Jump to content

Would you rather have a very deep or top heavy receiving corps?


Recommended Posts

Your options are: 

 

1: You have Deandre Hopkins and Tyreek Hill at WR. Your other receivers are bad. Your 3rd receiver is probably fourth or fifth in the depth chart on most teams. Your Tight Ends do not contribute much in passing game. Your running backs can’t run routes, but are ok blockers that can sometimes catch screens. 

or

2: Your number one receiver is maybe the 30th best in the league. Your number two is maybe the 40th best, making him better than most second receivers. Your third receiver is around the 50th best receiver in the league, so he would be a solid second receiver for most teams. Your fourth receiver is around the 60th best receiver, and your fifth receiver is around the 70th best, making him a solid third receiver for most teams. You have three Tight Ends who are all between the 16th and 32nd best in the league, who all have slightly different skill sets. You have one elite receiving back and a second one who is a solid receiver. 
 

Which would you prefer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know, I look at option #2 and I think that the Colts receiving unit is pretty similar to that. The difference is that there is no clarification in option #2 about which players are vets or rookies; whose improving or in their decline etc. 

Obviously,  I’d take Nuke and Tyreek over Hilton/Pittman but if I thought that Pittman and Campbell could eventually be better then the previous pair I’d have to give it some thought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The top-4 most important positions, based on real GM/coaches, are QB, Edge, OL, CB. For every action there's a reaction.

That's all you really need to know to get an answer to this question. How do you beat a defense with a good pass rusher and a good CB? The answer is simple.....have a good WR or two who can beat the CB on the outside and good enough to create separation before the pass rusher gets to the QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, option 1 but i know where you're coming from. In sports you often find teams that don't have elite players but good players throughout win championships. @Matts4313 I guess this is what you were saying about the 90s boyz

 

Happens every year. Look at STL Blues in the Stanley Cup, whose 4th line wasn't a massive drop off from their 1st line, but no one thought the 1st line was even a top 10 line. But no team could live with their depth and scoring throughout over the span of 7 game series'

Or I go back to the early Pats SB winning teams, probably not 1 all-star apart from Ty Law, but a lot of size and depth and basically a whole defense of 10th - 40th ranked players at best, but no real weak link.

 

So how about...

Team 1: WR: Hopkins, WR: Perriman, WR: Olzewski, WR: Allison

vs

Team 2: WR: Gallup, WR: Aiyuk, WR: Lazard, WR: Claypool

 

 

I'm taking team 2 there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...