The Tyreek Hill Thread

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I agree with what many have said about Tyreek Hill here and how he still needs to develop more as a route-runner. That said, I'm pretty optimistic on Hill for two reasons:

1. KC felt comfortable enough to release Jeremy Maclin. Yes, they obviously would've preferred to keep Maclin were it not for salary cap issues, but the fact remains that KC chose to cut Maclin over a defensive player or lineman. They have showed faith that Hill will continue to develop and take that next step.
2. In terms of 7.2 yards per target and the limited route trees Hill ran, what did you expect Andy Reid to do when his QB doesn't have a great deep ball and prefers not to throw up contested passes? While Hill's ceiling might currently be limited, I fully expect KC to start Patrick Mahomes as soon as late 2017, and at the latest Week 1 of 2018. Assuming KC signs a talented WR from the 2014 class in FA to supplement their offense, Hill will see plenty of deep shots to maximize his production with Mahomes under center. Good luck covering Hill deep with Travis Kelce racing up the seam, Jarvis Landry or Donte Moncrief in the slot, and Kareem Hunt coming out of the backfield.

I'm sure the Chiefs feel good about Hill, but I'm also pretty confident that Reid would have loved to keep Maclin if he could. Here's the scenario:
They are in a cap situation where they are needing to likely cut one of a few players. It doesn't matter how much they like them or were depending on leaning on them...they almost NEEDED to pick one of these guys to part ways with. Those players: Alex Smith, Justin Houston, Tamba Hali, and Jeremy Maclin. Correct me if I'm wrong on that or forgetting someone.
A) Alex Smith, your underwhelming but still dependable team QB in a league where QB is so crucial, or Jeremy Maclin, the oft and currently injured WR? Cut the WR
B) Houston/Hali, both elite at applying pressure in a league dependent on getting to the QB? Or Jeremy Maclin, the injured WR in a league being flooded with effective WRs? Cut the WR.

So, even if the Chiefs do NOT FEEL GOOD about their WR depth absent Maclin, their hand was forced. Cutting Maclin, IMO, was in no way a sign of confidence in Hill. I think that's a misread. Cutting someone was necessary, and losing a WR is an easier pill to swallow than losing a QB or an effective rusher.

As to your second point about "just wait until Mahomes and Hill," go watch the footwork of Mahomes. Sure, the kid has a cannon. He'll be throwing off-balance quite often, though...by choice. Maybe the QB whisperer can fix it...but I'm not banking on it.

So I guess in short, how I feel about your two reasons for optimism
1. I think it's a false read many are making. They chose to cut Maclin, but only chose him over cutting the QB or pro bowl edge rusher. They didn't necessarily cut him due to confidence in the guys behind him.
2. The bright future ahead with Mahomes...I don't see it. We all see different things in players, though...especially QBs.

Again, fair point on the Maclin cut. I'm not super well-versed on all the teams' salary cap situations, so I could definitely be wrong on my read of that situation. And yes, Mahomes has developing to do himself, but I think he's a great QB fit for Hill to rack up the long TDs.

[CharlieKelly]

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2017/6/6/ ... ce=twitter

This part was particularly encouraging:

“I’ve dealt with this with (Brian) Westbrook and Desean Jackson,” Reid said of Tyreek playing offense and special teams, “you can balance that out where they can do both. You just have to be aware of their workload and what’s going on. There’s nothing that says they can’t do both.”

[KU Sucks]

Word around KC is Reid is pissed at the front office over this; poor cap management. Make no mistake Maclin was the #1 wr in KC.

[Valhalla]

Word around KC is Reid is pissed at the front office over this; poor cap management. Make no mistake Maclin was the #1 wr in KC.

That would line up with my theory. It was a bad cap situation and losing Maclin was just an easier pill to swallow than what else they had to choose from. That doesn't mean they think Hill (or anyone else) will step up and be awesome.

[ericanadian]

...Also, what is your qualifying level of targets to place Hill 68th, because 7.2 YPT is pretty decent. 7.0 YPA is considered a solid season for QBs and it's effectively two sides to the same coin.

It's not exactly two sides of the same coin. The QB having a collective YPA of 7.0 doesn't mean they should be happy with a speed WR getting 7.2. I haven't checked on it, but I'd venture that often RBs and maybe TEs bring the average down for QBs, and the WRs should be over the mark to boost it back up.
I haven't really looked into it much, though. I am pretty certain that AB (a comparison I've seen) has something like a 9YPT average on his career, albeit with an entirely different style of QB.

Hill's aDoT was 7.88, Brown's was 10.29 last year... No one is denying that Hill ran a lot of screens and whatnot, but you can only catch what's thrown at you.

