Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Who says "Hardman or a rookie"?
Everyone - I mean everyone - is saying "Veteran WR + a rookie"
It's just a question of resources they're willing to allocate to the veteran WR. You seem content throwing a pittance at the veteran and drafting a rookie. Others are scarred by the 2023 regular season and don't want to take that kind of risk only to be left wondering why the **** we can't pass the football through week 10 next season.
I think either side has some merit to it. I personally don't think a high-dollar veteran is NECESSARY because I think the offense looked noticeably different when we were getting anything at all from Hardman/MVS in the post-season. That said, if the price is right on a Hollywood (who is absolutely a much better overall football player than Hardman) or Samuel, why would I be opposed to the idea? It's just that much more risk mitigated.
And even the folks that disagree with you right now were MUCH more vehement in their demands at WR in, say, week 13. The emergence of Rice plus the fact that the offense improved merely by getting Toney and Moore off the field (and MVS pulling his head from his ass) led them all to come off the ledge a little.
Some all the way (evidently that's where you are) and others less so.
I think 90% of this board would end up very disappointed if we didn't draft a rookie WR in the 1st or 2nd round this year. Regardless of what we do with the WR room before the draft starts.
|
Mea culpa, I read your post differently than you apparently meant it.
*I'd love to have him back.
But that doesn't seem to stand with your "also prepare for life after Kelce" approach. Because he doesn't do anything along those lines, does he?*
*Deal with the now.*
I took that as one or the other.
Fundamentally, we're 95% aligned.
I just don't believe in paying $13-15M for Hollywood when we've proven we can get 80+% of that production for 25 cents on the dollar.