Twitter Action on TY

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, rockywoj said:

... and there is about a 30% to 50% chance that the draft pick would end up being a failure.  Statistical probability.  Trade an effective asset (perhaps not so effective the last few games, but body of work, TY is a weapon, regardless of whether you see him as a # 1 receiver or not).

 

Hence, I think that trading him is subtraction from the goal of building up the roster.  You'd trade him and HOPE that you can utilize the draft pick for a player as effective, at whatever position he happens to be in.  One step back, and maybe only 50% chance of a step back forward.

 

To me, you keep him, thus not creating an area of need that needs to be replaced via draft or free agency.  Instead you use the draft and FA to ADD already missing pieces. Just mho.

You are probably right. However, there's some factors to this as well such as, does Luck make Hilton what he is? Is Hilton's size a turnoff to Ballard? Are there some WR's he wants in FA or the draft already to replace him? Is he planning on getting a 2nd to fill in a harder position such as O-Line? Is Hilton a troublemaker behind the scenes? Lots of things could determine whether Ballard wants to get rid of him or not. 

 

I still say WR's are relatively easy to replace. Again, Chud's playbook has affected every WR but Hilton negatively, so maybe Ballard has a plan for that as well if Chud goes after this year. Personally, when Hilton underperforms, we lose, and it's easy to take him out of a game if a coach really wants too, so we can't count on him carrying us every game.

[Mameluc]

49 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Botonio would be my choice to trade him for. If we can't do that, I'd like to get the Browns 2nd round pick. WR is the most easily replaceable position besides RB in the NFL. The reason our WR's are so bad is because of Chud, not necessarily because we have been missing so bad on every WR. The playbook he runs is specialized towards Hilton and Doyle, and the rest are left out, and Hilton isn't a true 1 because of his size and how he avoids contact, so it doesn't work most of the time, not to mention a simple double team eliminates him every time. 

 

Also, a lot of people assume that if we trade Hilton for a second rounder, we'll just draft a second round receiver to replace him and he won't be as good. In reality, we'd probably draft an O-Lineman, a CB, or a pass rusher. We might even draft a franchise RB to pair with Luck. WR's are a dime a dozen, and if we trade Hilton, we'll probably sign a top WR in FA, and draft another one in the middle rounds, both of which should be better after Chud is gone.

a 2nd? why would you trade him for a second? or just for bitonio?

 

Brandin cooks got a 1st we should at least get a 1st. I dont get why cheapen our most valuable asset on the offense besides Luck. Also i would expect more than 1 pick cause otherwise you are just using that pick to get a WR so i dont get the point of trading him in that scenario, since we have no other WR.

[Indeee]

First off I'm not saying TY will/would be traded. secondly, I'm not saying I would want him to be traded.

 

With that being said, I think what most here are missing when questioning why TY would be traded or thinking a trade of TY would be dumb, I will say this.

 

IMO only, I believe that Ballard envisions rebuilding the Colts like the chiefs. The chiefs realistically we're built having no offensive stars taken in the first 2 rounds or via free agency. 

 

Kelcey 3rd round, Hill 4th or 5th I forget and hunt in the 3rd. Wilson and connely certainly we're not 1st or second rounders.

 

All the chiefs drafting in frst 2 rounds historically, while Ballard was there, have been defense and O-line.

 

In comparison, TY was 3rd round pick, however in Ballards eyes I'm thinking he can eliminate a heavy contract and find guys as chiefs did to take place of TY and concentrate 1st and second round picks on defense and O-line. I think that is why a trade would be viable, if that makes sense

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Mameluc said:

a 2nd? why would you trade him for a second? or just for bitonio?

 

Brandin cooks got a 1st we should at least get a 1st. I dont get why cheapen our most valuable asset on the offense besides Luck. Also i would expect more than 1 pick cause otherwise you are just using that pick to get a WR so i dont get the point of trading him in that scenario, since we have no other WR.

Why would you use that pick to get a WR? That's ridiculous. You'd use it on something like an O-Lineman, CB, Pass Rusher or RB. Then you'd draft a WR later and pick one up in FA. That would be the most amateur thing in the world to trade Hilton for a 2nd and to draft a WR with the same pick. I also think Cooks is a bit better than Hilton, btw. He won't have all the huge games like him, but he also won't get shut down as much either. The Pats traded for the right type of receiver for their offense. Cooks is also younger than Hilton and doesn't have his contract.

