The Kansas City Chiefs aren’t your usual “rebuilding” candidate. The Chiefs have played in two Super Bowls in the last four years and won one. The worst result of the Andy Reid/Patrick Mahomes era is a loss in the AFC title game, and both of those losses were quite close (and painstaking). A four-year stretch like that is the stuff of dreams for most fans.
However, the Chiefs’ free agency activity suggests that they are embarking on a different sort of rebuild. This offseason saw the Chiefs move on from some key contributors, including safety Tyrann Mathieu, cornerback Charvarius Ward, and receiver Tyreek Hill (via trade).
Presently, the Chiefs have several weaknesses. Their edge rusher group is amongst the worst in the league. They are thin at cornerback. They do not have a number one wide receiver.
The Kansas City Chiefs are potentially taking short-term hits for long-term gains this offseason.
Is it possible that the Chiefs struck out on every free agent cornerback and edge rusher? Perhaps, but I highly doubt that. After all, the Chiefs inked both Valdez-Scantling and Smith-Schuster shortly after the Tyreek Hill trade, good evidence that Brett Veach and the front office can make the deals they want to make. If they wanted a veteran cornerback to start opposite Rashad Fenton, surely they could have added a Stephon Gilmore, Casey Heyward, or Darious Williams—or even re-signed Charvarius Ward.
The Chiefs’ free agent moves—both the ones they made and the ones they didn’t make—suggest that the team is committed to infusing youth into the roster. The Chiefs probably could have signed a mid-level edge rusher or veteran corner, especially after the Hill trade freed up a lot of cash. The fact that they didn’t make those moves, and traded Hill for a bunch of draft picks, may mean that the Chiefs are prioritizing the long-term viability of the roster.
It wouldn’t be shocking if the Chiefs show some growing pains next season. It’ll be tough to Tyreek Hill, both in terms of production and the sort of fear he invokes in defenses. If the Chiefs were dead set, all-in for next year, they probably would’ve already made a move for a starting-caliber free agent DE or CB. Maybe they would’ve found a way to make it work with Hill.
But the weaknesses present on the Chiefs roster could have been partly ameliorated by free agent signings. The present state of the roster suggests the Chiefs are prioritizing the draft and development of young players. By shifting their outlook toward youth and cost-effectiveness, the Chiefs are building for the future while still competing in the now. They aren’t facing a rebuild on the level of the Jacksonville Jaguars or Houston Texans. When Mahomes is your quarterback, you are always, at the very least, in the mix.
The choice to move on from some key starters and the lack of “splashy” signings probably hurts the team in the immediate future. The point is that current roster deficiencies are a byproduct of their plan to get younger and viable in the long-term rather than a sign that the plan has failed. For this different “rebuild” we probably won’t be able to judge the results for a couple years. It’s a plan that prioritizes long-term viability over short term dominance, and that prioritizing may involve a slight step back next season. That potential step back is less a sign of failure than a natural byproduct of a long-term team-building effort.