Why are the Chiefs not trying to get better at WR?

[J-ALL-DAY]

2 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Ignore the compensation for a moment because I think that works in the Chiefs favor of the argument (meaning, we got extra value for Tyreek where the Rams had to give up value).

Speaking purely from a player for player perspective and ignoring draft picks:

Was the Stafford/Goff trade a bad trade for the Rams because Goff is playing really well now?

The Rams were not going to win with Goff so getting Stafford was the right move. Goff/McVay had run their course at that point. 

Are you saying a SB would not be possible with keeping and extending Hill last offseason? That is what I'm more interested in. Who were the Chiefs able to sign that they wouldn't have had they kept Hill? 

[seminoles1]

19 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I mean if the Niners win the SB this year, you would still have to say the Lance trade up/pick was one of the worst ever, right. 

Not saying it is to that extent but I don't think the Chiefs winning a SB means you can't say the trade was bad. I would like to hear @Jakuviousopinion on this and who the Chiefs were able to sign after trading away Hill. 

They drafted Trent McDuffie, Rashee Rice, Skyy Moore, Darian Kinnard, and Keondre Coburn (after subsequent trades using the Miami draft picks to move around in the drafts) with the picks from Miami.

I don't know who they would have signed or not signed with the savings, but here are the notable players they did sign and kept since Tyreek:

Chris Jones, Jawaan Taylor, Donovan Smith, Orlando Brown, Jr. (Franchise tag), JuJu Smith-Schuster, Justin Reid, Drue Tranquil, and Andrew Wylie.

Obviously those signings were also only possible with letting OBJ and Frank Clark leave, but it's hard to distinguish with the free agent signings.

I would say that Chris Jones is the big one they were able to keep because of not paying Tyreek, but I could be wrong.

[Soggust]

1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

The Rams were not going to win with Goff so getting Stafford was the right move. Goff/McVay had run their course at that point. 

Are you saying a SB would not be possible with keeping and extending Hill last offseason? That is what I'm more interested in. Who were the Chiefs able to sign that they wouldn't have had they kept Hill? 

I think they could have won with him, for sure, but I don't know that that's the right way to look at it. The fact that we won without him and he put up like 1700 yards last year in a 9-8 effort demonstrates the value of elite WRs imo.

I'm honestly not trying to dodge your question, but I'm really not a cap guy so I'm probably just not the right person to answer. My broad feeling from living in KC is that we haven't spent the money super wisely (MVS/Taylor), but I 100% don't really pay much attention to cap stuff, so I'll let smarter posters answer that.

[J-ALL-DAY]

6 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

They drafted Trent McDuffie, Rashee Rice, Skyy Moore, Darian Kinnard, and Keondre Coburn (after subsequent trades using the Miami draft picks to move around in the drafts) with the picks from Miami.

I don't know who they would have signed or not signed with the savings, but here are the notable players they did sign and kept since Tyreek:

Chris Jones, Jawaan Taylor, Donovan Smith, Orlando Brown, Jr. (Franchise tag), JuJu Smith-Schuster, Justin Reid, Drue Tranquil, and Andrew Wylie.

Obviously those signings were also only possible with letting OBJ and Frank Clark leave, but it's hard to distinguish with the free agent signings.

I would say that Chris Jones is the big one they were able to keep because of not paying Tyreek, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, McDuffie is the big one here. He's a legit beast and has helped turn the defense into one of the best in the league. 

I'd still would have kept Hill but if we're going to be honest, as good as he was in KC, he wasn't used quite the same way as he's been used in Miami. He went from being an elite WR to playing at an ATG level in Miami. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

7 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I think they could have won with him, for sure, but I don't know that that's the right way to look at it. The fact that we won without him and he put up like 1700 yards last year in a 9-8 effort demonstrates the value of elite WRs imo.

I'm honestly not trying to dodge your question, but I'm really not a cap guy so I'm probably just not the right person to answer. My broad feeling from living in KC is that we haven't spent the money super wisely (MVS/Taylor), but I 100% don't really pay much attention to cap stuff, so I'll let smarter posters answer that.

