After week 11...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

One question would you rather have Lloyd or Givens on the Rams to move forward?

---

You're missing the point I'm making if this is the question you're asking. It's not about Lloyd; it's about what a veteran receiver can do in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

It's the much more part I'm looking at? Define that, is it 300 more yards three more TDs? Does it make sense pay a huge contract to get an extra yards and a few TD when that money can we spent on a offensive line that desperately needs to be upgraded.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

I'm not so sure if you ask Bradford do you want another option at receiver or another vet pro bowl linemen he would take a receiver.

---

You've set the question up as if it's an either/or situation; either we upgrade at WR or we upgrade at OL. As we have no idea of knowing if that's actually going to be the situation in March, I'm not going to argue as if it's already true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

Look it up, you tell me how many snap he was getting in the first four games and how many times he was targeted vs game 5 and on. I say he has been on the field more and has been targeted more after week four.

---

I actually did look it up prior to my last response. He had as many snaps in Week Four as he did in Week Five, and more in Week Four than he did in Weeks Seven, Eight, and Eleven.

If you want to argue that he's a bigger part of the gameplan now than he was in the first quarter of the season, that's fine. But to make that argument by saying he's now getting 30-40 snaps when he wasn't before just isn't accurate. He was on the field for a combined 90 snaps in Weeks Four and Five but amassed just two receptions on eight targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

For you to say he has had a few good moments is really understating what he is doing IMO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

He's had some great moments this year as a rookie

---

I'll let my previous post address this one, since obviously that's not what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

I have suggested that we take the cash and upgrade the O line, draft another receiver in round one and draft TE Tyler Eifert also in round one. So I think I also would like to have a dangerous offense. Or at least a productive one.

---

That's fine. Personally, I think we stand a better chance of getting more immediate impact out of our first round pick by spending it on the OL rather than drafting a receiver. The first round OL talent impresses me more than the first round WR talent, and WR is generally regarded as being one of the harder transition to the pros for rookies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

Why is it strange...

---

A week ago, you said something about wanting Greg Jennings yesterday. Now you don't want any vet receiver, which I assume includes Jennings. Complete 180 reversals of an opinion in merely a week strike me as strange, that's all.

I just don't get why you think since Givens looks good we no longer need immediate help at the receiver position especially with Amendola injury woes.

I really don't see any rookie receiver coming in next year and contributing and I also don't see Quick making a huge leap in his 2nd year.

Like Nick said the offensive line class is far better than the receiver class and offensive linemen adapt quicker to the NFL(usually).

It makes more sense to sign one of Jennings, Bowe or Wallace, draft one of Jockel, Matthews, Lewan(if he declares which he might not), Warmack or JOnes and then use our 2nd first for another need.

I really think something like this could be very clutch:

6Weapons::

1) Big physical WR. (Quick or someone else through FA/Draft)
2) Slot Receiver that's hard to cover. (Amendola...no need for change there...we have a top 5 in league)
3) Speedy Quick reciever (Hopefully Givens pans out at this position for years)
4) Multifaceted TE (Get Jared Cook!!!)
5) Solid Starting RB (SJax)
6) Change of pace, 3rd down, receiving RB (Darryl Richardson)

Minus 1and4 we have 4 out of 6. Even if 39 leaves I think Richardson will take that 5 spot and someone else or Pead can take the 6th spot

anyway if we can get these six clutch spots, i see us killing it in the future years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003

I just don't get why you think since Givens looks good we no longer need immediate help at the receiver position especially with Amendola injury woes.

---

You said it, since Givens looks good. He is already providing yards and TDs. Therefore we no longer have an immediate need and we can take younger players and develop them. I'm not saying we don't need to add to our receivers corp I still am. If Givens was invisible like he was the first three or four games, I would say the need is still there. After breaking the rookie record for five straight weeks with a 50+ yard reception and having his best game as a pro over 100 yards and a TD. He looks the part.

He has been setting record for awhile now:

Quote:

---

Finished his 36-game career among Wake Forest's all-time receiving leaders with 163 career receptions (fourth in school history) for 2,473 yards (third) and 21 touchdowns (tied third)... caught a school-record 83 passes for 1,330 yards during 2011 season, breaking Ricky Proehl's previous record of 1,053 set in 1989 ... also turned in seven 100-yard receiving games as a senior, which was one game shy of a school record ... Became the 29th player in school history to reach 1,000 career receiving yards, eclipsing the mark during his sophomore season (2010) at Maryland ... Had 10 career 100-yard receiving games ... led Wake Forest in all-purpose yards in three straight seasons ... First Deacon to ever haul in three passes for 70 or more yards ... Finished career having caught a pass in 28 consecutive games.

---

Sounds as if you want to bring in a receiver because you are pretty sure Amendola will miss a lot of time. If that's the case why sign him at all?

Quote:

---

I really don't see any rookie receiver coming in next year and contributing and I also don't see Quick making a huge leap in his 2nd year.

