Tyreek Hill?

[texaspackerbacker]

I guess that's about where I am too. I've always been glad we had him, and I was hoping we'd keep him, but at that price, I can certainly see how the powers that be wouldn't go that high. I still think KC is gonna be glad they signed him.

[Fritz]

I think Davante will get his - Carr threw to him a lot in college, and Adams has only improved since then.
I think they are in a tough division and making the playoffs will be tough, but it seems like a (good) chance at a ring wasn't his top priority.

Finally, I think MVS will do about what he did in GB - he's a deep threat and Mahomes will find him, and MVS will drop a few of those sure-touchdown bombs. Doh! Losing Hill hurts that offense a LOT but they still have Kelce and other weapons, MVS included.

Just wanted to add that. The guy drove me nuts that way, though he seemed to be improving a bit before he got hurt. And got hurt again.

[Joemailman]

Dropped passes are frustrating, but overrated. Every year, most of the players with the most dropped passes are among the NFL's best receivers. https://scores.nbcsports.com/fb/lead...e=NFL&rank=232

Guys who have trouble getting open don't have a lot of dropped passes.

[Fritz]

Dropped passes are frustrating, but overrated. Every year, most of the players with the most dropped passes are among the NFL's best receivers. https://scores.nbcsports.com/fb/lead...e=NFL&rank=232

Guys who have trouble getting open don't have a lot of dropped passes.

Ah, but if you're targeted so much more because you're one of the best means that while you may drop more, your catch rate will very likely be higher than someone who doesn't get as many targets.

And some guys who get the ball thrown to them while covered make catches - contested catches. Besides that, if a guy doesn't get open very well, sure, he won't get as many throws, but there are other receivers out there to target. If a guy gets open but drops the damn ball, that's just a missed opportunity.

When Deguara dropped that pass over the middle in the first half, that about killed the Packers' chances to really put SF in a hole the defense wouldn't have let them out of. That killed the Packers.

[Joemailman]

Ah, but if you're targeted so much more because you're one of the best means that while you may drop more, your catch rate will very likely be higher than someone who doesn't get as many targets.

And some guys who get the ball thrown to them while covered make catches - contested catches. Besides that, if a guy doesn't get open very well, sure, he won't get as many throws, but there are other receivers out there to target. If a guy gets open but drops the damn ball, that's just a missed opportunity.

When Deguara dropped that pass over the middle in the first half, that about killed the Packers' chances to really put SF in a hole the defense wouldn't have let them out of. That killed the Packers.

A receiver running a bad route, or a QB making a bad read can have the same effect as a dropped pass. It's just not as glaringly obvious to the masses watching on TV as a dropped pass.

[Fritz]

A receiver running a bad route, or a QB making a bad read can have the same effect as a dropped pass. It's just not as glaringly obvious to the masses watching on TV as a dropped pass.

Maybe I'm not being clear - the glaring obviousness of a receiver dropping a touchdown pass is what's madening. So maybe we don't disagree; I just see the drop as more irksome.

[run pMc]

Agree it's about catch rate (or drop rate) not # of drops. A bad throw can also be a real buzzkill, but Rodgers is generally a very accurate thrower so it's unusual (it does happen, the SF game he was off most of the game). Really tough to see a play work as designed and beat the coverage with the throw on target only to have a receiver drop it -- can be the difference in the game if not a temporary gut punch and cause for loss of trust.

MVS had very iffy hands and improved there but he can't beat press coverage very well and he's not good in contested catch situations. He's a speed guy and ideally suited for deep routes; he's basically a #3WR used to take the top off a defense and let the star receivers have room to work. He'll fill that role for KC and do fine; but he's not going to replace Tyreek Hill. I expect KC to draft a WR to help do that, plus they have Kelce.

Kinda makes me wonder what they think of Mecole Hardman -- seems like he could do what MVS does just fine.

[Guiness]

[QUOTE=HarveyWallbangers;1113048]Exactly. Why would we trade Davante for the reasons you said

[bobblehead]

Agree it's about catch rate (or drop rate) not # of drops. A bad throw can also be a real buzzkill, but Rodgers is generally a very accurate thrower so it's unusual (it does happen, the SF game he was off most of the game). Really tough to see a play work as designed and beat the coverage with the throw on target only to have a receiver drop it -- can be the difference in the game if not a temporary gut punch and cause for loss of trust.

MVS had very iffy hands and improved there but he can't beat press coverage very well and he's not good in contested catch situations. He's a speed guy and ideally suited for deep routes; he's basically a #3WR used to take the top off a defense and let the star receivers have room to work. He'll fill that role for KC and do fine; but he's not going to replace Tyreek Hill. I expect KC to draft a WR to help do that, plus they have Kelce.

Kinda makes me wonder what they think of Mecole Hardman -- seems like he could do what MVS does just fine.

