Jump to content

Landry vs Robinson or?


Pandomonium

who should we go after for our #1 WR this offeseason  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. who should be our #1 WR?

    • Jarvis Landry
      2
    • Allen Robinson
      3
    • We don't need another WR, Our receiving corps are just fine.
      0
    • We need a true #1 but we should draft one (put answer below and tell why)
      1
    • We need a true #1 but we should sign someone other than the two guys you mentioned (give answer below and tell why)
      1


Recommended Posts

For me its option 6. I don't really think we need a true #1. I prefer to have a compliment of receivers that can beat the opponent in different ways and mix it up for the opponent. So i think we need a receiver but more in the sense of a guy that compliments our other guys. Goodwin, Garcon, Taylor plus a big tall end zone threat and i feel fine with out receiving corps for next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

For me its option 6. I don't really think we need a true #1. I prefer to have a compliment of receivers that can beat the opponent in different ways and mix it up for the opponent. So i think we need a receiver but more in the sense of a guy that compliments our other guys. Goodwin, Garcon, Taylor plus a big tall end zone threat and i feel fine with out receiving corps for next year. 

that's actually option 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

For me its option 6. I don't really think we need a true #1. I prefer to have a compliment of receivers that can beat the opponent in different ways and mix it up for the opponent. So i think we need a receiver but more in the sense of a guy that compliments our other guys. Goodwin, Garcon, Taylor plus a big tall end zone threat and i feel fine with out receiving corps for next year. 

I'm not going to hate if we went out and got a number one, but not a requirement. I like the idea of acquiring Emmanuel Sanders as a compliment on the cheap. Would be well worth it. Think we do need a more immediate red zone target (Could also go to Denver for that if they are selling DT), but our RZ offense should also improve solely through variance as well (not to mention if we improve the run blocking), so even a true red zone target isn't a super high need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Pandomonium said:

that's actually option 3

 

I read it as we dont need to sign/draft any receiver and thats not the way i feel about it. I feel we will and should get some new receivers in but doesn't have to be a #1.

 

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I'm not going to hate if we went out and got a number one, but not a requirement. I like the idea of acquiring Emmanuel Sanders as a compliment on the cheap. Would be well worth it. Think we do need a more immediate red zone target (Could also go to Denver for that if they are selling DT), but our RZ offense should also improve solely through variance as well (not to mention if we improve the run blocking), so even a true red zone target isn't a super high need. 

 

Yeah pretty much the same for me. I just don't feel WR is a place where FA investments in the "top" guys usually pay off. We should 100% come out of the draft with at least 1 WR or get someone in that Goodwin kind of category. Cheaper guys that have something they stand out in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jimmy is talented enough to mask the deficiencies in our receiving corp so we don't need a true #1. That said I would still love to have Robinson. But in all honestly, I think the best way forward is just drafting a receiver in the 2-4 round range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should draft a receiver to potentially be our #1. It doesnt matter body type for me really as long as they are physical enough to not get AJ Jenkinsed around. Could be a round 2-4 guy, it doesnt need to be in round one to get a potential diamond. 

If we go free agency I wouldnt hate it. 

Landry is #1 for me, then I have Richardson, Robinson, and Watkins up there too. I'd be pumped to have any of them really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We obviously need a red zone threat, let's draft a TD machine for a TE. Kittle seems to be a solid player, but I have some durability concerns so far and he isn't exactly dynamic. 

I like the WRs we have on our roster. Garcon and Garoppolo should be a great combo, Goodwin has shown he's more than just a gadget player, Taylor is the next Julian edleman/Wes welker and is "MR 3rd down", Bourne has shown he has a knack for getting open and making plays (the kid has good feet). So that's 4 guys to feel really good about moving forward. 

What I would do if I was lunch: draft a TE in one of the first three rounds, sign a veteran WR, and take a flier on a late round WR from a small school who has the physical traits and let him develop.  that would give us 6 talented players and a little of everything. 

I'm a big fan of Emanuel Sanders. I think he would be a great fit in the shanahan offense. I also don't think his skill set is a huge need because we have a couple of younger players who do similar things. He certainly wouldn't be expensive and our wr corps would be extremely deep to the point we almost couldn't count on any drafted player to make the team, and he would probably eat into snaps for some of the younger guys as well. Injuries do happen, so I'm all for it. I would also be on board with AR15. 

Who fits the description of the small school WR with good physical traits that could potentially turn into an elite WR? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 48 1/2ers said:

I think we should draft a receiver to potentially be our #1. It doesnt matter body type for me really as long as they are physical enough to not get AJ Jenkinsed around. Could be a round 2-4 guy, it doesnt need to be in round one to get a potential diamond. 

If we go free agency I wouldnt hate it. 

Landry is #1 for me, then I have Richardson, Robinson, and Watkins up there too. I'd be pumped to have any of them really. 

which richardson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seahawks Richardson. 

I just don't get the want to sign someone like Landry for 13-15 million per season. He averaged less than 9 YPC last year and for his career can't be much higher than 10.5. Landry also does most of his damage from the slot and we are solid there. 

Robinson is coming off an ACL injury so he may come a bit cheaper, but still a risk. 

Let's just go with our current core plus a WR maybe in 2nd or early 3rd. Rather sign Graham than Landry or even Robinson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 48 1/2ers said:

Paul Richardson we really dont have anyone like him on our roster. less expensive and less risky than Robinson plus he's only 25 too. 

I'm not sure how he's less risky, unless you are talking about him being less risky solely on his price tag. Cheaper I would agree on. Richardson has had durability issues since college and multiple torn acls. He's been more durable than I would have thought though since coming to the NFL...only missed one season after tearing his acl and a couple games here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Seahawks Richardson. 

I just don't get the want to sign someone like Landry for 13-15 million per season. He averaged less than 9 YPC last year and for his career can't be much higher than 10.5. Landry also does most of his damage from the slot and we are solid there. 

Robinson is coming off an ACL injury so he may come a bit cheaper, but still a risk. 

Let's just go with our current core plus a WR maybe in 2nd or early 3rd. Rather sign Graham than Landry or even Robinson. 

Sometimes we think pretty similarly. You should get that checked out, can't be good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...