What’s the word about Alaric Jackson? He’s younger than Stanley and seems to stand up pretty well to pressure.
[Reply]

OL needs reps to mature and adjust to the speed of the game. No rookie is going to be lights out at LT. Just doesn't happen anymore.
[Reply]

I’m not sure what the Rams are doing here.

Every Rams page says he’s unlikely to be tagged (I’m guessing just because the cap hit is so high). I’m not sure why they didn’t lock him up in season when he’d be at his cheapest.

I’d guess there were all sorts of people who thought OBJ would never see free agency either.

This close to free agency and after THAT Super Bowl, he’d be wise to see what’s out there. Hell, Trent Williams used the Chiefs to get more money from the 49ers.

If he becomes available, I think he’s the ideal plan. Absolute best we’ll do imo. He won’t be cheap, but likely won’t be otherworldly expensive and really opens the draft up.
[Reply]

This is exactly my take. Frankly, I think fixing the DL and RB room are the most realistic through this draft. If there's somehow a decent OL prospect to replace Smith or compete with a vet at LT, great. Otherwise I'm spamming the DL, it needs plenty of work.
[Reply]

We have a lot of holes to fill with just 6 draft picks. 1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 4, 7.

I have a feeling we might see a trade to recoup draft capital. Maybe not. Maybe Veach is hitting the UDFA hard this year. Dunno but we better find some gems.
[Reply]

I’d really like to see the Chiefs trade for a future first at some point. Not sure the player to give up, but the next Tyreek Hill type trade maybe.

The best chance of the Chiefs ever getting a really high first round pick is to get a future pick and then that team just sucks.

Would be a great opportunity to add a premier talent or trade back for major comp.
[Reply]

The guys at KCSN were talking about him for a few seconds and blew him off because he has short arms and isn't an "Andy guy."

I don't know...if what we just saw is a bunch of "Andy guys", I'd like to try a T-Rex who won't get knocked back on every snap. (No run at Thuney I know he was out of position)
[Reply]

Bernhard Raimann wouldn’t be an “Andy Guy” either, but at a point you just want good players.

The short arms matter because they could be an issue, so I get not drafting that guy.

Once he’s established though? Seems like a silly reason to blow him off.
[Reply]

QB: I wouldn't mind finding a late round pick or UDFA so we don't have to waste $3 million on a dude who doesn't play.

RB: I'm biased, call it 90s Chiefs PTSD, I like having a good running back. I was on board with the CEH pick and, though I don't think we should take another first round RB, if we did I would immediately talk myself into it. I'd love one on day 2, especially since this is supposed to be a deep class. But one way or another we have to get better here, we can't go into next year with Pacheco, Hunt, and some vet minimum slapdick.

WR: Rice and Worthy is a good foundation, and hopefully we can afford to bring Hollywood Brown back. But in general I think they need to start clearing out the dead wood. We have a lot of limited veteran role players who are just there to not fuck up the play. In a way it's like the offense in microcosm, all floor no ceiling.

TE: So hypothetically if Kelce retires, the $17 million we'd save plus the $8-$10 million it would cost to bring back Brown does get us into Tee Higgins territory... I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

OL: I'm not seeing an option I like that much. I don't trust Stanley to stay healthy. And draft-wise, generally I feel like we should be trading down over trading up, given that we have a top-heavy roster and are going to need to fill it out with cheap contributors. I also especially don't like the idea of trading up for "a tackle" rather than a specific player. I always think about this when people point to Mahomes when they talk about trading up for a QB. The part they leave out is that we weren't trading up for whichever QB, we went to get Mahomes specifically. When you're trading up to roll the dice, that, to me, is a Trey Lance type move.

I know people have soured on DJ Humphries since it didn't work out this year, but with a full offseason he might still be the best option. Also I don't hate Dan Moore, he was okay this year and is still relatively young, he might be a slow developing guy who's finally figuring it out. Of course he could also be a guy who just showed up for his contract year. Kingsley, I don't think we should count on for anything this year. If he develops that's great, but I'm not penciling him in to start at RG or anywhere else. I'm good with Wanya as the swing tackle, he only became a disaster when he was playing hurt. But he might also be the best option at RG if we let Trey Smith walk, which seems likely. I'd love to keep him, but not for $20 million plus per year.

DE: There's some decent FA options, I do think we need to bring somebody in. Omenihu will go to the highest bidder, if that's not too high I'd be okay with bringing him back, but I think I'd rather go in another direction. I also think we need to use another day 1 or 2 pick on the DL, whether it's DE or DT. This is supposed to be a deep class, so maybe a 3rd or 4th as well.

DT: It doesn't get talked about as much because of pressing issues elsewhere, but Chris Jones in the only DT we have under contract. I'm not sure where Wharton's contract lands, maybe he could come back. I'm guessing we could bring back Pennel and Nnadi fairly cheap if we wanted to, but do we want to? Pennel is 33 and Nnadi gets worse every year. And just to immediately contradict myself on the age thing, could we get a ring-chasing Calais Campbell cheap?

LB: I didn't want to pay Bolton, but I'm leaning toward it now. Partially because I don't think he'll get more than Patrick Queen on the open market, and partially because I don't like the alternatives. I don't know how to quantify how much his intelligence facilitates Spags running the stuff he does, but I agree, I don't like the idea of losing him and Reid at the same time.

