Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chiefs 3 Chiefs to the Pro Bowl
#21
(12-21-2017, 03:02 PM)tyecopeland Wrote: Tyreek isn't what I consider a #1 wr but he's served the same purpose. Really I consider him to be creating the opportunity for kelce to be our #1 wr. Now we need someone like Conley or robinson to really step forward next year and help kelce be the middle of the field guy and a chain mover.

Was Steve Smith what you consider a #1 WR?  I mean, what do you want?  Was Maclin a #1 WR?  Was Bowe?  FFS, he's the most productive WR KC has had since Andre Rison.

Reek leads the team in pretty much every category, and has a 70% catch rate.  Hes' not Julio Jones, but damn.  Who the hell is?  There aren't 10 WR's more dangerous than Tyreek Hill.

This guy will only get better.  

Having the best deep threat in the NFL, the best TE in the NFL, and a pretty damn good all around rookie RB is freaking heaven for a QB.
Reply
#22
(12-21-2017, 03:48 PM)The_Jonas Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 03:02 PM)tyecopeland Wrote: Tyreek isn't what I consider a #1 wr but he's served the same purpose. Really I consider him to be creating the opportunity for kelce to be our #1 wr. Now we need someone like Conley or robinson to really step forward next year and help kelce be the middle of the field guy and a chain mover.

Was Steve Smith what you consider a #1 WR?  I mean, what do you want?  Was Maclin a #1 WR?  Was Bowe?  FFS, he's the most productive WR KC has had since Andre Rison.

Reek leads the team in pretty much every category, and has a 70% catch rate.  Hes' not Julio Jones, but damn.  Who the hell is?  There aren't 10 WR's more dangerous than Tyreek Hill.

This guy will only get better.  

Having the best deep threat in the NFL, the best TE in the NFL, and a pretty damn good all around rookie RB is freaking heaven for a QB.

The only thing that supports Tye's opinion statistically is Kelce does have more catches, so he is a more consistent part of the offense.

However, I agree with you. People make these weird qualifiers for what is and isn't a "true #1" receiver.

So Tyreek doesn't have a great route tree yet. Big deal. He's outstandingly productive on short passes and he doesn't just beat guys deep, he tracks the ball well and wins contested catches. Production speaks for itself.

Imagine if he adds some more mid range routes. We've already gotten a couple long 3rd down conversions, I think one was 3rd & 16, on comeback routes because people are so appropriately afraid of Hill's deep speed.

If Hill can do more of that, we don't need Robinson or Conley to be a chain mover, because he'd probably be on Antonio Brown's level.
Reply
#23
I should have phrased better. He isn't the prototype that I think of when someone says #1 wr. Antonio brown and edelman don't fit that standard either and they clearly are #1 guys. Without a guy like kelce, tyreek isn't the same. Sure hill has made kelce more dangerous too and I'm thrilled to have both. I also don't think we need to pay anyone else #1 wr money we just need Conley or robinson or someone new to be a productive guy on the opposite side in the short/intermediate range. Someone to relieve pressure on kelce being the main guy in the middle of the field. Doesn't need to be a superstar, a poor man's anquan boldin would work just fine.
Reply
#24
(12-22-2017, 11:56 AM)tyecopeland Wrote: I should have phrased better. He isn't the prototype that I think of when someone says #1 wr. Antonio brown and edelman don't fit that standard either and they clearly are #1 guys. Without a guy like kelce, tyreek isn't the same. Sure hill has made kelce more dangerous too and I'm thrilled to have both. I also don't think we need to pay anyone else #1 wr money we just need Conley or robinson or someone new to be a productive guy on the opposite side in the short/intermediate range. Someone to relieve pressure on kelce being the main guy in the middle of the field. Doesn't need to be a superstar, a poor man's anquan boldin would work just fine.

Ah yes, I completely understand what you mean. I think the definition of what is a #1 WR is changing.  Since being physical as a DB is basically illegal, faster little WR's are having more success.

I think Smith could trust Robinson more as he does get open pretty well, but both Conley and Robinson only get about 2-3 targets per game.   I'd like more overall depth at WR, but having three elite players on offense is great.  We can improve it, but at some point you're just kinda being greedy.  Big Grin
Reply
#25
(12-22-2017, 08:40 AM)asskickingboots Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 03:48 PM)The_Jonas Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 03:02 PM)tyecopeland Wrote: Tyreek isn't what I consider a #1 wr but he's served the same purpose. Really I consider him to be creating the opportunity for kelce to be our #1 wr. Now we need someone like Conley or robinson to really step forward next year and help kelce be the middle of the field guy and a chain mover.