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Indeee said:

First off I'm not saying TY will/would be traded. secondly, I'm not saying I would want him to be traded.

 

With that being said, I think what most here are missing when questioning why TY would be traded or thinking a trade of TY would be dumb, I will say this.

 

IMO only, I believe that Ballard envisions rebuilding the Colts like the chiefs. The chiefs realistically we're built having no offensive stars taken in the first 2 rounds or via free agency. 

 

Kelcey 3rd round, Hill 4th or 5th I forget and hunt in the 3rd. Wilson and connely certainly we're not 1st or second rounders.

 

All the chiefs drafting in frst 2 rounds historically have been defense and O-line.

 

In comparison, TY was 3rd round pick, however in Ballards eyes I'm thinking he can eliminate a heavy contract and find guys as chiefs did to take place of TY and concentrate 1st and second round picks on defense and O-line. I think that is why a trade would be viable, if that makes sense

This definitely makes a lot of sense, and year 1 is supporting that theory as of now.

[rockywoj]

3 minutes ago, Mameluc said:

a 2nd? why would you trade him for a second? or just for bitonio?

 

Brandin cooks got a 1st we should at least get a 1st. I dont get why cheapen our most valuable asset on the offense besides Luck. Also i would expect more than 1 pick cause otherwise you are just using that pick to get a WR so i dont get the point of trading him in that scenario, since we have no other WR.

The premise of what you are saying here, I think is absolutely correct, and here's why.

 

If you accept the statistical fact that only x% of draft picks actually work out to be a guy, then you take that guy and divide by the expected hit percentage.  So for example, if we think that TY is in reality currently a first round talent (which I would say he is, pretty indisputably, based on his body of work), then for fair value you would take 1 divided by the expected hit percentage (in this example, let's say 50% - for I think 50% is about right as a success percentage, conservatively speaking -> I actually think the hit ratio is lower than 50/50, probably more like only 30%).

 

So any way, you take 1 / .5 = 2 firsts.  I think and established player that is a valuable, still young, asset piece on your roster is ALWAYS worth more than a single draft choice.  Thus, I would not entertain trading TY unless I am getting close the equivalent of two firsts, or a first - 2nd - and maybe even more.  I say this because you need to have the number of picks for the probability of hitting on that pick becoming statistically probable.  And even at that, say you trade him for two 1s, but one of those 1s is a fail and the other is a hit, are you really ahead simply giving up one established hit for a different hit?

[UKColt13]

I highly doubt this happens.

 

If it did I wouldn’t be mad though.

[Indeee]

2 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

The premise of what you are saying here, I think is absolutely correct, and here's why.

 

If you accept the statistical fact that only x% of draft picks actually work out to be a guy, then you take that guy and divide by the expected hit percentage.  So for example, if we think that TY is in reality currently a first round talent (which I would say he is, pretty indisputably, based on his body of work), then for fair value you would take 1 divided by the expected hit percentage (in this example, let's say 50% - for I think 50% is about right as a success percentage, conservatively speaking -> I actually think the hit ratio is lower than 50/50, probably more like only 30%).

 

So any way, you take 1 / .5 = 2 firsts.  I think and established player that is a valuable, still young, asset piece on your roster is ALWAYS worth more than a single draft choice.  Thus, I would not entertain trading TY unless I am getting close the equivalent of two firsts, or a first - 2nd - and maybe even more.  I say this because you need to have the number of picks for the probability of hitting on that pick becoming statistically probable.  And even at that, say you trade him for two 1s, but one of those 1s is a fail and the other is a hit, are you really ahead simply giving up one established hit for a different hit?

