The Chiefs have a tough decision at WR looming, but not the one you might think
Roster-cutdown day looms on the back end of the Chiefs’ final preseason game Saturday, so this is a time of year in which you’ll hear coaches and general managers talk about tough decisions.
Chiefs coach Andy Reid, in particular, has used that phrase, or others like it, when addressing one position group.
His wide receivers.
“A tough decision at that spot,” he said this week.
And two days earlier: “You keep six or seven of those guys. That (No.) 6 and 7 spot is going to be a pretty good battle. We’ll see how it all winds down there as we go, but it’s wide open for those players.”
Outside of the ongoing Chris Jones holdout, this has been the primary point of discussion throughout training camp: Could the Chiefs keep seven wide receivers on their initial 53-man roster? (It’s a bit funny, given all of the outside concern about the receiver group before camp started, but I digress.)
Back to the question, though. Should they really keep seven receivers?
In a word? No. The longer answer — the why not — is forthcoming.
If they do actually keep seven, in fact, which would be a first in the Andy Reid Era, you should take it as a sign that they’re not all that confident in the consistency — whether that’s production or health — of the guys perceived to be at the top of the depth chart.
But let’s walk through this possibility, because I’ve heard it often, almost as though it’s a given they will hold onto seven. Keep in mind that the Chiefs have kept only five receivers on their initial 53-man roster each of the past two seasons. They only kept five in each of their Super Bowl seasons. That worked out OK.
During Reid’s time in Kansas City, though, they have stashed six wideouts on six different occasions. So I reviewed those six instances, wondering whether it proved worthwhile and what kind of benefit the sixth option provided.
The simple answer: Not much of one.
In fact, the Chiefs rarely get much offensive production out of their fifth wideout, let alone the sixth.
In 2020, the most recent year the Chiefs held onto six, Marcus Kemp was that sixth man, and he finished the season with one catch for 11 yards in 11 games. Sure, he had a bigger role on special teams, but the difference this season in keeping six versus seven might be Justyn Ross, and he isn’t known as a special-teams wizard.
In 2018, when quarterback Patrick Mahomes topped 5,000 yards and 50 touchdowns, only four receivers on the roster topped 35 offensive snaps — not in a game, but for the entire season. Think about that. The fifth receiver, De’Anthony Thomas, averaged only two offensive snaps per game. He had the fifth-most receptions among wideouts, and he had three. Fifth place. Three catches.
The more I researched the past instances, the more obvious it became that every occasion fell into the same pattern.
In 2017, sixth man Jehu Chesson had two catches, and the fifth on the list, Chris Conley, had just 11.
In 2016, Demarcus Robinson had five offensive snaps all season as the sixth option, and De’Anthony Thomas had seven catches as the fifth.
In 2015, Frankie Hammond Jr. (sixth) finished the season with just six snaps on offense, and Jason Avant (fifth) had 15 catches, still fewer than one per game.
In 2013, Chad Hall caught two passes for the season, and A.J. Jenkins had eight. They were Nos. 5 and 6.
So in six seasons, their No. 6 options have combined for seven catches.
The history is quite clear. The Chiefs get virtually no offensive value from their sixth receiver, and even very little from their fifth.
It leaves virtually no good argument for keeping seven.
Even if you think the Chiefs use more receivers in the Mahomes tenure than they did during Alex Smith’s time in Kansas City, they actually went in the opposite direction a year ago. For 38% of their offensive snaps, they put multiple tight ends on the field, a response to defensive high shells. Which means they put more than two receivers on the field on only 62% of their snaps.
In other words, the timing doesn’t make sense, either. They are using wide receivers less often now.
All of this is saying the same thing: Absent a rash of injuries, it’s just about impossible to envision the Chiefs needing seven receivers, especially when there’s an argument they haven’t really had much of a need for six.
I’ll acknowledge that in past instances, a handful of those fifth and sixth options had special-teams roles — though, notably, not all of them did — which back then provided a justification for keeping an extra body.
“We talk to them about (how) special teams ends up a big part of it,” Reid said. “Might be a good receiver, but if you can’t help out on special teams, you got a problem there.”
But the league is doing everything to attempt to diminish the number of special-teams plays. Its latest move encourages teams to fair-catch kickoffs (though the Chiefs will pass on that advantage, apparently), which means there is even less of a reason for special teams alone to motivate these kinds of roster decisions.
Keep the guys who can give you value elsewhere. A seventh receiver doesn’t do that, because a sixth hasn’t and a fifth hardly has.
I don’t want to make it sound like this makes everything so easy for the Chiefs. They do have a tough decision with the receivers here — it’s just not how many they should keep. Their own track record provides the answer.
Instead, it’s which six they keep.
And one more thing: What do they do with the one who falls outside the bubble?
The Chiefs could potentially solve two problems with one move. They do have a surplus at receiver — I’m not arguing they don’t have seven receivers who can play at this level. They might have eight.
But they also have some clear holes along the defensive line, whether Jones plans to play in the season opener or not.
Take a strength and address a weakness.
Tuesday will be an active day in the NFL, with teams trimming their rosters from 90 to 53 men. But the Chiefs could be — should be — active in the trade market before then.