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!

     

D. Newton: Rivera is right. We don't need a number 1 WR. / OK, OK...


top dawg

Recommended Posts

if your receiver isnt marvin harrison, jerry rice, or randy moss he's not a #1 receiver imo. Only receivers in the league right now i'll say should be called #1 would be A.J. Green, or  Dez bryant. A #1 receiver is a receiver that is a threat to score at any time, can block and can consistently get you a first down. If he's not that type of player then he's not what i call a #1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your receiver isnt marvin harrison, jerry rice, or randy moss he's not a #1 receiver imo. Only receivers in the league right now i'll say should be called #1 would be A.J. Green, or Dez bryant. A #1 receiver is a receiver that is a threat to score at any time, can block and can consistently get you a first down. If he's not that type of player then he's not what i call a #1.

Megatron? Fitz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Olsen is not a deep threat, nor is he going to take us to the promised land. If Greg Olsen and a wide-out corps like we had in 2013 is the best we ever have to offer, then we'll continue getting what we're getting. We fell short for a reason.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

 

 

Right but you know what I mean. I'm just talking about labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your receiver isnt marvin harrison, jerry rice, or randy moss he's not a #1 receiver imo. Only receivers in the league right now i'll say should be called #1 would be A.J. Green, or  Dez bryant. A #1 receiver is a receiver that is a threat to score at any time, can block and can consistently get you a first down. If he's not that type of player then he's not what i call a #1. 

 

 

i like megatron but i feel like he doesnt get in the endzone enough to be a #1. With his size speed, jumping i feel like he should put up more points but im probably alone in that. Same for Fitz but also i think fitz isnt a threat to score at any time because he's not as fast but he catches everything and can get you a 1st down almost at will so again thats just my personal opinion. I think a #1 should be a guy you have to account for on every play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Exhibit "A" of the morons who in September will be screaming about our offense not scoring 30 points, or Newton failing to throw for at least 300 yards.

 

Hatter is the President of the "Oh, we really don't need anymore talent on offense we should strengthen our defense" in the off season, and then come September, "I hold Newton responsible for this loss because he did not score 30 points on the Seattle Defense."

 

And if you had a working brain or reading comprehension skills you would have noticed I stated: "This nonsense that it is okay to have a glaring, gigantic hole at WR position and its okay to not TRY to fix it as best as possible within the cap and draft restraints we have-- is all kinds of stupid."

 

Please go play in traffic.

 

I am in the camp that defense wins games....we do not need to score 30 points a game.

 

If you have anything more than 3 synapses firing in that empty gourd of yours, you would underderstand that we throw the ball about 10 times to WR's a game.  We are not going to restructure a bunch of contracts to sign mediocre FA WR"s when we can get equal talent in the draft at a fraction of the cost.

 

We are fixing the cap situation and the team for long term success.  It is not my fault that you have the football understanding of a 9 yo prepubescent little girl.

 

Go slap your mom for raising such a fuging idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think we'll be fine as long as we get a solid group and a guy who can make plays here and there. Its hard to get a true #1. 

 

This^^

 

The FA's this year were NOT #1 WR's.

 

DJax can definitely be that guy, but the baggage and cost (wait and see the amount he is paid) do not make him a viable option.

 

I would rather take my chances in the deepest WR class in years than overspend for guys like:

 

Decker....had success as the #3 WR in Denver with a HOF QB and two better WR's.  He never saw double coverage and never was covered by the top 2 corners.

 

Nicks....very down year and injury issues.

 

James Jones....#3 WR who is much like Decker.

 

 

There were no guys on the WR FA market that are worth screwing up the cap any further for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivera:  Yeah we don't need a number one receiver.

 

 

 

Goodell: ...and with the 28th pick, the Carolina Panthers select Brandin Cooks, wide receiver out of Oregon State.