This theory would possibly make a lot of sense normally but not when talking of this Colts team as it is right now. All of this type of logic gets thrown out the window as the colts have so many holes on the O-line and defense that a multitude of picks, coupled with select free agency(re-cooped money from contracts) would go miles in aiding this team rebuild positions that has nothing to do with OFFENSIVE play makers. For years we have been screaming that the Colts need to stop concentrating on skill positions and concentrate on trenches(offense and defense), middle and back end. This is what is finally going to happen and I'm good with it, however in order to speed up this process you might have to eliminate some players who actually have value

[aaron11]

37 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

You are probably right. However, there's some factors to this as well such as, does Luck make Hilton what he is? Is Hilton's size a turnoff to Ballard? Are there some WR's he wants in FA or the draft already to replace him? Is he planning on getting a 2nd to fill in a harder position such as O-Line? Is Hilton a troublemaker behind the scenes? Lots of things could determine whether Ballard wants to get rid of him or not. 

 

I still say WR's are relatively easy to replace. Again, Chud's playbook has affected every WR but Hilton negatively, so maybe Ballard has a plan for that as well if Chud goes after this year. Personally, when Hilton underperforms, we lose, and it's easy to take him out of a game if a coach really wants too, so we can't count on him carrying us every game.

trade ty and we have literally no one on offense that defenses have to account for.  imagine aiken getting doubled on every play, we may not score another td all season like that

 

we would have to draft a WR very early and then they will just get doubled all the time like ty is now.  we need to add to our receiver core, not trade our best player

[dw49]

23 minutes ago, Mameluc said:

a 2nd? why would you trade him for a second? or just for bitonio?

 

Brandin cooks got a 1st we should at least get a 1st. I dont get why cheapen our most valuable asset on the offense besides Luck. Also i would expect more than 1 pick cause otherwise you are just using that pick to get a WR so i dont get the point of trading him in that scenario, since we have no other WR.

 

Cooks is only 24 years old and has a base salary of 1.5 for this year and 8.5 for next year. TY is 3 years older and has base salaries of 8 mil this year , 11 mill next year and 13 mill the following year. I use base salary as the team that traded for TY would not be responsible for anything more than his base going forward. What I think is relevant here is a team trading for TY might very well want him to "alter" his contract a bit. So with the age difference and TY getting very expensive after this year , you lose a little value

[buccolts]

43 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Personally, when Hilton underperforms, we lose, and it's easy to take him out of a game if a coach really wants too, so we can't count on him carrying us every game.

 

To me, you're correct on all your other points, but this one? It's more an argument to keep TY and ditch the others.

When TY IS taken out of the game, no one else has displayed the ability to make them pay for it.

 

Also, there are very few, if any, WRs who are never taken out of a game.

Jones, Green, Beckham, Brown, they've all been taken out of games.

[Indeee]

9 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

trade ty and we have literally no one on offense that defenses have to account for.  imagine aiken getting doubled on every play, we may not score another td all season like that

 

we would have to draft a WR very early and then they will just get doubled all the time like ty is now.  we need to add to our receiver core, not trade our best player

You're talking in the NOW and that's the issue here. In the NOW who cares if defenses respect anybody on offense, this team isn't going to win any more games this year. Trading TY has to do with next year and beyond. Aiken and Moncrief as example won't be here next year either. Stop worrying about NOW and look beyond...

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, buccolts said:

 

To me, you're correct on all your other points, but this one? It's more an argument to keep TY and ditch the others.

When TY IS taken out of the game, no one else has displayed the ability to make them pay for it.

 

Also, there are very few, if any, WRs who are never taken out of a game.

Jones, Green, Beckham, Brown, they've all been taken out of games.

I think it's a combination of Chud and the lack of talent from the other WRs. Chud's playbook doesn't give the other WR's much of a chance to make plays. I think when Doyle is playing very well (like last week's game), it will force the opponent to focus on him as well as Hilton. When Doyle was underperforming for a few weeks, it was easy to focus on Hilton. We just need to have someone take the pressure off Hilton consistently, and until Chud is gone, only Doyle will do that for us.

[Reboot]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

trade ty and we have literally no one on offense that defenses have to account for.  imagine aiken getting doubled on every play, we may not score another td all season like that

 

we would have to draft a WR very early and then they will just get doubled all the time like ty is now.  we need to add to our receiver core, not trade our best player

TY has played every game this season and it's made no difference either.  They're 2-6 with him and all that opposition game planning.  He turns 28 in two weeks, his base goes up to $13 million next season, $15 mil in two years, and $14.52 or so in the last year.  If they can get Cleveland's own second, or somehow pull a first rounder out of this, I'd do it, I wouldn't scream.  This is the same owner and franchise that moved Marshall Faulk for a 2 and a 5 in the midst of trying to build a complete team around Manning.  And TY is replaceable.   He simply is.  You got to give up something to get something, and I think the Colts have little choice but to go OL heavy again this offseason, probably a RB too, and survive a year with a couple free agents at WR.   If he is moved, we're going to see a complete change in what the Colts do on O I'd think. 

