Utah John Posted October 23 Posted October 23 The Bills and Chiefs each added an excellent veteran receiver. The Bills gave up a little more in draft picks to get Amari Cooper, but the Chiefs are stuck with more salary requirement with DeAndre Hopkins. (Tennessee will pay half of Hopkins's salary but the remaining amount is much more than what the Bills are paying Cooper for the rest of the year.) Cooper is very likely a rental unless the Bills and he completely fall in love with how things work out and both sides give a little slack in salary negotiations going forward. If Cooper just wants to chase dollars, I think the Bills will not be able to match. I don't know what KC's plans for Hopkins are. They have Rice and Brown both injured, both good, and both returning next year, so maybe Hopkins is a rental too. So, what's your bottom line on which deal was better? It could be, both teams come out ahead and are happy with the results. But, given the choice, would you have preferred to get Hopkins than Cooper? My thought is the Bills couldn't afford even half of Hopkins salary, so they did the best they could getting Cooper, who's just about as good as Hopkins. Quote
BillsFan619 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, Utah John said: The Bills and Chiefs each added an excellent veteran receiver. The Bills gave up a little more in draft picks to get Amari Cooper, but the Chiefs are stuck with more salary requirement with DeAndre Hopkins. (Tennessee will pay half of Hopkins's salary but the remaining amount is much more than what the Bills are paying Cooper for the rest of the year.) Cooper is very likely a rental unless the Bills and he completely fall in love with how things work out and both sides give a little slack in salary negotiations going forward. If Cooper just wants to chase dollars, I think the Bills will not be able to match. I don't know what KC's plans for Hopkins are. They have Rice and Brown both injured, both good, and both returning next year, so maybe Hopkins is a rental too. So, what's your bottom line on which deal was better? It could be, both teams come out ahead and are happy with the results. But, given the choice, would you have preferred to get Hopkins than Cooper? My thought is the Bills couldn't afford even half of Hopkins salary, so they did the best they could getting Cooper, who's just about as good as Hopkins. Amari Cooper…hands down. And just in case someone asks, Cooper over Davante Adams as well. Good attitude and a quiet, hard-working demeanor. A process-like player, that fits our culture. He’s younger, and if I’m not mistaken, just had 1,250 receiving yards last year. Even though he’s the best WR on the team and will start getting more targets, he’s a #1 WR without the diva-like attitude. He fits in perfectly with the team approach they’re trying to take with the WR room. For what we needed, you can’t get much better, especially for an in-season trade. Go Bills! Edited October 23 by BillsFan619 20 7 4 Quote
Roundybout Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Cooper and it’s not particularly close 1 7 1 1 1 Quote
Fleezoid Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Cooper! Hopkins had his chance a year ago. Don't blame him for going after the dollars, but the way he toyed around with his options was a little childish. 3 1 Quote
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 hopkins, because well, they can't have him!! wth. 2 1 Quote
ngbills Posted October 23 Posted October 23 I don't know about the its not close. If the trades were reversed I would probably be just as happy. Cooper is cheaper, though doesn't matter unless we are spending money somewhere else. Though we would have needed TEN to pitch in more to make a trade work. Career wise they are similar though would say Hopkins has had more success over the long term. Who has more gas in the tank and ability to make an impact is anyone's guess. Bottom line we needed something and we got it whether Cooper, Hopkins, Kupp or Adams. 1 1 2 Quote
Mat68 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Cooper was the best wr traded. Imo is/was a better wr than Diggs. Cooper has size and speed. Is also an incredible route runner. Even in Dallas didnt play in a pass first offense. Those teams were more Zeke centric. I think he is a James Lofton level move for Buffalo. Still can get deep. When Allen and Cooper get on the same page they will be deadly. The youngest, fastest, better overall athlete was traded to Buffalo. Highest recruit out of highschool, highest draft pick into the NFL, and was the most productive in 23 and beginning of 24. 6 3 2 1 Quote
Success Posted October 23 Posted October 23 What's a crowd supposed to yell when Hopkins gets a catch? Nothing like "Cooooooooooooop!!!" Cooper all day; 1 4 1 Quote
Logic Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Cooper is younger, cheaper, and a better fit culture-wise and in terms of the skillset the Bills were lacking. Bills needed someone to win consistently vs man coverage, to separate, to do his job quietly and with professionalism, and to be a good veteran presence in the locker room. For every item on that checklist, give me Cooper over Hopkins. 4 2 2 Quote
buffaloboyinATL Posted October 23 Posted October 23 100% Cooper. It would still be Cooper,even if their compensation was equal. 2 Quote
Cray51 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Cooper. Hopkins is good, but I dont even think he is a true #1 anymore. Cooper is. 1 Quote
nedboy7 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Just about as good isn’t reasonable. He is way better. Younger. Cheaper. And has an amazing attitude for a WR. It’s a no brainer. Like between steak and dog *****. I mean I get it maybe the steak was overdone though. 1 Quote
MJS Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Hopkins hasn't been an elite receiver for 4+ years now. He is a #2 receiver now. Still good and still an asset, but not elite. Cooper is an elite receiver. 5 1 Quote
JohnNord Posted October 23 Posted October 23 1 hour ago, Utah John said: The Bills and Chiefs each added an excellent veteran receiver. The Bills gave up a little more in draft picks to get Amari Cooper, but the Chiefs are stuck with more salary requirement with DeAndre Hopkins. (Tennessee will pay half of Hopkins's salary but the remaining amount is much more than what the Bills are paying Cooper for the rest of the year.) Cooper is very likely a rental unless the Bills and he completely fall in love with how things work out and both sides give a little slack in salary negotiations going forward. If Cooper just wants to chase dollars, I think the Bills will not be able to match. I don't know what KC's plans for Hopkins are. They have Rice and Brown both injured, both good, and both returning next year, so maybe Hopkins is a rental too. So, what's your bottom line on which deal was better? It could be, both teams come out ahead and are happy with the results. But, given the choice, would you have preferred to get Hopkins than Cooper? My thought is the Bills couldn't afford even half of Hopkins salary, so they did the best they could getting Cooper, who's just about as good as Hopkins. Hopkins is certainly a rental. As far as the better receiver in 2024, I think the answer is Cooper. Both have dropped off a bit by age and bad QB play, but I think Hopkins is much further off from his peak. I think Hopkins can still play but if you’re looking more for someone who can make an impact at the trade deadline, it’s Adams or Cooper. As far as what the Bills need - it’s hands down Cooper. He’s a great route runner who can still get open vertically and make teams pay for running Cover 1. He can also seperate fast which is what was missing. Hopkins can do this as well but not as good. 2 1 Quote
Captain_Quint Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Hopkins because he dresses like a woman: 1 1 4 Quote
JerseyBills Posted October 23 Posted October 23 4 minutes ago, Danger Mouse said: It can’t be a serious question Exactly, not even close.. Thought it was sarcasm before clicking lol Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.