Thanks! And thoughts on the final draft grade?
 

Just wanted to give a hat tip to a few people here for their work over the draft season.

Dante for the visits tracker and insane work on getting info on the picks up so quickly

Crow for the immense detail and knowledge provided on prospects. I always learn stuff from you each year. Much appreciated.

Staylor for the mock draft. Amazed we made it, thanks for putting in the effort to keep it on the road man

Coach for starting loads of interesting threads to ponder and general enthusiasm for all things draft. You seem like a real solid dude as well.

And then there's a load of you who know loads more than I do about scheme fits and specific skillsets etc.which includes those above, but also DJ, Duncan, Chris Meck, Run...probably loads of others.

Thanks all, I really enjoy this time of year, and I'm pretty happy with how this year's draft has gone. Reckon I'd give it an -A. What do you think?

A lot of risk with Simmons and ONL, but Veach and Co did their due diligence and signed off on them. This draft has insane potential to be one the best, excluding the Mahomes draft. I’ll go with a solid A-. Love it so far.

Thanks, OP. I'm just a big old nerd with too much time on his hands and a brain that doesn't stop until I'm asleep.

Here's my thoughts on grade:

Present: B+.
I actually really like everything the Chiefs did in this draft, aside from the amount of risk they took on in Round 1. Royals and Smith are excellent fits and should help add some explosion back to the offense. Williams and Bassa and Gillotte are all immediate nice depth pieces, and possible future starters. Anudike-Uzomah doesn't take a step? Fine. Flush him and slide in Gillotte as your cheap partner for Karlaftis on his second deal. Tranquill sucks ass again in coverage? Bassa offers an alternative. Watson gets hurt, Fulton gets hurt, Josh Williams continues to make the staff not trust him? Hello, Nohl. Norman-Lott is probably never a starter, but you can see the value of the player.

So why is it a B+ if I love that all so much? It's Josh Simmons.

I'll reference the Barney Stinson crazy-hot X-Y axis theorem. We'll call it the Duncan Idaho Draft Nerd Risk-Reward X-Y axis. Theory goes, a potential partner must be as hot as they are crazy. If they are crazier than they are hot, you should stay away. For me, Simmons' potential reward factor IS significant. Like, a 9 on a scale of 10. The problem is that I see the risk factor as a true 10/10. The risk is as bad as it can get. I will acknowledge that some might disagree and see the reward factor as higher, or the risk factor as lower (though I think you're layering on an awful lot of hope in that case). But for me, this pick by itself is a D. Maybe a D+ if I inflate my grades a bit.

Simmons - D+ (which, if the team is right, morphs into an A+)
Norman-Lott - B
Gillotte - B+
Williams - A
Royals - A+
Bassa - B+
Smith - A+

Potential: A+.
Because if Simmons is healthy, he's going to be an above-average LT.

OP is spot on! This place rocks! Thanks to all you guys!

I’d give every pick a B- to A, except Simmons.

I almost just have to give that an incomplete for now. My grade would be such a wide range on that one.

I think I'm very close to your evaluation of all of those picks, and agree that the Simmons pick really muddies the water.

Simmons - Man, i didn't like the risk. Factoring in the upside, I guess I'd say - C-

ONL - B - I'm lower than other guys here, but he did look like maybe the best left. I think even at 24 and with worse competition I might have gone Alexander

Gillotte - B+

Williams - B+ - great fit, not sure I wanted that pick at that point with Starks around

Royals - A

Bassa - B

Smith - A

Minus the risk of Simmons, there's none i dislike in isolation.

Here’s what PFF says. Their grades are dumb, but I like their draft stuff a lot more. They seem to be somewhat close to what the Chiefs like to do.

KANSAS CITY CHIEFS: A

1 (32): T Josh Simmons, Ohio State

Simmons — After watching Patrick Mahomes get pressured over 40% of the time in the Super Bowl, the Chiefs look to give their franchise quarterback some time to do what he does best. Simmons is coming off a season-ending knee injury but showed impressive movement skills, flexibility and balance at the left tackle position. He allowed just one sack the past two years and posted an 82.2 true pass set pass-blocking grade in 2024.

