Brett Veach hopes Chris Jones can play next week; increased talks last 2 days

[RunKC]

For the mega thread hating crew

#Chiefs GM Brett Veach says he's hopeful that DT Chris Jones will play in their season opener vs. the Lions, which is just eight days away.

Veach mentioned that there has been increased communication on an extension over the past two days. pic.twitter.com/MpLGt0mYhz

— Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) August 30, 2023

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by RunKC

They like Danna rushing inside. And really why wouldn't they? 5 sacks and 10 QB hits in 13 games last year. It's a contract year for him. Wouldn't be shocked if he gets around 7-8 sacks this year.

I get Chris isn't there but Spags and can blitz a LB to free him up I 1v1 all the same

Lack of depth at DE comes into play at that point, though.

How much faith do you have in FAU and Karlaftis to be able to hold it down when you're kicking Danna in on 3rd downs?

Moreover, I'm worried about getting INTO 'passing downs' if you can't generate any push on 1st and 2nd.

Like I said in one of the 'I'm worried about' threads - I wasn't terribly confident in the DL before Jones pulled this shit. With Omenihu and Jones down, you're starting Karlaftis and Danna on the edges. Malik Herring may be your first DE in and he's just awful.

The DL just doesn't have the component parts to go moving guys around much at the moment.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Then how worried should we be about 4-5 as a legitimate possibility?

If the East isn't as advertised, then we should probably have a better record than 10-7 given that we play all 4 of them...

I'm not overly worried about that, but again, the margins are just slim. Even with Mahomes having a historic year last year, we squeaked out games alot.

Lotta coinflips and we know how that goes.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RunKC

They like Danna rushing inside. And really why wouldn't they? 5 sacks and 10 QB hits in 13 games last year. It's a contract year for him. Wouldn't be shocked if he gets around 7-8 sacks this year.

I get Chris isn't there but Spags and can blitz a LB to free him up I 1v1 all the same

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Lack of depth at DE comes into play at that point, though.

How much faith do you have in FAU and Karlaftis to be able to hold it down when you're kicking Danna in on 3rd downs?

Moreover, I'm worried about getting INTO 'passing downs' if you can't generate any push on 1st and 2nd.

Like I said in one of the 'I'm worried about' threads - I wasn't terribly confident in the DL before Jones pulled this shit. With Omenihu and Jones down, you're starting Karlaftis and Danna on the edges. Malik Herring may be your first DE in and he's just awful.

The DL just doesn't have the component parts to go moving guys around much at the moment.

The whole DL was built around the idea of planting Jones right in the middle. Take that out and things get pretty dicey.

[AdolfOliverBush]

Has anyone posted the Chiefs' W-L record without Jones in the Mahomes era?

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Lack of depth at DE comes into play at that point, though.

How much faith do you have in FAU and Karlaftis to be able to hold it down when you're kicking Danna in on 3rd downs?

Moreover, I'm worried about getting INTO 'passing downs' if you can't generate any push on 1st and 2nd.

Like I said in one of the 'I'm worried about' threads - I wasn't terribly confident in the DL before Jones pulled this shit. With Omenihu and Jones down, you're starting Karlaftis and Danna on the edges. Malik Herring may be your first DE in and he's just awful.

The DL just doesn't have the component parts to go moving guys around much at the moment.

What do you think are the chance we will see some 3 man fronts? We have a much stronger LB core that could help make that somewhat possible.

Just spit balling a little.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Then how worried should we be about 4-5 as a legitimate possibility?

If the East isn't as advertised, then we should probably have a better record than 10-7 given that we play all 4 of them...

I think we probably lose 1.5-2 more games over the course of the season if Jones doesn't play in isolation, so call it 1 game worse over the first 7-9 games. And without Omenihu too? Maybe that's 2 more losses tops during that span than we'd have otherwise had. Probably 5-4 as the floor.

It's just that both of the seasons we won the SB we were the #1 seed with the bye by a single game. It puts us a bit further behind the 8-ball come playoff time, but if everyone and everything is clicking by that point, we can obviously beat anyone at full strength.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Simply Red

A couple things I have not seen mentioned much that I think are worth talking about or at least remembering. A good thing about having Spags is he's shown the ability to design concepts of bringing pressure from alternative positions on the field. And that brings me to my next point, the signing of Drew T will prove very very significant whether Chris Jones sits out or plays and will ultimately help Spags add a little more of the unorthodox pressure schemes to the playbook

Hope so. But all teams are going to do is run it straight at us. And then when we designate people to stop the run, they'll throw it. Also could get burned badly wiith not being able to generate a pass rush with the down 4. We're just going to have to outscore teams, which we are good at doing.
CJ being out is made worse because CO is also out. Right now we need to hope for the best with JAG DT's.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by KSCHIEF

This may have been posted already but it's an interesting read on the Jones contract situation. If these numbers are true KC is offering a hell of a contract and 95 should of signed it 2 weeks ago...

