Originally Posted by frozenchief:
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?
A) Brady carved up the middle, which really is where this argument should stop because it demonstrates immediately how reactive the CB position is and their impact can be immediately diminished. A CB doesnt slow down Brady in that game - hes Brady. Hes just gonna go find the vacated hole in the zone and attack it.
B) You realize that the targets were reduced because of the attention he demanded, right? And that the attention goes elsewhere if its DeMarcus Robinson running those routes.
C) A game. One game. That's your argument - that in this one game hill didnt go off so clearly we should just trade him for the best CB we can get.
D) I have no earthly idea why I even needed to make points A through C. I really thought all this shit was self-evident. [Reply]
Originally Posted by CasselGotPeedOn:
Are you too stupid to even realize why Hill was targeted 3 times?
No, I'm not. I am smart enough to:
1. not let my emotions get in the way of decisions. If I did not think a deal was worth it, I would not trade Hill. Simple.
2. realize that we have some real problems at corner and it will cost us.
3. Know we have the best QB in the league, a QB that can make average receivers look good. *cough* Chris Conley *cough*
4. see that we also have Kelce and Watkins as well as Hardman, who has looked far better in pre-season than I anticipated.
Value is relative. We have the best QB in the league and several very good receivers. Tyreek Hill's comparative value to this team is not as much as it would be to a team that needs WRs. On the other hand, we are weak at CBs and that has the potential to really cost us, which means that CBs are more valuable to us than they are to other teams.
Last year, Hill tallied ~1400 yards and 12 TDs. Certainly impressive numbers. You think Mahomes cannot spread those yards throughout the remaining receivers? Think of Tre'Davious White for the Bills. He only allowed 30 catches on 52 targets last year. Gilmore only allowed 48 receptions on 109 targets (<50% receiving rate) and gave up 611 yards. He defended 20 passes.
Forget the personalities involved. Do you really think Mahomes could not spread those yards around? Even if we lost half those yards and TDs - 700 yards and 6 TDs - that seems a small price to pay for having a defense that doesn't make Jimmy Garoppolo look like Aaron Rogers. I mean, Mahomes would have 4400 yards and 43 TDs. That is still better than any other QB in the league. And given Mahomes' talent and our other receivers, I think that we would not lose that much offensive production. I think he would replace about 75-90% of those yards.
So again, forgetting personalities, is the loss of 250 yards and 3 TDs an acceptable cost to get a shut down CB? Considering this team's needs, I don't see why that is not an acceptable cost, particularly when the Chiefs are in a position to win the whole thing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
A) Brady carved up the middle, which really is where this argument should stop because it demonstrates immediately how reactive the CB position is and their impact can be immediately diminished. A CB doesnt slow down Brady in that game - hes Brady. Hes just gonna go find the vacated hole in the zone and attack it.
B) You realize that the targets were reduced because of the attention he demanded, right? And that the attention goes elsewhere if its DeMarcus Robinson running those routes.
C) A game. One game. That's your argument - that in this one game hill didnt go off so clearly we should just trade him for the best CB we can get.
D) I have no earthly idea why I even needed to make points A through C. I really thought all this shit was self-evident.
I responded in another post to several of these points, but I will respond to point C. It isn't "one game". It's the AFCCG. The Chiefs are at the point where they have to make decisions not just to get into the playoffs or go deep into the playoffs but to have a team without serious enough weaknesses that they can win the SB. They have loads of talent. They truly do. But weakness at a position like CB is fatal in big games, like AFCCG or SBs. I truly hope that in January we are not having a discussion about how the Chiefs' poor pass defense cost them yet again.
Based upon that, if I thought that trading Hill for an elite CB would sufficiently improve this team's chances to win the SB, I'd do it. And if I didn't think that, I wouldn't do it. But how many times does signing a top 5 WR push a team over the SB hump? Doesn't happen. And because I trust Mahomes, I would trade the small lost production for an opportunity to have a better pass defense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
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.
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
I responded in another post to several of these points, but I will respond to point C. It isn't "one game". It's the AFCCG. The Chiefs are at the point where they have to make decisions not just to get into the playoffs or go deep into the playoffs but to have a team without serious enough weaknesses that they can win the SB. They have loads of talent. They truly do. But weakness at a position like CB is fatal in big games, like AFCCG or SBs. I truly hope that in January we are not having a discussion about how the Chiefs' poor pass defense cost them yet again.
Based upon that, if I thought that trading Hill for an elite CB would sufficiently improve this team's chances to win the SB, I'd do it. And if I didn't think that, I wouldn't do it. But how many times does signing a top 5 WR push a team over the SB hump? Doesn't happen. And because I trust Mahomes, I would trade the small lost production for an opportunity to have a better pass defense.
What elite weapon does NE have that would warrant trading Tyreek for an elite corner?
It seems like if we just stop the run and tackled receiving backs like James White out of the flats that would be enough. [Reply]
