Chiefs Chiefs Sign WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling - Page 33

Dante84 · 03-24-2022, 01:51 PM

More to come

The #Chiefs are signing former #Packers WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling to a three-year, $30 million deal with $18 million in the first two years and incentives to reach a maximum of $36 million, his agents @NSAFootball tell @RapSheet and me. ��
— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) March 24, 2022

Vid Links below

Spoiler!

RAS Score from college:

Spoiler!

MahomesMagic · 03-25-2022, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Franchise

How comfortable would you be sticking Mahomes with no defense again?

I would rather score 40 and see what happens then try to be "balanced", personally.

But the guys who could help the defense would have been cheap adds anyway, we weren't going to sign a 30 year old pass-rusher in either case.

The Chiefs themselves were willing to make Tyreek a top paid WR. If he accepted that would you also say the defense could not be addressed?

TEX · 03-25-2022, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Franchise

I don't get how people miss this every time.

KC was willing to pay Hill top 3 WR money. Hill wanted more.
The Raiders traded for Adams and made him the highest paid WR.
Hill and his agent told KC that they wanted Hill to be the highest paid WR and he would sit out if they didn't.
KC did him a solid for his past contributions and let him seek a trade.

If KC had paid Hill all of that money and then couldn't do shit else to field a team....people would be bitching about that.

Did Hill want to be the highest paid WR before the Adams trade? Or was the the catalyst of that demand?

MahomesMagic · 03-25-2022, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

I think we're going to go into the regular season with a rookie wideout that we hope progresses to be a #1. That's the level at which you should set your expectations.

I'm okay with that given that I think we'll have improved elsewhere as a result of the cap savings/picks we got from this deal.

Thank you for your answer.

I would not be but glad to see you defend this position.

O.city · 03-25-2022, 09:51 AM

I don't think the issue with it would necessarily be this year had you paid Tyreek. You could cobble it together again.

But in a year or two, you just get in a spot where you're not comfortable.

You have to reset at some point. They may have done it a year ahead of when they wanted, but it is what it is.

**The Franchise** · 03-25-2022, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

I would rather score 40 and see what happens then try to be "balanced", personally.

But the guys who could help the defense would have been cheap adds anyway, we weren't going to sign a 30 year old pass-rusher in either case.

The Chiefs themselves were willing to make Tyreek a top paid WR. If he accepted that would you also say the defense could not be addressed?

So you want 2018 all over again. Sweet. We all saw how that ended. Except the difference being that the 2018 offense wouldn't happen because Hill wouldn't have free reign to run deep all the time.

And the difference between signing Hill and trying to field a defense versus now is that:

1. We have money to actually add depth to the defense.
2. We have 8 picks in the top 135.

If you bring back Hill...how are you adding to that defense with 5 picks in the top 135 but also adding to that WR room because you have Hill next year and that's it.

**wazu** · 03-25-2022, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Franchise

I don't get how people miss this every time.

KC was willing to pay Hill top 3 WR money. Hill wanted more.
The Raiders traded for Adams and made him the highest paid WR.
Hill and his agent told KC that they wanted Hill to be the highest paid WR and he would sit out if they didn't.
KC did him a solid for his past contributions and let him seek a trade.

If KC had paid Hill all of that money and then couldn't do shit else to field a team....people would be bitching about that.

I've come to grips with this reality. It sucks, but the bottom line is it's usually only going to be shitty teams that can afford to pay the NFL's highest paid receiver. But I have no ill will towards Tyreek. This was his last/only chance at a mega-payday.

**The Franchise** · 03-25-2022, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEX

Did Hill want to be the highest paid WR before the Adams trade? Or was the the catalyst of that demand?

Yes but it was more palatable because Adams contract wasn't out there yet. Once Adams signed his deal...it increased the numbers that Hill wanted.

**dirk digler** · 03-25-2022, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Franchise

And if it is....then it is.

People need to understand that this method of 2 stars and a bunch of scrubs is not built for long term success. It's hard as **** to keep affording it every year.

Maybe adding a bunch of capable WRs allows us to limit Kelce's touches moving forward and then he doesn't break down as fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26

It could be, but there’s really no reason to believe that unless you’re just full doom and gloom.

I am not saying he won't be productive unless god forbid he has an injury but this maybe the last year of him getting 1000 yds etc, he will be 33 after the start of the season. I am worried about him this upcoming season getting mauled so we definitely need to help him every way we can.

MahomesMagic · 03-25-2022, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

I don't think the issue with it would necessarily be this year had you paid Tyreek. You could cobble it together again.

But in a year or two, you just get in a spot where you're not comfortable.

You have to reset at some point. They may have done it a year ahead of when they wanted, but it is what it is.

Yes you do. But asking for a reset with Mahomes-Hill in their prime and Kelce still here is an awfully tough ask.

My view of the salary cap before this was we had 2-3 more years to push to win rings with the crew before we needed to purge cap and reload.

