Which would you rather have?

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

If you post on or view the boards at FF, then don't answer say who these 2 are- I sort of stole the idea from there.

 

Which would you rather have after 2 years, and why?

 

I'll tell you who they are in 2-3 days or so.

[BearSox]

gimme the deep threat.

['TD']

gimme the deep threat.

Give me the possession receiver that can make the tough catch when you need him.

[nfoligno]

I'll take WR #2, easily.

 

He has more catches, which tells me he is more reliable for the QB. Also, while he doesn't have as many yards, it isn't like option #1 lit it up either. And #2 had more scores.

 

If you post on or view the boards at FF, then don't answer say who these 2 are- I sort of stole the idea from there.

 

Which would you rather have after 2 years, and why?

 

I'll tell you who they are in 2-3 days or so.

[ChileBear]

I'll take WR #2, easily.

 

He has more catches, which tells me he is more reliable for the QB. Also, while he doesn't have as many yards, it isn't like option #1 lit it up either. And #2 had more scores.

Agree. More catches also means we might have better field position for the RBs to punch it in the endzone from a few yards out.

[nfoligno]

To me, this one is simply a no brainer.

 

I think the argument would be better if the supposed deep threat had greater yardage numbers. For example, if you had:

 

WR #1 - 60-1,100-7 (similar numbers to Vincent Jackson)

WR #2 - 92-900-4 (similar numbers to TJ, who had an off year in a bad offense)

 

WR #1 gets you a whopping 18.3 ypc, better spreads the field, and gives you more scores on home runs.

WR #2 has a very mediocre 10 ypc, and doesn't score as much, but is a "QBs best friend" and better helps move the chains and keeps the offense on the field.

 

I would still take the 2nd option. I believe we have a potential deep/home run threat in Hester, but lack a possession WR the QB can rely on. We need that go-to WR who can convert 3rd downs and keeps our offense on the field. W/ that player, I think Hester could develop far better.

 

So I would still take option 2, but I think numbers like this make the debate more interesting as there is a greater difference in the numbers.

 

Agree. More catches also means we might have better field position for the RBs to punch it in the endzone from a few yards out.

[Lucky Luciano]

gimme the deep threat.

 

i agree. although this poll lacks a lot of info such as speed/size i too take the LEGITIMATE deep threat.

 

especially in todays nfl it is important to be able to stretch the field and get the safeties out of the box. this not only helps your #2 wideout (who SHOULD be a possession receiver with good hands) but in our case seriously helps our TE's AND running back passing options. to add to the benefit of this, our running game should improve drastically.

 

it is also, in my opinion, MUCH harder to find a real deep threat receiver than a possession type of player.

[nfoligno]

Couple comments.

 

One. While I may disagree, using the numbers listed, the "downfield threat" receiver doesn't seem to be that great of a threat. His yards just were not that much higher than the "possession" receiver. Further, he has fewer TDs, thus I question how great of a home run hitter he is. If the homerun threat doesn't produce many more yards than the possession WR, I just don't see any argument for the addition of that speed guy.

 

Two, moving past those specific numbers, and just talking in general, how would a speed threat fit/help our team? I'll give you a prime player example, who I think may also be a FA this year. Devery Henderson. Last year, he had only 32 catches, but for 800 yards. That is a sick 25 ypc average. He is unquestionably a downfield, homerun hitting threat. But would adding Henderson really help us? I don't think so.

 

(a) We would be starting Henderson and Hester, which means we have downfield threats, but no one the QB can count on when pressured, and no one to help move the chains. I am not sure how smart it is to start a pair of speedsters, which is what we would be talking about doing if we added a homerun hitter.

 

( To continue the first point, I would argue we be less likely to pickup 1st downs, and thus the opportunities for those homerun plays would be reduced.

 

© Do we have an OL built to utilize a homerun hitter? I would argue not even close. To take advantage of such downfield speed, you need an OL that can keep the QB clean for 5 or more step drops. If Orton waited for Henderson to get downfield, he would end up on his arce before he had a chance to throw the ball.

