Originally Posted by TwistedChief (Post 16213858)

I'm just messing around. There's a very plausible world where Mahomes is genuinely a product of Tyreek Hill and might be exposed without him - that's the Keenan Allen version. Support for that argument would include the fact that Alex Smith was one of the best deep ball QBs in 2017 despite being Alex Smith. I honestly think this is a possibility we all need to be ready for.

But there's also the version where Mahomes is as good as we think and can elevate the WRs on the team. Give him 4 competent options and he feasts in a comparable way to Hill/Kelce/JAG-/JAG--. Clearly the Chiefs are working toward this vision and it makes a lot of sense as they have the ability to fill gaps elsewhere.

If I'm being honest, I probably lean toward the former until proven otherwise just because I like to set my expectations low. I think Hill papered over so many things that we can't really appreciate. But at the same time, I don't think retaining him was an option for good team building so I'm excited to see Plan B as I think that gives us a better chance for more sustainable success.

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar (Post 16214053)

It will be nice to have receivers that can catch 50/50 balls for once.

Originally Posted by jd1020 (Post 16214057)

Ya... I don't think that's what we are getting here.

Just because he's tall doesnt mean hes bringing in a lot of contested passes. He already doesn't have a very good catch % and it drops to 32% in the RZ. The reports say hes slow out of breaks and he gets bullied in the press. Until I see otherwise, we are just looking at a guy to send deep. He's a taller, poor mans version of DeSean Jackson.

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar (Post 16214053)

It’s a relatively small sample, but the offense didn’t exactly collapse without Hill in the past. I think they averaged around 30 ppg without him in four games in ‘19. Mahomes threw for a ton of yards. In the Pitt game this season, they were basically minus Hill AND Kelce and still scored at will.

The way that teams defend the Chiefs now, they rarely burn defenses over the top anyway. In theory, this seems like a potentially great signing. A tall speedster on the verge of breaking out. I love Hill, but he’s a midget. It will be nice to have receivers that can catch 50/50 balls for once.

But they need to add either a solid vet or an explosive talent from the draft.

Originally Posted by Dull Tools (Post 16214114)

The other truth is that teams playing 2 high safeties against us all year made Hill less effective than he used to be for us as it took out his biggest skillset.

If we saw that as a problem then why do we need to pay him $30m a year when he can't do his main skill.

It also makes the 2 high less effective against us.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 16212685)

Man. That's ... interesting.

That's a lot more than I would have thought he would get. I like the size/speed combo, and he's a great downfield threat.

And yes, he rebounded from a HORRIBLE season with drops to not have any at all this past season, but it's still a career 6 percent drop rate, which is not ideal.

But egads. I wouldn't have expected to drop 1/2 the cash they freed up with Hill's trade on him.

Originally Posted by DTVietnam (Post 16214115)

people were playing this to stop Mahomes..and it took away his biggest skillset. .

i think we should trade Pat for a few picks. .

Originally Posted by wazu (Post 16213998)

It's better. Pringle is roughly equal in my opinion. Best would be neither and plug a rookie in there.

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 16214171)

Nobody on the board has brought up "catch rate" regarding a player before. It's like people who don't like the signing have to dig for something to justify not liking the signing

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 16214176)

Or vice versa.. as we know, you can find a stat to back up any argument.