Originally Posted by GordonGekko (Post 17979102)

The 'how bout those CHIEFS' guy said in recent video that Chiefs org insiders state that right now the plan to fix LT is bring in an LT vet and have them compete against an upcoming draft pick. That to me says the Chiefs are going to move up in the draft to select a viable LT option, they have the draft capital to do so.

I don't know who his 'Chiefs insiders' are but with about 300k subscribers I would think it would be someone somewhat close to the ground on this, could be total crapola.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 17979103)

That's reactive roster building. "Playing scared" so to speak.

It's an awful, awful plan.

"Well it might be hard to find a better solution at LT so lets just bring back a similar OL but make it a LOT more expensive..."

That cannot be the plan.

Because frankly, Smith in a vacuum wasn't worth the salary he'll command. He just wasn't that good this year. A top 15 guard, almost certainly. He MIGHT be one of the 20-25 best pass-blocking OGs in football.

And we couldn't run the ball for shit with him, so I'm not sure he moves the needle as much as we insist he does in the running game.

Set aside any cap considerations for a moment and just look at the player and the cost -- it's simply a bad decision. You don't pay top of the market money for a 2nd tier position and a guy who's -- generously -- top 10 there but with clear holes in his game (that happen to align really poorly with what we want to do).

The Chiefs shouldn't bring him back.

And the area where this team has gotten itself in the most trouble is with its own guys. Mostly they've been veterans they refuse to cut bait on (Sorensen, Watkins, Clark) but this would be similar. They cannot let inertia win here. If Trey Smith were a free agent from the Vikings looking for this contract, there's simply no way we'd give it to him.

And there's ZERO chance anyone here would support doing so or "see the logic in it".

This is a really bad decision.

I don't trust the reporting for that reason. That or it is little more than a PR play to lessen the sting if/when he leaves.

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19 (Post 17979082)

When you're picking in the top 20 it's easy to say you're going to find a way to fix LT in the draft

At 31, I just don't see it. Massive gamble, lot of teams aren't going to take their call seriously.

So IF they do retain Smith, all I can say is it probably says they still like Kingsley at LT.

Originally Posted by comochiefsfan (Post 17979129)

Makes me wonder if Pat is throwing his weight around a little and demanding he be re-signed.

Idk, seems like a terrible idea.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 17979103)

That's reactive roster building. "Playing scared" so to speak.

It's an awful, awful plan.

"Well it might be hard to find a better solution at LT so lets just bring back a similar OL but make it a LOT more expensive..."

That cannot be the plan.

Because frankly, Smith in a vacuum wasn't worth the salary he'll command. He just wasn't that good this year. A top 15 guard, almost certainly. He MIGHT be one of the 20-25 best pass-blocking OGs in football.

And we couldn't run the ball for shit with him, so I'm not sure he moves the needle as much as we insist he does in the running game.

Set aside any cap considerations for a moment and just look at the player and the cost -- it's simply a bad decision. You don't pay top of the market money for a 2nd tier position and a guy who's -- generously -- top 10 there but with clear holes in his game (that happen to align really poorly with what we want to do).

The Chiefs shouldn't bring him back.

And the area where this team has gotten itself in the most trouble is with its own guys. Mostly they've been veterans they refuse to cut bait on (Sorensen, Watkins, Clark) but this would be similar. They cannot let inertia win here. If Trey Smith were a free agent from the Vikings looking for this contract, there's simply no way we'd give it to him.

And there's ZERO chance anyone here would support doing so or "see the logic in it".

This is a really bad decision.

I don't trust the reporting for that reason. That or it is little more than a PR play to lessen the sting if/when he leaves.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 17979148)

"We need to keep the good OL we have"

"We can't let this happen again"

Those two are mutually exclusive in a cap environment.

You're very possibly facing the same sort of problem next season if you bring Smith back. That or you're going to end up greatly damaging your ability to build around the OL if you re-sign Smith AND sign someone like Robinson.

The 'emotions of the SB' simply CANNOT be in play here. Veach has done this for, what, 8 years now? He's won 3 championships. He can't let any setback be an excuse to be irrational.

And bringing Smith back would be completely irrational.

I'm going to hope that it's a smokescreen that helps facilitate a tag and trade to get us a pick on the 2nd day somewhere. Pretending that you want to retain him is nothing but a good thing both publicly and in terms of setting up potential trade dialogue.

But ACTUALLY wanting to bring him back would be lunacy.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 17979169)

Welp

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brett Veach says the Chiefs have had good dialogue with Trey Smith. Says he’s at the top of their list</p>&mdash; Matt Verderame (@MattVerderame) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattVerderame/status/1894434720403894657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>