Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?
posted at 2/18/2012 8:41 PM EST
I agree too. Not many people are talking about him, and he'd be a guy that can help them out for a long time. I think this could happen if they're proactive and give him a nice contract very early in FA.
Honestly, a guy like Garcon is more valuable than Welker IMO because they don't have a guy like Garcon on the roster. Hernandez and edelman can handle
welker's routes (clearly not as well, not saying that). In other words, I'd rather have Garcon, Gronk, hern, and edelman than welker, gronk, hern, and branch. I don't think safeties would be squatting on the pats so often with garcon. If they can figure out a way to have welker and a good deep threat, than all the better.
Clearly welker is better than edelman, but when welker's been out edelman has proven to be a theat (vs jets, balt, and houston in 2009, miami in 2010).
In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?
[QUOTE]I agree Mike. I said a while back I had a funny feeling Garcon was the kind of guy BB might target. One thing I think BB will like is that Garcon has proved he can play in a complex offense, where receivers have to make lots of reads and stay on the same page as the QB. Garcon's not flashy, but he's been a pretty good contributor in that Colts offense, he's probably not going to break the bank, and he just seems like the sort of guy BB would take a second look at. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he came here--and I think he'd help the team. He's got the speed to stretch the field and, while he's not huge, he's not a smurf. Bring in Garcon and Colston and I think you'd have some reasonable veterans to diversify the passing attack. If you can sign Welker too, I think you'd have a great receiving corp without having to spend way too much.
Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]