---

What is your definition of contributing? Is Givens contributing? How many yards and or TD does a player need to have to be considered to be contributing? I don't know about you but Quick's opening TD catch on the road against the 9ers was something IMO.

For this discussion I have stated I would draft both a receiver and TE in the first round next year.

Lets say we took:

Terrance Williams
Tyler Eifert

You really don't think they could combine for 600 yards 4 TD?

Jennings best year total yards 1265 yards. Most TD he's ever had 12. That's his best in 2011 he had 949 yards and 4 TD.

Amendola 2013, 1000 yards 5 TD
Givens in 2013, 800 yards 6 TD
Gibson in 2013, 500 yards 5 TD
Quick in 2013 450 yards 3 TD
Williams 2013 300 yards 1 TD
Eifert 2013 300 yards 2 TD
Kendricks 2013 300 yards 2 TD

RB add another 300 yards.

So here are some rough numbers which would have Bradford throwing for 3,950 yards and 24 TD. Not over the top, could be better could be worse. Add a guy like Jennings would add to these numbers what? a few more yards or a few TD? If he is being targeted someone else is not keep that in mind.

Quote:

---

Like Nick said the offensive line class is far better than the receiver class and offensive linemen adapt quicker to the NFL(usually).

---

Does this offensive line class have a player that is day one better then a guy like we added in Wells, a pro bowler with year of experience? That's what I want, to once and for all add another vet linemen that can come in day one and upgrade the play of the line. I have no problem in round two going guard or tackle, which ever is still a need. Just like a rookie WR has a learning curve so do O linemen period, no position gets a free pass. My plan the O line is better day one. I for one have had too many days saying that Bradford would be great behind a good offensive-line. How about we get him one.

Quote:

---

It makes more sense to sign one of Jennings, Bowe or Wallace, draft one of Jockel, Matthews, Lewan(if he declares which he might not), Warmack or JOnes and then use our 2nd first for another need.

---

I wrote this week 11, so week 11 we have no chance at Jockel, we have mid round picks. That being said this could be a good way to go, that's why we have these discussions.

^ I don't like Gibson and I do not want him being our third receiver. Anyone who has closely watched Gibson has seen him run wrong routes(leaving Bradford out to dry), miss huge blocks in the run game and make all sorts of mistakes.Basically Gibson is making the mistakes a first year player is as a third year player and all while not contributing much.


I just do not understand why you are so against signing an impact receiver next year.

What if Givens takes a step back next year like many 2nd year players do? Why do you keep saying Jennings "only" had 1,200 yards plus when Amendola and Givens have never even come close to matching those numbers?


I just don't understand your theory at all. Just because we have two decent to good receivers it doesn't mean we no longer have a pressing need at WR. Having 2 good receivers is not some sort of stockpile. Most of the good times have multiple talented receivers. It's almost like somehow last weeks game erased your memory of what's happened the last 2 years. Did you forget how awful our receiving corps played against the Jets?

Also Wells has played 1 game how can you possibly insinuate that this draft class has no one who could contribute as much as him from day 1. It just seems really strange you are dead set on focusing on drafting a receiver when the class is so mediocre and FA strong and signing an OL when the draft class is so strong.

[QUOTE=mcpeepants232003;445899]^

Quote:

---

I don't like Gibson and I do not want him being our third receiver. Anyone who has closely watched Gibson has seen him run wrong routes(leaving Bradford out to dry), miss huge blocks in the run game and make all sorts of mistakes.Basically Gibson is making the mistakes a first year player is as a third year player and all while not contributing much.

---

I have a movie you need to watch it's called money ball! These are Gibson's numbers he gets on first base!

Quote:

---

I just do not understand why you are so against signing an impact receiver next year

---

.

And that's OK, I have spelled it out for you, we can leave it at that.

Quote:

---

What if Givens takes a step back next year like many 2nd year players do? Why do you keep saying Jennings "only" had 1,200 yards plus when Amendola and Givens have never even come close to matching those numbers?

---

Givens takes a step back next year like many 2nd year players do?

Again it's a what if... that being said not sure you are right about that statement a lot of receivers get better in year two not regress, IMO. If you want to provide some stats to back that up I will like to see that.

Quote:

---

Why do you keep saying Jennings "only" had 1,200 yards plus when Amendola and Givens have never even come close to matching those numbers?

---

Considering Givens has yet to finish one year we don't know that yet, 1200 yards was his best... Danny best 2,364 Amendola led the NFL in all-purpose yards with 2,364 2010. Not sure why you are acting like Amendola is a scrub. I would say Danny came close or surpassed his production.

We can play the what if all day! What if Jennings gets hurt next year then what? We paid him big money it could happen. Then what?

Quote:

---

I just don't understand your theory at all. Just because we have two decent to good receivers it doesn't mean we no longer have a pressing need at WR.

---

I provided you numbers for next year that shows we can get the production while we develop the younger WRs.

What's so hard to understand. After next year Quick will be in his breakout year three, Givens will also be in his third year. Do you not think either or both of them will not be good in year three? I do, I think we can get enough production until they are full developed. Which is the following year. Now if you think they both will never be any good and you hate Gibson and think Amendola is injury prone and you don't want to draft a receiver this year to develop then yeah we need to go get a VET now. I don't, there will be a season in 2014.

