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

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

I'd bet that Minnesota would want more of a premium than that. Any idea how much they want to make that pick at #24?

Not likely according to the charts. Maybe they ask for our 4th with a swap of 66 for 97 and we'd probably ask for their 6th.

Minnesota has every incentive to move out of 24. They only have 4 picks in the draft, 1-24, 3-97, 5-139, and 6-187. They need some ammunition. I wouldn't put it past them to move down twice like they did a few years ago.

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Not likely according to the charts. Maybe they ask for our 4th with a swap of 66 for 97 and we'd probably ask for their 6th.

Minnesota has every incentive to move out of 24. They only have 4 picks in the draft, 1-24, 3-97, 5-139, and 6-187. They need some ammunition. I wouldn't put it past them to move down twice like they did a few years ago.

Certainly intriguing, but the charts are only a baseline and no GM wants to be embarrassed during the draft. I'll bet that if the Vikings want to move down, they'll have more than one offer. The Chiefs won't get the deal unless our offer is better, not just equivalent, but better.

[Chargem]

It's always a catch 22 I think. If any tackle is a sure thing, he won't be there at 24. So trading up to take a tackle at 24 (or anywhere in the 20s I guess unless the tackle class is insanely deep) is always just taking a risk, the same as Suamatia was a risk, its never a sure fire thing.

Moore has actual snaps in the NFL against good pass rushers where he looks like an above average tackle. He is way more likely to be an above average tackle next season than pretty much any rookie is. The Chiefs have invested enough in him that he's going to play, so I'd rather the Chiefs let the draft come to them than trade up to bench a guy for a year.

If Simmons or Conerly fall to 31, sure take them - especially if they can play RT in a year so you can cut Taylor and save 20m in the process.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Don't whine about how bad our OT play is for a 6th straight year if the Chiefs don't go up and take one. Remember, ya'll would rather sit tight so you don't miss out on a situational role player.

There's a better than good chance a tackle take in the 20's or later is exactly that next year - a role player. We need starters out of the first round.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Don’t care. Other needs are capable of being solved. LT isn’t.

They’ve gotten their asses kicked in 2 SB’s bc of LT. The generational QB is regressing bc the LT is getting him killed. They’ve tried every single way to solve LT except actually moving up and being aggressive to solve the the LT problem. If they think Conerly can be a starting LT for years to come you go get him.

We have an extra 3rds if it takes that to do it OU do it without blinking.

Other areas of the team can be solved in FA and the draft. The LT position has been impossible to solve bc there’s very little supply and high demand.

The fact you think Conerly or Simmons automatically solves the problem says a ton.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Who said anything about giving up multiple picks? I suggested moving up a few spots in the first for maybe moving back from our early 3rd to a later 3rd.

Edit: Using the Rich Hill Trade Value Chart - https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-V...-Rich-Hill.asp

If Conerly was still on the board at pick 26, a swap of firsts with the Rams has a difference of 33 points. Our pick 66 and the Rams at pick 90 has a difference of 31 points. Close enough that a deal could possiblly get hammered out.

Um, you'd be trading the 31st pick plus at least one other pick to trade up. By definition, that's multiple picks.

Stay put at 31 and take Conerly. I'm not trading up for a tackle. What a waste of resources all because people can't be patient.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I consider this view to be unrealistic.

For starters, there isn't a more important position on a team after QB than LT. It's not even particularly close.

If you want a starting LT in this league, you have to draft one, and to draft one, you usually have to get a pick in the top 20.

If NFL evaluators echo Mike Tice, then you aren't getting Josh Conerly or Kevin Banks anywhere near 31. It doesn't rightly matter what Mel Kiper thinks. You might get Ersery.

You act like we're giving up all these "starting" players. Now that's just being ridiculous. Your best-case argument is that you will give up two part-time players (role players). You're giving up a Leo Chenal and a Derrick Nnadi, in all likelihood. Solid players? Yeah sure. Franchise-altering talents? No.

So you HAVE to get ahead of pick 20 and people are advocating trading up a "few spots". Surely you see the contradiction in that.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I can’t understand the argument that we shouldn’t invest in protecting Mahomes. We are thin at oline anyway. It’s not a deep position group for us. And we have Mahomes and he plays much better when protected and really trusts his oline. Why anyone would think that the cost of moving up to 20-25 for a LT is too high is ridiculous to me. I like Simmons but if the chiefs think conerly is better, so be it. I actually feel the opposite way. If you can grab a guy like Simmons or conerly with a small trade up, get it done.

Who said don't invest? We are talking about investing WISELY.

Trading up to get another SHOT at a tackle isn't wise, at all. It would actually be pretty stupid.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There's a better than good chance a tackle take in the 20's or later is exactly that next year - a role player. We need starters out of the first round.

This is not necessarily true. Conerly or Banks or ??? Could start at LT over Moore. There is nothing saying that isn't an open competition.

Also, there's really not a position elsewhere on this team where you couldn't say the same damned thing about it sans maybe NT.

So long as it's a long-term starter, that's what matters. I'm speaking of career role player, I figured you'd understand that.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So you HAVE to get ahead of pick 20 and people are advocating trading up a "few spots". Surely you see the contradiction in that.

Do I need to pull out a highlighter for you today?

