Extra Points
News and commentary from around the Web

Baltimore Trades Orlando Brown to Kansas City

Well, Kansas City has its new left tackle, and Orlando Brown is getting to play left tackle like he wanted. I'm stunned that Baltimore was willing to do this deal with Kansas City, a major rival considering these are probably two of the top three teams in the AFC right now. Baltimore gets Kansas City's pick at No. 31 plus picks in the third, fourth, and the 2022 fifth rounds. Kansas City gets Brown, Baltimore's No. 58 pick, and a 2022 sixth-rounder. Brown is entering the last year of his contract and will need to negotiate an extension with the Chiefs.

The value Baltimore is getting in return is equal to the 44th pick in the classic Jimmy Johnson draft chart, but the 23rd pick in the Chase Stuart Football Perspective draft chart based on AV.

View Full Article

Comments

46 comments, Last at 06 May 2021, 9:15pm

1 I am left scratching my head…

I am left scratching my head why Baltimore did this. That 31 pick is unlikely to turn up a player as good as Brown. But as Aaron mentioned, you are sending him to a direct afc rival. 

The other issue...why not keep Brown? Did they need to save money? Were the relationships too far gone? Just puzzling. 

4 Brown wants Trent Williams…

Brown wants Trent Williams-money but is nowhere near as good as Trent Williams.

It definitely seemed like a trade was inevitable. I'm a little surprised that the Ravens got so little though, and had to give up their second rounder as well. The problem in doing this is:

1) They're right in the middle of their window of contention.

2) They probably won't be able to get a really good replacement with either their pick or the Chiefs pick.

3) There is no viable replacement left in the FA market either

My guess is that they like somebody from the second tier of OT draft picks (Cosmi? Tucker? Darrisaw?) well enough that they feel comfortable doing this. But if that is the case, they might have to trade up a little to ensure that they get who they want.

7 Brown made it clear publicly…

Brown made it clear publicly that he wouldn't re-sign with Baltimore because he wants to play LT full-time, right? That unfortunately did probably reduce their trade leverage a bit, although I think they did ok in the end here.

22 Agree.

It's the value of playing him this year vs. trading him now and moving on.  In terms of opportunity cost, I think they should have kept him this year.  They didn't receive enough for him in trade, especially from a conference rival.

As an outsider, I would guess that Brown was being a problem with the whole "left tackle" nonsense and they wanted to move on.

 

3 Orlando Brown excelled as a…

Orlando Brown excelled as a road-grading RT in Baltimore's run heavy scheme. 

It remains to be seen how he'll perform as LT in a pass-heavy scheme, given his limited lateral mobility. 

6 How much money are the…

How much money are the Chiefs committing right now. I'm too lazy to look at over the cap and determine everything but they're paying huge money to their quarterback their wide receiver and tight end Plus Chris Jones Frank Clark and presumably now Brown. Shouldn't that pretty much take them right up to the edge of the cap at this point.

In a sense I don't like this deal because you are already loaded at offense so you're definitely going to have some diminishing returns. I guess in a sense it's an insurance policy so that Patrick Mahomes doesn't get killed, but couldn't a cheaper option have accomplished the same thing?

8 I don't think it's ever a…

I don't think it's ever a bad thing to prioritize OL, but between the draft picks, Thuney's salary, and Brown's sure-to-be-enormous future salary, they're sinking a lot of resources there right now. Will be interesting to see if it leads them to begin disinvesting from receiver since they've also spent a lot of money in that area (including Kelce), or just from defense more broadly. I think Hill and Mathieu are both up after this season. Even if they hold onto both, it may result in cuts at other positions.

16 I feel like once you are…

I feel like once you are paying your qb enormously even if its a complete no brainer in this case, you have to start to make some very hard and careful roster decisions. 

The Patriots are not exactly an easy team to emulate, but they took the approach of cap flexibility almost at all times while they hunted for roster depth and draft picks(when they weren't being docked them). 

