My Annual "Screw the Chiefs" Mock

[DJ's left nut]

This isn't what I think will happen -- this is just me breaking every tie by making a decision that the Chiefs wouldn't like.

[IMG][/IMG]

Still leaves a fair number of solid options out there for us. I went with Scourton there but I could've pushed him up a bit and taken him off our board. I just couldn't really figure a way to do it that didn't free up someone else that I think I liked better.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Derrick Harmon at 24? Man. I would try to get him. Worth the trade up cost IMO.

Depends on the medicals though, right?

If that concern is legit (no idea if it is), that would be hard to move up for.

Different if he just falls into your lap though.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

Depends on the medicals though, right?

If that concern is legit (no idea if it is), that would be hard to move up for.

Different if he just falls into your lap though.

I mean at this point, several things seem to be up in the air.

Will Johnson didn't test terribly well and now he has a medical issue. That kid could fall like a rock.

I just kept shrugging and passing him up for several picks past where it looked like he'd go until I hit a fit with TB that seemed like a little too much value to pass on. But if there's a 'surprise' fall from a consensus 1st rounder, Will Johnson would be my guy.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

In a vacuum, I would.

The problem is that it makes competing next season -- Kelce's last and potentially the last dominant Jones season you'll see -- quite a bit more difficult.

I mean I guess it would open you up to taking someone like Nolen at 8 and then Amos at 31. I love Revel and Morrison but they're risker than Amos, IMO. And you can't miss with that pick if you move McDuffie. Maybe you go with Hairston to try to get a little more ceiling with a little less floor than the other two guys.

Or hell, maybe you just take Warren there. I probably would at that point. I can't talk myself into Banks there if I moved McDuffie - giving up too much near term production for a guy who may not start next season (similar issue with Warren).

It might just be too much near term risk for me to get behind it. This window is closing -- I think we owe it to Kelce and Jones to continue efforts to maximize it.

A lot in play if you have #8. You might be looking at Jeanty. Certainly one of Warren or Loveland. Might have Golden sitting there. Offense is WIDE open, and honestly, that's where the value lies for me versus defense. I don't think many of the defensive players in this draft have true 1st round grades, and the ones that do don't fit our scheme that well.


If Warren is there, I don't think I could pass. That's a guy who continues your dominance at TE. Doesn't solve the LT problem. Hurts our defense but I'm confident in Veach finding adequate CB play.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kccrow

They like Harmon from everything I've seen. They need an upgrade over Loudermilk in the worst way, and Heyward is 35 years old. I can't see them passing on an upgrade at DE.

I think I had them taking Shemar Stewart and having him bulk back up to 290 in my mock.

Yeah, I typically have Harmon going to Pitt as well. Seems like a perfect fit.

But I was trying to force a landing spot for Simmons and got to around pick 18 and started looking for teams that could be interested in a LT that they absolutely do not want to play this year (so no pressing need at LT) but might be willing to gamble on. For the Steelers, who don't have much to play for and who could end up with Broderick as a viable long-term starter anyway (so a miss wouldn't be catastrophic if Simmons knee is never right), that was the first spot I found where it checked off enough boxes that it made sense to me.

Then I started looking to land Harmon somewhere. The Vikings weren't even a perfect fit, but if he's there when they're up, they'd take him or someone would trade up and do it (could even be us).

I pushed Burden up a bit because I'd absolutely be content with him at 31. I do think the Packers need a WR though; Watson just has too many question marks at this point. Wicks isn't terribly versatile, IMO and Doubs is pretty much a JAG. Reed's really good but I think Burden would make sense there.

Might be a little bit of a strange fit, but that's what happens when I'm trying to park guys I want the Chiefs to get a shot at and looking for reasonable landing spots for them.

[Couch-Potato]

I’d prob take Henderson here.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I pushed Scourton up to Baltimore and left Pearce on the board (who we won't even consider taking).

Then I had Washington taking Mykel Williams which pushed Buffalo into taking JT Tuimoloau.

That left Hampton, Pearce and Sanders as guys I expect will probably get taken before then still on the board.

So at that point my board is left with Tyleik Williams, Hampton, Zabel, Booker, Landon Jackson, Trey Amos and Henderson.

In short...that's probably a trade-down board.

I’d take Hampton. He’d instantly help Mahomes. Play action would actually work. It would also help Jaylon Moore. Hampton is closer to Jonathan Taylor than CEH. Hampton is a better prospect than a young Kareem Hunt. Hampton could change this offense if Andy would run the ball. We could keep defenses honest.

[Dunerdr]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I’d take Hampton. He’d instantly help Mahomes. Play action would actually work. It would also help Jaylon Moore. Hampton is closer to Jonathan Taylor than CEH. Hampton is a better prospect than a young Kareem Hunt. Hampton could change this offense if Andy would run the ball. We could keep defenses honest.