[aaron11]

Just now, Indeee said:

You're talking in the NOW and that's the issue here. In the NOW who cares if defenses respect anybody on offense, this team isn't going to win any more games this year. Trading TY has to do with next year and beyond. Aiken and Moncrief as example won't be here next year either. Stop worrying about NOW and look beyond...

no im not, we will be horrible next year too if we dont find a really good wr in the offseason

 

i dont want to take that risk when we have so many holes already.  no guarantee a rookie WR will be any better than ty, and even if they are they will be double teamed into oblivion like he is now.   we could be even worse at WR than we are now

[Jackie Daytona]

14 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

trade ty and we have literally no one on offense that defenses have to account for.  imagine aiken getting doubled on every play, we may not score another td all season like that

 

we would have to draft a WR very early and then they will just get doubled all the time like ty is now.  we need to add to our receiver core, not trade our best player

why would they have to draft wr's?   are none free agents next year?

[buccolts]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think it's a combination of Chud and the lack of talent from the other WRs. Chud's playbook doesn't give the other WR's much of a chance to make plays. I think when Doyle is playing very well (like last week's game), it will force the opponent to focus on him as well as Hilton. When Doyle was underperforming for a few weeks, it was easy to focus on Hilton. We just need to have someone take the pressure off Hilton consistently, and until Chud is gone, only Doyle will do that for us.

 

Yeah, I'm not fond of our offensive scheme. At least not when we struggle building an OL for it.

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, Dirty Mudflaps said:

 and survive a year with a couple free agents at WR. 

we will be horrible again if we go that route.  

[Indeee]

Just now, aaron11 said:

no im not, we will be horrible next year too if we dont find a really good wr in the offseason

 

i dont want to take that risk when we have so many holes already.  no guarantee a rookie WR will be any better than ty, and even if they are they will be double teamed into oblivion like he is now.   we could be even worse at WR than we are now

Ok, my bad, however we have to trust the system of what Ballard is trying to install and none of us can predict what might happen in the future. I agree it's scary scenario potentially but we just have to believe if something like a TY trade were to happen that all would be better than initially suspect

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, Shafty138 said:

why would they have to draft wr's?   are none free agents next year?

whens the last time a free agent WR has worked out here? we would need to bring in one of the best in the league to make that work

 

they may not even want to come here in FA after the way things are going either

[aaron11]

Just now, Indeee said:

Ok, my bad, however we have to trust the system of what Ballard is trying to install and none of us can predict what might happen in the future. I agree it's scary scenario potentially but we just have to believe if something like a TY trade were to happen that all would be better than initially suspect

well the team is shopping him, so you may get what you want

[Reboot]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

we will be horrible again if we go that route.  

Can you name me the WR core on NE, Seattle, New Orleans, KC, Washington?  Those teams are all top 8 passing offenses.  There is no TY Hilton on any of those rosters.  And they're producing.  Oh, and winning.  If Luck is what we know him to be, he will make WRs better.  Give him time, and a running game, and you and I might be able to crack 1000 yards receiving.  And I'm really old. 

[Indeee]

Just now, aaron11 said:

well the team is shopping him, so you may get what you want

I never said it was what I wanted. But if it happens I will have to trust that the process will work out

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, Dirty Mudflaps said:

Can you name me the WR core on NE, Seattle, New Orleans, KC, Washington?  Those teams are all top 8 passing offenses.  There is no TY Hilton on any of those rosters.  And they're producing.  Oh, and winning.  If Luck is what we know him to be, he will make WRs better.  Give him time, and a running game, and you and I might be able to crack 1000 yards receiving.  And I'm really old. 

the patriots have cooks and the seahawks have baldwin.  two very good players

 

kc has hill.  our best player wouldnt be anywhere near those guys if we lost ty.  

