One of the best WR prospects at the catch point and winning leverage mid-route. He consistently sets up defenders to put them on his back, locates the ball, and attacks it at the highest point.
Rashee Rice was drafted with pick 55 of round 2 in the 2023 draft class. He scored a 9.53 #RAS out of a possible 10.00. This ranked 145 out of 3062 WR from 1987 to 2023. https://t.co/lwD9tvVPvvpic.twitter.com/YjucxErSE1
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
We traded Hill for the equivalent of a first but we’re gonna give up 2 firsts and Rice for Lamb? Huh?
We've been having this argument for months now.
The Chiefs made a clear philosophical decision AWAY from spending big money on a WR and traded away the best WR in football for draft capital. And it WORKED.
And they'd reverse that?
I mean it's just so far beyond stupid that it barely warrants mention.
Had they not won the Super Bowl without Hill (let alone winning it twice) I could see them considering a similar idea (at a far lower cost) but that's not the world we live in.
In THIS reality there's simply no way they're going to give up substantial draft capital for a WR and give him a market-setting contract. That's no more likely to happen than the Chiefs trading Mahomes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Even if it was just Rice and one 1st, that's the type of trade dumb teams without a franchise QB make.
if Houston gave up Tank Dell and a 1st for him, that would make a lot of sense. Hell, if they gave up Tank and TWO firsts it wouldn't be completely insane.
But like you said, they're in a way different position than we are. [Reply]
After watching camp I think Rice is the man in KC. Brown and Worthy are great 2 and 3's but Mahomes clearly favors Rice from the WR group and I know the other 2 are new but still.... He just looks different. Brown looks short and Worthy still needs to add a few lbs. [Reply]
Look I think CeeDee Lamb would probably be the #1 or 2 WR in the NFL if he played with Mahomes...but you don't trade 2 1's and a starter for the right to drop huge coin. [Reply]