I said you "usually" have to get into the top 20. I think you would agree with that.

Now, if there are a couple of prospects who some NFL guys see as much better than the media armchair GMs then there will probably be some meeting in the middle, and we'd have to move up for one, but maybe not into the top 20.

I was the original guy to suggest the Vikings-Chiefs pick swap in a mock and move up to 24. I think 24 is reasonable. It's getting Christian Darrisaw value. Will one of Banks or Conerly be there? I think it looks probable. Will they be there at 31? I don't think so. Positional value is too strong, and some other teams need LTs as well.

All I've said about moving above 24 is that it would likely need to be to 19, and that's a big move for Tampa to make. Denver at 20 and LA at 22 aren't going to trade with us, probably. Pittsburgh doesn't really ever trade down, and they sit at 21. Green Bay doesn't either, and they are at 23. If Veach felt he had to get that high for one of these guys, that's something I'd support him doing but not champion for.

Other guys are talking about trading 1sts and 2nds and moving way up. I just don't see that as a thing. Those aren't my words.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kccrow

This is not necessarily true. Conerly or Banks or ??? Could start at LT over Moore. There is nothing saying that isn't an open competition.

Also, there's really not a position elsewhere on this team where you couldn't say the same damned thing about it sans maybe NT.

So long as it's a long-term starter, that's what matters. I'm speaking of career role player, I figured you'd understand that.

There's no guarantee he's a long-term starter. You yourself admitted you're not getting a sure fire starter outside of the top 20. People are stretching to make this make sense because they're scared. It's that simple.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Do I need to pull out a highlighter for you today?

I said you "usually" have to get into the top 20. I think you would agree with that.

Now, if there are a couple of prospects who some NFL guys see as much better than the media armchair GMs then there will probably be some meeting in the middle, and we'd have to move up for one, but maybe not into the top 20.

I was the original guy to suggest the Vikings-Chiefs pick swap in a mock and move up to 24. I think 24 is reasonable. It's getting Christian Darrisaw value. Will one of Banks or Conerly be there? I think it looks probable. Will they be there at 31? I don't think so. Positional value is too strong, and some other teams need LTs as well.

All I've said about moving above 24 is that it would likely need to be to 19, and that's a big move for Tampa to make. Denver at 20 and LA at 22 aren't going to trade with us, probably. Pittsburgh doesn't really ever trade down, and they sit at 21. Green Bay doesn't either, and they are at 23. If Veach felt he had to get that high for one of these guys, that's something I'd support him doing but not champion for.

Other guys are talking about trading 1sts and 2nds and moving way up. I just don't see that as a thing. Those aren't my words.

I never said those were your words. I just don't agree. We've got a bunch of projects already on the roster. No need to trade up for another one.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kccrow

This is not necessarily true. Conerly or Banks or ??? Could start at LT over Moore. There is nothing saying that isn't an open competition.

Also, there's really not a position elsewhere on this team where you couldn't say the same damned thing about it sans maybe NT.

So long as it's a long-term starter, that's what matters. I'm speaking of career role player, I figured you'd understand that.

I think if you're looking at spots where you 'need' a starter, I'd look at LG (which could be covered by drafting a potential LT), Will 'backer (I'd love to see us layer Tranquil somehow), RB and FS (We don't really utilize FS/SS designations but this roster still doesn't have a coverage safety, IMO). And obviously DT.

I don't think any of those positions except maybe DT are in such a dire spot that you'd forego a possible long-term upgrade at a position of higher importance in order to get a starter at one of those NOW.

And the only one of those to come close is DT where the Chiefs clearly don't think it's that important and never have.

If we make a 'need' pick, it almost has to be DT. I just don't think the Chiefs see DT as a real need even if I do. Beyond that, every position we'd be looking at either has a starter that we'd like to upgrade on (2nd day works great for those guys) and/or is a position of lesser importance.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The fact you think Conerly or Simmons automatically solves the problem says a ton.

I’m not sure if they do, but if these guys view one of these LT prospects as a guy that can start at tackle and be a quality starter for a long time, then they need to make it the highest priority to obtain them.

Don’t think that’s gonna take much do a move up if it’s for Conerly

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There's no guarantee he's a long-term starter. You yourself admitted you're not getting a sure fire starter outside of the top 20. People are stretching to make this make sense because they're scared. It's that simple.

Hell, there is no such thing as a sure thing inside the top 20. It's generally not as much about a "sure thing" as it is about availability. Some positions are much harder to get any quality at outside of round one, and quarterbacks and offensive tackles tend to dry up by pick 10 and pick 20, respectively. That doesn't mean that if one slips outside the top 20, they are automatically some big project. Darrisaw wasn't a project, and he fell to 23. Rodgers was never seen as a project QB and fell to 27. Shit just happens.

I really don't hear anyone calling Conerly a "project" as a prospect. The opposite really. His lone knock has been concerns about anchor strength, but everyone seems to think the footwork, the hand usage, and so on are top-notch. Nobody walks into the NFL as an OT and hits the ground running as a star day 1. They all take some pretty massive lumps. I'm looking at what I'd envision a guy to be 1 or 2 years down the road. Conerly with an added 15-20 lbs and strength gain is going to be a really good player.