I think Fisher is coming back

[HemiEd]

It just seems to be lining up where the Chiefs are planning on it to me.

His injury against Buffalo in the AFCCG was sudden and sad.

Bart Verch said he planned on him coming back in August.

Then he is suddenly cut/released.

A complete new OL minus a LT.

Yeah, I know about the draft, but it just seems to be stacking up for Fisher's return to me.

Discuss

[YontsRBake]

Still really feel like Thuney was signed to play LT.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by YontsRBake

Still really feel like Thuney was signed to play LT.

You do know they tried signing a guy to play left tackle, right?

The only way Thuney is playing LT is in a pinch.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by YontsRBake

Still really feel like Thuney was signed to play LT.

Direction hack your account?

[YontsRBake]

Originally Posted by BossChief

You do know they tried signing a guy to play left tackle, right?

The only way Thuney is playing LT is in a pinch.

In the ideal situation that we would have been able to get Trent, you keep Thuney at guard.

I don't get why we'd put a rookie there though as opposed to moving him out when we know he can play it and it's a significantly more important position than guard.

We know Remmers can't play it. Long probably still can't play it. LDT can't play it.

The plan really to put Niang or a rookie there? Just don't get that when we're in full tilt win-now mode.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by YontsRBake

In the ideal situation that we would have been able to get Trent, you keep Thuney at guard.

I don't get why we'd put a rookie there though as opposed to moving him out when we know he can play it and it's a significantly more important position than guard.

We know Remmers can't play it. Long probably still can't play it. LDT can't play it.

The plan really to put Niang or a rookie there? Just don't get that when we're in full tilt win-now mode.

They'll get a stop-gap LT while they ease the rookie into the starting lineup, is by bet.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The same exact roster, and they'll probably bring back Brown at WR, too.

I'll take them over the field in the NFC at this point.

I'm seeing +400 on the Buccs to win the NFC, so implied odds of about 20%. If you think the market is that wrong, bet the house on it?

[oldman]

We took at shot at Williams and it didn't work out. All is not lost because of that. I still think the plan is to draft a T in the 1st with a 1-2 year stopgap vet.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by oldman

We took at shot at Williams and it didn't work out. All is not lost because of that. I still think the plan is to draft a T in the 1st with a 1-2 year stopgap vet.

I don’t like a tackle in the first with a stop gap. Get a tackle in the 3rd or 4th and develop him. Too much resources devoted to the position with both a first and a stop gap. A stop gap at this point ain’t gonna be cheap. DE in the 1st, WR in the 2nd and LT in the third would be ideal.

[chiefforlife]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I don’t like a tackle in the first with a stop gap. Get a tackle in the 3rd or 4th and develop him. Too much resources devoted to the position with both a first and a stop gap. A stop gap at this point ain’t gonna be cheap. DE in the 1st, WR in the 2nd and LT in the third would be ideal.

Thats just...Dumb! Like ALL of it.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I don’t like a tackle in the first with a stop gap. Get a tackle in the 3rd or 4th and develop him. Too much resources devoted to the position with both a first and a stop gap. A stop gap at this point ain’t gonna be cheap. DE in the 1st, WR in the 2nd and LT in the third would be ideal.

1) 3rd or 4th round OT prospects probably aren't going to 'develop' into solid starters at LT. This is a deep draft, so it's more possible than most years, but still you'd probably want to address the position earlier than certainly the 4th. My bet is they do so no later than #63.

2) there's no such thing as 'too much resources' on the LT position. It's the second most important spot on the offense, and protecting your $500m QB is paramount. Also, total OL rebuild underway, you don't skimp on the key spot; and you need to address it also to make good use of last year's #1 pick too, while we're at it.

3) The veteran LT's available aren't become MORE expensive as time goes by. It's the exact opposite. Everyone knows this is a deep OT draft class, most teams already have their guy that are contenders, bad teams are willing to grow with one. So your Okung's or Villaneuva's are not going to be expensive. The longer they wait to take a deal, the lower it will be.


My guess is it'll be more like DE, OT, WR.

but any combination is possible depending on how the draft falls.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by chiefforlife

Thats just...Dumb! Like ALL of it.

That’s based on the idea that we need to win now. If we think we have holes now... mercy, if we contend for Super Bowls every year, it’s gonna get more difficult. We need to win now. This is a new era for the chiefs. We’ve got to think differently.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

1) 3rd or 4th round OT prospects probably aren't going to 'develop' into solid starters at LT. This is a deep draft, so it's more possible than most years, but still you'd probably want to address the position earlier than certainly the 4th. My bet is they do so no later than #63.

2) there's no such thing as 'too much resources' on the LT position. It's the second most important spot on the offense, and protecting your $500m QB is paramount. Also, total OL rebuild underway, you don't skimp on the key spot; and you need to address it also to make good use of last year's #1 pick too, while we're at it.

3) The veteran LT's available aren't become MORE expensive as time goes by. It's the exact opposite. Everyone knows this is a deep OT draft class, most teams already have their guy that are contenders, bad teams are willing to grow with one. So your Okung's or Villaneuva's are not going to be expensive. The longer they wait to take a deal, the lower it will be.


My guess is it'll be more like DE, OT, WR.

but any combination is possible depending on how the draft falls.

I would be ok with that. The point is that we can’t over invest in players that won’t have an immediate impact. We need to win now. High round picks need to contribute. Later round picks can develop.

[kcbubb]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hwartz-return/

The Chiefs have made big changes to their offensive line this offseason, but they aren’t ruling out the possibility that old faces could be back in Kansas City.

Left tackle Eric Fisher and right tackle Mitchell Schwartz were both released early in the offseason as the Chiefs created salary cap space ahead of free agency. On Monday, Chiefs head coach Andy Reid said that the financial situation dictated those moves and that the team isn’t slamming the door on a possible reunion with either player.

“You run into these cap situations,” Reid said, via Nate Taylor of TheAthletic.com. “Some of these things had to be done. They go out as champs. The door always remains open.”

Fisher tore his Achilles in the AFC title game and Schwartz is recovering from back surgery, so there hasn’t been much activity for either player on the open market. That may change as we get closer to training camp and a return to the Chiefs will remain a possibility until someone else makes the veterans offers they can’t refuse.

[htismaqe]

I wouldn't read too much into it.

What he said exactly was "you run into these cap situations. Some of these things had to be done. They go out as champs. The door always remains open.”

Of course the door is open but they have to have the cap space, and both sides have to want to get back together.

[kcbubb]

Some have said that fisher is pissed from being released and that would indicate that the relationship is poor. This article seems to indicate (at least from the chiefs side) that the relationship is fine and that they are welcome back at more reasonable deals that reflect their age and injury history.