- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 37,535
- Reaction score
- 16,314
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.It is a simple question. How much better would the team be with Jackson as one our 3 WR's instead of Amendola. What is the incremental advantage? And is the incremental value worth the $5M?
What is the incremental advantage? And is the incremental value worth the $5M?
It is a simple question. How much better would the team be with Jackson as one our 3 WR's instead of Amendola. What is the incremental advantage? And is the incremental value worth the $5M?
I don't think this offense can be much better passing the ball.
They can sure make it a lot easier.
I don't think this offense can be much better passing the ball, these last 4 games they have been nearly perfect.
I don't believe that is even close to true.
I think that the trade is unlikely. However, I think that Jackson and LaFell, with Edelman in the slot would be a great improvement over what we have. And yes, Jackosn might take longer than getting Ayers to be ready to contribute. Add Gronk, Wright and Vereen, and you have six weapons in the passing game. That is NOT a huge number.
Why not?
Who really cares if it's not flashy names?
They are getting it done big time, LaFell went 11 for 11 today.
Tim Wright is on the rise,
it's like Edelman is an afterthought now.
For what we have to give up for VJAX, I just don't see how it's worth it.
There's no guarantees, we don't even know if he can play in this offense, and if he can ... what are we going to do?
Start forcing balls to him for no good reason?
If we are going to make a move it should be on the defensive side, or we should get a RB.
I rather have a reliable RB come January than VJAX. I have confidence in this group of receivers to get it done
Because I've watched the games.
No, sadly, he's not. The numbers on that are abundantly clear. There's still time for him, obviously, but to say he's on the rise is simply not true.
And he had 1 catch on 4 targets against the Bengals. What's your point?
No, sadly, he's not. The numbers on that are abundantly clear. There's still time for him, obviously, but to say he's on the rise is simply not true.
There's no guarantee that both Gronk and Edelman will be healthy for the playoffs, either.
This "group" of receivers (and that includes both WRs and TEs) is currently 3 deep. It's ridiculous to think that can't be improved upon, or at least shored up in case of injury. Now, if you can find talent at DL/LB/RB/S2 that fixes problems there, but precludes picking up Jackson, THAT's when "rather have" matters. Until then, it's meaningless.
Edelman was targeted and had some drops. That doesn't make him an afterthought. He just had a 9 catch game against Buffalo two weeks ago, in case you'd forgotten.
WTF is this about? He had 7 catches and a TD today. How is that 'abundantly' NOT a rise?
He's on pace for just under 1,000 yards on the Season.
Right. 13 catches and 3 TDs over the last 4 games vs. 4 catches and 0 TDs over the FIRST 4 games and that's NOT rising production. What-ever dude. You're working from a different dictionary than I am.We're counting individual games as rises now? Nothing against the Jets. One catch against the Bills, and now he's rising?
Come on. Let's at least pretend that we can be rational when we analyze the Patriots.
We're counting individual games as rises now? Nothing against the Jets. One catch against the Bills, and now he's rising?
Come on. Let's at least pretend that we can be rational when we analyze the Patriots.
See what I posted in response to rochrist. It's essentially all of a piece.
I agree with this, it's not like I would be mad if Jackson were here, he can definitely improve this area if he catches on quickly but I'm just saying I would like to see other positions filled before him.