Edit: If Vincent Jackson were available.

[hawksurething]

This WR demands double coverage. He wins in the red zone & can block. Fast too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qm8uTVPMFpk

Either him or Marshall would be perfect fit. We are a run 1st team,so it will make their stats shoot thru the roof! like Murray did for Dez,Emmit for Irvin,etc... 1200 yards & 14 TDs easy.

Here is the amazing Marshall too..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okwJA6mXpHY

Both can pull 8 out of that box to make the run game more productive, lessen the chance of our franchise QB from getting hurt, open Baldwin up in the slot,fix our red zone woes,the list goes on & on.

Who would you chose from the 2 of them ?

 

[mistaowen]

If it is up to me, I'm letting John Schneider call the WR genius himself before making a decision like this. There are too many variables that a #1 WR needs and only one person I've ever known truly understands what a #1 WR is. The surprising part is he also has never been wrong about running backs or Peyton Manning. My head hurts trying to think about this.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

It would all come down to the contract and cost in picks if any given both would be a nice fit in my opinion. But don't take it from me because I'm no WR Whisperer.

 

[IndyHawk]

Anthony.I mean hawksurething,you want these high $ WR's and if it was Madden I'd probaly want them too but theres a lot that goes into this to make it a fit.We are not breaking up the defense for a low run -high pass offense that wins NOTHING but ohhs and ahhs.Russ will keep doing what he does because thats how it works(2-Super Bowls)Lynch will keep running as he does because it works and the D will stay and play as it has because it all works hand in hand.I understand a tweak here and there would make some things easier but we don't need any major overhauls to do it.We sure don't need to screw with the cap and end up like the Saints ect ..

 

[Vetamur]

The 31 year old whose yards per catch and yards per game have been going down every year, and who had 2 tds last year, while catching less than half the balls he was targeted with? The one who hasnt even been asked to take a pay cut much less become available?

 

[chris98251]

The 31 year old whose yards per catch and yards per game have been going down every year, and who had 2 tds last year, while catching less than half the balls he was targeted with? The one who hasnt even been asked to take a pay cut much less become available?

But he can beat double coverage.

 

[Vetamur]

The 31 year old whose yards per catch and yards per game have been going down every year, and who had 2 tds last year, while catching less than half the balls he was targeted with? The one who hasnt even been asked to take a pay cut much less become available?

But he can beat double coverage.

Well..yeah. True.

Unless you talk to their quarterback coach he seemed to indicate that he cant:

“I don’t know exactly what makes [you think] he’s been invisible,’’ Arroyo said when asked why Jackson has been invisible. “We’ve had the opportunities to get Vincent the ball and we’re going to continue to do that. The coverage will dictate where he is and how he gets open. Again, if they’re going to double-cover him in heavy personnel or they’re going to play off coverage and certain things, then we have to play in front of them much like we did two weeks ago and play off that a little bit and spread the ball around.’’

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post/_ ... nt-jackson

But you know, thats just the coach on his team.

 

[HawkFan72]

To be fair, I think hawksurething only ever said that he wants a receiver that demands double coverage, not one that can beat double coverage. If he can beat double coverage, it's a bonus.

But if a WR can simply draw double coverage, then that takes a defender away that was being used to stack the box against Lynch. That would open more running room for Lynch, regardless of if the WR can beat double coverage or not.

So Jackson would still fit that criteria he laid out.

 

[chris98251]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

 

[HawkFan72]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I give up then. I tried.

 

[Throwdown]

Mehhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[mikeak]

Of course the drop in production is because of Vincent Jackson. Completely unrelated to getting the ball from Philip Rivers before and who knows the past two years....

I would take him. Move the chains and redzone. Paired with Richardson and we would be elite on WRs

 

[Bigbadhawk]

Wonder how many more topics we need on the main page here that talks about #1 recievers. Wish we could just bundle up the 3 or so forum topics by the same person that all end up involving the same discussion into its own forum heading

:34853_doh:

 

[IndyHawk]

..Not just #1 WR's...STUD WR's!!! :shock:

 

[kearly]

Damnit. The thread title got my hopes up.

 

[ivotuk]

Damnit. The thread title got my hopes up.

