Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Meck
No, your CONCLUSION.
In your mind, if one receiver gets enough targets to accumulate 100 yards, and one other gets enough to get 63, and no other WR gets any, then to YOU, that means those two guys are good and the offense works. Quality! You think. Wrong conclusion.
If four guys spread out the targets and accumulate the same yardage- that's because they're not good, you think.
False conclusion based on ignorant assumptions.
Perhaps the offense, as designed, spreads the ball around based on taking advantage of the defensive seams and weak points on any given down.
I'm fact, we have seen this, and know it to be true. Yet you would prefer to force feed an individual regardless of the defense. To you, this would be preferable.
|
There is overlap. You don’t want a target eater where everyone else sucks but you also don’t want an offense with only sporadic producers. The ideal world and one that’s practical for us is you have enough talent to spread the ball around but you also have reliable safety nets. A few guys who can be reliable from snap to snap, not just a few times a game when the matchup suits it.
There are times where scheme can only do so much or when the defense matches up well. If you have a bunch of sporadic producers you’re gonna have snaps where nobody can beat their matchup. In that case you need some WRs who can win by sheer physical talent. Kelce is so damn matchup proof that we’ve been able to get away with it and juju was a good enough complement.
That’s a different mindset. You can’t think of a primary target as a ball hog. They can very well complement an efficient offense by being a safety valve.