Not sure if there's quality in trading up. Just looking at the Saints/Eagles trade the cost of moving up may not bring in enough quality to justify the move. Getting the marginally better player by giving up too much generally means less quality throughout the roster. There's also the lack of guarantees as the "worse" WR prospect may actually be much better in the NFL.
I remember Falcons entering the 2011 draft loaded with picks and a roster ready to win the SB, they packaged everything for one of the greatest WRs of the generation in Julio Jones and jumped to mediocrity instantly only to spend most of the next decade trying to get back to where they were and making it to the SB only once.
Watts was decent in small doses but don't know how he would perform in a much bigger role. Wouldn't mind having him around for something like vet minimum but I'm guessing he's looking for a change of scenery to pursue a starting role.
I think any team, including the Chiefs, would love to sign HB but this will be his last real contract so he's probably looking for much more than his output on the field. He's not getting younger and definitely lost a step, he's still worth a decent sum but probably nowhere near how much he made last year.
3 teams with a culture of success and a 4th one trying to catch up to that group. AFC West has always been competitive as a division and I think it was Shaun Alexander mentioning it after Seattle left that teams play harder and he wouldn't miss the division at all.
Pats enjoyed success with no competition on their path to the playoffs but I don't even think people watched their regular season games with that lame division.
Whichever division you match up is a matter of luck but being the top dog means always playing the top teams from there so the hardest (or top 3) schedule is sort of an approval of greatness.
Bring back Ingram before the draft and we add a couple more in early rounds. No need to worry about Clowney and his health as well as his big contract demands that keep pushing him out of every team.
BTW does "most QB pressures without a sack" mean useful QB rushes that disrupt the pass play or is it just a made up stat that serves no purpose?
What I've understood without reading too much into it was basically moving to the Kansas part of KC due to lower costs but actually leaving KC would be extremely stupid unless Hunt wants to cash in going to some other big city market. I love the Chiefs in KC and they should remain there forever and obviously that means saying goodbye to Arrowhead but that's the reality we need to accept. I don't like the idea of having a dome though.
I'm fairly sure that the Chiefs floated the idea of trading Clark and nobody got on board. I don't mind a guy like Davenport if he comes for late draft capital. Needs to work his a$$ off to earn the big contract so could be a worthy addition.
Never a good idea to give up multiple premium picks, let alone for injured guys. We hear about a lot of players bouncing back from injury but there are a lot of them out there who never get back to football shape as well.
Also not every GM has the luxury of picking for potential as they have to worry about their job security and few are probably in win-now mode. No need to give up multiple picks for players who are very likely to be available where we pick already.
In that case I doubt Chiefs will be moving elsewhere. The city is due a new stadium and with the right stuff around it the county will benefit quite a bit as well. If it was an agreement with the city then I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to move the entire complex somewhere a bit further away.
I like the idea of inflating contracts. Team isn't on the hook for as much and the player's ego gets some nice The "worst" case scenario is that the player performs so great that you can't agree on a new deal and have to pay an acceptable amount for such production. Otherwise it's a contract with easy outs.
I don't like the idea of trading for a top WR, may be someone that didn't live up to their potential but giving up prime draft capital isn't a good way to go in this environment. We will very likely have two new starters at DE and that's only going to come through high draft picks or major cap investment. IMO just draft a WR in 2nd or 3rd and create a balanced group unless an older vet is coming for the ring.
Even getting rid of the RPO will be an instant boost. I'm guessing Reid liked the idea of having a few defenders committing to Hill & Kelce but no real acceleration in the backfield and the lack of play action hurt this offense a lot. A real running game will evolve this offense.
It's definitely make or break year for Hardman but I hope Reid doesn't make the mistake of trying to replace Hill with him. Hardman is a different type of player that needs to focus on his strengths. Also I don't like the idea of Mahomes using another player like Hill, as you mentioned in the last paragraph, as it seems to be limiting the offense. I believe Reid should try to create some balance among the receivers and try to use Hardman like a legit 2nd/3rd tier WR.
Not a bad way to give some future flexibility as long as they have the space to do so. Also the minimum cap spending limit may have played a role as well, the bottom-feeders need to spend some money with the new CBA.
Looks like it was Reid making the decision. Definitely a smart move to trade him instead of forcing him for another year and then dealing with the tag/trade situation.
Now Hill will be able to feed his few kids
