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 htismaqe:
Just based on the simulator:
Sewell usually goes to the Bengals. Never any later.
Slater usually goes shortly after.
Cosmi and Darrisaw almost always go 13 and 14. Not always in the same order but the Chargers take one of them and the Patriots take the other.
Mayfield usually goes somewhere between 17 and 22.
Radunz sometimes gets snatched in the late 20's but does sometimes end up at 32.
FWIW, Vera-Tucker usually goes well before 32.
The guys that consistently end up being there at 32 are Eichenberg and Jenkins. Eichenberg is a high floor, low ceiling guy who is probably best suited to be a RT and Jenkins is a prospect, not really a starter.
Honestly, the only guy that makes a ton of sense is Little and that's only because they could probably get him in the 3rd if things fall right.
A lot of the fun of the simulators for me is seeing how they change as the free agent market activity shapes up. Maybe you'll see very different results once Trent Williams, Russell Okung and Villanueva are all signed somewhere.
I think the FA market will probably have the biggest movement on WRs. The cumulative effect of multiple years of very good receiver classes has to keep pushing very talented receivers further and further down the board, plus there are now teams that surely have a zero percent chance of taking a WR in the 1st. [Reply]
in every mock I run (and I'm aware that they are not necessarily accurate) if you don't grab an OT by the early 3rd, you're getting a project or a player that is most likely a G in the NFL. So for KC, they'll need to grab one at #32 or #64 to realistically have a starter in 2021.
If you don't grab a DE in round 1 or 2, the field narrows from potential 10 sack guys to solid but unspectacular developmental guys according to scouting projections.
There are WR's that will push all the way into the 4th with serious playmaking ability. Judging by a looking at a little film and scouting reports, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the 1st round guys and 3rd round guys like Amari Rodgers.
Interior offensive line prospects look really good all the way into the 5th.
this leads me to figure we need to go OT/DE in rounds one and two, and WR in round 3. There should be multiple players ranked right where we pick in each round, meaning without reaching there are guys that appear to be good fits and good value, it will just depend on which players Veach likes best. Of course, this is based on media scouting and player rankings, so we'll see how it actually shakes out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
in every mock I run (and I'm aware that they are not necessarily accurate) if you don't grab an OT by the early 3rd, you're getting a project or a player that is most likely a G in the NFL. So for KC, they'll need to grab one at #32 or #64 to realistically have a starter in 2021.
If you don't grab a DE in round 1 or 2, the field narrows from potential 10 sack guys to solid but unspectacular developmental guys according to scouting projections.
There are WR's that will push all the way into the 4th with serious playmaking ability. Judging by a looking at a little film and scouting reports, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the 1st round guys and 3rd round guys like Amari Rodgers.
Interior offensive line prospects look really good all the way into the 5th.
this leads me to figure we need to go OT/DE in rounds one and two, and WR in round 3. There should be multiple players ranked right where we pick in each round, meaning without reaching there are guys that appear to be good fits and good value, it will just depend on which players Veach likes best. Of course, this is based on media scouting and player rankings, so we'll see how it actually shakes out.
In almost all of my mocks, you're getting a developmental OT or projected OG at #32, let alone #64 or later.
The actual starting tackles in this draft are about 8 and they all go before #32 most of the time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In almost all of my mocks, you're getting a developmental OT or projected OG at #32, let alone #64 or later.
The actual starting tackles in this draft are about 8 and they all go before #32 most of the time.
Walker Little, for example, is a Niang type situation and keeps lasting into the early 3rd. A legit starting LT talent that would be a first rounder other than coming off an injury and a sitting out a covid season. He's a perfect Reid style OT, Stanford doesn't put out dummies, and now healthy would be a great #64 pick.
Eichenberg is not a guard, and is projected as a plug-and-play starter at LT and is always there at #64.
Jalen Mayfield is always there at #32. Radunz is too.
You can argue the mocks are wrong, and they might well be. You can argue with the scouting reports if you want to, but I'll defer to guys who do it for a living. [Reply]
I think you gotta hope Niang can do it. Legit LT prospects just go earlier in the first than we can get.
If we want one to actually replace Fisher and not be a place holder, I’d look at trading 32 for one who’s established. The dude from Balt would be intriguing financially and from a value standpoint. With other dudes getting expensive, they’re gonna have to save somewhere. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
I think you gotta hope Niang can do it. Legit LT prospects just go earlier in the first than we can get.
If we want one to actually replace Fisher and not be a place holder, I’d look at trading 32 for one who’s established. The dude from Balt would be intriguing financially and from a value standpoint. With other dudes getting expensive, they’re gonna have to save somewhere.
This is being described as an VERY deep OT draft.
I think there are maybe 4 or 5 legit OT's that will still be there when we pick. Not guys who will be guards, but legit OT's. I think there are a couple that will still be there at #64. Little, for example, much like Niang was in round 3 last year, same reasons.
We DO have to hope Niang pans out. That's just the way it is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
This is being described as an VERY deep OT draft.
I think there are maybe 4 or 5 legit OT's that will still be there when we pick. Not guys who will be guards, but legit OT's. I think there are a couple that will still be there at #64. Little, for example, much like Niang was in round 3 last year, same reasons.
We DO have to hope Niang pans out. That's just the way it is.
They need a legit guy day one there. I dunno maybe one of those guys are that but that’s a risk.
At this point it may be one you just have to take and rely on your coaching staff.
I’d still look around via trade though. If fisher and Schwartz are done, use their money and 32 to see what you can get. The Lt from Detroit is interesting if they wanna really tear down. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
They need a legit guy day one there. I dunno maybe one of those guys are that but that’s a risk.
At this point it may be one you just have to take and rely on your coaching staff.
I’d still look around via trade though. If fisher and Schwartz are done, use their money and 32 to see what you can get. The Lt from Detroit is interesting if they wanna really tear down.
We won't "have their money" to go get FA's.
Anything we do is a risk.
I'm just relying on scouting reports and player rankings. They may be wrong. Veach has his own scouting reports and player rankings I'm certain.
It's all speculation, and I'm just going by the information there is, which says guys like Radunz, Eichenberg, or Little (who probably has the highest ceiling but is riskier) will be there as late as #64 and are legit starting LT's in the NFL. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
They need a legit guy day one there. I dunno maybe one of those guys are that but that’s a risk.
At this point it may be one you just have to take and rely on your coaching staff.
I’d still look around via trade though. If fisher and Schwartz are done, use their money and 32 to see what you can get. The Lt from Detroit is interesting if they wanna really tear down.
The Lions are not trading their 26 year old LT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
We won't "have their money" to go get FA's.
Anything we do is a risk.
I'm just relying on scouting reports and player rankings. They may be wrong. Veach has his own scouting reports and player rankings I'm certain.
It's all speculation, and I'm just going by the information there is, which says guys like Radunz, Eichenberg, or Little (who probably has the highest ceiling but is riskier) will be there as late as #64 and are legit starting LT's in the NFL.
They’ll have their money they likely had slotted to pay them in the future. What they already paid is a sunk cost.
I’d imagine they have bookmarked funds for a T as it’s a pretty highly paid priority.
I’m not at all opposed to going young and developmental but if you could use 32 to fortify the spot at LT for a long time with a young proven vet I’d be interested for sure [Reply]