Originally Posted by staylor26:
Schefter saying the Chiefs are the front runners is pretty big...
but I refuse to get my hopes up. This is one of those moves that would literally piss everybody off outside of Chiefs fans, so it almost feels to good to be true.
But he didn't say the Chiefs are the front runners, did he? He said the Chiefs make the most sense. That's an opinion. It's not some inside information.
I think we all agree that the Chiefs make the most sense in a race against the Bills (they have Diggs and added Kincaid), Browns (still a very uneven situation with Watson), and Patriots (Bill...O'Brien). Hopkins comes in here and he's a clear WR1 with the best QB in the game. It's an obvious pairing that benefits both sides if the money is right.
I have no idea whether it happens or not, but it absolutely makes the most sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
But he didn't say the Chiefs are the front runners, did he? He said the Chiefs make the most sense. That's an opinion. It's not some inside information.
I think we all agree that the Chiefs make the most sense in a race against the Bills (they have Diggs and added Kincaid), Browns (still a very uneven situation with Watson), and Patriots (Bill...O'Brien). Hopkins comes in here and he's a clear WR1 with the best QB in the game. It's an obvious pairing that benefits both sides if the money is right.
I have no idea whether it happens or not, but it absolutely makes the most sense.
I didn't actually listen, just going by the tweet calling them "leaders".
Either way, not getting my hopes up, hence why I didn't care enough to listen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I didn't actually listen, just going by the tweet calling them "leaders".
Come on, bro. You know better than that.
That's a straight Mahomo con job.
Pretty sure if the Chiefs were being reported as leaders it would be a tweet from his account rather than his trying to fill space on his podcast. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Come on, bro. You know better than that.
That's a straight Mahomo con job.
Pretty sure if the Chiefs were being reported as leaders it would be a tweet from his account rather than his trying to fill space on his podcast.
Again, I just don't put that much stock into it either way.
This really isn't anything new either. Albert Breer was saying he thought the Chiefs would end up with Hopkins going back to the draft. A lot of people think the Chiefs are front runners, opinion or not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Again, I just don't put that much stock into it either way.
This really isn't anything new either. Albert Breer was saying he thought the Chiefs would end up with Hopkins going back to the draft. A lot of people think the Chiefs are front runners, opinion or not.
It's this year that bothers me. It would take some serious restructuring to both Mahomes and Jones to make it work.
We have no cap. None. Zippo for this year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
It's this year that bothers me. It would take some serious restructuring to both Mahomes and Jones to make it work.
We have no cap. None. Zippo for this year.
Mahomes and CJ are the heart and soul of the offense and defense respectively.
You saw the video in the locker room after the Super Bowl when they dapped each other up, and then looked each other in the eyes and said they weren’t done.
You could tell they meant that shit too.
I have no doubt that they, Veach, Andy and Clark can come together and work something out if we decide we want to sign DeHop. [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
It's this year that bothers me. It would take some serious restructuring to both Mahomes and Jones to make it work.
We have no cap. None. Zippo for this year.
Not trying to be a dick, but i really don't understand the second part of that, where people are concerned about CJ's deal getting restructured. i mean, it was going to happen anyway, right? Veach knew 100% that he was redoing CJ's deal before there was any news about DHop, so I don't get why anyone's concerned about that part of it. [Reply]