Thanks! And thoughts on the final draft grade?

[JPH83]

Just wanted to give a hat tip to a few people here for their work over the draft season.

Dante for the visits tracker and insane work on getting info on the picks up so quickly

Crow for the immense detail and knowledge provided on prospects. I always learn stuff from you each year. Much appreciated.

Staylor for the mock draft. Amazed we made it, thanks for putting in the effort to keep it on the road man

Coach for starting loads of interesting threads to ponder and general enthusiasm for all things draft. You seem like a real solid dude as well.

And then there's a load of you who know loads more than I do about scheme fits and specific skillsets etc.which includes those above, but also DJ, Duncan, Chris Meck, Run...probably loads of others.

Thanks all, I really enjoy this time of year, and I'm pretty happy with how this year's draft has gone. Reckon I'd give it an -A. What do you think?

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Keep downvoting my ****ing posts. ****ing christ.

Not me.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

No, dude. We are not adding in "everyone with a similar injury." The orthopaedic research doctors who did the study on this that was accepted through peer review and published to PubMed is what is referenced, and it separates patellar tendon injuries from quad injuries.

It is not Doomer projection to look at the NFL and NBA guys who have had this injury over the past 25 years and say 75 percent were never the same.

It is basic math.

The risks here are about as risky as risks can get. If he comes back and his knee is 100 percent the same and his abilities and level of play is exactly the same, he will be one of 1-3 EXTREME outliers.

Right there I don't care.

I don't care to add in people from 25 years ago because surgeries in this area have reported to been far more successful recently.


You also are including people that had the injury and unsuccessful surgery.

Chiefs determined it went well.

[SAGA45]

Originally Posted by kccrow

This has been the response by 99% of this board despite the fact that the entire population of players with this injury was compiled to show the risk. I shared it with everyone, and yet the general response remains the same. It's not people overplaying the risk, it is the risk. It's not a representative sample of some segment of players with this injury, it is the entire population. It's like, you can't really refute it. It is it.

Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.

It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.

It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.

Chiefs staff has relevant information we do not have.

I wish they would be even more transparent about what their risk calculations were but that's unlikely to happen.

What I can say is do you actually think the Chiefs medical staff think they only have a 25% success rate here?

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.

It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.

This is a thread about personal opinions and personal grades on the draft.

For me, the risk factor based on the information available to me is too high to give the Simmons pick a passing grade.


That’s, like, my opinion man. I believe the Chiefs staff when they say everything looks as good as it possibly could, in their opinions. And I hope they have some way of testing the explosion and strength and flexibility of the repaired joint. But until we hear something or see the player performing, I’ll need to see to believe.

[Otter]

Haven't had a chance to look at all of them but I'm getting some beast mode vibes off ONL for sure. Eye of the Tiger look.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.

It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.

Literally nobody has said that.

We've said one of 2 things -- and really, a combination of both.

1) The Chiefs risk tolerance is higher than ours would be for a pick that early.
2) The Chiefs view the reward of Simmons higher than we would.

I don't know how many times this can be said - nobody is offering a medical opinion. About as close to it as any of us has offered is what amounts to a truism as it relates to surgeries -- outcomes are determined by the rehab.

We say the Chiefs medical staff CAN'T know how that's going to work out because the joint isn't even completely healed yet -- by their own admission. So they're projecting risk and weighing reward. It's no different than taking a small school prospect who doesn't run a complete route tree in the second round. They can weigh that risk vs. that reward and determine that Skyy Moore is a worthwhile selection in the 2nd round because they're willing to project that he'll be able to develop that area of his game. They got the projection wrong. And there projection here, while educated and informed, is still just projection. Because Simmons is about halfway through his recovery/rehab process.

We can say this a million times over and in a hundred different ways and there will STILL be folks like you that militantly refuse to get it. You absolutely insist on the same old tired saws that are - every single year - proven to be silly. "Do you think you know more than the Chiefs?!?!"

I mean...we get stuff right that they get wrong every year. No, we don't know more on balance. Yes, we might just have one specific issue/area right.

And in this case it has nothing to do with our ability to read diagnostic imaging. It's simply our risk tolerance and how we view the respective rewards. This has been the case for over a month now and has been explained repeatedly.

It's even been refined in some cases -- I took the 'risk' element down as the rest of the draft played out and the opportunity cost of busting on that pick diminished as the board played out. My grade went up, not because I earned a medical degree, but because I was comfortable turning the risk knob down a bit. So even though the reward knob didn't change, the overall calculus did.