2 (63): Dl Omarr Norman-Lott, Tennessee

Norman-Lott — Norman-Lott was arguably the best true pass-rushing defensive tackle in this draft class. His 18.9% pass-rush win rate led the nation, and his 88.3 true pass set pass-rush grade ranked above the 95th percentile. Norman-Lott plays with violence and speed and should provide the Chiefs with another pass-rushing force to rotate into their lineup.

3 (66): ED Ashton Gillotte, Louisville

Gillotte — The Chiefs have bolstered the trenches with their first-, second- and third-round picks. Gillotte is an effective pass rusher, earning an 89.9 pass-rush grade in 2024. He is also a stout run defender, who posted run-defense grades of 84.8 and 78.0 in 2023 and 2024, respectively.

3 (85): CB Nohl Williams, Cal

Williams — The Chiefs love their press-man cornerbacks, and Williams fits that mold. His length and physicality are exactly what defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo looks for in his defensive backs. His seven interceptions in 2024 powered his 80.0 PFF overall grade.

4 (133): WR Jalen Royals, Utah State

Royals — Royals can play inside or outside and brings some depth to the Chiefs’ wide receiver group. The No. 60 overall player on the PFF Big Board earned an 80.6 PFF receiving grade in 2024.

5 (156): LB Jeffrey Bassa, Oregon

Bassa — Bassa began his career at Oregon as a safety before making more of an impact as an off-ball linebacker. Throughout his career, he’s shown a good ability as an effective blitzer, which fits very well within Spagnuolo’s defensive scheme.

2 (228): RB Brashard Smith, SMU

Smith — The Chiefs get an offensive weapon and a tremendous value with Brashard Smith. He is a former wide receiver who transitioned to running back at SMU, and his receiving chops showed up in his 90.8 PFF receiving grade in 2024. Kansas City can get creative with his usage.

Id just like to say thanks to everyone who puts in the work here. I got promoted in October and didnt have the time to even dabble like I’ve done the last two years. Wednesday morning a good friend, that I’ve coached youth sports with for 4 years, died tragically. He saved his wife and oldest son in the process. He left five kids and a half remodeled house behind. I’ve been an absolute wreck since. Any time that I wasn’t at their place or at work I’ve immersed myself in the draft forum. You guys unknowingly helped me keep it together when a hurting family and team of 12 year old football and baseball boys needed me to have it together.

Also sorry to anyone I may have been overly aggressive with about Simmons. I’ve let my life spill into my takes on that knee a little.

I love this place, it’s the best place on the World Wide Web.

We got you, bro.

Hang in there. I’m sorry about your friend but as a dad and husband know that’s a trade I’d make every day of the week and twice on Sunday and have no regrets.

100%. He died a hero and changed the headline from three dead to one.

Saved his 17 year old who’s already been in contact with a few colleges including Texas A&M about playing OL for them. He would have been watching OL draft prospects for size and speed all weekend.

I give the draft a solid B. Not high on the Simmons pick but I think they got good value everywhere but arguably Norman Lott for me. And I can see the path for him.

After careful consideration, and being really critical about this draft Brett Veach put together, I think I am going to give it a grade of: B.

I would grade it higher, but looking over the list, I feel like we only got four first ballot hall of famers and maybe one multiple pro bowler. Veach needs to do better next year.

Why do you hate the Chiefs?

I’m giving it an A- grade.

I’ve been on the Simmons bandwagon since the start, didn’t think he’d fall to us but was stoked we were able to get him. Add to that an additional 5th round pick, very impressive.

In my opinion, Lott and Gilotte could really make this draft. If those two turn our pass rush up, this draft was lights out.

Love the Williams pick, we could really use a ballhawk in the secondary.

Royals and Smith were great value picks. I especially LOVED the Smith pick, he’s been my guy all draft season, he’s a perfect fit for Andy.

