They are question marks. They COULD go either way. There are indicators that point toward capability.

I think the original post was in essence correct. I think I would say that several of these guys COULD WELL BE weapons rather than decisively claiming it. (I doubt Tavon will ever be a real weapon.) But what I read in the post is something I agree with.

Teams can be very productive and successful with capable guys who are not obvious, transcendent talents. Good OCs can effectively use good but not great players as weapons. Look at what NE did with Amendola.

I despair of the league-wide conversation about WRs. For the 137th time, you don't have to have a speed-burner to "take the top off" a defense. Effective "vertical" passing games DO NOT have to bomb away with 35 yard throws. Throw effectively and consistently from 10 to 20 yards, and you will distress a defense and, as Kupp (I think) put it recently, set it up to burn it. You DO NOT need world class speedster WRs for this.

You do need guys who read defenses, run routes, and catch the ball. Woods already does this. Kupp certainly looks as though he can. To look at those 2 guys and try to say we can't "go vertical" because we lack the burner is, IMO, ridiculous. Kupp may not be what we hope, but it won't be because he isn't fast enough to run past DBs.

The general point opening the thread is spot on. Far too many pundits want to decide what a unit can do on the basis of possession of Top 5 talent. But good OCs and DCs every year get great production from capable guys. There is so much a good OC can do with solid pros, not necessarily superstars, at WR/TE, QB, and OL, and even, these days, sub-standard RBs.

I am a little less certain about most of our "weapons," but to me the spirit of the post is spot on.