*****The Josh Simmons Thread*****

[Dante84]

More to come!

��

— Patrick Mahomes II (@PatrickMahomes) April 25, 2025

Several teams agree: Josh Simmons had best tape of any OT last year. And they aren't very concerned with recovery on the torn patella tendon. More of the concern is maturity/character. But he's going to the ideal, veteran-laden place.

— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) April 25, 2025

the #chiefs get LT Josh Simmons out of Ohio State. If Simmons didn't suffer a torn patellar tendon he would have been the first tackle off the board. I had one team tell me he was the most athletic and talented tackle tape they watched. There are some maturity issues, but this…

— James Palmer (@JamesPalmerTV) April 25, 2025

The #Chiefs have selected #OSU OT Josh Simmons at No. 32, a player recovering nicely from a torn patellar tendon. They are comfortable with his rehab and did endless homework on it. https://t.co/awdb0JhPed

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) April 25, 2025

The #Chiefs are selecting Ohio State LT Josh Simmons at No. 32 to close out Round 1.

A key addition to bolster the offensive line in front of Patrick Mahomes. pic.twitter.com/oBx2CjzmCe

— Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) April 25, 2025

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rausch

It may be true. It's also true that in that specific draft he was the 2nd or 3rd best pick in that 1st round. That year that we had the no 1 pick it was just a garbage draft. Unbelievable bust rate for 1st round players that year.

Yeah -- that's about the long and short of it.

He wasn't a great 1.1 from a historical perspective. Most guys that go that high have been better players.

But that's not really a fair review. What would be fair is 'where does 1.1 relate in relation to other guys taken in the top 10...'

Because anyone outside of the top 10 in any given draft was never in consideration by ANYONE for the first overall pick. So saying some guy that got drafted in the 2nd should've gone 1.1 is bullshit hindsight nonsense.

But to evaluate the pick it has to be relative. And Fisher was the 2nd best pick in that group; behind only Lane Johnson. Did they get it EXACTLY right? No -- history says Johnson's a better pick. Did they get it WRONG? (I.E. Luke Joeckel) -- **** no.

And I suspect in most of those drafts there were 'better' players than Fisher who went 1.1 but were clearly inferior to other guys who were in legitimate consideration for that spot. Those picks are 'worse' than the Chiefs did with Fisher.

They managed that pick about as well as could've been reasonably expected.

[carcosa]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Very sweet smile imho

A smile a day keeps the patella in play!

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Fellas -- if y'all are gonna keep poking at these studies, could you...maybe...read 'em?

2009-2023. Crow's provided the whole thing for ya several times over.

It's not 'spun' -- it's the entire data set over the period of time in which the data was actually available.

This is my big problem.

The response to evidence being presented about this injury varies from "could you explain it to me like I'm 5?" to "I dont know anything and I'm proud of it!"

But I honestly don't know what I expected from middle to late aged dudes on an online Chiefs board, so I have to blame myself there at some point.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Here's the top half of the first round in 2013. Fisher was a brilliant pick. Lane Johnson is the only guy you'd probably pick above him, and Johnson is a RT who played 16 games only three times in his career, which is less than Fisher even though Fisher retired three years ago.

Eric Fisher
Luke Joeckel
Dion Jordan
Lane Johnson
Ezekiel Ansah
Barkevious Mingo
Jonathan Cooper
Tavon Austin
Dee Milliner
Chance Warmack
D.J. Fluker
D.J. Hayden
Sheldon Richardson
Star Lotulelei
Kenny Vaccaro
EJ Manuel

In the article they cited the fact we passed on Lane Johnson for Derrick as the reason he was such a bad pick.

I nearly sprained by eyes rolling them.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by carcosa

A smile a day keeps the patella in play!

[KCUnited]

Originally Posted by carcosa

A smile a day keeps the patella in play!

OK now this is a study I can get behind!

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

1994 to 2004 studies seem outdated.

The NFL only averages 2 of these injuries per year and there is no career to study in many cases.

You can't do a study on guys that played 10 years after this injury when it hasn't happened. The number is 0.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Here's the top half of the first round in 2013. Fisher was a brilliant pick. Lane Johnson is the only guy you'd probably pick above him, and Johnson is a RT who played 16 games only three times in his career, which is less than Fisher even though Fisher retired three years ago.

Eric Fisher
Luke Joeckel
Dion Jordan
Lane Johnson
Ezekiel Ansah
Barkevious Mingo
Jonathan Cooper
Tavon Austin
Dee Milliner
Chance Warmack
D.J. Fluker
D.J. Hayden
Sheldon Richardson
Star Lotulelei
Kenny Vaccaro
EJ Manuel

Every time I see Barkevious Mingo I think of Frank Caliendo's Mel Kiper routine: "Barkevious Mingo. Don't know anything about him, just like saying his name."