Thoughts on the Chiefs Offer to Chris JonesPosted on September 3, 2023 by Jason Fitzgerald

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk put an article up today detailing where the Chiefs and Chris Jones stand on a contract. Per Florio, the Chiefs have offered Jones a three year, $74 million contract and that Jones would settle for a three year, $84.5 million contract. The numbers in the article are framed in a way to make the contract look much lesser than the recent Aaron Donald contract with the Rams but I think that fails to take into account the way that the Chiefs and many others around the NFL would likely view the offer.

The thing with contracts that often leads to the most confusion in the NFL is the concept of how to value a contract extension. A contract extension is typically valued based on the “new money” in a contract. The calculation is simple. Add up all of the money in the contract and subtract from that the money that is owed to the player on his current contract and then you have the new money in the deal. Divide that by the number of new years and you come up with the average per year on the contract.

The valuation in this manner makes sense. Essentially you are buying out a player’s free agency early and this new money is the value you are giving the player. Some constantly look down on this method of contract valuation saying it inflates the contract’s value but when you run through it logically it is the most fair way to value a deal and create a system that allows for teams to be extended prior to the expiration of their current contract- if every player demanded that a current year be ripped up a team would simply wait until the contract expires to make an offer.

However, there are rare instances where teams have agreed to negotiate as if the current contract does not exist. That occurred last season with Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay and then later with Aaron Donald with the Rams, which is pertinent to the Jones negotiation. Donald had three years remaining on his prior contract at a total value of $55 million. The Rams replaced those salaries with new salaries that totaled $95 million. With no new years added it was clear that this was just being viewed as a replacement contract and that is how we arrived at the value of $31.67 million for Donald.


The decision by the Rams to do that deal was likely very controversial among NFL front offices. From the Rams point of view they probably did not look at this as paying nearly $32 million for Donald but rather as a modification of his original six year, $22.5 million per year contract, bringing the value of the contract to about $29.2 million per year. It would not surprise me if this is how most NFL teams are trying to spin the Donald numbers when dealing with other pass rushers and defensive tackles.

The numbers reported by Florio are based on the idea that the Chiefs would follow a similar path as the Rams and just assume that this year doesn’t exist when it comes to doing a deal with Jones. I would think it is doubtful the Chiefs are thinking that way and in many ways the offer likely shows that.

The $74.5 million offer works out to $24.8 million a year, but if we value this as new money, it represents an offer from the Chiefs worth $55 million in new money over two new years, an average of $27.5 million. That number is a “cleaner” figure than the $74.5 million which certainly leads me to believe the Chiefs are taking a traditional approach to the contract valuation. The $84.5 million that Florio says is the magic number would lead to a new money total of $65 million, or $32.5 million a season, which would blow away any other extension for a non-QB and fly past Donald’s number.

$27.5 million a season is certainly a fair offer that splits the market between Donald and everyone else. $32.5 million is probably too rich for the Chiefs. For the most part almost all of the past history is on the Chiefs side other than Donald. Contracts are valued using new money. Older pass rushers (Von Miller, Chandler Jones, Cam Jordan) have all signed contracts that averaged anywhere from $13 million to $20 million a season. The Chiefs offer blows those numbers away.

So when it comes to evaluating offers made to Jones it is important to keep in mind the way that typical contracts are valued to see how the offer compares to the market, the majority of which are valued on the basis of new money.

This was already posted in this thread, damn n00b! Oh, and make sure to include a link next time.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by O.city

None of them have actually hit the market, save for Hargrave and he still got a really good deal.

So again, if he was fully open to the market, yeah, I'd guess he'd get stupid money somewhere.

That's not really a good argument. Teams that would be willing to pay Jones more than what the Chiefs offered are teams that generally do not win SBs. They are usually teams that screw themselves by that kind of thing.

[New World Order]

DJBill just sent me a text:

He said expect Jones TO SUIT UP THIS THURSDAY NIGHT!!!!

[ljmhawk]

Originally Posted by TLO

Sold!

Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush

Has anyone posted the Chiefs' W-L record without Jones in the Mahomes era?

pretty sure it is 6-2

[Skyy God]

#17 is on Chiefs D without Jones.

I’m on mobile, otherwise I’d post text.

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2023/9...odgers-tanking

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by New World Order

DJBill just sent me a text:

He said expect Jones TO SUIT UP THIS THURSDAY NIGHT!!!!

The suit:

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Lzen

That's not really a good argument. Teams that would be willing to pay Jones more than what the Chiefs offered are teams that generally do not win SBs. They are usually teams that screw themselves by that kind of thing.

Hello BUFFALO!

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Lzen

That's not really a good argument. Teams that would be willing to pay Jones more than what the Chiefs offered are teams that generally do not win SBs. They are usually teams that screw themselves by that kind of thing.

Hello BUFFALO!

Not that they would pay CJ, but they did pay Vaughn.