 

 

you think cooks is a #1 guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams don't need a #1 receiver, yet every year teams chomp at the bit to get a guy like Watkins or Green in the draft. If not needing #1, game-breaking receiver is a real thing, then we should be able to et Sammy Watkins, because he'll fall to us.

 

yes and how well does having #1 WRs help the cellar dwellers that are constantly in the top 10 picks of the draft? usually those receivers seem to go elsewhere before they start making much of an impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He better be if we draft him at 28.

 

he's got hands and he's fast he's reminds me of a stronger  Djax/ weaker Smitty but with better hands than either. I think he'll stretch the field but he'll have trouble in the redzone because of his size. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes and how well does having #1 WRs help the cellar dwellers that are constantly in the top 10 picks of the draft? usually those receivers seem to go elsewhere before they start making much of an impact.

You have to have a QB before you get a receiver. Guess what? We have a QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams don't need a #1 receiver, yet every year teams chomp at the bit to get a guy like Watkins or Green in the draft. If not needing #1, game-breaking receiver is a real thing, then we should be able to et Sammy Watkins, because he'll fall to us.

 

 

most superbowl winners have a group of guys and a playmaker tho. how many of those teams that draft a stud wideout get a ring or even go deep in the playoffs. most teams with star receivers fail to get a viable 2nd or 3rd option and teams basically take away their primary weapon in the playoffs. Like how the seahawks did smitty back in 2006. the teams that spread the ball more evenly go farther

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The bottom line is we saw long stretches this season where T-Mac wasn't even targeted.  He had games where he went an entire half without seeing a pass thrown his way, and it lead to a bunch of games with 5 or less targets.  If he's healthy and we're not up a stupid amount and only running the ball, I can't see him having more than a game or two next year with 5 or less targets. We were also only 22nd this year in pass attempts, and that was with a rookie #1 and no legitimate 2nd option for half the season.  And even then, we were only 46 pass attempts above 31st place. If we go into next season with T-Mac improved in his 2nd season and a healthy Coker for 17 games, there is absolutely no reason for us to not throw it more.  That right away increases both of their target totals without sacrificing any targets from each other or other players, add in them taking targets from the TEs and RBs on top of that, and your argument just doesn't hold water anymore. You can't look at targets/yards in a vacuum and think next year Coker just takes some from T-Mac.  You have to look at the team as a whole and our situations this year and then project what will happen next year. If he's healthy for 17 games, I'd bet my life savings that T-Mac sees increases across the board, targets/catches/yards/TDs.   Just as Coker will also see career highs in all categories, it's not one vs the other, it's shifting offensive strategy given our personnel, which next year will be much better for our passing game (QB issues aside).
    • C'mon now.... First, you can't switch up your argument once someone points out a major flaw in your point. You're saying we shouldn't expect a big increase in targets/yards for T-Mac, but then shift to talking about averages with Chase when I point out the significant leap he took there once you factor in his missing games.  He saw an increase in targets in 5 less games, averages aside, he saw a significant increase in targets in his 2nd season, what he then did with those targets is actually irrelevant in this discussion. Puka seeing no increase is pointless, as he saw such an absurd amount of targets for a rookie, it's near impossible to see an increase. But the real issue in this post is that you think I'm proving your point by showing how Waddle had to share targets with Hill. Tyreek Hill was a 1st team All Pro who was 2nd in the NFL in yards that season. If you think Jaylen Waddle sharing targets with a 1st team All Pro and a future HOFer is even remotely in the same category as T-Mac needing to share targets with Coker... then you are certifiably insane, lol. If anything, you could make the argument that Coker is to Waddle as T-Mac is to Hill in that discussion (which would then lead to a serious increase in targets/yards for T-Mac).  But even that is insane, as neither T-Mac or Coker will be as good as Hill and Waddle respectively that season.  I love both of their potential, but c'mon now, T-Mac isn't getting 119 catches for 1,700 yards and Coker isn't getting 117 for 1,350 next season.
×
×
  • Create New...