Holy shit I’d jizz everywhere if we had that draft, though I’d probably replace Forsythe with a WR if we were getting Jenkins to go with Niang.
[Reply]

Um that's a pretty big "although".

He took two tackles in their first three picks.

That's a terrible waste of resources.

Honestly of Payton Turner wasn't on that list, that's a fucking AWFUL draft. Jordan's workouts weren't just lackluster, they were 10th percentile shitty.
[Reply]

Agreed.

Drafting 2 OTs that early screams “we don’t trust our evaluations of Niang and Jenkins AT ALL”...
[Reply]

I’d like to change my pick now that we have the Niang info. I think if they trade up it’s for Jenkins, but I’m gonna say they will take a corner bc the value is just too good for that position and where we’re picking.

I’m going with Asante Samuel Jr. that’s my final answer (pushes button)
[Reply]

I like Newsome but Samual would allow them to put Sneed outside permanently so it's probably as good of a guess as anyone.
[Reply]

read somewhere that a trade with the bears for #20 would make that possible:-)
[Reply]

I disagree with you and htismage about it being a waste to take two tackles early, though I’m not advocating for it either.

Depth at tackle (via injuries) killed us last year, and we are even thinner at tackle now than we were then. Moving forward, Adding the 17th game adds a 6% increase in the likelihood that a player gets injured - that’s not insignificant. If we have a second tackle we really like in rounds 3/4, take them as depth. A 3/4th round is more than likely a career backup anywase, and a backup LT has value. Rankins and Remmers are both free agents after this year (IIRC - I may be wrong) and counting on Durant or Tega Wango to be NFL journeyman is ambitious.

My personal take...

LT: Jenkins-Foresythe-Rankin
RT: Niang-Remmers

Feels a whole lot more comfortable to me in the event of injury than...

LT: Jenkins-Rankin
RT: Niang-Remmers

Again, not advocating for this to be the route the Chiefs take, but I see value there if they do. I’d rather go OT/DE/WR/LB (in any order) with our first four picks.
[Reply]

That would require multiple dominoes to fall.

First, the Bengals would have to pass on Sewell allowing him to fall to the Dolphins. Then the Dolphins would have to pass, allowing him to fall to Carolina at #8, prompting LT hungry teams to trade up to #7. Sewell likely isn't getting past #8, which means the next domino would likely be Slater.

If Sewell drops all the way to Carolina, then the Cowboys would have to pass on Slater at #10. They need defense terribly but they also have a really expensive QB to protect and need help at tackle. If Slater gets past #10, then the Chargers sit at #13. They're almost certainly going to take a left tackle, so somebody is going to want to trade up to #12. If Slater should get past whoever sits at #12, then he will almost certainly go to the Chargers at #13.

That leaves Darrisaw. The Vikings at #14 have said they want to play Ezra Cleveland at LT but they've also reportedly called about Orlando Brown. One has to think that if all of the unlikeliness above plays out and Darrisaw falls into their lap, they'd think hard about taking him. If they don't, however, you have the Raiders at #17 who don't need a right tackle but do need a left tackle and probably wouldn't hesitate to take Darrisaw if he's there since he could play either position.

At #18, you have the Dolphins second spot in the first round and they might take a tackle there if they didn't earlier in the round. Washington at #19 needs a left tackle badly, almost as much as the Chargers, and Chicago at #20 also could use a tackle. Indy at #21 needs a tackle MORE than the Chargers - one could argue it's their only significant deficiency on what is otherwise a contending team.

The Jets at #23 could use another tackle and the Steelers at #24 definitely need one.

As you can see, the chances of us trading up to #20 and getting Darrisaw aren't very damn good. More than likely, you'd have to get to #12 to get Darrisaw unless Slater falls to the Chargers and then you're looking at trying to entice the Vikings to trade with you instead of taking him themselves.

Quite frankly, if you look at the board and the team needs, this is a draft where the Chiefs would be better served not to trade up at all.

With Indy and Pittsburgh sitting in front of them, they're going to be trading up for probably the 4th or 5th best tackle in this draft when they could stay at #31 and get the 5th or 6th, which isn't that much of a difference commensurate with the draft picks they'd have to give up.

The Chiefs would be best served by staying at #31, taking a playmaker in what is a really, really good class for CB's, DE's, and WR's and take a LT at the end of the 2nd round, where there is a cluster of developmental LT's that, even though they likely won't start day 1, project to be better pass blockers in an offense like the Chiefs than the guys likely to be available at #31.
[Reply]

Long is a swing tackle who also plays guard. There's no reason to take two tackles in the draft.
[Reply]

HUGE question mark on Long. You can't speak in absolutes today. Neither can I. Maybe you're right, maybe he is limited to Guard, maybe he's not even a servicable backup at either position. Veach knows better than you and I... So his draft actions next week will tell the story. Even then, we won't really know what we have in Niang and Long until games start.

Again, I'm not advocating for two tackles early, but there is a scenario where it may make sense depending on Veach's personal thoughts.
[Reply]

Andy Reid flat out said they were good at the position, they had aspirations of putting Niang at LT, and that both Long and Remmers could play right tackle.

You said they didn't have the numbers and they needed a swing tackle. That's not true. Either Long or Remmers, right now, is the swing tackle. They don't need to take a tackle in the draft just to have a full roster. The only reason to take a tackle is to upgrade one of the positions, and they don't need to take two of them to do that.

Sorry, I don't agree at all with drafting 2 tackles. It's an absolute criminal waste of draft resources and cost-controlled contracts when you're trying to absorb the cost of a $500M quarterback.
[Reply]

I wouldn’t target two tackles, but I wouldn’t avoid it if we’re getting great value.
[Reply]

With how deep this class is at WR, CB, and DE, there's no way a 2nd tackle is better value than one of those three in the first 3 rounds. No way.

Now, if you want to take another tackle in round 5, sure. No problems with that.

I'm talking about day 1 and day 2 of the draft.
[Reply]

Doesn’t even matter what context that was in...That is some funny shit right there.
[Reply]

This would be an amazing draft

What a draft...would need to sign or trade for a veteran LT though to bridge until Spencer Brown is ready to start. pic.twitter.com/bYRHBevzKy

— Arrowhead Live (@ArrowheadLive) April 21, 2021

[Reply]