Summary of the video's arguments -- some of which are argued better than others:
1. Never fully healthy.
2. This chart:
3. We ranked in the bottom 3rd in 2020 in passrush despite dropping major coin along the DL.
4. 6 sacks in 2020 -- there was a 7 game stretch where he had 1, and 2 sacks in the last 10 weeks of the season.
5. He doesn't change the run defense all that much.
6. 2020 postseason was "pedestrian" -- 9.8% pressure rate.
7. All of this despite being slotted next to Chris Jones.
8. As you can see in the above chart, Clark is rarely double teamed.
9. The Chiefs didn't restructure Clark this offseason, because they don't want to make it harder than it needs to be to cut him after 2021 -- saves $13m.
10. 2021 is a make-or-break year for Clark.
The good news is that Jarran Reed, like Chris Jones, is a beast in "sacks created," which should help our edge rush. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
I mean he's still a much better player by far. Imagine if when Sammy was injured, DK was the one to step in. You think Sammy would have ever seen the #2 role? You think DK would have the same amount of targets and more snaps than DK if he were here?
Hardmans problem isn't opportunity. He's had plenty. It's that he hasn't been a good WR at all even though our #2 WR has been out or hobbled 12+ games the past two years.
The way Andy Reid does things, he might not have even gotten the opportunities, which would have prevented him from showing what he could do and earn more playing time.
I get what you're saying but you can't just insert DK Metcalf into the lineup and say he could do here what he did in Seattle.
I really don't get the idea of crying about spilled milk 2 full years after the fact. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Locket is not a bad wr. But we are talking about the situation where Hardeman does not even have the #3 role on the team locked down. Hard to believe that Metcalf would not have secured that if he was on the Chiefs.
Lockett isn't bad but it's not like he was a barrier to taking the #1 job. There was no way Metcalf would be the #1 target on this team like he is in Seattle.
Not sure why this even a topic of discussion. [Reply]
Hardman isn't a good WR. He's got great speed and is good with the ball in his hands, but in terms of a WR, he's just meh. HOpefully he gets better but who knows.
That has nothing to do with DK. Who knows what he'd be here. I think he'd probably be a good player because of his physical ability.
But any WR that comes here is gonna be atleast the 3rd fiddle. If not 4th.
Originally Posted by O.city:
Hardman isn't a good WR. He's got great speed and is good with the ball in his hands, but in terms of a WR, he's just meh. HOpefully he gets better but who knows.
That has nothing to do with DK. Who knows what he'd be here. I think he'd probably be a good player because of his physical ability.
But any WR that comes here is gonna be atleast the 3rd fiddle. If not 4th.
Hill and Kelce are gonna get theirs.
Exactly.
The question here isn't whether or not DK would be better than Hardman. The answer to that is obvious.
The question here with Hardman, just like with Clark, is whether the TEAM would have been better with DK than with Hardman. There's very little room to suggest the Chiefs could have been better than 2 Super Bowls in the 2 years Hardman has been here.
Every move has a ripple effect. We have no idea how DK would fit here. It's entirely possible that we don't make 2 straight Super Bowls despite his superior talent. Trying to imagine a past different than the one that actually happened seems like a really, really odd thing to do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
I mean he's still a much better player by far. Imagine if when Sammy was injured, DK was the one to step in. You think Sammy would have ever seen the #2 role? You think DK would have the same amount of targets and more snaps than DK if he were here?
Hardmans problem isn't opportunity. He's had plenty. It's that he hasn't been a good WR at all even though our #2 WR has been out or hobbled 12+ games the past two years.
Hardman isn’t a bust though. Paris Campbell and JJ Arcega-Whiteside were drafted around his area and they are busts.
Hardman’s biggest problem was 2 things:
1. He went to a college that didn’t teach route running.
2. Covid eliminated any offseason training he could have done from year 1 to 2
He’s got value and it’s been shown in both Ravens games. If he can learn how to refine his route tree he could be really good [Reply]
The question here isn't whether or not DK would be better than Hardman. The answer to that is obvious.
The question here with Hardman, just like with Clark, is whether the TEAM would have been better with DK than with Hardman. There's very little room to suggest the Chiefs could have been better than 2 Super Bowls in the 2 years Hardman has been here.
Every move has a ripple effect. We have no idea how DK would fit here. It's entirely possible that we don't make 2 straight Super Bowls despite his superior talent. Trying to imagine a past different than the one that actually happened seems like a really, really odd thing to do.
