You act like the defense is the best in the league. Chris Jones just had a career year and the defense wasn’t even league average.

Comparing Mahomes to Jones is just bizarre.

We seem to be getting off on the wrong foot, mkp. Apologies for that.

I’m not advocating anything at this moment. Jones has had a career year. Can you get 15 sacks out of him next year? 12? 6? He’s earned a huge payday. Can they come to that without breaking the bank in other areas of need?

Also, I doubt the Chiefs would get a Seymour type return. It was not so much an example of a return. Im saying it’s important for this franchise to maintain the mindset to keep churning players that may give the franchise the best chance to stay at the top of the league.

As I said earlier, Mahomes is obviously 1 of 1. However, not only is Jones the best player on the defense, he would also be the most difficult to replace. If not for Jones, the defense would've been much worse.

I believe for a majority of the years the Pats won Super Bowls the #2 paid player on the team was usually a Seymour or Wilfork DE/DT. That would seem to support making Jones the #2 highest paid player on KC.

What people love glossing over is the fact that Brady took massive discounts to stay in NE. When they won in 2016 he was only around 9% of their total cap hit. I don't think, nor do I expect, Mahomes to reduce his salary in half.

DT's don't age like Skill position guys. They don't just fall apart once they hit 30. So nah, i'm not buying this notion that he's not worth a 3-4 year deal.

Mahomes is already on a reduced salary compared to his peers.

What do we got, the 4th or 5th highest paid QB right now?

He's still roughly 21% of the cap hit.

Well, you have to be realistic.

Is anyone 1-for-1 replacing the impact of Chris Jones? Not a chance.

Can you increase the overall impact in a 2-for-1? I think you could. Obviously, you get what we've discussed before and that's "all the cards" falling just right. For instance, if you could get Dre'Mont and Hargrave for roughly 36 per, I think that's an improvement. Chances of getting both in FA and trading Jones? Slim.

So it would likely come down to a situation like Hargrave plus a draft pick, such as Gervon Dexter at the end of 1. I think you're losing on Jones but gaining significantly over Saunders. But, you're also gaining at some other position with that other 1st round pick you'd get from trading Jones.

It's all fluid. You just don't know for certain what the impact is going to be but retaining Jones at any cost may not be the answer either. 3/100 would make Jones the highest-paid defensive player in the NFL. Would I consider it if they didn't re-sign OBj? Potentially. I think it's a bit much though. Overall, I just think we're fixated on Jones' impact and not considering the strength of having more quality players.

No McDuffie, no Skyy, no Williams if we don't make the trade, plus whoever we choose this year with the 4th and 6th round picks. Now add in the money we were able to spend on other needs as well. It was a smart move no matter what happens in the playoffs.

Well, I think I agree with you 2 in principle of what we're talking about here. I mostly am talking about giving Jones a new deal at the expense of OBJ who I think we can flip to some team like Pitt, Jacksoville or maybe even the Bears for a 2nd. We then can use that haul and another pick or 2 to move up and grab 1 of the LTs that are available in the 12-22 range.

I think Veach has proven he has an eye for OL talent with finding Creed and Smith in addition to making Thuney the very first signing he made after we lost the Superbowl. I think you give him the 14th pick or so and he'll find a LT to keep PM15 upright and protected. There's enough depth and no true guy that will go top 5. They all have their warts so i trust Veach to choose best there.

It's much harder to find a DT like Jones than to find a decent LT that can hold up playing next to an all pro like Thuney.

Plus, if I gave you the choice who would you rather fork over 30/yr to Chris Jones or OBJ?

How can you say it was a smart move if it doesn't result in greater success than when you had Hill?

That's like saying let's trade Mahomes, draft a QB, grab a boat load of 1st and 2nd round draft picks over the next 3 years from the trade, save tons of money and conclude it's a smart move even if we lose the first round of the playoffs for the next few years.

We are still the best offense in the league. We also have the 1 seed this year compared to having the 2 last year.

We are much better than last year.

No, it's not like saying, your analogy is horrible. The QB position is unique in the NFL, if you get a great one you keep them because they are not easily accessible, even at 60%-70% of production. WR's are, period. Now, Imagine this team without the 3 draft picks and freed up cap space and still playing hill. We are better than last year as a team, both on offense and defense, with young guys who free up cap space to sign some of our other vets coming off contracts. If we kept Hill we would have maybe treaded water on offense, but our defense, particularly the future of the defense, would not be near as solid.

Anyone saying to trade him is literally ****ing reeruned. Anyone using the Tyreek Hill trade as a reason to do it is even dumber than the other reeruns. We damn sure aren't the 1 seed without Jones. He won us 4 or 5 games by himself.

Let’s also not forget that the Patriots could do what they did because Belechick is one of the greatest defensive minds of all time. He could field top defenses with lesser talent. Perhaps we can get a defensive mind like his, but until then we will have to pay more on that side of the ball.