The mysterious absence of first-round draft pick Josh Simmons from the Kansas City Chiefs entered its sixth day on Friday, when head coach Andy Reid confirmed that the 22-year-old rookie did not take part in practice again on Friday.

But Simmons’ Friday absence was only the latest in an alarming and puzzling series of developments that one reporter called “ominous” and “eerie for Simmons as a person.”

Bobby Burack, a journalist for the sports media site

Outkick, was referring to the seemingly shifting stories given by the team to explain Simmons’ absence, and the fact that Simmons’ teammates — including the face of the franchise quarterback Patrick Mahomes — were caught by surprise by the former Ohio State offensive lineman’s absence from the team just hours before last week’s

Sunday Night Football matchup with the Detroit Lions.

Simmons Officially ‘Out’ vs. Raiders

The Chiefs announced later on Friday that Simmons would not play for the second consecutive week on Sunday when the Chiefs are scheduled to host the Las Vegas Raiders at at Arrowhead Stadium. On the Chiefs injury report, Simmons was the only player listed as “out” for Sunday’s game.

“Forget that he a superstar rookie protecting the best QB in the NFL, this timeline is eerie for Simmons as a person,” wrote Burack in a social media post on Wednesday. “And the fact that none of the reports have said what is going on adds another scary twist to it.”

According to Burack’s Outkick report published the following evening, the Chiefs appear to have violated or at least ignored their own internal procedures for handling the Simmons situation — with no real explanation as to why.

“It also appears that the standard communication process for a player missing a game was not followed,” wrote Burack. “If it had been, Mahomes and the coaching staff would have known before warm-ups that their starting left tackle was in another state.”

Simmons Returned to California: Report

Simmons, according to ESPN Chiefs reporter Nate Taylor, departed the team at an “extremely unusual” time on the day of the Lions game, and traveled to California. Simmons is a native of San Diego, and played his first season of college football at San Diego State before entering the transfer portal and arriving at Ohio State where he was part of the Buckeyes’ national championship squad last season.

According to other media reports, Simmons on the same day that he departed the Chiefs, deleted his Instagram account. But whether that move is related to the situation responsible for his absence also remains unknown.

Chiefs Give Shifting Reasons For Rookie’s Absence

The Chiefs have also given three different reasons for Simmons’ absence, first listing him as suffering from an unspecified “illness,” then subsequently describing Simmons’ situation as “personal,” but also as “a family matter.”

“Based on the team’s listing, it’s clear the issue is not a physical injury. However, the word ‘illness’ is vague — it could mean a physical ailment, a mental health struggle, or something else entirely,” Burack wrote in his

Outkick report.

“The reports of a ‘family’ situation are equally unclear. We don’t know whether the issue involves a family member or if Simmons himself is going through something for which he feels he needs his family for support,” Burack continued.

“The tone surrounding the story has grown ominous. By all indications, Josh Simmons is facing something serious — serious enough to cause him to miss start(s) in the NFL, his quarterback to pray for him, and his team to say nothing publicly,” the

Outkick reporter wrote.

Also unclear, as noted by Burack, is how much Reid and the Chiefs organization itself knows about the reasons for Simmons’ departure from the team, or if the coach — or anyone else working for the Chiefs — has been in communication with Simmons since he, reportedly, returned to California.

Nor have the Chiefs given any indication of a timeline for Simmons’ return. In a radio interview Thursday, Taylor speculated that Simmons could be out until “a month from now,” but also left open the possibility that if the lineman cannot get “a chance to get back to normalcy,” he may not return at all.