 

(d) Do we have a QB who can utilize such talent. While I think Orton can get the ball downfield better than most believe, I would not call him a gun slinger. In Orton, I think WRs who simply run better routes and can gain yards after the catch benefit more than a WR who can run go routes and count on Orton to deliver the ball w/ precision 40 yards downfield.

 

We have a potential homerun hitter in Hester. What we need is a guy who can play that possession WR role. That doesn't mean he can't have speed, but IMHO, quickness is more important than pure speed. Route running and hands are more important than pure speed. Ability to get quick seperation is more important than pure speed. Homerun hitters are always the sexy options, but as often as not, a WR like Hines Ward (for example) can benefit a QB and offense far more than a guy who can simply run great go routes.

 

An example I would like to point to is Derrick Mason. In Baltimore, you have a rookie QB who quickly was named the starter. Flacco has often said his success was largely due to Mason. NO ONE is going to mistake Mason for a home run threat, but Mason simply gets open quickly, makes the catch, and moves the chains. That helped Flacco FAR MORE than if he simplty had a speed threat to chunk the ball downfield to.

 

i agree. although this poll lacks a lot of info such as speed/size i too take the LEGITIMATE deep threat.

 

especially in todays nfl it is important to be able to stretch the field and get the safeties out of the box. this not only helps your #2 wideout (who SHOULD be a possession receiver with good hands) but in our case seriously helps our TE's AND running back passing options. to add to the benefit of this, our running game should improve drastically.

 

it is also, in my opinion, MUCH harder to find a real deep threat receiver than a possession type of player.

[madlithuanian]

I'm sure it's a trick question!

 

The total yards aren't that different. The number of receptions aren't wildly different either.

 

All else being equal I go for production...who's getting the TD's...

 

If you post on or view the boards at FF, then don't answer say who these 2 are- I sort of stole the idea from there.

 

Which would you rather have after 2 years, and why?

 

I'll tell you who they are in 2-3 days or so.

[Lucky Luciano]

One. While I may disagree, using the numbers listed, the "downfield threat" receiver doesn't seem to be that great of a threat. His yards just were not that much higher than the "possession" receiver. Further, he has fewer TDs, thus I question how great of a home run hitter he is. If the homerun threat doesn't produce many more yards than the possession WR, I just don't see any argument for the addition of that speed guy.

 

Two, moving past those specific numbers, and just talking in general, how would a speed threat fit/help our team? I'll give you a prime player example, who I think may also be a FA this year. Devery Henderson. Last year, he had only 32 catches, but for 800 yards. That is a sick 25 ypc average. He is unquestionably a downfield, homerun hitting threat. But would adding Henderson really help us? I don't think so.

 

1. to me a thousand yard deep threat receiver far outweighs a possession type receiver and especially in our offense. it only stands to reason if we had a deep threat wideout with over a thousand yard season that our other aspects of a passing game are also going to get a lot more work underneath with MORE success. defenses aren't going to be playing entirely in a 10 yard zone defending our passing game, where not only are our receivers bunched up, in but also our good receiving TE's.

 

again, this scenario listed is pretty sketchy without any details, but i have to assume this guy has speed to be a deep threat along with some decent hands. we already have an entire receiving corp who are SUPPOSED to be possession type receivers with the exception of hester. most people, including yourself, consider hester barely a #2 let alone a #1.

 

2. i think you could even look at the 85 bears as a prime example. we had gault as a stretch receiver. in my opinion he wasn't that good of a receiver, BUT... what he DID do was extend the field to give our possession receivers, TE's, RB's a lot more room to make plays. he had to be accounted for because he had the speed to break the game open.

 

i guess it would come down to this... if you had a choice for a wide receiver in his prime, would you choose chad johnson or housawhatever? a moss or burlson? me i take a johnson or moss deep threat without even blinking.

 

(a) We would be starting Henderson and Hester, which means we have downfield threats, but no one the QB can count on when pressured, and no one to help move the chains. I am not sure how smart it is to start a pair of speedsters, which is what we would be talking about doing if we added a homerun hitter.

 

To continue the first point, I would argue we be less likely to pickup 1st downs, and thus the opportunities for those homerun plays would be reduced.

 

first of all i am not even sold that hester is even #2 quality at this point in his career. but even considering if you do, how many post or go routes has hester been successful at? is it orton (the egg) or hester (the chicken)? the fact is he has done much better on slants and curls getting his yards after catch. i can only assume a legitimate deep threat is going to improve our passing attack by making those thousand yard + seasons in this scenario.

 

i would also like to answer your 1st down pickup point. isn't that what our possession receivers, TE's and runningbacks are supposed to do? right now all our receivers have the same M.O.

 

Do we have an OL built to utilize a homerun hitter? I would argue not even close. To take advantage of such downfield speed, you need an OL that can keep the QB clean for 5 or more step drops. If Orton waited for Henderson to get downfield, he would end up on his arce before he had a chance to throw the ball.

 

(d) Do we have a QB who can utilize such talent. While I think Orton can get the ball downfield better than most believe, I would not call him a gun slinger. In Orton, I think WRs who simply run better routes and can gain yards after the catch benefit more than a WR who can run go routes and count on Orton to deliver the ball w/ precision 40 yards downfield.

 

again you want to build an entire team before picking up any key players. that is fine and good but does this mean we pass on real prospects until we have an all-pro offensive line? in fact, our OL has been much better at pass protection than run blocking. i can only assume (right angie?) our first round tackle improves that since that is what he was projected to excel at. is that to say we don't need improvement? a-b-s-o-l-t-e-l-y not!!!

 

this whole model scenario is based on the production that was initially listed at the start of this thread so how can i or anyone converse about this without the assumption the receiver we got actually put up the numbers stated initially?

 

We have a potential homerun hitter in Hester. What we need is a guy who can play that possession WR role. That doesn't mean he can't have speed, but IMHO, quickness is more important than pure speed. Route running and hands are more important than pure speed. Ability to get quick seperation is more important than pure speed. Homerun hitters are always the sexy options, but as often as not, a WR like Hines Ward (for example) can benefit a QB and offense far more than a guy who can simply run great go routes.

 

An example I would like to point to is Derrick Mason. In Baltimore, you have a rookie QB who quickly was named the starter. Flacco has often said his success was largely due to Mason. NO ONE is going to mistake Mason for a home run threat, but Mason simply gets open quickly, makes the catch, and moves the chains. That helped Flacco FAR MORE than if he simplty had a speed threat to chunk the ball downfield to.

 

again, you are assuming hester either IS or will become a #1 wideout so you have decided to pass on a deep threat type receiver. this is clearly not the case as he has proved nothing yet in regards to a franchise quality receiver. yet again i will state that possession receivers are a dime a dozen compared to deep threat thousand yard wideouts. if you can get a projected thousand yard per season wideout you plain and simple do it.

 

i have to also comment on your flawed logic in regards to mason or ward: both of these receivers are/were #1 receivers. in their prime if they garnered less than a thousand yard season they wouldn't even have been considered as a #1. they both in their prime did have reasonably good speed and WERE considered deep threats. forget flacco, mcnair certainly was a deep ball qb and if you were to tell me ward wasn't an 18+ yard threat downfield i would have to disagree with you.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Receiver #1. He has a bigger YPC than the other guy and maybe the 2 less TD's aren't much of a difference, it could go either way. Is #1 Desean Jackson? That would be my guess.

[madlithuanian]

The differnece is not enormous by any means.

 

#1 has a YPC of 16.0

#2 has a TPC of 13.6

 

That's a difference of 2.4. It's not enough. Both are getting over 10 YPC, which states that when they get the ball it's a first. #2, however, has more TD's.

 

However, TD's is different.

 

#1 catches a TD every 21.3 touches.

 

Whereas #2 catches a TD every 14.2 touches.

 

I'd rather have #2 all else being equal. But I still figure this being a trick question...

 

Receiver #1. He has a bigger YPC than the other guy and maybe the 2 less TD's aren't much of a difference, it could go either way. Is #1 Desean Jackson? That would be my guess.

