Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
(Post 16867373)
I don't remember when/why I went down this rabbithole a few years back, but the bottom line was that Hopkins numbers didn't improve markedly when he went from Hoyer/Mallet to Watson. '14-'15 was virtually identical to '18-'19 for him. And likely would've been better but/for Andre Johnson getting a massive target share in '14.
And as I noted then, that's often the case for possession receivers. They don't need brilliant QB play to fight off someone for the ball. In fact, oftentimes the opposite is true and better QB play negatively impacts their numbers as they aren't having passes forced to them in traffic.
I mean if you truly think that Hopkins will age like some of the all-time superstar receivers did, you should really have no problem taking on that $20 million figure this season, extending him AND giving up a 2nd for him. But I don't think you actually feel like that's the case.
There's a disconnect between "I'd give a 3 and restructure his deal" and "He's going to age like Jerry Rice..."
|
I'm not going to argue whether he's going to age like Jerry Rice. Only guy I've ever seen do anything like that was TO. That's unicorn stuff.
However, other great WRs have had consistent success past 30, a large number of them in fact. Especially possession-type receivers, because usually their footwork and hands don't fade like speed does.
And Dhop posted 3 consecutive 1,000+ yard seasons with Watson, who isn't elite either, just more mobile than any QB he had prior. Even Watson's accuracy wasn't a huge step up from previous HOU QBs.
Also, watch any DHop highlight reel. Look who he's playing against. It's a who's who of the best DBs in the league. You can actually type in "Hopkins vs." on YT and it's like a library of the best DBs in the league.
Revis, Ramsey, Peterson, R. Sherman, D. Ward, Lattimore, D. Hall, Bouye, X. Howard, Gilmore, McCourty, Tre White . . . And he beats all of them.
And the thing that kind of blows my mind is that he does it over and over in spite of the terrible throws from his QB most of the time (whichever crappy one happens to be throwing in the moment). I mean, not only does he have to find ways to beat all of the best DBs just to get open, but he also has to deal with the shitty passes at the same time.
i said it two or three years ago in some GDT, that DHop would have at least 25%-30% more yards and TDs if Watson could ever place the ball consistently. But too often the pass was too high (so Deandre had to jump for it), down at his ankles, too far out in front (so he had to lay out for it), too far to the outside, behind him, etc. In that game there were at least 4-5 passes that could've gone for a lot more yards or a TD except the placement (or lack of) forced Hopkins to make some crazy athletic play just to snag it, and he never got the chance to RAC.
So personally, I don't have a problem with paying him $19M/$14M (restructured, of course) for the next two seasons (I'm of course assuming he'd be healthy).
The draft capital is a little different. If KC wasn't in serious need of both a quality OT and EDGE this season, I wouldn't have much trouble giving up even a 2nd, because the 64th pick isn't that great anyway. But we are in that spot, so it's tougher to be okay with a 2nd. A 3rd (96th?), I've already said a couple times in this thread I'd do that. There's no one in this draft that's going to come close to replicating what DHop can do in 2023. Maybe we draft a guy that grows into a great WR by 2024 or 2025. But that's still a roll of the dice. There's a better than even chance that doesn't happen.
Hopkins is elite right now. He's played in 91% of all possible games in his career. He's had just two serious injuries that kept him from playing in ten years, and it wasn't the same injury twice, like it was with Odell. The meniscus is apparently repaired already. And his ACL held up.
There's an argument that could be made that DHop is currently available at a small discount, considering what he's capable of, and what Adams/Hill went for last season.
