If he can't play because he is in too much pain...? How long do you hold on before it becomes obvious you won't play again.

As long as possible, if he were to retire the Chiefs could recoup some of his money and he doesn't want that.

He'll make them cut him before he retires or walks away.

You keep saying this like you're friends with Berry's agent.

If you were him would you walk away in the 2nd year of a 70 million dollar deal that has a ton of guarantees left that you wouldn't get along with the fact that the Chiefs could probably try to make him repay a bunch of his signing bonus?

You wouldn't and I wouldn't...and I highly doubt he's going to do that either.

Reddick was drafted 13th overall because he’s supposed to be a 3 down ILB. I assume that’s how the Chiefs would view him, especially if he’s been playing well this year. :shrug:

He actually hasn't played much cause their scheme is all different now.

Sounds like he’s been good in coverage and he has two sacks though :shrug:

If you can get a former mid-1st rounder for a late round pick, you do it.

Well Veach has already done it with Erving.

getting either if these guys is basically admitting Hitchens or Ragland was a mistake/bust acquisition.

Dudes got insane speed he could play that hybrid S/LB role. We'd finally have a guy in the middle that could man up on the RB or hell cover the TE like Berry used to.

Man the more I'm looking into this it makes so much sense. He could literally solve so many issues with the D right now...

YES YES YES

Ragland was a trade for a 4th round pick that is on a rookie deal...it's not like that is admitting something that is a huge deal.

Not really. He's a different kind of backer. He would actually be playing more like O'Daniel, which would kind of be a wasted draft pick I think.

What it would do is allow Hitchens to slide over into Ragland's spot and get Ragland off the field altogether...

What? Lol

I don’t agree at all but if that is even the case, good on them for addressing this issue anyways.