We gotta talk about this UDFA class.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by The Franchise

Rankins actually looked good when he was in at LG. I would rather give Niang a year to learn the offense as the swing tackle.

I think we've overstated how good Rankin was, but he showed enough potential that with additional development he could win the job.

I mean we kill Wylie, but he gave up 2 sacks in over 700 snaps. Rankin gave up 1 in less than 300. Small sample size caveats apply for Rankin but he'd have needed to go 400+ additional snaps without giving up a sack to 'beat' Wylie and if he gives up only 1 he's just on par with the guy who we thought was just trash in pass pro.

And the run blocking was no better with Rankin in there than it was with Wylie.

I'm basing my faith in Rankin on the fact that he showed himself capable of being an adequate backup with very little experience and he has the pedigree (college and draft status) to continue improving. But if the injury gets in the way of that, he's probably no better than Wylie. He needs to continue to develop to win that spot.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think we've overstated how good Rankin was, but he showed enough potential that with additional development he could win the job.

I mean we kill Wylie, but he gave up 2 sacks in over 700 snaps. Rankin gave up 1 in less than 300.

Keep in mind that Wylie lined up next to Schwartz during the 2018 season while Rankin, an August 31st 2019 acquisition, lined up next to Cam Erving.

I'd love to see the Chiefs solve the left guard position, whether it's Rankin, Niang or whomever, because the reality of the situation is that the Chiefs haven't had a solid, let alone spectacular year-in and year-out left guard, since Brian Waters retired after the 2010 season.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Keep in mind that Wylie lined up next to Schwartz during the 2018 season while Rankin, an August 31st 2019 acquisition, lined up next to Cam Erving.

I'd love to see the Chiefs solve the left guard position, whether it's Rankin, Niang or whomever, because the reality of the situation is that the Chiefs haven't had a solid, let alone spectacular year-in and year-out left guard, since Brian Waters retired after the 2010 season.

I think IOL will be the area we tend to go low-cost on for the foreseeable future. That doesn't really explain the LDT restructure apart from them maybe just not seeing the depth they'd hoped for on the interior just yet.

I mean they wouldn't pay for a Pro Bowl guy in Morse or Hudson so clearly the bar for a second contract is pretty high. Unless they stumble into a true anchor there; a Grubbs in his prime sort - I gotta imagine there's gonna be substantial turnover there for as long as they're paying through the nose on skill position guys.

Or maybe if they don't have the luxury of bookend Ts that are costing them a bit more they'd put more money at G. Maybe they earmark say 15% of their cap to the OL in any given year and if they don't have a Fisher/Schwartz duo they need to fit into that cap, they'd spend a little more to retain a guy like Morse.

But Andy will ALWAYS be on the lookout for valuable Ts given his belief in the shell concept. So with finite resources and a position that's a little easier to cut corners on, I figure IOL will always be a little piecemeal.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think IOL will be the area we tend to go low-cost on for the foreseeable future. That doesn't really explain the LDT restructure apart from them maybe just not seeing the depth they'd hoped for on the interior just yet.

I mean they wouldn't pay for a Pro Bowl guy in Morse or Hudson so clearly the bar for a second contract is pretty high. Unless they stumble into a true anchor there; a Grubbs in his prime sort - I gotta imagine there's gonna be substantial turnover there for as long as they're paying through the nose on skill position guys.

Or maybe if they don't have the luxury of bookend Ts that are costing them a bit more they'd put more money at G. Maybe they earmark say 15% of their cap to the OL in any given year and if they don't have a Fisher/Schwartz duo they need to fit into that cap, they'd spend a little more to retain a guy like Morse.

But Andy will ALWAYS be on the lookout for valuable Ts given his belief in the shell concept. So with finite resources and a position that's a little easier to cut corners on, I figure IOL will always be a little piecemeal.

Weren't they in on Hudson til the end though? I wouldn't have been opposed to keeping him around but money is money i guess. Morse just was too injury prone for my taste. I would really like to see them invest heavily in a center at some point though.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Weren't they in on Hudson til the end though? I wouldn't have been opposed to keeping him around but money is money i guess. Morse just was too injury prone for my taste. I would really like to see them invest heavily in a center at some point though.

Yes and no. They were busting their asses in-season to get something done and thought they had it wrapped up but Hudson backed out at the last minute. And I can't blame him - you take someone to week 7 of their FA season and what's their benefit in signing early?

Once he went to FA and the offers started rolling in that were 30-40% higher than what the Chiefs thought they were gonna get done previously, they were out of the running.

