I would prefer having 4 WR with 900 yards that 1 or 2 with 1000-1200. I hope he keeps spreading it around. that makes the life of defenses more difficult.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. For one thing, having multiple lower-yardage WRs keeps them cheaper. š More importantly, though, fewer tackles puts less wear and tear on them, increasing their longevity. No. 1 receivers who are fortunate enough to last tend to catch the eyes of teams desperate for deep-threat talent, who are willing to drop a fortune on them. There, they get ridden like donkeys.
Randy Moss was an exception to this trend, because he virtually disappeared in Oakland. Then again, last season may have been an anomaly borne of a fantastic confluence of factors. After all, his statistics came crashing back down to earth this year. He was solid, but hardly spectacular: 1,008 yards for 11 TDs vs. 1,493 yards for 23 TDs in 2007. Maybe Ted Thompson's decision to pass on Moss wasn't so terrible after all. (Yes, yes, I know the almighty Brady was out this year, but if anything, you'd think the fledgling first-year starter would have been even more dependent on his marquee receiver.)
I don't want to see Greg Jennings leave any more than the next guy, but if he was bait for a monster offensive lineman who would protect our QB from having to run for his life every play, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat. Even with lesser receivers, I can see Rodgers throwing for more yards and more TDs if he were given more time to plant his feet.
"PackFanWithTwins" wrote: