Quote
Rams43
But there are two sides to at least some of your above points.
1) A lot of WR’s were open and didn’t get targeted last year, not just Watkins. Many times there were 2 and sometimes 3 open receivers for Goff. Apparently not uncommon in a McVay O. Goff was instructed to throw to the first open man in his progressions in his first year under McVay. Hard to argue with that strategy.
And what if Watkins running a clearing route helped the underneath in- and out-breaking routes GET open? Ever think of that? Also, Myself and others have posted evidence of when Watkins was open and OTHERS were not or Goff when to short route If you watched the All-22, you would see these things happen, week after week
2) Some have said that that wasn’t also always true
Who? And what evidence was given to back it up? None.
3) Catching the damned ball? Well, sometimes he made spectacular catches, but sometimes not so much. Missed 2 TD catches vs Falcons, for example. Catches that an All World WR should make.
4) Yeah, I definitely agree that Watkins is a tough target in the red zone.
5) We disagree that Watkins is irreplaceable. And that tagging him would be an acceptable strategy. Another FA could be our deep threat. Or perhaps Reynolds or Thomas. To refer to those 3 options as “chumps” is inaccurate, not to mention kinda insulting. I recall many last year Pooh poohing the Woods signing (not necessarily you), but that worked out okay. Saving millions of valuable cap dollars is no small thing.
never said he was irreplaceable. but that he is better than the chumps on the FA WR list Anyone can be replaceable if there is someone better, but you don't take a good thing and throw it away just to replace it with something less. Jamie Duncan syndrome.
6) Saying that Watkins is “far better than his stats” is the epitome of opinion masquerading as fact. Why wouldn’t it be equally true that other fine players around him help HIS game, as well?
Well, if you want stats, then touchdowns is the most important stat, based on what YOU think production is you are way off. You think it's yards. I say it is touchdowns. And I have shown time after time in stills how important Watkins is. Route concepts take all the receivers and one route can pop open another route and the ability to get off press coverage is a key component. Watkins can do that and do it all the time. It makes the route concepts work. Routes are designed to open in windows in sequence so that the read progression can work. When you have a guy screw up a route it can screw up the whole concept. So while it is an opinion that "Watkins is “far better than his stats”" it is my opinion based on knowledge of the game, based on watching the film, based on understanding what is going on. And why that is not true of others is part of understanding football. Why is Fletcher Cox considered a greatly player even though he had only 26 tackles and only 1.5 were for losses? Because his role helped MAKE everyone else better and being doubled helped others. So, yes, in football there are players who are better than their stats and there are players who are not as good as their stats because the are the beneficiary of the scheme and the hard work of others. Do you not know what Merlin Olsen did for Deacon and Jack Youngblood? What Roland Harper did for Walter Payton? What Charlie Joiner did for Wes Chander and John Jefferson (the X receivers).
7) You say that Watkins was vital to Rams having a winning season. As I posted to 81, Watkins was but one of 10 major upgrades to our ‘17 O. Ranging from HC to OL to Woods to Kupp to unleashing Gurley. Hard for me to put Watkins’ contributions above any of those, much less the benefits of all of them combined.
Well, if you cannot put 8 touchdowns above the others, then there isn't much to say, along with all the other facts about Watkins's game
My Watkins position remains unchanged. He is a strong “want”, but certainly not a “must have”. We can and will win in ‘18 either with Watkins or without him.
Easy to say, hard to prove
Having said all that, I’m fine with being in agree to disagree territory with such a distinguished poster. Lol.
