The Preseason mega thread

[Lamardirts 2,114]

Ima pump the breaks a little on Buechele.   He looked great against the Arizona Cardinals 2nd/3rd stringers.   I love his talent and the idea of the team developing him but he isn't getting a 3/10 million contract in the NFL at least not until he has played meaningful snaps in a real game and proven he can.  I'm also willing to bet he is just happy to be in the league and is hoping for a roster spot.   Crazy how he went from the roster bubble two weeks ago to a guy who wouldn't sign a long term contract here because he can get a better deal from another team (Remember other teams don't have Andy Reid as their OC/HC).  I am pulling for him to make this roster because I like his upside over Gabbert but I don't think he is some desired qb by a ton of NFL teams.  I think there are quite a few teams that would love to claim him but I doubt hardly any are willing to trade for him atm.  Maybe I'm wrong but he isn't quite a proven commodity.

[Mr Ev 332]

On 8/20/2023 at 7:31 AM, Spfdchiefsfan said:

DO NOT let Mr E hear you say that, oh lawd, the fight you will cause!

Right….

Defense isn’t anything to lean on at the moment but we certainly have depth all over.

[oldtimer 8,686]

21 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Wonder how EB would value Shane.  I doubt there's many opportunities for him to be traded to be a starter, but certainly as a back up with the chance to compete for starting next season.  If the Chiefs are locked in on Gabbert being the first back up to Mahomes, then trading Bushele makes sense.  Keeping three QBs on the 53 isn't a good option and Bushele won't survive the poachers on the PS. 

I thought hat was the reason for this new Emergency Qb rule. I'd think since Gabbert has starting QB experience, if any QB has some value it'd be  him

[Thegoatee 1,780]

The NFL’s roster size limitations are stupid, especially for dressing and sitting. But like OT, I thought the emergency QB rule is a reason why we’d have three?

[DieHard 2,061]

3 hours ago, jetlord said:

Wonder how EB would value Shane.  I doubt there's many opportunities for him to be traded to be a starter, but certainly as a back up with the chance to compete for starting next season.  If the Chiefs are locked in on Gabbert being the first back up to Mahomes, then trading Bushele makes sense.  Keeping three QBs on the 53 isn't a good option and Bushele won't survive the poachers on the PS. 

That would a smart move by them. They don’t have much at QB and he knows the system. I would lobby for it if I were EB.

[gochiefsgo 380]

On 8/21/2023 at 5:34 PM, Thegoatee said:

The NFL’s roster size limitations are stupid, especially for dressing and sitting. But like OT, I thought the emergency QB rule is a reason why we’d have three?

The NFL isn’t going to allow what happened in last years NFC championship game against the 49ers and Eagles to happen again. 49ers had no quarterbacks left on the roster and they got crushed in what is typically a “better” game than what the Super Bowl usually is. It’s bad for the brand to have one team stifled by the roster size limitations with no emergency QB available and just get blasted like that. 

[Lamardirts 2,114]

On 8/21/2023 at 5:34 PM, Thegoatee said:

The NFL’s roster size limitations are stupid, especially for dressing and sitting. But like OT, I thought the emergency QB rule is a reason why we’d have three?

I think its a great rule but that 3rd qb counts against the 53 man roster so in that way it stinks.  They have expanded everything else so why not give teams an extra 1-2 persons on the roster.  

[kkuenn 3,597]

2 hours ago, Lamardirts said:

I think its a great rule but that 3rd qb counts against the 53 man roster so in that way it stinks.  They have expanded everything else so why not give teams an extra 1-2 persons on the roster.  

The third quarterback can be placed on an inactive roster spot where he would not use a spot on the 53 player active roster. He may enter the game if the quarterbacks on the active roster are injured or disqualified.

[jetlord 10,209]

2 hours ago, kkuenn said:

The third quarterback can be placed on an inactive roster spot where he would not use a spot on the 53 player active roster. He may enter the game if the quarterbacks on the active roster are injured or disqualified.

