No Fly Zone

[EMAW_KSU]

So we have an off season thread, a mock draft thread where everyone is commenting on those.  But what about the guys you just don’t want KC to pick.  The first one for me, aside from my feelings of not taking a first round TE in general is Michael Mayer TE Notre Dame.

i just don’t get the love for this guy, there’s bigger, there’s faster and there’s certainly better pass catchers.  To me the guy just doesn’t grade it as a first round talent, so really hoping KC doesn’t take him there.

[Jakuvious]

I don't really follow draft prospects in the same way a lot of you guys do. College football started to bore me years ago, and it feels like too much to catch up on by the time the NFL season is over with. So I tend more towards reading up on the guys we do wind up drafting once the time comes, and my opinions prior to the draft will mostly just be positional.

Regarding that, though, mostly I just don't want to go skill position in the first round. No QB, RB, TE, or WR to start the draft, for me. QB and RB I doubt are controversial. TE we've kind of seen who has fallen on which side of that debate. We're set at that position, IMO. Trying to draft the next Kelce is foolish. And the hit rate for TEs is absurdly low. Like the odds of actually getting 1st round value out of a 1st round TE is so, so low. The only TEs actually productive enough to justify a 1st round pick over the last like 15 drafts have all been mid-round guys that have all dramatically outproduced the supposedly better prospects that same year. It's a crap shoot, most TEs will all be middlingly productive, it's not a position that should be considered high investment unless you're talking about paying an already great player and then it's a no brainer because the elites are crazy underpaid.

Going beyond that, I don't want a WR in the first either, and I imagine this will be more controversial. I want to go back to the trenches again. I don't think WR is worth it unless we can get a true game changer there, but I don't think the odds of that are high as low as we are in the first. I could maybe be sold on a trade up if a proper elite prospect is there, but I'm not sure there is in this draft from what I have read. But, I keep seeing Chiefs Twitter freak out about the lack of moves at WR, and I honestly just don't see it as nearly as big of a deal as everyone else. I don't think we've lost as much over last year as some seem to think. We entered last year with JuJu, MVS, Hardman, Moore, and Watson. Hardman missed basically all year. Forgive me for not caring about Watson. So it's really a loss of JuJu versus a late acquisition of Toney, and the development of Moore. Now, we haven't seen much of Toney and Moore, but the coaching staff absolutely has. If we aren't making a move for a #1, it is, IMO, because they believe very confidently that one of those guys will be the #1. And ultimately, between JuJu, Hardman, and Watson, we're losing about 120 catches, 1500 yards, and 9 TDs from last year. I think it's key that we retain McKinnon, or find another experienced receiving back, so that number doesn't grow higher. But it's not hard to envision those stats just being spread between Moore and Toney and like a new #4 WR. It's not actually that much from a production standpoint, because Kelce is still ultimately our #1. Losing JuJu doesn't mean we're replacing 25% - 30% of our receiving yards like it would be for most teams losing their #1, for us it's more like 16%. It's not nearly as impactful as long as Kelce is still around. Ultimately, I think another mid-round WR to add some depth is enough. Let Ross, Ross, Powell, and Smith-Marsette fight over the #5.

[RedGold]

I generally agree with the top two comments.  I want to focus on the front 7 and believe value will be there for that to happenz 
 

TE is totally out of the picture until Mid day 3.   1) because we now have 4 guys that know and accept their role 2) because I believe there will be talent there to push Fortson/Bell year 1 with talent for more in later years  in the later rounds

 

WR is still a possibility in my mind because I believe it is a versatile class outside the top guys.   I am against Jaxon/Johnston/Hyatt because I don’t believe they gamechangers from multiple alignments.  I would rather see Addison/Downs/Scott @31 than Johnston because I think they can do more for the offense.  I don’t give a dang about what the perceived “rankings” say.     After the first 15,  the talent level is really the same.   Taking a guy ranked 43 that is more versatile for your team,  is better than taking a guy ranked 20th that will only fit one role.     

