Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 17979299)

That is not the same, the Colts literally spent no resources on OL the Chiefs have spent a **** ton.

Originally Posted by FloridaMan88 (Post 17979235)

Besides hindering the Chiefs ability to invest in a LT, Trey Smith is simply not an elite guard.

Originally Posted by Balto (Post 17979352)

I believe Veach is tip toeing with OT agents testing the market. If he gets an idea that they can land Jackson or Stanley for what Smith will cost, I believe Veach will go that route but if not he is staying friendly with Smith and his agent to resign if the OT market is not there.

I LOVE the idea of signing JAckson with Smith's money and then spending #31 on a stud RG!

LT-Jackson
LG-Thuney
OC-Creed
RG-Stud Rookie
RT-Taylor

And Kingsley can replace Taylor if he developes.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 17979266)

You yourself have agreed that overpaying Nick Bolton is not a smart move.

There is no universe where people can really think that a decent functional G getting overpaid is worse than a 2 down LB getting overpaid, especially when you have Mahomes. That logic cannot add up here.

Bolton is very replaceable. We actually lost Bolton for half the year in 2023 and the defense didn’t fall apart. Tranquill did a fine job filling his spot.

Bolton is slow, he’s a liability in coverage and he’s not worth anywhere near what he’s asking for.

Also the “running game was shit this year” argument is bizarre. You’re telling me 29 year old Kareem Hunt who was as explosive as Derrick Nnadi didn’t have explosive runs? He was washed. There was no explosion there anymore. And of course Pacheco wasn’t this year bc he broke his leg. He wasn’t the same after that injury.

Just last year the running game was not this major problem. It was fine. Pacheco had many explosive runs and 4.6 YPC.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NRPznljLHmI?si=3r3ApYX2yMIKKGI9" 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>

Originally Posted by Coochie liquor (Post 17979397)

You think giving Trey north of 20 million for subpar play, is better than giving Bolton 15 million who’s the green dot? All while having about 3-4 drafted OL as backup players on rookie contracts?

You make no sense man.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 17979356)

I just hope they're ready because if they pay Smith that requires a new contract or a cut for Thuney.

Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief (Post 17979419)

I think the idea you floated of them moving on from Thuney if they resign Smith isn't very far fetched at all. It makes logical sense, they could be thinking if they can land the LT they want in free agency, that makes the LG position a lot less important than it has been while we've been cycling through all these rejects at the position. They might think Kingsley gives them more than enough of what they need there with a guy like Jackson holding down LT.

I can't see any possible scenario where the Chiefs have 5 starting o-lineman all with lucrative deals. Seems next to impossible.

Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch (Post 17979422)

Good ****ing Lord, cutting Thuney just to stick Suamataia there and have a new LT next to him sounds like an absolutely awful idea.

Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief (Post 17979426)

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that, just trying to figure out what they could be thinking.

They can always keep Trey and the new LTs cap hits super low in year one and then move on from Taylor and Thuney next year instead, but it seems next to impossible any NFL team would have 5 starting lineman all making north of $15 million a year. I don't know how you would pull that off.

Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch (Post 17979422)

Good ****ing Lord, cutting Thuney just to stick Suamataia there and have a new LT next to him sounds like an absolutely awful idea.