Originally Posted by RunKC:
He played LG in the Denver game and was the backup LG in the SB. Very possible that if Trey is paid that Thuney will be here in 2025 and then Kingsley takes over in 2026.
Okay, so leave him at LT and if he doesn't develop then put him at G. Throwing him into the interior OL mix in 2025 would be really dumb if Trey Smith is extended. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Do you see how we've gone from "Veach can't draft OTs" to "Veach can't draft OL" and now it seems like you jsut are trying to say "Veach can't draft".
Again, the Chiefs are one of the best drafting teams the last several years, and that's despite having it harder than any other team. If that's not good enough for you, your expectations are the problem.
I mean, the fact that you're complaining about last year's draft when Worthy was fucking fantastic, Kingsley looks like he can at least start at G, and Hicks looked like a stud speaks volumes. The problem here is 100% YOUR EXPECTATIONS.
If we sign Smith to an extension, that pretty much mean Kingsley can’t play G as a starter. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
If we sign Smith to an extension, that pretty much mean Kingsley can’t play G as a starter.
Just stop. It could just as easily mean that they still believe in him at LT, or they like him for Thuney's replacement after 2025.
It's so obvious that you're desperately trying to paint a narrative. No, if they re-sign Smith, it does not mean that they've given up all hope on Kingsley as a starter on the OL. That's just reeruned. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
So we should expect from the last 2 drafts just having 3 starters, and 2 rotation players? I’ll give a pass to Wiley cuz he got injured. 14 players drafted, 3 starters, and 2 spot players?
This ain't Madden, my dude. It's not about raw numbers of picks, it's about when they were taken. Even getting special teams contributors on Day 3 is a success. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
FWIW I don’t like Dianna. Ya’ll hate on Nate Taylor for his info but this dumb bitch guaranteed we were getting a 1st for Sneed last year.
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
This ain't Madden, my dude. It's not about raw numbers of picks, it's about when they were taken. Even getting special teams contributors on Day 3 is a success.
Anybody that watched week 18 says "that Nourzad looked pretty good for a day 3 rookie". At worst, he looked like solid depth on a rookie deal.
This guy: "Clearly another wasted OL pick!" [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Anybody that watched week 18 says "that Nourzad looked pretty good for a day 3 rookie". At worst, he looked like solid depth on a rookie deal.
This guy: "Clearly another wasted OL pick!"
Says the guy who thinks grooming a second round pick for OG should take 2 years and waste 2 years of rookie contract. People act like Veach is above criticism. [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
When you're picking in the top 20 it's easy to say you're going to find a way to fix LT in the draft
At 31, I just don't see it. Massive gamble, lot of teams aren't going to take their call seriously.
So IF they do retain Smith, all I can say is it probably says they still like Kingsley at LT.
DeCosta just said they are optimistic about keeping Ronnie Stanley.
The LT FA class and draft class is not good folks. Neither is this FA class in general.
And I think Veach’s thought process is that there isn’t anyone outside of Trey that they want to spend huge money on, as well as not making this OL even worse next year.
I’m not on the same page but I understand the logic behind it [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
Says the guy who thinks grooming a second round pick for OG should take 2 years and waste 2 years of rookie contract. People act like Veach is above criticism.
Fair criticism:
Despite a lack of investment and picking late, Veach hasn't been able to find a diamond in the rough at LT like he does other positions. Of course that's because LT is hard to find, but he needs to get it right this year. It's been an issue for too long.
Unfair criticism:
Veach can't draft OL!
Do you see the difference? It's a lack of any nuance whatsoever. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
DeCosta just said they are optimistic about keeping Ronnie Stanley.
The LT FA class and draft class is not good folks. Neither is this FA class in general.
And I think Veach’s thought process is that there isn’t anyone outside of Trey that they want to spend huge money on, as well as not making this OL even worse next year.
I’m not on the same page but I understand the logic behind it
The 'how bout those CHIEFS' guy said in recent video that Chiefs org insiders state that right now the plan to fix LT is bring in an LT vet and have them compete against an upcoming draft pick. That to me says the Chiefs are going to move up in the draft to select a viable LT option, they have the draft capital to do so.
I don't know who his 'Chiefs insiders' are but with about 300k subscribers I would think it would be someone somewhat close to the ground on this, could be total crapola. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
DeCosta just said they are optimistic about keeping Ronnie Stanley.
The LT FA class and draft class is not good folks. Neither is this FA class in general.
And I think Veach’s thought process is that there isn’t anyone outside of Trey that they want to spend huge money on, as well as not making this OL even worse next year.
I’m not on the same page but I understand the logic behind it
That's reactive roster building. "Playing scared" so to speak.
It's an awful, awful plan.
"Well it might be hard to find a better solution at LT so lets just bring back a similar OL but make it a LOT more expensive..."
That cannot be the plan.
Because frankly, Smith in a vacuum wasn't worth the salary he'll command. He just wasn't that good this year. A top 15 guard, almost certainly. He MIGHT be one of the 20-25 best pass-blocking OGs in football.
And we couldn't run the ball for shit with him, so I'm not sure he moves the needle as much as we insist he does in the running game.
Set aside any cap considerations for a moment and just look at the player and the cost -- it's simply a bad decision. You don't pay top of the market money for a 2nd tier position and a guy who's -- generously -- top 10 there but with clear holes in his game (that happen to align really poorly with what we want to do).
The Chiefs shouldn't bring him back.
And the area where this team has gotten itself in the most trouble is with its own guys. Mostly they've been veterans they refuse to cut bait on (Sorensen, Watkins, Clark) but this would be similar. They cannot let inertia win here. If Trey Smith were a free agent from the Vikings looking for this contract, there's simply no way we'd give it to him.
And there's ZERO chance anyone here would support doing so or "see the logic in it".
This is a really bad decision.
I don't trust the reporting for that reason. That or it is little more than a PR play to lessen the sting if/when he leaves. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
If we sign Smith to an extension, that pretty much mean Kingsley can’t play G as a starter.
Or they drafted and started him at LT so after two games as a starter theyre not going to pigeon hole an elite prospect into one spot. Especially when the other spot is one of the hardest to fill in the NFL. [Reply]