Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Not really.
I'm saying that there IS no real near-equivalent of Hill. They just don't make guys like him. And that if you trade him, you have to essentially resign yourself to a much different type of offense. Probably one where Kelce is even less effective because you lack the field stretcher that Hill provides who can also work the middle of the field (giving Kelce the ability to work the middle OR run the seam, as the patterns and coverages dictate).
If you trade Hill you almost have to commit to essentially a ground-up rebuild of the offense. A completely different animal. For a week or even several weeks, you can get by without someone like Hill because teams won't completely adjust to Hills absence - there's just not enough tape out there to know what that looks like and respond in kind.
But if you TRADE him, teams are gonna get a really long look at what your offense is without Hill and I'm pretty confident this version of it simply does not work without him over any prolonged period.
Now that's not to say this team can't have SOME form of offense that is very dynamic and effective. But as I noted, traded Hill requires a commitment to that re-set.
And for me, while we still have Kelce and Hill out there doing HoF caliber shit, I'm disinclined to do it. And I can't see a scenario where we get adequate value to convince me of it (including the scenarios outlined).
|
I agree with you that they don't make players like Hill every day, or really ever. I also fully understand that the compensation may have to be significantly higher to consider it. I tried to elicit what it would take.
I'm trying to operate under two major premises:
1) You have Patrick Mahomes at QB so any offense should be good with him throwing the football.
2) If you broke up that $30m+ you expect to pay Hill, you could have at least 2 very good or 3 good receivers for that.
So with the above, I'm trying to detach from the fear of what the offense might look like without him.
I think Reid can develop a scheme that works with whoever is here. I think Hardman could step into the Z role and be effective, so long as there is a significant improvement at the X. We know Hardman cannot fill the X role. Also, Hardman is a UFA next year. I think there are other options that can operate well in that role. Kelce does Kelce things and has before Hill was here with a far shittier QB.
Do I think this team could sign DJ Chark and Michael Gallup for 30 million? Likely. Would this offense not be good with that? Add a guy like Metchie in the 2nd to replace Hardman after next year and you have a pretty good trio.
The greatest fear is fear of the unknown, so I get where Meck is coming from too with the bird-in-the-hand reference. We have Hill, why not pay him and not upset the apple cart? Draft well and you could certainly fix any issue surrounding paying Hill by offsetting the cost. As it stands you then have to get a good X and replace Hardman in the draft all while also needing to fix a defense that is void of talent.