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

[TNTEICHER]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

I think Reid and Veach fooled themselves. They so wanted to magically find a great drafted young player at LT that they forget the prospect was a PROJECT and force fed him into the lineup with no safety net.

At best Kingsley is another year away from being a year away..

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Semichief

For once, a message board is too conservative with its roster shifting. The last time we were in this position, Veach brought in FOUR new lineman - Orlando Brown, Jr in trade, Thuney in free agency, and Smith and Humphrey in the draft.

We are set at LG and C, but the other 3 positions are all subject to major changes. Given the avenues at our disposal, I'd expect Veach to look across all three avenues (trade, draft, free agency) and sort out the best options. What I I think is extremely unlikely is modest moves like bringing back DJ Humphries and drafting a 3rd round guard. That doesn't comport with how Veach has attacked these problems in the past.

My guess is that Veach will try to remedy his mistake from last year of not getting a 1st round LT. The team often talks about having a perpetual championship window which means not going all-in for any one season, which is likely why we didn't move way up last year. That being said, it's now clear that our team can't afford to not fix the LT problem (amongst other OL problems). Fix it now and it keeps the championship window open for years to come.

If I were to guess, these are the moves I think we'll make:

1. Our 1st rounder is traded either for a mid-first rounder or an OT on the move (a la Orlando Brown, Jr).
   
2. Our 2nd, 3rd or 4th rounder is used on a RG
   
3. Options are explored to replace Jawaan Taylor and his big contract with either Kingsley or Wayna.

You can't just say DRAFT A FIRST ROUND TACKLE.

Like...who? Who would be in reach, and ARE they a legit first rounder? Probably not. So then you have Kingsley 2.0 and has that helped the situation?

Trade for one? Well, that requires a team willing to move a legit LT, and as it's the toughest position to fill in football besides QB it doesn't happen often. It kind of requires having TWO to be willing to move ONE. Who's got TWO?
The Rams, and that's why Jackson may be available.

Any drafted LT in reach for KC is going to look like Kingsley in year one. You have to understand that. You're drafting traits and hoping to coach 'em up. If they were ready day one, they go top ten.

So anyone else available is going to have serious warts, or they wouldn't be available.

Too old, injury prone, questionable talent, etc.

It's just the way it is. It's reality.

It's all fine and good, I guess, to just scream and throw things about what we WANT.

I understand being pissed. But it is what it is.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Semichief

[*]Options are explored to replace Jawaan Taylor and his big contract with either Kingsley or Wayna.[/LIST]

I'm very afraid they won't do this. I want them to - it's time. It's not working. Move on and eat some cap to free some cap.

I just doubt they do it...

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I'm very afraid they won't do this. I want them to - it's time. It's not working. Move on and eat some cap to free some cap.

I just doubt they do it...

Have you SEEN the cap hit?

That's not happening.

[O.city]

They're not gonna do anything with Taylor. He's fine at RT.

[Semichief]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

You can't just say DRAFT A FIRST ROUND TACKLE.

Like...who? Who would be in reach, and ARE they a legit first rounder? Probably not. So then you have Kingsley 2.0 and has that helped the situation?

Trade for one? Well, that requires a team willing to move a legit LT, and as it's the toughest position to fill in football besides QB it doesn't happen often. It kind of requires having TWO to be willing to move ONE. Who's got TWO?
The Rams, and that's why Jackson may be available.

Any drafted LT in reach for KC is going to look like Kingsley in year one. You have to understand that. You're drafting traits and hoping to coach 'em up. If they were ready day one, they go top ten.

So anyone else available is going to have serious warts, or they wouldn't be available.

Too old, injury prone, questionable talent, etc.

It's just the way it is. It's reality.

It's all fine and good, I guess, to just scream and throw things about what we WANT.

I understand being pissed. But it is what it is.

