In 5 years Patrick is going be one of the lowest paid quarterbacks per year..

And by Raiders standards that Derek Carr is the third highest played quarterback that makes him the 3rd best quarterback.. So if Patrick is one of the lowest paid quarterbacks that must mean he sucks in 5 years.

I agree. But then again, we have one Travis Kelce to go along with PMII. The point being made is 3 or 4 pretty good guys are better than 1 stud and 3 schlubs. Yeah, 75 yard bombs are fun, but winning is everything.

Team has to be smart. As these guys demand so much money. The tier down guys will see less. You can load up on them or wait for some of the top tier guys to get cut and offer one year deals.

It will be interesting to see how trades work in a few years. Ohh your rookie wr wants paid. Cya. But you are only lower picks than normal as teams have to pay 150million.

If Patrick sticks to his full dea and plays welll..we should make out like bandits. The average QBs will be making 50m a year.

I’m more concerned about our TE strategy than WR at this point. Kelce won’t be around forever and that dude takes a lot of shots

Ingrate? Deebo was SF's entire offense last season.

I've actually thought this way for a while. If/when Tyreek suddenly isn't available, that's $25 million sitting on the sideline you have to replace. If you have several competent/capable guys, one going down doesn't hurt as much.

Honestly, it's why RBs should never get paid. It sucks, but it's reality.

What is he worth in trade value?

Get the Jets on the phone asap.

We don't have 3 to 4 very good wr's.

Maybe one good WR (If Juju returns to form) and another guy that is a bit better than a JAG in MVS.

He takes some major shots when he lines up at RB.

It has to be a concern.

I fear the NFL will become a league of 20% super paid and the other 80% subsidizing them.

I know the 80-20 rule but these are all professionals.

With rising salaries, draft picks (position AND volume) are going to be worth that much more. It's yet another reason I don't want the Chiefs spending capital to trade up.

Putin ****ing EVERYTHING up!

I don't think that's the question.

The question is, let's assume you're building a 3 WR crew and you have 2 options that cost roughly the same:

A 1 and two 3s or;
Three #2s

Which would you prefer? For me I'm taking the latter every time. And I wonder if that's not what the Chiefs are looking for as well.

Because ultimately you can scheme a single WR out of the game, no matter how good he is. But VERY few teams have the personnel to handle 3 guys who can give you #2 type play because you can't overload them.

When you're looking at the former scenario, you go man 2 man vs the #3 caliber guys and more often than not, your guys win their matchup. Then you double the #1 and you're in pretty good shape.

But if you have three #2 options out there, more often than not THEY'LL win their matchup in a 1v1 scenario and you can't do anything to double all of them.

If you have the right quarterback, someone who can process quickly and attack anywhere on the field (we do), the latter scenario is a far more dangerous setup.

And I think that may just be what Veach and company are pursuing.

Right.

Again, for demonstration purposes lets go Hill, Pringle and Jakeem Grant is option A and it costs, what, $30 million for the 3 of those guys? $24 million, $4 million and 3 million (give or take some change here and there).

I mean, that's essentially what we had last year and it...wasn't great.

The alternative of MVS, JJSS and say Chark - also right at $30 million.

Now ultimately if someone says the former, I wouldn't just ignore them. There's an argument for it. But I'm pretty sure I prefer the latter. It's just harder to deal with.

Team will be going WRBC the same way they did with RB when those guys started asking too much , a bunch of specialists and be creative.