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.

Maybe 18-20 of the top 50. I don't see 27.

Looking at probably 6-7 DTs, 9-10 ERs, and 3 RBs.

Perhaps that's where you and I disagree, and I disagree with many... I just don't think Conerly is a project. Will he need to get a stronger anchor? Yes. Just like Eric Fisher did. Is everything else there? Yes, I think it is. The feet, the hands, the awareness, etc. Athletically, sure, Suamataia and Conery are similar. That's where it stops for me. Conerly is a guy that shut down the best pass rushers in this draft, not a day 2 project from BYU. I think there is a big, big difference between where Suamataia was from a technique standpoint and where Conerly is.

Well, maybe. I've also read reports that question his toughness and heart. I get that you love the prospect and hell, I like him too, I just think we have 5 real picks in this draft, and it's really important that we get at least 3 good players out of it if we're going to keep this thing rolling. It almost doesn't matter what positions. We need good, cheap young talent to keep re-stocking as guys price out.

Here's what Mike Tice had to say on the top OL prospects on his son's podcast if anyone is interested. He's not in the consensus on pretty much any of them.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I5JE3sOnHQg?si=LdxCoFSC77SjXg8W" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I had no clue Nate Tice was Mike's kid. Never even thought of it. Always liked his takes.

WTF? If we fail to get starters in the 1st/2nd rounders with those picks, we are hosed.

We give them all up to move up and get a project LT that has a better chance to fail than succeed.

Really good listen crow! I'm on board. If you have a chance to move up to get this kid to protect Mahomes for the next 8 to 10 years, you have to look into it at the very least. It took a 1st - 3rd - and a next years 1st to go get Mahomes. If that is what it takes to get Mahomes back to being himself going forward then it's a small cost.

Trading 2 1’s and a 3rd for anything short of a slam dunk franchise LT is completely asinine…

I'd also be worried about how much a trade partner would demand. Haven't there been stories about other teams refusing to make draft day trades with the Chiefs in the past few years?

It’s been rumored for sure, supposedly they wanted to move up for Flowers but no one would play ball.

Conorly vs Abdul Carter

https://youtu.be/gbUY15TuRRg?si=G4Vi8gMdZESY4Bzq

Who is talking about trading 1sts and 2nds? I never said that.

I said trade a 3rd and maybe next year's 3rd or pick swap 63 or 66 for 97 and trade with Minnesota to get ahead of the gauntlet at the end of the 1st.

I thought maybe there's a chance you'd have to go up to 19 but I don't think so.

I'm not advocating trading to the top 10 for this guy.

I'd bet that Minnesota would want more of a premium than that. Any idea how much they want to make that pick themselves at #24?

I can’t understand the argument that we shouldn’t invest in protecting Mahomes. We are thin at oline anyway. It’s not a deep position group for us. And we have Mahomes and he plays much better when protected and really trusts his oline. Why anyone would think that the cost of moving up to 20-25 for a LT is too high is ridiculous to me. I like Simmons but if the chiefs think conerly is better, so be it. I actually feel the opposite way. If you can grab a guy like Simmons or conerly with a small trade up, get it done.

The world is funny.

I didn't really have a ton of interest in Conerly when we NEEDED a LT for 2025. Now that we don't, I find him damn intriguing because of what I think he could be in 2026.

Interesting how that works out sometimes.

Not likely according to the charts. Maybe they ask for our 4th with a swap of 66 for 97 and we'd probably ask for their 6th.

Minnesota has every incentive to move out of 24. They only have 4 picks in the draft, 1-24, 3-97, 5-139, and 6-187. They need some ammunition. I wouldn't put it past them to move down twice like they did a few years ago.

Certainly intriguing, but the charts are only a baseline and no GM wants to be embarrassed during the draft. I'll bet that if the Vikings want to move down, they'll have more than one offer. The Chiefs won't get the deal unless our offer is better, not just equivalent, but better.