On balls with a DoT of over ten yards, Hill had 13.83 YPT on 18 targets. Brown had 12.35 YPT on 68 targets. In balls with a DoT between 5 & 10 yards, Hill had a YPT of 8.28 on 14 targets while Brown had a YPT of 6.19 on 21 targets. Now obviously, Brown is dealing with top coverage and teams gameplan around him. The numbers on both sides are fairly small samples, so of limited relevance. However, the 7.2 YPT is almost completely meaningless to me as a criticism of Hill given how the team used him.

[bsp27]

So apparently you don't know that he played a full season at Western Alabama? Well, at Western Alabama, in 2015 (the year before he was drafted), his stats were embarrassing. He had a few big runs, but had two games with zero catches, and five other games under 32 yards. I mean he even had a game with 2 catches for -3 yards lol. And this is against competition like Shorter, Delta State University, Valdosta state, and Texas A and M Kingsville.

Here's a tip: If a player is extremely athletic and dwarfs his opponents in terms of athleticism, but still isn't able to produce consistently, its a huge red flag. This is how Cordarelle Patterson and Tavon Austin were identified as busts. But, if you want to keep chasing the few explosive runs, by all means, go ahead, but you will certainly regret it.

Tedious. Bud, his starved stat opportunities there were for precisely the same reason he lacked opportunities in his one Okie State season; 185lbs gadget RBs generally just aren't gonna be high touch-count players. Oh, and you're misrepresenting how he did at West Bama, too. Here, I'll help you: http://www.uwaathletics.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=3014. Look at the game-log. Hill was only more explosive per touch.

You're not actually addressing the points I actually made, you know.

Here's a tip: If a player is extremely athletic and dwarfs his opponents in terms of athleticism, but still isn't able to produce consistently, its a huge red flag.

/facepalm

Here's a tip: watch the 2016 NFL season that saw a certain rookie make 65 catches despite transitioning to a new position, get 89 targets playing 41% of his offense's snaps, and earn 1st-team All-Pro / Pro Bowl / All-Rookie team honors.

There's flags here all right, but most of them ain't red. For a flipping rookie making a position switch, 'unable to produce consistently' is a laughable assessment of Tyreek Hill's debut professional football season.

Or are you actually trying to argue that Hill's professional performance is less important to us than his college statlines as a tweener RB his coaches didn't know how to use?

oh boy.

Well, considering he had 200 receiving yards at Oklahoma State, I would hope that he was more explosive playing against the laughable competition at Western Alabama. You failed to recognize that he didn't produce against pathetic competition. He put up 0's and games with negative yards for Christ's sake.

It really boggles my mind how people like you can actually picture Hill as a prototypical #1 receiver in the nfl. There are literally no examples of players like him in history who have had success. Hill accounted for less than 20% of his college team's offensive yardage, playing with no one around him.

His professional performance is completely overinflated by you because A: his production was completely reliant on splash splays which are not reliable whatsoever, and B: he was extremely inefficient.

Not only that, but he was operating as a closer to the line of scrimmage slot man (why his yards per target was abysmal).

And I don't know where you are getting this "position switch" from? He was operating as a receiver and a running back, just as he was in college.

Like Cordarelle Patterson, his rookie year was completely reliant on unsustainable splash plays.


This is my final point, because clearly you are unwilling to look at the facts and are infatuated by his speed. He, like his counterparts Austin and Patterson, showed no ability whatsoever to operate as a traditional receiver in college, showed no dominance in college against pathetic competition, and showed no ability to develop as a reliable weekly fantasy asset.

Have fun overpaying for him.

[Cameron Giles]

Hill's Reception Perception numbers were a lot better than I imagined. So, that does put a little hole in my Patterson/Tavon angle.

However, I'm always skeptical of WR's who aren't winning by being WR's. That's not to say that he can't be used like Harvin or Cobb some, but those players were able to win as receivers too. Hill really needs to improve his route running and I'm not sure how he's going to do as a focal point of an offense. When I consider that and the rising price, it's easy for me to just avoid it.

[CharlieKelly]

oh boy.

Well, considering he had 200 receiving yards at Oklahoma State, I would hope that he was more explosive playing against the laughable competition at Western Alabama. You failed to recognize that he didn't produce against pathetic competition. He put up 0's and games with negative yards for Christ's sake.

It really boggles my mind how people like you can actually picture Hill as a prototypical #1 receiver in the nfl. There are literally no examples of players like him in history who have had success. Hill accounted for less than 20% of his college team's offensive yardage, playing with no one around him.

His professional performance is completely overinflated by you because A: his production was completely reliant on splash splays which are not reliable whatsoever, and B: he was extremely inefficient.

Not only that, but he was operating as a closer to the line of scrimmage slot man (why his yards per target was abysmal).

