Original Byrd Man Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 On this we agree 100 percent. He's a perfect fit because they run so many short passes in which the other receivers have to block if the play is to work. His block is what got Amendola that 2P conversion. A sloppy effort on that play and the Falcons win. Actually if the Falcons don't move themselves out of FG position the whole thing would be a moot point. Hogan is who he is and the Patriots grossly overpaid for a mediocre receiver. Nice story but certainly not a real threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) No, and I think pretty much everyone agrees that they should have tendered him higher. At the same time, I don't think that anyone believes you can't adequately replace Hogan pretty easily. He's just a guy, the type of middle of the roster player that you turn over when they get out of your price range. The same thing is going to happen this year with Woods. I agree with you, Kirby, to a degree as others have stated above and as you followed up. BTW, please might I add that heading into next you I am more than a little nervous (again) about the WR position for this team. I think Woods is gone and I don't Marquis will be back so after Watkins we really are just a group of JAGS at that position. I don't really want to draft a WR in the first round, but I would love a #2, who when healthy, is good for 70 grabs...man, what are we now, 15 years removed from the 192 combined receptions by Moulds and Price? Edited February 16, 2017 by dollars 2 donuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I agree with you, Kirby, to a degree as others have stated above and as you followed up. BTW, please might I add that heading into next you I am more than a little nervous (again) about the WR position for this team. I think Woods is gone and I don't Marquis will be back so after Watkins we really are just a group of JAGS at that position. I don't really want to draft a WR in the first round, but I would love a #2, who when healthy, is good for 70 grabs...man, what are we now, 15 years removed from the 192 combined receptions by Moulds and Price? I am certainly nervous about WR. I'm fine grabbing a guy at 10 though. I think Davis and Williams will be really good pros. Davis is really complete and Williams is just a man. I also like the idea of Jeremy Kerley in FA to play the slot. He had a really nice year on a bad team (64 catches, 664 yards, 3 TDs). You should bring back Hunter as well, plus Listenbee will be back as the speed guy. That feels like a nice collection of skill sets. They should mesh well. They don't have many guys under contract but they don't have a bunch of guys that they can't be without. Watkins is the only guy that's a difference maker. He needs to stay healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I am certainly nervous about WR. I'm fine grabbing a guy at 10 though. I think Davis and Williams will be really good pros. Davis is really complete and Williams is just a man. I also like the idea of Jeremy Kerley in FA to play the slot. He had a really nice year on a bad team (64 catches, 664 yards, 3 TDs). You should bring back Hunter as well, plus Listenbee will be back as the speed guy. That feels like a nice collection of skill sets. They should mesh well. They don't have many guys under contract but they don't have a bunch of guys that they can't be without. Watkins is the only guy that's a difference maker. He needs to stay healthy. I like Kerley in FA too. I don't want a WR at 10, but Watkins, Williams and Kerley are a top 15 trio at WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I like Kerley in FA too. I don't want a WR at 10, but Watkins, Williams and Kerley are a top 15 trio at WR.Agreed, I like the way that the skill sets blend too. I am always a believer that you need diverse talents for different situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Agreed, I like the way that the skill sets blend too. I am always a believer that you need diverse talents for different situations. im actually ok stacking similar talents too --- theres something to be said for another team to not have the corner depth to handle several big guys (or fast guys or).... the biggest thing is having lots of talent and at least one guy that can break a game open even when the matchup isnt ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 im actually ok stacking similar talents too --- theres something to be said for another team to not have the corner depth to handle several big guys (or fast guys or).... the biggest thing is having lots of talent and at least one guy that can break a game open even when the matchup isnt ideal. Yea. I am a get me the best player guy. In an ideal world maybe that means a mix of styles but I am keeping the best 5 or 6 when it comes to receivers.... I'm not wedded to one big one and one speedster etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 im actually ok stacking similar talents too --- theres something to be said for another team to not have the corner depth to handle several big guys (or fast guys or).... the biggest thing is having lots of talent and at least one guy that can break a game open even when the matchup isnt ideal. Yea. I am a get me the best player guy. In an ideal world maybe that means a mix of styles but I am keeping the best 5 or 6 when it comes to receivers.... I'm not wedded to one big one and one speedster etc. Ideally, you'd have 2 boundary guys, 1-2 slot guys, and 1-2 guys who can play inside or out, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Ideally, you'd have 2 boundary guys, 1-2 slot guys, and 1-2 guys who can play inside or out, IMO. Get me 5 who can play and I'll work it out. Do I give diverse skill sets consideration in ties? Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) Get me 5 who can play and I'll work it out. Do I give diverse skill sets consideration in ties? Sure. Fair enough dude. 5 Goodwins versus 5 Woods, I'm taking Woods' diversity in skill set. Edited February 16, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts