****The Tyreek Hill Thread***

[Dante84]

With the 165th pick, in the 5th round.

Nutt said that Toub felt Hill was like Devin Hester.

— Nick Jacobs (@Jacobs71) April 30, 2016

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Nobody gives a **** what you would take.

You've never even been to Kansas City and yet you get so worked up on this message board. You are pathetic.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

You've never even been to Kansas City and yet you get so worked up on this message board. You are pathetic.

Lies.

[staylor26]

The Chiefs had every intention of keeping Hill AND Brown going into the offseason.

So no, they did not “choose OBJ over Hill”.

****ing morons.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by staylor26

The Chiefs had every intention of keeping Hill AND Brown going into the offseason.

So no, they did not “choose OBJ over Hill”.

****ing morons.

That's why Hill is no longer is on the team and OBJ is about to get top tackle money. A choice was made

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by ChiTown

Hill’s co-host Julius Collins then follows up by suggesting that the reason things didn’t work out in Kansas City wasn’t because of his asking price in an extension. Instead, they suggest that the Chiefs “didn’t utilize” Hill despite knowing what he was capable of. Collins then goes on to ask whether Hill and Rosenhaus thought the Chiefs actively suppressed Hill’s stats in order to decrease his cost. The teaser trailer cuts out before Rosenhaus and Hill can respond.

Of course, clickbait.

But yeah, we ‘suppressed’ his ass into a first ballot HOF’er over the last 6 years. Well, at least until he went to Miami. The grass isn’t always greener even if there’s a lot more green on the other side. He will find that out soon enough.

I love Hill and wish him the best, no hard feelings whatsoever, but if he or his agent are in any way (not saying they are at this point) suggesting the Chiefs intentionally suppressed his value in the offense in order to retain him more cheaply, then they both can go **** themselves with a rusty fork.

I mean, the Chiefs are legit trying to win Super Bowls every ****ing year for the last 4 years, and we’re gonna intentionally sabotage our most dangerous weapon to help with future contract negotiations?

GTFO with that bullshit.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

That's why Hill is no longer is on the team and OBJ is about to get top tackle money. A choice was made

Complete and utter speculation.

And even if that were the case, it would still be an oversimplification.

It’s not about OBJ vs. Hill.

It’s about what they got for Hill and the money they saved.

It’s about positional value (LT vs. WR).

It’s about age/longevity (both of their current ages, and what positions age better).

But of course an inbred reerun like yourself doesn’t understand nuance.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Complete and utter speculation.

And even if that were the case, it would still be an oversimplification.

It’s not about OBJ vs. Hill.

It’s about what they got for Hill and the money they saved.

It’s about positional value (LT vs. WR).

It’s about age/longevity (both of their current ages, and what positions age better).

But of course an inbred reerun like yourself doesn’t understand nuance.

Angry boi

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

Angry boi

Gay boi

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

I would take Hill over all those guys we drafted with those picks

Would you take Hill on that contract and factoring in an eventual play decline due to age and wear, whenever that begins or however sharp it may be?

[Coochie liquor]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Would you take Hill on that contract and factoring in an eventual play decline due to age and wear, whenever that begins or however sharp it may be?

Bath house Billay is clueless.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Would you take Hill on that contract and factoring in an eventual play decline due to age and wear, whenever that begins or however sharp it may be?

We would need DJ to break that contract. In the next few years I don't see how the offense is better though especially with an aging Kelce.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

We would need DJ to break that contract. In the next few years I don't see how the offense is better though especially with an aging Kelce.

Thing is though Hill of last year was not the same Hill. He had a serious case of dropsies that led to INTs and teams started to take away his deep game by dropping safeties back and doubling him. He still did well, but that is not a good sign for someone like him who heavily relies on being the fastest guy on the field. At what he was going to cost the possibility of him living up to that contract would be slim.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

That's why Hill is no longer is on the team and OBJ is about to get top tackle money. A choice was made

Tyreek Hill’s contract is 25% more average per year than the top LT contract

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Thing is though Hill of last year was not the same Hill. He had a serious case of dropsies that led to INTs and teams started to take away his deep game by dropping safeties back and doubling him. He still did well, but that is not a good sign for someone like him who heavily relies on being the fastest guy on the field. At what he was going to cost the possibility of him living up to that contract would be slim.

He's the reason we won that Buffalo game that was incredible I'm not sure there's another player in the league that could do what he did. If Andy weren't so stubborn with the way teams played us with Hill we could line up and run the ball and get 5 yards whenever we wanted. I saw no decline or red flags regarding Hill. What I saw was a staff/QB that was unwilling at times to adapt to what defense was played against us.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Tyreek Hill’s contract is 25% more average per year than the top LT contract

Which is Trent Williams right? Who's like 34 or 35 years old.

I'm not faulting Veach for what he did. Again it was making the best out of a tough situation but it seems to be a foregone conclusion on here that we are better without Hill. Simply not the case.