Just like all of the teams who passed on Trey Smith because of his medical records/history?

It’s also about where you are selecting a player in the draft.

Selecting in the top 10… like New England did with Will Campbell will make a team more risk averse than selecting at 32.

There was a national study on players who suffered this injury from 2009 to 2022 and it wasn’t good.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11806464/

Only 16% of players came back to start as many games as within 2 seasons after their injury as they did before injury.

Maybe Burkholder is right, but there’s overwhelming evidence in the other direction and it shouldn’t be hand-waived.

Not to mention 2 OL Covid opt outs and Osemele going down too.

I think there was even another guy who went down, but I’m blanking on who.

At minimum, the Chiefs lost 5 guys on the OL. You just can’t build for that kind of luck.

Nobody is concerned about the knee. They just all passed on him because of...character concerns? I haven't even heard about those. What the **** is that all about?

Do you think that Burkholder is unaware of that historical data?

I hated the idea of taking a RB in the 1st round.

We did it. I talked myself into it.

Just not doing that again.

If I'm proven wrong, I'm proven wrong -- I've been wrong before. But I'm not gonna doubt my gut anymore.

That's why the "Trust in Veach" stuff rings particularly hollow. Because more often than not when I have REALLY not liked a pick he's made, I've been right. And when I've absolutely loved a pick he's made, I've said it...and I've been right.

Where Veach absolutely kills me, something he does I can never ever do, is be right on a guy I simply don't know shit about. And he deserves all the credit in the world for that. Danna, Snead, Chenal, Allegretti (and I'm sure others I'm forgetting) -- those are all guys that were completely off my radar that were good picks. That's where he's been exceptional.

But I think people underestimate the hit rate of the 'drafturbators' when it comes to guys they have strong opinions on. A ton of us are pretty damn reliable on BOTH sides of this ledger.

We’re all happy Trey Smith worked out, but it’s not like the Chiefs just knew better than everyone else. They passed on him several times before pulling the trigger really late.

If the Chiefs knew Trey would work out, then it was very risky to pass on him so many times.

I think that pick sounded like the risk was minimal enough that late to take a chance.

This is a first round pick. The Chiefs absolutely have to be right on this.

Just further proof that we don't know what we don't know.

First we have to establish that there is a significant difference between the type of injuries and how they impact a player's career. If we can't agree on that, then we aren't going to be able to have any type of productive conversation.

Secondly, I understand you are trying to establish that if the Chiefs athletic trainer gave his blessing that we should have some faith. My counter argument is that there are teams in the NFL draft that passed on Simmons because their athletic trainers did not give their blessing.

It isn't really complicated, some people see the injury history of patellar tendon's and hate the data, that is fair. Some people see the upside of Simmons and scarcity of the position and think the gamble is justified. I can see both sides of the argument and they are both valid.

The "does he love football" stuff surfaced about a month ago.

A few folks mentioned it in the draft forum. I just threw it on top of the pile...

If he displays "character" issues, we can bring Carl Peterson in to scream at Simmons and his agent.

An OT of Simmons potential talent/upside wouldn’t last much longer. The Chiefs we’re right to take him at 32.

Ronaldo came back from a patellar tendon tear to lead the word cup in scoring , R9 not CR7 had 5-6 good seasons after that , maybe he does better or plays longer without it but he had other injury issues I think

Every player loves football when things are going good.

With his road to recovery, possible setbacks, getting back in shape, etc, we’ll find out how much he loves it.

This is not about “Trust in Veach”… it’s about trusting the informed medical opinion of Burkholder.

Because if you take away the medical concerns, Simmons has the talent to be a top 10-15 pick… are you disagreeing with that?

So it’s not a talent evaluation debate with Simmons… it’s strictly about assessing his injury status/recovery.

Seems to like football just fine

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A message from the man himself 🗣️ <a href="https://t.co/MzVeBlApEk">pic.twitter.com/MzVeBlApEk</a></p>&mdash; Kansas City Chiefs (@Chiefs) <a href="https://twitter.com/Chiefs/status/1915631354512912622?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It isn't who knows, you should spend more time... Kids grow up really fast and you can't reverse the clock. I appreciate your contributions, but man, if your thinking that, your balance is off. The Chiefs being good makes it really hard for us fans as it takes time away from other things. First world problems, but yea, spend some more time with the Fiance and kids.

I hope the Chiefs are right.

I’m just saying the Trey Smith comparison isn’t really all that valid.

You just can’t compare throwing a late round pick at someone to taking someone in the first round.

Did the Patriots just know Tom Brady would be good? If so, wasn’t that kinda dumb to risk passing on him so many times?

