I don't think he was drafted as a guy with #1 WR upside in mind. I mean, our assistant GM basically said it: "He's dependable. He's going to run the right route and he's going to catch the ball.''

If you need a guy with #1 upside you're either taking them in the top 15 or getting a project with fairly high bust potential. At least from what you're able to project in a somewhat scientific way, that's what you're working with. The Chiefs opted for a safer bet at WR here.
[Reply]

If you were going for the upside play, you stay at 50 and take Pickens. And hell, maybe they'd have taken Pickens at 54 if he were there - hard to say.

But WR1 upside was not what they were targeting in Moore. Having listened now to every post-draft presser from every day, from the GMs to the coaches, to the players, to the area scouts, I never got the impression for a second that they intended this kid to come in and lead the passing game at any point in his career.

He's a complementary player. And I think they know that.
[Reply]

So it does kinda of change the calculus with the WR high end money just exploding. Yes, you'd love to have that alpha at WR (Tyreek, Chase etc) at some point. But to pay him, it's gonna cost alot and usually to draft them it's gonna take a higher pick now.

With Mahomes at QB, you don't need WR's as much to make him look good as you do need him to make WR's. So just keep stocking the position with as much talent as you can and see what comes of it.
[Reply]

Sure. There's no question that the explosion in WR costs made the ability to get a productive player more valuable than ever before. And again, with our OL and QB, maybe floor is where we SHOULD focus in this WR market.

But more valuable doesn't mean he's a better player. It means the intersection of supply/demand has shifted - it doesn't make Moore any more likely to be a WR1 though.

I'm simply saying that this isn't the path I'd have taken. I'd have prioritized another DE (where the top of the market ALSO exploded and we have fewer guys capable of contributing, IMO) while taking someone like Tolbert who I see more upside with and then layering at WR w/ someone like Austin instead of taking 5 DBs.

I just don't see how you hit it and quit it at DL and WR while also taking two guys who's appeal is in their floor. I didn't want to trade up because I wanted to be able to stack ceiling and floor. We didn't really aggressively trade up (still made 10 picks) - we just got too locked in on floor and defensive back, IMO.

And I think we have a segment of the fanbase that has lost their damn minds w/r/t his actual ability and upside.
[Reply]

I think they passed on Pickens bc of his character. Reports said he was very hot headed and “me first” which turned teams off. Seems like Matheiu doing that all season drained the defense. Pickens also isn’t great at route running which makes sense bc he played at Georgia.

Every pick we made seemed to be high character, smart and very hard working. All football all the time. I think that kinda said enough.

I think they’ll go for the high end WR next draft. Moore seems like a replacement for Hardman who is a complimentary player.
[Reply]

I'm just not as concerned about him being "WR#1". I don't care about 1,2,3 etc wr's anymore. Give me 3 #2 guys and let Mahomes make them better.

I think with him at QB, if we are getting away from the stars and scrubs thing, you've gotta lean on floor a bit more.
[Reply]

Fuck thaaaat.
[Reply]

As I said in the Tyreek Hill thread (and later 'TRADE UP FOR THE WRS!!!11!!1!' threads) - I don't necessarily disagree.

I am fascinated by the death by 1,000 papercuts experiment as applied to the WR corps. I really do think it might work.

But I'd kinda like a Plan B if it doesn't. If it turns out that no, you really do need something of a dynamic presence in your WR corps to keep teams from locking in on traits and telegraphing what you're trying to do - well we ain't got one of those.

We don't have anyone that projects to one of those. And if this doesn't work, we likely won't have one next year either because A) They'll still be real expensive and B) this isn't an offense that's easy to hit the ground running with.

We've kinda pushed our chips in here. Whereas had we taken someone that had more ceiling like Tolbert (or not moved out and taken Pickens) and the 'quantity has it's own quality' approach didn't work, then maybe we'd have a genuine ascending alpha sort who keeps us from having to start from scratch.
[Reply]

They weren't tryin to pass on Pickens so much as that they saw a pool of players, "trusted their board" and assumed that at least one of those players would be available from that pool 5 spots later.

For all we know, they may have had Pickens graded slightly higher.

I think it's a safe guess to assume that Pickens, Moore, Pierce and a few others were likely part of a pool of similarly graded players.

I don't really agree with that method in this particular instance, but it's the way the draft is viewed by NFL teams.

Instead of falling in love with a player they "trusted their board", picked up the extra 5th and selected the best graded player in a pool of similarly graded players.
[Reply]

Let me be clear here. I agree with most of what you say here. He's not going to be Hill. He's got a better shot to be AB, but probably less than 1% chance that happens. But I think he's got a 20% chance of a couple Cooper Kupp years surrounded by sub 1000 yard seasons type player. So I think we're on the same page, largely.

What I will point out is that DAT was a pretty goddamned good player PRIOR to getting his head ripped off by the Chargers. He wasn't Hill, but he was a vastly different player than before that concussion. Which, mind you can happen to anyone (including the fan favorite Priest Holmes - which I continually catch shit as a hater for because I'll absolutely die on the hill of Charles being the vastly better player [/aside])

All that being said, it's worth pointing out that DATs pre-concussion career, playing with Alex Smith absolutely refusing to push the ball down the field, was indeed pretty successful.

I in no way want to declare war and die on the hill, so I'm not going to look up stats before and after, but we all hate DAT because we remember post-concussion DAT. Pre-concussion DAT was a different player.

Carry on.
[Reply]

The comp to DAT is so completely ridiculous man. Drop it. They aren't comparable players in any facet.

I'll be realistic about his floor and for me, that's Randall Cobb so long as he stays healthy. That's a career average of 53 for 651. That's a slightly higher baseline than Mecole has established so far (42 for 591). I think that's reasonable. Mecole did not come out with the same polish as this kid does. Mecole had 59 for 693 last year in his best season. I don't see Moore being less than that at the same point. He may struggle to get enough targets this year though to eclipse it.

If we concede Tate is his ceiling, fine, still a great pick. If Stafford can make Tate a 1000-yard receiver, there's no reason to think Mahomes can't make Moore a 1000-yard receiver. If you're getting that value from the 54th pick, you've done well. If he ends up getting to the volume of targets Tyreek got, it's not unreasonable to see the potential for Diontae Johnson numbers. In Tyreeks volume range, Johnson put up 88 for 923 and 7 TDs.
[Reply]

They’re more reasonable than this Antonio Brown shit that keeps getting sent out there.
[Reply]

He has the potential to be Antonio Brown as his absolute ceiling. Brown is the guy you hope he becomes, not the expectation.

DAT isn't even a comp, much less reasonable to bring into the conversation.
Moore could outperform DAT in year 1. That's just silly.
[Reply]

He’s just as likely to be DAT as he is to be Antonio Brown.

Again - if it’s remotely reasonable to bring a 12,000 yard WR into this discussion, it’s equally reasonable to bring a plain ol run of the mill draft bust with extremely similar athletic/physical qualities.
[Reply]

How so?

You're talking about a guy that was slower at 20 pounds lighter and was primarily a college RB that they'd flex out of the backfield like Goodson or Ealy and a KR.

They aren't even comparable reference points.

He's at least in the conversation based on skill and profile with guys like Curtis Samuel and Christian Kirk and such. And, thinking of Samuel, that's a guy maybe you could point an argument towards. Not DAT. He's easily going to be better than DAT. I'd be very much disappointed if all he becomes is Samuel though, and it would be very fair for you to argue he could be.
[Reply]