****Our Wide Receivers Suck- Official Thread****

[Sofa King]

They can’t get open, they drop passes in their hands, their jet sweeps are slow and terrible. These guys are not good.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by O.city

They chose not to spend at a time when teams doing the trading have leverage and the Chiefs have 3 million in cap space.

They'll likely have a better idea in the offseason what the cap looks like going forward once they know who they will and will not resign

They said they were going to "develop" Skyy Moore and didn't need anyone.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

It was a bad pick.

No asterisk needed.


It happens, no one hits them all.

The hell it was.

Ben Benogou was a 'bad' pick. Lonnie Johnson was. JJ Arecega-Whiteside was probably the worst pick of the DRAFT made by the unassailable Howie Roseman.

There were 6, maybe 8 players taken in the 2nd round that were better over their rookie deals than Mecole Hardman was. THAT'S how you evaluate a pick. That's not a 'bad' pick by any stretch of the imagination.

It's a relatively forgettable one.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Again, when judged against the capital he's actually spent at the position, I think his WR picks have been pretty much dead-ass average. Though that's presuming that Rice continues to develop into a fringe #1/strong #2 as he appears to be trending.

You want to base your outcomes on guys NOT taken in any given year but that doesn't give fair perspective, afterall, most OTHER teams also missed on those guys in some form or fashion. I mean why make a WR for WR comparison - anybody that took anyone that WASN'T DK Metcalf missed on him just as badly as Veach did when he took Hardman. The Raiders taking Trayvon Mullen isn't a 'closer' miss because Mullen's not a WR. It's a worse miss because Mullen sucked balls.

Tennessee getting AJ Brown at 51 that year is the only team in the round who you can realistically say DIDN'T **** up their 2nd round pick that season when you start talking about who DIDN'T get taken. For that matter, pretty much everyone ****ed up their FIRST round selection by that calculous. I mean Metcalf is probably one of the 10 best players out of that draft.

It's just not a representative way to evaluate things.

I don't think I agree because other teams had different needs than we did. If Veach felt he had to draft a WR because of the Tyreek situation, him getting Mecole instead of DK, or Terry doesn't make sense. If he wanted a WR last year, him trading back and settling for Moore when he could have had Pickens doesn't make sense.

If teams drafted strictly off BPA, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But outside of the top 10 or so, teams usually have target positions they're trying to hit so the Raiders likely targeted improving their DBs over improving their WRs that year while we were looking to draft a WR because we thought Tyreek might be suspended or flat out kicked out the league.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Veach himself disagreed with this.

You don't replace Tyreek one to one.


If they wanted speed it should have been McLaurin.

Wow, you don't replace Tyreek one to one, really? They were looking for someone to at least take the top of the defense if Hill was gone. They would have never drafted Metcalf. As far as Mclauren, he was rated below Mecole and slightly slower in the 40, but he was slow to top speed and the opposite was true of Mecole with rapid acceleration. McClaurin went in the Middle of the 3rd round, so others thought the same thing.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The hell it was.

Ben Benogou was a 'bad' pick. Lonnie Johnson was. JJ Arecega-Whiteside was probably the worst pick of the DRAFT made by the unassailable Howie Roseman.

There were 6, maybe 8 players taken in the 2nd round that were better over their rookie deals than Mecole Hardman was. THAT'S how you evaluate a pick. That's not a 'bad' pick by any stretch of the imagination.

It's a relatively forgettable one.

You're talking about something else.

Mecole was not a bust.

He was a BAD pick when 3 guys that have functioned as the #1WR on their respective teams were all on the board.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

Wow, you don't replace Tyreek one to one, really? They were looking for someone to at least take the top of the defense if Hill was gone. They would have never drafted Metcalf. As far as Mclauren, he was rated below Mecole and slightly slower in the 40, but he was slow to top speed and the opposite was true of Mecole with rapid acceleration. McClaurin went in the Middle of the 3rd round, so others thought the same thing.

Rated by whom?


He was a far better WR coming out of college than Mecole. They missed.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by -King-

I don't think I agree because other teams had different needs than we did. If Veach felt he had to draft a WR because of the Tyreek situation, him getting Mecole instead of DK, or Terry doesn't make sense. If he wanted a WR last year, him trading back and settling for Moore when he could have had Pickens doesn't make sense.

If teams drafted strictly off BPA, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But outside of the top 10 or so, teams usually have target positions they're trying to hit so the Raiders likely targeted improving their DBs over improving their WRs that year while we were looking to draft a WR because we thought Tyreek might be suspended or flat out kicked out the league.

Depends on how strictly you define 'needs'.

Because I'd be hard pressed to find any team out there that didn't have use for a 1,000 yard receiver. So if you define it broadly, everyone was in the same boat as us, at least as it relates to McLaurin and Metcalf.

