DK Metcalf

[CranjisMcbasketball 780]

2 hours ago, moons314 said:

He wouldn't be the #3 option on this team.  Kelce and Hill combined for 203 catches last year.  If you take Robinson's 25 catches, add that to it to get to 228, and divide it between Hill, Metcalf and Kelce, you could still have all 3 with 75+ receptions without big drops in yardage.  Simply keeping the defense from being able to double our existing 2 is an unquantifiable variable that would make him much more than the 3rd option.  Honestly, IF the Chiefs did get him, I think the long run in this scenario, Hill and Metcalf would be 1a/1b and Kelce would be 2.  Kelce and Hardman would be the biggest beneficiaries of Metcalf.  

exactly. plus hill or kelce aren't getting any younger and have been remarkably lucky on the injury front

[Balto 723]

I agree with both of you and also a reminder that Sammy Watkins had 90 targets in 14 games in 2019.  We all hoped Hardman would replace Sammy and it just didn’t happen. 
 

getting a guy like Metcalf could extend Kelce’s career kinda like how Gronk did when he wasn’t counted on to be the #1 or #2 guy.

[sith13 1,746]

7 hours ago, moons314 said:

He wouldn't be the #3 option on this team.  Kelce and Hill combined for 203 catches last year.  If you take Robinson's 25 catches, add that to it to get to 228, and divide it between Hill, Metcalf and Kelce, you could still have all 3 with 75+ receptions without big drops in yardage.  Simply keeping the defense from being able to double our existing 2 is an unquantifiable variable that would make him much more than the 3rd option.  Honestly, IF the Chiefs did get him, I think the long run in this scenario, Hill and Metcalf would be 1a/1b and Kelce would be 2.  Kelce and Hardman would be the biggest beneficiaries of Metcalf.  

How many targets do you expect Hill, Kelce, and Metcalf get that they would be comfortable with? It's one thing to draft a guy like Metcalf and groom him for a specific role but now that he's a #1 WR he won't be happy in an environment where he's getting half the targets as opposed to now. 

[kkuenn 3,599]

7 hours ago, sith13 said:

How many targets do you expect Hill, Kelce, and Metcalf get that they would be comfortable with? It's one thing to draft a guy like Metcalf and groom him for a specific role but now that he's a #1 WR he won't be happy in an environment where he's getting half the targets as opposed to now. 

Winning cures all.

[oldtimer 8,686]

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2022/3/10/22970766/lets-argue-the-chiefs-should-trade-for-dk-metcalf?fbclid=IwAR3tKMlicbeiAgVAWG67oZJLhMmH79_qAuKAEwdlW7pOkjKfAPqPreTNzg0

[DieHard 2,061]

I don't see why you wouldn't just wait a year and sign the guy for no draft picks. I seriously doubt he resigns with a team that just traded away their QB.

[kkuenn 3,599]

4 minutes ago, DieHard said:

I don't see why you wouldn't just wait a year and sign the guy for no draft picks. I seriously doubt he resigns with a team that just traded away their QB.

Because another team might trade then extend him. Also Seattle still has him for a year if no good trades come in, then possibility of tagging him for a year or two. That wait one year could easily never happen or become 3 years before he is available.

[sith13 1,746]

1 hour ago, kkuenn said:

Winning cures all.

I'm not sure if it's a winning formula though. Giving up draft capital with so many needs on defense for a likely marginal improvement over other FAs may actually trigger the opposite scenario. The thing to keep in mind is every season with Mahomes is simply a SB ring or a loss for the Chiefs. 

 

[kkuenn 3,599]

1 minute ago, sith13 said:

I'm not sure if it's a winning formula though. Giving up draft capital with so many needs on defense for a likely marginal improvement over other FAs may actually trigger the opposite scenario. The thing to keep in mind is every season with Mahomes is simply a SB ring or a loss for the Chiefs. 

 

My response was to the post that he would not be happy getting half the targets. I said this that if they guy is on a team that continues to win and be in the hunt, if not win another SB, he would be happy. I am not advocating for a trade, though if it happens, I would not be pissed about it. Just have to wait and see if we get D line help, S/CB in FA. If we do, a trade would not be that bad. We can use the remaining picks on areas of need like DE, which is loaded this draft for the future. Hell, I heard Fletcher Cox may be available. If we could grab him, trade for Metcalf and use our 2nd and two thirds on S/CB and DE this would be awesome. I know, cap space etc but we had 47 dollars at one point and Veach signed Kelce, Mahomes, etc that year. I am just spitballing of course.

[DieHard 2,061]

1 hour ago, kkuenn said:

Because another team might trade then extend him. Also Seattle still has him for a year if no good trades come in, then possibility of tagging him for a year or two. That wait one year could easily never happen or become 3 years before he is available.

I am willing to risk it.

[Balto 723]

Here this might help the people that are wondering if he would be upset about targets:

Metcalf got 129 Targets last season

Hill:  159

Kelce:  134

Hardman:  83

Pringle:  60

Robinson:  41

Williams/CEH/McKinnon:  100

 

Of course Metcalf would take those 83 from Hardman, Hardman takes the 60 from Pringle and so on and so on.  Then lets say Hill and Kelce give up even just 10% each of their total targets that would leave Metcalf with about 113 targets and thats not even dipping into those 100 targets Reid/Mahomes gave to the 3 RBs....Take 10% of those and now Metcalf is sitting at 123 targets.  

YES I know these are numbers in a vacuum BUT it makes perfect sense that Hill, Kelce and Metcalf can all get the targets they want and MIGHT have to give up 10% of last years targets to make it work.

I think they will be just fine haha

 

 

 

 

[CranjisMcbasketball 780]

Plus if we have another stud WR they might stop force feeding CEH 20 times a game for 1 yard. Still hoping some team gives a 3rd for clyde and we end this experiment 

[Troyofoc 361]

2 hours ago, CranjisMcbasketball said:

Plus if we have another stud WR they might stop force feeding CEH 20 times a game for 1 yard. Still hoping some team gives a 3rd for clyde and we end this 

 

[Lamardirts 2,114]

Seattle is going after Watson I doubt they want the cupboard bear when he gets there.  Like others have said we cannot afford to be using high picks on players we are going to have to turn around and pay $20 million a year to.   
 

I still think the best course long term is sign a guy like Juju to a one year deal.  Draft a wr in the first or second and use the remainder on D. 

[moons314 2,463]

1 hour ago, Lamardirts said:

Seattle is going after Watson I doubt they want the cupboard bear when he gets there.  Like others have said we cannot afford to be using high picks on players we are going to have to turn around and pay $20 million a year to.   
 

I still think the best course long term is sign a guy like Juju to a one year deal.  Draft a wr in the first or second and use the remainder on D. 

I think the best thing for the Chiefs would be to trade for Lockett.  I didn't want to get into the contract situation with Metcalf, I was just pointing out that the way our offense is, there are plenty of passes to go around.  

I'd like to trade for Lockett and draft a receiver.  Lockett upgrades everything immediately, and a 2nd or 3rd round receiver adds depth, future help, and special teams play, while leaving our top pick for a DB (we aren't getting an impact pass rusher where we pick).  

[Holmes4six! 968]

I say go get Cox. Then review what’s out there for DB. 
Jones and Cox in the middle with just above average edge setters could work.  
 

[Balto 723]

22 hours ago, Holmes4six! said:

I say go get Cox. Then review what’s out there for DB. 
Jones and Cox in the middle with just above average edge setters could work.  
 

I just don’t see Cox and his $41M dead cap hit too Eagles getting traded anytime soon.  Now after June 1st during camp I’m sure the rumors will start when the cap is more manageable.

[sith13 1,746]

7 hours ago, Balto said:

I just don’t see Cox and his $41M dead cap hit too Eagles getting traded anytime soon.  Now after June 1st during camp I’m sure the rumors will start when the cap is more manageable.

I doubt getting rid of Cox makes sense for any reason other than a good draft value. However a question in my mind is that can players be traded before the June 1st and still get the June 1st designation similar to releasing them? 

[Iluvhouse24 1,808]

On 3/11/2022 at 10:38 PM, Holmes4six! said:

I say go get Cox.

[kkuenn 3,599]

4 hours ago, sith13 said:

I doubt getting rid of Cox makes sense for any reason other than a good draft value. However a question in my mind is that can players be traded before the June 1st and still get the June 1st designation similar to releasing them? 

no, you get the june 1st for a cutting of a player. Trading a player means trading his salary as is. Trade and with a renegotiated deal as part of it, is how this would work if philly wants something for him. Most likely he is cut and then a FA, where anyone can get him.

[xen 1,010,220]

15 hours ago, Balto said:

I just don’t see Cox and his $41M dead cap hit too Eagles getting traded anytime soon.  Now after June 1st during camp I’m sure the rumors will start when the cap is more manageable.

Iggles were trying to trade him before the trade deadline last fall, hence all the speculation about him.

[Balto 723]

53 minutes ago, xen said:

Iggles were trying to trade him before the trade deadline last fall, hence all the speculation about him.

They for sure had interest and from what I read he would of been a Raider if the Von Miller trade didn’t cause the Eagles to up their asking price at the last minute….but the cap hit was much lower at the trade deadline than the $41M it is now.

 

but dang…Jones and Cox next to each other!!! 

[sith13 1,746]

4 hours ago, kkuenn said:

no, you get the june 1st for a cutting of a player. Trading a player means trading his salary as is. Trade and with a renegotiated deal as part of it, is how this would work if philly wants something for him. Most likely he is cut and then a FA, where anyone can get him.

In that case I doubt a trade is even possible this year, may be over the summer but might as well keep him around for the season. If they want to get rid of him it'll be through a release but not sure if Cox is a player they would simply want to get rid of for no immediate compensation. 

[THEWIZARD 247]

On 3/9/2022 at 6:42 PM, CranjisMcbasketball said:

NFL T Position Grades | PFF

you can look for yourself to make sure im not misreading.

One thing i found interesting is Alejandro Villanueva is rated #11. The Baltimore Ravens literally did the exact thing i am suggesting last season. They dealt Orlando for picks instead of giving him a mega deal, and signed Villanueva on the cheap to replace him until they are able to find a better permanent option.

The Ravens traded Brown because he told them he  wasn't going to play anything but LT and they had already signed  Stanley to a big contract to be their LT. I'm sure they would have loved to had Brown at RT than an over the hill Villanueva.

It's seems to be a consensus opinion. Everybody thinks(knows) that trading Brown for Metcalf is a terrible idea.

 

[CranjisMcbasketball 780]

Just because all the talking heads “know” you have to sign the LT you traded for instead of using the money elsewhere, for instance d line, doesn’t make them right. Time well tell what the chiefs so with brown and how it works out. I for one and hoping he plays on franchise tag this season and it sorts itself out, rather than committing 70 million dollars before we have to