*****The Felix Anudike-Uzomah Thread*****

[Dante84]

More to come!

Spoiler!

The call to @fanudike has us tearing up �� pic.twitter.com/bJryHPc8S1

— Kansas City Chiefs (@Chiefs) April 29, 2023

A hyphenated name? He'll fit right in �� pic.twitter.com/wOzKMPdzyx

— Kansas City Chiefs (@Chiefs) April 28, 2023

Kansas City selects K-State EDGE Felix Unudike-Uzomah 31st overall

�� 89 QB pressures since 2021 (1st among Big 12 defenders) pic.twitter.com/2ZIClLVyXf

— PFF College (@PFF_College) April 28, 2023

Here’s a first look at your newest Kansas City Chief, @fanudike. pic.twitter.com/P0T2q0UFmG

— KC Sports Network (@KCSportsNetwork) April 28, 2023

Felix Anudike-Uzomah was drafted with pick 31 of round 1 in the 2023 draft class. He scored a 8.73 #RAS out of a possible 10.00. This ranked 209 out of 1634 DE from 1987 to 2023. https://t.co/maz03OdBwq pic.twitter.com/xoMJ9ki2Pv

— Kent Lee Platte (@MathBomb) April 28, 2023

Veach said the #Chiefs had 16-18 players with first round grades and Felix was one of them.

Also said a couple AFC teams weren’t interested in trading with Kansas City.

Naturally.

— PJ Green (@PJGreenTV) April 28, 2023

Felix Anudike-Uzomah, just now: "I got drafted by literally my favorite team growing up."

— Nate Taylor (@ByNateTaylor) April 28, 2023

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by RunKC

McDuffie, Bolton and Karlaftis were 21 when we drafted them. Worthy was 20 the day we drafted him.

Worked well previously. No GM bats a thousand

But it doesn't work every single time so OKchiefs is going to bitch about the very sound logic of betting on young prospects with high upside.

That dude is ****ing insufferable. He's tried to tone it down a bit as to not seem completely unreasonable and ungrateful, but it just doesn't work.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by OKchiefs

Of course sure-fire, no doubt, day one starters are hard to come by at that point in the draft. Xavier Worthy wasn't that but he showed a clear progression throughout the season and showed the promise that he is ready for an even larger role in year 2 and beyond.

FAU simply didn't - that's fine, busts happen. We don't have to offer excuses though. It wasn't a great pick, particularly in light of the players taken immediately after him.

You'd cream your jeans if we still had Eric Fisher, a guy who perhaps looked even worse and more lost than FAU in his first two seasons.

Bet you were ready to call him a bust after year 2.

[OKchiefs]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Obsession? WTF?

It's just reality, dude. Some players don't get it instantly. Obviously the Chiefs would have preferred that Felix was a better player earlier in his career.

But when you get a guy like that, some peoples' mindset around here is to just cut him instantly if he can't live up to his 1st round billing in the first two seasons.

Is obsession the right word? Maybe not. We know Veach puts a high value on younger players, my question is why? Because they have a higher ceiling potentially, similar to taking a high school bat over a college bat? The problem is the MLB player's service time doesn't start ticking until they reach the majors, whereas the NFL player has a 4-5 year window of affordable pay. So if you have someone like FAU who takes 3-4 years to maybe hopefully develop you're maybe getting some value at the end of the contract. That's fine with a mid rd pick, but with a 1st rd pick? Again, busts happen all the time, particularly at the end of the 1st rd so not going to hate too much on the pick aside from not agreeing with their philosophy with this pick.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by OKchiefs

What's this obsession with super young players if it takes them forever to peak? It's not like he's some athletic freak either, so his ceiling is still fairly low. Also, Khalen Saunders was taken at the end of the 3rd rd where you'd expect for a player to maybe take a few years to develop, not really a great comparison to a 1st rd pick.

We don't actually have first round picks. We pick 30 or later, and are well into the second round talent pool.

So why emphasize younger players?

A few reasons.

1) they're still physically maturing. They're theoretically not maxed out yet. You may well get dramatic improvement.

2) they'll still be on the young side when it's time for the second deal. This is good news if you're keeping them - and good news if you want to trade them as they're a better get for the other team.

3) maybe you want to go that second deal, but not the third. Guess what? Yep, they're still under 30 and possibly attractive trade bait. Or maybe you want to STILL keep them! You know, because they still have some good football left.

[DJ's left nut]

I do think we sometimes overestimate the physical development left for some of these guys.

Not all of them (FAU, for example, out of K-State), but when we draft a guy like Worthy out of UT and say "Man, if we can get him in an NFL strength program..." I think we're ignoring just how INSANE the strength programs for these major schools are.

Shit, the weight programs in major high schools now are ridiculous.

As for the 2nd deal, I just don't think age matters a ton. If you're looking at a guy you're thinking about signing who's 24 vs 26, very few of those guys are playing past 3-4 years on that deal anyway. You're still getting most of them through their prime.

Meanwhile if you can get a player who's far more ready to play because he's 23 when you drafted him instead of 21 and you MAXIMIZE that rookie deal, there's a pretty significant benefit to that.

I think it's worth considering, yes. But I think there are times we put far too much into it. We overthink it. There are benefits/drawbacks either way. As such, I could see using it to break a tie (except for maybe on the OL where that 3rd contract is in play given how long those guys can play) but I wouldn't really give it a ton more weight than that. I certainly wouldn't have it in my 'decision lens'.

It's just another factor to me and not a particularly significant one at that.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I do think we sometimes overestimate the physical development left for some of these guys.

Not all of them (FAU, for example, out of K-State), but when we draft a guy like Worthy out of UT and say "Man, if we can get him in an NFL strength program..." I think we're ignoring just how INSANE the strength programs for these major schools are.