And I don't know where you are getting this "position switch" from? He was operating as a receiver and a running back, just as he was in college.

Like Cordarelle Patterson, his rookie year was completely reliant on unsustainable splash plays.


This is my final point, because clearly you are unwilling to look at the facts and are infatuated by his speed. He, like his counterparts Austin and Patterson, showed no ability whatsoever to operate as a traditional receiver in college, showed no dominance in college against pathetic competition, and showed no ability to develop as a reliable weekly fantasy asset.

Have fun overpaying for him.

I still don't know why we should be evaluating his current value on his college production as opposed to...you know...his NFL production.

Percy Harvin, Randall Cobb and Ty Montgomery are players who played a similar role, so there actually have been players like Tyreek who have had success in the NFL.

His reception perception numbers were well above average, so why shouldn't we be taking that into account instead of blindly comparing him to CPatt? Or ignoring that Tyreek was far more successful as a WR on a per game basis when he got significant playing time compared to CPatt at any point in his career?

I also don't think anyone said Tyreek can be a prototypical WR1, but that doesn't mean he won't be a successful player.

[StableOfRBs]

oh boy.

Well, considering he had 200 receiving yards at Oklahoma State, I would hope that he was more explosive playing against the laughable competition at Western Alabama. You failed to recognize that he didn't produce against pathetic competition. He put up 0's and games with negative yards for Christ's sake.

It really boggles my mind how people like you can actually picture Hill as a prototypical #1 receiver in the nfl. There are literally no examples of players like him in history who have had success. Hill accounted for less than 20% of his college team's offensive yardage, playing with no one around him.

His professional performance is completely overinflated by you because A: his production was completely reliant on splash splays which are not reliable whatsoever, and B: he was extremely inefficient.

Not only that, but he was operating as a closer to the line of scrimmage slot man (why his yards per target was abysmal).

And I don't know where you are getting this "position switch" from? He was operating as a receiver and a running back, just as he was in college.

Like Cordarelle Patterson, his rookie year was completely reliant on unsustainable splash plays.


This is my final point, because clearly you are unwilling to look at the facts and are infatuated by his speed. He, like his counterparts Austin and Patterson, showed no ability whatsoever to operate as a traditional receiver in college, showed no dominance in college against pathetic competition, and showed no ability to develop as a reliable weekly fantasy asset.

Have fun overpaying for him.

I still don't know why we should be evaluating his current value on his college production as opposed to...you know...his NFL production.

Percy Harvin, Randall Cobb and Ty Montgomery are players who played a similar role, so there actually have been players like Tyreek who have had success in the NFL.

His reception perception numbers were well above average, so why shouldn't we be taking that into account instead of blindly comparing him to CPatt? Or ignoring that Tyreek was far more successful as a WR on a per game basis when he got significant playing time compared to CPatt at any point in his career?

I also don't think anyone said Tyreek can be a prototypical WR1, but that doesn't mean he won't be a successful player.

I would hesitate to lump TyMont into this, he was a full time RB in high school, then full time WR in college, then was mostly a special teamer in his rookie year until last year when he made his position switch, that and he also has at least like 30 pounds and 4 inches on Tyreek and while he's much more physical, doesn't have the speed

There's really no comparison between the two unless you wanna compare their low-to-high snap counts over last season

[bsp27]

oh boy.

Well, considering he had 200 receiving yards at Oklahoma State, I would hope that he was more explosive playing against the laughable competition at Western Alabama. You failed to recognize that he didn't produce against pathetic competition. He put up 0's and games with negative yards for Christ's sake.

It really boggles my mind how people like you can actually picture Hill as a prototypical #1 receiver in the nfl. There are literally no examples of players like him in history who have had success. Hill accounted for less than 20% of his college team's offensive yardage, playing with no one around him.

His professional performance is completely overinflated by you because A: his production was completely reliant on splash splays which are not reliable whatsoever, and B: he was extremely inefficient.

Not only that, but he was operating as a closer to the line of scrimmage slot man (why his yards per target was abysmal).

And I don't know where you are getting this "position switch" from? He was operating as a receiver and a running back, just as he was in college.

Like Cordarelle Patterson, his rookie year was completely reliant on unsustainable splash plays.


This is my final point, because clearly you are unwilling to look at the facts and are infatuated by his speed. He, like his counterparts Austin and Patterson, showed no ability whatsoever to operate as a traditional receiver in college, showed no dominance in college against pathetic competition, and showed no ability to develop as a reliable weekly fantasy asset.

Have fun overpaying for him.

I still don't know why we should be evaluating his current value on his college production as opposed to...you know...his NFL production.

Percy Harvin, Randall Cobb and Ty Montgomery are players who played a similar role, so there actually have been players like Tyreek who have had success in the NFL.

