Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

No prospect screams "WR1" to me after cursory glance


top dawg

Recommended Posts

Just now, *FreeFua* said:

Funchess is caught in between. He isn’t quick/explosive to scare people that way and he doesn’t know how to properly use his size either. 

He’s just an athletic 6’4” 225 pound dude who’ll get by his entire career on athleticism alone. He’s no bully and he’ll forever keep people wondering “what if”.

Funchess has the make up to be a stud and he’s easy to fall in love with as a prospect but he’s just not that guy.

I saw Funchess use his size effectively on several occasions this season, but you keep beating that dead horse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, UNCrules2187 said:

I'm intrigued by Cortland Sutton. He's got a few inches on Ridley and seems like he may be about the same speed as Ridley (projected 40 of 4.51 vs 4.48 for Ridley). But yeah, if neither Ridley nor Sutton are available at 24, I think you gotta grab someone else in round 1 (maybe a DB) or try to trade up to grab one of the two.

Ridley runs a 4.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, top dawg said:

I saw Funchess use his size effectively on several occasions this season, but you keep beating that dead horse. 

And you keep watching with this big ol’goggles of yours.

All I’m saying is we need a legit number 1. Banking on Funchess to be THAT guy is a mistake. Funchess is a decent complimentary piece not the piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, *FreeFua* said:

And you keep watching with this big ol’goggles of yours.

All I’m saying is we need a legit number 1. Banking on Funchess to be THAT guy is a mistake. Funchess is a decent complimentary piece not the piece.

And I explained to you yesterday about what I thought about most receivers in this league. They are mostly complementary pieces.  "That guy" is hard to come by.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically,  I guess what I'm saying is that I would seriously look at acquiring two free agents. 

I've already gone on record saying that Moncrief would be my first (realistic) choice.  He may end up the best value out the bunch. I would also choose between Lee,  Wallace and Pryor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridley would be a fine pick at 24, but otherwise we shouldn't draft a WR this year. At least not in the first 4 rounds. I really like the WRs available in free agency. I think Cam can work well with multiple good route runners with solid hands. John Brown and Willie Snead are who I'd like to see us bring in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Basically,  I guess what I'm saying is that I would seriously look at acquiring two free agents. 

I've already gone on record saying that Moncrief would be my first (realistic) choice.  He may end up the best value out the bunch. I would also choose between Lee,  Wallace and Pryor. 

All of those guys are really the only realistic options given our current situation.  It all comes down to the money game.  You still have to spread it around to build a complete team.  We certainly don't have that at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, UNCrules2187 said:

I'm intrigued by Cortland Sutton. He's got a few inches on Ridley and seems like he may be about the same speed as Ridley (projected 40 of 4.51 vs 4.48 for Ridley). But yeah, if neither Ridley nor Sutton are available at 24, I think you gotta grab someone else in round 1 (maybe a DB) or try to trade up to grab one of the two.

Ridley and Kirk seem more polished to me. Sutton seems like he’s raw. Cam has played with a lot of raw receivers. You know who isn’t raw...he isn’t fast...he isn’t a stud athlete but he’s a great route runner? Greg Olsen...and cam is money when he throws to him. Get him a polished, knowledgeable WR that can create separation and watch him thrive. Maybe that’s a WR in a trade. Maybe it’s a guy we draft but drafting another KB, Funchess isn’t going to help this team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MountaineerChemist10 said:

As long as Hurney is GM, do NOT draft a wide receiver. Develop our current WRs and sign a vet. Hurney has never been good at finding pass catchers in the draft. Remember Colbert, Carter, Jarrett & LaFAIL? All busts. Again, do NOT draft a WR.

I'm hoping at least Norv gets to pick the offensive players in the draft.  I'm almost sure that he will.  P55 thinks Hurney is in full control and making the decisions though so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funchess made a lot of great plays this season. Remember when he took a screen pass 30 yards for a touchdown against the Dolphins? Or went up and caught a touchdown between 2 defenders against the Lions? He also made the two biggest plays to win the game against the Patriots, knocking down what would have a been sure INT and then picking up a crucial first down. He made a ton of other physical catches across the middle and then turned up field for YAC during the season. The shoulder injury really robbed him of the opportunity to reach 1000 yards but his entire body of work this season showed both his reliability in making the routine catches to move the sticks and explosive playmaking ability. I think 1200 yards and 10 touchdowns is his floor next year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...