[FlaChief58]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

Maybe I should have started a new thread but I just responded to some people here.

Frankly, I don't understand the "won't consider trading player X" philosophy unless that player is Mahomes. This is the NFL. You are always looking to improve and always looking to the future. I get that Hill is a tremendous talent but answer this question seriously: aside from Randy Moss, how many high-priced WRs did the Patriots hire over the last 15 years? We are very strong at WR, particularly if you consider that Kelce is practically a WR. When we have the best QB in the league, a QB who can consistently put the ball into small places that are hard to defend, multiple great receivers are a luxury. In a sense, WRs are similar to RBs. A middle of the road RB can put up good numbers behind a great OL. Look at Denver for years. And a middle to good WR can put up good numbers with a great QB. So the question is whether you can afford the luxury.

Our CBs are not great, to put it mildly. Yeah, we can provide some coverage for pass protection through improved safety play, and I think Matthieu and Thornhill are good upgrades at safety. But the one position for which the Patriots will shell out $ for free agents on a consistent basis is CB. And if Bill Bellichek thinks the position is that important in today's NFL, then I think we should focus on getting good CBs.

I get the argument one CB doesn't do any good because the QB can pass to the other side. Even if they pass to the other side, if you've got 1 shut down CB you can use a FS for pass protection support. Also, that cuts out 1/2 the field that needs coverage, which frees up other players to either rush the QB or provide additional coverage.

For that reason, I think that the front office should not be afraid to consider anything that might make the team better. Emphasis on "team". So ask yourself, if Chicago offered Kyle Fuller or NE offered Stephon Gilmore or AZ offered Peterson for Tyreek Hill, would you automatically, reflexively say "no" without charting how the team would look under each scenario? If you would automatically say "no", why?

I do not understand why someone wouldn't consider it. The price would be admittedly high. I absolutely get automatically saying "no" if the offer was Scandrick but any of those CBs would improve this team tremendously. The question is whether the improvement would be worth the cost. And you cannot reach that decision without at least considering it.

Holy **** dude?!?!