Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
Why is it just another Suamataia? Who knows what their grades are but it’s entirely possible they have a higher grade on one of these guys than they did this year on Kingsley.
Guys available to play tackle in the 20's are either
1.Talented but raw as shit, like Kingsley.
2.Plug and Play but don't have movement to play left. Right tackles.
Or if it's a LT possibility extremely limited athletically in some way. See Jonah Williams and he went 11th. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
We did that with Kingsley and people are saying he’s a bust already.
What happens when rookie we trade up to take around pick 20 is too raw to do anything his rookie year?
If you’re not getting a top 10 guy, you either take a limited ceiling player and hope that’s good enough to be just kind of alright or you take a super raw player who’s going to get his ass ruined a lot early on.
In both cases, you don’t know what you really have until year 2 or more. And if you don’t have the patience to see their development through the whole process, then don’t bother drafting them ever
Not every developmental tackle is going to be as bad as Suamataia, his failure also doesn’t mean you stop trying. Yes, they ****ed up throwing him into the mix so early without development time and no viable plan B, but he was so historically bad and unplayable that you can’t depend on him improving. If he does develop then that’s icing on the cake but for ****’s sake take another swing and have a plan B (i.e. Humphries). [Reply]
It's just fucking irritating because there's a not so insignificant chance that he got fucked up mentally being thrown to the wolves and then subsequently being benched twice. [Reply]
There’s not a ton of solutions available. The most obvious would be Ronnie Stanley, and let Kingsley try to develop. But then you’re looking at making a guy who struggles to stay healthy the highest paid LT in the game.
We’re in a shitty spot, but I expect Veach to be aggressive. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
It's just ****ing irritating because there's a not so insignificant chance that he got ****ed up mentally being thrown to the wolves and then subsequently being benched twice.
If he is that mentally soft, then he was doomed from the start. I don’t think that will be the case in the long term…I just think he’s a better overall Guard prospect than he is at LT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
You don't want to develop a LT. And you don't want a free agent.
What do you think they should do?
I mean all I see in this thread is you bitching. You haven't offered a single, palatable solution. You also started posting in volume again right after the game after being silent most of the season. :-)
If Josh Simmons is available at 25, is it worth making a trade up to roll the dice on yet another rookie LT? Veach has put either a first or second round pick into WR for three straight years and finally hit on the last two. Should he do the same at LT until he hits one?
We could re-sign Humphries and have Morris as a back-up, again, but it really does not inspire confidence at the position for the third straight year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
Not every developmental tackle is going to be as bad as Suamataia, his failure also doesn’t mean you stop trying. Yes, they ****ed up throwing him into the mix so early without development time and no viable plan B, but he was so historically bad and unplayable that you can’t depend on him improving. If he does develop then that’s icing on the cake but for ****’s sake take another swing and have a plan B (i.e. Humphries).
His 'failure' is also not yet a failure.
If he was ready day one, he'd have gone top ten. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kris15:
Ravens LT ronnie Stanley is FA, Can't chiefs sign him?
They'll probably be in a better position to retain him, but I would absolutely love to see them test this. To my mind he is the clear best option in the short-term. The worst outcome may be Cam Robinson.
At best he's a worse version of Taylor, but at LT. He'll still command an enormous fee and probably want more years than Stanley. We can't keep sinking good money into average for multiple years, even at a position as important as LT. He's also, like Taylor, a horrible run-blocker. Clearly we are never going to be a run-first team, but if we want any chance of convincing Reid to mix it up a little more, we probably need OTs that can produce.
I also don't think it's a particularly good year for OTs in the draft. In all honesty, I'd push my chips in on Stanley. If that doesn't work, I'd probably kick the tires on DJ and hope to hell he can provide something approaching OK. If Simmons or Conerly looks possible, fine, but don't bet the house on them.
It may just not be a problem we can't fix this off-season. [Reply]
JJ Watt sums it up...we got away with it in the past against (1) teams with great edge rushers and no interior pressure and (2) teams with great interior rushers and no edge pressure. Eagles had great rushers across their d-line.
Eagles didn’t blitz Chiefs one time last night. Similar to Bucs vs. KC in the 2021 Super Bowl.
But it’s not as simple as “blitz vs. no-blitz”.
To win with just a 4-man rush, you have to have monsters on the edge and beasts in the middle.
