The Observer researches Wide Receivers

[FootballMaestro]

Agreed.

 

I wanted Vincent Jackson here so bad I could taste it, instead we sign DWill and Stew to stupid contracts.

 

I was hoping the Panthers could have gotten Brandon Marshall myself (pass indiscretions be damned)!!

[top dawg]

OK, so they didn't really explain how they came up with their list. Sounds to me like some of it is based upon opinion as opposed to being compiled on at least a loose form of statistics.  Sorry, I just think that my p says more about the need for drafting impact players than just some big guys who may or may not be as skilled.  It's like Greg Cosell alluded to in his discussion on philadelphiaeagles.com, not only are skills, size, talent and measurables something to take into account when drafting a WR, you also have to take into account how a receiver is going to be utilized to determin whether they will be successful as a pro. 

 

All this being said, I realize that in both articles (if you will), there may be a better way to judge the efficiency and efficacy of WRs, but at the end of the day it's all just a crap shoot.  

[davos]

 

 

This jumps out to me.  And it should for all the posters out there who say you don't need a big WR.

That's the one thing I really took away from that entire article.

 

Not to nitpick but I wonder what they mean by "top 10" because most stat sheets have Antonio Brown, DeSean and Garcon. All at <6'0 

[t96]

Doug Baldwin. LOL.

 

You look at the name and think he's a nobody, but he was amazing at getting to the ball and getting open. Definitely top 40 in my opinion.

[mr beauxjangles]

You look at the name and think he's a nobody, but he was amazing at getting to the ball and getting open. Definitely top 40 in my opinion.

Yeah, I've actually defended him quite a bit to others. But the observer article said that they were trying to identify guys that were no. 1 caliber and he is not a no. 1 in my opinion.

[t96]

Yeah, I've actually defended him quite a bit to others. But the observer article said that they were trying to identify guys that were no. 1 caliber and he is not a no. 1 in my opinion.

 

Yeah he's certainly not a number one, but I just thought the article was looking at the top 40 receivers. After looking it does say ones with #1 talent, and that's where they screwed up. There are less than 30 with #1 talent in my eyes. Baldwin is a high caliber #2 in my opinion. Doesn't have the elite speed to be a #1.

[Ruff]

Not to nitpick but I wonder what they mean by "top 10" because most stat sheets have Antonio Brown, DeSean and Garcon. All at <6'0

I think he meant Top Ten in performance.

[top dawg]

Regardless of what people think about Baldwin, at this point he is arguably better than any WR we have on our roster at the moment, plus he has a ring to boot---one in which he played a key role in earning.