I mean the 9-8 record is misleading but look what he's helping the Dolphins achieve this season. They will win 12-13 games and they have a legit shot at getting to the SB. Not only that, but he's helped Tua turn into a QB that is at least in the MVP conversation. His impact has been HUGE in Miami and you can't just use the 9-8 record the Dolphins had last season against him. 

[Soggust]

8 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I mean the 9-8 record is misleading but look what he's helping the Dolphins achieve this season. They will win 12-13 games and they have a legit shot at getting to the SB. Not only that, but he's helped Tua turn into a QB that is at least in the MVP conversation. His impact has been HUGE in Miami and you can't just use the 9-8 record the Dolphins had last season against him. 

I don't want to turn this into the MVP discussion (but I guess I'm gonna), but he literally produced massive numbers and it didn't make a huge difference W/L wise because even elite WRs simply aren't the difference between winning and losing a bunch of games, much less a SB. It's literally all about the QB.

Don't hear what I'm not saying - He's a PHENOMENAL player and absolutely valuable to any team. I think he's the best WR in the league. But at the end of the day, even the best WRs aren't the difference between a SB and not.

Even some of the worst WR play in the league this year has led us to.......8-4? Ironically, we were 8-4 through 12 weeks last time we had Tyreek.

[Chiefer]

7 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I don't want to turn this into the MVP discussion (but I guess I'm gonna), but he literally produced massive numbers and it didn't make a huge difference W/L wise because even elite WRs simply aren't the difference between winning and losing a bunch of games, much less a SB. It's literally all about the QB.

Don't hear what I'm not saying - He's a PHENOMENAL player and absolutely valuable to any team. I think he's the best WR in the league. But at the end of the day, even the best WRs aren't the difference between a SB and not.

Even some of the worst WR play in the league this year has led us to.......8-4? Ironically, we were 8-4 through 12 weeks last time we had Tyreek.

Every SB team has had a star receiver(I’m including TEs in this) the last 5 years or so, 

Chiefs (Kelce) - Eagles (Brown, Smith)

Rams (Kupp, OBJ) - Bengals (Chase, Higgins)

Chiefs (Tyreek, Kelce) - Buccaneers (Evans) 

Chiefs - 9ers (Kittle)

Patriots (Gronk, Edelman) - Rams (Kupp)

I’d say it’s actually a pretty big difference maker between winning games consistently, competing in playoffs and winning SBs. You of course need a QB but he can’t do it by himself, he needs at least one star out there to catch passes.

[nicfre2011]

Not necessarily THE reason, but interesting to consider the apparent lack of development from some of the young receivers (Moore) along with veterans running wrong or inconsistent routes (MVS and Watson)....it is interesting to take a look at the inexperience that Connor Embree has as wide receiver's coach. Add to that....we have a former wide receiver as runningback coach.

 

Connor Embree
WIDE RECEIVERS
Biography
Connor Embree returns for his fifth season with the Chiefs and enters the 2023 season as the team's wide receivers coach after spending two seasons as an offensive quality control coach (2021-22) and two seasons as a defensive assistant (2019-20).....

[J-ALL-DAY]

22 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I don't want to turn this into the MVP discussion (but I guess I'm gonna), but he literally produced massive numbers and it didn't make a huge difference W/L wise because even elite WRs simply aren't the difference between winning and losing a bunch of games, much less a SB. It's literally all about the QB.

Don't hear what I'm not saying - He's a PHENOMENAL player and absolutely valuable to any team. I think he's the best WR in the league. But at the end of the day, even the best WRs aren't the difference between a SB and not.

Even some of the worst WR play in the league this year has led us to.......8-4? Ironically, we were 8-4 through 12 weeks last time we had Tyreek.

But who is debating a WR is more valuable than a QB? That would be foolish to do. That's not the argument here. 

Does Hill not get credit for potentially helping the Dolphins get the #1 seed this year? The 9-8 record happened in large part to Tua getting hurt. Most teams will not hold up when their starting QB goes down. 

