*****The Josh Simmons Thread*****

[Dante84]

More to come!

��

— Patrick Mahomes II (@PatrickMahomes) April 25, 2025

Several teams agree: Josh Simmons had best tape of any OT last year. And they aren't very concerned with recovery on the torn patella tendon. More of the concern is maturity/character. But he's going to the ideal, veteran-laden place.

— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) April 25, 2025

the #chiefs get LT Josh Simmons out of Ohio State. If Simmons didn't suffer a torn patellar tendon he would have been the first tackle off the board. I had one team tell me he was the most athletic and talented tackle tape they watched. There are some maturity issues, but this…

— James Palmer (@JamesPalmerTV) April 25, 2025

The #Chiefs have selected #OSU OT Josh Simmons at No. 32, a player recovering nicely from a torn patellar tendon. They are comfortable with his rehab and did endless homework on it. https://t.co/awdb0JhPed

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) April 25, 2025

The #Chiefs are selecting Ohio State LT Josh Simmons at No. 32 to close out Round 1.

A key addition to bolster the offensive line in front of Patrick Mahomes. pic.twitter.com/oBx2CjzmCe

— Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) April 25, 2025

[seamonster]

I'm satisfied. Beyond tanking you either take a flyer out on a project -- like last year's disaster -- or you draft an LT with red-flags.

[GordonGekko]

Originally Posted by kcfan75

Or had a higher pick and got one.

We took the best available LT at the spot we were in.

Picking Simmons at pick #31 would have been a B graded pick, add that we got back the 5th rounder and that vaults the pick to an A, not sure why people are upset. A lot of these first rounders last night are not going to work out, there is a gamble with all of them

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

So if he was taken 5 picks later you would have been fine?

Yes. That's my whole point.

If we'd have drafted Player X at 31 and then traded a 2nd and 4th to move up in round 2 for this risk I'd have liked the pick a helluva' lot more.

Just like I'd have agreed with drafting a guy in round 3 over round 1. The risk of giving up a 1st round pick is greater than a 4th round pick. You get that, right?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

We signed a guy with 7 career starts at LT and that’s a bough to put it in the books eh?

Seems to me Veach wants to make sure what happened the last 2 years doesn’t happen again.

Too many eggs in 1 basket has backfired.

If you commit $15-$30 million to a player, that's more than a flyer.

And if you draft a player with a ruptured patella and no NFL experience to be your starting left tackle 10 months removed from his injury, that's more than insane.

I haven't viewed this through the lens of acquiring a 2025 starting LT at all. I hope to God the Chiefs haven't either.

[FloridaMan88]

The narrative that the Chiefs forced the Simmons pick and overlooked his medicals seems to contradicted by the evaluation timeline that Veach described yesterday.

The Chiefs started to do a deep dive into his medical history at the Combine, with considerable follow up by Burkholder after that.

That all started taking place before the start of free agency, so the Chiefs still had another option (free agency/trade) to address LT, if they saw that Simmons’ medicals were too much of a red flag.

This is a calculated risk, but not desperation.

[Marcellus]

And let’s be real here, Moore”s upside doesn’t likely touch Simmons ceiling. Sure the floor is way higher on Moore but the talent gap from a ceiling standpoint is pretty damn large.

I’m fine with taking this swing at this point. It was the 32nd pick not the 10th etc…

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by FloridaMan88

This is a calculated risk, but not desperation.

We took a calculated risk because of desperation.

If the guy we signed was 100% the answer we don't have to address this need with a 1st round pick. We don't draft a QB in round 1 because we 100% have the answer there.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Nor did we, based on the investment we made in Moore.

And every team in the NFL could use a pro bowl caliber OT with experience on both sides of the line who presents a long-term solution to a difficult position to fill.

Lack of 'need' doesn't explain the slide. Scheme fit, or lack thereof, doesn't explain it.

It's talent, injury or a combination of both.

So either we put more stock in the talent than most or less stock in the injury.

We ARE the outliers.

Meh. I don’t think it’s fair to compare a team picking at, say, 12 who didn’t take him to the Chiefs. But I think it’s entirely likely that there would’ve been teams picking earlier than 31/32 who would’ve chosen him if their picks had been as late as ours.