Quote:

---

Having 2 good receivers is not some sort of stockpile

---

.

I agree unlike you I think Quick will be good sooner then later and drafting another young WR will add to the depth along with a stud TE.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the good times have multiple talented receivers.

---

It's almost like somehow last weeks game erased your memory of what's happened the last 2 years. Did you forget how awful our receiving corps played against the Jets?

---

I think Bradford would say he had something to do with how the receivers played in the Jets game he was not at his best.

Some how you forgot what Givens did last Sunday and has been doing. What happen the last two years has nothing to do with what Givens and Quick and a future rookie WR and TE will provide. I'm adding several offensives players to your one VET and you act like Jennings will somehow out produce them all next year and beyond. Jennings as pointed out to me he is 29, so in a few years when he is winding down. Givens, Quick, Williams and Eifert will be in their prime.

Quote:

---

Also Wells has played 1 game how can you possibly insinuate that this draft class has no one who could contribute as much as him from day 1

---

.

Since you don't want to really try and understand the point I'm making.... I will communicate on your level. Jennings only has 12 catches for 78 yards one TD this year why would you want him?

Really he stinks!

Come on you can do better... you know Wells is hurt like I know Jennings is hurt, unlike you I did not factor Jennings lack of production this year in my example. I used his best and went back to 2011.

Quote:

---

It just seems really strange you are dead set on focusing on drafting a receiver when the class is so mediocre and FA strong and signing an OL when the draft class is so strong.

---

Again where did I state your idea was bad or that I'm dead set against it? We are in week 11 and I'm going to be looking at how all the players finish this year.

If you really think there is not a WR we can take in the first round that will develop into a good WR then I disagree. Time will tell, if no WR go in the first round I will be the first to tell you, you called it.

If the draft class for the O line is so strong it makes sense to me, we can get a really good one in rounds two and three and add playmakers in round one.

^ It's not about developing a WR. I don't want to develop another WR. I want a legit #1 receiver while Givens, Quick and Amendola continue to develop.

Also yes you provided numbers but they are all based on speculation. You have no idea if or if not those numbers are plausible.

Once again I just feel like we could improve both the WR corps and OL substantially by signing a WR and drafting an OL. Linemen adapt to the NFL quicker than WR. It's not true in every single case but most of the time this is the case.

If we draft an OL and sign a WR we can improve both squads by quite a bit next year. If we go the other way we most likely have to wait at least a year and maybe two for the WR we draft to contribute.

We then get stuck with Gibson as our #3 again(yuck) and if Amendola goes down Gibson becomes our #2 receiver. I just don't see how anyone can be comfortable with him playing that much when he's played so poorly for 2 or 3 years straight.

also where did I say Amendola was a scrub? He's a very solid slot receiver who gets injured a lot but he is in no way a #1 WR. You consistently point out that Jennings only had 1200 yards(which was 1292 close to 1300 than 1200) then go on to rave about Givens and Amendola neither of whom have even cleared 700 yards.

Btw Amendola return yardage has nothing to do with his abilities as a receiver. Comparing his total yardage(75% which was return yardage) to Jennings numbers as a receiver is quite silly.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I just think if we sign a receiver and draft a linemen it will help our team out far more than if we do the opposite. Basically it comes down to you having confidence as Gibson as a #3 receiver. I don't have that same type of confidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003

^ It's not about developing a WR. I don't want to develop another WR. I want a legit #1 receiver while Givens, Quick and Amendola continue to develop.

Also yes you provided numbers but they are all based on speculation. You have no idea if or if not those numbers are plausible.

Once again I just feel like we could improve both the WR corps and OL substantially by signing a WR and drafting an OL. Linemen adapt to the NFL quicker than WR. It's not true in every single case but most of the time this is the case.

If we draft an OL and sign a WR we can improve both squads by quite a bit next year. If we go the other way we most likely have to wait at least a year and maybe two for the WR we draft to contribute.

We then get stuck with Gibson as our #3 again(yuck) and if Amendola goes down Gibson becomes our #2 receiver. I just don't see how anyone can be comfortable with him playing that much when he's played so poorly for 2 or 3 years straight.

also where did I say Amendola was a scrub? He's a very solid slot receiver who gets injured a lot but he is in no way a #1 WR. You consistently point out that Jennings only had 1200 yards(which was 1292 close to 1300 than 1200) then go on to rave about Givens and Amendola neither of whom have even cleared 700 yards.

Btw Amendola return yardage has nothing to do with his abilities as a receiver. Comparing his total yardage(75% which was return yardage) to Jennings numbers as a receiver is quite silly.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I just think if we sign a receiver and draft a linemen it will help our team out far more than if we do the opposite. Basically it comes down to you having confidence as Gibson as a #3 receiver. I don't have that same type of confidence.

---

I guess we'll just have to disagree... yeah I'm good with that.