****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.

[DJ's left nut]

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.

No, you see, that pick was fine because MEH isn't a WR. Our NEEDS were different...

(Am I doing this right?)

In seriousness, you make a great point there. Exactly the point I was trying to make, far more concisely. We 'needed' a RB more than a WR at that point but that doesn't make the selection of MEH over Higgens less egregious. Nor does it mean that we should REALLY be frustrated by MEH over Taylor. Laviska Shenault would've been even less defensible we got a WR who wasn't Higgins.

MEH is a bad pick because he's been a bad football player. Full stop. The rest is just masturbating.

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by O.city

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

Maybe but if we wanted offense it was the.1,000 yard WR not the dud RB

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by JPH83

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.

Long-strider, though.

Not a guy who you could look at and say "man, if he develops, he could be used very similar to Tyreek Hill..."

And I said this when we took Hardman and I wanted McLaurin - I HATED the idea of trying to do a like-kind exchange. If you lose Hill, pivot.

But if your approach is 'pivot' then you don't need a WR. You could just draft a DE and backfill at WR in free agency at that point. Which is why trying to make these conversations into need conversations just muddies the waters.

If you are going to make a 'need' argument, it necessarily follows that the 'need' should be a 1 for 1 replacement. And by that standard, Hardman fits better than Metcalf.

But need arguments make for really strained conclusions. So it makes a hell of a lot more sense to simply avoid them, IMO.

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No, you see, that pick was fine because MEH isn't a WR. Our NEEDS were different...

(Am I doing this right?)

In seriousness, you make a great point there. Exactly the point I was trying to make, far more concisely. We 'needed' a RB more than a WR at that point but that doesn't make the selection of MEH over Higgens less egregious. Nor does it mean that we should REALLY be frustrated by MEH over Taylor. Laviska Shenault would've been even less defensible we got a WR who wasn't Higgins.

MEH is a bad pick because he's been a bad football player. Full stop. The rest is just masturbating.

I'd argue we didn't need a RB more and definitely not in the 1st round, so it's a double whammy of s***ness, but yeah we're basically on the same page.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by JPH83

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.

Yeah, I remember arguing with people on Metcalf that draft and he wasn't even my type or my draft love but his limited route tree might be 4 routes but those 4 routes were all special in that if you don't shade that safety over his way he's going to murder you.

So while I didn't see him as a top ten player he was absolutely a 1st round talent, my crude comp was Plaxico Burress.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

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

Hurts.

Because the Eagles would still be trying to make due with Carson Wentz and I wouldn't have to hear about how brilliant Howie !@#$ing Roseman is...

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Long-strider, though.

Not a guy who you could look at and say "man, if he develops, he could be used very similar to Tyreek Hill..."

And I said this when we took Hardman and I wanted McLaurin - I HATED the idea of trying to do a like-kind exchange. If you lose Hill, pivot.

But if your approach is 'pivot' then you don't need a WR. You could just draft a DE and backfill at WR in free agency at that point. Which is why trying to make these conversations into need conversations just muddies the waters.

If you are going to make a 'need' argument, it necessarily follows that the 'need' should be a 1 for 1 replacement. And by that standard, Hardman fits better than Metcalf.

But need arguments make for really strained conclusions. So it makes a hell of a lot more sense to simply avoid them, IMO.

Dunno. If you're looking for a guy who materially achieves the same I.e. chunk plays through his role as a deep threat, surely Metcalf fits the bill. He definitely tracks the ball closer to Hill than Hardman ever did.

Could you pivot to FA before knowing what was happening with Hill? In some ways the pivot to me would be to say "we'll get the Hill deep threat in a different way and work out the rest in FA"

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by JPH83

Dunno. If you're looking for a guy who materially achieves the same I.e. chunk plays through his role as a deep threat, surely Metcalf fits the bill. He definitely tracks the ball closer to Hill than Hardman ever did.

Could you pivot to FA before knowing what was happening with Hill? In some ways the pivot to me would be to say "we'll get the Hill deep threat in a different way and work out the rest in FA"

I'd have done what we did - just 3 years sooner.

Essentially scrap the 'Hill Route Tree' and get to rebuilding the WR corps for a different approach. Like I said, I liked McLaurin and an adjusted offensive philosophy altogether.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Long-strider, though.

Not a guy who you could look at and say "man, if he develops, he could be used very similar to Tyreek Hill..."

And I said this when we took Hardman and I wanted McLaurin - I HATED the idea of trying to do a like-kind exchange. If you lose Hill, pivot.

But if your approach is 'pivot' then you don't need a WR. You could just draft a DE and backfill at WR in free agency at that point. Which is why trying to make these conversations into need conversations just muddies the waters.

If you are going to make a 'need' argument, it necessarily follows that the 'need' should be a 1 for 1 replacement. And by that standard, Hardman fits better than Metcalf.

But need arguments make for really strained conclusions. So it makes a hell of a lot more sense to simply avoid them, IMO.

Im not a college football guy but what exactly made Hardman be looked at as being similar to Hill other than just being fast? Because I don't see those traits at all when I watch the two. Even a little bit. Toney is more like Hill than Hardman is IMO.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by RunKC

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

I just don't believe that they were counting on him being a WR1.

I'm sure they were hoping he would be. But given his injury history, there is no way they were looking at it as more than a high ceiling, low floor roll of the dice.

Who knows, if he is healthy, presumably his athleticism hasn't disappeared. Unlike Skyy, he has actually flashed on the field and might again. And Andy might be able to use him for gadget plays.

But I was always suspicious of the Toney as a reliable WR1, although I did think he would be able to serve spot duty.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

MEH is a bad pick because he's been a bad football player. Full stop. The rest is just masturbating.

True. And that's really all it is. Veach has done such an amazing job overall that one bust in the ass end of the 1st round really isn't that big a deal.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by -King-

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.

With what they're paying Pat, THEY have to be more conservative.

I would not be.

[KC Hawks]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hurts.

Because the Eagles would still be trying to make due with Carson Wentz and I wouldn't have to hear about how brilliant Howie !@#$ing Roseman is...

Drafting Hurts just to run QB sneaks would've been worth the pick alone.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by RunKC

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.

as far as my opinion goes….. Toney’s 3rd/6th round picks were worth it just for his SB performance. His punt return turned that game around. I’m Not so spoiled on winning SB’s that I trash giving up a 3/6 even if it means we win a SB

Originally Posted by RunKC

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

Jones is gone. I think we tag and trade. Use the draft capital to move up for a WR.

we are looking at new contracts for Creed, Trey, Bolton, Gay and Sneed. We can’t sign them all.

I think Sneed will get big money in FA or at least above what Veach is willing to pay. So you are realistically looking at losing Sneed, Jones and Gay in one year.

[DJ's left nut]

Honestly, Jones hasn't really played like a $30 million player since the Jags game.

And that's not to say he hasn't been good - he has. But he's had one real 'DPOY' caliber game this season with two pretty damn good ones in the mix (Denver1, LAC) and those 2 games are offset by two other games (Denver2, Miami) that are...average? maybe?

Apart from the Jags game he's been...good.

But he's been 2021 Chris Jones good. Which is fine, but it's not what he's asking for.