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by irafreak

About the data on this injury... how far back does it go? I know it mentions pff grades so it must not go back too far. I ask because we know medical procedures are always improving. I'd also like to know the ages of these athletes when injured. Any of them just retire after cause they were late 30s? Numbers can be spun to say anything. More data needed. I don't have an opinion either way yet.

This is a very good point, and one I came here to post about. We all know medicine, and especially sports medicine is always advancing by leaps and bounds. Can we really use data from 20 years ago to predict what will happen now?

I know this player is a risk and I admit that I'm concerned. But I'm also optimistic because if this works, it will be one of the best picks one could possibly hope for. Time will tell. /fingers crossed

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Several teams agree: Josh Simmons had best tape of any OT last year. And they aren't very concerned with recovery on the torn patella tendon. More of the concern is maturity/character. But he's going to the ideal, veteran-laden place.

— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) April 25, 2025

I'm curious about this, but if the character concerns were serious he would have been moved to wide receiver years ago.

[BlackHelicopters]

The CHIEFS took a home run swing. I hope they didn’t miss.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

This is my big problem.

The response to evidence being presented about this injury varies from "could you explain it to me like I'm 5?" to "I dont know anything and I'm proud of it!"

But I honestly don't know what I expected from middle to late aged dudes on an online Chiefs board, so I have to blame myself there at some point.

Which is where I get to the irony of all that.

I mean -- I'm consistent. You can go into that god-awful COVID thread where I argued loudly that being literate and having critical thinking skills is a really good substitute for credentials in some of this stuff.

I hate appeals to authority. Always have. "You think you know more than Burt Valanche!?!?" is the most braindead bullshit take this board has to offer. And it offers it...lots.

Nobody - NOBODY - myself, Crow, Duncan, or anyone else that has come out against this pick, has asserted a medical opinion. We haven't purported to. We haven't hid the ball there.

It's been...math. It's history. It's been a combination of both.

"Well where'd you get YOUR degree?!?!"

Well shit, I actually have a lot of training in stats and methods. Took several classes on it because I liked the professor. I'm pretty good at extrapolating tables and data. And that's all any of us have done here.

Which is why I keep saying that the only way to directly address these studies is to distinguish them. You have to ignore them because {insert the reason here}.

And MAYBE that's appropriate. Depending on said reason. But "you're not a doctor" isn't a reason. It's an end run.

Maybe there's been advances in this surgery that happened in the last 2 years that don't show up in the data set -- we've acknowledged that. Maybe there's been advances in imaging and diagnostics that give us better insight into the status of the recovery than guys previously had and those allow us to know that he already stands apart from that data set. We've acknowledged that.

And maybe Andy Reid went into that draft hell bent on picking a LT in the 1st round and just blew the data set off. Oddly, none of y'all wanna acknowledge that. The possibility has equal merit and thus far equal substantiation to anything being presented on the other side. Maybe the team hated the draft board and decided that they'd be fine with the 85% chance that this pick amounts to dick because they don't see anything safe enough with the ceiling to justify taking instead.

Maybe. I dunno. Nor does anyone jerking themselves off over the pick.

The issue is that a whole bunch of folks seem to want me to start and/or end a post with "In my opinion" and maybe attach my CV while I'm at it. Why? You know it's my opinion -- I'm typing it. And if you don't know my CV by now...well fellas, I talk a LOT and I've been here for about 2 decades now. Pay attention. I have no inclination to litigate it any time I post a contrary opinion.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm curious about this, but if the character concerns were serious he would have been moved to wide receiver years ago.

We want him nasty - he plays in the trenches. These "character concerns" are so important that no one has bothered to mention what they are. Anywhere.

My concerns are the exact opposite of that tweet.

[Wisconsin_Chief]

Originally Posted by BlackHelicopters

The CHIEFS took a home run swing. I hope they didn’t miss.

They might miss, but I'll never give them shit about doing so, especially at pick 32.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rausch

We want him nasty - he plays in the trenches. These "character concerns" are so important that no one has bothered to mention what they are. Anywhere.

My concerns are the exact opposite of that tweet.

Nah - they trickled through the draft forum at some point.

Like I said -- I was already out, so I didn't give them any further thought. But they're out there. Nobody ever puts names on that shit, but several folks mentioned it and specifically articulated the concerns. I think it was Brugler's draft guide that had the most comprehensive take on them.