[nfoligno]

1. to me a thousand yard deep threat receiver far outweighs a possession type receiver and especially in our offense. it only stands to reason if we had a deep threat wideout with over a thousand yard season that our other aspects of a passing game are also going to get a lot more work underneath with MORE success. defenses aren't going to be playing entirely in a 10 yard zone defending our passing game, where not only are our receivers bunched up, in but also our good receiving TE's.

 

I would argue we had a deep threat this past year in Hester, but that alone did little to free up the underneath. Just having a deep threat does little if (a) you don't have an OL that can protect the QB, ( you don't have a QB defenses fear can connect w/ that deep threat on a consistent basis and © you don't have WRs who can utilize a more open underneath.

 

I would point to our time w/ Rex and Berrian. I would argue that, even though we had a downfield threat, it did little to move defensive players out of the box. Teams continued to send the dogs because we could not protect Rex. Even if Rex connected w/ Berrian, it was not on a consistent enough basis to warrant opponents respect.

 

again, this scenario listed is pretty sketchy without any details, but i have to assume this guy has speed to be a deep threat along with some decent hands. we already have an entire receiving corp who are SUPPOSED to be possession type receivers with the exception of hester. most people, including yourself, consider hester barely a #2 let alone a #1.

 

One, I agree Hester is not a #1, but I would argue he is a deep threat, and would benefit far more from a legit possession WR than playing opposite another deep threat.

 

Two, we may have an entire receiving corps that is "supposed" to be possession receivers, but they suck. Lloyd is gone, and likely Booker too. Davis should be considered no more than deep depth/special teams and we have no idea what we have w/ Bennett. You say we have a bunch of possession WRs, but I would argue that after Hester, we simplty have nothing.

 

2. i think you could even look at the 85 bears as a prime example. we had gault as a stretch receiver. in my opinion he wasn't that good of a receiver, BUT... what he DID do was extend the field to give our possession receivers, TE's, RB's a lot more room to make plays. he had to be accounted for because he had the speed to break the game open.

 

Huh? You think Gault stretched the field for the '85 bears. As I recall, Gault had speed, but benefited far more from the rest of the offense, rather than making your case of a deep threat spreading things out. Regardless of Gault's deep threat, defenses still geared up to stop Walter, and Gault was simply able to capitolize on that. If we didn't have the OL we did in '85, or a QB that could connect w/ Gault, I question how much value his speed would have brought.

 

i guess it would come down to this... if you had a choice for a wide receiver in his prime, would you choose chad johnson or housawhatever? a moss or burlson? me i take a johnson or moss deep threat without even blinking.

 

I take TJ over CJ, but Moss over anyone (character aside). Moss was more than just a deep threat. Moss was simply put, one of the most talented WRs of all time, and not exactly a fair comparison. I would take TJ over CJ though, and I think that is a better comparison, and would point to this year as a GREAT example of why. CJ totally sucked this year, and two huge reasons were (a) Cincy's OL stunk and the QB never had time to look deep and ( After Palmer went down, Cincy didn't have a QB capable of getting the ball downfield. So, w/o an ideal OL/QB situation, CJ looked like a one trick pony. He ran downfield, but never was a factor due to the QB and OL issues. I realize there were other issues, but those two are keys IMHO. So w/o the solid QB and OL play, CJ finished the year w/ 53 catches for 540 yards. Simply put, Cincy didn't have the horses to utilize him, and he became a non-factor. Meanwhile, TJ had 92 catches for 900 yards and emerged as the only weapon on the offense. Opponents no longer double teamed CJ, but sent the extra coverage to TJ.

 

If we had a healthy Carson Palmer and a solid or better OL, I may agree w/ you about getting the stud homerun hitter, but w/ our QB, OL and system, not to mention Hester as our other starter, I just do not see the advantage of the deep threat. To me, he would end up the year w/ numbers similar to CJ this year, and frustration to match.

 

first of all i am not even sold that hester is even #2 quality at this point in his career. but even considering if you do, how many post or go routes has hester been successful at? is it orton (the egg) or hester (the chicken)? the fact is he has done much better on slants and curls getting his yards after catch. i can only assume a legitimate deep threat is going to improve our passing attack by making those thousand yard + seasons in this scenario.