But there's still a ton of RB's on the board, nearly all of them. So it makes more sense if you have them graded close to take a swing on a more expensive and harder to fill positions.

Believe me I'm probably the biggest Hampton fan on the board. he's been my wish since the season ended. Just saying it probably doesn't make sense.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I’d take Hampton. He’d instantly help Mahomes. Play action would actually work. It would also help Jaylon Moore. Hampton is closer to Jonathan Taylor than CEH. Hampton is a better prospect than a young Kareem Hunt. Hampton could change this offense if Andy would run the ball. We could keep defenses honest.

Hampton is more floor than ceiling to me.

I think there's a 70% chance that he's a starting RB and gets a 2nd contract in the league. That's an awfully high floor.

But I think there's maybe a 10% chance where he's good enough to make teams think "man, we need to give him more attention and force.....Patrick Mahomes....to beat us..."

If I'm taking a 1st round RB for this team, I care FAR more about the ceiling. The floor is largely immaterial. If you can't force teams to adjust how they defend the pass, I don't need you in the 1st round. You're not a force multiplier at that point.

And I don't think Hampton can do that.

So I'd rather take the chance on Henderson who's odds of being a starting RB are lower than Hamptons but who's odds of being a DYNAMIC starting RB are higher than Hamptons.

Using the hockey scale I found years back where the Number is the ceiling and the letter is the odds of reaching it I'd say:

Hampton: 7.5(B)
Henderson: 9(C)

For this team at this time, I'm going to put far more emphasis on the number than the letter.

[kcbubb]

Hampton is a faster prime Kareem hunt. His contact balance, wiggle and acceleration at 220 lbs is elite. I’m not sure what you’re seeing for his ceiling. I’m not advocating for Hampton bc of other more important needs but if the board falls like you’ve shown, I’d take Hampton in a heart beat. His physical style, acceleration & contact balance translates very well to the nfl. Hampton would bring a huge lift immediately and there’s a bunch of smaller dynamic backs like Henderson. Give me the big back that can help us get first downs and move the chains and also be a homerun hitter. Prime Kareem hunt was lethal in this offense. And Hampton is better than prime Kareem hunt, IMHO.

[MahomesMagic]

This draft I would feel comfortable moving back a bit to get another high pick if the board didn't fall right.


Just get a bunch of guys that can play with some upside.

[BossChief]

If I’m moving back, I’m moving to 40 and making it worth it by adding a pick in the 60s/early 70s. There will be tons of value in that pocket.

If we come out of this draft with Walter Nolan and one of the playmaking backs that’s can run, catch and block…the offense gets to the next level.

Anyone else kinda think we move Trey during the draft to move up?

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by BossChief

If I’m moving back, I’m moving to 40 and making it worth it by adding a pick in the 60s/early 70s. There will be tons of value in that pocket.

If we come out of this draft with Walter Nolan and one of the playmaking backs that’s can run, catch and block…the offense gets to the next level.

Anyone else kinda think we move Trey during the draft to move up?

I think trading Trey to move up would be a terrible move, would literally make my jaw drop if that happened. Trading a very good player to move up for the chance of what, a very good player? Plus even if you freed up the 20m by trading him now, what are you spending it on in 2025?

[Wallymo]

Originally Posted by BossChief

If I’m moving back, I’m moving to 40 and making it worth it by adding a pick in the 60s/early 70s. There will be tons of value in that pocket.

I'd like to see us move back into the second round in exchange for a second-rounder next season. We need to keep adding premium picks and the depth is there this year.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Wallymo

I'd like to see us move back into the second round in exchange for a second-rounder next season. We need to keep adding premium picks and the depth is there this year.

We'd have to drop into like the mid-40s for that to be even a remote possibility. I don't see Veach falling that far back. It's usually a net loss on talent when you drop more than 7 spots, historically.

[Wallymo]

Originally Posted by kccrow

We'd have to drop into like the mid-40s for that to be even a remote possibility. I don't see Veach falling that far back. It's usually a net loss on talent when you drop more than 7 spots, historically.

I would agree in a normal draft. But everything I've read here suggests there will be just as good of talent in the mid-40s as at 31 this year. Early round picks are so crucial to this team and it should endeavor to obtain additional capital every year. The Sneed pick is a perfect example -- it gives Veach additional flexibility.

I do readily admit that I'm no expert -- almost all of my knowledge of this year's class comes from you, Staylor, Run, and Duncan. Given the shape of this class, doesn't it make sense to trade down this year for a valuable pick next year? Of course, that's not Veach's normal pattern but I believe it's a good idea.