And if you define it narrowly, we 'needed' speed because Jabba's crack reporting skills sure as shit made it look like we were about to lose Tyreek Hill about a week before the damn draft. So defined narrowly, WE didn't need DK Metcalf or Terry McLaurin, neither of whom are burners.

But in the end that's why you just shell game it. And I've said this for probably a half-decade now (often to O.City, IIRC) -- over the life of a rookie deal, EVERY position will be a need at some point. Now we have a franchise QB so you can take that off the list. But we've had people calling TE a dire need for 3 seasons here because eventually Kelce will age out. Anywhere on the OL is a need because guys get expensive. CB is going to be a need because Sneed's about to get spendy.

And then you just shell game the cap space around to backfill as necessary.

No, I've never liked that sort of analysis. It's how bad teams get built. And it's how rearview mirror criticism of relatively benign draft selections like Mecole Hardman take root.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

You're talking about something else.

Mecole was not a bust.

He was a BAD pick when 3 guys that have functioned as the #1WR on their respective teams were all on the board.

Sub-optimal /= bad.

JJ Arcega-Whiteside was a bad pick.

Hardman was sub-optimal.

There's light years of difference between the two.

[O.city]

I'd say the Hardman pick was a bit more valuable overall than the Thornhill pick.

Maybe about equal?

[JPH83]

I think I agree with DJ that Hardman was an average not especially bad pick. I assume we agree moving out from Pickens and taking Moore was a bad one. Rice looks pretty good, we'll see. But to be honest I'd throw the CEH pick into the equation. The evaluation of the need for that type of player, and the evaluation of the actual player were horrible given Higgins was on the board. I don't care who we had in the WR room at the time. Medium to long term that was the pick.

[O.city]

Also, how the **** did I, O.city, get the rep of not wanting to spend?

I'd love to blow out the WR spot (and DE, you know who) but they're just not gonna do it.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by JPH83

I think I agree with DJ that Hardman was an average not especially bad pick. I assume we agree moving out from Pickens and taking Moore was a bad one. Rice looks pretty good, we'll see. But to be honest I'd throw the CEH pick into the equation. The evaluation of the need for that type of player, and the evaluation of the actual player were horrible given Higgins was on the board. I don't care who we had in the WR room at the time. Medium to long term that was the pick.

Hindsight and all, but IMO, the pick there shoulda been Winfield Jr.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

They said they were going to "develop" Skyy Moore and didn't need anyone.

Toney and Moore were the big failures here. Skyy just sucks, but Toney has talent and we've seen flashes. He is useful as a complimentary receiver. They were wrong about him being a WR1.

I think the thought process was that they had a defense building itself us up, they liked what they saw from Toney and believed in Skyy.

I think the goal next Spring is to bring in a legit vet at a good but not crazy price tag. Marquise Brown, Calvin Ridley, Mike Evans, Michael Pittman Jr, Tyler Boyd. Lots of options.

They're gonna have to shell out some cash for a vet IMO. That's why I think it's a good idea to trade Chris Jones for assets and cap space. Use one of your two early picks on a WR to go with that vet.

Defense would still be top 10 next year but with better WR's

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Depends on how strictly you define 'needs'.

Because I'd be hard pressed to find any team out there that didn't have use for a 1,000 yard receiver. So if you define it broadly, everyone was in the same boat as us, at least as it relates to McLaurin and Metcalf.

And if you define it narrowly, we 'needed' speed because Jabba's crack reporting skills sure as shit made it look like we were about to lose Tyreek Hill about a week before the damn draft. So defined narrowly, WE didn't need DK Metcalf or Terry McLaurin, neither of whom are burners.

But in the end that's why you just shell game it. And I've said this for probably a half-decade now (often to O.City, IIRC) -- over the life of a rookie deal, EVERY position will be a need at some point. Now we have a franchise QB so you can take that off the list. But we've had people calling TE a dire need for 3 seasons here because eventually Kelce will age out. Anywhere on the OL is a need because guys get expensive. CB is going to be a need because Sneed's about to get spendy.

And then you just shell game the cap space around to backfill as necessary.

No, I've never liked that sort of analysis. It's how bad teams get built. And it's how rearview mirror criticism of relatively benign draft selections like Mecole Hardman take root.

Metcalf ran a 4.3 didn't he. Guy absolutely IS a deep threat even if he can't do the sweeps etc that Hardman does.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by O.city

Also, how the **** did I, O.city, get the rep of not wanting to spend?

I'd love to blow out the WR spot (and DE, you know who) but they're just not gonna do it.

Because you kind of flip flop between the two. In one thread you're ultra conservative because of how much we pay Mahomes and in another you're throwing out wild trades and free agent pickups that would cost a lot.