Offense sells tickets

[CyberB0b]

I'm so tired of the defense wins championships narrative.

Also, we can bury the "no team can win after paying a number one receiver" discussion. Thomas is paid as a number one wideout.

He didn't play like one. Did he even have a catch?

 

[cowboyblue22]

the broncos number one wr was invisible most of the game as was most of there offense.

 

[CATCH17]

the broncos number one wr was invisible most of the game as was most of there offense.

Thomas had a awful playoff run.

The guy is a freak of a receiver but he was a absolute no show this post season.

 

[Nightman]

The problem is everyone always points to the fact that no top WRs are ever on the winning SB team.

DThomas is paid and has performed as a top WR. This ends that fallacy.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Thomas had a awful playoff run.

The guy is a freak of a receiver but he was a absolute no show this post season.

He had Dilfer throwing to him.

 

[cowboyblue22]

he had dilfer throwing the ball and he still couldn't catch it. He dropped pretty much everything that was thrown to him. he fell way short of giving the team a return on their money.

 

[Craig]

The problem is everyone always points to the fact that no top WRs are ever on the winning SB team.

DThomas is paid and has performed as a top WR. This ends that fallacy.

Seattle ended that fallacy when they won.

 

[KJJ]

Seattle ended that fallacy when they won.

Seattle didn't have a top WR when they won the SB and that includes Golden Tate who wasn't a top WR.

 

[Nightman]

Seattle didn't have a top WR when they won the SB and that includes Golden Tate who wasn't a top WR.

They paid Percy Harvin and Sidney Rice big bucks

 

[KJJ]

They paid Percy Harvin and Sidney Rice big bucks

Neither were top WR receivers.

 

[Nightman]

Neither were top WR receivers.

They were according to their pay

 

[KJJ]

They were according to their pay

Not according to their production and it's production that makes a top WR. Harvin and Rice not panning out resulted in the trade for Jimmy Graham.

 

[Nightman]

Not according to their production and it's production that makes a top WR. Harvin and Rice not panning out resulted in the trade for Jimmy Graham.

Everyone always said it wasn't smart to pay top dollar for WRs because no SB winning teams in the salary cap era had any. This is just a technical end to that STUPID ARGUMENT. One had no effect on the other. It was like saying no rushing leader ever won the SB until Emmitt did it.

For one it was a SSS argument to begin with. For two the definition is always changing. Was Marvin Harrison a top WR? How about Reggie Wayne?

Randy Moss, Larry Fitz, TO and Steve Smith just missed.

It was a dumb argument that can be put to rest once and for all, unless you want to keep arguing to hear yourself type.

 

[KJJ]

Everyone always said it wasn't smart to pay top dollar for WRs because no SB winning teams in the salary cap era had any. This is just a technical end to that STUPID ARGUMENT. One had no effect on the other. It was like saying no rushing leader ever won the SB until Emmitt did it.

For one it was a SSS argument to begin with. For two the definition is always changing. Was Marvin Harrison a top WR? How about Reggie Wayne?

Randy Moss, Larry Fitz, TO and Steve Smith just missed.

It was a dumb argument that can be put to rest once and for all, unless you want to keep arguing to hear yourself type.

Don't know where you're going with this maybe you're just looking to spend the day arguing it but I've made my point.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

He didn't play like one. Did he even have a catch?

That even further negates the "no team can win with a number one wideout", because a team just won with a number one wideout who had a bad season.

 

[Craig]

They were according to their pay

I cant read what youre responding to, but i am pretty sure i know what it says

I love the "harvin wasnt a top receiver" argument. The argument is basically saying: "you are better off sinking top 5 money into a wr that isnt top 5 than you would be if you paid that same amount of money to a wr that is worth it". It is about as stupid as an argument gets and ive seen it an alarming number of times.

 

[Nightman]

I cant read what youre responding to, but i am pretty sure i know what it says

I love the "harvin wasnt a top receiver" argument. The argument is basically saying: "you are better off sinking top 5 money into a wr that isnt top 5 than you would be if you paid that same amount of money to a wr that is worth it". It is about as stupid as an argument gets and ive seen it an alarming number of times.

People get so locked into their positions on a subject that they can get into some very silly boxes.

WRs are a waste of money, RBs are a waste of money, no QBs over 35 can win and so on and so on.

There is no formula that will guarantee a Super Bowl but the notion that a team is better off without top WRs is laughable.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Not according to their production and it's production that makes a top WR. Harvin and Rice not panning out resulted in the trade for Jimmy Graham.

You're not understanding the argument.

 

[KJJ]

You're not understanding the argument.

I understand what makes a top receiver and it's production not money. Seattle didn't have a top receiver when they won the Super Bowl and that was my argument which apparently you didn't understand.

 

[Redball Express]

...but DEFENSE wins championships. Proved yet again.

Maybe..

but offense has always been the feature of any championship we have ever won.

We need another WR and RB and a backup QB.

Do that and take our ample cap and sign defense out of FA.

Do this..and we are immediately relevant.

Try to dump a bunch of draft picks into the defense and we will have more of the same as it take time for defensive players to develop.

Offensive guys if skilled immediately impact the game.

And we are only going to keep this fabled OL together a short period of time.

I say add offensive weapons and roll the dice.