Are we really though? We possibly can take BPA within reason depending on the position, but what if BPA happened to be a WR, DT, S, or DE in the first? If you take one of those positions in the first I think you're just adding a luxury when much bigger needs are there. By all means, we can certainly take BPA at CB, LB, OL in my opinion, but I personally wouldn't say we're just so set at every position that we can ignore positional needs in the draft. We still have some pretty huge holes on the roster at CB and LB in particular.
[Reply]

If a top notch receiver, tight end, safety, rb or pass rusher is available they should take them there too.

Kelce is getting older
Chris jones future with the team is uncertain
Tanoh is in a contract year
Speaks sucks ass
Sammy and Robinson likely gone next year
Mathieu has two contract years left

This team is setup so that whatever player they deem the best value they can snag. Any position would be able to contribute year one.
[Reply]

To me, it’s always BPA, within reason. We aren’t drafting a 1st round Kicker, man. Lol. I’m just saying most of the team is solidified with good, solid players. A good GM is always looking to the future and I can see us drafting a WR and/or RB, even though it’s not an immediate need. If Denzel Mims or Jonathan Taylor is sitting there, it might be hard to justify taking a guard there. To me, it’s how do you improve the roster the best for the long term. It’s likely we lose Watkins, next year and our RB’s could use a bolster to the roster. I place a higher value on the skill positions and still see we could pick up a quality guard in the 3rd/4th/5th round.
[Reply]

They aren't luxuries. They're insurance policies that also give you added leverage and flexibility when the starter's contract comes due.

I.e it was nice having the "luxury" of Dee Ford when Tamba Hali fell off.

It was nice having the "luxury" of Watkins when Tyreek went down.
[Reply]

I still think they're luxuries when you see the holes we have at other positions, specifically LB and CB. I'm sure I'll get shit for spouting off yet again about the cornerback position, but the current state of the position is pretty dire and I think most people would agree. We have Ward and Fenton, that's it. Even if we sign Breeland, that's 3 guys. We absolutely need a cornerback that can contribute pretty much right away, and we don't have the cap room to address it in FA.

Linebacker has been a weakness for a while and while he wasn't exactly a playmaker, losing Ragland just makes the position worse. We still don't have a single linebacker on the roster who can adequately cover a runningback or tight end.

So yeah, I still think certain positions like WR are a luxury unless someone can come up with an explanation as to how the team will address cornerback and linebacker if they don't come out of the draft with each position addressed within the first 3-4 rounds.
[Reply]

I'm sure they'll draft a guy or two to play corner. They'll sign a guy or two as well.

And Fenton looked pretty damn good for a rookie. He'll be a better player for us than Fuller ever was.

Look, if CB is the right guy where we pick, then great take him. No one is saying not to.

But reaching for a player just because it's a "need" is how you build bad football teams. We've seen that time and time again.

And again, it's not a luxury, but an insurance policy. One that we WILL eventually need.

if they do take a WR early, and he blossoms, and Watkins leaves next season, you're going to be damn glad the Chiefs invested in a "luxury".

You take the BPA every time because the benefits far, far outweigh the negatives.

It's much better to have a good player that you don't "need" than to have a bad player that you can't use.
[Reply]

Aside from QB, BPA wouldn’t be bad at all.

WR-losing Sammy and Robinson after 2020
RB-Another weapon, Damien won’t be here more than 2 years
OT-can cut Fisher if we draft one, save $$
G-definitely could use a dominant LG
C-same ^^^
TE-Another weapon and Kelce is 30. Wouldn’t have to pay new TE until Kelce is 35.
DE-Tanoh is in contract year, Okafor can’t be kept at 2021 price and Ogbah is gone. Pass rush is key
DT-Another interior rusher next to Jones? Hell yeah. We don’t have a good interior rusher there outside of him (Speaks is unproven). Could also go entire contract before having to pay drafted player.
LB-obvious need
CB-obvious need
S-imagine a first rd safety would be able to play all over. No problem with that

I don’t like some of those positions for rd 1, but honestly it really wouldn’t bother me too much. What may not be a need now could be a need in 2 or 3 years and help benefit us cap wise.
[Reply]

There is no way this team is releasing Fisher and letting a rookie protect Pat's blind side. After seeing what Patrick endured after Fisher went down I don't know how anyone could think releasing him is a good idea. Fisher is a top 10-15 tackle. Hes really become a damn good LT.
[Reply]

The New Orleans Saints have planned to hold their war room at a brewery. Has Boulevard has approached the Chiefs?

That said, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see us trading out of the 1st, but at #32 I wonder what we could pick up. I doubt it would be much more than a mid to late 2nd.
[Reply]

What additional picks could we get from Miami if we drop from 32 to 39? I know Miami currently has multiple picks in the first, which makes it unlikely they would trade up, but it is entirely possible that they trade up to 2 or 3 to get a QB (using some of those first round picks). Maybe a receiver drops to 32 and Miami is keen to set up their QB-WR combo.
[Reply]

I've expected them to trade down from #32 since they won the Superbowl.

There's WAY too much perimeter talent for the Chiefs to pass up and I'd love to see them grab a RB and WR within the first three rounds.

Regardless of their defensive holes, it's not a player or two away from being dominating unit, whereas adding a stellar rookie WR and RB might be enough to push this offense into the Greatest Of All Time conversation.
[Reply]

I dont expect them to trade down. Havent had a 1st round pick in years now, given the cap situation that extra years valuable.
[Reply]

Having an extra player taken on a rookie contract from the 3rd round for 4 years is more valuable than a single 5th year option. If the 1st round pick was good enough he'd likely be extended before the 5th year anyways
[Reply]

The new CBA treats 1st round players differently in the 5th year than in the old CBA and the cap hit is significantly different in the new version.

Also, not having a first round pick didn't hurt their Super Bowl run and if not for the offsides penalty in 2018, we'd probably be looking at a Chiefs team that won Back-To-Back titles.

Personally, I'd rather have two 2's and two 3's in this draft than a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
[Reply]

The Chiefs are in a great spot to repeat as champions. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Veach moved up and CP loses its mind.
[Reply]