Or did they just take a chance on a guy with minimal investment and it worked out?

I give the Chiefs a lot more credit for their evaluation and move up for Mahomes. That was a high risk move where they absolutely got it right.

I don’t call it lucky. It’s just that the risk isn’t nearly comparable.

It is absolutely about trusting in Veach. It's his show, his decision. He'll get the credit if it works out. In fact if this works it will probably be his signature move as GM of the Chiefs. If it works it could launch us into Phase 2 of this dynasty. Going to try to focus on that potential outcome because the alternative is brutal.

He didn’t have to be right about CEH, he didn’t have to be right about FAU. If he hits on a couple later picks, then it negates missing on a first rounder.

Very sweet smile imho

Is the risk/reward calculus for selecting a player different when picking at 32 than it is earlier in the first round?

Yes.

I think they are more than aware and still took the risk anyway because they are that desperate. It’s also the 32nd pick and they didn’t trade up.

That's where I keep ending up, especially with Reid's statement that they wanted to take an OT in the first round.

They know the risks and chose to focus on need instead.

I think that's a mistake. And I think it's ultimately Veach that makes that particular determination.

I just have a really hard time buying that the same team that waited until the 5th round to pull the trigger on Trey Smith despite him being totally fine is all of a sudden taking huge risks purely out of desperation.

If they didn't feel good about the injury, they don't take him.

It’s his decision based on the medical guidance from Burkholder that Simmons will be able to make a full recovery from his injury.

We know for sure no NFL team outside of KC thought he was worth the risk of a 1st round pick. Not one.

2nd? 3rd? Debatable. Won't ever know.

Could he have fallen way down like Smith did or would he have been the 1st pick of round 2? We can argue that. We do know that no one was willing to trade up from the 2nd round to get ahead of KC for him. So he wasn't worth a 2nd and 4th or 5th to anyone.

I love my wife and I think she's a good person but if tonight she comes home and eats a patch of dog shit I won't say "Well, I love her and she's a good person so I trust her. This should work out." I would think "how does someone I love who's a good human do something so incredibly stupid? What the fug."

I asked Grok:

Not a great track record. This is what worries me.

I think your whole post could have been -

"Need is a terrible evaluator of talent"- Bill Parcells

At least I think that's who said it.

Fat Dennis Rodman

You’re obviously baiting a political response to violate ToS, and I will happily oblige because unlike you and many others, my residency here means absolutely nothing to me.

So to answer your statement: No, it’s not a logical fallacy. That’s just a made-up notion of a popular, warped, and celebrity “stamp of approval” think-tank, like this board and many other segregated echo chambers of the internet.

There is no begging the question. We know that a fetus will become a human life capable of contemplating the very question we ask. The only thing we can’t “know for sure” is when. Anyone empathetic enough to that proposition can do the research and come to a rational conclusion though. The fetus develops sensory response in the first trimester. Touch, taste, hearing, smell, and eyesight. Cognitive function is what undoubtably makes us human. There’s also extensive study that proves that language development, pattern recognition, and memory are imprinted in the womb through interaction with the mother in the third trimester.

By all means though, close your eyes and say “but we don’t know for sure.” By that same logic, a schizophrenic mass-murderer can claim they don’t “know for sure” that anyone is more than a figment of their imagination. Personal perspective doesn’t change the fact that common sense conclusions exist. If you hear hooves and want to argue zebras, you’re just a fool.

If abortion wasn’t a grievance, why the society-breaking level of grievance from both parties? Obviously life is much more convenient with abortion as an option for both men and women. It’s more logical to assert that it’s a justified convenience instead of what would be a dreaded hardship for a certain group of people. I also think that any logical, empathetic person would be more worried about being wrong about the assumptions of inception of human life, something we are already making a bold claim we “don’t know” about in proponent to the contrary and forego the possibility of being an incorrect murderer. Ah but you see, the lack of caution and personal responsibility is ironically a common theme for one side of this debate. So let’s talk about “my choice.”

Women should have choice over their bodies. In fact they do. Every woman selects who they mate with. It wasn’t always this way. They choose who enters their bodies and creates the possibility of a child. In the fringe, fringe cases of rape which are used as a pillar of the argument for many, and by the way statistically 1/10000000(another logical fallacy). I think it can be justifiable to terminate the pregnancy due to the complex relationship that it would obviously create between mother and child and surrounding community. But for the other 9999999 cases where a woman incapable of self-control(consensual sex with a non-partner) or obvious foresight(contraception)it’s not LOGICAL to give the same “justification” for the vast majority out of intention for the very few.

Trying to make blanket projections with a small sample size… not an accurate basis for comparison.