The Colts, by contrast and not necessarily incorrectly, paid their top pass rushers and receivers and had to roll the dice at corner, linebacker, and offensive line. Its hard to fault this strategy too much given all the wins. 

If I were the Chiefs; unless I had legitimate fears that Mahomes' play style would threaten to lead to more injuries(and they are certainly justified here); I'd probably start cutting resources from the offense and put in defense. As I mentioned above, they are already an embarassment of riches on offense and making a terrific unit otherworldly is probably not worth the investments. I think they would have been better off, in this case, splurging at corner or edge rusher. 

19 The Patriots had the…

The Patriots had the advantage of one of the finest OL coaches available, who could regularly take mid- and late-round OL players and somehow craft an elite offensive line.  (Having a QB like Brady helps with that too).  In general, the Pats would invest one high draft pick on the line, and then build the rest out of rejects and spare parts.  Don't know how they did it, other than by Dante Scharnecchia being a wizard.

 

24 It's misleading, SlotHooker...

If the Chiefs had an embarrassment of riches on offense, they wouldn't have been shutdown when the top two options were taken out by the Bucs.  Their third tier of receivers didn't step up and haven't shown they can produce.  What I saw in the SB was a one-trick pony get dominated at the point of attack, reminded me of what the Pats did to the Rams of yesteryear.

The moves they've made post-SB reeks of over-reaction.  They'd better hope their O-line comes together because there is regression in store just about everywhere else on their team.  

The Browns, Ravens, Bills are looming.  Pittsburgh still has the ghost of Big Ben behind center.

27 I mean; just because that…

I mean; just because that offense got shut down in one game doesn't imply they are fundamentally exposable. Lots of record setting offenses have had terrible games in the SB. The 2007 Pats and 2013 Broncos come to mind. I doubt anyone would look back and call those offenses frauds.

 

28 Their too the options weren…

Their two top options weren't shut down: literally *all* of their options were shut down. It's not like Tampa was just surrounding Hill and Kelce and ignoring everyone else. Schematically there just wasn't anything there.

Sometimes you need to tip your cap to the other team and say "good game." If the Chiefs OL had been less injured it would've been more of a game, but the Bucs defense just played a hell of a game, too.

30 This is my take as well…

This is my take as well. Tampa came in and had a great scheme, going against a depleted OL for KC. Not taking anything away, no excuses. Tampa was the better team on both sides of the ball. I'd like to see that game with a healthy Fisher and Schwartz - Tampa played well enough to win even then, but I think KC scores a lot more if Mahomes had a bit more time to throw.

31 Or if they just played again…

Or if they just played again, would we expect the same results?

I saw their regular season matchup where KC hung over 500 yards of offense on this same defense. And just like in 2007 when NE hung 38 on the Giants.

People really need to reconcile this in their minds. 

33 "People really need to…

"People really need to reconcile this in their minds."

70% of that yardage came in the first half. And the game was still only a 3-point game even with Brady having a bad game. By the end of that game it was pretty obvious that Tampa's defense could hang with Kansas City's offense, it's just they couldn't catch up to the lead they had spotted them. (Plus Brady didn't have a good second half, to say the least).

Plus... it's a game. Guys play differently on different weeks. Talent-wise it was obvious in the first game the two teams were close. Again - three point game, and not the "I have to onside kick to get a chance" type: Chiefs definitely had to close the first game out. Second game looked a lot more like the second half, except even more tilted in the Bucs favor with the Chiefs OL shuffled.

34 Yup. David and White had a…

Yup. David and White had a hell of a game in the Super Bowl, but if the Chiefs had had better protection, they would've made them pay for jumping on a few of those routes. But with Mahomes having to rush things and David and White just never making a mistake in coverage, the Chiefs just would've had to play flawlessly, and they didn't.

45 The Seahawks compensated for…

The Seahawks compensated for Wilson's big deal by basically spending nothing on OL for a couple of years. It was something less than a resounding success, although it could've gone worse I guess.

