List your priority for extensions

[RunKC]

Listed this in another thread, but it will interesting to see what order we go in here.

The following players will enter their last year of their deal in 2019 or be a FA in the Spring.

Tyreek Hill
Chris Jones
Reggie Ragland
Kendall Fuller
Mitch Morse
Demarcus Robinson
Steven Nelson
Chris Conley

You are Brett Veach. What order of this list is your priority to keep here?

Also I’m purposefully leaving out Dee Ford and Cam Erving bc we know they won’t be here.

[CoMoChief]

1. Hill
2. Jones
3. Fuller

I think many on CP over-value Mitch Morse. Maybe it's due to the MU fandom.

I don't really think he's that good. I didn't like where he was selected in the draft, thought it was the typical Chiefs 2nd rd reach. I wanted Tyler Lockett at the time. Plus the guy seems to be hurt all the time.

Personally I hope he walks when his deal expires, unless he's re-signed for peanuts. I think the Chiefs should move along all together. I actually was hoping Fulton would be re-signed and Morse would be traded prior or perhaps during the draft. I thought Fulton was the better center of the 2. Reid likes the guy, which IMO sucks, because it means he'll probably be higher on the priority list to re-sign, when that money could be used elsewhere (defense).

Center isn't a hard position to replace anyways.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by O.city

Yeah, if you could get some of them signed early that would be beneficial. It's a risk, but I'd see if I could get Morse to sign a cheaper deal now, before he were to play a full season healthy. If he gets hurt it sucks, but if he shows he's healthy and has a good year it's only going up.

I'm kind of thinking we should let Morse walk regardless. His pricetag is going to be way more than what we should be offering. With the way OL guys are now getting paid, he'll probably make equivalent or more than what Rodney Hudson's deal was with the Raiders. And even if he goes cheaper... how much cheaper? $6 million AAV? I still think that's too much.

I'd rather just draft another C and take a comp pick. We have 4 selections in the top 100 next year-- and 3 in the top 64. We can easily burn one on a C. Hell, burn one on another big ugly. Get a real OT in there to compete with Fisher for God's sake. And then we still have two other picks to stock up on CB and DL.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

I'm kind of thinking we should let Morse walk regardless. His pricetag is going to be way more than what we should be offering. With the way OL guys are now getting paid, he'll probably make equivalent or more than what Rodney Hudson's deal was with the Raiders. And even if he goes cheaper... how much cheaper? $6 million AAV? I still think that's too much.

I'd rather just draft another C and take a comp pick. We have 4 selections in the top 100 next year-- and 3 in the top 64. We can easily burn one on a C. Hell, burn one on another big ugly. Get a real OT in there to compete with Fisher for God's sake. And then we still have two other picks to stock up on CB and DL.

I don't like having new to the OL. Of course if the old current ones suck that's fine.

I think Morse is good. I'd prefer keeping him over Fisher and LDT

[PmCakes]

I worry about the value of a Chris Jones extension. He's the perfect scenario where we assess his overall effort and decide to pass on him (primarily due to the large contracts we've already given out) meanwhile some shit team will entice him with a max offer for the position.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Jones, Hill, Fuller and Morse.

The others aren't priorities and Morse arguably isn't.

This is also where it comes back to bite you in not just taking Jones in the first.

Never trade out of the 1st for less than a 2nd. Just don't.

That's what pissed me off so much about that whole sequence of events. If you liked Jones so much that he was your obvious, no-brianer of a steal pick in the 2nd, you should've stayed put and taken him in the 1st.

And to say "Oh, well looking back...." is just wrong. That's the kind of thing a forward thinking organization should worry about in real time and it was a pretty significant mistake.

Giving up the 5th year option on a player just to get a 4th rounder was silly. Most 4th rounders amount to next to nothing and their odds of being successful are only marginally better than your average UDFA. The hit rate isn't high enough to risk a cost-controlled year (especially a cheap one at the back of the round) on a much higher-value asset.

Hill
Fuller (we lose him, we have NOBODY)
Jones

Ragland
Morse
Conley

Robinson
Nelson

And frankly, the bottom 5 could change significantly by the end of the year. A healthy Morse puts himself in the top group. Robinson could leapfrog Conley depending on chemistry with Mahomes. Nelson...well Nelson's not changing, he blows.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Never trade out of the 1st for less than a 2nd. Just don't.

