Wouldn’t be opposed to an offensive player but it’s not the way I’d go.

Take a corner or a safety or an ILB.

Or trade the pick for a current corner somewhere. I’d trade it for Ramsey if it would work
[Reply]

The Mock Draft at The Athletic has Devin White falling to 20 (Steelers) and Deionte Thompson falling all the way to us at the end of the round.

If I'm sitting at the back of the first and White is still there at 19, I'm offering an extra 2nd to move up and grab him; if a 5th were needed as a kicker I'd probably go ahead and do that as well. Then if Thompson fell to 32, I'd wonder if I made a smart decision or if I should've stood pat and taken Thompson, but in real time I don't think I could justify that risk given the needs of this defense.

If White gets within 'give up a 2nd and get him' range, I think you have to do it. And frankly, if he's gone and Thompson falls that far, you may have to do the same thing.

But like I said - my druthers would be to find a way to flip both of those 2s and a little extra into another late 1 somehow. The Packers have the Saints pick and they may be willing to take a little more quantity over quality. But that would be a hard plan to stick to if I could use one of those 2nds to get White.
[Reply]

Okay, but imagine this - Irv Smith and Kelce in a 'Gronk/Hernandez' scenario. Man, if you put Hill and Watkins out wide, think of how goddamn impossible it would be to deal with this team.

How do you cover that? You can't play Cover 1 given the ability of Watkins and Hill to explode past you downfield. You damn sure can't play Cover 2 because that Smith/Kelce duo would absolutely murder you underneath and in that soft spot under the safety but behind the CB along the sidelines. A mirrored smash concept would just be unstoppable. I guess you sit in Cover 4 and give Mahomes all the time he needs to just dissect your ass.

You could just do everything from 12 personnel similarly to how the Rams lean so heavily on the 11 packages. And with Kelce's ability to play out wide (and Smith easily has the tools to do the same), you can do all kinds of shit to get Hill into the slot and have him attack those seams as well. And if Williams is your RB, with his pass-catching skills you can motion him out and put a murderous 5-wide out there.

That package would be friggen vile.

I'm not saying it's the highest and best use of the pick, but if a situation unfolded where Smith is the best guy on the board, I think you take him. Sure, we don't need another TE, but the things this offense could do with one with those physical tools is pretty much off the scale.
[Reply]

I’m with you DJ. I think this team desperately needs another Nnandi type DL and most importantly, an ILB.

Stopping the run has to be the priority again this offseason as the oppositions best way to beat us is run the ball and keep Mahomes off the field.
[Reply]

Trading up for the two seconds for a first is so tempting, but there are enough holes that I don't feel great about consolidating picks unless you have some nice FA pick ups prior to the draft.
[Reply]

this. We need several upgrades. IF we can do a chunk of it via FA then maybe.
[Reply]

I dunno, it's awesome to have the fifth year option, but damn having 2 more picks is nice.
[Reply]

There aren't as many holes as people insist there are, especially if we end up tagging Ford.

They could use a DL, safety, ILB and CB (and they may just be able to convert K-Pass or Speaks for the DL). Some depth on the OL and WR depth.

In terms of relative needs, that list is shorter than just about every team out there. The Chiefs will likely need to pull 2 starters from this draft and those odds are significantly improved by moving up higher in the draft, especially into the 1st.

They don't need raw numbers as much as they need definite contributors. If I can turn 2 valuable picks (and a throwaway late rounder) into a much MORE valuable pick and improve my odds, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Now flipping a 2nd for a higher 1st is more iffy because the risk/reward may not be there. That said, if it's to get a specific player that I'm damn certain will be a starter (White or Thompson), then I'd do it anyway.

It's more important that our highest picks hit than it is that we have additional higher picks, IMO. And I get the numbers game; that more picks yields more chances to hit, but this is the dart game that O.City spoke of awhile back. Would I rather have an extra dart to toss from 8 feet or would I rather throw 2 instead of 3 from 6 feet? I'm going with the latter.
[Reply]

The other thing though we need to start looking at, is that while yeah theoretically they don't have a hole here or there, we need to start becoming a bit more thoughtful of maybe saving a buck here or there.

If you could get a couple guys that hit in the 2nd round at say corner or DL or WR that would allow you to maybe move away from a mid to big money guy.
[Reply]

But when you look around at the most successful teams long term, you've just got to start stacking depth.

So while they may make a pick in the 2nd round or something that isn't an immediate starter, if it's say, a DL in the mold of Christ jones or in that type of development curve, that could be huge.
[Reply]

The only team that's done that with any regularity is the Patriots and that's still just nothing more than having Tom Brady. As a rule, those trade-downs of theirs haven't worked worth a shit. The Seahawks tried doing that as well and got next to nothing for their efforts.

And that's not at all what the Rams have done. Frankly it's not really what the Saints have done either - they stood pat and took Lattimore when we sniped Mahomes. Thomas, Rankins, Peat, Ramzczyk - those guys are just good players they took high. Kamara was a 3rd rounder but that's just making a good pick in a good system.

Teams aren't killing it with these trade downs. Meanwhile the Chiefs are the absolute best example in the entire NFL of the value of spotting your guy, damning the torpedoes and going after him. Getting Mahomes changed this entire franchise. And the Chiefs would've been better served NOT trading back with Jones and having his 5th year option. Ford's 5th year option is the only reason he's on the team this year.

I just completely disagree that teams are showing any kind of obvious tactical advantage by trading back. That demonstrates to me that the play is still to sit there, wait for your target to start dropping and go get his ass. Playing back on your heels is how you end up with some bum like Breeland Speaks instead of giving up more to move up 10 more spots and getting Darius Leonard. Let's say that instead of giving up 54 and 78 to get up to 46 and get the 100 with it, they just give up that 54 and 78 to move up to 34, piss on the 3rd rounder they got as well and take Leonard with the higher 2nd.

I think I'd be okay giving up Speaks and O'Daniel for Darius Leonard....wouldn't you?

Give me the higher end player over another wild-card every single time.
[Reply]

Yas, this.

If there's not a start-quality OL at the 32nd pick, though, go with defense. It almost doesn't even matter what position.
[Reply]

Yeah, that's true.

I get it for sure and I agree that i'll always go for the higher end guy.

But in an ideal setting the Chiefs can hit on both those 2nds this year. That's my whole argument is just for this year with the 2 of them. Normally, I'd never ever trade down, but up.

It is definitely so much easier to get better guys higher. Duh. But the Chiefs need to hit on some of these 2nds and maybe that's clouded my vision as of late.
[Reply]

The only time i'd be okay with trading down is in a situation where you can trade down and still get your guy in the same round. Like if you can go from 22 to 27, add a 2nd and still get your guy.
[Reply]

I also think one of those extra seconds could be better served trading for a current player on another roster.

With your thoughts on this DJ being what they are, what do you think about moving some picks for a current player that may need resigned? For instance, Patrick Peterson for our 1st or both 2nds?
[Reply]