- Joined:
- Jan 11, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,059
- Liked Posts:
- 4,479
- Location:
- Chicago
We totally should not do this. The ONLY thing that makes me pause for a second is that Fields has a GREAT deep ball. But we can't give up two 1sts and a 2nd for him. Nope.
Well yeah, that's because he had just entered the league and continued to get better. By year 3, Mahomes was his QB. I'm sure he'd have improved in year 3, 4, etc. with or w/out him.He did have one really good year before Mahomes (and a solid rookie year) became the starter but three of his four best years have been with Mahomes. Anyway, I totally agree that he's unlikely worth the investment.
The Chiefs are unsurrounding their team with talent. Your logic is incredibly flawed. WHen you have an elite QB you don't pay a receiver elite money. GB and KC are proving this.It’s tough watching other teams surround their young QB with a bunch of talent while fields has a bunch of special teamers to throw too…
You consider Rodgers “young”? What are you talking aboutIs it tough watching teams like the Packers and Chiefs lose their stud WRs? Your logic is incredibly flawed
Where do you see the word 'young' in his post?You consider Rodgers “young”? What are you talking about
What are you taking about? My logic is “surround young QBs with talent” Mahomes is no longer a young QB, he’s a vet. Rodgers isn’t been a young qb in years.The Chiefs are unsurrounding their team with talent. Your logic is incredibly flawed. WHen you have an elite QB you don't pay a receiver elite money. GB and KC are proving this.
You surround a young QB with talent if you think your young QB needs it, AND your cap space and draft capital allows it. The Bears don't have that luxury right now.What are you taking about? My logic is “surround young QBs with talen” Mahomes is no longer a young QB, he’s a vet. Rodgers isn’t been a young qb in years.
What are you talking about?
In fairness I think the OP was referencing his own post about surrounding a young QB with talent. While I think he may have been talking about WR talent, for my money, I would prefer Poles gives Fields a better o-line. With more time to throw I believe Fields can make whatever wideout he has better.Where do you see the word 'young' in his post?
Lol bears have plenty of cap space and could have traded for Woods for a 6th. Yes he’s coming off injury but so was the DT we signed for $45 million on day 1You surround a young QB with talent if you think your young QB needs it, AND your cap space and draft capital allows it. The Bears don't have that luxury right now.
We don't have enough cap to get a stud WR and get all other positions filled. We signed a DT, because you only start one DT. But at receiver you need at least 3-4. This is pretty basic math, logic and algebra.Lol bears have plenty of cap space and could have traded for Woods for a 6th. Yes he’s coming off injury but so was the DT we signed for $45 million on day 1
Not that I’m disagreeing with you but the Chiefs are in win now mode. I think losing Hill and filling his shoes with a rookie decreases their ability to compete quite significantly. Beside Mahomes, the offense moves through him. JuJu and a rookie likely won’t make up for losing Hill.As a Chiefs fan, you hate to lose one of your "big guns" on offense, but damn, if they could get anything close to what they're looking for in return for a late 20s receiver whose game is based on speed and being in insane shape, you've got to take it. The WR market is ridiculous right now, with guys getting paid in the high $20 millions. KC's gotta make this deal, get some good draft capital back, and get a high WR draft pick on a rookie contract so those millions can be spent elsewhere (defense!).
? lol I’m joking. I’m thinking his play drops astronomically if he goes to either teamI hate Hill