It's always a catch 22 I think. If any tackle is a sure thing, he won't be there at 24. So trading up to take a tackle at 24 (or anywhere in the 20s I guess unless the tackle class is insanely deep) is always just taking a risk, the same as Suamatia was a risk, its never a sure fire thing.

Moore has actual snaps in the NFL against good pass rushers where he looks like an above average tackle. He is way more likely to be an above average tackle next season than pretty much any rookie is. The Chiefs have invested enough in him that he's going to play, so I'd rather the Chiefs let the draft come to them than trade up to bench a guy for a year.

If Simmons or Conerly fall to 31, sure take them - especially if they can play RT in a year so you can cut Taylor and save 20m in the process.

There's a better than good chance a tackle take in the 20's or later is exactly that next year - a role player. We need starters out of the first round.

The fact you think Conerly or Simmons automatically solves the problem says a ton.

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.

So you HAVE to get ahead of pick 20 and people are advocating trading up a "few spots". Surely you see the contradiction in that.

Who said don't invest? We are talking about investing WISELY.

Trading up to get another SHOT at a tackle isn't wise, at all. It would actually be pretty stupid.

This is not necessarily true. Conerly or Banks or ??? Could start at LT over Moore. There is nothing saying that isn't an open competition.

Also, there's really not a position elsewhere on this team where you couldn't say the same damned thing about it sans maybe NT.

So long as it's a long-term starter, that's what matters. I'm speaking of career role player, I figured you'd understand that.

Do I need to pull out a highlighter for you today?

I said you "usually" have to get into the top 20. I think you would agree with that.

Now, if there are a couple of prospects who some NFL guys see as much better than the media armchair GMs then there will probably be some meeting in the middle, and we'd have to move up for one, but maybe not into the top 20.

I was the original guy to suggest the Vikings-Chiefs pick swap in a mock and move up to 24. I think 24 is reasonable. It's getting Christian Darrisaw value. Will one of Banks or Conerly be there? I think it looks probable. Will they be there at 31? I don't think so. Positional value is too strong, and some other teams need LTs as well.

All I've said about moving above 24 is that it would likely need to be to 19, and that's a big move for Tampa to make. Denver at 20 and LA at 22 aren't going to trade with us, probably. Pittsburgh doesn't really ever trade down, and they sit at 21. Green Bay doesn't either, and they are at 23. If Veach felt he had to get that high for one of these guys, that's something I'd support him doing but not champion for.

Other guys are talking about trading 1sts and 2nds and moving way up. I just don't see that as a thing. Those aren't my words.

There's no guarantee he's a long-term starter. You yourself admitted you're not getting a sure fire starter outside of the top 20. People are stretching to make this make sense because they're scared. It's that simple.

I never said those were your words. I just don't agree. We've got a bunch of projects already on the roster. No need to trade up for another one.

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.

I’m not sure if they do, but if these guys view one of these LT prospects as a guy that can start at tackle and be a quality starter for a long time, then they need to make it the highest priority to obtain them.

Don’t think that’s gonna take much do a move up if it’s for Conerly

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.

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

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.

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

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.

it's Balto.

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

jeez...

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

Yes!!!!!

Not just could be - has been.

Have you seen his new contract? He's owed $40 million in 2029. That ship has sailed.

TBF, $40 million in 2029 is probably equal to 10-12 million this season. Hell if they add an 18th game might be closer to 7-9 million this season.

You guys need to get over your nostalgia.

Reek isn't coming back. We're not paying that. It's not happening. Quit dreaming.