[Deadpool]

With the browns having two first rounders, if I was ballard I would not take anything less then their 2nd 1st round pick. 

[csmopar]

13 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

well the team is shopping him, so you may get what you want

I missed it, how do we know that they are actually shopping him again?

[Deadpool]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

You are probably right. However, there's some factors to this as well such as, does Luck make Hilton what he is? Is Hilton's size a turnoff to Ballard? Are there some WR's he wants in FA or the draft already to replace him? Is he planning on getting a 2nd to fill in a harder position such as O-Line? Is Hilton a troublemaker behind the scenes? Lots of things could determine whether Ballard wants to get rid of him or not. 

 

I still say WR's are relatively easy to replace. Again, Chud's playbook has affected every WR but Hilton negatively, so maybe Ballard has a plan for that as well if Chud goes after this year. Personally, when Hilton underperforms, we lose, and it's easy to take him out of a game if a coach really wants too, so we can't count on him carrying us every game.

Got to remember, Ballard is the one who got KC to draft Hill last year. and him and hilton are about the same size. but i agree with you, receivers are easy to replace whether FA or Draft. and I also believe Luck more than likely made Hilton better then what he probably is. to me, I think the best course of action is to trade Hilton. maybe package him with Davis, try to snag a first rounder from cleveland. 

[aaron11]

Just now, csmopar said:

I missed it, how do we know that they are actually shopping him again?

maybe shopping is a strong word, but there are a bunch of articles out there saying the team is willing to trade him

 

that may not sound like much but they are talking like pretty much anyone could go, and ty is one the few people teams will be interested in

[IndyD4U]

Patriots name now being thrown out there as a possible landing spot. Going to be interesting for the next 25 hours

 

https://www.metro.us/sports/patriots-ty-hilton-nfl-trade-rumors-pats-the-mix

[BProland85]

6 minutes ago, Deadpool said:

Got to remember, Ballard is the one who got KC to draft Hill last year. and him and hilton are about the same size. but i agree with you, receivers are easy to replace whether FA or Draft. and I also believe Luck more than likely made Hilton better then what he probably is. to me, I think the best course of action is to trade Hilton. maybe package him with Davis, try to snag a first rounder from cleveland. 

 

Hilton could def be replaced. Watch some highlights of Quandree Henderson from Pittsburgh. Could be the next Tyreek Hill without the baggage. 

[pgt_rob]

Just now, IndyD4U said:

Patriots name now being thrown out there as a possible landing spot. Going to be interesting the next 25 hours

 

https://www.metro.us/sports/patriots-ty-hilton-nfl-trade-rumors-pats-the-mix

 

Curious on why the Patriots are always interested in our receiving core? The Patriots will most likely have the 32nd spot in the 2018 draft so that's where their 1st rounder will be. They gave up their 2017 1st round (32 pick) to NO for Cooks. I somehow don't see them giving away another 1st rounder for TY Hilton. Could happen, but I somehow doubt it. They have Edelman who will be back next season. 

[aaron11]

4 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

Patriots name now being thrown out there as a possible landing spot. Going to be interesting for the next 25 hours

 

https://www.metro.us/sports/patriots-ty-hilton-nfl-trade-rumors-pats-the-mix

i would pretty shocked if he ends up there, and upset not going to lie about that

 

brady and ty would destroy defenses for the next few years 

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, jameszeigler834 said:

They are if your smart about getting recievers that are actually good don't take a receiver 1st round that has no hands or separating ability.

 

So we take a chance on drafting another one when we already have one? 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

17 hours ago, ColtsSouljah said:

Trading T.Y. for a 2nd would be utterly *ic.

 

I think they'd have to sweeten the pot a little bit, maybe throw in a young offensive lineman. Trading him outright for a 2nd round pick doesn't seem like a great move.

[pgt_rob]

Wonder if Ballard is thinking defense? TY Hilton for possibly Malcom Butler + picks?

 

I could see that happening. Not sure if I would like that trade.

