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 el borracho:
What happened to the logic of drafting BPA in the 1st? The Chiefs are already set at the superstar positions that guarantee 10-12 wins per season minimum. No need to fixate on a specific position at 32- just select the best player with some small consideration given to position (no K, nor P).
BPA has to take into account value.
Drafting a guard or LB at 32 when there's an equivalent DE or WR available is just throwing away draft capital.
The NFL is all about matchups. Playmakers create favorable matchups.
Priority should always be on playmakers first. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
BPA has to take into account value.
Drafting a guard or LB at 32 when there's an equivalent DE or WR available is just throwing away draft capital.
The NFL is all about matchups. Playmakers create favorable matchups.
Priority should always be on playmakers first.
The two mocks I've seen (one was by Kiper, i think) show KC taking either a WR or a DE at 32. I would actually be kind of interested to see what Kohlmann thinks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
anyway, back to the OP-
In Veach I trust.
But I will say this- the idea of taking an OT at #32 somehow being a 'reach' isn't true I don't think. Unless all the mocks are wrong, there are some quality OT's that should be available in that range. So taking one wouldn't be a "reach".
Also, we've seen Veach "reach" according to experts before, and be right.
So you know. In Veach I trust.
Carry on.
Taking an OT that is already on their board and is slotted at 32 is not a reach.
Taking an OT that wasn't on their board and/or is slotted way later than 32 is.
That's the point - not that taking an OT is an automatic reach but that they shouldn't let the Fisher injury change their draft strategy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
May have. Don't recall now. But the "basketball" thing seems to ring a bell. But adding 15 lbs of muscle to him won't hurt his agility, I think. Just put a little more sand in his ass.
Here's a couple. Not saying that he's gonna turn out to be as good as these guys let on but still. Good gamble by Bart.
My at-this-point-useless prediction: Chiefs go LB. At # 32, they hope to have a shot at guys like Zaven Collins, Joe Ossai (may not fit), Dylan Moses & Pete Werner. JMHO [Reply]
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
My at-this-point-useless prediction: Chiefs go LB. At # 32, they hope to have a shot at guys like Zaven Collins, Joe Ossai (may not fit), Dylan Moses & Pete Werner. JMHO
The Chiefs are in a 5-2 most of the time and they have Gay and Hitchens next year as their starters. [Reply]
Meh. We’re just blue skying at this point. The reality is there’s a better than even chance that this guy isn’t even on the team by the time camp starts. Or that he never makes it past the practice squad. It’s just something to talk about until the Super Bowl. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
The Chiefs are in a 5-2 most of the time and they have Gay and Hitchens next year as their starters.
That does not preclude them from drafting a linebacker with the 32nd pick. Lots of other factors / potential changes with a lower cap coming. (Ex. Sorenson might not return next year. Cutting Hitchens after next season will result in an $8,500,000 cap savings.) Pretty much everything right now is pure speculation anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
That does not preclude them from drafting a linebacker with the 32nd pick. Lots of other factors / potential changes with a lower cap coming. (Ex. Sorenson might not return next year. Cutting Hitchens after next season will result in an $8,500,000 cap savings.) Pretty much everything right now is pure speculation anyway.
It absolutely SHOULD.
Drafting a LB in the 1st round is terrible value. Even if they needed LB's, it's terrible value.
LB is one of the least valuable positions on the field. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Taking an OT that is already on their board and is slotted at 32 is not a reach.
Taking an OT that wasn't on their board and/or is slotted way later than 32 is.
That's the point - not that taking an OT is an automatic reach but that they shouldn't let the Fisher injury change their draft strategy.
While I don't think you have to push it to the top of the draft board, I also don't think you can just say it won't change their strategy at all. It clearly will. Tackle depth was already precariously thin on the roster before Fisher went down, now even more so. If they're able to reach an injury settlement with Fisher and then find someone in FA to compete at LT, then that changes things, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens in FA prior to the draft. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Wouldn't you say drafting a RB in the first is poor value as well?
No, especially considering that a 1st round running back is going to see far more snaps than a linebacker in a 5-2.
For example, the Patriots had a 1st round RB when they won the Super Bowl against the Rams in Sony Michel. The Rams had a 1st round running back in Gurley in the 2018 Super Bowl and on and on and on.
Just because some teams might be able to find a running back later in the draft doesn't mean that those teams are going to win a Super Bowl.
There's not a chance in hell that the Chiefs are in the Super Bowl this year with Darrel Williams, DeAndre Washington and Darwin Award Thompson. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
While I don't think you have to push it to the top of the draft board, I also don't think you can just say it won't change their strategy at all. It clearly will. Tackle depth was already precariously thin on the roster before Fisher went down, now even more so. If they're able to reach an injury settlement with Fisher and then find someone in FA to compete at LT, then that changes things, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens in FA prior to the draft.
I'm not saying it will or won't. I'm saying it SHOULDN'T. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
No, especially considering that a 1st round running back is going to see far more snaps than a linebacker in a 5-2.
For example, the Patriots had a 1st round RB when they won the Super Bowl against the Rams in Sony Michel. The Rams had a 1st round running back in Gurley in the 2018 Super Bowl and on and on and on.
Just because some teams might be able to find a running back later in the draft doesn't mean that those teams are going to win a Super Bowl.
There's not a chance in hell that the Chiefs are in the Super Bowl this year with Darrel Williams, DeAndre Washington and Darwin Award Thompson.
It's not just some teams, it's most if not all teams. The Chiefs won a SB with an UDFA RB leading the way last year.
The Rams with Gurley couldn't get rid of him fast enough when he started breaking down.
The difference between a good and great running back is so small, it's not worth the investment. [Reply]