Edited March 25, 2023 by RedGold

[onejayhawk]

We need DL, both DT and DE. The LB and secondary are stacked at least for the first two days. We need WR, RB, and TE long term but not to play right away. 

All that said, there is no such thing as too much depth and the best way to build depth is from the front. Drafting a player who can push a solid player to the bench is ideal not problematic. This is a fantastic draft for RB, TE, and CB. We should get at least one of all of them, TE being the highest priority because of Kelce's age.

Anyone who hesitates because they don't want a high draft pick on the bench does not understand Reid's talents or offense generally. We could easily take workload off WR by installing more two TE route trees. That would suit MVS completely. Without a FB we can go with five TE. Bell and Fortson are already ST mainstays. 

We should draft a QB late and the five picks in rounds 6 and 7 can provide depth anywhere.

[Jakuvious]

6 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

We need DL, both DT and DE. The LB and secondary are stacked at least for the first two days. We need WR, RB, and TE long term but not to play right away. 

All that said, there is no such thing as too much depth and the best way to build depth is from the front. Drafting a player who can push a solid player to the bench is ideal not problematic. This is a fantastic draft for RB, TE, and CB. We should get at least one of all of them, TE being the highest priority because of Kelce's age.

Anyone who hesitates because they don't want a high draft pick on the bench does not understand Reid's talents or offense generally. We could easily take workload off WR by installing more two TE route trees. That would suit MVS completely. Without a FB we can go with five TE. Bell and Fortson are already ST mainstays. 

We should draft a QB late and the five picks in rounds 6 and 7 can provide depth anywhere.

So, I'm fine with a high draft pick riding the bench. I'm probably the biggest Skyy Moore apologist around here for him not cracking the lineup last year. And we've seen this work fine over the years for us. One of the luxuries you get for having your **** together as a team from a roster building perspective is you aren't drafting guys that if they don't start and play well immediately you're just screwed. Anyone we draft in the early rounds will have some kind of contingency plan and may or may not see time depending on whether or not they earn it. And I 100% get and support the theory, here. Fill the hole before it becomes a hole is excellent roster building strategy. Draft Thornhill before Mathieu leaves. Draft Cook before Thornhill leaves. Our biggest successes have been when we've done this well, some of our biggest failures have been when we didn't. If like, Nick Bolton or Creed Humphrey were in their mid-30s and someone was saying hey let's draft a LB or a C before they decline, I'd be 100% on board. Those are snaps you're going to literally have to replace with another LB or C eventually, so sure, get ahead of it.

But this position is different. The gap between TE1 and TE2 is 400 yards. The gap between TE1 and TE32 is over 1000 yards, TE32 is at like 20% of Kelce's production. Jody Fortson is tied for 32nd in TDs for a TE with 2, 10 less than Kelce. Daniel Bellinger was 33rd in receptions for a TE, at 80 less than Kelce. TE is not a normal position. The gap between just starting TEs from Kelce to the bottom is like an 80% drop in production. WR, 21 guys topped 1000 yards last year. And half a dozen more would've made it if not for injury. You've got over 64 500+ yard WRs. If you lose your #1 WR, a 1000 yard WR, it makes sense to say hey, let's go get another one of those. Because a couple dozen of them exist. You lose a 1000+ TE, well there's literally only one of those, so you're probably getting about half that from a replacement no matter what. Replacing Kelce's production will be an issue at some point. But you do not replace Kelce with a TE. There's half a dozen guys close to capable of that productivity over the last 25 years. There's one, maybe two in the NFL right now. You aren't replacing his production at the TE position. Gray is a fine TE. Half the teams in the league would put Gray at the top of their depth chart and just say yeah, this is probably fine. And I don't say that out of some perception that Gray is some great player, but because teams are starting Daniel Bellinger and Juwan Johnson and Jordan Akins and the half-rotten corpse of Zach Ertz and are just like, this is okay. Most teams have a 400 - 500 yard TE. That's the reality of the position. And most of your first round TEs have been those guys too. Pitts went for 35 yards per game. Hurst was in an elite passing offense and barely scraped 400 yards. Fant hit 486. Talented TEs, 400 - 500 yards. That is what we will likely get post-Kelce. That is what we would likely get with a first round pick at TE, and that is not worth a first round pick. It's a pipe dream, conceptually, this vague idea of replacing Kelce at the TE position. Hell, the year before Kelce we had Sean McGrath at 300 yards and the 6th best scoring offense in football. That's honestly kind of normal. I would love to just magically get another hall of fame TE to keep the trend going, I would spend a first round pick on that, but it's not going to happen. Spending a first round pick on Hayden Hurst or Noah Fant or O.J. Howard or David Njoku or Evan Engram or Eric Ebron just from this need to pre-empt Kelce's retirement is ultimately just bad value.

