Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
It all depends on the math.
Let's quantify it a little bit. Let's say we see players as being 'worth' 1-10.
We had a WR room of Hill, Robinson, Pringle, Hardman, Fountain. The idea was that Hill (10), Pringle (5), Hardman (5), Robinson (3), Fountain (3) (Grand total 26) could be outnumbered by a higher average.
So you figure JJSS (7), MVS (6), A developing Hardman (6), Moore (5), Watson (4) gets you a better total overall at 28. And it does so cheaper and with the addition of significant draft capital from the Hill trade.
The problem is that to this point JJSS and MVS haven't been 7/6 respectively, Hardman hasn't seemed to develop much and Moore has an N/A next to his name. Watson's the only guy who's met or exceeded the thresholds needed for the 'depth' experiment to work.
I think it's a decent plan but so far the execution hasn't gone to script.
|
This.
I'm gonna watch some All 22 tonight (if it's available) and take a look at the WR. No they haven't been great but I don't think they've been awful either.
I really think the biggest problem is play calling. They're not putting these guys in spots to succeed, according to their skills sets. They're trying to put a square peg in a round hole right now and not only is it hurting the WR's, it's really hurting the line.
The whole offense is out of sync and it starts with calling better plays for the personnel you have on the field.