Quote
zn
Quote
BumRap
He is complete and has the things that will make him great.
It hurt for him to drop out of first round but he did not have the fortune of being drafted by Chargers or Saints so I think he will get his chance and bring it all to bear in 2017.
That would be nice but I am thinking more high-end solid. More than Proehl, a few pegs down from Bruce, kind of a Preston Dennard (not comparing styles or physical traits just his tier of WR talent).
IMO McVay will know how to use him to best advantage.
In a lot of ways he's a younger, middling budget version of Garcon. Again not style or body type, just how you use him and what you should expect.
Oh and btw. I don't define a #1 WR as an elite WR. Most elite WRs are also #1s, but not all #1 WRs by my definition are elite. I define a #1 WR as any WR--of any talent set or body type---who can both catch 70 passes and get 1000 yards. So that includes guys like Edelman and Baldwin. A #1 is just your leading, reliable go-to guy, someone who comes through consistently. And yes all good offenses have one. The mistake in these conversations is sometimes some people confuse "elite" with "#1." And yes by my definition you can have a pair of them. If you look at top offenses they all have one, and yes it is necessary.
And IMO Woods is capable of being a #1 WR.
In one post I said:
If you look at top offenses they all have one, and yes it is necessary.
In a much later post I said:
Only 2 of the top 12 total offenses last year did not have a guy who achieved that, but they were also both ranked low in attempts: Dallas at 30 and Buffalo and 32.So. Which is it? Obviously, the 2nd statement is true not the first.
Pays to double check... ...
.