Are you sure about that?  My understanding is that the third QB has to be on the 53 but not on the game day roster.  So 47 plus the third QB can play in a game, but the QB only if the first two become disabled.  

[Lamardirts 2,114]

3 hours ago, kkuenn said:

The third quarterback can be placed on an inactive roster spot where he would not use a spot on the 53 player active roster. He may enter the game if the quarterbacks on the active roster are injured or disqualified.

I'm not sure about that.  I think that is game day active roster.  Meaning he has to be on the 53 but on game day he doesn't have to be on the active game day roster but could still play.   I could be wrong though.

[kkuenn 3,597]

43 minutes ago, Lamardirts said:

I'm not sure about that.  I think that is game day active roster.  Meaning he has to be on the 53 but on game day he doesn't have to be on the active game day roster but could still play.   I could be wrong though.

Well i googled and got that? I believe I read and heard about it too when it came out. Just a free player to have on game days in case they get the SF bug....

[kkuenn 3,597]

1 minute ago, kkuenn said:

Well i googled and got that? I believe I read and heard about it too when it came out. Just a free player to have on game days in case they get the SF bug....

Well I have landed and looked up another search and you were right.

 

 

For starters, the third quarterback must be on the 53-man roster. This could prompt plenty of teams to never utilize it. As to the teams that do, they'll be permitted to dress the third quarterback without having him count against the game-day limit.2 days ago

[kccrow 529]

My 53-Man... Not sure how close it'll be but it's what I think should happen...

Offense (25)

QB P. Mahomes, B. Gabbert, S. Buechele
RB I. Pacheco, J. McKinnon, L. Perine, C. Edwards-Helaire
TE T. Kelce, N. Gray, M. Bushman
WR M. Valdes-Scantling, R. Rice, R. James, S. Moore, J. Ross, I. Smith-Marsette
OL D. Smith, J. Thuney, C. Humphrey, T. Smith, J. Taylor, N. Allegretti, L. Niang, D. Kinnard, W. Morris

Defense (25)

DE G. Karlaftis, M. Danna, F. Anudike-Uzomah, M. Herring, B. Thompson
DT D. Nnadi, K. Coburn, D. Shelton, T. Wharton, P. Hoskins
LB N. Bolton, D. Tranquill, W. Gay, L. Chenal, C. Christiansen
CB L. Sneed, J. Watson, T. McDuffie, N. Jones, J. Williams, K. Hailassie
DB J. Reid, B. Cook, M. Edwards, C. Conner

Special Teams (3)

K H. Butker
P T. Townsend
LS J. Winchester

Reserve/Injured (DTR): WR K. Toney
Reserve/Suspended: DL C. Omenihu
Reserve/Did Not Report: DT C. Jones
 

The toughest decision might end up Prince Tega Wanogho vs Darian Kinnard. I don't think Kinnard should make the team but who of Niang, Morris, and Wanogho can slide into guard comfortably if they cut Kinnard? That will be interesting to see what Reid decides.

I can't fathom keeping Justin Watson over Smith-Marsette, I really can't, but it absolutely could and probably will happen because Watson signed that 2-year contract. In any event, I would cut Watson.

Everyone pencils in Cochrane as the 5th linebacker because he was solid on special teams last year but I just think Christiansen is the better actual linebacker. I'll keep the guy who makes the plays instead of reading the plays every day of the week. 

I'm kind of hoping Veach can turn Clyde for a decent TE prospect from another squad but we'll have to see what happens. I think Perine and Prince are solid enough options that you don't need to keep Clyde around. Maybe they could make a move with Washington for John Bates given they have a thick battle going at TE over there. Hmm....

 

 

 

[kkuenn 3,597]

Think there will be a trade of a WR and we keep Ihmir Smith Marsette then. Candidate that may make sense? MVS who would get us a good deal plus cap relief for us too. I think a WR is traded for sure even if it is Smith Marsette. Just thinking outside the box where this would also give us cap relief too.

