Chiefs tagging Trey Smith

[Sassy Squatch]

Chiefs have informed Pro-Bowl guard Trey Smith that he will be franchise tagged, per source.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 27, 2025

[ChiefBlueCFC]

Originally Posted by xztop123

GIVE TREY SMITH THE FARM. EVEN IF IT MEANS WE LOSE MAHOMES.

WE MUST KEEO TREY SMJTH

Always mortgage the future for a guard, or both. Its the most impactful position in sports

[Iconic]

i dont see an issue as long as we don't **** with thuney's contract and add playing years to it. we are just replacing thuney's money with trey's, assuming a deal gets done.

no deal? a tag/trade is a great outcome. only possible bad scenario here is him somehow playing on the tag which would be no bueno. but i do not believe for a second veach plays this game unless he's certain the dice won't be rolling that way.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Well, that's what free agency IS.

You absolutely overpay, especially at premium positions, for NFL proven experience.

It's the cost of winning. We haven't been anywhere within striking distance of a true top tier LT to draft in almost a decade. When we WERE, we had a #1 overall manning the position.

What about non-premium positions? Asking for a friend.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by -King-

What about non-premium positions? Asking for a friend.

Might be a non-premium position, but he was the best player in the entire group of free agents. So there's that.

[staylor26]

What would YOU do with that money King?

Let's hear it. What would be your approach to the offseason?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Might be a non-premium position, but he was the best player in the entire group of free agents. So there's that.

So rule of thumb: premium or non premium position, just over pay them. Got it.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by Iconic

i dont see an issue as long as we don't **** with thuney's contract and add playing years to it. we are just replacing thuney's money with trey's, assuming a deal gets done.

no deal? a tag/trade is a great outcome. only possible bad scenario here is him somehow playing on the tag which would be no bueno. but i do not believe for a second veach plays this game unless he's certain the dice won't be rolling that way.

This is basically where I’m at.

I assume we’re moving on from one expensive contract to another so that we aren’t replacing even more OL starters over this year and next.

Have to assume either a deal gets done with Smith or a trade. Can’t see them taking this step if there’s any risk of him playing on the tag.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Well, that's what free agency IS.

You absolutely overpay, especially at premium positions, for NFL proven experience.

It's the cost of winning. We haven't been anywhere within striking distance of a true top tier LT to draft in almost a decade. When we WERE, we had a #1 overall manning the position.

What made him someone we have to retain NOW?

If he wasn't someone we had to retain last off-season?

Let's set aside for the moment the conversation regarding plowing this much capital into the least important positions on the entire offense. If he's now someone you re-set the market to retain, coming off a season where he looked, at best, the same as he's looked essentially his entire career (I think he regressed in some ways), why did you not get this deal done last season?

Am I supposed to believe that a guy sitting on a 5th rounders weekly game check isn't going to see a chance to get a $25 million check the moment he puts pen to paper and say "nah". Because if he was this important to us NOW, he should've been a guy we were willing to give that Robert Hunt contract to last offseason with a $25 million signing bonus and $60+ million guaranteed.

And it would've been a hell of a lot cheaper than it's going to be now.

This is a panic, emotion driven decision. Coming off a Super Bowl win last season and riding that high, the organization could be strictly rational and say "Creed is our guy on the IOL long-term".

But the calculus changed when they lost the SB. And their response is to keep a guy who got his ass kicked in said SB and who's retention doesn't do anything to address the primary problem on the unit that was roundly criticized all season.

Again, setting aside the 'in a vacuum' argument and speaking specifically to this organization -- they're acting irrationally in relation to their own behavior over the last 12 months.

[O.city]

They’ll have to overpay in fa because they couldn’t draft and or develop a LT

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by -King-

So rule of thumb: premium or non premium position, just over pay them. Got it.

Yup, that's my point! You're such a disingenuous bundle of sticks it's impossible to have a discussion with you.

He might not play a premium position, but he was THE premium player of this free agency class. You can not like it while at least acknowledging that. But when you want to make it sound like the dumbest move evarrr there's no room for nuance.

[Wallcrawler]

I'll wait and see how it plays out, but Smith was not great this year. Perhaps the front office is privy to information that makes them believe that this subpar season won't be repeated.

However, the strength of the franchise is #15. Keeping him upright, healthy, and giving him time to work has to be the priority. We had our fun making him throw to gas station attendants and lean on the defense to win a Superbowl, and we just got him again with the joke that SOMEONE obviously thinks is hilarious, sending him against a vicious d line with no protection in the Superbowl and getting blown out again. That joke has run its course.

So, I don't really care how much is spent, as long as a competent offensive line is put out there to protect our half billion dollar quarterback that has proven to be an explosive play factory if he's given actual starting talent to work with.

Maybe we give up more points defensively, but this offense needs to get back to terrifying people.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by -King-

What about non-premium positions? Asking for a friend.

Remember when RB’s didn’t have much value anymore and weren’t looked at as guys you want pay?

How’d that work with Josh Jacobs, Derrick Henry or…Saquon Barkley? Did Saquon matter?

There are people who think Nick Bolton has immense value despite not being a premium position. Same with Justin Reid.

Landon Dickerson was also very important and essentially shut down Chris Jones. You think that’s not valuable because he’s a G?

Just stack as many good players as you can and keep going after positional value.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Remember when RB’s didn’t have much value anymore and weren’t looked at as guys you want pay?

How’d that work with Josh Jacobs, Derrick Henry or…Saquon Barkley? Did Saquon matter?

There are people who think Nick Bolton has immense value despite not being a premium position. Same with Justin Reid.

Landon Dickerson was also very important and essentially shut down Chris Jones. You think that’s not valuable because he’s a G?

Just stack as many good players as you can and keep going after positional value.

Position value relative to other positions.

And I supported Veach when he went after Josh Jacobs. Would have went after Henry too. I value RB higher than guard. Compare the contracts to what Trey is getting on the franchise tag and it's not even close. 2 years 16 mil vs 1 year 23 mil. So yeah I don't really see the point of bringing up those RBs when I think most people value an elite RB higher than an elite guard.

And if the roster was elite at damn near every position like the eagles, no one would care about this franchise tag. It's only an issue because there are other holes on the roster including a canyon at LT, and giving a guard 23mil guaranteed for this one year may impact how aggressive you can be filling those holes.

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

What made him someone we have to retain NOW?

If he wasn't someone we had to retain last off-season?

Let's set aside for the moment the conversation regarding plowing this much capital into the least important positions on the entire offense. If he's now someone you re-set the market to retain, coming off a season where he looked, at best, the same as he's looked essentially his entire career (I think he regressed in some ways), why did you not get this deal done last season?

Am I supposed to believe that a guy sitting on a 5th rounders weekly game check isn't going to see a chance to get a $25 million check the moment he puts pen to paper and say "nah". Because if he was this important to us NOW, he should've been a guy we were willing to give that Robert Hunt contract to last offseason with a $25 million signing bonus and $60+ million guaranteed.

And it would've been a hell of a lot cheaper than it's going to be now.

This is a panic, emotion driven decision. Coming off a Super Bowl win last season and riding that high, the organization could be strictly rational and say "Creed is our guy on the IOL long-term".

But the calculus changed when they lost the SB. And their response is to keep a guy who got his ass kicked in said SB and who's retention doesn't do anything to address the primary problem on the unit that was roundly criticized all season.

Again, setting aside the 'in a vacuum' argument and speaking specifically to this organization -- they're acting irrationally in relation to their own behavior over the last 12 months.

I think the Chiefs are factoring a couple other bits of information.

1) They had a lot of young lineman drafted or on the team last year. Some of who were talked about stepping in for Trey. Obvious after the year working with them they are probably not comfortable with that idea. Maybe they do not want to move Kingsley off of the tackle position.
2) The cap went up.
3) The FA class

[Rainbarrel]

307 million in 2026 says, meh