I'd rather have Reiff. Villanueva is not a great pass blocker.

well, a lateral move is still an improvement, because the chances Fisher is 100% for game one is pretty low. And a healthy Fisher is a pretty good player, certainly not the source of our problems.

Reiff is a solid plan B. No way Veach never thought to consider Reiff if Williams fell through.

Now, Reiff, Thuney, Hudson, if I can be greedy.......

I know Fisher wasn’t a turnstile, but signing a lateral move LT at the end of their career will be. I was hopeful we would cement the position for at least the next 3-4 years and move on down the road. I know we’ll make due, but this is definitely plan B.

Just imagine if Thuney was playing next to Fisher last year what the overall consensus of Fisher would be today.

If they sign someone like Reiff and then draft someone like Radunz or Walker Little, they're setting the position for the next 5 years.

That's not a bad plan B.

Veach is the best GM we've ever had. There's no way he's giving up on this.

Signing a short-term FA stopgap allows them flexibility in the draft to get a developmental prospect that could be a long-term solution without paying out the nose to get him.

Preferably they draft someone to play there long term, but I'm skeptical that guy is there at 31. LT's just tend to go earlier.

Yep.

Reiff
Thuney
Hudson
LDT
Niang

I'd take that in a heartbeat and name my next kid Brett.

Reiff would atleast let you go into the draft and not have to have LT so high on the list. If the opp presented itself, do it, but wouldn't have to go out your way.

Walker Little's situation is almost identical to Niang's. He was injured and then opted out. He's a prototypical Andy Reid LT and he'll likely be available at the end of the SECOND round.

I think they end up talking Liam Eichenberg in the draft unless they make a big move.

I'm sure I'll get ostracized for this, but I'm not a fan of guys that opted out.

Maybe they move Niang to LT and play Eichenberg at RT? I'm not sure Eichenberg is a LT in this offense.

this is an unusual draft. The opt-outs and early declarations make for a weird and unpredictable draft.

I have zero doubt that someone like Walker Little would be a top 20 pick had he not opted out, for example. But you might get him in the 2nd as it is.

It was a weird year, and a pre-draft season to boot.

This is a year where you trust your scouts and trust the tape above all else.

Thats the issue with those end of the first guys. They tend to be more RT than LT.

LT's are just so damn hard to find. Damn it.

I agree. Fisher was a damn good player for us and I don’t see Okung, Reiff, or Peters as being better than Fisher, which is why I commented the way I did out of frustration.

I’m an Irish fan .....and meh.

Stanford only ended up playing 7 games this past season. He didn't miss much at all.

Sign Reiff.
Draft Little or Hudson and let them sit for a year.

I'm really thinking that an Okung/Reiff short deal plus Little at #63 is now my personal plan A.

Throw D’Ante Smith in there too as a day 2 option.

We’re going to need a center though. I’ll be interested to see if they sign someone or Veach goes with a rookie.

I dunno, it's irrational but opting out just sits kinda wrong with me.

It should get your attention when Pest isn't high on an Irish player, lol.

For someone that was so tuned in to the whole COVID thing, this seems an odd stance.

I'm also not a fan of sitting a 1st or 2nd round pick that isn't a QB. IF you're taking a guy that high, he needs to play or be able to play early.

He’s all floor with no ceiling. Will he be good from day one? In the right offense. He isn’t going to get a whole lot better, IMO.

What are you going to do, trade up into the teens and try to get a day 1 starter?

To do that, you'd have to trade next year's 1st most likely and then you have a 1st round pick that isn't sitting for a year, he simply never exists.

How is that better?

It's definitely not what I would have thought a while back.

I get why they would do it, it makes sense, just not a fan of it for some reason.

Well, if you can't mortgage your future to move up to pick a sure-fire day one LT in the top ten, then you are taking a high potential guy that might not be ready day one later.

It's kind of one or the other.

I know, read my last sentence. My point was if you're gonna fork over 2 firsts+ for Tunsil(which is what it'd likely cost) you might as well send that same amt for a rookie-who is projected to be the best LT in the league. Like I just said though, neither is happening.

Draft a different player. Wait til the 3rd or later to take a developmental guy.

Or...hear me out...take a different position?

I'm guessing GM's don't like sitting at the end of the 1st round. I'd either trade back and amass some picks or trade the pick for a vet already under contract

I agree, but it’s definitely plan B and it’s contingent on whether that rookie actually performs up to their billing. Williams took all the doubt of the position being solidified, away. Williams was an upgrade, not sure the 5th or 6th drafted OT will upgrade the position. Possibly, but no guarantees.

then you have an aging LT, and you're going to have to address that position again next year or the year after.

I mean sure, but sooner or later you ought to address it in a long term way. And you're not going to be in position to draft top ten anytime in...like the next decade.

All because you're not willing to wait a year on a guy? That seems like you've just got an emotional block about it.

Nah, I just seem to find that "developmental prospects" don't tend to end up developing.

At some point, you have to spend resources on a LT. They're the 2nd or 3rd most important position on your football team. The Chiefs were willing to spend a **** load of money on one this offseason.

So yeah, I'm probably gonna end up trading up and spending resources on one.

not really. It's a more or less lateral move that is an improvement because Reiff can actually play on day one. Fisher, probably not.

You're taking a chance the rookie develops and can take that spot next year, but that's literally true of any position. And if he can't, you roll with Reiff again and maybe keep trying to develop his replacement.

It's not contingent on the rookie, the rookie is the possible pay-off.

If Fisher were 100% healthy, none of this is happening. A lateral move is not a bad thing here.

In a strong class like this LT’s will be gone by rd 3.

If a talented LT you think could successful protect Patrick for 10 years is there at 31 you take them, sitting a year be damned.

