Ive already stated that is a valid point...but I still disagree. You guys are largely overstating this "throwing to tight spaces to Lloyd and Amendola". I mean, the detractors would say he threw to Amendola because he's captain checkdown. Amendola has a knack for getting open, thats what Bradford liked about him.He doesn't have anyone to throw jump balls to.
And he threw one here to Cook in the preseason:
IMO, if we had a WR that could be relied upon to catch those sort of balls, Bradford would throw them.
Ive already stated that is a valid point...but I still disagree. You guys are largely overstating this "throwing to tight spaces to Lloyd and Amendola". I mean, the detractors would say he threw to Amendola because he's captain checkdown. Amendola has a knack for getting open, thats what Bradford liked about him.
Though Quick needs to bring more to the table I also think it is a bit dismissive to suggest a jump ball shouldn't be thrown his way.
Yeah, hes seen a heck of a lot of targets, hasn't he?And we've seen Bradford throw jump balls Quick's way.
Yeah, hes seen a heck of a lot of targets, hasn't he?
Hes a developmental prospect, we all knew that.
That's Quick's doing. Guy still was missing sight adjustments and hot reads last year.
You want to use the one or two jump balls as a basis that Bradford doesn't have a big target (when in reality he has 2)...but really just dismissing the one we knew wasn't going to put it all together right away.
I've made my points on the subject...we can agree to disagree.
You want to use the one or two jump balls as a basis that Bradford doesn't have a big target (when in reality he has 2)...but really just dismissing the one we knew wasn't going to put it all together right away.
I've made my points on the subject...we can agree to disagree.
That's fine...it is also a totally different subject than what we are discussing.I can't count on Quick as a reliable redzone target as much as I count on Givens as a #1 WR..
now if Quick could perform period, let alone before garbage time...
DX got a few jump balls thrown his way.
There is no way to evaluate what happened with rookies and second year WRs last year when Bradford played less than half a season and with the changes in philosophy and RBs in the few games he did play.
At best you can say they were all inconsistent and did not have enough of a sample size for evaluation.
Do over
Question for you Memphis(half my family comes from there btw)...If the Rams grab either Robinson or Matthews with their first pick...then our #13 pick comes around and one of those two OT's is still there do you see Snead doubling up on both guys if,for instance Watkins and Evans are gone?
Highly unlikely but it's just a scenario.
That's fine...it is also a totally different subject than what we are discussing.
If you want to dismiss Quick as a big bodied receiver simply because he hasn't developed yet then we might as well dismiss every player in the draft because we have no idea what these guys are going to do once drafted either. Again, with Quick everyone knew he wasn't going to jump in and produce right away. I also believe he needs to show something this season before we can really start to critique what kind of player he is.
"Not counting on a guy" and "Dismissing" a guy are not the same thing, and the bolded part is some seriously flawed logic. Why would you make assumptions about a draft of players based on one individual player from 3 drafts ago? Doesn't make sense.
And with Quick - we didn't expect him to produce right away. But we expected to see a lot more than what we have, especially in his 2nd year, and I think the coaching staff feels the same based on the snap count.
I'm not writing off quick, I just wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket with him... if he develops, great, we have an extra weapon
That wasn't what I said nor insinuated.
With Quick, we knew he wouldn't be a prime player early in his career. So to "Not count on a guy" or "Dismiss" (semantics there...) at this stage you shouldn't "count on" a rookie to step in and fill the void being discussed. That's all.
Anyway, it is really straying from the point of the thread. This wasn't meant to be a Quick vs. Evans debate...nor do I think that even if Quick did burst onto the scene do I believe that immediate eliminates the reason to be looking at WR, whether that is Evans, Watkins, Lee, or whoever.
I don't see how that's semantics - there's a difference between not having confidence in a guy and being confident he'll fail... lord knows I had plenty of examples of this with junior troops lol
I would expect more though the #33rd pick... Then again if he wouldn't have had issues with drops and reading hot routes, I think his production would probably double.
Semantics because of what we're discussing. Regrettably this has shifted to a Quick vs Evans...so if we are talking one vs the other then writing someone off and not counting on them is the same thing if we are using that as a basis to draft another big bodied receiver.
lol i think people take my people out of context - i'm rarely on the offensive and i do thoroughly enjoy a good discussion as well others opinion.And in regard to the draft pick...how is that relevant? Quick can't help that is where he was picked...whether he was drafted in the 2nd round or the 7th round he is still the same guy. Just because he was drafted in the 2nd round doesn't mean he was going to develop any faster...you should blame that on Snead, not on Quick. I mean, if he HAD gotten drafted even a round later there would be people excited about the possibility of Quick's potential if he had this exact same progress...but since he was taken in the 2nd there are plenty (not saying you, though I don't know) of people suggesting he be cut. At some point you have to move on from a players draft position or their contract and just talk about their talent on how it projects.
So there...
What do you mean, YOUR people?!?My people lol, I meant my posts*