We don't really have one of these yet, so figured we could use this as a place to discuss potential free agent acquisitions and what we would like to look for them to bring in.
If any of you guys are interested, heres a good place to do some research.
Originally Posted by Mecca:
I'm a believer in having high level talent across the secondary especially safety in todays game, the best QB's get rid of the ball to fast for the line to be a big deal so you have to have the cover guys.
Overall, I agree with you.
I don’t think they’ll use ALL of their high picks on the front 7, but at least 2/3 of our 1st and 2nds.
Like
1: Front 7
2: Safety
2: Front 7
3: TE
I’m hoping to see something like that. I think we’ll be able to get a good safety in the 60s with the way this class is looking. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, but you see....they're wrong.
Speaks sucks.
Tillery would punt that fucking tub to the bench in heartbeat. Besides, they could still rotate him in when they slide Tillery alongside Jones on passing downs.
A nickel front of Speaks, Tillery, Jones, Ferrell.....I mean even SPEAKS can't ruin that.
(I have an irrational disdain for Speaks and K-Pass, my apologies. K-Pass should've been Kamara and Speaks should've been someone that isn't a fat tweener).
Yeah see, I’m different. I think Speaks has a ton to prove, but I think he’s going to do just that in this scheme. And I’m actually not totally sold on Tillery as much as many. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Who you talking to? I've been hyping Hock since before it was cool. I've almost talked myself into Cody Ford, FFS (I love me some Cody Ford).
As for Fant and Smith, I just don't think so. I love both guys as stand-alone TE1s and for awhile had convinced myself that I'd be cool with either of them as the TE2, but I'm just not sure they do enough in-line to be used effectively in 12 personnel.
I mean if you get the Jags on the line about that Kelce/Ramsey deal and Fant is sitting there, I'd listen.
I'm not even a little bit married to the idea of 'defense no matter what' in the 1st. I believe I said it to you a few weeks ago - over a 2 year timeline, EVERY position is a position of need. So don't draft for immediate need because few rookies provide that anyway.
But if Ferrell were there, you'd have need + opportunity. He'd be a monster in this system, IMO.
do you like Deebo Samuel as an early grab? He doesn't register in most draft WR department's top five because he was KR'ing a lot - so the exposure wasn't as prevalent for open-eyes. As far as I can see he's a super dangerous HR hitter. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
So why couldn't the Chiefs give one of their seconds this year and next for Clowney or Lawrence and extend them and still have money for Jones?
Couldn't you stagger it around and make it work?
Didn't we do this yesterday?
Yeah, you could probably make it work. But you're gonna plow 50% of your cap into 4 guys by 2021 if you do that.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, but you see....they're wrong.
Speaks sucks.
Tillery would punt that ****ing tub to the bench in heartbeat. Besides, they could still rotate him in when they slide Tillery alongside Jones on passing downs.
A nickel front of Speaks, Tillery, Jones, Ferrell.....I mean even SPEAKS can't ruin that.
(I have an irrational disdain for Speaks and K-Pass, my apologies. K-Pass should've been Kamara and Speaks should've been someone that isn't a fat tweener).
You're assuming Veach would admit he made a mistake with Speaks.
Not sure that would happen. Ragland is still on the roster, and a projected starter. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Who you talking to? I've been hyping Hock since before it was cool. I've almost talked myself into Cody Ford, FFS (I love me some Cody Ford).
As for Fant and Smith, I just don't think so. I love both guys as stand-alone TE1s and for awhile had convinced myself that I'd be cool with either of them as the TE2, but I'm just not sure they do enough in-line to be used effectively in 12 personnel.
I mean if you get the Jags on the line about that Kelce/Ramsey deal and Fant is sitting there, I'd listen.
I'm not even a little bit married to the idea of 'defense no matter what' in the 1st. I believe I said it to you a few weeks ago - over a 2 year timeline, EVERY position is a position of need. So don't draft for immediate need because few rookies provide that anyway.
But if Ferrell were there, you'd have need + opportunity. He'd be a monster in this system, IMO.
Yeah, yes. For sure.
I wouldn't be opposed to an OL there at 29. It's not sexy, but long term it might be an idea that works the best especially if you need something immediate.
Just don't shoe horn yourself into a DL or safety. Set your board. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
What did I miss that makes anyone think Speaks will "prove" anything?
I don't really see it.
I’m sure many thought the same of Ford his rookie year. Speaks was playing an entirely new position in a dog shit defensive scheme. I’m giving him a clean slate here. Sink or swim. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
One looked like an athlete.
One did not.
I dunno.
Well they’re different players with different skill sets.
Let me ask you this, how many guys Speaks size would look at competent playing 3-4 OLB? He looked better than most thought he would which is why I feel like he’s going to look much better in a role where he’s actually a good fit. [Reply]
