ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Trade whatever possible for a LT prospect

HELL if Veach really puts guys like Simmons and Conerly up so high who says all these pre-mock guys are wrong and BOTH go top 15?

With that in mind I think the only thing Veach can do is this:

Miami gets:
#31
2026 1st
#66
2026 3rd

KC Gets:
Reek
#13-OT

RunKC

03-31-2025 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 18015768)

I think if you're looking at spots where you 'need' a starter, I'd look at LG (which could be covered by drafting a potential LT), Will 'backer (I'd love to see us layer Tranquil somehow), RB and FS (We don't really utilize FS/SS designations but this roster still doesn't have a coverage safety, IMO). And obviously DT.

I don't think any of those positions except maybe DT are in such a dire spot that you'd forego a possible long-term upgrade at a position of higher importance in order to get a starter at one of those NOW.

And the only one of those to come close is DT where the Chiefs clearly don't think it's that important and never have.

If we make a 'need' pick, it almost has to be DT. I just don't think the Chiefs see DT as a real need even if I do. Beyond that, every position we'd be looking at either has a starter that we'd like to upgrade on (2nd day works great for those guys) and/or is a position of lesser importance.

An interesting viewpoint is the Chiefs strategy. They only have 5 picks before the 7th rd but is that enough?

Do they feel that they only have 4 or so spots on the team so they can be aggressive and give up a pick (or pick swap to lose spots) to go for a guy they love and could be a blue chip (hello Derrick Harmon) or….do they stay and trade back from 63 or 66 to get an extra pick (5th rd?).

I think I’d lean towards the latter while Veach has historically leaned towards the former.

RedinTexas

03-31-2025 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balto (Post 18015815)

Why would we want to take on Tyreek's salary cap?

Coogs

03-31-2025 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 18015711)

Um, you'd be trading the 31st pick plus at least one other pick to trade up. By definition, that's multiple picks.

Stay put at 31 and take Conerly. I'm not trading up for a tackle. What a waste of resources all because people can't be patient.

True. But if we start the draft with one 1st, one 2nd, and two 3rds. And wind up with one 1st, one 2nd, and two 3rds, we are kind of splitting hairs here. Picking higher in 1st by picking lower in the 3rd.

DJ's left nut

03-31-2025 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedinTexas (Post 18015872)

Why would we want to take on Tyreek's salary cap?

it's Balto.

Try not to give it too much thought. You'll just give yourself a headache.

poolboy

03-31-2025 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKchiefs (Post 17960658)

Then get used to Mahomes looking like this for the foreseeable future, we’re ruining him

JFC how can you dumb ****s not see how dire the tackle situation is

jeez...

htismaqe

03-31-2025 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kccrow (Post 18015812)

Hell, there is no such thing as a sure thing inside the top 20. It's generally not as much about a "sure thing" as it is about availability. Some positions are much harder to get any quality at outside of round one, and quarterbacks and offensive tackles tend to dry up by pick 10 and pick 20, respectively. That doesn't mean that if one slips outside the top 20, they are automatically some big project. Darrisaw wasn't a project, and he fell to 23. Rodgers was never seen as a project QB and fell to 27. Shit just happens.

I really don't hear anyone calling Conerly a "project" as a prospect. The opposite really. His lone knock has been concerns about anchor strength, but everyone seems to think the footwork, the hand usage, and so on are top-notch. Nobody walks into the NFL as an OT and hits the ground running as a star day 1. They all take some pretty massive lumps. I'm looking at what I'd envision a guy to be 1 or 2 years down the road. Conerly with an added 15-20 lbs and strength gain is going to be a really good player.

Does Conerly have the frame and build to add that kind of weight? I'm not sure I see it. I think the guy's tape is great. In many ways, he reminds me a bit of Karlaftis, only on the offensive side. I'd absolutely take him at 31. I'm just not keen on burning extra draft capital on him, or a tackle in general. Hell, I'm not sure I'd trade up for ANYBODY unless it's an extremely special situation. We don't have that many picks and we are already playing from behind because we make the Super Bowl every year.

Coochie liquor

03-31-2025 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 18014900)

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 if they think the same thing about Kingsley? Do you think Conerly will fare better under the same circumstances Kingsley was thrust into because Veach/Andy thought that was the best option, and because Andy thinks Andy ****ing Heck is an actual OL coach?

BlackOp

03-31-2025 04:51 PM

If KC takes a LT @ 31...I wouldn't bank of them being anything other than a depth piece/insurance in 25. They just dropped $30 mil on a starter.

Everyone is paranoid after what happened last year...but the Chiefs arent going into the season with their hopes pinned on a 2nd round rookie (Suamataia) and no contingency plan.

At least they have tape on a guy who has actually played at this level...and barring injury, should be serviceable.

I havent heard anything on Humphries...Veach could be waiting to see how the draft shakes out but he could be added for depth if a LT doesn't fall.

I'm not sure I would go LT if there is a much better DT prospect...this is the draft to get one. I wouldn't rule out CB or WR either if one drops. Brown is on a one year deal.

Wallcrawler

03-31-2025 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balto (Post 18015815)

Put the controller down, and turn off the shitty Madden.

xztop123

03-31-2025 07:08 PM

Who cares we have a Lamborghini at qb with bicycle tires. The o line is bottle necking us more than our lack of a dominant defensive tackle lol.

Throw everything at getting some racing tires

poolboy

03-31-2025 07:14 PM

so what Im hearing is that Mahomes needs a lock down LT to not feel skittish?

htismaqe

03-31-2025 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xztop123 (Post 18016065)

Who cares we have a Lamborghini at qb with bicycle tires. The o line is bottle necking us more than our lack of a dominant defensive tackle lol.

Throw everything at getting some racing tires

That kind of behavior is what buries teams in perpetual mediocrity. Or worse.

New World Order

03-31-2025 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balto (Post 18015815)

Yes!!!!!

Rausch

04-01-2025 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 18013861)

The Chiefs/Andy clearly put a ton of stock in it, and it could be the difference in whether they take a guy or not.

Not just could be - has been.