I'm not sure how many more ways this can be said to get you to listen. Or you can refuse to bat at straw men - really no skin off my ass either way. It's been made ABUNDANTLY clear what led to dissent here; 'insane' to you or not. It's really not my fault you refuse to understand it.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Chiefs staff has relevant information we do not have.

I wish they would be even more transparent about what their risk calculations were but that's unlikely to happen.

What I can say is do you actually think the Chiefs medical staff think they only have a 25% success rate here?

Honestly....I kinda think they might.

The only thing that might've given us a dispositive answer either way is had Conerly still been on the board and they still took Simmons.

I think this pick actually became more about opportunity cost than it was about medical risk. I think they looked at their board and decided that the healing went well ENOUGH to keep him on the board. Which they can easily say at this point in the draft -- the surgery didn't fail.

So then it just comes down to them saying "Alright, from the tape we think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT if healthy. And a 25% chance he gets back to where he was. So there's a 20% chance he's a plus starting LT for the next decade. Meanwhile #2 on our board is Nic Scourton and there's a 70% chance he'll be a solid DE for us. But there's this guy Gillotte who we think we can get 30 picks later who's odds are about the same.

So **** it -- lets spin the wheel and take our chances..."

I think when it came down to it, the opportunity cost just wasn't terribly high for them and they had a specific area they wanted to address; which was corroborated by Andy's quote saying they were targeting LT in the 1st round.

I won't speak for Crow or Duncan, but I think almost all of you are speaking PAST my point. And it's only that I don't think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT when healthy and I DO think the opportunity cost was higher than the Chiefs did. Though I have again acknowledged that it did come down a bit as the draft progressed.

At that point it's a strict player evaluation question. And yes, many of us HAVE gotten that question right when Veach has gotten it wrong. Even if he'll be right 9 times out of 10, it shouldn't close off discussion that this is that 1 time that us dumb schlubs on the internet got one over on him. It's happened before (Moore, Speaks, MEH, FAU) and it'll happen again.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Honestly....I kinda think they might.

The only thing that might've given us a dispositive answer either way is had Conerly still been on the board and they still took Simmons.

I think this pick actually became more about opportunity cost than it was about medical risk. I think they looked at their board and decided that the healing went well ENOUGH to keep him on the board. Which they can easily say at this point in the draft -- the surgery didn't fail.

So then it just comes down to them saying "Alright, from the tape we think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT if healthy. And a 25% chance he gets back to where he was. So there's a 20% chance he's a plus starting LT for the next decade. Meanwhile #2 on our board is Nic Scourton and there's a 70% chance he'll be a solid DE for us. But there's this guy Gillotte who we think we can get 30 picks later who's odds are about the same.

So **** it -- lets spin the wheel and take our chances..."

I think when it came down to it, the opportunity cost just wasn't terribly high for them and they had a specific area they wanted to address; which was corroborated by Andy's quote saying they were targeting LT in the 1st round.

I won't speak for Crow or Duncan, but I think almost all of you are speaking PAST my point. And it's only that I don't think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT when healthy and I DO think the opportunity cost was higher than the Chiefs did. Though I have again acknowledged that it did come down a bit as the draft progressed.

At that point it's a strict player evaluation question. And yes, many of us HAVE gotten that question right when Veach has gotten it wrong. Even if he'll be right 9 times out of 10, it shouldn't close off discussion that this is that 1 time that us dumb schlubs on the internet got one over on him. It's happened before (Moore, Speaks, MEH, FAU) and it'll happen again.

Yeah, I have no issue with someone not liking the pick or saying the risk is higher than they would like and wanting a perfectly healthy player.


But to think the Chiefs agree with your negative assessment probability as 25% and took him anyway is too much to accept.


No way do they agree with that number. And I think NFL teams have far better info to calculate risk than guys on a message board adding in players from 25 years ago or players that were near retirement anyway.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Yeah, I have no issue with someone not liking the pick or saying the risk is higher than they would like and wanting a perfectly healthy player.


But to think the Chiefs agree with your negative assessment probability as 25% and took him anyway is too much to accept.


No way do they agree with that number. And I think NFL teams have far better info to calculate risk than guys on a message board adding in players from 25 years ago or players that were near retirement anyway.

{shrug}

Okay.

Do you think the Giants think there's more than a 25% chance that Jaxson Dart is a franchise quarterback?

I don't.