I frequently mocked Simmons, Williams, and Smith for us and was stoked to see us take a few of “my guys”. Was also really happy with the positions taken, starting with 3 straight trench guys, sealing up the LT spot, investing in pass rushers, grabbing the top ball hawk, and adding a couple of home run threats with clear paths to playing time in the later rounds. Chef’s kiss.

I've moved my Simmons grade up to a C/C+.

A -- I wasn't quite as out on him as you were to start. I'd have very possibly gambled on him with a 2 anyway. So if you figure I'd have probably taken him with that Titans 3rd at worst (as I wouldn't have felt like I needed to take Gillotte until the end of 3), we took him about 35 spots sooner than I would've. That's a disconnect, but not a horrifying one.

B -- the way the rest of the draft went kinda took some of the sting out of the opportunity cost.

If we take Burden at 32, we probably don't take Royals. If we take Henderson we don't take Smith. It just makes the 'math' difficult when I'm trying to figure opportunity cost for either of them. Ezeiruaku is another guy that I'd have looked really hard at there but I wonder if he's just a little too small for Spags.

So in trying to come up with a pure proxy without having to take anyone else off, I'm' looking at maybe Sanders (who can play the Nose), JT Tuimoloau, Mason Taylor, Nic Scourton.

I sait it in the Simmons thread -- the interesting question, and what would've kept this in the D range for me due purely to risk and opportunity cost, is Conerly. Had he been there and we'd have taken Simmons instead, that would've been too much for me.

As it stands, I still wouldn't have done it. But the rest of the draft mitigated some of that opportunity cost.

So I'll give it a C(ish) pick.

Draft as a whole then gets a B+. If only because I can't give a 1st round pick a C and then the draft writ large an A.

The player I'd have ended up losing out of this draft is Nohl Williams.

As I play around with the draft and what I'd have likely done, I just can't see a scenario where I take Williams. It's just awfully hard to know exactly, but I kinda scratch my head whenever I hear "this is such a Spags corner" when he's lived on ball skills and zone ability.

He looks pretty rough in man. And while he's generally physical, I just worry we won't be able to risk him in press because if he doesn't jam the shit out of the guy, he doesn't have the fluidity or burst to stay with him if he frees on the release. And we don't have the athleticism at safety to really cover for that.

Honestly, as I look at Williams I see a Spags safety much more than a Spags corner.

And to be completely honest, I would LOVE him at that spot. If we decided to convert him to FS, I think he and Hicks could be a dynamite long-term pairing back there. And we talk about Watson as though losing him is a foregone conclusion but guys Cook is also a pending FA and has done a HELL of a lot less to deserve a second contract here than Watson has.

I just kinda wonder if Williams won't end up at safety when it's all said and done. And he may be a real monster there if he does.

Was Kendall Fuller the corner we had who looked much better at safety when Thornhill got hurt?

He did move to it and had a pick in the Super Bowl. Kind of a hybrid slot and safety IIRC.

They're likely going to lose both Cook and Watson, the Williams pick protects that Fulton has a tendency to miss a couple games every year and Watson just missed games last year.

I think it shows how much they do not want to end up in a spot where McDuffie has to play outside and they're stuck with Nazeeh and Josh Williams again.

Love the draft.

Main reason is that I think the Simmons doomers are overplaying the risk.

The Chiefs looked at his leg and felt good about it. I said if they cleared him I would be excited as the player has Pro Bowl left tackle potential.

Other than the Lott pick every other player seemed like good value and fit a need after.

Liked Royals but didn't love him. Either way I think we broke the streak with Royals of not drafting a playable WR after the 2nd round.

Fuller looked great as a NCB in Washington, looked...fine...as a boundary corner here. Then he had a nice playoff run as a sort of single high specialist after Thornhill went down.

We kinda tried to make him a CB1 and it was just asking a little too much of him, though he was certainly credible in that role.

Pretty close to Duncan here at B+, except I was higher on Gillotte than Williams.

I had us at a B- at the end of day 2. I was frustrated but wanted to wait until the end of the draft. Glad I was patient bc Day 3 was what really made this draft for me. I love the Royals and Smith picks so much. We helped our QB and got so much value.

