|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
M-I-Z-Z-O-U
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Kansas City
Casino cash: $-2069692
|
Quote:
I couldn’t care less what FB fan thinks. FB fan is a moron distracted by big splashy names. Keep in mind that there are depth guys I didn’t include specific names for at RB and DE. Late signings can help at those spots and may even be the same guys (McKinon and Dunlap). I’d argue OT group IS at worst a wash and has more upside. RT definitely improved from Wylie. With Dillard and Beachum and Niang, I’m confident someone can provide average play on the left side and Dillard could be a really nice upgrade because he fits the style of play better. If the chiefs jump from below average at RT and drop from above average to average or a little above at LT, I think that line is better. The idea at WR is to pivot into more of a 2-TE set. Thus, Gesicki. The Chiefs basically used Smith-Schuster like a TE all year, anyway. You’re changing for a year and using him as a stopgap while your young WRs acclimate. And if Gesicki hits all the incentives he definitely isn’t a 400 yard receiver. More like 1000 at that point. Maybe I’m reading his market value wrong, but I see him as a guy who could come in and do what they asked Gray/Fortson to do, but do it better. Parris Campbell has been discussed a lot around here as a Smith-Schuster alternative and would still be my top preference there, over Gesicki. But I was trying to explore a different approach. This DL as a group would be better than 23. Gaines is a sizable improvement at DT. Benton is a great prospect. And at DE, Karlaftis/Danna/Hall/late veteran signing would be an upgrade, too. S I don’t see as a step back. I think Cook slides in and performs well. Sneed is effectively a 3rd S, too.
__________________
"You gotta love livin', cause dying is a pain in the ass." ---- Sinatra |
|
Posts: 22,430
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|