DB: I really like Reid and would like to bring him back, but it's hard to justify with Hicks and Cook. And Conner, who I think should be playing more safety and less nickel. With Watson back CB isn't as pressing of a need (as in, if we stood pat it wouldn't be a disaster), but depth has to get better. Especially if we don't trust Josh Williams anymore. Ideally we'd find another outside corner so McDuffie can play the slot more, but it might be more realistic to find an upgrade at nickel. It seems like there's always guys that fall in the draft because they're nickel-only. And obviously the McDuffie extension needs to get done.

ST: I wasn't particularly impressed with Araiza, hopefully we can find someone better as a UDFA.
[Reply]

I do think we more or less forego WR in the draft unless it’s just a ridiculous BPA gap that pops up.

Gun to my head, I expect they’ll try to get Brown back, and attack OL/DL relentlessly in the draft. Also have to look long and hard at DB with the ‘22 class getting ready to split.
[Reply]

Great post. I agree with most of what you said.

I think another way to look at the draft is what positions could we draft that would allow that player to see the field and contribute in year one.

LT - Obviously LT stands out because we basically don't have one. And while people hear are justified with the notion that they don't want to mess around with yet another draft pick that will take time to develop into a starter, that doesn't mean you take the position off the board. If there is a LT that fits the bill I think you have to pull the trigger, because there just ins't much out on the FA. AND we are going to need a RT next year too.

Targets: Conerly, Milum, Belton, Trapilo

RB - If there is a position group that Veach has ignored its this one. We are lucky Hunt came in and did what he did. I think we have to come away with a running back in this draft, and the good thing is that there are probably 8 guys that I would be excited for. They key is not over drafting the position. I think you see how the draft falls and pull the trigger on the RB when they guys at other positions are not there. This means you could take at RB at 63/66/95/132. I tend to think 66/95 is the most realistic, but you can get a back at 132 if necessary.

Targets: Hampton, Judkins, Johnson, Henderson, Skattebo, Sampson, Gordon, Harvey

DT - I really think this needs to be the first round target. More than likely the talent it going to be there when we pick.

Targets: Grant, Nolan, Harmon, Williams, Walker, Norman-Lott

CB - I think this is a big need, especially since we are going to start having to actually pay McDuffie. I think the CB class is a lot like the running backs in this draft. There are plenty of guys that I think would be great in KC but you probably need to take one before round 4.

Targets: Thomas, Amos, Hairston, Bruke, Alexander, Bryant

There are other positions that might make sense, S, Edge, OL, LB, TE. It all depends on who's there and when. I really think the Chiefs have to walk away from their first 4 picks in this draft with a DT, CB, OT, and running back. Again, the DT has the highest probability of going in the first.

So what would that draft look like:

31: Harmon DT
63: Hampton RB (Not sure that's likely but replace with a Ohio State RB if you want)
66: Milnum LT
95: Mukuba S (example of drafting a playmaker at a position over focusing on need)
132: Trapilo LT (honestly didn't realize I double dipped at LT, but don't mind it)
256: Lachey TE (I'd be thrilled if that dude was there late)

Version two

31: Loveland TE (Oh shit draft DT and LTs not to my liking)
63: Norman-Lott DT
66: Henderson RB
95: Belton LT
132: Fenton WR
256: Jermari Harris CB Iowa.

Note: Taking a TE basically cost you a stud CB IM)

Version Three

31: Grant DT
63: Amos CB
66: Henderson RB
95: Ozzy Trapilo LT
132: Danny Stutsman LB
256: Lachey TE

Note: Probably prefer this scenario, but it means the Chiefs have to find a LT solution for next season in FA.

Version 4

31: Ersery LT
63: Walker DT
66: Bond WR
95: Ivey DE
132: Gordon RB
256: Teddye Buchanan LB

Note: Wanted to do a draft with a LT in the first and a RB in the 4th.

Version 5

31: Conerly LT
63: Hampton RB
66: TJ Sanders DT
95: Burke CB
132: Mondon Jr. LB
256: Lachey TE (Insert player here, I'm really whatever at this pick)
[Reply]

I’d take a chance on Skatteboo if he’s there in the seventh. I like signing a FA tackle and taking a dt then Henderson one and two. Take a cb with a third and a wr with the other third. Resign brown or if kelce retires kick the tires on tee but I’m afraid he’ll cost too much and Hollywood is a good option.

You almost have to take Henderson with your first because I doubt he makes it to the end of the second.
[Reply]

I think Veach and Andy need to hyper focus on these tackles and see which one can be had. 7 tackles were taken in the 1st last year. That’s 25% of the teams not counting us. Not likely any of those teams needs one.

I think Campbell, Membou and likely Banks are gone. Maybe Josh Simmons falls bc of the injury and combine. Maybe you like Conerly.

Either way the Vikings only have a 1 and two 5’s. They are a time trade up candidate. If they feel that one of these tackles fits us and can provide long term stability you make the trade. Give them 31 and one of 64 or 66 if it helps you solve that problem.

It’s not a great class but maybe one of these guys can be our Eric Fisher and finally provide a reasonable answer
[Reply]