If that's the case then even $25mil a year is too much for him. If Superbowl odds don't change if you lose him, why would you even pay that much?

I want a tougher path to the SB!

Because when Chris Jones gets injured, the fundamental nature of the defensive strategy will change. A new player will be the best player on defense. And that new defense - and it's fundamental nature - will still be capable of winning the super bowl.

By this stream of logic, surely you’d agree that the Chiefs SB chances wouldn’t change if they lost Kelce?

Can you imagine paying a defensive player the second most of any in the sport if his absence didn’t impact your odds of winning a championship?

Yea, I'm guessing a package of a 2nd and 3rd or 4th at best, but there are dumb GMs out there. However, I will be shocked if Jones doesn't sign and lock in the guaranteed dollars this week.

That right there is the entire reason why he's not in camp yet. Because there is a mathematical threshold where investing more money in a player who you can win without becomes unsound.

It isn't about losing Chris Jones' level of play. It's about losing the opportunity cost that goes out the window with his cap hit. Guys think that cap number is something that happens in the front office and is never seen on the field.

Cap number is directly observable on the field. The Chiefs are $20M in the pot already on Jones for this year. Him not playing is sunk opportunity cost, and you can't get that back.

The question now is how much more you're willing to chase that, thus further exposing yourself to future lost opportunity.

But the idea that the team can't withstand Jones not playing is laughable. Does it make it harder? Almost certainly. But this team lives and dies with Mahomes, and no one else.

man, I don't know...

Because that's what the Jets did. In fact, their odds went from +1600 in june to +1700 now.

You are starting to catch on... In any year we have a chance with a healthy Mahomes. If we overpay for Jones, that's hurts our chances down the road as much as losing Jones may hurt our chances in the short run. To have sustained success, you don't pay aging players top of market. The Patriots gave us the blueprint for when you have one of the GOAT QBs. $27 mil per on a 4 year deal with $70 guaranteed should do it...

....what?


So the chiefs should have never even engaged in contract talks with Chris Jones right? I mean, according to your logic, they can easily replace him and his production.

not what is being said

You don't think Chris Jones has at least 3 elite/great years left in him?

You're saying that losing Jones doesn't change our Superbowl odds and that if he got injured, we would be able to fundamentally change the defense on the fly and still win.

How do you do that if it isn't easy to replace his production and what he brings to the team?

easy things aren't the only possible things

absolutely not...

Reports say Chris is asking for $31.5 per... We should be at the most $26-27 per. That extra $4.5 mill a year absolutely effects your roster and if you can't get there, you have $26 or $27 mil to sign others, and try the best you can to replace some of Jones production. Salary cap sucks. The Steelers never had to decide between Franco Harris, Terry Bradshaw, Lynn Swann, Jack Lambert, or Mean Joe Greene....

I actually don't..

His best years of his career are far away when he wanted a new contract...also if you do a breakdown of DT's less than 10% continued to be elite after the age of 29...one of the most prominent was John Randle who was honestly more productive than Jones before 30.