Meant to upvote my bad

Mahomes has been really patient and a great leader with not criticizing the organization. His numbers have not been up to his standards for a while. Mahomes has valued winning and been unselfish but I don’t want to push that forever. I think it would be a statement from the organization on valuing Mahomes if we invest in a trade up to protect him. The last thing we need is a frustrated Mahomes. He’s got a bunch of kids at home and is adjusting to being a dad and growing up. He seems to be a good husband. I just don’t want to push him too far. We need to see mahomes having fun again and there aren’t any good free agent options for LTs. Who’s our backup tackle if Moore is injured or doesn’t perform well? Morris or Kingsley is not going to make Mahomes feel comfortable. How long do you expect to play it cool with all this pressure. Simmons ceiling is as high as any tackle in this draft. I’d protect my marquee player in Mahomes and let him know that we aren’t satisfied with how much he’s getting hit. I think that’s very wise and a really smart investment. This isn’t just x & O’s. It’s showing a commitment to Mahomes. Mahomes is the most important person in the organization and we need to keep him happy. Plus I think Simmons is a great value in the 20s and if he’s available go get him. Simmons could be the starter later in the season. Simmons has all the traits you look for. He’s a freak athlete and he’s strong too.

You just started looking into the draft, didn't you?

Let me catch you up.

Simmons, if he's healthy, would absolutely be a top 15 and maybe top 10 pick.

thing is, he had a horrific injury, one that is usually a career ender. So, the likelihood that he'll EVER be what he was before the injury is slim. If he's available anywhere near our pick, it's because of that.

So, maybe not the slam dunk you think. It's also not a great year for a left tackle in the draft. Certainly not for a plug and play, day one starter.

So we can WANT that as much as we like, but it doesn't make it feasible.

If Mike Tice is to be believed, Conerly is the best tackle in the draft. He watched two films. The OSU and Penn State films, and raved at his skill set. The podcast with his son that crow posted is worth your listen. It's and hour + long, but the first 30 to 35 minutes is all that you really need to listen too. And yes, you should listen to all of those 35 minutes. He breaks down the list one at a time, and Conerly is about 7th on the list.

What? Not feasible? We just tagged our RG, Trey smith, who supposedly had a career threatening health problem. I think we drafted him in the 6th or 7th? If the docs examine Simmons and say that he’ll be 100% by the playoffs, you move up & take him, IMO. Simmons has great feet and he can run. He’s physical and can handle a bull rush. I thought he moved like a big te on screens. His punch and hands are impressive. They are all traits at this point but he showed enough tape to be our best shot at a long term LT in my opinion. You don’t get talents like this in the back half of the 1st. The risk is worth the reward. It’s a premium position and modern medicine seems to keep these athletes on the field. Moore is a perfect transition piece for the long term. Simmons would have to beat him out to earn the job.

You don’t have to be a scout to see Simmons and conerlys feet. Just watch their highlights. They can move. Conerly did great against Carter. And I did listen to rice on Simmons and conerly. I’d take Simmons bc he’s stronger and uses his hands better, IMO, assuming he’s 100% ready by the playoffs.just watch the tape and you can see it. Simmons has said that he’ll be ready by training camp but I’m not buying it.

I’d be happy with Connolly / Simmons. The MU wr. Michigan defensive tackle.

Those are proly my 4 favorites

If Simmons checks out medically, he will go well before the Chiefs pick. Conerly is really the only realistic option.

blood clots versus a patellar tendon tear.

It's not apples to apples.

IF Simmons is 100%, sure. That's a really big IF.

I know KCCrow loves Conerly.

I mean, a tendon can be repaired/sound and the player can still be less than they were before.

It happens all the time - athletes and non-athletes alike. That patellar tendon repair is one that has been notoriously difficult to completely return to form from.

This isn’t an ACL or a broken bone…

That's fair, and is consistent with the common refrain we have seen here -- if Simmons makes it to 31 that means he's not healthy and we don't want him.

But what if it's an injury that just takes additional time to heal? I could certainly see teams passing on him if he won't be 100% until midseason. For us, that's probably fine though. We are looking for the long term solution. So I'm not sure I agree that he's permanently damaged goods just because others don't take the swing.

More concerning is talk that he will never be the same player. I don't have the expertise to comment on that opinion. If he can NEVER return to health, don't take him. But if he just needs a bit of time, I think we are in a good position to offer it.