This has been the response by 99% of this board despite the fact that the entire population of players with this injury was compiled to show the risk. I shared it with everyone, and yet the general response remains the same. It's not people overplaying the risk, it is the risk. It's not a representative sample of some segment of players with this injury, it is the entire population. It's like, you can't really refute it. It is it.

The reality of the situation is that we have no idea if this pick is going to work out, and the Chiefs cannot say with any certainty that it will. In Burkholder's opinion, the injury looks as good as it could. That doesn't change 25 years of proof that even the best cases seldom result in a player returning to form. It's okay to be optimistic, but it's another thing to turn a blind eye to reality. Could he return 100% to pre-injury form? Yes. Could it turn out to be a good pick? Yes. We have to hope an incredibly rare thing happens.

You can be optimistic and look at about 60% of all players return to football, but then, when you look at returning to play as many games as they did pre-injury, that number drops to 29%. You look at returning to some metric of prior performance, that number drops to 24%. That's all players, and not all players have to generate power like offensive linemen. Those stats are much more grim. You start looking at 35% return to play and 6% return to play as many games, and return to prior performance. That means the risk is incredibly high. It's not zero, but if you're looking at 30/70 as your most likely best-case odds and 6/94 as reality, it's also a long way from 50/50, much less 80/20 or 90/10 like the populace here seems to think it is.

The stats are there to formulate an educated opinion. It's the reason Burkholder wasn't too keen on it at the onset. Burkholder might feel like Simmons can beat the odds. And hey, we have to hope he does, but I'd say don't tell people that they are overplaying the risk. If anything, most are downplaying the risk.

I spend way too much time thinking about football during the fall as is, so I don't do even the shallowest of dives into the draft. I do enjoy reading y'all's stuff though so, thanks. I think this is an A draft, personally.

im sure J. Paul Schroeppel, MD, the main ortho surgeon that is on the sidelines and the field EVERY Chiefs game signed off on the surgery being ok...the rehab is a different story Im afraid...thats where Burkholder comes in

Problem is you are adding in everyone with similar injury.

In this case we aren't getting a random player with the injury but with someone we got to peek into the box with.

I am not saying there is no risk but that the 75% are never the same is Doomer projections.

I don't think the Chiefs draft him if they thought his chance was less than 50% there.

How much higher is it?

Unknown.

Keep downvoting my ****ing posts. ****ing christ.

The issue is that...you can't know. Like has been said ad nauseum, with stuff like this it's not about the surgery or how it looks now.

Sure, they can comment on how it looks and if the grafts were good and if the joint looks sound now.

That's great.

The problem with this injury is that ... well, that's not all there is to it. Until you're completely cleared and trying to max out his use of that leg/joint, you don't know if the knee is as good as it was before.

No, dude. We are not adding in "everyone with a similar injury." The orthopaedic research doctors who did the study on this that was accepted through peer review and published to PubMed is what is referenced, and it separates patellar tendon injuries from quad injuries.

It is not Doomer projection to look at the NFL and NBA guys who have had this injury over the past 25 years and say 75 percent were never the same.

It is basic math.

The risks here are about as risky as risks can get. If he comes back and his knee is 100 percent the same and his abilities and level of play is exactly the same, he will be one of 1-3 EXTREME outliers.

all I was saying was that the Chiefs ortho doctors signed off on the surgery looking ok..thats about all they can do at this point.
I agree that the next part doesnt look great at all

Not me.


:thumb:

Right there I don't care.

I don't care to add in people from 25 years ago because surgeries in this area have reported to been far more successful recently.


You also are including people that had the injury and unsuccessful surgery.

Chiefs determined it went well.

Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.

It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.

Chiefs staff has relevant information we do not have.

I wish they would be even more transparent about what their risk calculations were but that's unlikely to happen.

What I can say is do you actually think the Chiefs medical staff think they only have a 25% success rate here?

;)

This is a thread about personal opinions and personal grades on the draft.

