Good God, no.
[Reply]

Hell to the no to the no to the no no no!
[Reply]

Are you smoking crack? Jesus.
[Reply]

To be fair, though, it wasn't that long ago that a majority of Chief Fan wanted to let Hill go for zero compensation. THAT's our fanbase.
[Reply]

If he loses his right leg in a tractor accident tomorrow I'll probably change my position on this.

What's your point?

Context is critical, no? I actually wasn't in the 'cut his ass' camp, even if I thought that was likely inevitable. I thought he was too important to the offense to make a hasty decision and we'd need to see more facts come out first. Now to be fair, I thought those facts would come out, barbecue him and THEN we'd be forced to cut him. But I at least needed to see it first. Because again, context is critical.

Right now Tyreek Hill is free of any league disciplinary concerns and is as important to the offense as he's ever been. Trading him for anything - and I mean anything - would be asinine. I'm not sure there's any player in the league that would help this offense more than Tyreek Hill. And I'm not sure even Aaron Donald would help the defense enough to make up for losing him (though that's a closer call).
[Reply]

My point? People wanted to release him PRIOR to letting the situation play out. We have clear evidence of that on this site. There was absolutely ZERO advantage to releasing him at the time; Chiefs Fans, literally, wanted to give away a premium player for absolutely nothing. That's my point, which I assumed was pretty clear. Trading him for a CB is also insanely stupid, just not NEAR the same level of stupidity.
[Reply]

I would add several more nos to that just to be safe.
[Reply]

HELL NO!!!!
[Reply]

Fuck no to trading hill.
[Reply]

He's right in that many dumbfucks wanted to out right cut him. So dumb...
[Reply]

Maybe I should have started a new thread but I just responded to some people here.

Frankly, I don't understand the "won't consider trading player X" philosophy unless that player is Mahomes. This is the NFL. You are always looking to improve and always looking to the future. I get that Hill is a tremendous talent but answer this question seriously: aside from Randy Moss, how many high-priced WRs did the Patriots hire over the last 15 years? We are very strong at WR, particularly if you consider that Kelce is practically a WR. When we have the best QB in the league, a QB who can consistently put the ball into small places that are hard to defend, multiple great receivers are a luxury. In a sense, WRs are similar to RBs. A middle of the road RB can put up good numbers behind a great OL. Look at Denver for years. And a middle to good WR can put up good numbers with a great QB. So the question is whether you can afford the luxury.

Our CBs are not great, to put it mildly. Yeah, we can provide some coverage for pass protection through improved safety play, and I think Matthieu and Thornhill are good upgrades at safety. But the one position for which the Patriots will shell out $ for free agents on a consistent basis is CB. And if Bill Bellichek thinks the position is that important in today's NFL, then I think we should focus on getting good CBs.

I get the argument one CB doesn't do any good because the QB can pass to the other side. Even if they pass to the other side, if you've got 1 shut down CB you can use a FS for pass protection support. Also, that cuts out 1/2 the field that needs coverage, which frees up other players to either rush the QB or provide additional coverage.

For that reason, I think that the front office should not be afraid to consider anything that might make the team better. Emphasis on "team". So ask yourself, if Chicago offered Kyle Fuller or NE offered Stephon Gilmore or AZ offered Peterson for Tyreek Hill, would you automatically, reflexively say "no" without charting how the team would look under each scenario? If you would automatically say "no", why?

I do not understand why someone wouldn't consider it. The price would be admittedly high. I absolutely get automatically saying "no" if the offer was Scandrick but any of those CBs would improve this team tremendously. The question is whether the improvement would be worth the cost. And you cannot reach that decision without at least considering it.
[Reply]

Sweet butter crumpets! Of COURSE I would immediately say no. It wouldn't be 'reflexively' but it would take all of half a second longer than that to immediately know that the damage done to the offense is FAR greater in any of those scenarios than the benefit to the defense.

It isnt even close, in fact.

You're actually saying we should consider trading Hill for Patrick !@#$ing Peterson and castigating those that can say 'lord no' without taking 20 minutes to ponder first.

I can assure you that it wouldn't take Veach any longer to reject that trade than it would take him to find the 'end call' button on his phone.
[Reply]

Gilmore for Reek :-) :-) :-)
[Reply]

We scored 31 points against the Patriots in the AFCCG. Tyreek Hill was targeted 3 times. He caught one pass for 42 yards. No touchdowns. Tom Brady passed for 348 yards.

Which would you rather have: Tyreek's 42 yards or a CB that could have slowed down Brady?
[Reply]

Are you too stupid to even realize why Hill was targeted 3 times?
[Reply]