Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I'm not crazy about DAT in this role. But we still miss Albert wilson. DAT isn't Albert wilson but he can do some of those things. Gadget guy, jet sweeps... If DAT can find a way to become an underneath passing option he could be a weapon. A lot of teams who run a ton all verts plays love having a sprint option out of the backfield.
DAT will hardly see the field unless it's on special teams. [Reply]
Bullshit. "Possession receiver" is nothing more than a complimentary term for a receiver that's slow as balls. Every receiver is expected to have good hands and catch the ball. That's their damn job.
DAT's primary role here will be as a gunner. He's an excellent gunner. They clearly had Kemp slated for that role but with his injury, they needed a replacement gunner. With Hardman, Hill and Smith there was never a need for a returner. That's not to say DAT won't get return work, but he's a hired gunner.
Nope.
The value of a possession receiver is more about being physical enough and running crisp enough routes to get some short stuff. We could definitely use that. On the one hand, mahomes needs to learn to take the checkdown every once in a while. But it would be great to have someone other than kelce in very specific situations who can help our short game. New England basically took away our entire deep zone and you'd have to think lots of other defenses will try the same. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The value of a possession receiver is more about being physical enough and running crisp enough routes to get some short stuff. We could definitely use that.
Nope. That's what Kelce is for. Big bodied receivers who win with positioning are great for QB's who can't throw with anticipation and accuracy.
Those days are long gone, son.
Besides, we already have two guys who fit that bill if need be. Watkins and Kelce. And Hill is more than capable of that as well, regardless of his size.
The idea of a possession receiver is an out of date concept. This aint the 90's no more. [Reply]