Originally Posted by Direckshun:
Disagree. The best option was keeping Fisher on the roster and letting him rehab so he's playable by January. We did a version of that the year we won the Super Bowl. January and February is all that matters. Mahomes alone gets you to 12 wins August through December.
If you've decided that that's unacceptable, Reiff was a Fisher-caliber player available at a fantastic price.
We had more choices then than we do now. And because the available LT options are either inadequate (Villanueva) or too expensive/frail (Okung/Peters), we are marching into a draft where we're likely going to have to draft our starting LT with our 1st, and maybe even trade up for it.
Which takes away our ability to commit that 1st to a DE who can make an impact in 2021, or a WR who can beat man coverage reliably in February, or a further body up our back seven. etc etc
I do agree we're arguing in circles, because there's only so many ways I can say the same thing. Depending on the draft to plug your most important holes for the upcoming season is not the most reliable course of action, nor are hoping the right June cuts fall into your lap for the veteran minimum. But that is exactly where we are.
Yeah it's too bad we lost out on Fisher. Oh wait, he's still available.
You keep the saying things, and they're still just as stupid as they were the first time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
Disagree. The best option was keeping Fisher on the roster and letting him rehab so he's playable by January. We did a version of that the year we won the Super Bowl. January and February is all that matters. Mahomes alone gets you to 12 wins August through December.
If you've decided that that's unacceptable, Reiff was a Fisher-caliber player available at a fantastic price.
We had more choices then than we do now. And because the available LT options are either inadequate (Villanueva) or too expensive/frail (Okung/Peters), we are marching into a draft where we're likely going to have to draft our starting LT with our 1st, and maybe even trade up for it.
Which takes away our ability to commit that 1st to a DE who can make an impact in 2021, or a WR who can beat man coverage reliably in February, or a further body up our back seven. etc etc
I do agree we're arguing in circles, because there's only so many ways I can say the same thing. Depending on the draft to plug your most important holes for the upcoming season is not the most reliable course of action, nor are hoping the right June cuts fall into your lap for the veteran minimum. But that is exactly where we are.
Whoa whoa whoa. The best option was to keep Fisher? Uhhhh that doesn’t eliminate the need of a LT if he’s not back until January. You still have to draft someone to replace him during the season.
And for all the talk of “Mahomes gets us 12 wins” that people come up with....then you can’t say that LT is such a dire need in the same paragraph. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
Whoa whoa whoa. The best option was to keep Fisher? Uhhhh that doesn’t eliminate the need of a LT if he’s not back until January. You still have to draft someone to replace him during the season.
And for all the talk of “Mahomes gets us 12 wins” that people come up with....then you can’t say that LT is such a dire need in the same paragraph.
We were able to trot out Cam Erving and survive. We could trot out Niang or Remmers if we had to.
It doesn't matter a ton who we play at LT while Fisher rehabs. All that matters is Fisher being at least 90% by January. He does that, and I take the Chiefs over the field. We're 26-1 with him on the field. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
Whoa whoa whoa. The best option was to keep Fisher? Uhhhh that doesn’t eliminate the need of a LT if he’s not back until January. You still have to draft someone to replace him during the season.
And for all the talk of “Mahomes gets us 12 wins” that people come up with....then you can’t say that LT is such a dire need in the same paragraph.
This is what I’ve been trying to explain to him from the beginning of this discussion.
He somehow thinks not cutting Fisher and going after Williams somehow changes anything at LT.
And he ignores the fact that we can still re-sign Fisher.
To make it extra stupid, he came into this thread saying that it’s proof that our offseason was “dogshit”. How is circling back to Fisher proof that it’s dogshit, but not cutting him makes it all better? It really doesn’t make any sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
This is what I’ve been trying to explain to him from the beginning of this discussion.
He somehow thinks not cutting Fisher and going after Williams somehow changes anything at LT.
And he ignores the fact that we can still re-sign Fisher.
To make it extra stupid, he came into this thread saying that it’s proof that our offseason was “dogshit”. How is circling back to Fisher proof that it’s dogshit, but not cutting him makes it all better? It really doesn’t make any sense.
Cutting Fisher created an additional major hole, when this team is struggling to fill its other additional major holes. [Reply]
The biggest problem is the holes the Chiefs currently have are, outside of the QB, the hardest the fill. LT and DE usually require either a pretty hefty price tag or a high draft pick.
They swung at Williams and missed.
If you kept Fisher, you'd be potentially going into the playoffs with a LT that's coming off an Achilles injury, which as much as some argued against, is one of the toughest injuries to come back from.
So, it's either trade a boat load to go draft a top flight LT, trade a boatload and money for an established LT (think Tunsil), stay at 31 and take a guy, sign a vet and draft someone to sit,. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
We were able to trot out Cam Erving and survive. We could trot out Niang or Remmers if we had to.
It doesn't matter a ton who we play at LT while Fisher rehabs. All that matters is Fisher being at least 90% by January. He does that, and I take the Chiefs over the field. We're 26-1 with him on the field.
And in your plan....what if he isn’t at 90%? [Reply]
In your mind, and understanding that we are both armchair GMing at this point, how would you plug our roster holes at this time, if we gave you the keys to the Kingdom?
I extend Honey Badger, freeing up some money.
I'd sign Okung to an incentive laden two year deal. If he plays, he gets paid. I'm also in touch with Fisher and his rehab. PLAN B-I'd sign Villanueva to a two year deal we can get out of in one if we want.
I'd sign Ingram to increase pass rush ability at DE. PLAN B-I'd sign Clowney to a reasonable deal. His big money days are over, but he's still a decent complimentary player, great against the run and decent pass rusher. On this line, he'd thrive.
I'd see what comes available at WR, but honestly I don't expect much to happen in FA at that position. Nobody wants to try to parlay #3 targets into a payday. Probably going to have to draft a guy and develop them. At any rate, of the 3 concerns, I place this at #3 behind 1)LT, 2)DE
This frees us up as far as the order we need to look at positions in the draft as we have short term spots filled. We're still going to need to draft and develop a LT, a DE, and a WR. That's just a reality of the NFL, and nobody doesn't have areas they need to address in this way. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
And in your plan....what if he isn’t at 90%?
I don't accept that as anything but a very remote possibility.
The Chiefs were talking about him being good to go for Week One. I consider that unlikely, but he's almost certainly good to go for January 2022. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
I don't accept that as anything but a very remote possibility.
The Chiefs were talking about him being good to go for Week One. I consider that unlikely, but he's almost certainly good to go for January 2022.
So hopes and dreams.
If he isn’t at 90% then this team is fucked. That’s assuming that ignoring the LT position until Fisher gets back leads this team to 12 wins. It has just as much of a chance as causing us to go 8-8. [Reply]
