The Chiefs latest dynasty run was a direct product of the Tyreek trade. Now money is tight, draft resources are slim, and the young players from Veach's great recent drafts are getting to the age to be paid so will be leaving soon. And that's aside from the glaring need for a franchise LT.
Any chance we could get back what makes it worthwhile to give him up this offseason? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Our options only look "bleak" if you want a franchise LT this offseason.
Our options are certainly not bleak if you just want adequate steady play there for at least next season and hopefully one or two more.
Our options are probably to grossly overpay for a guy who is average at best, but at least better than the disaster we had. Or to trade lots and lots of picks, probably for a LT who also is average at best.
I’d really rather not trade mcduffie. But it’s worth mentioning that he’s really the only chip we have. So if that’s off the table we’re probably going to end up paying a huge price for settling for something not so great. It is what it is. It’s the cross to bear for never being bad enough to get what you want. Bleak is probably too strong a word to use. [Reply]
Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the Chiefs are not trading McDuffie. Carrington Harrison has this right, I think. The most likely scenario for LT next season is Humphries and year 2 Kingsley battle it out in camp. He's also correct in that most fans will melt down about the above scenario. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Why Not?:
Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the Chiefs are not trading McDuffie. Carrington Harrison has this right, I think. The most likely scenario for LT next season is Humphries and year 2 Kingsley battle it out in camp. He's also correct in that most fans will melt down about the above scenario.
The ideal scenario is we bring in a 1-2 year rental. Probably for an overpriced contract. As insurance for the other guys to compete. Unfortunately, if you bring in another vet FA I can’t imagine humphries would want to be a part of it. Im not even sure if humphries is even an option after being passed on in the playoffs [Reply]
It looks like the plan for Kingsley is him to play guard, RG in particular, to probably replace Trey. Would imagine the top preferred option is to get Ronnie Stanley or Cam Robinson with an over priced short contract. Don’t know what Thuney’s motivations are at this point but if he’s going to be backup LT again I’d imagine his agent isn’t looking to take much a of a pay reduction this offseason. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefAshhole1056:
It looks like the plan for Kingsley is him to play guard, RG in particular, to probably replace Trey. Would imagine the top preferred option is to get Ronnie Stanley or Cam Robinson with an over priced short contract. Don’t know what Thuney’s motivations are at this point but if he’s going to be backup LT again I’d imagine his agent isn’t looking to take much a of a pay reduction this offseason.
This year has almost no bearing on where they see Kingsley fitting. They were experimenting in real time, both with Kingsley and the line as a whole.
They didn't spend a 2nd round draft pick and then start him at LT in week 1 so he could play guard. Team's don't give up nearly as fast as fans do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
This year has almost no bearing on where they see Kingsley fitting. They were experimenting in real time, both with Kingsley and the line as a whole.
They didn't spend a 2nd round draft pick and then start him at LT in week 1 so he could play guard. Team's don't give up nearly as fast as fans do.
Obviously, Skyy Moore is still on the team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by fadeaway:
Shoot me down if it’s not possible or just down right stupid, but could we tag and trade Trey Smith?
It's possible. The problem is that as soon as you tag him, the entire amount goes against the cap. The only way to get rid of it is to trade him or sign him. For what you might be able to get in a trade, it's probably just best to let him walk and take the comp pick. [Reply]
Let's say I entertain this in my brain for a brief few seconds... what would the return be? Who?
Because I'm thinking it has to be Darrelle Revis-esque to consider.
#9 overall and a conditional 2026 5th from New Orleans?
#11 overall and a 4th from San Francisco?
#13 overall and a conditional 2026 4th from Miami?
I don't see a team doing that... We couldn't go lower. You have to get a premier player by doing it. Even if it's not a LT, you have to get a top-shelf Edge or something. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Let's say I entertain this in my brain for a brief few seconds... what would the return be? Who?
Because I'm thinking it has to be Darrelle Revis-esque to consider.
#9 overall and a conditional 2026 5th from New Orleans?
#11 overall and a 4th from San Francisco?
#13 overall and a conditional 2026 4th from Miami?
I don't see a team doing that... We couldn't go lower. You have to get a premier player by doing it. Even if it's not a LT, you have to get a top-shelf Edge or something.
We’ll see what he asks for here in potential extension talks this summer, but if Karlaftis or his agent decide to play hard ball and ask for top dollar when his skill set doesn’t fit that, I would absolutely explore trading him in the next two years.
Paying McDuffie atop the league at CB is not something you regret.
Paying Karlaftis near top of the market for pass rushers… you most likely will. But the only way you’re going to get that guy close to what he’s really worth is by paying him early. [Reply]