Shit, the weight programs in major high schools now are ridiculous.

As for the 2nd deal, I just don't think age matters a ton. If you're looking at a guy you're thinking about signing who's 24 vs 26, very few of those guys are playing past 3-4 years on that deal anyway. You're still getting most of them through their prime.

Meanwhile if you can get a player who's far more ready to play because he's 23 when you drafted him instead of 21 and you MAXIMIZE that rookie deal, there's a pretty significant benefit to that.

I think it's worth considering, yes. But I think there are times we put far too much into it. We overthink it. There are benefits/drawbacks either way. As such, I could see using it to break a tie (except for maybe on the OL where that 3rd contract is in play given how long those guys can play) but I wouldn't really give it a ton more weight than that. I certainly wouldn't have it in my 'decision lens'.

It's just another factor to me and not a particularly significant one at that.

All things being equal, sure. But they're not.

Skewing towards younger players is betting on upside.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

All things being equal, sure. But they're not.

Skewing towards younger players is betting on upside.

If you're talking 26 vs. 24, I agree.

21 vs. 23? Eh - there are a lot more indicators of 'upside' than age in that equation.

When we're talking about guys getting drafted, we're talking about the top 1% of athletes to walk the earth. There's some self-selection going on there; not a lot of guys who are making themselves draft quality players without having finished up puberty yet.

I mean it happens, but its rare.

These guys are a hell of a lot closer to 'finished' physically at 21 than we let on, IMO. Most of them were shaving at 12 - they're different breeds of cat.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If you're talking 26 vs. 24, I agree.

21 vs. 23? Eh - there are a lot more indicators of 'upside' than age in that equation.

When we're talking about guys getting drafted, we're talking about the top 1% of athletes to walk the earth. There's some self-selection going on there; not a lot of guys who are making themselves draft quality players without having finished up puberty yet.

I mean it happens, but its rare.

These guys are a hell of a lot closer to 'finished' physically at 21 than we let on, IMO. Most of them were shaving at 12 - they're different breeds of cat.

There aren't any 245 pound DE's kicking ass in the NFL 3-4 rushbackers maybe. In college, they can get by being a faster, better athlete than the guy across from them who will usually not be heading to the NFL. But that's not going to fly on Sundays with the best of the best.

No, I reject the notion that these guys are finished products at 21 or 22. There's just far too much evidence to the contrary.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

There aren't any 245 pound DE's kicking ass in the NFL 3-4 rushbackers maybe. In college, they can get by being a faster, better athlete than the guy across from them who will usually not be heading to the NFL. But that's not going to fly on Sundays with the best of the best.

No, I reject the notion that these guys are finished products at 21 or 22. There's just far too much evidence to the contrary.

I don't think it's the age, though.

It's the quality of competition or just raw ability.

I don't think starting from 21 means your ceiling is any higher than starting from 23 at this level. And ultimately I think if it takes you longer to get there, you've given back whatever you may have gained by burning off utility in your rookie deal.

The idea that 21 is clearly BETTER than 23 is where I leave the argument. It isn't -- it's just different. And if 23 means you get production through 4 years of a 5 year rookie deal where 21 means you get it for 2 or 3 of those years...well I think you've lost value in the exchange.

Hard Karlaftis not had odd schooling that had him coming out younger, I just don't think his development curve would've changed a ton. And if it did and we got the 23 year old version on him in year 1 of his rookie deal vs. the 21 year old version, doesn't that have plenty of value of its own?

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I don't think it's the age, though.

It's the quality of competition or just raw ability.

I don't think starting from 21 means your ceiling is any higher than starting from 23 at this level. And ultimately I think if it takes you longer to get there, you've given back whatever you may have gained by burning off utility in your rookie deal.

The idea that 21 is clearly BETTER than 23 is where I leave the argument. It isn't -- it's just different. And if 23 means you get production through 4 years of a 5 year rookie deal where 21 means you get it for 2 or 3 of those years...well I think you've lost value in the exchange.

Hard Karlaftis not had odd schooling that had him coming out younger, I just don't think his development curve would've changed a ton. And if it did and we got the 23 year old version on him in year 1 of his rookie deal vs. the 21 year old version, doesn't that have plenty of value of its own?

I just disagree. Human beings are still in fact growing at 21. They're not physically maxed yet, the most part. As for everything else, I already outlined why I see value in taking the younger guys. Just disagree is all.

[KCUnited]

Unless KState is teaching slow get off, and they very well could be, I'm just not sure what the upside they saw in this guy outside of bulking up to become a power rusher because you don't get faster as you age

Sure you can miss with the last pick of the 1st, and I'm not trying to crucify anyone in hindsight, but I mean, you can't beat out Mike Danna? IDGAF how old you are

[Deberg_1990]

Not sure who the Chiefs could have taken there that would have been better?

LaPorta I suppose….

[KCUnited]

Bro has the get off of the CP server but maybe Tamba can roll with him on the mat in the offseason

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Not sure who the Chiefs could have taken there that would have been better?

LaPorta I suppose….

Should've taken LaPorta

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

There aren't any 245 pound DE's kicking ass in the NFL 3-4 rushbackers maybe. In college, they can get by being a faster, better athlete than the guy across from them who will usually not be heading to the NFL. But that's not going to fly on Sundays with the best of the best.

No, I reject the notion that these guys are finished products at 21 or 22. There's just far too much evidence to the contrary.

Nolan Smith i think qualifies, although I guess could be seen as a rush backer. I remember a lot of people thinking he was too light despite him stonewalling plenty of capable college OLs. Turns out the tape didn't lie, and being really fast also translates to the NFL.