 

Just for the record, I am FAR from convinced Hester is a legit #2, and have actually often said I view him as a slot guy, but I would argue the teams plans have him as a starter, and believe we should debate w/ that as the assumption.

 

I understand the chicken/egg analogy, but would make the following point. Whether it was Hester, Lloyd, Davis or whoever, when Orton was throwing the ball deep, how often did he connect? Is it your argument Orton has a solid arm w/ accuracy downfield? Few would argue such. If not, then I would say this year shows how ineffective a pure speed threat WR would be in our offense. We lack the OL to protect the QB long enough to look deep and the QB w/ the proven deep accuracy to consistently hit that go route.

 

i would also like to answer your 1st down pickup point. isn't that what our possession receivers, TE's and runningbacks are supposed to do? right now all our receivers have the same M.O.

 

Agreed all our WRs have the same MO. They suck. Seriously though, I would argue the only WR who we should expect to start is of a different MO (Hester). The rest may have the same MO, but are they even on the team next year, or part of the plan? You can say they are possession WRs, and thus it proves we need something else. I would argue they simply suck, and it proves we simply need better quality.

 

again you want to build an entire team before picking up any key players. that is fine and good but does this mean we pass on real prospects until we have an all-pro offensive line? in fact, our OL has been much better at pass protection than run blocking. i can only assume (right angie?) our first round tackle improves that since that is what he was projected to excel at. is that to say we don't need improvement? a-b-s-o-l-t-e-l-y not!!!

 

No, I am not saying you ignore stud talent just because you don't have all the pieces in place. At the same time, it is a building process, and IMHO, adding a stud deep threat to this team right now would not benefit the offense in general, or the players own development. How much development will he see running down the field a bunch, just to turn around and run back to the huddle after our QB is sacked.

 

this whole model scenario is based on the production that was initially listed at the start of this thread so how can i or anyone converse about this without the assumption the receiver we got actually put up the numbers stated initially?

 

If all we look at is the previously provided stats, then I truly don't see how you go w/ the option you did. Option two had more catches and more touchdowns. While the yards were fewer, were they really that much fewer? That is why I altered the numbers in another post. If you use the numbers provided, the yardage difference just doesn't even warrant consideration IMHO for the guy w/ fewer catches and scores. If the yardage difference was great, than at least the argument for that guy would be more substantial.

 

again, you are assuming hester either IS or will become a #1 wideout so you have decided to pass on a deep threat type receiver. this is clearly not the case as he has proved nothing yet in regards to a franchise quality receiver. yet again i will state that possession receivers are a dime a dozen compared to deep threat thousand yard wideouts. if you can get a projected thousand yard per season wideout you plain and simple do it.

 

Again, I am assuming only what I expect of the staff in regard to Hester. It has nothing to do w/ personal expectations of Hester, but simply how I believe the staff views him.

 

As for 1,000 yard WRs, sorry, but big deal. There were 22 1,000 yard WRs this past year. Just as w/ RBs, I don't think 1,000 yards is a mark of greatness anymore. Two WRs I think perfect for our discussion.

 

Lee Evans - 63-1,017-3 compared to TJ Hous 92-904-4.

 

You can have Evans. I'll take TJ. Evans can be great if you have a great QB, but if you have a decent/good QB, I think TJ benefits the offense far more. IMHO, deep threat WRs like Evans can look unbelievable, but need a great QB for that to happen. Lacking a great QB, they are mearly inconsistent deep threats. On the other hand, a WR like TJ does far more to help a decent QB become good, and helps a decent offense the same way.

 

i have to also comment on your flawed logic in regards to mason or ward: both of these receivers are/were #1 receivers. in their prime if they garnered less than a thousand yard season they wouldn't even have been considered as a #1. they both in their prime did have reasonably good speed and WERE considered deep threats. forget flacco, mcnair certainly was a deep ball qb and if you were to tell me ward wasn't an 18+ yard threat downfield i would have to disagree with you.

 

One, the point was Mason TODAY is absolutely not considered a deep threat. Regardless whether or not he is the teams #1, there is no question he plays the role of a possession WR, and that is what helped Flacco this year.

