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

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Maybe we are saying the same thing? I just think that a left tackle drops to the mid twenties that’s good value. I’m not sure that any of the prospects at 31 make an immediate contribution, except maybe safety, CB, WR or RB. And those aren’t positions of dire need that we can fill later in the draft The elite DTs are probably gone by 31. The chiefs have positioned themselves to take BPA. But I think that the bpa with a small trade up could be a LT. I don’t think that’s desperate at all. And all picks at our range are a chance. Remember Robert gallery? He ended being a pretty good guard. All these picks are a chance and a bulk of them never make it. Look at FAU. You have to take some chances to eventually get a long term left tackle when you are picking late every year. Do you want the chiefs to rely on free agency for premium positions forever? If not, you’re going to have to take some chances.

Again, taking a tackle in the mid-20's or so is going to, more often than not, get you a guard. Maybe a right tackle. The starting left tackles coming from that range are few and far between. It's not good value at all. And trading extra picks to move up would be even worse.

I just don't see the need for another rotational tackle and I'm damned sure not trading up for one.

They don't have a ton of picks, they need to use them wisely. Chasing a LT just wouldn't be wise to me. For all we know, Kingsley is the long-term answer. Or they could take one in the 2nd round. I just don't see Conerly as some can't miss prospect and let's face it, we are talking about Conerly and only Conerly. Thats just not good odds.

[seamonster]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And part of the reason I'm against it is just a numbers game. The only realistic option is Conerly.

I wouldn't draft Simmons. That injury isn't one you just recover from and move on. It ruins careers.

30 year old QB with Birmingham Stallions draft pick as your backup LT...Not a good place to be.

[xztop123]

Originally Posted by seamonster

30 year old QB with Birmingham Stallions draft pick as your backup LT...Not a good place to be.

Might go to the ship considering we just did with a 32 year old playing out of position at left tackle.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I just don't see Conerly as some can't miss prospect and let's face it, we are talking about Conerly and only Conerly. Thats just not good odds.

We just differ on how to build a team. I think you’ve got to take chances and draft players with traits in the first round for premium positions when you’re picking at the back of the 1st every year. Your view is going to have us leaning on free agency for offensive tackles. I don’t want to be in the position where we have to sign guys like jawaan Taylor to expensive contracts. I’d rather take a swing and then have to move a player to guard or RT. They get paid a lot too.

And I don’t think Simmons is off the board yet. More work needs to be done on him. Here’s Simmons working out at his pro day. The chiefs have time to evaluate his knee.

https://youtu.be/_EHG-gpa2Ko

https://youtu.be/wvWkp6KAC7w

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

We just differ on how to build a team. I think you’ve got to take chances and draft players with traits in the first round for premium positions when you’re picking at the back of the 1st every year. Your view is going to have us leaning on free agency for offensive tackles. I don’t want to be in the position where we have to sign guys like jawaan Taylor to expensive contracts. I’d rather take a swing and then have to move a player to guard or RT. They get paid a lot too.

And I don’t think Simmons is off the board yet. More work needs to be done on him. Here’s Simmons working out at his pro day. The chiefs have time to evaluate his knee.

https://youtu.be/_EHG-gpa2Ko

https://youtu.be/wvWkp6KAC7w

That's just the thing - Kingsley has ALL the traits. He just doesn't have the skill and technique, at least not yet.

Conerly has skill and technique but doesn't have all the traits you look for in a surefire stud LT. He just doesn't. He's got a very high floor but he doesn't have nearly as much upside.

And no, my view does not lead to relying on free agency. Never have I said " don't take a tackle". I have said repeatedly that this is a bad year for offensive tackles, we don't have a lot of picks, and we shouldn't be trading up for another dart throw, trading up needs to be a bullseye, especially in the first round.

And you will never sell me on Simmons. There's simply no way to know. He can check out medically and still be a much lesser player than he was before. As I said, his particular injury has a history of being a career-killer. I wouldn't take him under any circumstance because you won't know how limited he is until you get him on the field and by then it's too late.

Stay put. Take Conerly at 31. Or take a tackle prospect in round 2 or 3. Just don't waste valuable draft assets chasing a less than ideal player just because he plays LT

[DJ's left nut]

Ultimately you trade up for an immediate need you believe you can fill with a scarce prospect available to you now.

If you can fill that need later, you don't trade up. If it doesn't feel the need now, you don't trade up.

Or if you think it's a truly superlative prospect who's fallen for some point, you consider the long-term picture and trade up. But again, 'truly superlative' is rare. It's McDuffie.

It's not Simmons, IMO. Even a healthy Simmons isn't that guy.

And there's not an immediate need nor is there someone that can fill it now. So you don't trade up for Conerly.

You play the board. If that means taking Conerly because he's at the top of your board at 31 -- fine. Or if that means taking a DL and then Ersery or Charles Grant because THEY'RE at the top of your board at the back of 2 -- also fine.

This isn't a situation where you trade up, IMO.

You play it as it lays.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Ultimately you trade up for an immediate need you believe you can fill with a scarce prospect available to you now.

If you can fill that need later, you don't trade up. If it doesn't feel the need now, you don't trade up.

Or if you think it's a truly superlative prospect who's fallen for some point, you consider the long-term picture and trade up. But again, 'truly superlative' is rare. It's McDuffie.

It's not Simmons, IMO. Even a healthy Simmons isn't that guy.

And there's not an immediate need nor is there someone that can fill it now. So you don't trade up for Conerly.

