Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Meck
You can't just say DRAFT A FIRST ROUND TACKLE.
Like...who? Who would be in reach, and ARE they a legit first rounder? Probably not. So then you have Kingsley 2.0 and has that helped the situation?
Trade for one? Well, that requires a team willing to move a legit LT, and as it's the toughest position to fill in football besides QB it doesn't happen often. It kind of requires having TWO to be willing to move ONE. Who's got TWO?
The Rams, and that's why Jackson may be available.
Any drafted LT in reach for KC is going to look like Kingsley in year one. You have to understand that. You're drafting traits and hoping to coach 'em up. If they were ready day one, they go top ten.
So anyone else available is going to have serious warts, or they wouldn't be available.
Too old, injury prone, questionable talent, etc.
It's just the way it is. It's reality.
It's all fine and good, I guess, to just scream and throw things about what we WANT.
I understand being pissed. But it is what it is.
|
I didn't speculate on how it would get done, just that it would follow the pattern. But if I had to guess, Veach's first preference would be to get a starting tackle via trade like he did with OBJ. If some team wants to move on due to unwillingness to pay or wanting to reset and load up on draft picks, it can happen.
As far as a first rounder, we'd have to move WAY up - into the top 16. Comparing a pick at #16 or lower to Kingsley is not fair - Kingsley was the 11th OT taken in last year's class. We'd need to trade up in striking distance to get the 3rd or 4th OT in a much weaker class. Is it a guarantee of success? No, but I'd be willing to wager Veach is very aggressive in trying to solve this issue.