No shit.

hawksurething, this is bait and switch. There is no link to anything about Jackson being released and your post doesn't even mention it.

Either title your threads correctly or find yourself on the outside looking in.

 

[hawksurething]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

 

[chris98251]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

You have not been clear on anything other then your an authority on everything from O-Line, WR's, CB's RB's, you feel that you need to educate a fan base that ahs been called the most football intelligent in the league. That we should be thankful that you are here to teach us the fundamentals of evaluation of players.

What it really comes down to is you have an opinion like every other member of this board, you don't seem to understand the offensive scheme and philosophy of Pete.

When you have that understanding, credibility will come. Getting up on a Stage and preaching like Billy Graham to your congregation mentality is insulting to many, laughed at by many more.

I am sure that is not your intent, is it? But that is how it does come across.

Oh in finally, I never said I don't want a great receiver, as many have stated we would love to upgrade any position if possible, but not at the cost of our philosophy and the degradation of another aspect of the team. 3 Super Bowl appearances in 10 years for this franchise, not doing to bad in how they do things.

Also if you are as good as you say you are at all of this why are you not employed as a scout, analyst, personnel guy in the college or the pro ranks? To never miss on positions is something any team would die for. The millions saved and obvious increase in winning by having a team of can't miss players and prospects is something any league or college would pay handsomely for.

 

[Vetamur]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

Essentially youre saying you want to reverse the entire offensive philosophy of the Seahawks, and also game plan around extending the career of one player rather than winning as a team.

The Seahawks purposefully want the opponents loading the box. This is why they seek receivers who can win a one on one. The idea is, we are tough in the run. And you put 8 there we are still going to get our 4 yards most of the time and end up with 3rd and 2...and we are going to win on 3rd and 2....we have too many options.

Stop pretending people dont want a great receivers (I wont use the vacuous, tenuous "#1 WR" label). If we can get them how we got Sherman or Browner etc ....... everyone would want them.

What I and others dont want is to reform the entire offense because you as a person cant get over one play in the Super Bowl.

And by the way, your own list says you consider someone who is a "true number 1" to have red zone production, and yet you carry a torch for someone who isnt a red zone threat and scored just 2 TDs last year despite going over a thousand yards.

Still waiting for the explanation as to why we need a #1 WR when no other Super Bowl winners have of late, and teams that DO have them are just high light reel teams that are 1 and done in the playoffs or dont get there.

V. Jackson averages less than 5 catches a game.. moving away from what we do to accommodate that? No thanks. And if Lynchs back cant take the NFL game anymore then sadly he and the Seahawks have to move on. Its not about one man.

 

[SomersetHawk]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

Essentially youre saying you want to reverse the entire offensive philosophy of the Seahawks, and also game plan around extending the career of one player rather than winning as a team.

The Seahawks purposefully want the opponents loading the box. This is why they seek receivers who can win a one on one. The idea is, we are tough in the run. And you put 8 there we are still going to get our 4 yards most of the time and end up with 3rd and 2...and we are going to win on 3rd and 2....we have too many options.

Stop pretending people dont want a great receivers (I wont use the vacuous, tenuous "#1 WR" label). If we can get them how we got Sherman or Browner etc ....... everyone would want them.

What I and others dont want is to reform the entire offense because you as a person cant get over one play in the Super Bowl.

And by the way, your own list says you consider someone who is a "true number 1" to have red zone production, and yet you carry a torch for someone who isnt a red zone threat and scored just 2 TDs last year despite going over a thousand yards.

Still waiting for the explanation as to why we need a #1 WR when no other Super Bowl winners have of late, and teams that DO have them are just high light reel teams that are 1 and done in the playoffs or dont get there.

V. Jackson averages less than 5 catches a game.. moving away from what we do to accommodate that? No thanks. And if Lynchs back cant take the NFL game anymore then sadly he and the Seahawks have to move on. Its not about one man.

Jackson actually would be a pretty fantastic signing. And I'd take 5 catches a game given his career average 17ypc. It is true he'd demand respect, and with Wilson drawing spies you could have some nice looks with Lynch in the backfield. Maybe you could find a guy in the draft, but Jackson's a sure thing. Had some bad qb play of late but on this team he'd get anywhere between 6-12 TDs imo.