Thanks! And thoughts on the final draft grade?

[Couch-Potato]

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.

[DJ's left nut]

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.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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?

[Dunerdr]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

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

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.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.

[MahomesMagic]

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.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

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.

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.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by kccrow

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.

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.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

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.

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.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

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.

[SAGA45]

Originally Posted by kccrow

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.

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.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

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?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

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?

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.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

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.

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.