Take that to its extreme. If we can for the sake of argument agree that he’s a top-5 player ex-injury, then the question becomes, “What type of discount do you need?” Are the Raiders at 6 getting much surplus value choosing him there? Not really. How about the Chiefs at 32? Well, that’s more reasonable. How about at the back of the 7th round? At some point the value is clearly enough.

I just don’t think it’s fair or apples-to-apples to act like we must have a dramatically different eval on the guy or the medicals than each and every team that passed on him.

[JohnnyHammersticks]

Originally Posted by BlackOp

There is absolutely the high risk/reward factor...that is why he lasted to 32.

If...and that's a big "if" he pans out, it's doing the impossible. Getting a franchise LT without moving up.

They did more research on his patellar than anyone here...with updates in medicine and his age...who knows. They know where his recovery is at.

It'll be interesting to track the players they passed on in a year or two...

Wait and see for me...I guess they obviously thought it was worth a calculated risk. Have to factor in what becomes of the 5th round pick too..

This is one factor some of the naysayers may be missing. Orthopedic surgery is constantly advancing. ACL injuries were career-enders a few decades ago. By all accounts, his surgeon did a really good job with the tendon repair.

Maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't - but it's a risk the Chiefs had to take imo. How many opportunities are we going to have to get a guy who probably would've been the top LT on the board without trading key picks to move way up?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

And let’s be real here, Moore”s upside doesn’t likely touch Simmons ceiling. Sure the floor is way higher on Moore but the talent gap from a ceiling standpoint is pretty damn large.

I’m fine with taking this swing at this point. It was the 32nd pick not the 10th etc…

Agreed. Simmons had a higher upside than Moore, no question.

But again, we've won a championship with 'solid' at the position. Arguably less than that.

I think we're fine focusing on floor at LT. Smart to do so, in fact.

DL, RB - gimme ceiling. Secondary, LB, OL - I'm emphasizing floor. WR would largely depend on the existing room.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by Rausch

We took a calculated risk because of desperation.

If the guy we signed was 100% the answer we don't have to address this need with a 1st round pick. We don't draft a QB in round 1 because we 100% have the answer there.

If the Chiefs felt that Simmons was not a long term answer with his injury history, they would have been more aggressive in free agency than signing Moore.

I.e. trading for Tunsil.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

This pick just might define the next phase of Mahomes career, in 1 way or another.

[GordonGekko]

Originally Posted by Rausch

We took a calculated risk because of desperation.

If the guy we signed was 100% the answer we don't have to address this need with a 1st round pick. We don't draft a QB in round 1 because we 100% have the answer there.

We also need DEPTH at the OL, Veach said in the post-draft presser it is a long season and Moore has to stay healthy. Going into Championship games without adequate pass protection due to injuries and subpar OL depth and getting thumped is really getting old

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Meh. I don’t think it’s fair to compare a team picking at, say, 12 who didn’t take him to the Chiefs. But I think it’s entirely likely that there would’ve been teams picking earlier than 31/32 who would’ve chosen him if their picks had been as late as ours.

Take that to its extreme. If we can for the sake of argument agree that he’s a top-5 player ex-injury, then the question becomes, “What type of discount do you need?” Are the Raiders at 6 getting much surplus value choosing him there? Not really. How about the Chiefs at 32? Well, that’s more reasonable. How about at the back of the 7th round? At some point the value is clearly enough.

I just don’t think it’s fair or apples-to-apples to act like we must have a dramatically different eval on the guy or the medicals than each and every team that passed on him.

I've already noted that if you think he's a top 5 player absent the injury, the pick is defensible. In fact, it's what I thought the Chiefs HAD to believe to make the pick and said so over a month ago.

I don't. I'd have had him 10-15.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Rausch

The entire NFL, other than KC, made the point he wasn't worth taking in the 1st.

We're the outliers here. KC is hoping he beats incredibly long odds.

That’s not true. Really bad logic here. There are teams that wouldn’t have taken a tackle no matter what.