Trade whatever possible for a LT prospect

[RunKC]

I don’t care. If there’s a LT in this draft that they feel can be a good quality LT, do it.

I don’t care if it would cost three 1st rd picks. Mahomes is not gonna be this athletic for much longer.

It needs to happen

[nychief]

I've started to come to the conclusion that LT, like QB, is a position you just have to keep taking swings at until you get it right...especially where we are drafting nowadays. I don't care if they draft a LT every year until we get some stability over there... I guess I took for granted Atl, Roaf, Albert, Fisher et al...

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

"Donovan Jackson falls to us" would be like "Skyy Moore falling to us"

It ain't a drop.

He's a mid-late 2nd round talent.

If we take him, we ****ed up and reached for need. Which will be made worse by the fact that there will be guys of equal need who AREN'T reaches available at that spot. Even if it's just Hampton or Henderson (and if those guys are both gone it'll be Grant or Nolen or Harmon or Burden or Ekbuka or Scourton or JT NameINeverSpellRight).

They can't ALL get drafted in the first round. There are 40 guys in a tier above Donovan Jackson. 30 of 'em probably fit our need/scheme as well or better than Jackson. The other 10 are gonna get drafted by SOMEBODY before we go. And there are another 20 guys in the tier WITH Jackson who have more upside and don't need someone presently rostered to fall on their face to play.

We'll have someone there who will be a better selection than Donovan Jackson.

I agree, and I'm certainly not advocating that we SHOULD draft Jackson at #31, but Veach has us in a position where taking the what is probably OG #1 that has some OT potential isn't a terrible move.

I'm not saying I would LOVE it. I'm not saying it's the BEST IDEA, I'm saying that even IF that's what they did, you could make a logical argument that they filled the only truly open spot in the starting 11.

Now, I agree with you that there should be other players at other positions that move the needle more for ME, and that could/should set the team up better moving forward, and that's my preference. DE, DT, OT, WR are all spots, for instance, I see wisdom in stocking up early.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

I agree, and I'm certainly not advocating that we SHOULD draft Jackson at #31, but Veach has us in a position where taking the what is probably OG #1 that has some OT potential isn't a terrible move.

I'm not saying I would LOVE it. I'm not saying it's the BEST IDEA, I'm saying that even IF that's what they did, you could make a logical argument that they filled the only truly open spot in the starting 11.

Now, I agree with you that there should be other players at other positions that move the needle more for ME, and that could/should set the team up better moving forward, and that's my preference. DE, DT, OT, WR are all spots, for instance, I see wisdom in stocking up early.

Taking Jackson over Conerly or Burden or Egbuka or Trey Amos or Walter Nolen or Kenneth Grant or Derrick Harmon would be criminal, though.

You can probably put Shavon Revel in that category, too.

When you have the highest paid C in the league and are about to have the highest paid RG, too, both on their second contracts, you really can’t invest a 1st round asset in a G if there are similarly graded guys at more valuable positions.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by kccrow

This Simmons shit... it has to stop.

Let's talk about the data set I shared in March regarding Patellar injuries in the NFL, since not many care to read. It's here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article...rmance%20level

• 31/56 (55%) players returned to the NFL from a patellar injury (RTP).
• Of those, 13/50 (26%) returned to play as many games post-injury as they had pre-injury (RTP Games).
• Only 8/50 (16%) returned to start as many games post-injury as they had pre-injury (RTP Starts).
• The 6 (11%) in the remainder, despite returning to the NFL, never saw another snap.
• Of the 50 that saw snaps, only 12 (24%) returned to prior PFF level of performance at any point (RTP Performance)
• Among those 12, 7 (14%) returned to prior performance after 1 year and 5 (10%) after 2 years.
• OL specifically was 6/17 (35%) RTP, 1/16 (6%) RTP Games, 1/16 (6%) RTP Starts, and 2/16 (13%) RTP Performance with 1 RTPP (6%) after 1 year and 1 (6%) after 2 years.

We are not talking about great odds here people. The media and agents can cook this up howevery they want to cook it. Its a blood-flow injury, so it's going to heal up just fine. Healing up doesn't mean he's ever going to be able to play the same. The elasticity of that tendon is forever affected. His ability to generate power and torque from his quads to the ground is forever affected.

You can look deeper at the stats if you want. Purely looking at OL, he has a 13% chance of ever returning to play at his prior level of performance (this favors Simmons over RTP Starts or RTP Games). Data says 83% of NFL first-round picks on the offensive line hit. So, chances are you'll play somewhere on the OL. 59% actually hit at OT, so a healthy portion of guys drafted to be OTs end up playing some other position.

So if he has a 13% shot of returning to his prior form and a 59% chance of playing OT, then he falls somewhere in the neighborhood of an 8% chance he'll make it as an OT. He has about an 11% chance of ever being anything on the OL.

Is that what you want from your 1st round pick, folks? I don't. In fact, that screams 7th rounder or UDFA. That doesn't even scream 2nd or 3rd rounder.

I'd be willing to take a shot in the dark in round 3. I mean, there is that remote potential that he ends up defying all odds. It's not due to his youth because less experienced, and younger players actually have worse odds in the study. It's merely one of those "so you're telling me there's a chance" situations.

Kill shot.

The data on this is about as awful as it can be, and that’s relying on PfF’s trash OL grading system to measure “return to performance” levels, which is iffy at best.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Brandon Thorn, who is probably the guy to listen to about OL, said Josh Simmons looked like a more fluid Christian Darrisaw.

The prospect without injury is extremely talented. I’ll stand by that. I get why the Chiefs would look into him.

Sucks for him that the injury happened

Darrisaw has missed games every year he's been in the league. Not exactly a running endorsement.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Kill shot.