[onejayhawk]

I get you.

The problem is that I'm fine with getting Fant or Njoku late in the 1st. If Pitts was in this draft pool, I trade up for him, though maybe not into the top 10. once we had him, let Reid and Nagy figure out what to do with him.

We drafted Tony G at #13. Are you saying that you would not do it again?

[kingseanjohn]

9 minutes ago, onejayhawk said:

We drafted Tony G at #13. Are you saying that you would not do it again?

Despite individual accolades, drafting a TE in the 1st amounted to zero post season success. So I would not do it again. Give me Jason Taylor or Ronde Barber who may have helped more. 

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

I get you.

The problem is that I'm fine with getting Fant or Njoku late in the 1st. If Pitts was in this draft pool, I trade up for him, though maybe not into the top 10. once we had him, let Reid and Nagy figure out what to do with him.

We drafted Tony G at #13. Are you saying that you would not do it again?

If this is what you wind up responding with, no, you do not "get me."

[onejayhawk]

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

If this is what you wind up responding with, no, you do not "get me."

Really? 

If push came to shove and you were the GM, there would be no Tony Gonzalez on the Chief's roster in 1998. You have said as much.

[mayanfootball]

23 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I want to go back to the trenches again.

I'll 2nd. that here.

It's been said games are won/lost in the trenches. I believe this is true.

Edited March 26, 2023 by mayanfootball

[Jakuvious]

28 minutes ago, onejayhawk said:

Really? 

If push came to shove and you were the GM, there would be no Tony Gonzalez on the Chief's roster in 1998. You have said as much.

The point is, you had to go back to 1997 to find a first round TE worth taking with a first round pick. Your argument is the equivalent of I got struck by lightning 25 years ago, so I should probably put a bunch of money on it happening again. You hit on 20 once and got blackjack, and are using that to argue the merits of doing it again. If you want a TE, fine, you do you, but that doesn't mean you have to act deliberately obtuse when faced with the probabilities of that pick being meaningfully productive in the passing game.

[onejayhawk]

I didn't. I had to go back to 1997 to find one the Chiefs took in the first round. 

I would have had no problem taking Fant where Denver drafted him. I would not have given a top 5 pick for Pitts, but anything after 10 would be fair game. 

The thing is that there are not one but two TE of Fant's caliber in this draft pool. That's without going into the ones that grade 2nd round. Get them while they are available because they don't come every year.

[kingseanjohn]

There’s nothing special about Noah Fant though. 

[Chiefs_5627]

22 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:

There’s nothing special about Noah Fant though. 

And by using Fant as some kind of benchmark literally proves Jak's point. Fant's high yardage output is 673. He's a middling output TE that was taken in the 1st round. 

 

[RedGold]

Using Noah Fant is weird if you’re trying to prove the point of drafting a TE 1st.   He’s barely above a JAG.

Drafting a TE in round 1 is one the worst investments you can do.   It should be somewhere around 2 out of 9 since 2014 TE’s drafted in the first round have been given a 2nd contract by the team that selected them.    Sure there’s more of them, I guess.   But rarely do TE’s graded highly actually work out.    And even moreso,   We aren’t replacing Kelce’s production with a TE to begin with.