 

As for whether or not Ward was an 18+ yard threat downfield, all I have to say is, check the stats. If you look at Ward's YPC over the years, I would argue there is no question he was a possession WR. You can say possession plus if you want, as he did have the ability to run downfield routes, but he did NOT beat DBs w/ pure speed. Rather, he beats DBs w/ precise route running and making great plays on the ball. Check his stats. Ward has five 1,000+ yards seasons, and in those seasons, his avg. ypc is between 10.7 and 12.9. Not even his highest average would be considered more than a possession WR. Compare that to Chad Johnson, who you use as an example. CJ consistently put up 14, 15 and 16 average yards per catch. That is big play. 10, 11 or 12 is far more consistent w/ possession WRs.

 

Let me ask you this. Back when Booker was in his prime w/ us, what sort of WR would you call him. Many called him a possession plus WR, as he was a possession WR, but able to run patterns further downfield. He could ran a 15-20 yard post pattern, rather than just a 5-10 yarder. He didn't beat DBs w/ speed, but w/ route running and just making great plays on the ball. I would argue Booker then was very simlar to Mason or Ward. Further, I would argue TJ Hous has proven to be very much in that same realm.

 

TJ, who you simply consider a possession WR, has proven capable of (a) Big catch totals © going over the 1,000 mark © red zone threat (d) being more than a chain moving possession WR, as seen w/ his 12-13 ypc avg.

 

Just because a WR doesn't have elite speed doesn't mean he can't gain more than 5-10 yards. The above WRs all would be considered possession or possession plus receivers. None had great speed, but all were/are capable of making plays both underneath and downfield, but simply doing it is a different fashion than the likes of Henderson, Lee Evans or Chad Johnson.

[nfoligno]

If we were putting faces to stats, I think:

 

WR #1 would be Lee Evans, who finished the year w/ 63-1,017-3

 

WR #2 would be Donal Driver, who finished w/ 74-1,012-5

 

Receiver #1. He has a bigger YPC than the other guy and maybe the 2 less TD's aren't much of a difference, it could go either way. Is #1 Desean Jackson? That would be my guess.

[dasox24]

Based on stats alone, I'm going with #2. But, I'm sure there's some trick to this question. That's why I'd also like to know the age of both players. If you tell me #1 is 25 years old and #2 is 36 years old, then I'm going with #1.

[jason]

Couple comments.

 

One. While I may disagree, using the numbers listed, the "downfield threat" receiver doesn't seem to be that great of a threat. His yards just were not that much higher than the "possession" receiver. Further, he has fewer TDs, thus I question how great of a home run hitter he is. If the homerun threat doesn't produce many more yards than the possession WR, I just don't see any argument for the addition of that speed guy.

 

Two, moving past those specific numbers, and just talking in general, how would a speed threat fit/help our team? I'll give you a prime player example, who I think may also be a FA this year. Devery Henderson. Last year, he had only 32 catches, but for 800 yards. That is a sick 25 ypc average. He is unquestionably a downfield, homerun hitting threat. But would adding Henderson really help us? I don't think so.

 

(a) We would be starting Henderson and Hester, which means we have downfield threats, but no one the QB can count on when pressured, and no one to help move the chains. I am not sure how smart it is to start a pair of speedsters, which is what we would be talking about doing if we added a homerun hitter.

 

( To continue the first point, I would argue we be less likely to pickup 1st downs, and thus the opportunities for those homerun plays would be reduced.

 

© Do we have an OL built to utilize a homerun hitter? I would argue not even close. To take advantage of such downfield speed, you need an OL that can keep the QB clean for 5 or more step drops. If Orton waited for Henderson to get downfield, he would end up on his arce before he had a chance to throw the ball.

 

(d) Do we have a QB who can utilize such talent. While I think Orton can get the ball downfield better than most believe, I would not call him a gun slinger. In Orton, I think WRs who simply run better routes and can gain yards after the catch benefit more than a WR who can run go routes and count on Orton to deliver the ball w/ precision 40 yards downfield.