Was Steve Smith what you consider a #1 WR?  I mean, what do you want?  Was Maclin a #1 WR?  Was Bowe?  FFS, he's the most productive WR KC has had since Andre Rison.

Reek leads the team in pretty much every category, and has a 70% catch rate.  Hes' not Julio Jones, but damn.  Who the hell is?  There aren't 10 WR's more dangerous than Tyreek Hill.

This guy will only get better.  

Having the best deep threat in the NFL, the best TE in the NFL, and a pretty damn good all around rookie RB is freaking heaven for a QB.

The only thing that supports Tye's opinion statistically is Kelce does have more catches, so he is a more consistent part of the offense.

However, I agree with you. People make these weird qualifiers for what is and isn't a "true #1" receiver.

So Tyreek doesn't have a great route tree yet. Big deal. He's outstandingly productive on short passes and he doesn't just beat guys deep, he tracks the ball well and wins contested catches. Production speaks for itself.

Imagine if he adds some more mid range routes. We've already gotten a couple long 3rd down conversions, I think one was 3rd & 16, on comeback routes because people are so appropriately afraid of Hill's deep speed.

If Hill can do more of that, we don't need Robinson or Conley to be a chain mover, because he'd probably be on Antonio Brown's level.

Seriously, and if you believe the hype about how hard the guy works, one must assume his game will continue polishing.

For him to be as good as he is with as little time as he's spent at WR during his whole career is pretty incredible.  There's no real knowing where his ceiling is!

The only thing we do know is he'll never be 6-3
Reply
#26
(12-22-2017, 11:56 AM)tyecopeland Wrote: I should have phrased better. He isn't the prototype that I think of when someone says #1 wr. Antonio brown and edelman don't fit that standard either and they clearly are #1 guys. Without a guy like kelce, tyreek isn't the same. Sure hill has made kelce more dangerous too and I'm thrilled to have both. I also don't think we need to pay anyone else #1 wr money we just need Conley or robinson or someone new to be a productive guy on the opposite side in the short/intermediate range. Someone to relieve pressure on kelce being the main guy in the middle of the field. Doesn't need to be a superstar, a poor man's anquan boldin would work just fine.

I get what you're saying. We could always use people to move chains and be a red zone threat. Tyreek ain't that guy right now and Kelce definitely fits that role. I don't personally identify that as being a #1 receiver, but I'm not going to undermine your valid point for the sake of terminology.

I think that Robinson might be that with a QB that trusts him (he had a killer preseason with Mahomes and like Jonas said has a knack for getting open) and Conley was making a big play or two a game before he got hurt, though he didn't look like a consistent chain mover yet either.
Reply
#27
(12-22-2017, 02:29 PM)asskickingboots Wrote:
(12-22-2017, 11:56 AM)tyecopeland Wrote: I should have phrased better. He isn't the prototype that I think of when someone says #1 wr. Antonio brown and edelman don't fit that standard either and they clearly are #1 guys. Without a guy like kelce, tyreek isn't the same. Sure hill has made kelce more dangerous too and I'm thrilled to have both. I also don't think we need to pay anyone else #1 wr money we just need Conley or robinson or someone new to be a productive guy on the opposite side in the short/intermediate range. Someone to relieve pressure on kelce being the main guy in the middle of the field. Doesn't need to be a superstar, a poor man's anquan boldin would work just fine.

I get what you're saying. We could always use people to move chains and be a red zone threat. Tyreek ain't that guy right now and Kelce definitely fits that role. I don't personally identify that as being a #1 receiver, but I'm not going to undermine your valid point for the sake of terminology.

I think that Robinson might be that with a QB that trusts him (he had a killer preseason with Mahomes and like Jonas said has a knack for getting open) and Conley was making a big play or two a game before he got hurt, though he didn't look like a consistent chain mover yet either.

Yeah, I'm just rolling with it, but I hate the term "#1 WR"  It's meaning seems to be so nebulous.

Then when people define it, you find out they only think there are 3 or 4 true #1 WR's.  

The only way I can measure it is via production, but most people seem to have this whole list of criteria that is both inconsistent from person to person and often arbitrary.  It's a term you never hear coaches use.  Just pundits.  My point is that #1 WR means something different to every single person I've ever met, and therefore doesn't appear to mean anything.  Once he clarified what he meant, I understood, but the next person will mean something different.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)