Fins are offering KC the 54th pick for Albert

[jason_taylor]

NO NO, if we are going to start playing that game it would be Vontae and JAKE for Albert. If we are going to pay 9 mil we could have just spent it on Jake and kept the pick.

when was the last time that Jake Long has been healthy for a whole season ? its been over 2 years , he is still young , yeah , but imho Long is on the decline , yeah Albert was hurt last year and was said that it was his muscles that was giving him his problems NOT HIS BACK OR SPINE , and with a good offseason im sure he can heal from that kinda of injury , BUT AS FOR LONG >?? i just dont see him coming bk and being able to stay healthy , he may start the season healthy , but i just dont see him stayin that way and theres noway i would want to pay Long 9 mil a year knowing its been over 2 years since he has been able to stay on the field for the whole 16 games, maybe 3-4 years ago Long would have been worth it BUT NOT NOW , and i think Albert will have a better career (whats left for both Albert and Long ) and i think we can get Albert for a little cheaper than 9 mil , and IMO at this stage in there career i wouldnt give Albert for Long , NOT NOW , but i think the FO. made the better decesion to go a diffrent route instead of sticking with a player that has turned injury proned .

 

[roy_miami]

What are those obvious reasons? K.C. is taking a tackle, regardless of whether or not Albert is traded by draft day.

Why in the hell would they do that? Are we still going to draft Lane Johnson if he falls to us at 12 regardless of whether or not we have Albert? Clearly you have no respect for their FO but lets not assume they are completely loony tunes. If its such a guarantee they are taking a tackle regardless then lets just wait for them to cut Albert.

 

[jason_taylor]

Why in the hell would they do that? Are we still going to draft Lane Johnson if he falls to us at 12 regardless of whether or not we have Albert? Clearly you have no respect for their FO but lets not assume they are completely loony tunes. If its such a guarantee they are taking a tackle regardless then lets just wait for them to cut Albert.

the problem with that is , if they dont trade Albert than he will be playin RT for them this coming year and try and trade him again after this year , but theres noway they just cut Albert because they gave him the franchise tag so i just cant see them just cutting him stright out .Albert is under contract and he may not want to play RT but he will have to do whatever KC wants him to do until they trade him wheather its this year or next year.

 

[roy_miami]

the problem with that is , if they dont trade Albert than he will be playin RT for them this coming year and try and trade him again after this year , but theres noway they just cut Albert because they gave him the franchise tag so i just cant see them just cutting him stright out .Albert is under contract and he may not want to play RT but he will have to do whatever KC wants him to do until they trade him wheather its this year or next year.

Maybe the media is blowing it out of proportion but it sounds like he's already disgruntled just by being tagged, it sounds to me like he might take the year off rather than play RT while under the franchise tag. At the very least I doubt Reid wants to start his tenure with the Chiefs with major locker room drama. Again, maybe I'm misreading the situation and Albert's really a cool, go with the flow kind of dude.

 

[Danny]

They tagged him so he's hardly unwanted.

They tagged him to get something for him instead of losing him without getting anything in return. Big difference.

Ozzy rules!!

 

[Hayden Fox]

They tagged him to get something for him instead of losing him without getting anything in return. Big difference.

Ozzy rules!!

Correct.

 

[madridfinfan]

Its clear KC wants to cut ties with Albert. I'd wait to make any move until draft day. If KC picks an OT 1st overall, well
Have more leverage, and maybe could swing it for a 3rd.

We then trade back in first and pick up another second (or third), which will cancel out yhe pick lost for Albert.

I guess the contract demands are what worries me. If it's for 7 I'd do it. If he's asking 9, I say no.

1 TE Eifert (trade down with Dallas?)
2 DE Carredine
2 OT Albert (traded to KC)
2 CB Poyer, Slay, Wilson, Amerson (from Dallas)
3 WR Swope
3 FS Swearinger
4 RB Lattimore
5 CB Hawthorne
5 LB
7 OL depth, K

 

[finfan54]

If this goes through we are most certainly trading down in rd 1 to get more picks. Ireland has prob already talked to Minn, SF, and/or Atl and has some idea of what he can do next Thursday.

Vonte for Albert and the same number of 1st and 2nd rd picks in a draft where there is little parity between 15 and 60.... Fine.

from the snippets on kffl.com i hear Atlanta is willing to go all the way up for Jordan. That means trading away their entire draft. If Jordan falls to us that would be a boondogle and then we trade back up into first round earlier than that. not likely.

