To be fair, there were games when Tyreek was on the team and Mahomes was spreading it around like he is now and we were just as unstoppable.

Also, Mahomes still gets in the deep or nothing mode from time to time, like when we played the Bills and he was holding onto the ball for far too long looking for something down field.

No one can convince me that the team is better without Tyreek. Everything we see today was just as possible with Tyreek and with Tyreek we had all of these new guys talent wrapped up in 1 player.

However, the ultimate success of the offense comes down to the man throwing the ball, and if that man couldn't see the open receiver opposite of Tyreek because it became "Fuck it, Tyreek down there somewhere" then removing Tyreek from the roster makes the offense more functional as a whole.
[Reply]

And it's also worth calling back to the "Franchise QB Wars".

Those of us who were shrieking for a next level QB weren't doing so because of the possibility that he would be Patrick Mahomes. Even the bullish among us didn't expect THIS.

What we were calling for was a guy who over large numbers was a little better than your top-end game manager types, but who in critical situations in the playoffs could pull the game from the fire.

Over 17 games a merely good QB can win you a lot of games. Can win you 12-13 or more. But in the post-season when you REALLY needed something to turn, you need that fire-breather than could steal a game for you. You need that Mahomes vs. the Texans explosion.

Right now we still don't know how this approach will work in the post-season. Will the story ultimately be that we have the WR room equivalent of a good game manager QB? When what we need is someone that can go out there and run wasp?

The post-season always has a couple of instances where you flat out need an ass-kicker at some key positions. QB and DL seem like obvious ones and we're good there. And boy, it sure seemed like having one at WR was pretty important for us when we were at our best.

And now we don't. We'll see if that comes back to bite us.
[Reply]

But then you have to acknowledge that if we had kept Tyreek, we wouldn't have the new cast of WRs because we couldn't afford anyone else after paying Hill.
[Reply]

Exactly.
[Reply]

I will admit that thought has crossed my mind. But we do still have that butt kicker in Kelce. I think Mahomes will be enough with the guys we have but I guess we will see. I'm really more concerned about how the defense comes together. That and the running game.
[Reply]

This is why I think we need a dude at DE.
[Reply]

We have a dude at DT and he WAS a dude (qualing over his lack of post-season sacks be damned) in the SB when he was absolutely dominant.

And if I'm looking for a 'dude' I'd rather have him at WR than DE, especially given the way this team has been built.

Ultimately I think the organization has moved away from that thought process and that's why they moved Hill. They're not looking for a stars/scrubs model. They're leaning more towards the Ron Wolf (or even Bill Belichick) approach of having a small core and then strong roster depth elsewhere.
[Reply]

The issue I have with that, is that it's just so damn hard to continue to replenish that with FA/injuries/draft crapshoot etc.

At some point doesn't have 1 guy produce the equivalent of 2 make more sense?
[Reply]

You're putting Burns and/or Allen up there with the best pass rushers in the league, though. They aren't.
[Reply]

When one of those guys exists, I guess.

But I'd also argue that it's not THAT hard to find 'representative' players. Solid players who will give you league average performance.

I mean look at how many guys signed in the 2nd wave of FA who would've done that. There are a dozen or more of them, many of whom signed pretty cheap. Green and Hughes come immediately to mind - coulda had those 2 guys for a hell of a lot less than it costs for Allen and with zero real risk.

And again - there are guys who I'd make that move for - I've stated them elsewhere. I just don't see enough from Allen or even Burns to conclude that they qualify. Those guys aren't Chris Jones caliber players.

There just aren't that many of those guys out there. I mean there are maybe a dozen defensive players at that level. Maybe a dozen more non-QBs.

And the baseline keeps sliding as to who we consider a 'dude' as we're getting frustrated by the lack of pressure from our front 4. Suddenly a guy who's performing pretty well - slightly above average - is 'a dude' because of how bad Clark/Karlaftis have been this year.

If Clark/Karlaftis were playing well (or if Clark were playing at this 'peak' level more consistently), would anyone act like Allen/Burns were these slam-dunk force multipliers? I don't think so.
[Reply]

Hill is a fucking stud. Chiefs will be fine moving forward, but we should not be talking down what he’s doing.
[Reply]

Not wrong for some people.

For me, I've been a Brian Burns fan since that draft, I think he'd be in that class here. But I'm on this island alone, after being marooned via mutiny. But I also look at it from the standpoint that as a pair, I think Burns and Karlaftis would be pretty much the perfect match of styles.

Then you just keep throwing shit at the wall there and see what happens.
[Reply]

I don't see the need to talk about him at all, good or bad. He's no longer a Chief.
[Reply]

IMO that's a more sustainable model than the stars/scrubs approach. One injury will derail several games in the stars/scrubs way. At least with strong depth you can be more competitive with a star out for a short time.(Obviously except QB)
[Reply]

Now you're a pariah. :-)

As for throwing shit at the wall, you have to have shit to throw in the first place. Can't do that if you trade away all your assets for a 2nd tier player.
[Reply]