Hey, I’m looking for hope on the oline with prospects. I’m just not sure this guy has a high ceiling. I’d probably leave Kingsley as the backup tackle and try and draft a guard, rather than pursue Grant, IMHO. Kingsley just looks like he has more potential. No offense.

https://youtu.be/cvkOAJcTSV4?si=aHPIEmPZqgCCZttt
[Reply]

Aren't you the fucking retard in the Lounge saying that the Chiefs need to be more like the Bengals?
[Reply]

Ha. That’s one way to distort that comment. I just think we need to protect Mahomes better.
[Reply]

I don't like how high Grant seems to have risen. I'd be 100% on board with him around 95. You start talking 63 or 66, I'm all the way out. That's way too early for him IMHO. He is further away than Suamataia was if you want my opinion on it. I like him quite a bit; he's intriguing and probably worth developing, but the price has to match the goods.
[Reply]

Is there a G that would be better than Kingsley at LG in the 2nd? It seems like the chiefs are moving him to G and I wonder why unless they don’t think Kingsley can pick up LT? Or unless they don’t think they could draft a better prospect for G?
[Reply]

Sure. Wyatt Milum (West Virgnia LT) is about Thuney-like as they come. Marcus Mbow (Purdue RT), Tate Ratledge (Georgia RG), and Jonah Savaiinaea (Arizona RT) could be fits. I don't think Donovan Jackson (Ohio State LG/LT) is going to be an option, we'd have to take him in the 1st.

I'd probably argue most for Milum, he's plug-and-play, and then if Ratledge can play LG I'd probably go that route next.
[Reply]

If you’re the GM, do you like the developmental LTs in the draft from our 2nd pick and later better than Kingsley? If not, would you consider drafting a G and leaving Kingsley at LT to develop? Said in another way, how would you approach finding a starting LG and finding a developmental LT?
[Reply]

They're all a year behind Kingsley, I think, is the point.
[Reply]

Im not sure? It looks like that from the tape that I saw. But why not draft a G and leave Kingsley at LT? I wasn’t an olineman but it would seem difficult to me get ready to start at G while also working on LT. Maybe there’s something in Kingsley that the chiefs see that prevents him being a success at LT? They bumped him to LG in week 18. That had to be a tryout? The chiefs could have been getting Kingsley ready for a stretch run in the playoffs at LT. That has to say something about what the chiefs think of Kingsley as a LT? Or am I missing it?
[Reply]

No, I don't like any of the developmental LTs more than Kingsley and yes, I'd absolutely consider drafting a guard and keeping him on that development track. I just don't know if the Chiefs agree.
[Reply]

That’s the way I see it too, which makes me think they are looking for an upgrade…. Conerly or Simmons…
[Reply]

I think people are putting way too much into them playing Kingsley at G. It seems to me that was a good way to get him some NFL snaps and confidence without putting him on an island and continuing to destroy his confidence. He's still got all of the traits, he was just too raw in technique in year one.

I don't think anyone we could reach is going to be further along than he would be in year two.

Now, maybe they just think he's never going to put it together; we don't know. We aren't in the meeting rooms and watching every practice. But he was always a project, and you don't give up on a project after three games.
[Reply]

I actually struggle with Kingsley as a tackle. His back pedal is atrocious. He can not kick step and at this point I don’t think he ever will. Playing at guard he doesn’t have to do this as much. Which is why I think he thrives more.

I think Ersary and Connerly are better prospects. I also think Benton has a better chance at tackle.
[Reply]

I wouldnt want him until 95 or later. I must be running the wrong mock drafts as of late, as I always see him available in that range? I have noticed there are quite a few teams that have talked to him or at least expressed interest. It will be interesting to see where he goes.
[Reply]

I could not disagree more with everything you say here.
[Reply]