So you don’t think they are more desperate for a tackle after some years of personnel turnstile at that position than they were at guard a few years ago . Don’t think that the eagles dominating our line increases the desperation . If so , you and I disagree , respectfully

Let’s cook. This big boy can move. Let’s get Andy designing screens. Also our new left guard moves better than thuney. We’re fast with the fattys again. First time since fish

It took two seasons for Buckhalter to come back due to a re-injury of the tendon in 2005, but he also had a prior ACL injury.

According to the Colorado Gazette, Burkholder was told by doctors that they thought Buckhalter would never play again.

Not only did he play again, but rehab turned him into a faster player, according to Buckhalter.

https://gazette.com/news/age-and-inj...203c154b1.html

I'm relatively satisfied when 2 out of 7 picks hit. If only every draft could be like 2022. What a draft. They only whiffed on Skyy Moore and Kinnard.

We're using the information we have which is all we can do. The fact that it is more rare means we don't have as much knowledge or experience correcting it.

If we can't find any evidence of a guy playing 10 years after the injury it means you probably won't. The odds, no matter how small the sample size, are against it. My argument being I don't think a highly talented guy who's a huge risk to never be the same isn't a smaller risk than a minimally talented guy with no injury risk coming in.

The C- player with no injury risk might never be better than that but at least he'll actually play.

I think they liked his progress and are rolling with that and the talent anyway. They aren’t paying this kid big money. They have an extra asset in a great draft for day 2.

This will not sink them if it doesn’t work out.

I stand by what I said earlier this week: Josh Simmons is the best LT in this class if he doesn’t get hurt. He has everything you want to be a good LT.

He’s got the same physical attributes of Kingsley. 34 arms (pro day), 34 bench reps, big body and has outstanding movement skills on tape. But this kid has significantly better footwork and hand technique than Kingsley. He can anchor better, he’s better in run blocking, he can handle speed-to-power effectively.

Everything Kingsley struggled with is what this kid is solid at. The Chiefs will never get a talent like this picking late. If they are right it changed everything. That’s the 2nd hardest position to find after QB and we’ve see that for the last 4 years.

I understand why they took the risk.

I’m not throwing in the towel on FAU until after this year, so I’m not in that group.

I also defend the CEH pick to an extent. He wasn’t a great pick, but people act like he’s a Skyy Moore. CEH actually produced some value for the Chiefs. Not enough for the draft position, but Skyy hasn’t ever been productive.

CEH also fell off bad after his injuries. I don’t fault GM’s for not being able to predict future injuries.

But that would be more applicable to taking a guy like Ersery that is a 2nd round talent.

Anybody who is anybody has been saying that this was Simmons range, mostly due to injury, all along.

To pin this - I'm going to finish expressing my concerns/clarifying my position in response to you, because I respect you and the counterpoint you present is the one we all have to pin our hopes upon now...

No, I don't think the Chiefs are unaware of the data. I'm sure they know. I'm sure they also know that Buckhalter was productive when he got back but not as fast or explosive as he was before the injury. I'm sure they know that has been the case for guys who have been able to "make it back."

Maybe they're less concerned about it because they think if he's at 90 percent of the power and explosion in this leg, he's strong enough in the upper body to get by.

Maybe they're less concerned because they've seen him do more than squat 225 pounds, and see him do work that indicates he is back to the level of strength and power transfer he had before the tear.

Maybe.

It's also possible that things look as good as they possibly can right now, and they are hoping/projecting that he gets back to the level of strength and flexibility and torque in that knee/leg he had before, and they decided that's good enough (this is kind of what I think it is).

It's a gamble. A big one. Yes, the upside is large, too. It's not what I would have done, but I'm going to hope that it all works out because that's what is best for my team.

People can come back in this thread in two or three years if it has all worked out and try to dunk on me (or crow, or DJ) if they want. That's fine.

If he is back to what he was before and returns to the trajectory he was on, Simmons is probably a Pro Bowl level player or better at that point, and they've probably won at least one more Super Bowl, so I won't give a **** about people trying to dunk on me.

The logic and thought process that led my concerns is sound, and I'm going to stick with it.

Also, I'll close with:

Hope you know how much I respect you and appreciate our ability to have a logical discussion about this. It rocks and is one of the best things about this place (even when low-effort smooth brains who like hurricanes make it hard).

This argues maybe we should have taken more risk in these decisions. Skyy Moore was the safe pick over Pickens with his attitude, however we still got Cook. Skyy definitely disappointing but was considere the safe pick. Speaks had the talent, just not the will. We got Kahlen Sanders the next year, which is what they though Speaks would have been.

