I'm guessing GM's don't like sitting at the end of the 1st round. I'd either trade back and amass some picks or trade the pick for a vet already under contract
[Reply]

I agree, but it’s definitely plan B and it’s contingent on whether that rookie actually performs up to their billing. Williams took all the doubt of the position being solidified, away. Williams was an upgrade, not sure the 5th or 6th drafted OT will upgrade the position. Possibly, but no guarantees.
[Reply]

then you have an aging LT, and you're going to have to address that position again next year or the year after.

I mean sure, but sooner or later you ought to address it in a long term way. And you're not going to be in position to draft top ten anytime in...like the next decade.

All because you're not willing to wait a year on a guy? That seems like you've just got an emotional block about it.
[Reply]

Nah, I just seem to find that "developmental prospects" don't tend to end up developing.

At some point, you have to spend resources on a LT. They're the 2nd or 3rd most important position on your football team. The Chiefs were willing to spend a fuck load of money on one this offseason.

So yeah, I'm probably gonna end up trading up and spending resources on one.
[Reply]

not really. It's a more or less lateral move that is an improvement because Reiff can actually play on day one. Fisher, probably not.

You're taking a chance the rookie develops and can take that spot next year, but that's literally true of any position. And if he can't, you roll with Reiff again and maybe keep trying to develop his replacement.

It's not contingent on the rookie, the rookie is the possible pay-off.

If Fisher were 100% healthy, none of this is happening. A lateral move is not a bad thing here.
[Reply]

In a strong class like this LT’s will be gone by rd 3.

If a talented LT you think could successful protect Patrick for 10 years is there at 31 you take them, sitting a year be damned.

That’s why you fill the roster with FA’s in March to eliminate needs
[Reply]

And if he busts, you're screwed.
[Reply]

The Chiefs have REid and Mahomes. They'll never be "screwed" but they could be in trouble if they dont' find a LT.
[Reply]

Two kinds of resources: money and draft picks.

If you're willing to spend two #1's and probably at least a #2 to get into the top ten to take a chance on a rookie LT and roll with Mahomes being protected by two rookie OT's while you're firmly in a SB window...well, I'm glad you're not the Chiefs GM. I think that would be a big mistake.

I'm fine with a good but not great vet and a raw but promising draftee. A little bit of both resources.
[Reply]

Reiff-Thuney-Allegretti-LDT-Niang/Remmers

is equal or better at every spot than
Fisher-Allegretti-Reiter-Wylie-Remmers, which is what KC rolled with for most of this season. I would argue it's much improved at all 3 of the interior spots, basically the same at LT, and has upside to be MUCH better at RT (If Niange is as good as we think/the team thinks he is).

IF it's Reiff AND Rodney Hudson or David Andrews, it's MUCH improved at 2 of those spots from last season, Day 1.

I'd pair it with drafting Little or Hudson or Ealy (even if a small move-up is required). That player would be the swing tackle this year and start competing to start in 2022.

Oh, same. For sure.
[Reply]

They'll be in double trouble if they use 2 drafts worth of picks to get a guy that doesn't pan out.

It's just not a good idea. Not sure why you don't see that.
[Reply]

The Chiefs are firmly in a SB window for 10 years. They still need to look longterm at this thing though.

If it took this year and next years 1 and a 3 to get to 10 to take Slater, yeah, I'd do it.

The 31st pick, the 30th pick and an end of the 3rd pick is whatever for a LT.
[Reply]

Exactly.
[Reply]

There are teams that think Slater lacks the length to even play LT in this league.

No way.
[Reply]

Giving up a couple ones that will be at the end of the first round and a 3 isn't 2 drafts worth of picks.
[Reply]