Well the plan to start a raw rookie at LT from day 1 was an asinine plan to begin with, can't really hold that against Suamataia.

Well, sure, but regardless of that he was AWFUL. Not even replacement level. Two of the three games he played at LT he got benched before the game was even over.

I read that 27 of the top 50 prospects are either DL or RB...this an arbitrary ranking but it does speak to how lop-sided this year's draft is.

It means that some talent is going to fall...because teams will wait because of the surplus at one/two positions. Scarcity comes into play.

Just from casual observation...it seems like a situation where using next years first would place them in position to get in on it in the early/mid 2nd round.

You lose the 5th year option but gain an additional player THIS season....and the team is in a dynastic run.

If you can land a player you would take at 31 in another draft...then why not?

Don’t care. Other needs are capable of being solved. LT isn’t.

They’ve gotten their asses kicked in 2 SB’s bc of LT. The generational QB is regressing bc the LT is getting him killed. They’ve tried every single way to solve LT except actually moving up and being aggressive to solve the the LT problem. If they think Conerly can be a starting LT for years to come you go get him.

We have an extra 3rds if it takes that to do it OU do it without blinking.

Other areas of the team can be solved in FA and the draft. The LT position has been impossible to solve bc there’s very little supply and high demand.

What were they supposed to do?

Donovan Smith has another injury training (shocker!) and wasn’t an option. They’ve couldn’t trade up high enough to get a good LT prospect bc they all went before pick 21.

Supply and demand. Huge demand and an impossibly small supply. It was either Kingsley or Guyton, who quite honestly looked about as bad as Kingsley.

LT is ****ing impossible to solve unless you pick high in the draft, which we don’t.

Again I ask: what were they supposed to do?

Who said anything about giving up multiple picks? I suggested moving up a few spots in the first for maybe moving back from our early 3rd to a later 3rd.

Edit: Using the Rich Hill Trade Value Chart - https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-V...-Rich-Hill.asp

If Conerly was still on the board at pick 26, a swap of firsts with the Rams has a difference of 33 points. Our pick 66 and the Rams at pick 90 has a difference of 31 points. Close enough that a deal could possiblly get hammered out.

You and others are not being realistic. In this draft you know what we will have to give up to go get one of the better tackles? And how many "cant miss" tackles are in this draft? What we would have to give to move up to this level?

Then some just say just go up to 15-25 pick. That's a first and 3rd, at least you are giving up on a tackle that may or may not work out. In doing this, you have gave up a starting DT, CB, DE, RB and all our other holes to fill.

We are not in this year or bust mode. Just stop. We have been picking at the bottom of the draft for 7 years. This is the design of the NFL. We cant trade up every year. We cant trade up to get a top LT as long as Mahomes is our QB.

They lost to the Buccs because of LT?

At least with Baltimore resigning Stanley they won't screw us over this year first round. Im sure im not the only one thats noticed a pattern over the years of what sure seems like intentional cockblocks.

I consider this view to be unrealistic.

For starters, there isn't a more important position on a team after QB than LT. It's not even particularly close.

If you want a starting LT in this league, you have to draft one, and to draft one, you usually have to get a pick in the top 20.

If NFL evaluators echo Mike Tice, then you aren't getting Josh Conerly or Kevin Banks anywhere near 31. It doesn't rightly matter what Mel Kiper thinks. You might get Ersery.

You act like we're giving up all these "starting" players. Now that's just being ridiculous. Your best-case argument is that you will give up two part-time players (role players). You're giving up a Leo Chenal and a Derrick Nnadi, in all likelihood. Solid players? Yeah sure. Franchise-altering talents? No.

That's disingenuous.

In a draft deep in quality DL and RB, I don't think that is a fair comparison.

