:-)

What a stupid fucking take. Good grief.
[Reply]

That’s a bit of an exaggeration.

Here’s the thing: the Seahawks might have drafted poorly. Maybe we get snake bitten by injuries. The point remains: the more $100M players you have the more concentrated your risk becomes. If Jones could be flipped for multiple picks, that along with his cap savings could represent 4-5 legit starters. If one of them goes
Down with an ACL, you still have 3-4 players on the field. Signing jones to a large contract concentrates talent, yes, but it concentrates risk as well.

I am sorry everyone else is only making this about emotion, but the clear prudent business decision is to maximize his value and replace the bevy of talent walking out the door.

Now, if moving on from Watkins makes room and Jones is back, then great. But it’s a BIG risk.
[Reply]

“Risky!!!!!!”

Like trading an All-Pro caliber player on a contender isn’t risky.

Ohh wait, just ask the Seahawks, who tried to replace Frank Clark with LJ fucking Collier.

You’re right, let’s not be the Seahawks.

Also, where does the idea come from that trading Jones automatically gives you 4-5 good starters? How are you getting the other 3? Free agency? Who are you going to pay in this years market? Is that not risky as well?

This idea that there’s not a comparable amount of risk both ways is really naive and dismissive of just how good Chris Jones is.
[Reply]

Also, what the fuck is this emotion shit you two keep spewing?

We don’t want to keep Jones because of emotions. We want to keep Jones because he’s the second best interior pass rusher in the league and is just now entering his prime. Get the fuck out of here with that stupid narrative you guys are going with.
[Reply]

So Jones will be back. 610 sources include Nick Athan who's on Fescoes show sometimes.

Not a chance they just let Jones walk without atleast getting something.
[Reply]

Fescoe also was advocating for signing Austin Ekeker and sacrificing their first to do it.

Dumbo.
[Reply]

In the Trenches - Combine Special: B.J. Kissel interviews with Andy Reid, Brett Veach, Charles Davis, and Mike Borgonzi. Actually some of the best information is from Chiefs Director of Football Operations, Mike Borgonzi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUYnOh-lVMs
[Reply]

I honestly don't think we win the SB without Jones coming up big down the stretch. Players like him do NOT grow on trees so as much as getting extra picks and having more cap space is tempting, I think it would be utterly stupid to let that young man go tbh. Anyway it seems clear the Chiefs are gonna be in for a RB and they have met or are meeting with Moss, Dobbins and Clyde Edwards!!..that's exciting to hear because imo giving Pat a legit run-game would take this offense to another planet.
[Reply]

I'd be perfectly fine with a top RB.

That's another plus in terms of Shenault. Colorado ran the wildcat with him quite a bit. He'd be almost like another RB. Hard as hell to tackle. I just don't think he drops that far, but the WR depth in this draft is freaking insane, so you never know I guess.
[Reply]

That player with the contract he demands is a liability for this team and what I believe he'll bring in are assets. It isn't difficult to understand these very simple concepts so maybe if you actually spent more time with your eyes on your screen rather than in your palm you could come up with a decent argument in this debate instead of just being a passive aggressive shithead
[Reply]

I still like D Will as the starter. We do need a backup tho cuz Darwin ain’t it
[Reply]

Link?
[Reply]

Seattle has the formula, but they haven’t executed in the last 4 years.

Malik McDowell-currently in jail
Rashaad Penny-backup RB
LJ Collier-did nothing as a rookie
Germain Ifedi-clearly a bust

Can’t build a team blowing your top pick every year
[Reply]

I posted the Clyde Edwards a couple pages back.
[Reply]

I think folks need to calm down a little about Shenault. He doesn't really run routes well and his catch radios is a little iffy. Good prospect but he's nothing out of this world imo.
[Reply]