Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
I've been wondering recently if a #2 WR should even exist. In a world where you can have only 11 players on the field, is a second WR the best way to use one of those spots? #2 WRs never catch a lot of balls because it seems like they're usually the third read at best. You think back to teams that have been successful, and it's hard to name their #2 WRs. Most of the time their job appears to be keeping a CB distracted so the rest of the team can play a 10 on 10 game. I'm starting to wonder if you shouldn't replace the #2 WR with another TE or RB or a lineman who masquerades as a TE.
|
The part about more TEs is an interesting one to me as well. Why are teams content having just one really good TE? Is it just that much harder to find than WRs? The Pats were tearing teams up with the two TE sets using Gronk and Hernandez. Seemingly no team is interested in trying to replicate that success. You could argue that Kelce and Hill are our WR1 and WR2 as much as Kelce is involved in the passing game.