nick Athan: They'll manage at least four or five wins as the veteran coaching staff will play into the strengths of the players and make adjustments from quarter to quarter. That's probably the biggest positive about Haley's staff. I can see six wins in 2009, but any more than that will be based on creating turnovers and making more big plays, or game-changing plays. The Chiefs could have been 9-7 last year if they'd just made one single stop or converted a first down to extend a drive in seven of their 14 losses. As far as the magic number, it could be eight wins.

Michael Ash: I anticipate more than two wins. As for a magic number to satisfy the fan base, it's hard to say. Even though it's completely unrealistic, there are sure to be many who will expect the Chiefs to go 8-8 or better based on what happened in Miami and Atlanta last year. But if the team can get to five or six wins, most reasonable fans will see that as progress.

C.E. Wendler: The Chiefs hit rock bottom last year as a franchise. They can't possibly be worse, so yes, more than two wins is pretty much a guarantee. As for the magic number, it's hard to say. Most everyone would be satisfied with an 8-8 season. But we don't know how Pioli and Haley view the roster right now. They may see it as needing a total overhaul. If it does, five or six wins might be a wildly successful season.

If the Chiefs go to the 3-4 does that mean Dorsey will be traded? What about moving Dorsey to defensive end?

Nick Athan: Dorsey is a tough part of the equation. If the Chiefs move him to the middle, he has to add about 30 pounds. If they move him to defensive end, he needs to shed about 10 pounds. He's talented and could develop into a solid player but needs a better cast around him. Trading him in the second year of a five-year contract is risky and quite likely impossible. The Chiefs may have to attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Does Glenn Dorsey fit in a 3-4?
Nick Laham - Getty

Michael Ash: It's possible the Chiefs could try to trade him eventually, but certainly not right away, because they'll want to see him play in a 3-4 before making that kind of decision. Trying Dorsey at defensive end makes more sense, because he'd need to gain quite a bit to play nose tackle.

A trade doesn't seem realistic, though. As the fifth pick last year, Dorsey has a large contract any trade partner would have to absorb. What would a team be willing to give up in return for him? Don't expect the Chiefs to just give Dorsey away, and don't expect a 4-3 team to make a huge offer based on Dorsey's rookie season. The Chiefs would have to find a team that was in love with Dorsey's potential when he came out of college and hope that something could be worked out.

C.E. Wendler: Is there any precedent for trading a top-five pick in the second year of his contract? I can't think of a single instance, so it really seems quite unlikely. The Chiefs appear to be stuck with Dorsey for the time being, because where does he really fit in the 3-4? He's too small to play the nose, and doesn't have the wingspan or the type of build you see in 3-4 defensive ends, like Pittsburgh's Aaron Smith (6-foot-5, 298 pounds) or Dallas' Marcus Spears (6-foot-4, 298 pounds).

In the re-building of the Chiefs' franchise, Dorsey might ultimately be collateral damage. Sometimes a player is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened to Elvis Grbac when Dick Vermeil arrived in 2001.

WarpaintIllustrated.com Top Stories