What we know about this team is that it typically likes to fill its roster out as much as possible in free agency and then spend its highest picks on potential replacements for job openings a year down the road, and that includes Veach.
I doubt I even need to run down the list but:
2020: CEH --> Williams
2019: Hardman --> Hill/Watkins
2018: Speaks --> Ford/Houston
2017: Mahomes --> Smith
Fisher will be on the last year of his contract, and most of us suspect Schwartz retiring.
The Chiefs obviously like Niang but going OT 1st gives them the options:
Niang vs. the rookie for starting RT
if the rookie wins, Niang can slide into guard or hold the swing tackle position
if Niang wins, the rookie can slide into guard or hold the swing tackle position
the Chiefs love Fisher but if both Niang and the rookie excel, maybe they cut bait
if only one of them excel, the Chiefs can extend Fisher
It just seems like the kind of move that gives them the flexibility in future decisions that they like to have.
I'd rather they go DE, even if it means trading up for one. But based on what we know, OT could ostensibly solve up to two different OL spots in 2021 and gives them all kinds of options in 2022 based on how 2021 goes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
If the cap stays flat - what I think is going to happen - it will end up being a pretty normal year.
KC has flexibility with Jones to restructure if needed and free up a lot of room. Pair that with an extension of Mathieu and some potential cap relief from Fisher and Schwartz, and KC will have some room to manuever.
They just signed Jones. Not sure it's a good idea to keep moving stuff to the back end of the contract (same with Clark).
Hopefully they can extend HB and get some relief with Fisher and Schwartz but they have to recoup those signing bonuses, which can get iffy if the player doesn't want to pay it back. Lots of teams end up settling and not getting it all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
They just signed Jones. Not sure it's a good idea to keep moving stuff to the back end of the contract (same with Clark).
Hopefully they can extend HB and get some relief with Fisher and Schwartz but they have to recoup those signing bonuses, which can get iffy if the player doesn't want to pay it back. Lots of teams end up settling and not getting it all.
He doesn't have any signing bonus, though. Just those injury guarantees.
That contract has looked like it was designed, from the jump, to have a restructure done and convert a roster bonus/base salary into a signing bonus.
If they add a year to the end of the deal, they could convert that roster bonus in 21 to a signing bonus and drop his cap hit for 21 by $15M. [Reply]
Everything I've seen to date is that the cap is going down, likely to 181 million. I wouldn't count on flat, but that'd be awesome if it were true. [Reply]
Just heard today from a couple talking heads that it might be possible for the Chiefs to take a T in the first. I don't really care one way or another, but just always assumed we'd take either a DE or a WR in the first and second.
Blue-sky minute:
If we did take a T in the first, then what's more likely in the 2nd? [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Everything I've seen to date is that the cap is going down, likely to 181 million. I wouldn't count on flat, but that'd be awesome if it were true.
I still see a lot of speculation they’ll borrow against 2022 to keep it mostly flat, which is what makes the most business sense when 1/2 the league is over the $175M mark. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
I still see a lot of speculation they’ll borrow against 2022 to keep it mostly flat, which is what makes the most business sense when 1/2 the league is over the $175M mark.
Keeping it flat would be a rather large outlay. If you do that, then I think it's more likely that you're seeing another flat year thereafter. So, do you take the hit in one year or do you bank on growth over the 2019 figures immediately? At the rate we're going, we may still be seeing covid precautions affecting 2021. I hate being that conservative but I don't like projecting against anything right now.
My opinion, at this point, is to borrow 50% of normal cap growth, which would be about 3.5%, applied against the current cap figure of 198 million (yields approx 6.9 million) and add it to whatever cap figure they end up with. If it's projected at 176 million, then you end up at 183 million. [Reply]
As long a Mahomes is KC's QB/Veach the GM...this teams runs through it's top offensive skill positions.
They are in the SB with 4 out 5 starters gone from the o-line. Does anyone think the are in the same position if Hill or Kelce were lost in game 4?
You have to factor in aging vets/FAs/reclamation projects that will take a discount to play here...Chiefs will have the "Manning effect" for the foreseeable future...
Mahomes elusiveness make drafting a 1st round OT not as urgent as other teams. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Keeping it flat would be a rather large outlay. If you do that, then I think it's more likely that you're seeing another flat year thereafter. So, do you take the hit in one year or do you bank on growth over the 2019 figures immediately? At the rate we're going, we may still be seeing covid precautions affecting 2021. I hate being that conservative but I don't like projecting against anything right now.
My opinion, at this point, is to borrow 50% of normal cap growth, which would be about 3.5%, applied against the current cap figure of 198 million (yields approx 6.9 million) and add it to whatever cap figure they end up with. If it's projected at 176 million, then you end up at 183 million.
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
I still see a lot of speculation they’ll borrow against 2022 to keep it mostly flat, which is what makes the most business sense when 1/2 the league is over the $175M mark.
From my understanding, it's all about the new Broadcast Rights Deals, which the NFL is currently negotiating.
If the networks and NFL can agree to new deals before the new league year begins in March, the cap will not go down in 2021 and any losses will be spread over a 3-5 year period, so that there is zero impact moving forward.
If the deals aren't completed, no one, not the NFLPA or NFL Front Office, has any idea what the cap implications will be for 2021. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
From my understanding, it's all about the new Broadcast Rights Deals, which the NFL is currently negotiating.
If the networks and NFL can agree to new deals before the new league year begins in March, the cap will not go down in 2021 and any losses will be spread over a 3-5 year period, so that there is zero impact moving forward.
If the deals aren't completed, no one, not the NFLPA or NFL Front Office, has any idea what the cap implications will be for 2021.
I think you're more than spot on here Dane. I recall it being a hot debate last year and alot of those renew for the 2021 and 2022 seasons. Hopefully they can get things ironed out and spread it out. Some teams are in far worse shape than us if they don't. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
As long a Mahomes is KC's QB/Veach the GM...this teams runs through it's top offensive skill positions.
They are in the SB with 4 out 5 starters gone from the o-line. Does anyone think the are in the same position if Hill or Kelce were lost in game 4?
You have to factor in aging vets/FAs/reclamation projects that will take a discount to play here...Chiefs will have the "Manning effect" for the foreseeable future...
Mahomes elusiveness make drafting a 1st round OT not as urgent as other teams.
Yep.
This team needs to keep stocking playmakers. [Reply]
Yeah I think this is where I am starting to lean simply bc Fisher is still young. He’ll likely be out most of next year but still has a few years left after that.
I’d keep Remmers to go with Niang and Wylie as the swing tackle while adding more projects like Prince Tegha-Wanogho as depth.
I know some guys are wanting that Purdue WR but he’s too small. I can’t emphasize enough how much we need a bigger receiver that can block and give us what Sammy and Kelce do.
Honestly I would have no problem drafting the TE from PSU if the receivers are gone. Just more weapons for Patrick and that kid wouldn’t be paid a lot of money until Kelce is 37. By that time Kelce is either done or he’s not going to get big money anymore. [Reply]
It woudl be such a bloodletting for some teams, I can't imagine the owners will let it happen. I would guess they figure out a way to atleast keep it flat. [Reply]