One was a tendered FA. The other isntMatches Malone wrote:Gonna be annoyed if the Chiefs get more back for Hill than we got back for Adams. That's all I'm saying.
Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app
Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis, humanrefutation
One was a tendered FA. The other isntMatches Malone wrote:Gonna be annoyed if the Chiefs get more back for Hill than we got back for Adams. That's all I'm saying.
RRyder823 wrote:One was a tendered FA. The other isnt[/url]Matches Malone wrote:Gonna be annoyed if the Chiefs get more back for Hill than we got back for Adams. That's all I'm saying.
Gery Woelfel wrote:Got a time big boy?
Gery Woelfel wrote:Got a time big boy?
Your second ILB plays such a low % of snaps that this would be a luxury where the money would be better spent elsewhere. Barnes is fine in that role.msiris wrote:Now go get Bobby Wagner. Make this D elite.
Sure but the Chiefs still have the ability to just have him play out the year on his current deal unless he's willing to sit out much like we did with Adams last year. That does give some leverageMatches Malone wrote:RRyder823 wrote:One was a tendered FA. The other isnt[/url]Matches Malone wrote:Gonna be annoyed if the Chiefs get more back for Hill than we got back for Adams. That's all I'm saying.
Both still need new contracts though, no?
RRyder823 wrote:Sure but the Chiefs still have the ability to just have him play out the year on his current deal unless he's willing to sit out much like we did with Adams last yearMatches Malone wrote:RRyder823 wrote:One was a tendered FA. The other isnt[/url]
Both still need new contracts though, no?
Gery Woelfel wrote:Got a time big boy?
Who knows if Hill is willing to sit out?Matches Malone wrote:RRyder823 wrote:Sure but the Chiefs still have the ability to just have him play out the year on his current deal unless he's willing to sit out much like we did with Adams last yearMatches Malone wrote:
Both still need new contracts though, no?
Is that any different than Adams playing on the tag or sitting out? I guess that's the part where I'm confused.
WeekapaugGroove wrote:?t=zgAMoHB7DDC4g5A98fKUAQ&s=19
I was thinking about this exact thing the other day. WRs are getting paid like a premium position but there's tons of depth with the position.
Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app
It's been that way for a while. Also it's kind of give n take. The worse your QB the more valuable the WR is versus the better the QB the less valuable the WR is.WeekapaugGroove wrote:?t=zgAMoHB7DDC4g5A98fKUAQ&s=19
I was thinking about this exact thing the other day. WRs are getting paid like a premium position but there's tons of depth with the position.
Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app
Chicago, Miami, NYJ, Jacksonville or really any young team with their "QB of the future" in place makes a lot of sense to help the QBs growProfound23 wrote:Report is "KC wants the exact same deal GB got for Adams."
If I have a young QB and the money to spend (i.e. Chicago) I am getting him immediately.
RRyder823 wrote:Chicago, Miami, NYJ, Jacksonville or really any young team with their "QB of the future" in place makes a lot of sense to help the QBs growProfound23 wrote:Report is "KC wants the exact same deal GB got for Adams."
If I have a young QB and the money to spend (i.e. Chicago) I am getting him immediately.
Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app