Everyone understands why they did it. I disagree with doing it in round 1.

Sacrificing less on a risky pick is what I would have preferred. If anything looking back I really would have preferred trading for Tunsil now so we had something closer to a guaranteed starter at LT instead of a small sample size back up. There'd be no rush for him to heal quickly.

The issue with the sample size argument remains that the outcomes are SO bad that you could double the sample size and (for some reason) give the new sample a 50% return rate and STILL only get to a 25% net.

The N is big enough and the output poor enough that increasing the sample size isn't going to move the needle a ton.

The only way to defend the numbers are to distinguish them. Essentially dismiss them altogether because...reasons. You can't reasonably sample size your way out of this one.

You have to just say it's inapplicable because....whatever. He had a different procedure or we have some fancy new imaging that establishes his blood flow is unprecedented and it takes him out of that study altogether.

Sample size arguments don't work when the outcomes are THAT bad.

So we know this is going to get bumped in the future, good or bad. So if you are not on the Simmons Train, who would you have drafted at #32 so we can see if you are better and smarter than Veach... Come on, you can do it.

I'm cool with gambling on talent. Upside.

Injury is what ends NFL careers. I don't agree with gambling on that. Big men with knee and back injuries doesn't end well but usually ends quickly.

Discount mel kiper would never do anything but draft all pros and win super bowls if he were running the chiefs

Skyy was considered a safe pick by people who ignored quality of competition and route tree concerns. Pickens was, to me, a FAR safer pick because he ran exceptional routes and performed against real competition.

The point is that we seem to have some risk we care about and some we don't. Injury seems to be a risk we ought care a hell of a lot about.

Sure seems like we didn't. Is that a little bit of confidence born of the Smith pick? Maybe - but they sure cared about it then when they passed on him 5 times.

Side note:

Kudos to dante84 and thanks for having the draft pick thread on lock as usual. Appreciate you, sir.

Sorry for shitting in the thread so much.

About the data on this injury... how far back does it go? I know it mentions pff grades so it must not go back too far. I ask because we know medical procedures are always improving. I'd also like to know the ages of these athletes when injured. Any of them just retire after cause they were late 30s? Numbers can be spun to say anything. More data needed. I don't have an opinion either way yet.

Meh, we're all here to argue our points. Our opinions.

Just do it in good faith and don't get butthurt when people disagree. It's a small ask. It's reasonable.

This kids talent is undeniable. It was never about that. Kinda reminds me a bit of when we took Chris Jones. Obviously very different reasons, but getting a talent like this later seemed to be worth that risk.

Let’s see if they’re right

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kirk Herbstreit - &quot;Ryan Day told me that if Josh Simmons came back next year he is a top 5 pick.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/tJQRgBS3DE">pic.twitter.com/tJQRgBS3DE</a></p>&mdash; Brad Henson Productions (@BradHensonPro) <a href="https://twitter.com/BradHensonPro/status/1915744028072554583?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Luther Burden III (Preemptive note: IF Burden lands in the wrong spot, it won't work. He needs to land in a good offensive system, with a playcaller who knows how to utilize him, and who relates well to players. If he gets drafted by the Browns or another shit-stain franchise, he will probably not work out. If he gets drafted by a team with the type of structure the Chiefs have and it doesn't work, it likely would not have worked in KC, either).

Shavon Revel, CB, East Carolina. Coming off an ACL so a redshirt in 2025 is in order. Tremendous upside.

From there you get into guys who were not clear 1st rounders, but Nic Scourton, DE, Texas A&M, JT Tuimolau, DE, Ohio State, T.J. Sanders, DT, South Carolina, and Jordan Burch, DE, Oregon are all guys I would have considered at 31/32. Possibly with a small trade back if I could find another one.

Which of those players is solving the protection issues on the offensive line that the Chiefs have faced for years now and that cost them a SB last season?

We really kneed a Left Tackle, guys.

I hope he works out. Elite positional talent at the end of the 1st round + a 5th rounder. Not bad.

I put it in different thread, but Josh Simmons is first OT drafted by the Chiefs in the first round since drafting Eric Fisher first overall back in 2013. Crazy stat.

Conklin had his second and third highest pass pro grades of his career after he tore his patella.

Lecharles Bentley got a staph infection and almost died. The patella rupture happened during TC of his 5th season. The first under his second contract.

https://www.nfl.com/news/lecharles-b...p1000000229583

“ "The initial injury was just a basic patellar tendon rupture," recalled Bentley. "Routine. And as a football player, that's what you sign up for. You sign up to be hurt. That's the nature of the game."
Bentley figured he'd undergo surgery and be back on the field the next season. After all, he was just 26. His last game had been the Pro Bowl. His best years clearly lay ahead.
"Young, healthy, felt good about myself," Bentley said. "You move on. But it was the subsequent staph infection that was the true culprit, and why I wasn't able to continue."