[Soggust]

4 minutes ago, Chiefer said:

Every SB team has had a star receiver(I’m including TEs in this) the last 5 years or so, 

Chiefs (Kelce) - Eagles (Brown, Smith)

Rams (Kupp, OBJ) - Bengals (Chase, Higgins)

Chiefs (Tyreek, Kelce) - Buccaneers (Evans) 

Chiefs - 9ers (Kittle)

Patriots (Gronk, Edelman) - Rams (Kupp)

I’d say it’s actually a pretty big difference maker between winning games consistently, competing in playoffs and winning SBs. You of course need a QB but he can’t do it by himself, he needs at least one star out there to catch passes.

Good take imo, but I want to dig through and apply this to other positions. Of course, then I'm really derailing this convo lol.

Applying your logic to this thread, however, we still have Kelce.

Therefore, I don't think we should feel bad about losing Tyreek because we still have that star player in Kelce, which was good enough just last year.

[Soggust]

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

But who is debating a WR is more valuable than a QB? That would be foolish to do. That's not the argument here. 

No one.

All I'm saying is that it's kind of hard to rue losing a great WR when it clearly didn't keep us from winning a SB.

Unbelievably dope player, but doesn't feel like the difference between us being a great team or not, to me.

[seminoles1]

22 minutes ago, Chiefer said:

Every SB team has had a star receiver(I’m including TEs in this) the last 5 years or so, 

Chiefs (Kelce) - Eagles (Brown, Smith)

Rams (Kupp, OBJ) - Bengals (Chase, Higgins)

Chiefs (Tyreek, Kelce) - Buccaneers (Evans) 

Chiefs - 9ers (Kittle)

Patriots (Gronk, Edelman) - Rams (Kupp)

I’d say it’s actually a pretty big difference maker between winning games consistently, competing in playoffs and winning SBs. You of course need a QB but he can’t do it by himself, he needs at least one star out there to catch passes.

You'll notice that none of those teams had multiple star players with record setting contracts. They had to allocate resources elsewhere. The Chiefs were the only ones with 2 on a 2nd contract that I can tell, and Hill was about to blow his previous cap hit out of the water.

Having 1? Absolutely. Having 2 with 1 or both on rookie/reasonable deals? Duh. Having 2 on market setting contracts? Then it gets tricky. San Francisco is certainly testing this theory this year though haha, though they do have the trump card of literally the cheapest QB in the NFL dominating for them, allowing them to pay all those weapons.

Edited December 5, 2023 by seminoles1

[Chiefer]

54 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Good take imo, but I want to dig through and apply this to other positions. Of course, then I'm really derailing this convo lol.

Applying your logic to this thread, however, we still have Kelce.

Therefore, I don't think we should feel bad about losing Tyreek because we still have that star player in Kelce, which was good enough just last year.

Yes so we can make it if Kelce and Rice turn it on In The playoffs. Problem is all these SB Teams had amazing/elite level offenses, with weapons everywhere, even the losers. I wouldn’t categorize the Chiefs that Way rn.

But defensive football has kinda reigned supreme this year, and so many QBs are injured, could see a buck in the trend this year.

[Chiefer]

48 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

You'll notice that none of those teams had multiple star players with record setting contracts. They had to allocate resources elsewhere. The Chiefs were the only ones with 2 on a 2nd contract that I can tell, and Hill was about to blow his previous cap hit out of the water.

Having 1? Absolutely. Having 2 with 1 or both on rookie/reasonable deals? Duh. Having 2 on market setting contracts? Then it gets tricky. San Francisco is certainly testing this theory this year though haha, though they do have the trump card of literally the cheapest QB in the NFL dominating for them, allowing them to pay all those weapons.

