Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
It goes a lot deeper than just run or pass.
One offense almost never asks the LT to vertical set, the other wants it almost exclusively and with as little help as possible.
Then McVay deserves a lot of credit. Andy should try to change how he handles the LT spot if it's gonna be a weakness on the team every year. Give the dude some help. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DRM08:
Then McVay deserves a lot of credit. Andy should try to change how he handles the LT spot if it's gonna be a weakness on the team every year. Give the dude some help.
:-) Right? The argument against Jackson makes Reid look a bit incompetent. If other top offenses are so much easier on the OT then maybe it's time to tweak the system just a tad. [Reply]
I'm in agreement with you guys. I've said for a couple weeks no matter who LT is, Andy needs to evolve with the times. Tackle play sucks compared to the days when he first built his offenses.
I’d rather draft a LT. I feel like we have a unique opportunity to get a top 15 talent (maybe top 10) in Josh Simmons and he wouldn’t be available if wasn’t injured. If his medical is clean, I’d trade up 10 spots and get him. We don’t normally have the opportunity to draft a LT with his talent. Simmons can move. He has great feet and he’s also physical. Pair Simmons with a vet and move forward.
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch: :-) Right? The argument against Jackson makes Reid look a bit incompetent. If other top offenses are so much easier on the OT then maybe it's time to tweak the system just a tad.
Exactly. If you have to have a All Pro LT just to get "good" results its not the player its the scheme. That falls on the coaches. [Reply]
Of course Andy can get good results with Jackson. He did it with OBJ with much less to work with in terms of weapons. That's not the point. The question is whether it's worth the money, because even though McVay and company can make it work with Jackson, they aren't rushing to pay up for him either.
If we have to change the offense and constantly give him help, is it worth paying starting LT money?
Even if he's good enough to get us back to being a top 5 offense, the same people screaming to pay Jackson will be furious if he's a disappointment in terms of what we pay if keeps us from being the best offense in the NFL. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I don't think people understand the argument.
Of course Andy can get good results with Jackson. He did it with OBJ with much less to work with in terms of weapons. That's not the point. The question is whether it's worth the money, because even though McVay and company can make it work with Jackson, they aren't rushing to pay up for him either.
If we have to change the offense and constantly give him help, is it worth paying starting LT money?
Even if he's good enough to get us back to being a top 5 offense, the same people screaming to pay Jackson will be furious if he's a disappointment in terms of what we pay and he's what keeps us from being the best offense in the NFL.
The question comes down to ... if you could build with Orlando Brown Jr. 3 years ago at $25M/year, what is it worth to build around a similar (and possibly less limited athletically) player?
I can see a scenario where the Chiefs decide it's worth the price, even if he isn't a made-in-the-lab fit for what they've traditionally done at LT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
The question comes down to ... if you could build with Orlando Brown Jr. 3 years ago at $25M/year, what is it worth to build around a similar (and possibly less limited athletically) player?
I can see a scenario where the Chiefs decide it's worth the price, even if he isn't a made-in-the-lab fit for what they've traditionally done at LT.
Exactly. I'm not against signing Jackson by any means, just trying to steel man the argument against him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I don't think people understand the argument.
Of course Andy can get good results with Jackson. He did it with OBJ with much less to work with in terms of weapons. That's not the point. The question is whether it's worth the money, because even though McVay and company can make it work with Jackson, they aren't rushing to pay up for him either.
If we have to change the offense and constantly give him help, is it worth paying starting LT money?
Even if he's good enough to get us back to being a top 5 offense, the same people screaming to pay Jackson will be furious if he's a disappointment in terms of what we pay if keeps us from being the best offense in the NFL.
I dunno, apparently it's impossible to ever find an elite LT ever again with Mahomes at QB since we'll never draft high enough so might be time to tweak the offense to fit that reality. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
I dunno, apparently it's impossible to ever find an elite LT ever again with Mahomes at QB since we'll never draft high enough so might be time to tweak the offense to fit that reality.
I think the idea with the draft is to get a guy like Jackson without having to pay starting LT money.
A guy like that on a rookie deal is a huge + whereas paying a guy like that could hold you back a bit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
I dunno, apparently it's impossible to ever find an elite LT ever again with Mahomes at QB since we'll never draft high enough so might be time to tweak the offense to fit that reality.
Josh Simmons could be an elite LT. He has the traits. [Reply]