Minnesota is eyeing Austin probly and going over St louis' head.
Dallas likes Vaccarro and we are talking Vaccarro as well. I could see this happening and then we pick at 18 ahead of Giants -----> Eifert
St louis also might want to have some insurance and give us their 3rd rounder so we could move to 16 and still get cooper maybe or Eifert or any top player who slides.

Ansah, Austin, Patterson, Vaccarro, and maybe CB's teams will want to trade up for. The value has changed due to rookie cap. thats why atlanta is willing to go all the way up for one player. also, cap situations where they wouldnt need 6 -7 mil to sign all the guys, just one or two.

Also, I wouldnt be surprised to see us trade back into the first rd. with New England should we end up with multiple mid round picks. yeah its the pats but the tide will change if we can land another impact player.

 

[Shaman]

Hard to believe we're offering 54 when we know KC don't want him. We shold have never offer anything more than a 3rd. I'm very upset at the FO doing this. Nobody has even offer them anything so why a 2nd round pick for a guy that has played 16 games only once?

Ozzy rules!!

I know what you're getting at, but to say that no one has offered them anything is wild speculation on your part. It has been reported that a number of teams have shown some interest, and just because trade offers aren't splashed all over social media doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[matt11390]

from the snippets on kffl.com i hear Atlanta is willing to go all the way up for Jordan. That means trading away their entire draft. If Jordan falls to us that would be a boondogle and then we trade back up into first round earlier than that. not likely.

Minnesota is eyeing Austin probly and going over St louis' head.
Dallas likes Vaccarro and we are talking Vaccarro as well. I could see this happening and then we pick at 18 ahead of Giants -----> Eifert
St louis also might want to have some insurance and give us their 3rd rounder so we could move to 16 and still get cooper maybe or Eifert or any top player who slides.

Ansah, Austin, Patterson, Vaccarro, and maybe CB's teams will want to trade up for. The value has changed due to rookie cap. thats why atlanta is willing to go all the way up for one player. also, cap situations where they wouldnt need 6 -7 mil to sign all the guys, just one or two.

Also, I wouldnt be surprised to see us trade back into the first rd. with New England should we end up with multiple mid round picks. yeah its the pats but the tide will change if we can land another impact player.

The problem with this ... the idea of moving down ... is if we want Ausin, Eifert, or Cooper, we can't move down. All three could be gone by 12 and no later than 15.

 

[hunt4luck000]

i want to keep our all picks , Fartland should manup" and say to KC .. is not what u want from us,, is what we want to give for fat albert , thats a 4th no more no less.............

 

[3rdandinches]

Personally I see the trading of Albert as simple as this.....

New coach who has gone through paying big money to LT's that constantly were hurt. Never had the opportunity to draft a new franchise LT because they always had great seasons. Realizes this team is way to talented to pick top 5 again, let alone top 10.

There are no ties to Albert but would have to pay big money to keep him. Draft Joekel #1 = Franchise LT = Save money compared to Albert = Reid's pick.
Trade Albert and get an extra pick for your first year in KC.

Therefore the trade only makes sense on A.Reid's behalf, that's how I see it. This scenario has nothing to do with Albert's talent level and KC not wanting him, it's more of a situation A.Reid is taking advantage of.

 

[Shaman]

I think people are also overlooking the fact that there's no Andrew Luck or RGIII sitting atop the mountain this year. Luke Joeckel may be the top pick because, quite simply, he's possibly the best (and safest) pick in this draft. Would KC jettison Albert if Luck, RGIII Cam Newton or a Von Miller were staring them in the face?

 

[J Tes]

i want to keep our all picks , Fartland should manup" and say to KC .. is not what u want from us,, is what we want to give for fat albert , thats a 4th no more no less.............

You know how you get people to read and take your opinions seriously? Call someone "fartland"

 

[Geforce]

Why in the hell would they do that? Are we still going to draft Lane Johnson if he falls to us at 12 regardless of whether or not we have Albert? Clearly you have no respect for their FO but lets not assume they are completely loony tunes. If its such a guarantee they are taking a tackle regardless then lets just wait for them to cut Albert.

If the Chiefs drafted Eric Fisher, they can keep Albert at left tackle and play Fisher at right tackle since Fisher has already gone on record that he is willing to play right tackle as a rookie.