Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

"Wide receiver is not a problem" [Phrase should be banned]


top dawg

Recommended Posts

I get so sick of seeing that phrase in the Huddle.  It is a problem, and every objective Huddler knows it.

 

As I looked at T.Y. Hilton destroy the Texans last night (but Andrew Luck sickeningly get nearly all the love)  I was like "Damn, if only we had that guy to take the top off of defenses like that. KB, Olsen and J-Co would wreak havoc." But then I came to my senses and thought about Rivera saying "That's not how we're built".  Then I thought about our shaky O-line, and I said, "Well, it's not like the almighty Luck (who made some very questionable throws, but got bailed out by luck) has the best of O-lines either."  Then I thought to myself and said (Yeah I know, I sure am talking to myself a lot...CRAZY!), "Well, Shula wouldn't know how to use them anyway."  But, wait...even Shula had sense enough to send Ted Ginn Jr. down the field sometimes (but not as much as I'd have liked).  So what's the problem?  I mean, we do have a Philly in the paddock, we just have to get him involved, right?  But we use him more like all the other possession receivers that we have.  Perhaps Philly is just not ready for the spotlight or can't get enough separation, or get into space, or is too slight, or maybe...this all comes back to Shula and/or the O-line.  Who the hell knows? But WR is still a problem.  We apparently don't have a guy---or at least a guy that Rivera and Shula trust at the moment---to take some pressure off the other guys and add that consistent vertical-threat dimension that makes the opposition respect and fear our big play ability. 

 

I understand that our receiving core is statistically better than last year, and that we surprisingly have the 10th ranked passing offense in the league (albeit with 37 being our long), but that still does not take away the problem of a lack of a legitimate threat to take it to the house.  Maybe Philly can play that role. And in a perfect world, Stephen Hill would be signed, secured and delivered to the game day roster.  But this isn't happening for some reason.  I mean, good grief, between the O-line's inconsistency (on the plays that they are inconsistently good) and Cam's escape-ability (and, yes, even banged up Pocket Cam) we should be built to get the ball down field in a hurry.  Cam can actually throw a mean deep ball.  On the days that our defense just can't get it going (like against the 3-4 so far) and we get behind, the security of a speed guy that at least half-way scares the defense would do wonders for our whole offense---not just the receiving corps. We could take advantage of those soft spots in a zone, or make people pay for leaving our big guy (KB) or our possession guys (everyone else) pay time and time again. 

 

So, for the sake of the football gods, stop saying that WR is not a problem.  It is a problem...one of possibly several. But we're going to have to develop that speed element in our passing game to be complete contenders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Luck makes TY Hilton look better than he is. No disrespect to Hilton, he's solid, but Luck is unreal. The hate he gets on here is insane. 

 

Which is more extraordinary? A WR that puts up 224 yards, or a QB that puts up 370 yards (of which 224 were to one receiver)?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wide reciever is not a problem.

Agreed. I see that speed guy as a luxury. We can win without him. We came back no TY Hilton against Chicago, so we can win when we are down. Would I love to improve at WR? Of course! But No, its IS NOT WHY we are losing. Give us an improved O-line and defense and we are set. Doubt many receivers can get 50 yards down field before our o-line craps out anyway. (Against 3-4)

*WR IS NOT THE PROBLEM*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Luck makes TY Hilton look better than he is. No disrespect to Hilton, he's solid, but Luck is unreal. The hate he gets on here is insane. 

 

Yeah, I'm done dissing Luck.  The dude throws picks, granted.  But he is throwing a poo ton of TD's now, and yes he is better than Cam Newton RIGHT NOW.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more extraordinary? A WR that puts up 224 yards, or a QB that puts up 370 yards (of which 224 were to one receiver)?  

 

 

It was a great performance, no doubt. His highest receiving yards before last night was 105. Still solid but it's not like he's putting up monster numbers every week. However, Luck is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get so tired of hearing about how Andrew Luck inherited a bad team like they were the worst squad in the last 20 years or something.

 

The Colts tanked the poo out of the 2011 season in order to secure their chances at drafting Luck.

 

Irsay knew damn well that Andrew Luck was his only shot at success after sending Peyton off. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply lying to themselves. The Colts had a solid squad to start, but they were actually able to build through the draft during and after drafting Luck.

 

Luck is the real deal, but his GM has actually acquired him some talent. Our FO can't even draft a fugging starter on the OL.

 

Our WR situation isn't the best it could be, but it's acceptable. We need a real OL for our franchise QB. It's abysmal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When look threw a bad pass, they just praised his pocket presence. Didn't even comment on the poorly placed ball. (Check out a would be TD pass to one of his TEs, don't remember when it was)

 

When you lead the league is passing yards and passing TDs you're going to get that kind of praise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...