For me, the risk factor based on the information available to me is too high to give the Simmons pick a passing grade.


That’s, like, my opinion man. I believe the Chiefs staff when they say everything looks as good as it possibly could, in their opinions. And I hope they have some way of testing the explosion and strength and flexibility of the repaired joint. But until we hear something or see the player performing, I’ll need to see to believe.

Haven't had a chance to look at all of them but I'm getting some beast mode vibes off ONL for sure. Eye of the Tiger look.

:rockon:

Literally nobody has said that.

We've said one of 2 things -- and really, a combination of both.

1) The Chiefs risk tolerance is higher than ours would be for a pick that early.
2) The Chiefs view the reward of Simmons higher than we would.

I don't know how many times this can be said - nobody is offering a medical opinion. About as close to it as any of us has offered is what amounts to a truism as it relates to surgeries -- outcomes are determined by the rehab.

We say the Chiefs medical staff CAN'T know how that's going to work out because the joint isn't even completely healed yet -- by their own admission. So they're projecting risk and weighing reward. It's no different than taking a small school prospect who doesn't run a complete route tree in the second round. They can weigh that risk vs. that reward and determine that Skyy Moore is a worthwhile selection in the 2nd round because they're willing to project that he'll be able to develop that area of his game. They got the projection wrong. And there projection here, while educated and informed, is still just projection. Because Simmons is about halfway through his recovery/rehab process.

We can say this a million times over and in a hundred different ways and there will STILL be folks like you that militantly refuse to get it. You absolutely insist on the same old tired saws that are - every single year - proven to be silly. "Do you think you know more than the Chiefs?!?!"

I mean...we get stuff right that they get wrong every year. No, we don't know more on balance. Yes, we might just have one specific issue/area right.

And in this case it has nothing to do with our ability to read diagnostic imaging. It's simply our risk tolerance and how we view the respective rewards. This has been the case for over a month now and has been explained repeatedly.

It's even been refined in some cases -- I took the 'risk' element down as the rest of the draft played out and the opportunity cost of busting on that pick diminished as the board played out. My grade went up, not because I earned a medical degree, but because I was comfortable turning the risk knob down a bit. So even though the reward knob didn't change, the overall calculus did.

I'm not sure how many more ways this can be said to get you to listen. Or you can refuse to bat at straw men - really no skin off my ass either way. It's been made ABUNDANTLY clear what led to dissent here; 'insane' to you or not. It's really not my fault you refuse to understand it.

Honestly....I kinda think they might.

The only thing that might've given us a dispositive answer either way is had Conerly still been on the board and they still took Simmons.

I think this pick actually became more about opportunity cost than it was about medical risk. I think they looked at their board and decided that the healing went well ENOUGH to keep him on the board. Which they can easily say at this point in the draft -- the surgery didn't fail.

So then it just comes down to them saying "Alright, from the tape we think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT if healthy. And a 25% chance he gets back to where he was. So there's a 20% chance he's a plus starting LT for the next decade. Meanwhile #2 on our board is Nic Scourton and there's a 70% chance he'll be a solid DE for us. But there's this guy Gillotte who we think we can get 30 picks later who's odds are about the same.

So **** it -- lets spin the wheel and take our chances..."

I think when it came down to it, the opportunity cost just wasn't terribly high for them and they had a specific area they wanted to address; which was corroborated by Andy's quote saying they were targeting LT in the 1st round.

I won't speak for Crow or Duncan, but I think almost all of you are speaking PAST my point. And it's only that I don't think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT when healthy and I DO think the opportunity cost was higher than the Chiefs did. Though I have again acknowledged that it did come down a bit as the draft progressed.

At that point it's a strict player evaluation question. And yes, many of us HAVE gotten that question right when Veach has gotten it wrong. Even if he'll be right 9 times out of 10, it shouldn't close off discussion that this is that 1 time that us dumb schlubs on the internet got one over on him. It's happened before (Moore, Speaks, MEH, FAU) and it'll happen again.

Yeah, I have no issue with someone not liking the pick or saying the risk is higher than they would like and wanting a perfectly healthy player.


