Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?
posted at 2/19/2012 12:55 PM EST
In Response to Re: Why not Pierre Garcon?
[QUOTE]Look, getting an outside the numbers receiver would definitely help diversify the offense. However, that guy doesn't have to be a star,
number 1 option. Some people are talking as if the offense was stagnant this year. They were extremely explosive. Of course resigning Welker wouldn't "improve" the offense because it would just be keeping the status quo from last year. However, losing him, even while adding a STAR deep threat (NOT Garcon), would not improve the offense either. I don't care where Welker lines up, losing 122 receptions and 1,500 yards immensely hurts the offense.
All they need is someone who can at least make the defense THINK about covering the the outside part of the field. They can get that guy without losing Welker and setting back the franchise for 3-4 years. Offensive diversity has some importance, for sure, but not at the expense of production. Losing Welker is 100% counterproductive and BB will soon show that he agrees with that by paying him a large amount of money.
Posted by pyegian[/QUOTE]
No, someone on the outside or to lengthen the field doesn't have to be a #1 - but a "threat" isn't a threat unless it's a legitimate one. So, if a goal is to lengthen the field - do you get a little dude who can run fast but can't catch? Who has ably done so in the past? Moss, Stallworth did a decent job. Givens was a stretch, - but most of the other WRs we've picked up thru drafts or free agency really couldn't do it. Do we need an outside threat? No, the Patriots probably don't, but we also seemed to have a "clutch" D during those superbowl years.
So, if we could make up for 120 receptions from the likes of Edelman, Gronk, Hernandez, Branch.....and more passes to an able RB and a 3rd TE....would it make up for the loss of Welker with less predictability. It's all speculation, but maybe we would even score more points....improve balance...and improve flexibility of play calling.