The Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl without a star wide receiver, but they could reportedly make an elite offense even scarier by acquiring DeAndre Hopkins.
NFL insider Benjamin Albright told PHNX Cardinals that Kansas City is the "primary suitor" for Hopkins. He doesn't know the draft compensation the Cardinals would receive, but he said it's more likely they get a second-round pick than a first.
After the 2022 season, theScore's Jordan Schultz reported that the Cardinals plan to trade Hopkins this offseason.
Arizona hired a new general manager and head coach after a disappointing four-win season, and Hopkins is set to make $19.45 million (with a $30.75 million cap hit) in 2023. The Cardinals could seek a clean slate by moving the three-time All-Pro wideout, who turns 31 in June.
Hopkins began his Cardinals career by tallying 1,407 yards and six touchdowns in 2020. However, multiple lower body injuries limited him to 10 games in 2021, and he served a six-game suspension to start the 2022 season for violating the NFL's PED policy.
Yet he remains an impact player when on the field. Hopkins totaled 474 receiving yards in six full games with quarterback Kyler Murray last season.
Now imagine what he can accomplish when catching passes from Patrick Mahomes.
The Chiefs flourished without a star replacement for Tyreek Hill, but they could still benefit by solidifying the position this offseason. JuJu Smith-Schuster is a free agent after garnering 78 catches for 933 yards on a one-year deal. The depth chart features several talented question marks in Mecole Hardman, Kadarius Toney, and Marquez Valdes-Scantling.
Adding Hopkins could be great news for Kansas City, but terrible for all opposing defenses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Originally Posted by staylor26:
It worries you a bit, but you're totally against OT at 31?
Sorry, but I don't understand that at all.
Niang's injury history worries me a bit, yes. We got Niang in the 3rd round. There's absolutely no reason we have to spend a 1st on his replacement if they think they need one. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Niang's injury history worries me a bit, yes. We got Niang in the 3rd round. There's absolutely no reason we have to spend a 1st on his replacement if they think they need one.
Nobody said anything about having to, at least not me.
You seem against it entirely though, which is my point, and why I find it contradictory. [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
I'm not sure he's AGAINST an OT at 31. He's against claiming that OT at 31 is our only move.
Exactly.
Here's the way I think about it. Of the OT's that could be there and are worth a 1st round pick, those guys pretty much all project to LT at some point. We don't need a LT AT ALL. I truly believe Taylor is the long-term starter there barring some unforeseen meltdown. And if that happens, they will probably target a LT next year because Taylor's contract doesn't have an out until 2025.
I just don't think the Chiefs see it the way some of you do. All this talk about drafting an OT in the first is talking about taking a LEFT tackle and moving him to right. That's just not as good of value as taking a left tackle and playing him on the left. In reality, I think many of you are holding out hope that Taylor ultimately ends up at RT and our stud draftee takes over at LT. It's not going to happen. [Reply]
Here's the way I think about it. Of the OT's that could be there and are worth a 1st round pick, those guys pretty much all project to LT at some point. We don't need a LT AT ALL. I truly believe Taylor is the long-term starter there barring some unforeseen meltdown. And if that happens, they will probably target a LT next year because Taylor's contract doesn't have an out until 2025.
I just don't think the Chiefs see it the way some of you do. All this talk about drafting an OT in the first is talking about taking a LEFT tackle and moving him to right. That's just not as good of value as taking a left tackle and playing him on the left. In reality, I think many of you are holding out hope that Taylor ultimately ends up at RT and our stud draftee takes over at LT. It's not going to happen.
Well that depends. Which LT in the draft is a for-sure, no-doubt-about-it stud LT? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Nobody said anything about having to, at least not me.
You seem against it entirely though, which is my point, and why I find it contradictory.
I'm not totally against it, it would just be about last on my list for what we would do with our first round pick.
I mean, IF we sign or trade for another WR AND there's no good edge players on the board, AND there's no good WR's on the board, sure - I'd take a tackle in the first.
But I firmly believe we need a RIGHT tackle and those guys can be had in the mid-rounds. Wylie was completely undrafted and we won a Super Bowl with him. Mitchell Schwartz was a 2nd rounder. Somewhere in between those 2 is a serviceable RT that doesn't cost a 1st round pick. [Reply]
Here's the way I think about it. Of the OT's that could be there and are worth a 1st round pick, those guys pretty much all project to LT at some point. We don't need a LT AT ALL. I truly believe Taylor is the long-term starter there barring some unforeseen meltdown. And if that happens, they will probably target a LT next year because Taylor's contract doesn't have an out until 2025.
