Mandatory Reading (shiny hood ornament theory)

[Cyclonus]

I'll admit I have not read the article.  But if he's suggesting Steve Smith was a shiny hood ornament, then he might be mildly retarded.

[Catalyst]

You don't need stud WR's, but you do need functional WR's. We have none of those.

[t96]

except Seattle's OLine sucked

 

And Tate is a great WR, and Kearse is solid, and Percy when healthy is elite. Seattle didn't have "no stud WRs" lol.

[doogy]

except Seattle's OLine sucked

???

[Khaki Lackey]

I'll admit I have not read the article. But if he's suggesting Steve Smith was a shiny hood ornament, then he might be mildly retarded.

If you haven't read it, just don't post, mayne! No that's not what he's saying nor does he say that WR isn't important. The basic theme is chasing high priced, high profile WRs seldom pans out.

[jasonluckydog]

<-----Team Harry

[TheRumGone]

???

 

it didn't suck but it wasn't that great. Beastmode masked a lot of their deficiencies because the dude is beastmode.

 

 

they had a 6th or 7th round converted DT playing in the O-line.

[BeasonBeastingBacks]

And Tate is a great WR, and Kearse is solid, and Percy when healthy is elite. Seattle didn't have "no stud WRs" lol.

While I agree they didn't have "studs", as Catalyst mentioned above, they had functional WRs that played their part well.  

 

???

 

Okung missed half the season and when he came back his play was far below what people are normally accustomed to, Unger had a subpar year, Giacomini is nothing more than a warm body, their guard play was awful and the lone bright spot on their OL was backup Michael Bowie that filled in for Okung while he was hurt.  Lynch's ability to not get caught in the backfield makes up for a lot of the OL's run blocking.

[csx]

That's what i have sort of believed the whole time. I would love have seen them really bolster the offensive line in a major way. So far they have not really done that either. I'm not going to lose sleep over James Jones or Cothchery.

[Khaki Lackey]

Lynch's ability to not get caught in the backfield makes up for a lot of the OL's run blocking.

Wilson's Houdini routines didn't hurt the OL either.

[MHS831]

Panthercougar68 posted this article in the Bill Voth thread and I think it articulates what I believe is probably Gettleman's philosophy in regard to FA WRs.

Read it. Especially if you are shrieking like a middle school girl that just found out that 'One Direction' broke up about our WR situation.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/chff-theory-elevated-to-man-law/2490/

 

makes you think...

[t96]

If you haven't read it, just don't post, mayne! No that's not what he's saying nor does he say that WR isn't important. The basic theme is chasing high priced, high profile WRs seldom pans out.

His main point is that WRs in general are nothing more than hood ornaments and don't make an offense better. It states it right in the text. And that is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not a "crybaby" because I think the author of that article is an idiot. The only FA I wanted was Nicks and he was very far from high priced.

[solorca]

My problem with the article is that the website calls itself "Cold, Hard, Football Facts" and uses nothing but one year stats to back things up. Pierre Garcon was brought into Washington two years, they made the playoffs.  Brandon Marshall (a player they referenced in their own article) was brought into Chicago two years ago, their offense improved immensely.  AJ Green was drafted in the first round a few years back, they haven't missed the playoffs since.  Just last year, Keenan Allen was an important piece of a dramatically improved San Diego offense.

 

Does that mean that picking up a big name WR through the draft or in free agency is definitely a way to improve your team?  Absolutely not.  Does it show that you can just as easily pull random names to provide a counter-argument?  Absolutely.

 

[Montsta]

And Tate is a great WR, and Kearse is solid, and Percy when healthy is elite. Seattle didn't have "no stud WRs" lol.

Tate is an above average WR, not great, and Kearse is decent at best. Tate had less than a thousand yards receiving last year and Kearse had less than 400. Saying Harvin is great when healthy is like saying Jonathan Stewart and Jeff Otah are great when healthy, as in, they're never healthy so WTF does it matter.

Seattle won the Super Bowl last year with a receiving core that without looking at all the numbers, probably was less effective than ours when you go 1-3. They won because their defense is monster, and the guys on offense are a bunch of jags.

Sound familiar to a team you know?