That’s why you fill the roster with FA’s in March to eliminate needs

And if he busts, you're screwed.

The Chiefs have REid and Mahomes. They'll never be "screwed" but they could be in trouble if they dont' find a LT.

Two kinds of resources: money and draft picks.

If you're willing to spend two #1's and probably at least a #2 to get into the top ten to take a chance on a rookie LT and roll with Mahomes being protected by two rookie OT's while you're firmly in a SB window...well, I'm glad you're not the Chiefs GM. I think that would be a big mistake.

I'm fine with a good but not great vet and a raw but promising draftee. A little bit of both resources.

Reiff-Thuney-Allegretti-LDT-Niang/Remmers

is equal or better at every spot than
Fisher-Allegretti-Reiter-Wylie-Remmers, which is what KC rolled with for most of this season. I would argue it's much improved at all 3 of the interior spots, basically the same at LT, and has upside to be MUCH better at RT (If Niange is as good as we think/the team thinks he is).

IF it's Reiff AND Rodney Hudson or David Andrews, it's MUCH improved at 2 of those spots from last season, Day 1.

I'd pair it with drafting Little or Hudson or Ealy (even if a small move-up is required). That player would be the swing tackle this year and start competing to start in 2022.

Oh, same. For sure.

They'll be in double trouble if they use 2 drafts worth of picks to get a guy that doesn't pan out.

It's just not a good idea. Not sure why you don't see that.

The Chiefs are firmly in a SB window for 10 years. They still need to look longterm at this thing though.

If it took this year and next years 1 and a 3 to get to 10 to take Slater, yeah, I'd do it.

The 31st pick, the 30th pick and an end of the 3rd pick is whatever for a LT.

Exactly.

There are teams that think Slater lacks the length to even play LT in this league.

No way.

Giving up a couple ones that will be at the end of the first round and a 3 isn't 2 drafts worth of picks.

They're in a Super Bowl window for 10 years. There's no reason to trade away that future for a LT in 2021.

You're contradicting yourself here man.

On the one hand, you want a 1st round pick to start day 1 next year. But then you say it's about the next 10 years.

Which is it?

I don't like where your college loyalties lie but, man, your posts are in the 99th percentile in quality.

I was just using him as an example. Whoever they like at LT. If they think he's a franchise LT and gets to 10 or so, yeah trade up there for him.

Giving up 2 first round picks is the best part of 2 drafts. Yes it is.

I'm not taking a developmental LT in the 2nd and sitting him. Odds are he's not gonna turn into the guy at LT.

Sorry man. I think you've lost your mind over this.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

A 2 year stop gap is a band aid approach and relying on the 5th or 6th best prospect at their position, in the same draft doesn’t exactly equate to a sure fire prospect or a long term solution. It also pigeon holes us into taking a taking an OT early, instead of best available player. I get where you’re coming from, my point is, we had a sure thing at the position and could have possibly upgraded, now we don’t.

Odds are, the tackle that you trade up for in the 1st round isn't going to turn into that guy either.

Do you know what the bust rate is for top 15 LT picks?

Everything you said the Chiefs wouldn't do at OL this off season has happened so far. Welcome to the Chiefs, Slater.

I seriously doubt that would get it done.

Can't be right 100% of the time.

My odds are better taking one there he works out than anywhere else. I'll take my chances.

What did it cost for the Chiefs to go from 27 to 10 for Mahomes, 2 1's and a 3?

Who are we wanting to trade up for?

It really doesn't matter.

There is a ZERO percent chance Andy Reid is going to roll with two rookie OT's in 2021.

ZERO.

I don't care if they give up the next two years entire drafts for Jesus H. Christ himself, it ain't happenin'.

We're not rolling with two rookie OT's. It's not happening.

Complete offensive line overhaul, baby.

The more I think about all of these scenarios, I feel like Trading 31 for Orlando Brown is the best option.

He is much better than anyone we could get at 31. He doesnt require multiple picks to acquire. LT is in his blood, his father told him to never settle for being a RT. That is some serious motivation.

Chiefs showing him that they want him to protect their most valuable asset would also motivate him.

He is young, could solve the LT issue for years. He is experienced and proven.

Yes there is a different scheme to consider. Lamar is not that different than Patrick when in the pocket. He likes to extend the play and scramble around quite a bit so this isnt new to him.

The other options like sign an old vet draft a LT at 31 and let him sit for a year or so, does NOT help us now. NOW is very important.

Not liking the idea of trading future picks to move up in round one to get a Possible good LT either as we need to keep our draft capital since we are paying most of our studs at the top of the market.

The Ravens may not be willing to trade with us but they want a top 40 pick and we have a first rounder to offer.

If I'm trading for a LT and paying him, I would want one better than Brown. I think I'm out on that.

Don't do this to yourself.

**** Orlando Brown. Jesus.

Yep. Brown really isn't an option.

The Ravens aren't trading him to KC either.

Tackles just go so early fellas. I dunno. I might just stopgap it for a year and see what happens.

on that we agree.

I'd send a few 1's to the Texans for Tunsil and be done with it.

Lots of bust tackles go early too. Trading away precious draft capital on a maybe just isn't good business.

Not really. Who was the last bust tackle that went early?

Doubt they're willing to trade Tunsil for anything less than or equal to what they paid for him.

Sunk cost fallacy and all.

OK but thats easy to say. Realistically, who are you thinking about?

Tunsil? Not avaiable first off and he would require a lot more than 31.

Dillard? Not known to be available and we dont know if he can really be a LT. Or what the compensation would be? Probably more than 31.

I get the concerns but if you really think about what is possible. I keep coming back to Brown.