The Packers, conversely, spent more on OL after/in conjunction with Rodgers' big extension and relatively little on receivers, and did somewhat better. But it's worth remembering that they were lucky enough to have already not only hit on a non-1st round developmental receiver, but signed him to a (relatively) modest extension before he became top-tier.

(Also worth remembering that, now that that bill's coming due soon, they've got a cheaper QB waiting to take over, theoretically.)

I don't know if there's a particularly good way to navigate that dynamic, other than to do like the Pats and hit on a bunch of mid-round picks at various positions all the time for decades. I do worry that spreading resources from good offense to bad defense or vice-versa just makes both of them mediocre, so I'm inclined to lean into the strength and hope to scheme/luck my way to competence on the other side (basically the Colts' model).

But it's not just the resources but the players themselves: is Hill worth committing to as his speed starts to slip? Is Brown worth a big extension if he's only a RT? Would they be better off spending that money on, e.g., Stephon Gilmore, if you can only afford one of the three in 2022 (just making up a scenario)? It's a different question than just "offense or defense", and a trickier one.

23 Dankster...

There will be attrition on defense and depth on the offensive side.

Mathieu is not the player he was with Arizona.  That's why they let him walk.  He got burned in the SB, so I'm not sure why he's valued like he is.  

9 Chiefs also have big cap $…

Chiefs also have big cap $ committed to Mathieu and Thuney.  My reservation (as a Chiefs fan) is exactly theslothook's:  cap.  But Veach's clear roster plan is always give Mahomes protection and talented targets.  It broke down at the end of 2020 with cascading injuries on the line

From a talent standpoint I like the trade.  They have solidified their o-line with a pick that probably wasn't going to do that.  It now looks like Brown-Thuney-Blythe-DuvernayTardif-Long/Remmers.  Wylie, the non-starting RT, Allegretti, and Niang (sat out 2020) provide good, flexible depth options.  That is a significant upgrade on what they played the SB with.

Worst case (assuming they extend Brown), Brown is not the long-term LT but moves back to RT and Chiefs address LT next year.  I'll have to trust Veach to manage the cap consequences.

 

29 Realistically, with Mahomes…

Realistically, with Mahomes's contract they only need to juggle things for 2-3 years (depending on your definition of juggle). After that, cap growth should rapidly outstrip Mahomes's contract growth and they'll be fine, assuming Mahomes stays healthy and is okay with his contract.

10 ...but the 23rd pick in the…

...but the 23rd pick in the Chase Stuart Football Perspective draft chart based on AV.

This doesn't sound right. The Chiefs are receiving a 2nd and a 6th back. How are a 3rd, 4th and 5th enough to move the value from the 31st to the 23rd?

20 Chase's draft pick…

Chase's draft pick calculator is here http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-pick-value-calculator/

His draft pick chart values the Chiefs picks this year (31, 94, 136) at 12.7 + 5.7 + 3.3 = 21.7

The Ravens pick this year (58) = 8.7.

So his chart says a late 3rd plus a late 4th > a late 2nd.  JJ's chart says it's a late 3rd + a late 4th < a late 2nd.  That's most of the disparity between a 23rd (Chase) vs a 44th (JJ)

How to calculate the next year's 5th vs. next year's sixth is even more debatable.  A general rule of thumb would be to add a present value discount of a round and to place the pick in the middle of the (discounted round).  So 2022 5th and 6th become 2021 mid-6th and mid 7th for purposes of looking up in the calculator (or charts).  It works out to about a point more value in BAL's favor.

21.7 - 8.7 + 1 = 14 points of value.  I actually read that as pick #25, but pick #23 is 14.5 points so my calculations are pretty close to Aaron's.

Neither chart accounts for cap value, but Chase rates those mid-round picks as much more valuable than JJ (or apparently, your perception).  It also may be that the Ravens' team chart is closer to Chase's and the Chiefs' more like JJ's (and yours?).  Both teams probably also have a way to adjust the pick value for the cap costs associated with them and Brown (who's very cheap for 2021; it's his future cost that is the issue).

