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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just thing the Chiefs, who so frequently utilize a move TE who isn't playing in-line to provide protection to the RT, don't have a true RT/LT distinction if they have things there way.
And if Harrison, Wright or maaaaaybe Mauch are there for them at 31, that may be enough for them to pull the trigger.
Man, Mauch could be so damn good. I feel like he might be turning into a draft crush for me. I don't think he makes it to 63 so... [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I just thing the Chiefs, who so frequently utilize a move TE who isn't playing in-line to provide protection to the RT, don't have a true RT/LT distinction if they have things there way.
And if Harrison, Wright or maaaaaybe Mauch are there for them at 31, that may be enough for them to pull the trigger.
Man, Mauch could be so damn good. I feel like he might be turning into a draft crush for me. I don't think he makes it to 63 so...
You think he sticks at T with sub-33" arms? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
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.
Both things can be true. There are a hell of a lot of good RTs that weren't drafted in the 1st. I'd say it depends on what other positions are available on their board and the impact they think it will have to draft those positions. [Reply]
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.
Honestly, I think we're in pretty good position to take BPA and that's awesome. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
You think he sticks at T with sub-33" arms?
Great feet, though. You can get away with a lot if you can keep your base under you and re-anchor even if the DE beats you to your chest. That's exactly how Schwartz did it - 33 inch arms but outstanding feet/technique.
But you're probably right. He's probably a reach at 31 and maybe a significant one.
He just has pretty rare movement for an OT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
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.
Like I said, it wasn't contradictory at all. There two completely different thought processes and I identified them as such in one of very posts in this thread.
As for the question, I can be worried about Niang and against drafting a RT in the 1st. Because quality RT's can be had for far less than a first round pick. Edge players, for example, aren't that easy. If one of the better edge's fall and we take a right tackle? Yeah, no. [Reply]
Originally Posted by raybec 4:
Both things can be true. There are a hell of a lot of good RTs that weren't drafted in the 1st. I'd say it depends on what other positions are available on their board and the impact they think it will have to draft those positions.
Guys, THIS is what I was referring to when I said "contradicting"
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.
Originally Posted by htismaqe: 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.
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.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I just thing the Chiefs, who so frequently utilize a move TE who isn't playing in-line to provide protection to the RT, don't have a true RT/LT distinction if they have things there way.
And if Harrison, Wright or maaaaaybe Mauch are there for them at 31, that may be enough for them to pull the trigger.
Man, Mauch could be so damn good. I feel like he might be turning into a draft crush for me. I don't think he makes it to 63 so...
I think Mauch will get looks as a center for some teams. The guy can move and seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Tall but so are other centers like Mitch Morse.
I actually think Mitch Morse is a perfect comp for Mauch [Reply]
Originally Posted by raybec 4:
Both things can be true. There are a hell of a lot of good RTs that weren't drafted in the 1st. I'd say it depends on what other positions are available on their board and the impact they think it will have to draft those positions.
That's fine, and I don't disagree, but that's not what he said. He clearly said he doesn't want the Chiefs to take a tackle at 31 period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Guys, THIS is what I was referring to when I said "contradicting"
Again, two different thought streams, two different conversations going on at once.
They're BOTH true. I would prefer they not draft a tackle in the first. But as I already demonstrated, I'm not dead set against it if there are no other options. It would just be my last resort, not my first, as some are advocating here. That's what I want. I would rather see them draft tackle depth (with some upside) in the middle rounds.
As for what I think will actually happen - I've been clear about that too. I think the Chiefs view it much the same way I do. That's where my wants and their plan come together and probably why this seems confusing. I think the Chiefs will ultimately do what I want - they're going to stick Taylor at LT, draft an OT in the middle rounds, and look to start Niang at RT to start the season.
Originally Posted by staylor26:
That's fine, and I don't disagree, but that's not what he said. He clearly said he doesn't want the Chiefs to take a tackle at 31 period.
Dude, I literally posted this an hour and 10 minutes ago.
Originally Posted by :
You said it yourself, it gets thin fast. There's decent chance no good tackle is there at 31. You don't want to reach for a 2nd tier guy when other positions are falling down the board. If you're drafting for need, it's gotta be a WR (and I'm not suggesting they have to go WR in the 1st, it's just a bigger need than RT). Now if we go and get Hopkins or OBJ, that changes everything. Beyond that, I still think Edge is a bigger need than RT.
I just don't see any way to say drafting a RT at 31 is a good thing unless one of the LT prospects falls all the way down. And I just don't see the Chiefs pulling the trigger. I know people think the Chiefs would just draft a LT and move Taylor to RT but I just don't think they will.
I've been pretty clear I'm not against drafting an OT at 31 regardless of scenario. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Again, two different thought streams, two different conversations going on at once.
They're BOTH true. I would prefer they not draft a tackle in the first. But as I already demonstrated, I'm not dead set against it if there are no other options. It would just be my last resort, not my first, as some are advocating here. That's what I want. I would rather see them draft tackle depth (with some upside) in the middle rounds.
As for what I think will actually happen - I've been clear about that too. I think the Chiefs view it much the same way I do. That's where my wants and their plan come together and probably why this seems confusing. I think the Chiefs will ultimately do what I want - they're going to stick Taylor at LT, draft an OT in the middle rounds, and look to start Niang at RT to start the season.
Is the distinction clear now?
I don't mean to get into an argument about semantics but:
"I very clearly said I don't want them to take a OT at 31"
And
"I'm not against them taking a tackle at 31"
Are absolutely contradictory statements dude. Now you've changed it to "I would prefer they not..."
I'm seriously not trying to be a dick here, but you're making it seem like it's just that I'm not getting it. [Reply]