On being disingenuous, maybe a tad. I just feel like this board was all up in arms, "fix LT, fix LT," and then we signed a career backup to take some of the edge off, and now everyone assumes it's just "fixed." I championed that signing, but I'm not going to crown it "the solution." I feel that LT remains a huge unknown, and now everyone says, "Hold on, let's not fix it unless a guy falls." Hmm. That doesn't happen. There is a gauntlet of teams in need of OL help from 23 onward. Green Bay can get by with Rasheed Walker but they want to improve there. Houston is not going to leave this draft without a future LT. The Rams will be in the market for a RT of the future with Havenstein at 33 and in the final year of his deal. There are teams at the top of round 2 that could trade ahead of us for OTs if they don't go that route early in round 1. Cleveland and New England both need LTs. The Raiders could get an R,T and the Bears want competition at LT.

On the draft rankings component, one of my arguments related to this has been against precisely what you're saying here, but it's not you or anyone on this board specifically that makes me question things. It's the media guys. Throughout this offseason, they have continued to lower the values of the OTs because of how good the DT class is. They want to keep pushing DT guys up and then push others down, and the OT class has been the one that has seen the bulk of it. A lot of guys like Jeremiah started with Conerly as the #13 overall prospect and top OL. Now, is that the correct slotting? Maybe not, but he's not the 31st best prospect.

I've pointed out that this class of OL is very "normal," all things considered. Recency bias is injected into things, and last year's offensive line class was extremely deep and talented. As time has gone on, talking heads keep sliding offensive linemen down the board, nitpicking anything they can. Banks and Conerly are really good prospects that keep getting slammed for minor things. I feel like that's not likely to match reality, and some people are going to be surprised on draft day.

I feel like a position that has gained value for media guys is CB. There aren't that many round 1 caliber CBs, but a couple of guys ran fast fast at the combine and are shooting up from a round 3 grade to a round 1 grade. I don't think that'll happen. You tend to notice 4.2 speed on tape. It's not a revelation of an unknown. I think it's just wanting more talent to be there than there is.

Also, the league, as a rule, doesn't value DT in Round 1. They have to be pretty special to end up in Round 1. There are probably 4 that could go round 1 this year. This draft maps out eerily similar to 2023 to me.

2023
QB - 3
RB - 2
TE - 1
WR - 4
LT - 4 (one drafted as LT moved to OG)
RT - 1
ER - 7
DT - 4
LB - 1
CB - 4

What we likely see in 2025
QB - 2 or 3
RB - 2
TE - 2
WR - 4
LT - 3
RT - 1
OG - 1
ER - 7
DT - 4
LB - 1
CB - 3 or 4
S - 1 or 2

I just don't see a route that makes sense if you're in the "wait and see" crowd. If you say wait, you're basically saying I'd rather have a defensive lineman. That's fine, but I'd like to hear who you're thinking if that's the case.

It's generally considered a great draft for those positions, but there is absolutely NO way those numbers are anywhere near correct.

I think there is enough variance in his various scouting reports to indicate that Conerly is nowhere near a slam dunk. Many that I've read indicate he's going to need at least a year to get his strength up to NFL standards.

So, my only point is that if we're drafting projects, well, we just drafted one last year that everyone said was not going to be ready year one-and boy, he sure wasn't.

So we're just giving up? Then why take another? So we can give up on him in a year, too?

A project is, by definition, not going to be great year one.

So-I don't buy for a second the Kingsley is a guard now talk. His problems are technique, but the physical traits still scream tackle.

Not indicating that we should hand him the job, but that's what Moore is here for.

Now, I'd take Conerly if he falls to #31. I'd also look at Simmons although the medicals terrify me. Perhaps Ersery, too.

but I don't feel like we gotta do any of that.

On Chiefsplanet, anyone that's not an immediate great player is a bust and we say they're worthless and drop them like a hot potato for the next shiny thing.

Projects require patience.

The truth is that Conerly will most likely not ever be a quality NFL left tackle. That's not even really a knock on HIM, it's the reality of the draft, the number of humans that big, strong, long and yet still nimble that exist on the planet. His chance of being a quality LT is probably what, like 25% tops? And almost CERTAINLY not in year one. So do we do this dance again NEXT year, too? We're going to have an awful lot of guards with tackle traits pretty soon, while other positions languish.

And in a draft DEEP in DT and RB, those third round picks may well be a LOT better than a part time rotational player. We've gotten great players from all over the draft. There's no reason to pooh-pooh those picks.