joewilly12 Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Well, in my scenario he would be traded away. So..... David Nelson is 6'5 Cumberland is 6'4 and Sudfeld is 6'7 How many red-zone targets do we need if we never get there in the first place? With CBs and Safetys getting bigger faster and stronger you need a few WRs over 6' who like to brawl for the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 He's not a #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly12 Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 He's not a #1. I agree Nicks and Decker are #1s and Britt and Tate have the potential to be #1s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I agree Nicks and Decker are #1s and Britt and Tate have the potential to be #1s Britt had that potential for the last four or five years, he's just incapable of realizing it. Also, Golden Tate is 5'10, doesn't that go against your whole "Short receivers can't be a true #1" philosophy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly12 Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Britt had that potential for the last four or five years, he's just incapable of realizing it. Also, Golden Tate is 5'10, doesn't that go against your whole "Short receivers can't be a true #1" philosophy?? Yes I made a mistake on Tate too short for a #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I agree Nicks and Decker are #1s and Britt and Tate have the potential to be #1s Decker will be paid as a #1 but he's not a #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 in other worde.....no clavin johnson types are availabale so lets just forget about trying to upgrade the wr position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly12 Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 in other worde.....no clavin johnson types are availabale so lets just forget about trying to upgrade the wr position Clyde Gates and Ben Obamanu all the way!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 in other worde.....no clavin johnson types are availabale so lets just forget about trying to upgrade the wr position Just turn our attention to the draft and get one or two of dem possession burners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If the Jets sign Sanders and Dennis is close on the contract. That is going to be painful. For me. When he tells me how right he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think "number one receiver" is becoming one of those terms that is completely overused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro55 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think "number one receiver" is becoming one of those terms that is completely overused. I agree. Most teams don't have a legit #1 guy or they don't have a HOF like QB. You look at Manning & Brady and they get the ball to whoever the hell plays for them, doesn't really matter. And they get the ball to every RB, WR, TE, and more. Rodgers is another guy like that. Yeah they have good WRs/TEs now and again, but most of those teams also have other guys that catch 60+ passes. They have RBs or TEs that'll catch a ton of passes or TDs. The Jets have a QB who stunk most of last year and who knows if he'll be any good. They have no WRs, TEs. RBs that can do much to actually win a game. Decker isn't the best WR ever, but with a good QB throwing to him, he can make a difference. A guy like Tate might be similar. But neither are going to be a Roy Williams or Larry Fitzgerald. We've seen teams give ok WRs big contracts and those guys just bombed. I sure wouldn't say Mike Wallace was that great of a pickup for the Dolphins considering what they paid for him. I fear the Jets might be in a similar situation if they sign a guy like Decker to some big contract. He might make some plays now and again, but he sure won't be worth 60 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think "number one receiver" is becoming one of those terms that is completely overused. I think of it like this, the league has become such that you might not need a 1A guy to win it all (Megatron). But you need two 2's in that case. The Jets depth chart starts off with a # 3 Kerley. So they need to add two guys in front of him. It would be great if the Jets had two guys that you could debate if one would be a #1 if the other guy didn't exist. Unfortunately...the Jets are pretty far removed from that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think of it like this, the league has become such that you might not need a 1A guy to win it all (Megatron). But you need two 2's in that case. The Jets depth chart starts off with a # 3 Kerley. So they need to add two guys in front of him. It would be great if the Jets had two guys that you could debate if one would be a #1 if the other guy didn't exist. Unfortunately...the Jets are pretty far removed from that point. Exactly. I think you can live without a "number one" if you have three guys that can get open. Even someone that is not a "game changer" like Kerley actually was because his absence certainly changed Smith's game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.