I didn't speculate on how it would get done, just that it would follow the pattern. But if I had to guess, Veach's first preference would be to get a starting tackle via trade like he did with OBJ. If some team wants to move on due to unwillingness to pay or wanting to reset and load up on draft picks, it can happen.

As far as a first rounder, we'd have to move WAY up - into the top 16. Comparing a pick at #16 or lower to Kingsley is not fair - Kingsley was the 11th OT taken in last year's class. We'd need to trade up in striking distance to get the 3rd or 4th OT in a much weaker class. Is it a guarantee of success? No, but I'd be willing to wager Veach is very aggressive in trying to solve this issue.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Trade for one? Well, that requires a team willing to move a legit LT, and as it's the toughest position to fill in football besides QB it doesn't happen often. It kind of requires having TWO to be willing to move ONE. Who's got TWO?

You find a team like Atlanta who has major salary cap issues and has a significant investment in a left tackle, Jake Matthews, with a left handed QB.

That is a potential trade opportunity.

[RunKC]

At this point I don’t give a shit about 1st rd picks. I’d gladly sell 31, 66 and next years first if it got us to the teens. I’d even add a 2026 4th if need be.

I just don’t care anymore. This is mentally ****ing our QB in his prime. It has to be fixed at all costs.

7 LT’s since Eric Fisher. No wonder Mahomes is playing like a game manager

[Womble]

Originally Posted by RunKC

At this point I don’t give a shit about 1st rd picks. I’d gladly sell 31, 66 and next years first if it got us to the teens. I’d even add a 2026 4th if need be.

I just don’t care anymore. This is mentally ****ing our QB in his prime. It has to be fixed at all costs.

7 LT’s since Eric Fisher. No wonder Mahomes is playing like a game manager

I'm more of the mind that we trade all of that capital to a shitty team that has a competent LT. They're rebuilding and we ain't so just give them the draft capital to draft a developmental OT along with a few other players and we get the proven LT when we are in win now mode. I really, really don't want to be in a situation of putting all our eggs in one basket to move up to the teens in the draft to select an LB prospect who turns out to be just as useless as Kingsley or Morris. If we are going to use all our draft capital I don't want a prospect, I want a guaranteed starter for the next 4 seasons.

[OKchiefs]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

You can't just say DRAFT A FIRST ROUND TACKLE.

Like...who? Who would be in reach, and ARE they a legit first rounder? Probably not. So then you have Kingsley 2.0 and has that helped the situation?

Trade for one? Well, that requires a team willing to move a legit LT, and as it's the toughest position to fill in football besides QB it doesn't happen often. It kind of requires having TWO to be willing to move ONE. Who's got TWO?
The Rams, and that's why Jackson may be available.

Any drafted LT in reach for KC is going to look like Kingsley in year one. You have to understand that. You're drafting traits and hoping to coach 'em up. If they were ready day one, they go top ten.

So anyone else available is going to have serious warts, or they wouldn't be available.

Too old, injury prone, questionable talent, etc.

It's just the way it is. It's reality.

It's all fine and good, I guess, to just scream and throw things about what we WANT.

I understand being pissed. But it is what it is.

Why is this the assumption, that any non-top 10 OT within reach will be as bad as Kingsley Suamataia? KC clearly didn’t even think he would be that bad or they wouldn’t have picked him as the starter coming into the season. A non-injured Morris wasn’t nearly as bad as KS as a rookie and he was seen as an inferior prospect. Commanders had Brandon Coleman start 12 games as a rookie 3rd rd pick and he never looked close to as bad as Suamataia.

KS was barely a 2nd rd pick at pick 63, an OT seen as a mid to late 1st rounder should in theory be a superior prospect to Suamataia and should have a quicker learning curve, in theory.

I don’t think the process here has to be all that complicated. Free agency starts a month from now, the draft starts 6 weeks after that. Free agency goal day 1 should be to acquire Stanley, Jackson, or Robinson if any are available. If you get one then OT isn’t a dire need in rd 1 but you probably still take one at some point in the draft to keep churning the talent.

