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

[Cooter Bailey]

Originally Posted by O.city

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

There, that help?

I think Veach may do just that. If he does I will scurry to this board to watch the too deep thinkers cry and moan.

[BryanBusby]

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

I think you're in luck. I got a strong feeling these fatties are gonna go faster and earlier than people are expecting.

This league is starved for ok blockers, much less good ones.

[duncan_idaho]

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.

1. Sure. All we have is his word that the double bracing is new/different.
2. There are young guys who had this and were still ****ed. Ryan Williams, Cadillac Williams, Jarod Mayo, JC Jackson.
3) the recovery rates for OL are the WORST with this injury.

Hoping that this guy is different because the surgery repair was a little different is just Hope.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Cooter Bailey

I think Veach may do just that. If he does I will scurry to this board to watch the too deep thinkers cry and moan.

You do just that. I’ll hope we are wrong and that he’s a unicorn because that’s what is best for my team.

Flip side: in two years, I’ll make fun of the smooth brains who are surprised this dude didn’t work out (because the injury ****ed him).

[O.city]

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?

Duncan my boy.....you missed the joke.

If yourself and Dj and crow are one way and I'm the other, based on track records......that's enough to make an informed decision.

I'm always wrong.

[O.city]

And now, I've had to explain my "joke" which just further makes me look like a dumb schmuck.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Cooter Bailey

I think Veach may do just that. If he does I will scurry to this board to watch the too deep thinkers cry and moan.

I won't have much to say, really.

I think it's a mistake.

I'll hope that it isn't. Or more accurately, I'll hope its a poor process that yields positive results.

Even the worst of mad hackers will occasionally get a fastball that they just happen to run into. They may have a .180 BA with twice as many strikeouts as hits, but they will hammer that one ball into the sun because one time, despite the same bad approach, the pitcher threw the ball into the bat.

Taking Simmons is bad approach. It ignores literally every datapoint. It might still work out. The odds are horrifying, but non-zero.

If you told me there was a 1% chance that I'd get die in a car wreck tonight if I took my normal route home from work, I'd take a different route. Not because that 1% is all that concerning, but because it's still 1%. It's high enough above zero to be worth legitimate consideration.

Now if you tell me that the only way to avoid that 1% is to get home via California, I'd not do it. I'd take my chances on the 1%.

But here, there's nothing lost to me by hoping that the 5-10% chance that he works out comes to fruition. So I'll do that.

But I'll still think it was the wrong decision.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by O.city

Duncan my boy.....you missed the joke.

If yourself and Dj and crow are one way and I'm the other, based on track records......that's enough to make an informed decision.

I'm always wrong.

I was so proud of this analogy, though.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

I was so proud of this analogy, though.

We're all guilty of that one.

You realize your post missed the mark about halfway through it but dammit, you really like it.

{submit reply}

You will appreciate my subtle, if misplaced, brilliance dammit!

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by Cooter Bailey

I think Veach may do just that. If he does I will scurry to this board to watch the too deep thinkers cry and moan.

If that happens, I would trust Veech. I think the Chiefs who just having dealt with Niang with this injury probably have as much insight as anyone.

[kccrow]

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.

Data was taken between 2010 and 2023. It's not dated.

There isn't really a "special" hidden procedure. The repair happens with sutures or grafting and those can be reinforced or not. He didn't have some magic fairy dust sprinkled on it.

If you realized what that tendon does, you'd see why your statement about skill positions is patently false. It is critical in the transmission of power from your quadriceps to your tibia in knee extension.

When the tendon is torn, that tendon doesn't have the elasticity it used to in order to remain taut and stretch during transmission. Post-repair, it's like putting slack in the rope between your quad and your shin. It'll be like having a weaker quad.

Generally speaking, the athlete will never generate as much power as they could before. That's pretty important for a guy who weighs 325 pounds pushing on other 325-pound dudes.

And age simply doesn't matter.

[DJ's left nut]

So when I saw it was reinforced and read up on it, it didn't actually make me feel a lot better.

Because originally I was of the belief that the procedure was one of those 'better safe than sorry' things. Maybe not absolutely vital, but probably the safest approach with the best long-term outcomes.

