Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Long-strider, though.
Not a guy who you could look at and say "man, if he develops, he could be used very similar to Tyreek Hill..."
And I said this when we took Hardman and I wanted McLaurin - I HATED the idea of trying to do a like-kind exchange. If you lose Hill, pivot.
But if your approach is 'pivot' then you don't need a WR. You could just draft a DE and backfill at WR in free agency at that point. Which is why trying to make these conversations into need conversations just muddies the waters.
If you are going to make a 'need' argument, it necessarily follows that the 'need' should be a 1 for 1 replacement. And by that standard, Hardman fits better than Metcalf.
But need arguments make for really strained conclusions. So it makes a hell of a lot more sense to simply avoid them, IMO.
|
Dunno. If you're looking for a guy who materially achieves the same I.e. chunk plays through his role as a deep threat, surely Metcalf fits the bill. He definitely tracks the ball closer to Hill than Hardman ever did.
Could you pivot to FA before knowing what was happening with Hill? In some ways the pivot to me would be to say "we'll get the Hill deep threat in a different way and work out the rest in FA"