But to think the Chiefs agree with your negative assessment probability as 25% and took him anyway is too much to accept.


No way do they agree with that number. And I think NFL teams have far better info to calculate risk than guys on a message board adding in players from 25 years ago or players that were near retirement anyway.

{shrug}

Okay.

Do you think the Giants think there's more than a 25% chance that Jaxson Dart is a franchise quarterback?

I don't.

When a team -- correct or otherwise -- is desperate at a critical position of extreme scarcity, their appetite for risk is going to increase substantially. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that. Especially when you guys have spent days (weeks, months, years) arguing "Well it's just a pick at the back of the 1st round -- not even really a first rounder..."

If that's to be taken as legitimate -- there's not even THAT much risk. Afterall -- it's not REALLY a first rounder, right?

The rest of your nonsense is based on the same set of false premises you guys really seem to enjoy working within. So fine, knock yourself out.

On Dart? Probably. But the floor is also a calculation there and if they get a decent enough starter at 65 percent that pick looks fine.


With respect to Simmons, you are all saying the Chiefs are stupid. I don't believe that.


Because if the real calc is 25% then taking Simmons is stupid.


Would need to be at least 50% to make that pick.

That's where I think they are at. How much higher I don't know but I believe our medical staff has a better than 50% calculation on Simmons.

we could have drafted Henderson instead...its not like there weren't any good impactful high second round players available...not my call, keeping my head down

I let my little one take revenge by telling her to click the thumb down on as many posts as she liked. I had to stop her when she started to downvote everyone that said nothing of consequence lol

No, I don't think Burkholder and staff don't know WTF they are doing. That said, they can't make this guy a success either.

Do you think the Ravens second-guess their decision to take David Ojabo at the 45th pick in 2022, despite his Achilles injury, because he looked to be "healing well?" I bet they do.

You can't turn these terrible injuries into a positive.

Veach plainly said that Burkholder didn't like the idea when he first heard what the injury was. That should at least indicate to you something about his knowledge of the severity. The staff prompted him to evaluate him anyhow, and he gave a positive endorsement that it was healing as good as it could be. That doesn't say anything about Burkholder feeling he was going to be a successful pick. All it means is that Simmons at least has the potential to beat the odds.

Even the most recent of injuries haven't had good outcomes.

The good thing about this year? We get to truly have a great sample of this "modern procedure" as 4 offensive linemen attempt to come back from it: Simmons (age 21), Cole Strange (NE, age 26), D'Ante Smith (CIN, age 26), and Trent Brown (HOU, age 32). LB Nakobe Dean (PHI, age 24) and RB Chris Evans (CIN, age 27) also tore theirs last season. Crazy that the Bengals had 3 guys tear it in one season (Trent Brown tore it with them and signed with Houston for this year).

DE Bradley Chubb (MIA) tore his in 2023 and missed all of 2024. WR Russell Gage (TB) tore his in 2023 during camp and missed the entire year. He ended up cut by Baltimore and spent all of 2024 on the SF PS. WR Jakeem Grant (CLE) tore his in 2023 and missed the year. He tried to come back last year but was twice cut by the Falcons. So far 2/3 are pretty much toast, we get to find out about Chubb this year.

I don’t believe the Chiefs are stupid. I think their front office is the opposite of that. But even Veach and company make mistakes. They have taken players due to “needs” before that haven’t worked. So even though I’m one of their biggest defenders, generally, I still can see mistakes made.

I do think they were more willing to take on risk here. Clearly they view the reward as more likely than I do.

Whether that’s based on hope or more information than we have as Joe Public or some combination of the two, I don’t know.

Maybe Burkholder and staff were able to out him through workouts that measured his full strength and we just haven’t heard about it, and the 225 pound squat thing was a smokescreen. IDK.

Every scenario has nuances, and are different however. Chubb’s injury was much more significant than the patellar tendon. He tore his ACL and meniscus also. Much worse. Grant was coming back from an Achilles tear when he tore his patellar tendon. Different than Simmons. Time will tell, and no two injuries are the same.