When a team -- correct or otherwise -- is desperate at a critical position of extreme scarcity, their appetite for risk is going to increase substantially. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that. Especially when you guys have spent days (weeks, months, years) arguing "Well it's just a pick at the back of the 1st round -- not even really a first rounder..."

If that's to be taken as legitimate -- there's not even THAT much risk. Afterall -- it's not REALLY a first rounder, right?

The rest of your nonsense is based on the same set of false premises you guys really seem to enjoy working within. So fine, knock yourself out.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

{shrug}

Okay.

Do you think the Giants think there's more than a 25% chance that Jaxson Dart is a franchise quarterback?

I don't.

When a team -- correct or otherwise -- is desperate at a critical position of extreme scarcity, their appetite for risk is going to increase substantially. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that. Especially when you guys have spent days (weeks, months, years) arguing "Well it's just a pick at the back of the 1st round -- not even really a first rounder..."

If that's to be taken as legitimate -- there's not even THAT much risk. Afterall -- it's not REALLY a first rounder, right?

The rest of your nonsense is based on the same set of false premises you guys really seem to enjoy working within. So fine, knock yourself out.

On Dart? Probably. But the floor is also a calculation there and if they get a decent enough starter at 65 percent that pick looks fine.


With respect to Simmons, you are all saying the Chiefs are stupid. I don't believe that.


Because if the real calc is 25% then taking Simmons is stupid.


Would need to be at least 50% to make that pick.

That's where I think they are at. How much higher I don't know but I believe our medical staff has a better than 50% calculation on Simmons.

[poolboy]

we could have drafted Henderson instead...its not like there weren't any good impactful high second round players available...not my call, keeping my head down

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Not me.

I let my little one take revenge by telling her to click the thumb down on as many posts as she liked. I had to stop her when she started to downvote everyone that said nothing of consequence lol

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.

It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.

No, I don't think Burkholder and staff don't know WTF they are doing. That said, they can't make this guy a success either.

Do you think the Ravens second-guess their decision to take David Ojabo at the 45th pick in 2022, despite his Achilles injury, because he looked to be "healing well?" I bet they do.

You can't turn these terrible injuries into a positive.

Veach plainly said that Burkholder didn't like the idea when he first heard what the injury was. That should at least indicate to you something about his knowledge of the severity. The staff prompted him to evaluate him anyhow, and he gave a positive endorsement that it was healing as good as it could be. That doesn't say anything about Burkholder feeling he was going to be a successful pick. All it means is that Simmons at least has the potential to beat the odds.

Even the most recent of injuries haven't had good outcomes.

The good thing about this year? We get to truly have a great sample of this "modern procedure" as 4 offensive linemen attempt to come back from it: Simmons (age 21), Cole Strange (NE, age 26), D'Ante Smith (CIN, age 26), and Trent Brown (HOU, age 32). LB Nakobe Dean (PHI, age 24) and RB Chris Evans (CIN, age 27) also tore theirs last season. Crazy that the Bengals had 3 guys tear it in one season (Trent Brown tore it with them and signed with Houston for this year).

DE Bradley Chubb (MIA) tore his in 2023 and missed all of 2024. WR Russell Gage (TB) tore his in 2023 during camp and missed the entire year. He ended up cut by Baltimore and spent all of 2024 on the SF PS. WR Jakeem Grant (CLE) tore his in 2023 and missed the year. He tried to come back last year but was twice cut by the Falcons. So far 2/3 are pretty much toast, we get to find out about Chubb this year.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

On Dart? Probably. But the floor is also a calculation there and if they get a decent enough starter at 65 percent that pick looks fine.


With respect to Simmons, you are all saying the Chiefs are stupid. I don't believe that.


Because if the real calc is 25% then taking Simmons is stupid.


Would need to be at least 50% to make that pick.

That's where I think they are at. How much higher I don't know but I believe our medical staff has a better than 50% calculation on Simmons.

I don’t believe the Chiefs are stupid. I think their front office is the opposite of that. But even Veach and company make mistakes. They have taken players due to “needs” before that haven’t worked. So even though I’m one of their biggest defenders, generally, I still can see mistakes made.

I do think they were more willing to take on risk here. Clearly they view the reward as more likely than I do.

Whether that’s based on hope or more information than we have as Joe Public or some combination of the two, I don’t know.

Maybe Burkholder and staff were able to out him through workouts that measured his full strength and we just haven’t heard about it, and the 225 pound squat thing was a smokescreen. IDK.