I think it’s less a concern of recovery time and more a loss of explosion and onset of continuing issues, like arthritis.

There are plenty of bad teams that could use a LT and that can afford to wait an extra six months for him to be ready.

Lets hope for the next Roaf or Pace.

Teams may pass on Simmons bc they don’t project him to be a day 1 starter. I’d guess that it would take at least a year from the injury this past October to be ready and then he needs some time to develop. So, the idea that if he’s healthy, he will be gone is not necessarily accurate. It’s more complicated than that. It’s a risk to know when or if he will be 100%. Plus he’s an ascending player that played at his best in 2024, so teams will also be betting on his traits. It’s a risk that could drop him with limited reps in 2024. The risk is worth the reward for me if we can get him after the 20th pick, assuming that the drs believe he can start by the playoffs. It’s a great match of need and positional value.

Simmons reps have stated that he will be ready by training camp but how accurate is that? Here’s the article.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/article...202923871.html

Charles McDonald: Josh Simmons is dealing with rehab coming off of a torn patellar tendon, but according to media reports, he’s on track to be ready for the start of training camp. If can get healthy in a hurry, Simmons has the tools to grow into a steady offensive tackle in the NFL.

He’s a smooth mover who should be a lockdown pass protector from Day 1. He may end up being a stash draft pick for a team, but he is dripping with talent and a frame to add more weight and strength.

I agree with this post.

Exactly.

You look at Henry Josey as a perfect example. By all accounts he was 'healed' and the surgery on his knee was a success.

He still went from being the most explosive RB in college football as a true sophomore to being good but clearly not what he once was after he missed a season.

It was repaired. "The medicals checked out" by any definition of the term. He simply wasn't the same player.

There's absolutely nothing that can be seen/done to determine if Simmons is the guy he was trending towards being before that injury. It's a roll of the dice either way.

In that case, just gimme Conerly. The history of patella injuries is just damn rough.

If Simmons falls to us at 31, you have to take him. Even if its next year before he can play at anything near his level before the injury.

Are you 4IMPRINT certain?

Again - there's no reason to believe he's more likely to recover next year than he is this year.

His 'recovery' is likely going to be near the finish line by the fall. It doesn't mean he'll ever be what he was, not a year from now or 3 years from now.

That's a really nasty injury, fellas. It isn't just going to take time - it's going to take time and winning the genetic lottery. His body just has to recover better than the majority of them do from injuries like his.

And if the Chiefs decide that's not a gamble worth using a 1st round pick on i would completely understand it.

And would make the Jaylon Moore signing even better!

Simmons is ideal. He’s likely to be the most talented player that slips. And he’s also the position of most need (well before we signed the backup)

The Chiefs are in a "win now" mode though. Drafting a risky guy like Simmons is more appropriate for a team that can afford to take chances. We need our top picks to step in and perform.

No, you don't. You really don't, especially if you're taking him over Josh Conerly or Walter Nolen or Egbuka or Burden or Harmon.

The concern/risk is pretty high on him. You have a strong injury concern with a decent chance he never recovers 100 percent physically, AND he's a player who doesn't have a lot of experience/snaps to review.

So, injury risk. Scouting risk. Smart orgs tend not to spend 1st round picks on guys like that.

No. He isn't ideal. Ideal would not be someone with that type of injury risk, who also has very little tape of history of success at the position at which you're drafting him to play.

It's not like this guy started at LT as a true freshman and kicked ass at that spot for 2.5 years before blowing his knee. He had like 6 starts at LT before he blew his knee.

Yeah, I don't know that the risk profile fits the Chiefs.

Maybe, if you get to 31 and you're picking between Simmons and the WRs that fit are gone, and the DTs worthy of a 1st are gone, etc. And he's truly the BPA.

But taking him over Nolen or Conerly or Harmon or Burden or Egbuka or even Azareyah Thomas would be tough to swallow.