Jump to content


Photo

Sorry, but I'm still going to miss Hogan


  • Please log in to reply
1012 replies to this topic

#1001 GunnerBill

GunnerBill

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,069 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 09:32 AM

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.


But we didn't replace him easily did we? Despite the predictions from some in pre-season that Salas would or that Goodwin would.

#1002 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,232 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 09:51 AM

But we didn't replace him easily did we? Despite the predictions from some in pre-season that Salas would or that Goodwin would.

We didn't really try to replace him. We elevated some in house scrubs (and Salas got hurt). If he was healthy, I don't think that 38 catches and 4 TDs was out of reach. He may not have gotten the 680 yards but who knows. There are lots of guys that produce those numbers throughout the league which is why it isn't hard to replace. As an example you could have signed Brian Quick last year for half the money.

 

If we would have used a 2nd on a guy that some of us wanted, Michael Thomas, we would have significantly upgraded the receiving group.



#1003 GunnerBill

GunnerBill

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,069 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 10:37 AM

If we would have used a 2nd on a guy that some of us wanted, Michael Thomas, we would have significantly upgraded the receiving group.

 

I'd have liked that pick.  



#1004 Original Byrd Man

Original Byrd Man

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 11:24 AM

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.



#1005 dollars 2 donuts

dollars 2 donuts

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,157 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:35 AM

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 by dollars 2 donuts, 16 February 2017 - 08:36 AM.


#1006 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,232 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:04 AM

 
 
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.

#1007 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,648 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:21 AM

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.



#1008 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,232 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 10:28 AM

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.

#1009 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,548 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 10:36 AM

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.

#1010 GunnerBill

GunnerBill

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,069 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 10:46 AM

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.



#1011 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,648 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:04 AM

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.



#1012 GunnerBill

GunnerBill

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,069 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:23 PM

 
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.

#1013 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,648 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:31 PM

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 by FireChan, 16 February 2017 - 12:32 PM.