My biggest fear is that MVS is sort of like a Casey Heyward. A guy who flashed it, improved his game, but was hurt. A guy who seems right on the precipice of putting it all together right when we lose him. However, the $10 mil MVS got is a bit stiff. Heyward should have been retained, and MVS at maybe 25% less should have been retained (could we have extended him late last year for 7.5?)

[bobblehead]

Oh, and the reason I clicked on this thread. Hill is the first cap victim of paying a QB outrageous money. KC will lose a player each year they covet each year.

They however were smart as well and recovered some good draft capital for him by moving him before having to pay him. I wonder if Gutes will have the stomach to do another Adams type move next offseason.

[Joemailman]

Oh, and the reason I clicked on this thread. Hill is the first cap victim of paying a QB outrageous money. KC will lose a player each year they covet each year.

They however were smart as well and recovered some good draft capital for him by moving him before having to pay him. I wonder if Gutes will have the stomach to do another Adams type move next offseason.

Aaron Jones has a cap hit of 20 million next year. Packers would save 16M on the cap by trading him. 10M by cutting him.

If Bakhtiari can not return to previous form, Packers would save 6M on the cap by cutting or trading Bakhtiari. It would however create 23M of dead cap.

[texaspackerbacker]

I agree about the fear of MVS improving a lot and regretting losing him. 25% less - about $7.5 million a year for him would have been a good signing for the Packers.

I don't agree that the Chiefs lost Tyreek Hill because of the cap. Without knowing their exact cap number now and before he left, what they've done since - signing MVS and JSS (Juju) says they had the cap money. Will they be better off or worse off the way they are now? Time will tell, same as it will for the Packers without Adams and with a good FA WR or two and the two high draft picks they got in the trade.

It shouldn't be necessary for Gutekunst to do whatever kind of deal you're talking about next year, as it's very doubtful an Adams-like superstar will demand or ask to be traded to his hometown team.

Joe, I think it's a little early to talk about next year's cap, but Aaron Jones, assuming he's still good, could be extended and restructured down to well under half of that $20 million - or cut if somehow he ain't good. Probably something similar with Bakhtiari.

[run pMc]

My biggest fear is that MVS is sort of like a Casey Heyward. A guy who flashed it, improved his game, but was hurt. A guy who seems right on the precipice of putting it all together right when we lose him. However, the $10 mil MVS got is a bit stiff. Heyward should have been retained, and MVS at maybe 25% less should have been retained (could we have extended him late last year for 7.5?)

I'm not worried about it.
I think KC might find a few new ways to use him, but in general MLF put him in a role where he could maximize his skills. I think he's maxed out at this point -- he'll turn 28 this season, and he's a speed guy - who aside from that and blocking - doesn't add a lot else. I certainly wouldn't call him a WR1 or a complete receiver, and he still has a long way to go were that to happen (it won't). He is what he is: a one-trick pony with a pretty good trick. Having deep speed at his size does have value for affecting the defense. However, I'm not losing sleep over him taking his 2 rec for 40 yards per game (and a 50% catch rate) with him... I think you can find a cheaper, younger burner in this draft to run his 9 routes and occupy the safety enough to open an underneath route.

Seems like a good dude and I wish him well - good for him getting paid. I'd heard GB offered him something like a 1year deal worth about $7M, so the years and money KC offered were much better. Playing for Andy Reid and with Mahomes couldn't have hurt either.

Heyward was miscast and Capers didn't use him properly IMO which was an issue, and he had injuries. He was a year younger than MVS when he left, although I don't think that's a huge difference. They had drafted Randall and Rollins that year and they teased enough to make Heyward expendable.

[Fritz]

I think Micah Hyde was the player who was really miscast. He plays safety now and is really good. The Pack used him as a corner.

But no matter what position, he dropped what would've been a game-clinching interception in a playoff game when he was here. And the Packers went on to lose. So I won't forget that.

[run pMc]

I think Micah Hyde was the player who was really miscast. He plays safety now and is really good. The Pack used him as a corner.

But no matter what position, he dropped what would've been a game-clinching interception in a playoff game when he was here. And the Packers went on to lose. So I won't forget that.

I missed the Micah Hyde as safety thing too, mostly because Iowa played him at CB where he was good and tried him some at S where he was atrocious. I assumed that would carry into the pros. In hindsight, I suspect scheme fit matters and had a lot to do with it - I wouldn't want Micah and his 4.6 40 speed as a single high safety, for example. He has good instincts and good hands, so playing him more zone coverages made sense to me. Plus he could return punts.

For what BUF offered him and where GB was with their cap and FA at the time, he wasn't going to get that contract for the Packers. I remembered thinking he was a useful player for them, but not that sad he left. Good for him in finding success.

I am highly skeptical MVS will find that level of success. I think MVS will be for KC what he was for GB: a deep threat #2 or 3 WR that tops out with 6-700 yards and a bunch of long TDs.