For Burkholder to be skeptical initially, given his KNOWLEDGE (that includes data, studies, and other relevant precedents) and, after a thorough examination, sign off on Simmons' knee - which, from all accounts, is far ahead of schedule in terms of healing - should indicate to you that Burkholder and the Chiefs are, at the very minimum, optimistic about his recovery.

Nobody is trying to "turn a bad injury into a positive". But Burkholder, a leading authority in the field, endorsed Simmons' progress. That's enough for me to feel good or at least cautiously optimistic about the pick going forward. That may not be enough for you and others and that's completely understandable. But let's not sit here and present studies, data, etc. and even remotely imply that the Chiefs didn't already do their due diligence. That's bullsh*t.

No one is suggesting the Chiefs didn't do due diligence. I'm confident they did everything they could and know everything they could about that knee... at this point in time.

The risk I see is that the biggest risk with this type of injury cannot really be/is not really being measured yet, if all the guy is squatting is 225 pounds. At this point in his recovery, unless they've done stuff they didn't talk about, they can't have a firm answer on that yet. They can project. They can hope. They can decide the risk is worth the reward.

We really can’t separate the chiefs don’t know wtf they’re doing from I don’t like the risk? Come one guys. And who’s the down vote douche bag?

Eh - don't worry 'bout it.

You wouldn't know him.

A man's gotta have hobbies...

Maybe this hobbies not for him.

We have no choice but to be optimistic. Optimism is great. I just choose not to blindly ignore that history, even the most recent of it, is not kind when it comes to this particular injury. It's a blood flow site and players still come back from it at a low clip. All we have is hope he's in that small percentage.

I don't know who it is, but the surest sign that someone knows they have no tangible response is a thumbs down on a post that is completely balanced, nuanced, and logical.

But this is a message board. Lot of smooth brains who can't understand nuance on these...

How do we check who thumbs down a post? Or can't we? This is a thing one must know.

helpful answers under user CP

Thanks, man, appreciated. It was who I suspected it might be after the childish interaction we had earlier this offseason.

Since I know it bugs you I’ll continue it with you and your know it ask minions, who think they are some internet doctors that know all.

You are, literally, the dumbest son of a bitch I've ever met on this board. That's truly something.

No doubt I'm being dumb, but I still can't see how to tell who down votes. Any help appreciated

And you’re the super smartest!!!

That's fair. Good stuff.

FWIW, I'm not blindly ignoring the history of it either. But the Chiefs medical/training staff is ELITE and I've no doubt they exahusted all pertinent info/research/precedence before giving Veach the green light. That gives me more confidence in the pick than others. Bottomline: regardless of where we stand on the selection, we're hoping for the best. That's all that matters in the end.

When you go into the User CP, and scroll down to to the Miscellaneous on the tabs on the left side of the page under Your Control Panel, the first link there is Helpful Answers.

When you click on that link, is should have a page that pops up with 4 "columns".

The first column is the post number. The second "column" is the actual post you made. This takes up most of the middle of the screen. The 3rd column, over toward the right side, has the word "Good" (thumbs up), or "Bad" (thumbs down). The last "column" tells you who gave you the thumbs up or down.

Oh, cupcake.

You misunderstand.

When you go on a downvote spree, it’s a clear sign that … you have nothing.

No words to respond. It doesn’t make the recipient angry. It makes the recipient chortle at the tap-out you’re signaling.

Downvote away. What you don’t realize is that you’re pissing into the wind … and it’s not rain that’s splattering all over you.

It’s the wet stench of surrender.

Look at you sticking up for your boyfriend. So cute!!

If it makes you feel any better I think the staunchly anti Simmons crowd has been acting a bit toolish recently, and you're still a completely insufferable chodemongrel IMO.

Hurts my feelings that you feel that way. I was so hoping to be your favorite

LMAO Why are you acting like such a disingenuous little bundle of sticks? Mods already exposed that it really does hurt your feelings since you've been running around reporting posts.

It really is a gut punch I’m not your favorite.