 

We have a potential homerun hitter in Hester. What we need is a guy who can play that possession WR role. That doesn't mean he can't have speed, but IMHO, quickness is more important than pure speed. Route running and hands are more important than pure speed. Ability to get quick seperation is more important than pure speed. Homerun hitters are always the sexy options, but as often as not, a WR like Hines Ward (for example) can benefit a QB and offense far more than a guy who can simply run great go routes.

 

An example I would like to point to is Derrick Mason. In Baltimore, you have a rookie QB who quickly was named the starter. Flacco has often said his success was largely due to Mason. NO ONE is going to mistake Mason for a home run threat, but Mason simply gets open quickly, makes the catch, and moves the chains. That helped Flacco FAR MORE than if he simplty had a speed threat to chunk the ball downfield to.

 

Extending on that point, I look at it this way:

 

Would you rather have Bobby Engram and Wes Welker

OR

Would you rather have Devery Henderson and Lee Evans

 

I think the choice is obvious, which is why I chose option B in the poll.

[Mongo3451]

I'll take the one of the two that has no drops, blocks well and converts the most 3rd downs.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Receiver #1. He has a bigger YPC than the other guy and maybe the 2 less TD's aren't much of a difference, it could go either way. Is #1 Desean Jackson? That would be my guess.

It says "who would you rather after 2 years?" 2, not 1, so it can't be Jackson.

 

Based on stats alone, I'm going with #2. But, I'm sure there's some trick to this question. That's why I'd also like to know the age of both players. If you tell me #1 is 25 years old and #2 is 36 years old, then I'm going with #1.

Choice #1 is 29.

 

Choice #2 is 26.

 

If we were putting faces to stats, I think:

 

WR #1 would be Lee Evans, who finished the year w/ 63-1,017-3

 

WR #2 would be Donal Driver, who finished w/ 74-1,012-5

No, those aren't the two.

 

I'll let you guys know tomorrow.

[bowlingtwig]

I have always preferred the possession type receiver as they are more reliable and don't generally drop as many passes as the deep threat does.

[AZ54]

Can I choose this:

 

89 rec 1,038yds 11.7 yd/rec 86.5 yd/game 79T (long) 11TD

 

That's Anquan Boldin

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Choice #1- Steve Smith after 2 seasons.

Choice #2- Devin Hester after 2 seasons.

 

Thoughts?

[Connorbear]

The differnece is not enormous by any means.

 

#1 has a YPC of 16.0

#2 has a TPC of 13.6

 

That's a difference of 2.4. It's not enough. Both are getting over 10 YPC, which states that when they get the ball it's a first. #2, however, has more TD's.

 

However, TD's is different.

 

#1 catches a TD every 21.3 touches.

 

Whereas #2 catches a TD every 14.2 touches.

 

I'd rather have #2 all else being equal. But I still figure this being a trick question...

Great analysis. I would take #2 is well (just don't step in it!!!!).

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

Can I have Welker AND Evans?

 

I agree w/ the idea of having a homerun hitter. My argument(s) is that we may already have one in Hester, and that what we lack is the possession WR that can move the chains, keep the offense on the field, and thus best allows Hester more opportunities to run deep routes.

 

Extending on that point, I look at it this way:

 

Would you rather have Bobby Engram and Wes Welker

OR

Would you rather have Devery Henderson and Lee Evans

 

I think the choice is obvious, which is why I chose option B in the poll.

[nfoligno]

This is what I would say to that. While I do not believe we should expect Hester to develop in Steve Smith, it does offer hope that is at least the direction Hester is taking.

 

At the same time, it would only further my argument that we need a possession WR to play opposite Hester, rather than another deep threat playmaker.

 

Steve Smith saw a jump in his numbers year #3, but in that year, Carolina also had Moose and Ricky Proehl, two solid possession WRs. W/ two possession WRs like them to work underneath, Smith was better able to attack deep. I argue that if Delhomme didn't have the underneath options, Smith would have fewer downfield opportunities.

 

Choice #1- Steve Smith after 2 seasons.

Choice #2- Devin Hester after 2 seasons.

 

Thoughts?

[madlithuanian]

 

Great analysis. I would take #2 is well (just don't step in it!!!!).

 

Peace