Lady Talon":1ne98ov8 said:
GoldenIsThyTate":1ne98ov8 said:
Lady Talon":1ne98ov8 said:
DSJ = 5'10''
ADB = 5'10''
PH = 5'11''
6'1'' Kearse and 6'2'' Lockette don't have much of a hope to get significant time behind that lineup. That CFL guy is a longshot and a half to make the final 53.
RW = 5'11'' and struggled visibly with our starting big WR gone.
How do you project RW will do with a midget WR corps and big TE's that don't figure heavily in our offensive statistics?
Golden is only 5'11" and we did just fine, we even won the super bowl. So to quote Jon Gruden, "your talking about that much" the difference between Tate and Jackson is "that much".
that said, I dont want Jackson on this team.
We did well enough with a historic defense and great field position that could help the offense a lot. Otherwise RW hung on to the ball too long and absorbed too many hits, and not all of that can be blamed on our OL.
He'd be the first diminutive QB in the past 2 decades to run primary receiving targets as short is he is or shorter, without heavily targeted pass catching TE's. Vick, Brees (both in SD and NO), Flutie, Joe Thiesmann, etc.
Do we really want RW to be the guinea pig after the abuse he took last year?
Wilson hanging onto the ball too long isn't a problem considering he had >100 passer rating and even though the pass blocking WAS a problem. If the pass blocking were only average, and Wilson still hung onto the ball "too long", he'd lead the NFL in passer rating easily (as he did for the entire second half of his rookie season).
The claim that the offense can't thrive with a bevy of short receivers is provably false[1]. Last season Seattle averaged well over 3 points/drive with Harvin on the field[2], which would have been best in the NFL if done over the course of the season. The mismatches created by Harvin are obvious and it is extremely likely to project similarly in every game he plays in.
By the way, although the defense was the story of the Super Bowl, Seattle's offense dominated that game and, no, it wasn't just due to field position. Seattle's offensive DVOA (which adjusts for field position) in the Super Bowl (with Harvin) was 28%, which would have been good enough for 2nd in the NFL if they maintained that average over the season.
[1] Not that I wouldn't mind getting a nice big receiving target, because it makes the offense more multiple.
[2] Against Minnesota (bad defense), New Orleans (good defense), and Denver (average defense), so a nice average sample, a set of defenses better by average DVOA than Denver faced last year.