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!

     

Big WR


Cdparr7
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

6-5, 255?

I don't know what world that is considered small.

Olsen didnt play very big. you rarely saw him just jump up and win a jump ball. If he got touched he was going down on first contact. he was really finesse like in his play. Robbie Anderson was the same way he played a small game even tho he was 6'3 DJ Moore played bigger than Anderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

Olsen didnt play very big. you rarely saw him just jump up and win a jump ball. If he got touched he was going down on first contact. he was really finesse like in his play. Robbie Anderson was the same way he played a small game even tho he was 6'3 DJ Moore played bigger than Anderson.

You are just generally moving the goalposts on what you think we don't have. Olsen was very obviously the kind of red zone receiving threat we relied on(same with Shockey, Walls, etc) at that position. Sometimes because we didn't have reliable red zone WR's.

I am not gonna get caught up on the idea of throwing jump balls or fades. If you have quality threats, you can scheme them open. You don't need these old possession/jump ball end zone threats from the bygone era. Especially when you have even bigger and more athletic LB's and DB's that are more suited to defending that stuff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

You are just generally moving the goalposts on what you think we don't have. Olsen was very obviously the kind of red zone receiving threat we relied on(same with Shockey, Walls, etc) at that position. Sometimes because we didn't have reliable red zone WR's.

I am not gonna get caught up on the idea of throwing jump balls or fades. If you have quality threats, you can scheme them open. You don't need these old possession/jump ball end zone threats from the bygone era. Especially when you have even bigger and more athletic LB's and DB's that are more suited to defending that stuff.

 

not trying to move the goal post just pain the picture on what type of player olsen was. And yes when you think big WR or TE you think throwing fades and jump balls. thats another part of the game we judt dont have. if you mean just a redzone target you scheme open like you do then Moore can do that. just picks and route running. what i mean is above 6'4 big body muscle a guy out the way allen Robinson gronk aj brown that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

not trying to move the goal post just pain the picture on what type of player olsen was. And yes when you think big WR or TE you think throwing fades and jump balls. thats another part of the game we judt dont have. if you mean just a redzone target you scheme open like you do then Moore can do that. just picks and route running. what i mean is above 6'4 big body muscle a guy out the way allen Robinson gronk aj brown that sort of thing.

Yeah but just hat on a hat "beat him" is less effective than actually scheming people open and running effective plays. Like I said, that is old school stuff.

It's fine if you have a Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Jimmy Graham, etc. It works a lot less effectively if you don't have an elite guy like that. 

That's trying to attempt to take the hard way out of a situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah but just hat on a hat "beat him" is less effective than actually scheming people open and running effective plays. Like I said, that is old school stuff.

It's fine if you have a Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Jimmy Graham, etc. It works a lot less effectively if you don't have an elite guy like that. 

That's trying to attempt to take the hard way out of a situation.

im not saying this should be your only way of beatinf an opponent. im saying having the threat of it or even having this as an option should be on every team i think. the more you can give the opposition to think about the better. i feel the same way about having a dual threat qb. the more you can do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, philw5289 said:

With the rules favoring the offense so much the receiver position is getting smaller. More and more receivers 6’0” and under fast and speedy are getting drafted and used more 

Seems it is always a cyclic evolution. This small trend counters the long tall corners brought in to counter the big WR guys. Someone will counter that and so on…. 
Somehow you have to get on the right side of those trends. A balancing act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2022 at 9:23 PM, Cdparr7 said:

When is the last time we had a “Big WR”. I watched those fade passes to Terrace Marshall and scratched my head. He is the tallest WR on the roster at 6’2”. 
 

We have Preston Williams on the practice squad at 6’5”. Tommy and Ian are 6’3” but we really don’t have a “Big WR”.

Here is the fundamental issue I take with asking questions like this:

If playoff winning teams don't have a pronounced tendency to have big WR's on the roster vs the rest of the league, I find the notion that they contribute to winning when it counts tenous at best. As a fan who wants to win, I think we should be looking at SB winners and conference championship participants and asking what these teams seem to have more or better of than the rest of the league.

Fantasy football imo has led to an overemphasis by fans on WR's and RB's because they generate fantasy points and thus garner attention. This creates a false perception of how important they are to winning football. It is a passing league, and you need solid play from your receivers to win, but like running back, I believe the evidence that having big or elite WR play leads to playoff success is scant on the ground. QB play, OL play, pass rushing and secondary play are the position groups that both matter to winning, and where true talent is rare.

Does having big WR's have it's obvious advantages? Of course.

Do these advantages correlate to a high degree with playoff wins? Doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ghostface Chilla said:

We should trade Atlanta for rookie WR Drake London. He was a phenom at USC and has hands for sure. Atlanta doesn't target him too often, but he will be a #1 soon. We should snatch him up before that happens on another team, especially a rival of ours!

There is zero chance Atlanta is interested in this - he is literally their #1 target and it isn't close... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People - cmon - how many times are y'all gonna keep saying "we need to upgrade our TE" - "get taller receivers" - that is just trying to fix symptoms of the real problem.  You don't win Superbowls with TE's and WR's....you win them with Defense, OLine, and QB play....period.  We haven't had a MLB defensive captain since Luke.  We haven't had a good OLine since 2011.  We haven't had a consistent, top tier QB dang near ever.  We had Steve Smith, Greg Olsen, DJ Moore, CMC and never consistently saw the playoffs...Give me a top 10 QB, top 10 OLine, or a top 10 MLB or stop making excuses....we have spent the last 12 years focused on the wrong things.  Go look at the teams who are consistently in the playoffs and they all have at least 2 of those 3 things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...