The data on this is about as awful as it can be, and that’s relying on PfF’s trash OL grading system to measure “return to performance” levels, which is iffy at best.

At what point are we allowed to say "Do you know who I am?!?!?"

Have you, Crow and Me EVER been this strongly aligned against a possible Chiefs prospect?

I mean that's 3 guys who's bonafides have been fairly well vetted on this stuff. I mean I think this argument is a 1st round knockout purely on substance but damn...can we start to throw some ad hominems around as well?

When you take the Bar, they tell you not to talk about your answers at break. We did. Everyone does. And so myself and my 3 good friends are over lunch and talking about our answers. And we all said effectively the same things to the handful of iffier questions we saw.

So we knew we'd passed.

Because any one of us might be wrong. Maybe 2 of us. But there were 4 of us and we were all top half of the class students; solid prospects, reasonably intelligent and all studied pretty hard.

We didn't ALL just fail the bar exam. So we knew we were good.

You, Crow and me (you can come too, 'maqe) aren't ALL this wrong on Simmons.

Are we?

[xztop123]

So because you cheated on your bar exam then Simmons is certainly a bust because 5 bald guys with goatees all came to that consensus on chiefsplanet

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by xztop123

So because you cheated on your bar exam then Simmons is certainly a bust because 5 bald guys with goatees all came to that consensus on chiefsplanet

A) It's not 'cheating' sport. Your answers are turned in. They tell you not to do it because it will just stress you out.

B) The wisdom of crowds has a pretty immaculate track record.

You can put these guys on a pedestal if you want - but they're human. Veach has plenty of misses, even in the 1st round and especially when he focuses on a position over raw talent.

If we had Christian Darrisaw at LT nobody would be arguing we should gamble on Simmons. The hyper-focus on him and insistence on ignoring the bright flashing red flags all around him is nothing more than a thinly veiled need pick.

And that's when teams get in trouble. That's when teams get it wrong.

If we take Simmons here -- we'll have gotten it wrong.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

At what point are we allowed to say "Do you know who I am?!?!?"

Have you, Crow and Me EVER been this strongly aligned against a possible Chiefs prospect?

I mean that's 3 guys who's bonafides have been fairly well vetted on this stuff. I mean I think this argument is a 1st round knockout purely on substance but damn...can we start to throw some ad hominems around as well?

When you take the Bar, they tell you not to talk about your answers at break. We did. Everyone does. And so myself and my 3 good friends are over lunch and talking about our answers. And we all said effectively the same things to the handful of iffier questions we saw.

So we knew we'd passed.

Because any one of us might be wrong. Maybe 2 of us. But there were 4 of us and we were all top half of the class students; solid prospects, reasonably intelligent and all studied pretty hard.

We didn't ALL just fail the bar exam. So we knew we were good.

You, Crow and me (you can come too, 'maqe) aren't ALL this wrong on Simmons.

Are we?

I'm high on Simmons and would trade up for him.

There, that help?

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by xztop123

So because you cheated on your bar exam then Simmons is certainly a bust because 5 bald guys with goatees all came to that consensus on chiefsplanet

Duncan_Idaho has a full head of hair and a beard, sir.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'm high on Simmons and would trade up for him.

There, that help?

You’re told a dental procedure has a ten percent chance of being successful. (And really, just moderately ok. At best.) You’re shown historical precedent of it failing again and again.

You have multiple alternatives with much higher success rates that are less flashy.

Oh, and you’re told your career prospects will take a major hit if you go with the ten percent shot.

What are you doing?

And throw in that you have to make a huge investment in equipment to even do the ten percent chance procedure.

What are you doing?

[xztop123]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

A) It's not 'cheating' sport. Your answers are turned in. They tell you not to do it because it will just stress you out.

B) The wisdom of crowds has a pretty immaculate track record.

You can put these guys on a pedestal if you want - but they're human. Veach has plenty of misses, even in the 1st round and especially when he focuses on a position over raw talent.

If we had Christian Darrisaw at LT nobody would be arguing we should gamble on Simmons. The hyper-focus on him and insistence on ignoring the bright flashing red flags all around him is nothing more than a thinly veiled need pick.

And that's when teams get in trouble. That's when teams get it wrong.

If we take Simmons here -- we'll have gotten it wrong.

1) you’re extrapolating medical data from the past and medical science is constantly improving. - Simmons had a special type of repair if you read up not the normal type.

2) he’s younger

3) it’s not a skill position. - most data on injuries and failures to recover from them come from skill positions. Where cutting and micro adjustments mean everything.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

You’re told a dental procedure has a ten percent chance of being successful. (And really, just moderately ok. At best.) You’re shown historical precedent of it failing again and again.

You have multiple alternatives with much higher success rates that are less flashy.

Oh, and you’re told your career prospects will take a major hit if you go with the ten percent shot.

What are you doing?

And throw in that you have to make a huge investment in equipment to even do the ten percent chance procedure.

What are you doing?

I really hope Simmons goes early so we have no shot of having to discuss his injury for the next several months to years.

Which probably means the Chiefs are gonna take him

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by RunKC

I really hope Simmons goes early so we have no shot of having to discuss his injury for the next several months to years.

Which probably means the Chiefs are gonna take him

Gods I hope not.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by xztop123

1) you’re extrapolating medical data from the past and medical science is constantly improving. - Simmons had a special type of repair if you read up not the normal type.

2) he’s younger

3) it’s not a skill position. - most data on injuries and failures to recover from them come from skill positions. Where cutting and micro adjustments mean everything.

A) I'm not extrapolating anything. I've cited odds and his real time outcomes.
B) Duncan spoke to this already, as has Crow. Age has no statistically significant impact on outcomes
C) outcomes for skill position players are BETTER than for big men.

You're just ignoring everything in front of you in the name of hope and perceived need.