You play the board. If that means taking Conerly because he's at the top of your board at 31 -- fine. Or if that means taking a DL and then Ersery or Charles Grant because THEY'RE at the top of your board at the back of 2 -- also fine.

This isn't a situation where you trade up, IMO.

You play it as it lays.

Absolutely all of this.

[Sassy Squatch]

That's nice. Veach will be trying to trade up. Especially with #66 as extra ammo.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Ultimately you trade up for an immediate need you believe you can fill with a scarce prospect available to you now.

If you can fill that need later, you don't trade up. If it doesn't feel the need now, you don't trade up.

Or if you think it's a truly superlative prospect who's fallen for some point, you consider the long-term picture and trade up. But again, 'truly superlative' is rare. It's McDuffie.

It's not Simmons, IMO. Even a healthy Simmons isn't that guy.

And there's not an immediate need nor is there someone that can fill it now. So you don't trade up for Conerly.

You play the board. If that means taking Conerly because he's at the top of your board at 31 -- fine. Or if that means taking a DL and then Ersery or Charles Grant because THEY'RE at the top of your board at the back of 2 -- also fine.

This isn't a situation where you trade up, IMO.

You play it as it lays.

Derrick Harmon feels like such a fit here to me. If he’s in range I’d place betting odds that Veach gets him.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Maybe we are saying the same thing? I just think that a left tackle drops to the mid twenties that’s good value. I’m not sure that any of the prospects at 31 make an immediate contribution, except maybe safety, CB, WR or RB. And those aren’t positions of dire need that we can fill later in the draft The elite DTs are probably gone by 31. The chiefs have positioned themselves to take BPA. But I think that the bpa with a small trade up could be a LT. I don’t think that’s desperate at all. And all picks at our range are a chance. Remember Robert gallery? He ended being a pretty good guard. All these picks are a chance and a bulk of them never make it. Look at FAU. You have to take some chances to eventually get a long term left tackle when you are picking late every year. Do you want the chiefs to rely on free agency for premium positions forever? If not, you’re going to have to take some chances.

You're missing the point.

NFL left tackles very, VERY rarely drop to the mid-twenties. Almost never. Those guys that DO almost always end up playing RIGHT tackle or guard.

So what do I want to do about Left Tackle?

Keep taking occasional swings on guys with the right traits and maybe you get lucky. Bahktiaris happen every once in a blue moon. But don't reach for one, certainly don't give up multiple high picks to try to get one that more than likely will end up a guard.

If Conerly falls to 31 and they like him, I will understand the pick. If they take an Ersery or a Grant in the second or third, I'll understand that too.

If they figure they have two developmental tackles as it is and stand pat there to get better elsewhere, I'll understand that.

[TRR]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Derrick Harmon feels like such a fit here to me. If he’s in range I’d place betting odds that Veach gets him.

Derrick Harmon is my preference as well if he falls to 31. He would be a fun rotational piece in year one, and a really fun pairing with Jones moving forward...with upside to replace Jones in a few years.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Derrick Harmon feels like such a fit here to me. If he’s in range I’d place betting odds that Veach gets him.

Great player, but I don't understand the infatuation with him as a fit for KC.

he's a 3-tech. We already have THE 3-tech.

So...he gets Wharton's snaps on passing downs?

To ME, the DT we need fit-wise is a true NOSE. Williams, Collins, someone like that.

But that's just me.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Great player, but I don't understand the infatuation with him as a fit for KC.

he's a 3-tech. We already have THE 3-tech.

So...he gets Wharton's snaps on passing downs?

To ME, the DT we need fit-wise is a true NOSE. Williams, Collins, someone like that.

But that's just me.

How about Nolen?

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Great player, but I don't understand the infatuation with him as a fit for KC.

he's a 3-tech. We already have THE 3-tech.

So...he gets Wharton's snaps on passing downs?

To ME, the DT we need fit-wise is a true NOSE. Williams, Collins, someone like that.

But that's just me.

That’s the downside with picking DT in the 1st. You’re right. The fit we need at DT can be picked later.

[kcbubb]

Are offensive linemen separated by position for the franchise tag? I am asking because I was thinking about positional value for the draft. It looks like offensive lineman all get the same treatment? Which is interesting and maybe part of the reason that great LT’s are never available via free agency. A top 5 LT is clearly better or more rare than a top 5 G. So, any team would tag a great LT multiple times before letting them walk away in free agency. If you draft a top LT and had to franchise tag them, it’s really cheap comparatively bc G’s and C’s should be cheaper than LTs. The article below is from February of this year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...n/78551524007/

Quarterback:
Non-exclusive: $41,325,000
Transition: $35,267,000
Running back:
Non-exclusive: $11,951,000
Transition: $9,765,000
Wide receiver:
Non-exclusive: $25,693,000
Transition: $22,523,000
Tight end:
Non-exclusive: $14,241,000
Transition: $12,069,000
Offensive line:
Non-exclusive: $25,156,000
Transition: $22,745,000
Defensive end:
Non-exclusive: $24,727,000
Transition: $20,769,000
Defensive tackle:
Non-exclusive: $23,468,000
Transition: $18,934,000
Linebacker:
Non-exclusive: $27,050,000
Transition: $22,612,000
Cornerback:
Non-exclusive: $20,357,000
Transition: $17,198,000
Safety:
Non-exclusive: $19,626,000
Transition: $15,598,000
Kicker/punter:
Non-exclusive: $6,459,000
Transition: $5,830,000