hawk45
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 10,009
- Reaction score
- 16
MontanaHawk05":11p2q07n said:hawk45":11p2q07n said:MontanaHawk05":11p2q07n said:everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.
I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.
But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.
My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.
That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.
The correlation you're implying isn't really provable. If you really want to try to convince me that we're better off without ten touchdowns (3rd in the league), honestly, you'd better pack a lunch.
I appreciate the criticisms of Graham. But in 2014, everyone was howling for a big red-zone target. That wasn't for no reason. They'll be howling again in 2018, most likely.
I'm not criticizing Graham. I quite agree that he adds something significant and valuable to the scoring offense, and that it will be work to replace it. Also, I did not say we'd be fine without 10 touchdowns. You'll notice I distinctly point out that the argument for being fine without Graham rests upon replacing those 10 touchdowns.
Of course my correlation isn't provable. Neither is your assertion that Graham will match or come near to his 10-TD production in another hypothetical year. Or that other parts of the offense (rushing attack) may not rise to a level where they offset losing his production. All such assertions are inextricably tied to the performance of the new coaches which we can't assess yet.
So, in order to be fair to that, I avoided characterizing your argument as "being obsessed with" the idea that Graham will score 10 TDs every year the rest of his career. Because I'm interested in responding to the actual merits of your position, rather than mischaracterizing it for ease of dispensing with it.