Buckhalter had 3 career best years after the patella surgery and rehab in 2004 under Rick Burkholter.

SO HE'S A 1ST BALLOT HALL OF FAMER!

That's what I keep telling myself also.

I read an article where Fisher was rated the 6th worst 1st pick the last 20 years.

If I could wipe my ass with the digital copy of that article I would. Fisher was a good player.

It’s a risk worth taking, especially when we have Moore.

I think plenty would argue that outside of the top 12 there were no solutions to that problem in round 1. It wasn't coming in this draft. Just like the QB options this year sucked.

We were going to have to trade or sign our solution, whatever that was going to be.

Fellas -- if y'all are gonna keep poking at these studies, could you...maybe...read 'em?

2009-2023. Crow's provided the whole thing for ya several times over.

It's not 'spun' -- it's the entire data set over the period of time in which the data was actually available.

Top 10 talent at #32! The reward outweighs the risk.

It may be true. It's also true that in that specific draft he was the 2nd or 3rd best pick in that 1st round. That year that we had the no 1 pick it was just a garbage draft. Unbelievable bust rate for 1st round players that year.

Goes back 20 years.

We managed to find the nearly expired can of beans in the dumpster. It was an epically bad draft, and we just happened to be the 1 pick that year.

It all worked out.

What are the character concerns?

Saban said he was lazy, unfocused, etc. so I’m guessing that sort of issue as opposed to off-the-field nightmare?

1994 to 2004 studies seem outdated.

They were still doing frontal lobotomies and bloodletting 20 years ago.

wbf

Here's the top half of the first round in 2013. Fisher was a brilliant pick. Lane Johnson is the only guy you'd probably pick above him, and Johnson is a RT who played 16 games only three times in his career, which is less than Fisher even though Fisher retired three years ago.

Eric Fisher
Luke Joeckel
Dion Jordan
Lane Johnson
Ezekiel Ansah
Barkevious Mingo
Jonathan Cooper
Tavon Austin
Dee Milliner
Chance Warmack
D.J. Fluker
D.J. Hayden
Sheldon Richardson
Star Lotulelei
Kenny Vaccaro
EJ Manuel

Yeah -- that's about the long and short of it.

He wasn't a great 1.1 from a historical perspective. Most guys that go that high have been better players.

But that's not really a fair review. What would be fair is 'where does 1.1 relate in relation to other guys taken in the top 10...'

Because anyone outside of the top 10 in any given draft was never in consideration by ANYONE for the first overall pick. So saying some guy that got drafted in the 2nd should've gone 1.1 is bullshit hindsight nonsense.

But to evaluate the pick it has to be relative. And Fisher was the 2nd best pick in that group; behind only Lane Johnson. Did they get it EXACTLY right? No -- history says Johnson's a better pick. Did they get it WRONG? (I.E. Luke Joeckel) -- **** no.

And I suspect in most of those drafts there were 'better' players than Fisher who went 1.1 but were clearly inferior to other guys who were in legitimate consideration for that spot. Those picks are 'worse' than the Chiefs did with Fisher.

They managed that pick about as well as could've been reasonably expected.

A smile a day keeps the patella in play!

This is my big problem.

The response to evidence being presented about this injury varies from "could you explain it to me like I'm 5?" to "I dont know anything and I'm proud of it!"

But I honestly don't know what I expected from middle to late aged dudes on an online Chiefs board, so I have to blame myself there at some point.

In the article they cited the fact we passed on Lane Johnson for Derrick as the reason he was such a bad pick.

I nearly sprained by eyes rolling them.

LMAO

OK now this is a study I can get behind!

The NFL only averages 2 of these injuries per year and there is no career to study in many cases.

You can't do a study on guys that played 10 years after this injury when it hasn't happened. The number is 0.

Every time I see Barkevious Mingo I think of Frank Caliendo's Mel Kiper routine: "Barkevious Mingo. Don't know anything about him, just like saying his name."

This is a very good point, and one I came here to post about. We all know medicine, and especially sports medicine is always advancing by leaps and bounds. Can we really use data from 20 years ago to predict what will happen now?

I know this player is a risk and I admit that I'm concerned. But I'm also optimistic because if this works, it will be one of the best picks one could possibly hope for. Time will tell. /fingers crossed

I'm curious about this, but if the character concerns were serious he would have been moved to wide receiver years ago.