Backlash? WTF? The Chiefs can't cut LDT because of the Dead Cap hit.

You are fucking clueless.
[Reply]

He's a washed up 39 year old man who should not be on the Chiefs "radar".

Good grief.
[Reply]

King doesn’t understand context and nuance.

All he does is post stats that support his stance and leave it at that.
[Reply]

There will be better options than an old, broken 39 year old once Free Agency begins.
[Reply]

Oh, I think there will.

I also think Peters is likely to sign on a deal that's so reasonable/low it doesn't even actually count towards the cap (similar to a lot of those vet deals they signed last summer).

If you watch tape of him from last year, you see a guy who is still massive, still has solid LT-quickness, and still can absolutely stone guys if he gets his hands on them.
[Reply]

Then what happens if Peters is playing well but Fisher is ready to return? Peters hasn't exactly been known as a great lockerroom guy. He got pissed off last year that he had to move from right guard to left tackle, then immediately demanded more money.

He also had toe surgery, which isn't a good sign for a starting tackle, let alone, a guy as old as Peters.
[Reply]

You tell him:

“Hi. Fisher is back and ready to play LT. We’d like to keep you in the lineup at (position) and also as our top insurance if he or Schwartz go down. Do you still want a ring”

And if he throws a fit, you release him.
[Reply]

Sure but even if you say some of them are because of Wentz, that's still a shit load of fucking sacks in half a season. And he's still a 39 year old with major injuries the past few years.
[Reply]

So make the context better for me. Is he not a 39 year old oft injured player who allowed a shit load of sacks last year? Can you show me any person who thought he was playing well before being injured and out for the rest of the season?

Is 5 sacks in 8 games like the article Duncan linked really changing the context much?
[Reply]

Did you watch the tape?

There are three real WINS out of those five sacks they credit him with, 1 by Chase Young and 2 by Carl Lawson (who was a top 5-10 pass rusher in the league last year). The one by young, it actually looks like the RB chip helped young move through his spin to beat Peters back inside.

He’s got warts. But he would be a fairly low cost, practically no risk option for addressing an issue.

It’s a band aid that makes sense if you’re confident you 1) get Fisher back around midseason or 2) have a rookie T or Niang lined up to take over but need some seasoning.
[Reply]

If he's on the Week 1 roster, his salary is guaranteed for the entire season, so if he doesn't take Vet Minimum (and I assume he won't, given his stance in Philly last year), there's a Dead Cap charge as well.

Again, if they decide to go with a veteran in place of Fisher I think there will be much better options than old man Peters, especially coming off of toe surgery that ended his season in December.
[Reply]

I'm kind of with Dane on this one due to the toe surgery. But out of curiousity, what would the vet minumum be for Peters? Let's get real, we've seen what the duo of Remmers and Wylie did and that wasn't pretty. We have to have a servicable REAL T by opening day. Not a G that knows where the T lines up, a REAL T.
[Reply]

Told you guys Kelce wasn't going anywhere.
[Reply]

How many people can block him one on one? The expectations here are pretty unrealistic.
[Reply]

Yeah. I mean, peak Mitchell Schwartz can probably handle him 1x1. There aren't many T in the league who are going to hold up against him on an island without fail.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Vet minimum for him would probably be something like 1.1 or 1.2 million, but if he signs for a deal where he isn't one of their top 51 salaries, there's no impact to the cap. If he DOES sign for a deal that puts him in the top 51 you'd be liable for dead money if cutting him... but that's money that's spent and under the cap already at that point.

He signed for 1 year, $3M last year. I can't see him getting that again. It will be less. If it's more than 1.5-2 with incentives that take it higher, I'm 100 percent out.

See above. I'm not saying it's THE plan. Just one potential way to approach it that COULD work or make sense.
[Reply]