Jump to content





Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

The WR connundrum: Playing WR Roulette


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

#16 jarhead

jarhead

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,648
  • Reputation: 999
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:44 PM

How about a guy like Dominique Hixon from the giants? This is a guy that has stepped up every time he got to play? I see more value in FA for WR than I do the draft

#17 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,847
  • Reputation: 474
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:47 PM

How about a guy like Dominique Hixon from the giants? This is a guy that has stepped up every time he got to play? I see more value in FA for WR than I do the draft


He gets injured a lot and loves being in New York.

#18 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,367
  • Reputation: 3,470
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:30 PM

Well said. People forget that we went after and got Olsen.

Others saying we don't have weapons on offense is just silly.


Nobody said that we don't have weapons on offense, but the fact is that we are missing a legitimate threat at WR who is explosive enough to take it to the house every time they touch the ball. Olsen is a TE, not a WR. He is nice to have, but he is not as athletic or fast as some. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade him for anything, but it's not like he strikes fear in the opposition like Jimmy Graham or Vernon Davis, who must always be accounted for on every play. Moreover, another threat at WR would just make Olsen and the entire offense better. I don't know why anyone would argue to the contrary. So to me, that's silly.

Take a look at the last few Super Bowl winners (and throughout most of the Super Bowl's history), and you will see that the champions not only had decent TEs, but they also had more than one WR who could score a a moments notice, the latest duo being Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith. Moreover, many of them even had a third legitimate threat at WR, in addition to their pass catching TEs (e.g., Jacoby Jones, James Jones or Mario Manningham). And in case you are wondering, the TE1s who have won championships in the past five years were Pitta, Finley, Boss, Shockey, and Heath Miller (not too shabby). But even when you look at teams who consistently make the playoffs, you must admit that they have more than one legitimate threat at WR. Even if you want to argue that point, you have to admit that the more threats you have at wide-out, the better off you are. I realize that play calling and coaching played their part in all these teams, but it is still too simplistic of a view to say that more than one dynamic, potentially explosive WR is not a critical advantage in the pursuit of championships.

#19 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,367
  • Reputation: 3,470
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:34 PM

As to my original question (which is somewhat rhetorical in nature), no one knows how in the hell we are going to get off this treadmill of mediocrity when it comes to acquiring a legitimate threat at WR (other than just get lucky).

#20 iamhubby1

iamhubby1

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 13-June 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,770
  • Reputation: 1,145
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:12 PM

I think it is more a matter of circumstances and bad luck as to why we have been unable to get a quality WR in/or out of the draft.

Sometimes we just couldn't afford to go WR with our first, other times there wasn't one there for us to take. We certainly have tried drafting them in every other round, they just never seem to work out however.

Maybe next year, if we don't have so many needs, one will be there when we pick at 24. But then again, probably not.