[csmopar]

24 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

Patriots name now being thrown out there as a possible landing spot. Going to be interesting for the next 25 hours

 

https://www.metro.us/sports/patriots-ty-hilton-nfl-trade-rumors-pats-the-mix

good God, I hope not

18 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i would pretty shocked if he ends up there, and upset not going to lie about that

 

brady and ty would destroy defenses for the next few years 

You're assuming Brady doesn't hang it up after this year.  I think if he wins one more Super bowl, he'll retire.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

16 hours ago, IinD said:

I hear you man. Respectfully disagree 150,000%.

 

Guy had 1600 yds 12 months ago and is now bum. Tough crowd in here.

 

No one's calling him a bum, but the fact that he's apparently "available" per trade warrants speculation and conversation about what would be a good compensation. In his defense, he has been outperforming his contract since he signed his new deal (he's worth the $8mil he's getting paid this year), but in '18, '19, & '20, he's going to make $11mil, $13mil, & $14.5mil, respectively. It's hard to imagine how we can't replace his production at a much cheaper price tag, especially if we're able to put together a halfway decent running game.

[shasta519]

58 minutes ago, Dirty Mudflaps said:

Can you name me the WR core on NE, Seattle, New Orleans, KC, Washington?  Those teams are all top 8 passing offenses.  There is no TY Hilton on any of those rosters.  And they're producing.  Oh, and winning.  If Luck is what we know him to be, he will make WRs better.  Give him time, and a running game, and you and I might be able to crack 1000 yards receiving.  And I'm really old. 

 

Those teams have good offenses ans have absolutely invested in their pass catchers and/or their offense overall.

 

NE is typically an outlier because of their system that features pick plays. But even they just traded away assets for two 1st round WRs. Not to mention they have Gronk. And they are an offense that heavily features RBs in the passing game.

 

SEA has Baldwin (who is a top 15 WR and who they gave WR1 money to), Lockett (3rd round pick) and Richardson (2nd round pick). They also traded a 1st round pick for Graham.

 

NO spent a 1st round pick on Thomas and  gave big money to Fleener in FA. On top of that, they have a 1st round RB and a 2nd round RB, who are featured in the passing game.

 

WAS doesn't have as good of a group, but they did spend a 1st round pick on Doctson and sign Pryor in FA.

 

KC is sort of the outlier, but they hit HRs with Kelce, Hill and Hunt. That's tough to replicate.

 

I think the Colts could be successful without Hilton, but it's going to take some serious resources to do it. 

 

[Indeee]

22 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Curious on why the Patriots are always interested in our receiving core? The Patriots will most likely have the 32nd spot in the 2018 draft so that's where their 1st rounder will be. They gave up their 2017 1st round (32 pick) to NO for Cooks. I somehow don't see them giving away another 1st rounder for TY Hilton. Could happen, but I somehow doubt it. They have Edelman who will be back next season. 

Edleman won't be back next year, that's a fact. His contract will be resolved or he won't be re-signed. If it was Butler for Hilton I may do that trade

[akcolt]

1 hour ago, Dirty Mudflaps said:

Can you name me the WR core on NE, Seattle, New Orleans, KC, Washington?  Those teams are all top 8 passing offenses.  There is no TY Hilton on any of those rosters.  And they're producing.  Oh, and winning.  If Luck is what we know him to be, he will make WRs better.  Give him time, and a running game, and you and I might be able to crack 1000 yards receiving.  And I'm really old. 

Tyrek Hill should be a name everyone knows by now. You are wrong about the teams you listed. They all have WR's TY is listed about the same size as Hill but that's not what the eye test says. Every team you listed not only has a WR selected in the first 3 rounds like TY only NO and Washington doesn't have a WR that's been to the pro bowl. Thomas of NO a second year 2nd round pick from OSU probably goes this year. Take a look at the TE's Gronk Kelce Reed Graham those are four of the best pass catching TE's and all pro bowlers. The Saints only have Fleener

 

I don't think we trade our only play maker the only guy our opponents D has to account for. That doesn't seem smart to me considering he's still young and under contract. He's also our QB's favorite target. You are wrong to think a QB can turn anyone into a good WR.  That position is like most others the best players are drafted early. Antonio Brown(6th round) is an exception not the rule the top WR's Julio Hopkins Green Cooks Evans Fitz are 1st round picks or day 2 like TY.  Landry Allen Tate Thomas etc.