21 Thank you for your very…

Thank you for your very thorough explanation. There appears to be a small error, as the 6th is coming Kansas way, according to the original post. What surprises me the most is not that the 3rd + 4th might work out to be a tiny bit more valuable than the late 2nd, but that there's so small a difference between the 31st pick and the 23rd. So small, in fact, that once you factor in the 6th in favor of KC instead of against, the final result should be something very close to the value of the 31st. That doesn't seem very intuitive.

11 Chiefs seem to be overreacting

With this (and the almost assuredly new contract next year) and Thuney, they seem to be overcorrecting to one game. All they had to do was draft a guy or two and they'd be fine (and maybe snap up a Kevin Zeitler, which I guess Baltimore did 1st), they get their 3rd rounder Lucas Niang and LDT. But now their 1st pick isn't til 58 this year. Move 27 picks back, missing the 5th year option this year, move back a round next year, all just to be kinda forced to pay him a ton of money if he plays good.

On the other hand, I still wonder why Baltimore didn't just ask Stanley to play RT since that was the bigger problem, rather than OBJ just not liking the franchise.

12 Stanley is an all-pro level…

Stanley is an all-pro level LT (when healthy), whereas Brown is a functional LT in a run heavy scheme. Brown is a road-grader, Stanley is a dancing bear. Moving Stanley to RT wouldn't make any sense given their skills.  

15 Seems archaic.

Don't want a weak link and I think Stanley could make the transition well. Especially since it seems they're gonna ask Alejandro V to switch to RT next week (another long time LT in the AFC North that leans more pass blocking than run, like Stanley himself, except now they'll have two). Maybe they did ask him and he said no but you'd think that report would leak or at least one were they they tried something like that but didn't get a response.  

25 Agree.

Apparently, seeing Mahomes get smacked around in the SB gave the Cheifs PTSD.  They're behaving like it by overcompensating with some of these expensive moves.  They'd better hope it works out because they're going to have to pay some hefty contracts.

Brown was not a LT in Baltimore because they have one who is better.  It doesn't matter what he thinks he is.  This is one of those moves that didn't need to be made.

 

13 One year left on Brown's…

One year left on Brown's contract versus a 1st rounder on a rookie contract seems like good value for BAL, even accounting for the potential that the 1st rounder is a bust.

This is a situation where "BAL's unlikely to draft as good a player as Brown" and "this was a good trade for BAL" could both be true, because of the potential value of getting a star on a rookie contract in the event they hit on one.  

38 This is a situation where …

This is a situation where "BAL's unlikely to draft as good a player as Brown" and "this was a good trade for BAL" could both be true, because of the potential value of getting a star on a rookie contract in the event they hit on one.  

Peter King's note on the trade mentioned that, according to his Ravens "sources", their draft history shows that pretty much every year someone in their top ~20 or so is still on the board at the 31st pick. 

Another possibility is that the pick gives them extra ammunition to trade UP in the first, and get some star.  I'm not sure how likely that is; but this is a lot of flexibility in having two firsts.

14 Boosting the Chiefs in…

Boosting the Chiefs in exchange for a glorified pick swap? In a world where Tunsil cost 2 first rounders? Really don't get the upside here, or why they couldn't find a better bid.

Also don't get why Brown couldn't just wait a year and get an enormous paycheck to play LT for the Raiders or something.

 

17 Have to think Brown is the…

Have to think Brown is the big winner here. He moves to one of the small number of teams better than the one he currently plays for, gets to play his preferred position, and will have big time negotiating leverage with KC since they gave up draft picks to bring him in. And if negotiations don't work out how he'd like, he can go get that paycheck from Gruden or whoever (unless he has a bad season, I guess).

26 Baby Bird.

Now is the only thing that's real, baby Caw Caw.

He will get a big pay day later, regardless of whether it's with KC or not.

Playing LT and on a contender as good or better than Baltimore is what he wanted.  That said, I think it will be interesting when Baltimore goes deeper in the playoffs than KC this year, but that's how life goes...

