Scotte's all-22 analysis got me thinking.
Late last year and this offseason it became apparent that the offense needed a flanker/HB/waterbug type offensive weapon, to totally get Wilson to "Brees" levels. IMO, adding that type of player opens up passing lanes via the defense having to account for them in the flat or on wheel routes. In theory it makes the front 7 defend sideline to sideline, instead of straight ahead.
Early in the offseason, I wanted Reggie Bush for that role. He already played it in NO, and he'd be reasonably priced. At that time I had no idea Harvin would become available. Harvin is also perfect for that role, IMO.
Assuming that player type was a must-have AND knowing the cost for Harvin vs Reggie, would you reconsider which one? Would you choose Reggie over Percy now?
I don't know one way or another, really. But, Reggie could've done similar things and cost less, IMO.
Late last year and this offseason it became apparent that the offense needed a flanker/HB/waterbug type offensive weapon, to totally get Wilson to "Brees" levels. IMO, adding that type of player opens up passing lanes via the defense having to account for them in the flat or on wheel routes. In theory it makes the front 7 defend sideline to sideline, instead of straight ahead.
Early in the offseason, I wanted Reggie Bush for that role. He already played it in NO, and he'd be reasonably priced. At that time I had no idea Harvin would become available. Harvin is also perfect for that role, IMO.
Assuming that player type was a must-have AND knowing the cost for Harvin vs Reggie, would you reconsider which one? Would you choose Reggie over Percy now?
I don't know one way or another, really. But, Reggie could've done similar things and cost less, IMO.