I just don't think the Chiefs see it the way some of you do. All this talk about drafting an OT in the first is talking about taking a LEFT tackle and moving him to right. That's just not as good of value as taking a left tackle and playing him on the left. In reality, I think many of you are holding out hope that Taylor ultimately ends up at RT and our stud draftee takes over at LT. It's not going to happen.
I'm confused here. You've been pretty adamant that the Chiefs will not draft an OT at 31, and the implication seemed to be that you don't want them to either. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I'm not totally against it, it would just be about last on my list for what we would do with our first round pick.
I mean, IF we sign or trade for another WR AND there's no good edge players on the board, AND there's no good WR's on the board, sure - I'd take a tackle in the first.
But I firmly believe we need a RIGHT tackle and those guys can be had in the mid-rounds. Wylie was completely undrafted and we won a Super Bowl with him. Mitchell Schwartz was a 2nd rounder. Somewhere in between those 2 is a serviceable RT that doesn't cost a 1st round pick.
It kind of feels like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth man. It's pretty obvious that you flat out don't want them to draft a T at 31. [Reply]
Here's the way I think about it. Of the OT's that could be there and are worth a 1st round pick, those guys pretty much all project to LT at some point. We don't need a LT AT ALL. I truly believe Taylor is the long-term starter there barring some unforeseen meltdown. And if that happens, they will probably target a LT next year because Taylor's contract doesn't have an out until 2025.
I just don't think the Chiefs see it the way some of you do. All this talk about drafting an OT in the first is talking about taking a LEFT tackle and moving him to right. That's just not as good of value as taking a left tackle and playing him on the left. In reality, I think many of you are holding out hope that Taylor ultimately ends up at RT and our stud draftee takes over at LT. It's not going to happen.
Remember, though - in a perfect world, Andy gets two 'island' OTs who he can leave out there on their own to free up everyone else like he had with Fish and Schwartz.
Any shot we have at an 'island' RT is going to come from a player who projects as a LT at some point. That's kind of the dividing line between 'conventional' left and right tackles.
You telling me Andy wouldn't love to get back to that? Because I'd say his 'shell concept' depends on EXACTLY that.
I'm not saying take a RT at all costs. But man, if any of those top 5(ish) guys get up to the mid 20s and we could find a way to move up and lock in our bookends with island pass protectors for the next 4 years - that's a haaaaaaard thing to pass on. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I'm confused here. You've been pretty adamant that the Chiefs will not draft an OT at 31, and the implication seemed to be that you don't want them to either.
Originally Posted by staylor26:
It kind of feels like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth man. It's pretty obvious that you flat out don't want them to draft a T at 31.
You might want to go back and read my original posts from this morning.
I very clearly said that I don't want them to take a tackle at 31.
I also very clearly said that I believe they will put Taylor at LT and not draft a RT in the first round.
Those are two completely different ideas, independent of each other, and as I mentioned, I already pretty clearly laid out the difference between what I want and what I think they will do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Remember, though - in a perfect world, Andy gets two 'island' OTs who he can leave out there on their own to free up everyone else like he had with Fish and Schwartz.
Any shot we have at an 'island' RT is going to come from a player who projects as a LT at some point. That's kind of the dividing line between 'conventional' left and right tackles.
You telling me Andy wouldn't love to get back to that? Because I'd say his 'shell concept' depends on EXACTLY that.
I'm not saying take a RT at all costs. But man, if any of those top 5(ish) guys get up to the mid 20s and we could find a way to move up and lock in our bookends with island pass protectors for the next 4 years - that's a haaaaaaard thing to pass on.
If one of them falls to 31, great.
I'm not moving up into the mid-20's for a tackle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
You might want to go back and read my original posts from this morning.
I very clearly said that I don't want them to take a tackle at 31.
I also very clearly said that I believe they will put Taylor at LT and not draft a RT in the first round.
Those are two completely different ideas, independent of each other, and as I mentioned, I already pretty clearly laid out the difference between what I want and what I think they will do.
Ok, that's what I thought, but then Pest said no you just don't think they "have to" and you said exactly.
So again, you were contradicting yourself a bit there and it's caused some confusion.
I just don't see how you can be worried about Niang AND be against drafting an OT in the 1st. [Reply]