and you know I respect you Saguaro, but he isn't going to get you those tough yards inside the hashes, he doesn't break tackles, and he rarely wins 50-50 balls. Plus he isn't that strong handed bigger bodied WR that McVay could really use in the Redzone. And he doesn't run block. You will see highlights that show he will occasionally do all those things on occasion. That's why they are highlights. He is here to run 9s, deep outs, deep slants and create spacing underneath for Kupp and Woods and Everett and Gurley.
Watkins never really clicked with Watkins, but whose fault is that? McVay? Goff? Watkins? all 3? Who knows. I will say this, Watkins hasn't historically been durable, but he blocked well in the run game, he kept defenses honest with his deep speed and he was money in the endzone with his strong hands and stronger body.
So the question is do I pay Watkins 16 mil per? No, no I do not. Do I pay Cooks, who is a better deep threat, but lacks the other stuff? Nope.
I could care less about the pick they gave up. I wasn't sold on anyone @ 23. I think what bugs me is that McVay feels he needs an elite deep threat to make his offense go. And that he is willing to pay anything, and give up anything to have it.
His redzone offense was miserable last year, and you gave up a good redzone WR for a 5'-9 1/2" body catching mostly deep threat. His speed is totally worthless inside the 10.
The patriots have no interest in paying any WR 15 million. But why would a wide open offense like the Saints let Cooks go? Because they didn't view him as a #1. They have Micheal Thomas for that, He can get deep, is a redzone threat, blocks for those stud backs they have and will win 5050 balls. So they would rather keep him then pay Cooks. Does money have something to do with it? IDK, but if I'm running an NFL franchise I keep my best talent.
Don't waste your time looking back, you're not going that way. - Ragnar Lothbrok