That's what pissed me off so much about that whole sequence of events. If you liked Jones so much that he was your obvious, no-brianer of a steal pick in the 2nd, you should've stayed put and taken him in the 1st.

And to say "Oh, well looking back...." is just wrong. That's the kind of thing a forward thinking organization should worry about in real time and it was a pretty significant mistake.

Giving up the 5th year option on a player just to get a 4th rounder was silly. Most 4th rounders amount to next to nothing and their odds of being successful are only marginally better than your average UDFA. The hit rate isn't high enough to risk a cost-controlled year (especially a cheap one at the back of the round) on a much higher-value asset.

Hill
Fuller (we lose him, we have NOBODY)
Jones

Ragland
Morse
Conley

Robinson
Nelson

And frankly, the bottom 5 could change significantly by the end of the year. A healthy Morse puts himself in the top group. Robinson could leapfrog Conley depending on chemistry with Mahomes. Nelson...well Nelson's not changing, he blows.

Pretty much.

Robinson and or Conley could come pretty reasonable, maybe Ragland. But looking at what they're gonna have cost wise at those positions, they're gonna have to go cheap somewhere. You've got Hitchens taking a chunk at MLB. Same with Hill and Watkins at WR>

[O.city]

Really really need someone like Tramon Smith or Nieman to become a really good player for cheap for a few years. I think this has been the biggest issue with the D. They haven't found much cheap value there recently.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by O.city

What is it with all the Ragland love?

He's shown so far to be a 2 down player.

He's better than anyone we've had besides DJ for years. We've tried and tried to get a good second ILB for so long. Now we have a pretty good one, I would prefer to keep him around.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

He's better than anyone we've had besides DJ for years. We've tried and tried to get a good second ILB for so long. Now we have a pretty good one, I would prefer to keep him around.

Better than bad isn't always good.

I'm not overly excited to pay much for a player that has to come off the field when teams decide to throw it alot

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by O.city

I don't like having new to the OL. Of course if the old current ones suck that's fine.

I think Morse is good. I'd prefer keeping him over Fisher and LDT

Rodney Hudson was also good. He was much better than Morse, in fact.

Regardless of your preference, we can't swap out LDT for Morse. So we have to deal with the problem. In my opinion, the solution is to let Morse walk.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by O.city

Better than bad isn't always good.

I'm not overly excited to pay much for a player that has to come off the field when teams decide to throw it alot

I didn't say to overpay. And hopefully we won't have to do that. But I would like to extend him for a fair price.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Rodney Hudson was also good. He was much better than Morse, in fact.

Regardless of your preference, we can't swap out LDT for Morse. So we have to deal with the problem. In my opinion, the solution is to let Morse walk.

Hudson is good. IIRC, didn't they try and resign him pretty hard in KC?

[Bewbies]

I’d try to keep all of them. But Conley, Robinson, Nelson and Morse have a lot to prove to get more than a short term prove it deal. They’ve got 2 years to do it, so it’s certainly possible.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Better than bad isn't always good.

I'm not overly excited to pay much for a player that has to come off the field when teams decide to throw it alot

I think Ragland's genuinely good. But I also think I'd let the market dictate terms and I think he'd be wise to do the same.

If someone looks at his tape and thinks "there's a 3-down 'backer" then he's gonna get offers in the $6-7 million/yr range. The Chiefs shouldn't be matching that.

If the market values him as a 2-down thumper, we're probably looking more in the $3-4 million range and I think that's a reasonable figure for continuity in the middle of your defense. I don't think he'd pass on FA for that kind of deal, nor do I think we should pay him as though he's a 3-down player. Let him test the market and if it doesn't come together, bring him back on a 2-down thumper contract and keep your defense together as it matures.

But if you're doing that, you'd better find some cheap help in the defensive backfield and Speaks/K-Pass better suck a lot less than I think they do. Sadly, I think they probably both suck quite a bit but we shall see...

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by O.city

Hudson is good. IIRC, didn't they try and resign him pretty hard in KC?

I believe that they wanted to keep him, but the Raiders overpaid and they were smart to not pay that much.