Same here.:-)
[Reply]

The highest upside move for the Chiefs, IMO, is to keep him. A healthy, motivated Chris Jones can do things only 1 or 2 people in this league can do and he's still young enough to continue to refine the rough edges in his game (i.e. gap responsibility and 'want to' in run support).

But the safest move - and probably the right one - is to trade him and reallocate his cap space/draft capital to additional upgrades.

If the best we can get for him is a 2, then I'm tagging him and making one last run before tagging him again next season and THEN moving him for a 2. But if we can get a deal at/near the same compensation as the Clark trade, I think we have to do it.

And I'd hate it. Because I think he's the most impactful, talented player on this entire defense. And I think he may actually be a little UNDER valued as I don't think DTs get money on the market commensurate with their ability to impact games.

But if you can get a 1st for him in lieu of having 2 $100 million defensive lineman on a team that's going to largely win with it's offense, I think you have to recognize reality, grit your teeth and pull the trigger.
[Reply]

This is a good point. One of those situations where IF Jones and Clark are both playing healthy, the DL is going to be dominant consistently. But if even one of them is hurt, that’s a lot of cap space and production left on the bench.

At the same time, there’s something to be said for keeping your core players intact and right now that’s clearly Mathieu, Clark, and Jones on defense.

A better scenario than the one I originally made would probably be: 1) Keep Jones at $20M AAV or 2) re-sign Ogbah, Fuller, and add a late 2020 1st round pick. I don’t think the Chiefs can totally win or lose in these scenarios. There’s plenty of give and take involved, and the ‘tie-breaker’ just might be how they feel the locker room will respond to him staying or being traded.
[Reply]

Look at it this way - what if you get a 1st for him and then you use that on a position where premier talent will likely fall to the late round - say safety?

And in 2 years when you could potentially save $15 million on the cap by moving on from Mathieu, you now have a replacement ready for him.

Not only have you freed up $20 million in 2020 (by moving on from Jones), but another $15 million in 2021. So by 2021 you've given yourself an additional $35 million in payroll flexibility (not accounting for any potential rollover created in '20) by not locking yourself into Jones and in the process using his trade value to replace Mathieu. Factor in Mahomes existing cap hit + that $35 million and now you've essentially covered the cost of Patrick Mahomes new deal.

Granted - these aren't FUN decisions to make, but they're decisions you have to make when you (correctly) give a guy the largest contract in NFL history.

Reality will almost certainly have to intervene.
[Reply]

Jones has probably played his last game in a Chiefs uniform. They can spend the $20M on other players. Need better depth at linebacker, secondary, and OL. Spend the money in those places.
[Reply]

It sounds good in theory but lots of moving parts — I think if Mathieu sustains this level of play through all 3 years, they’ll look to bring him back for a similar price tag (not a raise). He’s just become such a big part of their leadership group. I think of it like what NE has done with McCourty into his 30s.

They’re going to have to make smart, difficult financial moves but I try to be as realistic as possible understanding that there are human elements involved. They won’t be able to start treating all of their star players purely like assets and maintain this strong of a locker room culture.
[Reply]

Huh? If we win tomorrow, Jones will absolutely be playing in the SB with 2 more weeks of rest.

Shit, I still think there’s a decent chance he plays on Sunday.
[Reply]

It's one of those injuries that tends to drag on.
[Reply]

I don't know fellas. This is win or go home. If he is at 75% or better you play him unless you know you want to sign him long term. If you don't, play him until he becomes a liability on the field and then in the off season tag and trade him. Of course it's his/Andy's decision whether to play or not BUT I think if Andy sits him that is a huge tell that Andy just might sign him long term seeing this guy like our own "Fletcher Cox" for the future.
[Reply]

Not all calf injuries are the same. This clearly isn’t as severe as Ingram’s was for example.

It’s already been reported that he’d be ready by then.

If he were close enough last week (a couple of days after the injury) to be a GTD he’ll be playing in the SB in 2 weeks shall we win this week.
[Reply]

Sure hope so, although you wonder how effective he can be. I don't imagine he'll be 100% healthy for that game.
[Reply]

Dude, it’s been just over a week since he was injured. We’re talking about two more weeks until then. He’s already back practicing. This clearly isn’t a severe injury.
[Reply]

I actually think this is a positive because they rarely if ever put injured players who aren't playing in front of the media or do a PC like this.
[Reply]

Instagram post by Jones from 20 mins ago seems to indicate he’s gonna play: https://www.instagram.com/p/B7eIvznA...d=fyyu5qm5r072
[Reply]

Yeah, that's what does not make sense here. Why trot him in front of the media if he won't play?
[Reply]