44 It will be interesting for…

In reply to by DIVISION

It will be interesting for sure, can you explain why you think that will be the case? Because comparing the two teams, it sure seems like KC is now *clearly* better than they were a week ago, while the Ravens are *clearly* not as good on their offensive line. 

18 I read this as...

I first read the headline as "Baltimore trades Orlando Bloom to Kansas City" and was picturing a blonde haired swashbuckling elf playing football for the Chiefs... 

 

32 I think the cap argument…

I think the cap argument cuts both ways here. If KC doesn’t resign Brown, they’ve basically traded the #31 pick for a $12 million cap credit this year and a comp pick that’ll probably be around #100 in 2022. That isn’t an objectively great deal, but I think it’s a reasonable one for a team that’s clearly in “super bowl or bust” mode. 

35 Agree with this all seeming…

Agree with this all seeming a little knee-jerk by Kansas City. Yes they have gotten younger along the line, but they have spent a huge amount of resources to do so, especially if/when Brown is extended. Also, spending their first round pick on a running back last year looks ever more egregious. Fisher and Schwartz both only had 2 years left on their contracts at the time, and were already the wrong side of 30. I don't know the full circumstances behind why they were both released this off season, but it seems like bad, bad planning to allow it to become a glaring need like this.

40 I think Fisher was likely to…

I think Fisher was likely to be a cap casualty - or at least re-negotiation - this year regardless.  The Achilles injury just made it easier.  Despite some happy talk from the front office (which I regarded as smoke to obscure their draft plans, turns out it may have been their trade plans), it's unlikely Fisher is available before mid-season.  Even then his effectiveness will be compromised.  He missed time in 2019 so I think there was a warning sign about his injury risk along with his age. 

I think the team was pretty justified in NOT worrying too much about Schwartz coming into 2020.  Yes, age was an issue.  But he had hardly missed a snap in his career, much less a game.  Any football player can get hurt, especially as age creeps in, but I think the risk was lower with Schwartz than most players.  Unfortunately, low risk doesn't equal no risk.

Remmers as the swing tackle was not a bad backup.  PFF grades him as 40th among all tackles last year, which is about as good as you can do (at swing tackle) on most teams.  Niang drafted to be the developmental tackle but COVID killed that plan.

Remmers played adequately at RT in Schwartz' place but was exposed at LT against an excellent defense.  I think the team deserves some criticism for not having a better PERSONNEL LT plan but I honestly think they deserve more for not giving Remmers more help in the GAME plan.

The CEH pick was borderline stupid.  Whether or not they SHOULD have used that pick on a tackle is debatable, but an RB was a bad allocation of resources (Especially BEFORE they knew Damien Williams would sit out).  Almost any other position would have been a better pick.  I'd really hoped they could trade down out of that spot with some team that wanted the optional 5th year on a guy they had fallen in love with.

 

39 I am quite surprised to see…

I am quite surprised to see Mitchell Schwartz is still a free agent. He was an all pro a season earlier. Its a bit like Trent Williams being had for peanuts and then signing a huge deal. Its as if people just assumed the dude was washed up.

41 Schwartz hurt his back and…

Schwartz hurt his back and just had surgery in late Feb.  It's not a surprise that he's unsigned especially before the May deadline for calculating comp pick adds and losses.  I hopes he comes back from this, but honestly won't be surprised if his career is done.

I agree I didn't understand the lack of interest in Williams last year. Missing a season for sarcoma surgery (and then being pissed at the team doctors) is different than for a back/Achilles/ACL/whatever.  But it is worth noting that Williams was 32 in 2020 and hasn't played a full 16 games since 2013.  I kind of wanted the Chiefs to sign him this year and kind of was glad they didn't.

46 Trade now more completed

BAL:
5 years of Odafe Oweh
4 years of Ben Cleveland
4 years of Marco Wilson,
4 years of a 2022 5th round pick

for

KC:
1 year of Orlando Brown Jr.
4 years of Nick Bolton
4 years of a 2022 6th round pick