Originally Posted by O.city:
If the plan is to build a team with no holes.....it's a plan destined to fail.
It's just not possible. They aren't making 12 draft picks this year. Best case scenario you hit on what, 5 of them?
Picks are for acquiring talent. However that happens. Trade, use the pick, trade the pick etc.
I don't necessarily disagree...in most years. This year is different. This year signals a sea change in the roster composition. I think it's an acknowledgment that investing in the top paid player at several positions cost the team a "Dynasty". Due to the depth of THIS YEAR'S draft, it allows a very quick transition to a much deeper roster and the ability to have a top 10 defense by 2nd half of 2023. I admit to being a bit of a draft geek, but I prefer a top 10, YOUNG defense, with Mahomes/Reid still being a Top 5 offense, even without Hill. [Reply]
I fully understood the logic behind the Hill deal when all was said and done.
And I fully understand why Veach is inquiring about top WRs. Leave no stone unturned.
But I do not fully understand the logic in giving up a lot of picks and paying a lot of money for a WR not named Tyreek Hill.
Adams and Hill both had leverage and were willing to sit out. On some level, that reduced their value. Why would Washington trade McLaurin for instance after they went out and got Wentz? The team has all the leverage on their end and it wouldn't be some bargain price even if they were open to dealing.
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
McLaurin isn't going for what we got Hill for. Adams was only a 1st and 2nd and he's considered a top 3 WR in the game.
Oh I know.
I don’t think he gets traded either way. He’s the only cornerstone player Washington has on offense, and the trade for Wentz tells me they’re dumb enough to think they can win now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Woogieman:
I don't necessarily disagree...in most years. This year is different. This year signals a sea change in the roster composition. I think it's an acknowledgment that investing in the top paid player at several positions cost the team a "Dynasty". Due to the depth of THIS YEAR'S draft, it allows a very quick transition to a much deeper roster and the ability to have a top 10 defense by 2nd half of 2023. I admit to being a bit of a draft geek, but I prefer a top 10, YOUNG defense, with Mahomes/Reid still being a Top 5 offense, even without Hill.
One years top 10 defense is next years garbage in todays NFL. It's so random from year to year.
They're gonna stock it with draft picks. They've got plenty to keep and trade a few. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
I fully understood the logic behind the Hill deal when all was said and done.
And I fully understand why Veach is inquiring about top WRs. Leave no stone unturned.
But I do not fully understand the logic in giving up a lot of picks and paying a lot of money for a WR not named Tyreek Hill.
Adams and Hill both had leverage and were willing to sit out. On some level, that reduced their value. Why would Washington trade McLaurin for instance after they went out and got Wentz? The team has all the leverage on their end and it wouldn't be some bargain price even if they were open to dealing.
I know we all like to dream though...
There are a lot of factors that go into it but they may just be trying to sell high on McLaurin while they can. I highly doubt that dude wants to stay in Washington after his contract is up and one injury tanks their value.
I say all that but I still don't believe they'll trade him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
I fully understood the logic behind the Hill deal when all was said and done.
And I fully understand why Veach is inquiring about top WRs. Leave no stone unturned.
But I do not fully understand the logic in giving up a lot of picks and paying a lot of money for a WR not named Tyreek Hill.
Adams and Hill both had leverage and were willing to sit out. On some level, that reduced their value. Why would Washington trade McLaurin for instance after they went out and got Wentz? The team has all the leverage on their end and it wouldn't be some bargain price even if they were open to dealing.
I know we all like to dream though...
If Veach makes a trade, he likely won't be doing both of those things. It would be one or the other. Hell, maybe neither. (hi, laviska) [Reply]
How much of this report is piggy backing off of what Nate Taylor said on 610 a week ago? He said that the team is looking at WRs in the 2nd or 3rd year of their deal. [Reply]
You have to identify places on the roster where you are not going to spend real money.
For the Chiefs that has been Oline, but that's changing. CB will likely remain a low cost point for the us, and LB while out guys are on rookie contracts. And I'd never pay big money to a RB, that's suicide IMO.
I don't understand the desire to get yet another WR before the draft. Wee don't need it, we are fine. The DE position is a different story. And I don't know if we can bank on Frank Clark and a rookie. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
I fully understood the logic behind the Hill deal when all was said and done.
And I fully understand why Veach is inquiring about top WRs. Leave no stone unturned.
But I do not fully understand the logic in giving up a lot of picks and paying a lot of money for a WR not named Tyreek Hill.
Adams and Hill both had leverage and were willing to sit out. On some level, that reduced their value. Why would Washington trade McLaurin for instance after they went out and got Wentz? The team has all the leverage on their end and it wouldn't be some bargain price even if they were open to dealing.
I know we all like to dream though...
Well, devils advocate as I don't think he gets traded, but it would be a player in the last year of his deal that said team weren't planning on paying.
I don't think it would be Mclaurin but there's a few others out there who would make sense.
People seem to forget, the Chiefs were ok paying 20plus million per year to a WR. It didn't work out. Now we don't think they'd be ok doing it again? [Reply]
They want a stable of quality receivers not just one and a bunch of shit. Pringle and Robinson were JAG’s and Hardman struggled til the end of the season.
Give Patrick options and he’ll more than make it work [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
I fully understood the logic behind the Hill deal when all was said and done.
And I fully understand why Veach is inquiring about top WRs. Leave no stone unturned.
But I do not fully understand the logic in giving up a lot of picks and paying a lot of money for a WR not named Tyreek Hill.
Adams and Hill both had leverage and were willing to sit out. On some level, that reduced their value. Why would Washington trade McLaurin for instance after they went out and got Wentz? The team has all the leverage on their end and it wouldn't be some bargain price even if they were open to dealing.
I know we all like to dream though...
They're not going to trade Hill for picks and then turn around and trade all of those picks for another high-priced WR. Don't even worry about it.
If they trade for a WR, it's going to be a mid-level guy and mid-level draft picks in exchange. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hoover:
You have to identify places on the roster where you are not going to spend real money.
For the Chiefs that has been Oline, but that's changing. CB will likely remain a low cost point for the us, and LB while out guys are on rookie contracts. And I'd never pay big money to a RB, that's suicide IMO.
I don't understand the desire to get yet another WR before the draft. Wee don't need it, we are fine. The DE position is a different story. And I don't know if we can bank on Frank Clark and a rookie.
Yeah, I think it ends up being a DE they trade for. [Reply]
Trading Hill and getting those picks and money just opens you up to be able to do whatever.
Call around. Wr's, DE's, Corners etc.
I'd call SF and ask about Deebo and Bosa. They are gonna have to pay both next offseason, maybe they don't think they can or want to. Call up the Jags about Allen. Call up the Panthers and see if they want more ammo to go after a QB. [Reply]