His reception perception numbers were well above average, so why shouldn't we be taking that into account instead of blindly comparing him to CPatt? Or ignoring that Tyreek was far more successful as a WR on a per game basis when he got significant playing time compared to CPatt at any point in his career?

I also don't think anyone said Tyreek can be a prototypical WR1, but that doesn't mean he won't be a successful player.

because college production is one of the most important and essential aspects to a players success? And it's a much larger sample size? And he wasn't even efficient in his short time in the nfl? Percy Harvin flamed out after a few years, and Cobb had one good year. Tymont has no similarity whatsoever. Let's calm down with these comparisons.

Reception perception is overrated.

[Valhalla]

Tyreek is no CPatt. There's no way he could be as good of a gunner on kickoff team

[CharlieKelly]

I still don't know why we should be evaluating his current value on his college production as opposed to...you know...his NFL production.

Percy Harvin, Randall Cobb and Ty Montgomery are players who played a similar role, so there actually have been players like Tyreek who have had success in the NFL.

His reception perception numbers were well above average, so why shouldn't we be taking that into account instead of blindly comparing him to CPatt? Or ignoring that Tyreek was far more successful as a WR on a per game basis when he got significant playing time compared to CPatt at any point in his career?

I also don't think anyone said Tyreek can be a prototypical WR1, but that doesn't mean he won't be a successful player.

because college production is one of the most important and essential aspects to a players success? And it's a much larger sample size? And he wasn't even efficient in his short time in the nfl? Percy Harvin flamed out after a few years, and Cobb had one good year. Tymont has no similarity whatsoever. Let's calm down with these comparisons.

Reception perception is overrated.

College production can be an important factor in predicting success for players, but when we've got a decent amount of NFL tape on them it becomes far less useful.

Tyreek played in 23 games in his college career. He's played 16 games in the NFL. I wouldn't call that a much larger sample size.

Harvin had 4 years of success with Minnesota before having to eventually retire from migraines, and Cobb has most certainly had more than one good year. TyMont as a comparison is admittedly a bit of a reach as a comparison.

I guess I don't see the logic in ignoring advanced metrics like reception perception and 16 games of NFL tape in favor of evaluating Tyreek based on one college season from 2014 where he primarily played RB and another season from a D2 school that none of us can even find tape of?

[ninotoreS]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-top100-20 ... yreek-Hill

Now this does shock me. His peers have already voted him as high as #36?

I can't say I agree with the placement, but if nothing else, this certainly shows the impression Hill made on his opponents last year.

[Cameron Giles]

College production can be an important factor in predicting success for players, but when we've got a decent amount of NFL tape on them it becomes far less useful.

Tyreek played in 23 games in his college career. He's played 16 games in the NFL. I wouldn't call that a much larger sample size.

Harvin had 4 years of success with Minnesota before having to eventually retire from migraines, and Cobb has most certainly had more than one good year. TyMont as a comparison is admittedly a bit of a reach as a comparison.

I guess I don't see the logic in ignoring advanced metrics like reception perception and 16 games of NFL tape in favor of evaluating Tyreek based on one college season from 2014 where he primarily played RB and another season from a D2 school that none of us can even find tape of?

You're right to a degree, but it's still hard to ignore that most really good NFL receivers have really good college production to fall back on. Hill could be an outlier, but for his rising price, would you be willing to bet that he is?

[CharlieKelly]

College production can be an important factor in predicting success for players, but when we've got a decent amount of NFL tape on them it becomes far less useful.

Tyreek played in 23 games in his college career. He's played 16 games in the NFL. I wouldn't call that a much larger sample size.

Harvin had 4 years of success with Minnesota before having to eventually retire from migraines, and Cobb has most certainly had more than one good year. TyMont as a comparison is admittedly a bit of a reach as a comparison.

I guess I don't see the logic in ignoring advanced metrics like reception perception and 16 games of NFL tape in favor of evaluating Tyreek based on one college season from 2014 where he primarily played RB and another season from a D2 school that none of us can even find tape of?

You're right to a degree, but it's still hard to ignore that most really good NFL receivers have really good college production to fall back on. Hill could be an outlier, but for his rising price, would you be willing to bet that he is?

Oh i'm not saying Tyreek isn't risky (because he is), i'm just saying that we should be basing his current value on what we've seen from him in the NFL, and not from a college resume that was anything but normal.

If we had extended tape to look at for Tyreek where he was getting touches similar to what he's getting now and he still failed to dominate, then i'd say his college production should be a bigger factor in his evaluation, but as it stands I don't think it's very logical to try and gauge his NFL value based on 27 receptions over the course of 11 games at a D2 school where he was clearly a criminally underused player.