Additionally, they didn't have Mitchell Schwartz at the time so that may have played a part in it. They didn't have that more expensive RT to pay for so they were willing to pay for Hudson.

So you say Morse was too injury prone and you'd like to see them invest in C - but if that played out that way in '15 and Hudson came back only to take them out of the running for Schwartz, would you be happy with that (rhetorical question...I hope).

I think they have a philosophy of building from the outside in on the OL unless that option just isn't available to them.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yes and no. They were busting their asses in-season to get something done and thought they had it wrapped up but Hudson backed out at the last minute. And I can't blame him - you take someone to week 7 of their FA season and what's their benefit in signing early?

Once he went to FA and the offers started rolling in that were 30-40% higher than what the Chiefs thought they were gonna get done previously, they were out of the running.

Additionally, they didn't have Mitchell Schwartz at the time so that may have played a part in it. They didn't have that more expensive RT to pay for so they were willing to pay for Hudson.

So you say Morse was too injury prone and you'd like to see them invest in C - but if that played out that way in '15 and Hudson came back only to take them out of the running for Schwartz, would you be happy with that (rhetorical question...I hope).

I think they have a philosophy of building from the outside in on the OL unless that option just isn't available to them.

No, Schwartz is just a cornerstone over there and arguably one of the better players league wide. He's not going anywhere.

By invest I meant more of an earlier round draft pick

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But Andy will ALWAYS be on the lookout for valuable Ts given his belief in the shell concept. So with finite resources and a position that's a little easier to cut corners on, I figure IOL will always be a little piecemeal.

I'm personally fine with piecemeal on the IOL. Andy's proven time and time again that late rounders and UDFA's who have a particular skillset can be molded into solid players for this offense.

That's what killed me when so many forum members were all screaming for an IOL in the first round of the 2020 draft: "We need a guard or a center or both! Gotta protect the MVP!". I found that not only to be wrong but absurd. The best running back in the draft is going to make much bigger difference - a very tangible difference - than the best center or guard.

The Chiefs just won a Super Bowl with a 7th round center, a 6th round guard, half a dozen starters at LG and a Cam Erving at LT for 8 games.

I think Andy's got a handle on this offensive line thing, despite the fact that most Chiefs fans think that the offensive line excellence is the only way to win.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm personally fine with piecemeal on the IOL. Andy's proven time and time again that late rounders and UDFA's who have a particular skillset can be molded into solid players for this offense.

That's what killed me when so many forum members were all screaming for an IOL in the first round of the 2020 draft: "We need a guard or a center or both! Gotta protect the MVP!". I found that not only to be wrong but absurd. The best running back in the draft is going to make much bigger difference - a very tangible difference - than the best center or guard.

The Chiefs just won a Super Bowl with a 7th round center, a 6th round guard, half a dozen starters at LG and a Cam Erving at LT for 8 games.

I think Andy's got a handle on this offensive line thing, despite the fact that most Chiefs fans think that the offensive line excellence is the only way to win.

Just a reminder, though - every game they lost was with Cam Erving at LT.

Just because you did a thing doesn't mean that's the way you should be trying to do it. I know that wasn't your major point, but it tiptoes close to saying "well if we can do it with Erving at LT, how important is LT?"

Massively so. And that's why I think Fisher gets shit on too often. We don't even TRY to run Wasp with him out there. We can cut corners here and there on the IOL but we can't do that out wide.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Just a reminder, though - every game they lost was with Cam Erving at LT.

I was just pointing at that they were able to win with a Cam Erving - who's awful and certainly far from ideal.

I think the idea of investing heavily in tackles while grooming late rounders on the interior has been a proven method for Andy and the Chiefs and I see no reason to change that philosophy, regardless of whether or not the "MVP" is behind center.

Now, maybe, if the team is so absolutely loaded in 2022 or 2023 that they decide to go with a center or guard with their first pick - okay, that's reasonable. But when there are far better athletes that can make an immediate and lasting contribution to the team?

I just can't go there.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And that's why I think Fisher gets shit on too often. We don't even TRY to run Wasp with him out there. We can cut corners here and there on the IOL but we can't do that out wide.

Yeah, I never understood all of the Fisher hate and defended him early and often. I don't think he gets enough respect now, even after witnessing the horrible play of Erving last season. If he stays relatively healthy, I think Fisher plays for another 4 or 5 years, which will probably coincide with the departure of many of the other players from this Super Bowl era.

It'll be interesting to see how they rebuild the team for Pat's "Prime" years.