Originally Posted by ku_jhawk23:
You should take a look.. You've been wrong about every post you've made.
In the end, we can all make values for players in FA but if the market shows us we are wrong, it can be worth correcting. If I am shown to be wrong I will adjust, this guy does not care if the evidence is against him.
The fact is Mecole Hardman was offered 5 million by the Jets and couldn't find the field on the only NFL team that was decidedly WORSE in weapons than the Chiefs.
He's a gadget player that the Chiefs didn't even want to use as a gadget last year.
His value is incredibly low because he also isn't good at playing WR.
I would take him back on a near vet min contract as the 4th or 5th option. No interest in having Mecole get a lot of snaps next year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15:
Hardman handles the now. A draft pick or two gives us options for the future.
We've seen first hand that Andy either doesn't trust and/or give opportunities to rookie WR's early on - so I'm certainly not counting on getting anything much out of a rookie - I think Rice just gave them no choice.
Guess I'm wondering why it has to be Hardman OR a rookie, instead of Hardman AND a rookie?
Who says "Hardman or a rookie"?
Everyone - I mean everyone - is saying "Veteran WR + a rookie"
It's just a question of resources they're willing to allocate to the veteran WR. You seem content throwing a pittance at the veteran and drafting a rookie. Others are scarred by the 2023 regular season and don't want to take that kind of risk only to be left wondering why the fuck we can't pass the football through week 10 next season.
I think either side has some merit to it. I personally don't think a high-dollar veteran is NECESSARY because I think the offense looked noticeably different when we were getting anything at all from Hardman/MVS in the post-season. That said, if the price is right on a Hollywood (who is absolutely a much better overall football player than Hardman) or Samuel, why would I be opposed to the idea? It's just that much more risk mitigated.
And even the folks that disagree with you right now were MUCH more vehement in their demands at WR in, say, week 13. The emergence of Rice plus the fact that the offense improved merely by getting Toney and Moore off the field (and MVS pulling his head from his ass) led them all to come off the ledge a little.
Some all the way (evidently that's where you are) and others less so.
I think 90% of this board would end up very disappointed if we didn't draft a rookie WR in the 1st or 2nd round this year. Regardless of what we do with the WR room before the draft starts. [Reply]
DJ Licks Nuts just got his little pussy bruised because he got called out on his stupidity last year about Mahomes holding back the greatness of Skyy Moore, MVS, Kadarius Toney, and Justin Watson. [Reply]
Fascinating situation with WR Calvin Ridley: Per terms of the Falcons/Jags trade, Atlanta gets a 2 if Ridley re-signs in Jags before Wednesday at 4, and a 3 if he re-signs thereafter. So the Jags are motivated to wait, and Ridley's camp has that extra time to drive the number up.
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
DJ Licks Nuts just got his little pussy bruised because he got called out on his stupidity last year about Mahomes holding back the greatness of Skyy Moore, MVS, Kadarius Toney, and Justin Watson.
Says the guy who took his ball and went home for a couple of days because of "left wing mods".
I.E. I told your dumbass that I would ban you from the draft forum for being an insufferable douche.
So you disappeared for a couple of days and backed out of the CP mock. Sounds to me like YOU got your pussy bruised. [Reply]
I sure as fuck hope he's right. That's the dawg to get for this team. Going into the draft without absolutely needing to get a WR early would be nice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Who says "Hardman or a rookie"?
Everyone - I mean everyone - is saying "Veteran WR + a rookie"
It's just a question of resources they're willing to allocate to the veteran WR. You seem content throwing a pittance at the veteran and drafting a rookie. Others are scarred by the 2023 regular season and don't want to take that kind of risk only to be left wondering why the fuck we can't pass the football through week 10 next season.
I think either side has some merit to it. I personally don't think a high-dollar veteran is NECESSARY because I think the offense looked noticeably different when we were getting anything at all from Hardman/MVS in the post-season. That said, if the price is right on a Hollywood (who is absolutely a much better overall football player than Hardman) or Samuel, why would I be opposed to the idea? It's just that much more risk mitigated.
And even the folks that disagree with you right now were MUCH more vehement in their demands at WR in, say, week 13. The emergence of Rice plus the fact that the offense improved merely by getting Toney and Moore off the field (and MVS pulling his head from his ass) led them all to come off the ledge a little.
Some all the way (evidently that's where you are) and others less so.
I think 90% of this board would end up very disappointed if we didn't draft a rookie WR in the 1st or 2nd round this year. Regardless of what we do with the WR room before the draft starts.
Mea culpa, I read your post differently than you apparently meant it.
*I'd love to have him back.
But that doesn't seem to stand with your "also prepare for life after Kelce" approach. Because he doesn't do anything along those lines, does he?*
*Deal with the now.*
I took that as one or the other.
Fundamentally, we're 95% aligned.
I just don't believe in paying $13-15M for Hollywood when we've proven we can get 80+% of that production for 25 cents on the dollar. [Reply]
