ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs *****The Josh Simmons Thread***** (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=357948)

DJ's left nut 04-25-2025 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloridaMan88 (Post 18043476)
If the Chiefs felt that Simmons was not a long term answer with his injury history, they would have been more aggressive in free agency than signing Moore.

I.e. trading for Tunsil.

If the Chiefs signed Moore because they were 100% confident they were going to get Simmons, they wouldn't have traded back because the Eagles could absolutely have used a long-term replacement at RT for Lane Johnson.

Those decisions were made independently of each other.

Rausch 04-25-2025 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloridaMan88 (Post 18043476)
If the Chiefs felt that Simmons was not a long term answer with his injury history, they would have been more aggressive in free agency than signing Moore.

I.e. trading for Tunsil.

My argument is we should have.

People saying "it's not a problem because Veach didn't feel it's a problem" are ignoring that it's been a problem for years now we haven't been able to fix with long shot draft picks.

I don't feel we corrected a mistake yesterday - I feel like we repeated it.

TwistedChief 04-25-2025 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 18043480)
I've already noted that if you think he's a top 5 player absent the injury, the pick is defensible. In fact, it's what I thought the Chiefs HAD to believe to make the pick and said so over a month ago.

I don't. I'd have had him 10-15.

So I don’t think it’s directly translatable into just simply saying that you’d feel comfortable drafting him 5-10 slots later as a result, but where would you have been okay taking him?

DJ's left nut 04-25-2025 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie (Post 18043481)
That’s not true. Really bad logic here. There are teams that wouldn’t have taken a tackle no matter what.

Or traded up to the high 20s?

Nah. Not if he's the obvious top 5 talent who teams are confident in his medicals over.

I don't see how folks can simultaneously make this argument and also say the chiefs had to do it because of how precious and rare young blue chip OTs are.

Rausch 04-25-2025 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie (Post 18043481)
That’s not true. Really bad logic here. There are teams that wouldn’t have taken a tackle no matter what.

And every team that needed a tackle and drafted one didn't take him.

Every round and every pick he fell the risk was smaller. No one felt he was worth risking a 1st round pick for other than us.

FloridaMan88 04-25-2025 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 18043484)
If the Chiefs signed Moore because they were 100% confident they were going to get Simmons, they wouldn't have traded back because the Eagles could absolutely have used a long-term replacement at RT for Lane Johnson.

Those decisions were made independently of each other.

Veach said they asked the Eagles if they were drafting defense or offense before making the trade.

DJ's left nut 04-25-2025 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwistedChief (Post 18043487)
So I don’t think it’s directly translatable into just simply saying that you’d feel comfortable drafting him 5-10 slots later as a result, but where would you have been okay taking him?

I said I would probably consider him with our 2nd but that there was a good chance I still had someone I liked more than him.

My 'definitely would take' point was our late 3rd. At that point I don't give a shit about the risk. And I knew he wasn't gonna last to there. So I was content simply not getting him.

MahomesMagic 04-25-2025 01:04 PM

Posted in another thread but here is Orlando Brown Jr evaluating Josh Simmons.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/taTlRY9YV9A?si=l830esgdmkgDw3rC&amp;start=3752" 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>

Balto 04-25-2025 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 18043472)
We took a calculated risk because of desperation.

If the guy we signed was 100% the answer we don't have to address this need with a 1st round pick. We don't draft a QB in round 1 because we 100% have the answer there.

IF anything signing Moore was the "desperation" move that Veach did just mins after FA opened up. A short term deal also says desperation move.

I'm happy with the Moore signing and I feel Veach had to be desperate finding a LT after what happened last season.

Drafting Simmons was not a desperation move because Veach had already signed Moore. Simmons is a long term move that is a cheap contract.

We had 1 average/good tackle on the roster before FA started. So Veach was always going to get another starter and a backup. Who he pays shouldn't matter and if Simmons wins the starting job, Moore is a great tackle to have as a backup........JUST LIKE HE WAS IN SAN FRAN! Who cares if Simmons is getting the big contract or Moore.

Marcellus 04-25-2025 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 18043491)
And every team that needed a tackle and drafted one didn't take him.

Every round and every pick he fell the risk was smaller. No one felt he was worth risking a 1st round pick for other than us.

Comical how people latch on to the “1st round pick!” narrative when dude was literally the last pick in round 1.

Guess what if you hit on him you get a 5th year option at a discount. That alone is worth taking him 5-10 spots sooner.

TwistedChief 04-25-2025 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 18043491)
And every team that needed a tackle and drafted one didn't take him.

Every round and every pick he fell the risk was smaller. No one felt he was worth risking a 1st round pick for other than us.

Sorry, but this just isn’t accurate.

The best you can say is that no one else felt at their existing pick in the first round that the risk was worth it.

Kiimo 04-25-2025 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DynastyChiefs (Post 18043459)
If anyone does not like the Simmons pick, you can always leave and root for another team

lurk more

DJ's left nut 04-25-2025 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloridaMan88 (Post 18043493)
Veach said they asked the Eagles if they were drafting defense or offense before making the trade.

And he used the leverage of trading back further still to convince the Eagles to make the deal.

Because the Eagles don't make that trade just to jump KC. It was to stave off someone looking to jump THEM. Which would necessitate Veach moving down further.

So either Veach was willing to move further than 32 (in which case, MORE risk) or he was simply bluffing. In which case he'd have to consider the real possibility that the Eagles were as well.

It doesn't wash.

Rausch 04-25-2025 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic (Post 18043496)
Posted in another thread but here is Orlando Brown Jr evaluating Josh Simmons.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/taTlRY9YV9A?si=l830esgdmkgDw3rC&amp;start=3752" 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>

And he states the point right off the bat "His transition to the NFL will be easier due to his God given ability." His athleticism and movement are what allow him to react and adjust.

That's why a knee injury is so bad. We're not talking about a non-pulling guard that focuses on run blocking - he's a super athletic LT. His game is to mirror, adjust, and anchor.

TwistedChief 04-25-2025 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 18043495)
I said I would probably consider him with our 2nd but that there was a good chance I still had someone I liked more than him.

My 'definitely would take' point was our late 3rd. At that point I don't give a shit about the risk. And I knew he wasn't gonna last to there. So I was content simply not getting him.

Okay, so you would’ve been okay in the second. They got him in the first instead.

It’s not like the decision is out in some other orbit and indefensible.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.