Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
This baffles me....So...doesn't represent 'that big of a need'?
|
Yes, WR doesn't represent that big of need to warrant a big name FA signing.
Quote:
|
I think Hankerson will be fine and a starter.. Paul is likely more a ST player than a legitimate WR prospect.. Other than that, where's the optimism coming from about our current WR group? Outside of QB, this is our worst offensive unit and needs the most attention.
|
I have no idea what Hankerson will become.
I agree that he's shown potential and he could
become something greater then he was last year.
But I don't base my optimism about the WR corps on him.
I the think decline in the production of both Moss and Armstrong was directly linked to both
injury and near league worst QB play.
And I don't think poor QB play is a reason to replace the WRs.
Imo Moss and Armstrong are still every bit as talented as they were in 2010 where Moss was top 10 in catches
and in yards and Armstrong was a viable deep threat with near league best ypc of 19.8 ypc behind only Mike Wallace.
Would I like a big name WR? Would a big name WR help the passing game?
Yes and yes, but is a big name FA WR a
need? No not imo.
As far as the worst units on offense after QB its OL in my book.
If you look at the passing game even despite the injuries and poor QB play the passing game was ranked 14th in the NFL. (down from 8th in 2010 w/ McNabb a QB that didn't even get along with the OC)
However the OL gave up 42 sacks which is 22th only 4 down from 2010.
Imo clearly, the OL is the biggest weakness after QB specifically RT and I wouldn't look to solve the RT/OL via a big name FA either.