CrazyDave

I know, another WR thread. But I was thinking, at the start of last season, before the injuries to TE's, we were seeing a lot of 2 TE sets. I think the goal was to get both Graham and Watson on the field at the same time a lot.
It's an approach that I like. That said, are we over emphasizing the importance of #2 and #3 recievers in our "system"?
Just looking for some "ryhme or reason" in all this.

smg93

I actually asked that question once on Ask PFT and I got a negative view from Andy Hart. He says that although Watson is fast for a TE he'll only have good speed if he's a receiver. I didn't quite understand that response because if you've got a WR with similar speed but who is much taller and much bigger than a Givens for instance, why wouldn't that be a positive? I still don't know the answer to the question unfortunately.

One other thing, it wasn't too long ago when our top Receiver was a guy by the name of Ben Coates. He was pretty good wasn't he?

CrazyDave

See, there you go. Maybe we need to look at this from a different angle.

smg93

Unfortunately we may be the few who don't think that we should be panicking about our WR situation. It's a concern for sure but our offense has always been predicated on spreading the ball to WR's, TE's, and RB's. Which is why I don't buy the argument that we should be worried because after Deion and Givens, our other WRs only caught less than 10 last year. We don't need a clear cut #1 or #2 WR in the offense. In fact that strategy might hurt us in the long run. Because TB spreads the ball around, a defense can never concentrate on one person.

Pats726

One can not look at Watson as a WR..he's a TE..but I am sure not a 2..or even 3..It tkaes more than speed to be a wideout..there is rout running and agility and other traits and skills that WRs have. Different coverage patterns for TEs/WRs...I know therehave been other threads on this..

smg93

Well you're right about Watson not being a #2. My point was that he doesn't need to change positions. Coates was a TE who caught more passes in some years in his career than Givens did last year. Watson may not become a #2 WR but he certainly can be a #2 Option in the passing game.

JoeSixPat

Every team needs a strong #1 & #2 WR

A good #3 / Slot reciever is always nice. TEs & RBs wind up wearing reciever shoes in addition to their blocking/RB roles


After that your 4, 5 & potential #6 WRs won't be playing big roles if everyone stays healthy (indeed they are often left on the inactive list come gametime)

Right now we have gaping holes at #2 WR and, to a degree #3 - but I'm less concerned about our #3 WR than I am at #2.

The other positions I feel are well addressed.

Take care of our #2 WR hole and I feel like everything else will fall into place as we'd generally be looking for quality backups.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

mgteich

Watson could catch more balls this year than anyone but Branch, but that doesn't make him a wide receiver. It makes him a valuable TE.

We need a solid #2 and #3. KJ and Moulds would be my choices.

JoeSixPat

Exactly - WRs stretch the field. I don't know how others envision using our TEs and RBs but I don't see them sprinting 40 yards down the field, making sharp cuts to catch passes and at the very least, drawing defenders away from TEs and RBs who are the short pass options.

With only 1 real WR threat defenses can double team Branch and send in other DBs to blitz or cover the short route TEs & RBs.

That's why teams need a strong #1 and a strong #2 reciever. Its not just about catching a ball.

In case of injury teams can and do get buy with backups and focusing on the short game - but that's not a strategy you want to adopt as your Plan A walking into the season - its a fall back Plan B.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.