Yeah a rookie QB deal can be a game changer if the stars align just right , especially that Purdy deal.

this is why I’m a big proponent of building a team first before drafting a rookie QB. Trade for a stop gap like Alex Smith or Jimmy G to help build a winning culture, stack talent, and hope you hit on a rookie. It’s much easier for a rookie to thrive in a good situation then to try and save a sinking ship. But of course perceived draft value dictates a qb at the top of drafts, and every once in a while you get lucky on a CJ Stroud or an Andrew Luck

[Jakuvious]

3 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I mean if the Niners win the SB this year, you would still have to say the Lance trade up/pick was one of the worst ever, right. 

Not saying it is to that extent but I don't think the Chiefs winning a SB means you can't say the trade was bad. I would like to hear @Jakuviousopinion on this and who the Chiefs were able to sign after trading away Hill. 

So, it's tough to say. These things are never truly 1:1, obviously. I don't think having or not having Hill was terribly restrictive for the 2022 offseason. We had obviously planned on having him, so the money was there for him to play with KC in 2022. And not too much would've had to have changed to accommodate what would've been his 2022 cap hit. I think it's likely you get some mix of either moving on from Orlando Brown sooner, reworking Pat's deal again (I think restructuring that year would've been about $20M in savings), or not doing some of the small to mid-size deals we threw out (guys like Justin Reid, JuJu, MVS, Dunlap.) Had we restructured Mahomes or others, obviously the team would've been better in 2022 with Hill, but you'd have seen more substantial ramifications down the road. Had we swapped Hill for Brown, or Hill for several of those mid-size deals, it's really tough to say what outcome we would've had. Domino effect and all that. Like, maybe the defense would be drastically worse this year if we couldn't have drafted McDuffie, and maybe couldn't afford to sign Justin Reid and someone like Charles Omenihu or Drue Tranquil. You could be going back to 2018 instead, and having the offense fixed but the defense is trash in exchange. Hard to say.

I do think the impact becomes more substantial the further we get from the trade, personally. Last year, maybe you just don't franchise OBJ, and that's sufificient. So you swap Tyreek for OBJ and McDuffie, maybe we don't go for MVS because we don't need to. Not a bad deal there. Hill side might be better depending on who you can find to play LT. But then I'll be honest, I don't know how you retain Chris Jones this past offseason. The way we were stuck with the tag number while he held out, didn't get a decision until the last minute. So either you lose Jones, or you pretty much have to go to a Mahomes restructure there. Didn't have many other options for creating cap space that we didn't already use. So now for 2023 we might be talking Tyreek for at least Jones and McDuffie. And I love Tyreek, but I'll take the latter, there. And then we'll see what this offseason holds, because we're set to be as cap healthy as we have been in a few years now, and that's largely because Hill is off the books, and Jones might be. So maybe it would cost us Sneed or some signing we don't know about yet in 2024. Maybe we forced the issue cap wise to keep Hill and Jones for 2023, and then lose Jones and Sneed in 2024 and then we can't pay Bolton or Creed in 2025. And god forbid Hill slows down by the time that deal is out. So I think the impact rises the further in you go, as there are more moves impacted, you're paying higher cap hits because any deal would've been backloaded, and you potentially pay for cap reshuffling you did previously to make things work to keep him in the first place.

I don't think this is comparable to something like Trey Lance, though. Because Trey Lance just failed. You spent a high pick, got a low pick years later in return. Like, that was wasted capital that could've gone to something else. We'll never know for sure what would've happened if we hadn't traded Tyreek. Maybe we'd have lost in 2022 but we'd win this year instead, while this year we don't look like we have it. Maybe having him lets us stomach Kelce's retirement down the road, or maybe having him means we don't have the money we need for other problems in 2025. You really can't tell. But this isn't a Trey Lance situation where you just drafted a bad player and things worked out anyway. We got stuff in return from moving on from Hill. McDuffie alone means we didn't get nothing for it. Throw in the $20M cap space, and you can at least argue either way. Comparing it to Trey Lance makes it sound like we gave Hill away for nothing, but still won a superbowl, so we're calling it a win. But that's not really the case. We got a star corner and a ton of cap space for it. We got things in return for Hill. Acquiring Lance just cost San Fran resources. If you draft a star player with the 4th rounder you got in return, maybe then there's an analogy there.