O.city · 03-25-2022, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Yes you do. But asking for a reset with Mahomes-Hill in their prime and Kelce still here is an awfully tough ask.

My view of the salary cap before this was we had 2-3 more years to push to win rings with the crew before we needed to purge cap and reload.

You end up red lining and blowing a gasket and you're completely out of this thing for a couple years in the middle trying to rebuild it.

This way, you essentially have a soft reset and basically don't miss a year of competing for a Lombardi.

Plus the easiest way to reload is always to move a guy like that. It sucks. But it's just the way it was always gonna happen.

**The Franchise** · 03-25-2022, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Yes you do. But asking for a reset with Mahomes-Hill in their prime and Kelce still here is an awfully tough ask.

My view of the salary cap before this was we had 2-3 more years to push to win rings with the crew before we needed to purge cap and reload.

No way did we have 2 to 3 years with how we were going.

You re-sign Hill and that eats a ton of cap space next year. You take up more cap space with an OBJ deal.

Even if you trade Jones next offseason and cut Clark....you're still sitting at MAYBE $30 million cap space and a roster that consists of around 25-30 players. At some point we have to field an actual team.

MahomesMagic · 03-25-2022, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Franchise

So you want 2018 all over again. Sweet. We all saw how that ended. Except the difference being that the 2018 offense wouldn't happen because Hill wouldn't have free reign to run deep all the time.

And the difference between signing Hill and trying to field a defense versus now is that:

1. We have money to actually add depth to the defense.
2. We have 8 picks in the top 135.

If you bring back Hill...how are you adding to that defense with 5 picks in the top 135 but also adding to that WR room because you have Hill next year and that's it.

Getting rid of Hill doesn't create a defense. Sure those extra picks are nice but that doesn't move the needle from TERRIBLE to GOOD.

My belief was that you need to sign wave DL guys for 1-2 million that can still play like Ingram, Hughes. Add a Dunlap for maybe a bit more.

You then add coverage guys in the draft and try to sign a cheap vet corner.

None of that required extra picks.

MahomesMagic · 03-25-2022, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Franchise

No way did we have 2 to 3 years with how we were going.

You re-sign Hill and that eats a ton of cap space next year. You take up more cap space with an OBJ deal.

Even if you trade Jones next offseason and cut Clark....you're still sitting at MAYBE $30 million cap space and a roster that consists of around 25-30 players. At some point we have to field an actual team.

We just paid about 20 million to JuJu and MVS as well as extra 4 or so for Frank Clark.

Hill is better cap space spent than those combined.

It wasn't about $$$ unless you overvalue guys like...MVS.

I was willing to be open-minded about the 21 million cap space cleared but we just spent half on MVS, not a difference maker.

Hammock Parties · 03-25-2022, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Yes you do. But asking for a reset with Mahomes-Hill in their prime and Kelce still here is an awfully tough ask.

My view of the salary cap before this was we had 2-3 more years to push to win rings with the crew before we needed to purge cap and reload.

I think Veach saw the writing on the wall, that our pass rush was likely to be even worse this year, and trying to **** the same chicken on offense with the rest of the AFC taking leaps forward wasn't going to do them any favors.

This move lets the Chiefs get stronger on defense in the short and long term, and reload the other skill positions on offense.

They took all their eggs out of one basket and distributed them.

It hurts to lose Tyreek but it's a calculated risk that you can see why they made it.

This also staggers the separation from Tyreek and Kelce which was likely going to happen at some point anyway.

This offense was going to go through some real growing pains if they had to get rid of both guys in the same year. Now they can ease that transition somewhat.

**The Franchise** · 03-25-2022, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Getting rid of Hill doesn't create a defense. Sure those extra picks are nice but that doesn't move the needle from TERRIBLE to GOOD.

My belief was that you need to sign wave DL guys for 1-2 million that can still play like Ingram, Hughes. Add a Dunlap for maybe a bit more.

You then add coverage guys in the draft and try to sign a cheap vet corner.

None of that required extra picks.

Show me anyone right now getting signed for $1-2 million a season. Nobody is signing vet minimum deals.

03-24-2022, 01:51 PM
Dante84 Tossed Salad & Scrambled Eggs Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: ATX & OPKS Casino cash: $-1938004 VARSITY	Chiefs Sign WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling More to come The #Chiefs are signing former #Packers WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling to a three-year, $30 million deal with $18 million in the first two years and incentives to reach a maximum of $36 million, his agents @NSAFootball tell @RapSheet and me. �� — Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) March 24, 2022 Vid Links below Spoiler! RAS Score from college: Spoiler!
Posts: 20,447

03-25-2022, 09:51 AM	#484
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-605936	I don't think the issue with it would necessarily be this year had you paid Tyreek. You could cobble it together again. But in a year or two, you just get in a spot where you're not comfortable. You have to reset at some point. They may have done it a year ahead of when they wanted, but it is what it is.
Posts: 84,186