If you strike out there then the team is kind of backed into a corner and OT becomes an absolute necessity in rd 1 or 2. You probably sign someone like Humphries or maybe Jedrick Wills as a veteran option and then you get to work scouting and acquiring your guys in the draft, probably Conerly or Ersery. Humphries (or whatever veteran they sign) is slated as the starter from day 1 and you have the rookie, Suamataia, and Morris all compete through TC and into the season.

Looks like a pretty fair, reasonable, and realistic plan A and plan B.

[OKchiefs]

Originally Posted by O.city

They're not gonna do anything with Taylor. He's fine at RT.

He’s far from fine at $27 million a year the next 2 seasons but there’s no way out of that, he’s 100% gone in 2026 though

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by OKchiefs

Why is this the assumption, that any non-top 10 OT within reach will be as bad as Kingsley Suamataia? KC clearly didn’t even think he would be that bad or they wouldn’t have picked him as the starter coming into the season. A non-injured Morris wasn’t nearly as bad as KS as a rookie and he was seen as an inferior prospect. Commanders had Brandon Coleman start 12 games as a rookie 3rd rd pick and he never looked close to as bad as Suamataia.

KS was barely a 2nd rd pick at pick 63, an OT seen as a mid to late 1st rounder should in theory be a superior prospect to Suamataia and should have a quicker learning curve, in theory.

I don’t think the process here has to be all that complicated. Free agency starts a month from now, the draft starts 6 weeks after that. Free agency goal day 1 should be to acquire Stanley, Jackson, or Robinson if any are available. If you get one then OT isn’t a dire need in rd 1 but you probably still take one at some point in the draft to keep churning the talent.

If you strike out there then the team is kind of backed into a corner and OT becomes an absolute necessity in rd 1 or 2. You probably sign someone like Humphries or maybe Jedrick Wills as a veteran option and then you get to work scouting and acquiring your guys in the draft, probably Conerly or Ersery. Humphries (or whatever veteran they sign) is slated as the starter from day 1 and you have the rookie, Suamataia, and Morris all compete through TC and into the season.

Looks like a pretty fair, reasonable, and realistic plan A and plan B.

Because draft history, especially recent, says a LT taken at 22 has about the same success rate as a LT taken at 42 or 62.

You will not get a first year starter out of anything but a tip 15 pick. Everything else is a lottery ticket.

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by Womble

I'm more of the mind that we trade all of that capital to a shitty team that has a competent LT. They're rebuilding and we ain't so just give them the draft capital to draft a developmental OT along with a few other players and we get the proven LT when we are in win now mode. I really, really don't want to be in a situation of putting all our eggs in one basket to move up to the teens in the draft to select an LB prospect who turns out to be just as useless as Kingsley or Morris. If we are going to use all our draft capital I don't want a prospect, I want a guaranteed starter for the next 4 seasons.

This.

The idea of drafting a LT is DUMB.

What that means is that we are saying we're not contenders because we JUST SAW WHAT NOT HAVING GOOD LT PLAY DOES ALL YEAR.

We GET a bonafide SOLID LT and then if we wanna draft or develop one that can replace him in 2-3 years fine.

But we don't bank on a rookie. My God we've done this. WE JUST DID THIS.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Because draft history, especially recent, says a LT taken at 22 has about the same success rate as a LT taken at 42 or 62.

You will not get a first year starter out of anything but a tip 15 pick. Everything else is a lottery ticket.

There is literally no point to it. Why draft a LT outside of rd 1? We have that with Kingsley.

It’s veteran trade, veteran signing or trade up to the teens for one. Time to be serious about LT.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by RunKC

There is literally no point to it. Why draft a LT outside of rd 1? We have that with Kingsley.

It’s veteran trade, veteran signing or trade up to the teens for one. Time to be serious about LT.

This.

The Chiefs starting LT entering next season has to be as close to a sure thing as possible.