Woods and Kupp meshing more with Goff than Watkins isn't that hard to explain to me. They were all here together from the very first moments when the offense was installed building chemistry.
Goff gets very comfortable, and IMO, over relies on guys he has that comfort level with. I think that's a tendency he'll grow out of as he matures.
Based on the stills and what I've observed of Goff, Watkins' lack of production isn't on him.
Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that having a wide variety of weapons makes the absence of one of them less vitally important. In general, I think that's true. It's why I'm not worried about them surviving without Woods for a few weeks.
But Watkins is different. For several reasons. It appears to me that Sammy is attracting the most attention from the defense out of all the receivers. When the safety has a choice of who to double, it seems they follow Watkins the vast majority of the time. And of course we all know that the other teams best CB tends to shadow Watkins.
People with more football knowledge than me feel free to substantiate this or say that I'm wrong on this point.
I know very few fans seem to be impressed with this decoy value concept (que more Tavon arguments), but it's a real thing nonetheless. And being a real thing, it has value - monetary value.
So in a specific sense, taking away the most talented weapons that attracts the most D attention would be very harmful to the offense. The general rule of 'lots of weapons means they are each less important' doesn't apply to your best weapon.
I understand yours and Bonifay's position but I disagree with both of those points.