Then I looked up when that double-grafting approach is used. It's typically used in instances when the tear is catastrophic and/or an earlier repair fails or needs revised.

Saying "Yeah, we did it the really really extreme way -- a way we've known how to do for years and still DON'T do it very often" -- doesn't make me feel a lot better.

An analogy would be "hey, this guy has a shoulder issue. We could've just done an arthroscopic procedure but instead we went in there and aggressively replaced the entire capsule...y'know, just to be safe..."

All that would tell me is that the 'scope WOULDN'T have worked. The thing you normally do for similar injuries wouldn't have gotten the job done. So you had to do the extra aggressive one that you DON'T normally do because it carries with it additional risks.

In this case, the graft is doubled over, right? Wouldn't that just make it MORE taut? Wouldn't that make it MORE likely that he loses flexibility and full range in the joint?

They didn't do it this way to be extra double safe while the folks that did it on Jimmy Graham were like "eh, **** it - the bare minimum will do..."

No, they did it this way because they HAD to.

But hey, when you have a reporter out there tossing out about 5% of the story that she got secondhand from a guy who's clearly vested in controlling the narrative, you should absolutely subject it to its most optimistic possible reading, right?

This double graft thing shouldn't be setting anyone's mind at ease.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So when I saw it was reinforced and read up on it, it didn't actually make me feel a lot better.

Because originally I was of the belief that the procedure was one of those 'better safe than sorry' things. Maybe not absolutely vital, but probably the safest approach with the best long-term outcomes.

Then I looked up when that double-grafting approach is used. It's typically used in instances when the tear is catastrophic and/or an earlier repair fails or needs revised.

Saying "Yeah, we did it the really really extreme way -- a way we've known how to do for years and still DON'T do it very often" -- doesn't make me feel a lot better.

An analogy would be "hey, this guy has a shoulder issue. We could've just done an arthroscopic procedure but instead we went in there and aggressively replaced the entire capsule...y'know, just to be safe..."

All that would tell me is that the 'scope WOULDN'T have worked. The thing you normally do for similar injuries wouldn't have gotten the job done. So you had to do the extra aggressive one that you DON'T normally do because it carries with it additional risks.

In this case, the graft is doubled over, right? Wouldn't that just make it MORE taut? Wouldn't that make it MORE likely that he loses flexibility and full range in the joint?

They didn't do it this way to be extra double safe while the folks that did it on Jimmy Graham were like "eh, **** it - the bare minimum will do..."

No, they did it this way because they HAD to.

But hey, when you have a reporter out there tossing out about 5% of the story that she got secondhand from a guy who's clearly vested in controlling the narrative, you should absolutely subject it to its most optimistic possible reading, right?

This double graft thing shouldn't be setting anyone's mind at ease.

Yikes re: the double graft.

So, here's where I'm landing.

Smart organizations that are not desperate will stay the F away.

Dumb, desperate organizations will not. He'll get scooped up by one of them and it will be ballyhooed as a coup for that org, and receive GREAT draft grades.

And then he'll be a bust. Never a good starter at LT. Maybe he can move inside to LG and make it work (though if power is an issue for him moving forward because the left leg is less than it was, that would create different difficulties for him). Maybe he works through it all to be a solid LG. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

The only guy I'm less willing to bet on, who is getting 1st round attention, is Shedeur Sanders.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

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.

You're still kinda just hoping. Historical data says no way, Jose.

[Simple Simon]

Simon says Josh Simmons will be off the board when the Chiefs make their first pick. Josh Conerly Jr., OT Oregon, Aireontae Ersery, OT Minnesota, Ozzy Trapilo, OT, Boston College, Marcus Mbow, OT Purdue will still be on the board and at least one of them will be available for the Chiefs 2nd round pick.

Worst case scenario you grab Cameron Williams, OT Texas with the 95th pick in the 3rd round. With decent QB's floating on the board between the 2nd and 3rd round, teams targeting a QB.

I can see the Giants trading up from 3 to the bottom of 2 for Jalen Milroe if they pass on Jaxson Dart in RD 1. I think the Giants will draft Will Campbell, OT LSU with the 3rd overall pick.