Great stuff! They're really high on Coleman and Worthy.

They also like Franklin, Walker, and Burton.

The last 4 would fit KC's prototypical type IMO.
[Reply]

Man I don't like Coleman, at all. Just absolutely awful separation. Probably the one guy I'd be truly bummed if we took in R1. Franklin, maybe Walker, possibly Legette, maybe Mitchell works but I'm cooling a bit on him. Just not Coleman
[Reply]

We need a speedy kid that tracks the ball well down the field, has intelligence and wants to be great.

The tracking the ball thing may be the most important trait right now.

You've got Rice. You need the speedy deep threat.
[Reply]

I just don't wanna pigeonhole it into a "deep threat guy".

There's a few deep threat types I like in the mid rounds here that can specifically do that, but if we're gonna take one early....I'd take a shot on a guy I thought can be more than a complimentary type guy.
[Reply]

Roman Wilson in the 3rd round is an idea
[Reply]

I’ll no doubt going to change my mind 10+ times until the offseason.

But my current flavor of the week is bringing in Ridley or Hollywood Brown (Higgins likely tagged). And getting that deep threat in the second or third

I personally think Rice could take a huge step in his route running after being around a guy like Ridley.
[Reply]

I think we need to recognize a couple things.

A) The middle of RD2 has been a spot for WR runs of late. We've had to trade into the middle of the round to get 'our' guy.

B) We don't have the draft capital we've had in years past that allows us to move up in that 2nd round as easily without sacrificing capital in the 2025 draft.

C) Veach has been typically reluctant to move the next year's picks to move up; at least anything more than a day 3 pick.

Which is to say that if you're looking at a guy who you think 'might be a value at the back of round 2' then he's probably going around 50 in the draft. And if you think he's going to 50 and you can't get there, you're probably going to end up drafting him in the 1st or you're going to lose him altogether.

If you see Walker as someone who 'would be a value at the back of 2' then you should pretty much accept that we'll have to take him at the back of 1 based on our present standing and recent trends at the position in the draft. You're not 'reaching' for the 50th ranked player at 32 (for example) - you're simply taking the guy when you can because you're not going to get him at 64.
[Reply]

Agreed, the idea of who is a 1st/2nd/3rd round talent by most estimates is skewed by the fact that we're always picking at the end of the round, so you very well might be taking someone who is estimated to go a round later than where you take them. A potential 2nd rd talent may have to be taken in the 1st, just the way it is.

The flipside though is if you are picking somewhere between 29-32 in the 1st and after pick 60 in the 2nd and you see a group of WRs you like who may not be there by the 2nd rd pick, maybe trade down 5-10 spots out of the 1st and add something like an extra 3rd or 5th (or whatever the trade value would be). Obviously takes 2 to tango, but that's an ideal scenario that helps to add additional draft capital in a year in which our picks are limited to begin with.
[Reply]

My issue with doing that is, you end up taking the WR who's around 50 player wise and miss out on the TE that's the 2nd best TE in the class or whatever.
[Reply]

I think they could double-up on that in this draft. The WR room needs a boost.

Take one in the 1st/2nd. Take another in the 3rd or on Day 3. It's a deep WR draft, take advantage of that.

Getting, say, Franklin or Legette in the 1st or early 2nd (if you trade back just a spot or 2 from 32) and then pairing them with someone like Roman Wilson could be really fun.

You get a bigger X who is a legit deep threat on his own with other skills, PLUS a typical Reid-style little burner guy who can run all the deep routes in combination with the other new deep threat. You know, the stuff the Chiefs like to use to make DBs break their rules deep. LIke WASP.
[Reply]

I don't think we'll get a shot at Coleman, he's an alpha WR 1. Best moxy in the draft as far as I can tell. I get the impression he'll be massively successful despite his lack of separation. The guy just has that "it" factor. He's big, tall, fast, and never drops the ball. Plus he's a playmaker and returner. He's an ex-basketball guy, he doesn't need separation, he likes to box defenders out and rise up and snatch the ball over them like a rebound I think.

I'm really high on Coleman right now after watching his highlights, like him better than Legette probably.

Dude gives me Dez Bryant, Michael Irving, Keyshawn Johnson-type vibes.
[Reply]

The idea I was trying to promote is that there are probably a few guys worthy of being "our guy" that will fall to us in the 2nd and we'll get the opportunity to choose from a few attractive options. Especially if we score a quality WR in FA. Let's not forget that we're on our way to the SB already with the group we've got.

BUT to add to your comment above, I do think it is very Chiefs'like for us to try and move up into the 2nd to target our preferred choice at WR. I agree that we would likely spend this year's draft capital to move up, rather than future draft picks, OR maybe a player? ...I'm wondering if we might move Sneed or Jones on a Tag and Trade that get's us a mid or top of 2nd pick, or at least the draft capital for us to offer a package of picks to move up for our guy.

Say we're planning on signing Jones and there's a partner for a Sneed tag and trade, maybe TEN at #38....we'd have some really interesting options. You could take Legette and Worthy, Franklin and Sanders, or trade up for Coleman, etc... I don't hate it.

What would you guys expect to get from a Sneed tag & trade? And who would you take with the extra pick?
[Reply]

My attitude throughout has been to double dip at WR. This is the year to fix the WR room for the next 3-4. BUT...I've cooled on the approach a little. There's just a lot of guys we need to replace or plan to replace. If we resign D Smith I think I'd go for 2 WRs. If not I'm getting a WR but then looking at LT and DT early, as well as LB, guard, TE, safety. Getting to be a long list.

On the point of us potentially having to take a guy in the 1st who's more like a mid 2nd guy, I just don't think it's an issue this year. Seems to be a tonne of guys evaluated as late 1st, early 2nd types. If we pick WR I think it's a guy at worst we're saying is a top 40 talent.
[Reply]

Exactly the type that Reid pretty well never employs.
[Reply]

Truth, but it might be fun to do something different.
[Reply]