Jump to content

2024: Offseason


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

WR3 is Watson. The same position that he played last season. 

Problem is he’s a WR 4. He’s not a consistent option at all, and is also on a one year deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

And why would we want a repeat of that?

Because 460 yards on 27 receptions aren't that shabby for a WR3?

He was the most reliable deep threat the Chiefs had - and especially during the first half of the season Mahomes (and whatever receiver he threw to) weren't that good on deep balls.

 

Bigger problem was the Chiefs didn't have a WR2.

Edited by KC_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KC_Guy said:

Because 460 yards on 27 receptions aren't that shabby for a WR3?

He was the most reliable deep threat the Chiefs had - and especially during the first half of the season Mahomes (and whatever receiver he threw to) weren't that good on deep balls.

 

Bigger problem was the Chiefs didn't have a WR2.

They can both be problems.

Don't get me wrong, Watson has a place on this roster, but you can't tell me you think he's a good WR3. WR3 nowadays is a starter in most offenses. They'll play more often than not. We get a bit of an asterisk there because Kelce handles some duties that most teams would give to WRs, but we don't want to rely on that much longer. And I'm not concerned about the statistical production as much as the quality of play. 460 yards isn't awful. Only catching 50% of his targets, 4 drops and 1 fumble to 27 catches, that's awful. Watson was like 87th in catches for WRs last year, so that's low end WR3 production for sure. Watson gets points for being less terrible than most of the rest of the non-Rice WRs were last year, but let's be clear, he's still not great. Like, mathematically, someone was going to have to get catches and yards. Were they because he was good, or because he was there? And even still, we blast MVS for his production as "WR2", but only 80 snaps separated MVS and Watson last year. They had the same catch rate. Watson dropped more passes. MVS just cost a lot more so the ineffective play was more painful.

I'm fine giving him snaps, I'd be very happy with him as the WR4. He's a great blocker and he is more of a vertical threat than the rest of the roster. He has a place on this team, 100%. But he's not someone we want to be relying on consistently to get targets/catches/yards. He's basically Demarcus Robinson, to me. Fine to have on the field to be a blocker and a space clearer in route concepts, but you don't want him to be designed to actually get the ball. I'd like to have a 3rd WR behind Rice and Brown that I'm actually happy to see get the ball thrown their way.

 

And anyway, again, we only have Brown for one more year, so we're repeating this whole cycle of sign a vet and hope it clicks right away next year if we don't draft somebody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

And why would we want a repeat of that?

It worked. Watson is a good blocking WR and enough of a receiving threat to keep secondaries honest.

15 hours ago, Chiefer said:

Problem is he’s a WR 4. He’s not a consistent option at all, and is also on a one year deal

Not the last two years. That was Toney in 2022 and a revolving door last year.

Watson was solidly in place as the WR3 in both seasons. As KC_Guy says, 27 catches, 460 yards, and 3 TDs are nothing to laugh at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, onejayhawk said:

It worked.

Okay, let's just not add anyone at all then. We won the superbowl, so I guess everything worked. It's not like problems throughout the entire WR depth chart were the number one topic of discussion all year.

And how does this logic apply to the WR group in your head, but not the DE group?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Okay, let's just not add anyone at all then. We won the superbowl, so I guess everything worked. It's not like problems throughout the entire WR depth chart were the number one topic of discussion all year.

And how does this logic apply to the WR group in your head, but not the DE group?

I'm sorry if your standard for an efficient WR3 differs from the team's. That is between you and them. Leave me out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, onejayhawk said:

I'm sorry if your standard for an efficient WR3 differs from the team's. That is between you and them. Leave me out of it.

For one, the team can be wrong. It happens quite often, actually. Less for KC than for others nowadays, but still. The team also thought Toney as a WR1 and MVS as a WR2 were good ideas.

But dude, what the hell with the bold? How is that a constructive thing to post at all? You're the one posting on this forum saying no, it's fine, it worked last year, let's roll it back and do it again. That's why I'm replying to you, not tweeting at the team. You posted that opinion. The point of this place is for us to discuss our opinions on what the team is doing and should do. If you want left out of that discourse then why are you posting your opinions? If you don't want your opinion to be questioned and replied to, respectfully, don't post it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jakuvious said:

For one, the team can be wrong. It happens quite often, actually. Less for KC than for others nowadays, but still. The team also thought MVS as a WR1 (because let's be real, he was WR1 to start the season) was fine.

But dude, what the hell with the bold? How is that a constructive thing to post at all? You're the one posting on this forum saying no, it's fine, it worked last year, let's roll it back and do it again. That's why I'm replying to you, not tweeting at the team. You posted that opinion. The point of this place is for us to discuss our opinions on what the team is doing and should do. If you want left out of that discourse then why are you posting your opinions? If you don't want your opinion to be questioned and replied to, respectfully, don't post it.

What is your point?

Until further notice, Watson is the WR3 whether you approve or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, onejayhawk said:

What is your point?

Until further notice, Watson is the WR3 whether you approve or not.

That the team should get a better one.

The entire last three pages, which you've been posting through the entirety of, has been about what positions the team needs to improve at the most. You started the discussion by saying Edge is your #1 priority. Why are you now pretending you don't understand what anyone is talking about?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

That the team should get a better one.

That is the team's call and one they are three years into now.

13 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

The entire last three pages, which you've been posting through the entirety of, has been about what positions the team needs to improve at the most. You started the discussion by saying Edge is your #1 priority.

 Edge is the thinnest. We have three warm bodies to cover four slots and FAU is one of them. 

13 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Why are you now pretending you don't understand what anyone is talking about?

I'm not. I am saying that WR does not deserve to be in the conversation. OT is 1B. TE would be 1C if there were any candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...