[jetlord 10,209]

I think Watson is a lock and ISM will be traded or poached.  Also believe the Chiefs like Bell enough to keep him and Wise over Hoskins at DT.   Not sure if Hailasse makes it beyond the PS.  Expect Kinnard or Niang to be cut, probably Niang since Kinnard could play IOL.   Sure wish there was a market for CEH.  Could use that cap relief. 

[jetlord 10,209]

,,...and in breaking news, Andy Reid say Toney is, "Day by day." 

Guess we'll just to see how it goes.  That's how we roll. 

[Burpo The Mad Clown 5,554]

1 hour ago, jetlord said:

,,...and in breaking news, Andy Reid say Toney is, "Day by day." 

Guess we'll just to see how it goes.  That's how we roll. 

As long as Kadarius Watkins is ready by the playoffs it’s all good. 

[kccrow 529]

1 hour ago, jetlord said:

,,...and in breaking news, Andy Reid say Toney is, "Day by day." 

Guess we'll just to see how it goes.  That's how we roll. 

Always "day by day" with Reid hahaha. Now that IR and PUP reservations allow you to come back in 4 weeks, it's not that bad to put a guy on it. We just can't put him on PUP since he participated in TC practices. 

[CranjisMcbasketball 780]

4 hours ago, kkuenn said:

Think there will be a trade of a WR and we keep Ihmir Smith Marsette then. Candidate that may make sense? MVS who would get us a good deal plus cap relief for us too. I think a WR is traded for sure even if it is Smith Marsette. Just thinking outside the box where this would also give us cap relief too.

According to over the cap a MVS trade saves 9 million this season. If we could swap him to a team deep at DT or maybe get a 4th round pick back it would be interesting 

[jetlord 10,209]

1 hour ago, CranjisMcbasketball said:

According to over the cap a MVS trade saves 9 million this season. If we could swap him to a team deep at DT or maybe get a 4th round pick back it would be interesting 

Who would pay $9 million for MVS?  They could get ISM cheaper.

[CranjisMcbasketball 780]

44 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Who would pay $9 million for MVS?  They could get ISM cheaper.

who knows man, theres lot of stupid teams out there. 49ers spent 3 first round picks on a qb, gave him 4 starts, and dealt him for a 4th. stuff happens

[Holmes4six! 968]

3 hours ago, jetlord said:

Who would pay $9 million for MVS?  They could get ISM cheaper.

Not if ISM makes the team. 

[jetlord 10,209]

38 minutes ago, Holmes4six! said:

Not if ISM makes the team. 

The only way I see him making the team is if some other projected WR is traded.  Moore, Toney, Rice, and Ross aren't going anywhere.  Watson and James have contracts that won't help the Chiefs if they are traded.  MVS would be a good contract to get out of but Reid isn't one to trade a vet and depend on second year and rookie players. 

[Spfdchiefsfan 621]

7 hours ago, jetlord said:

The only way I see him making the team is if some other projected WR is traded.  Moore, Toney, Rice, and Ross aren't going anywhere.  Watson and James have contracts that won't help the Chiefs if they are traded.  MVS would be a good contract to get out of but Reid isn't one to trade a vet and depend on second year and rookie players. 

MVS is not getting traded.  My guess, they adjust somewhere else on the roster, and keep the ISM kid for punt returns and special teams.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

18 hours ago, jetlord said:

Who would pay $9 million for MVS?  They could get ISM cheaper.

That would be a mistake at this point, I think.  ISM looked all-world against the 3's and 4's of bad defenses in the preseason.  I would want to see him against the ones of good teams before making a decision like that.  Is he a great athlete?  Obviously.  But how many great athletes have been total busts in the NFL?  A lot.  It takes a lot more than athleticism.