I don't think it's hard to see they'd be better off with DK than Hardman, WR wise.
Shit happens though. Hardman was a project. Maybe he figures it out, maybe he doesn't. Pivot and move on to the next thing. No one bats 1.000 [Reply]
Speaking of Tyler Lockett, here’s what his first 3 seasons looked like:
664 yards 6 TD’s
597 yards 1 TD
555 yards 2 TD’s
This is a guy that was more polished than Hardman coming out, but the actual production has been very similar to Hardman’s at the beginning of their careers. They’re also similar players from a size/speed and skill set perspective.
You can’t just overlook the fact that not only is Hardman still learning the position, he’s also just now getting a full normal offseason for the first time.
I’ve accepted the fact that Hardman might just be who he is, but the upside and room for improvement are clearly there. I haven’t completely given up hope that he could take a big leap before his rookie deal is up.
Hopefully the playoffs were a wake-up call for him and he uses it as motivation, because he has a great opportunity to make a significant jump this year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I definitely don't think the Chiefs are infallible. They've made mistakes, including re-shuffling the line right before the Super Bowl.
That being said, the only thing embarrassing here is your use of the word "embarrassing". If you were personally embarrassed by their performance in the Super Bowl, you take football WAY too seriously and should probably do some self-reflection immediately.
That's true Mr. English Professor. I do take football way too seriously.. I admit that. But guess what? If that's a huge fault of mine, I'm fine with that. Much better then being an asshole like yourself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Speaking of Tyler Lockett, here’s what his first 3 seasons looked like:
664 yards 6 TD’s
597 yards 1 TD
555 yards 2 TD’s
This is a guy that was more polished than Hardman coming out, but the actual production has been very similar to Hardman’s at the beginning of their careers. They’re also similar players from a size/speed and skill set perspective.
You can’t just overlook the fact that not only is Hardman still learning the position, he’s also just now getting a full normal offseason for the first time.
I’ve accepted the fact that Hardman might just be who he is, but the upside and room for improvement are clearly there. I haven’t completely given up hope that he could take a big leap before his rookie deal is up.
Hopefully the playoffs were a wake-up call for him and he uses it as motivation, because he has a great opportunity to make a significant jump this year.
Physically yeah. Mentally, probably not.
Lockett comes from a great football background as a WR etc.
Hardman may always end up being a gadget guy. Thats not the worst thing in the world. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Physically yeah. Mentally, probably not.
Lockett comes from a great football background as a WR etc.
Hardman may always end up being a gadget guy. Thats not the worst thing in the world.
Yea, I already said Lockett was more polished coming out...
The production was still pretty much exactly the same though. If anything, that’s a good sign for Hardman as he has even more room to grow than Lockett did.
He might just be a gadget guy, or he might get better. Anybody pretending to know either way is full of shit IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
That's true Mr. English Professor. I do take football way too seriously.. I admit that. But guess what? If that's a huge fault of mine, I'm fine with that. Much better then being an asshole like yourself.
htismaqe is one of the nicest guys on this forum.
Maybe you’re the asshole?
Which is fine. I know I can be an asshole. I’m just not an idiot as well, like you!
Re:Hardman, the context of when he was selected is important. He was insurance against Hill's personal life kerfluffle, at a time when it looked like Hill might not survive/keep playing football.
I don't think it's surprising he was more productive and dangerous in 2019 than 2020. He filled in for Hill a lot, and did it well (score one for the scouting department for finding a guy that could do most of what Hill does for this offense). You can look at 2019 and make a pretty strong case that they don't 1) win homefield advantage; 2) make it to the SB without him (that kick return against Houston really swung things around).
He had a less impactful sophomore campaign but we'll get a good barometer of whether he can be more than a gadget guy this year. Personally, I really would like to see what he can do in the 12 sets... if Gray is a legit weapon and can attract some attention underneath, having Hill and Hardman on the outside could be murderous. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Yea, I already said Lockett was more polished coming out...
The production was still pretty much exactly the same though. If anything, that’s a good sign for Hardman as he has even more room to grow than Lockett did.
He might just be a gadget guy, or he might get better. Anybody pretending to know either way is full of shit IMO.
Context matters here though. Look how Lockett produces vs Hardman.
In the end, production is production, but when we're looking at how development is happening, Hardman produces on jet sweeps and gadgety stuff where Lockett was a traditional WR etc.
No one knows the future. So yeah, who knows.
But based on history, I'd say the cards aren't necessarily in his favor. [Reply]
