Three pillars support the argument for passing on Tyreek Hill: character risk, health/age risk, and “timeline” mismatch. Each concern is real and acceptable if the Las Vegas Raiders treat Hill as a tool in a rebuild rather than a savior.
With the offseason clock already moving, the Raiders are trying to build this offense around a rookie quarterback and Klint Kubiak’s play-action, spacing-heavy approach. And for a rookie, the same problems show up over and over: tight throwing windows and way too many third-and-longs.
That’s where a true “field-tilter” matters.
Hill doesn’t just add speed—he changes how defenses line up. Safeties have to respect him. Corners can’t sit on routes. Teams are less inclined to overload the box and play recklessly, as a single mistake could potentially result in a 60-yard chunk play. For a young quarterback, this translates into cleaner reads, easier throws, and fewer snaps that feel like a difficult task.
What would it mean for the Raiders offense?
It also helps everyone else. Brock Bowers gets more room to work underneath. The run game sees lighter boxes. And the whole offense has a better chance to stay ahead of the chains instead of constantly digging out of third-and-8.
And no, this isn’t about needing Hill to be the same guy from his absolute peak. The Raiders don’t need “2022 Hill.” They just need a version of Hill who still bends coverage, still demands help, and still makes single-high defenses pay when they get too bold. If he can do that, the offense gets simpler for a rookie—and that’s the real point.
Tyreek Hill’s health is declining…
The next pushback is health—and it’s a fair one. Hill is coming off a serious knee issue and Miami moved on after a “failed physical,” so the downside is right there in bold letters. But that’s also why the price and the leverage change. This is the exact type of swing a cap-healthy team can take if it’s done the smart way: short term, heavy on incentives, and light on guarantees. Per-game roster bonuses, snap-count escalators, achievable performance incentives, and a clean exit after Year 1.
If he isn’t ready, you’re not paying like he is. If he is, you’ve basically rented a rare trait at a discount.
The “age and decline” argument is next…
Yes, the production dipped. Yes, he’s turning 32 soon. Cool—then don’t treat him like a long-term cornerstone. Treat him like a bridge. The goal isn’t to build the franchise around Hill; it’s to use him to speed up the development of the rookie and make the offense functional immediately. Rebuilding teams hand out money to “leadership” vets all the time, and most of those guys don’t actually change how defenses play you. Hill still can—even if he’s not the same player he was at his peak.
Then there’s the off-field history. That part can’t be brushed off. The vetting has to be thorough, and if anything doesn’t check out, you walk away. No debate. But if the Raiders are serious about helping a rookie quarterback, the real priority is making Sundays easier—fewer tight windows, fewer third-and-longs, and fewer drives dying because the margin is too small.
If the process is disciplined—medicals first, contract protection second, locker-room plan third—a Hill pursuit can be a calculated bet, not a reckless one.
*Top Photo: Ramble Illustration/Getty Images