TheCount;3028414 said:
Yeah, I think people are overlooking that little fact. It's not like the WR we kept instead of Amendola is even still on the roster or produced in the slightest. It's a toss up between who would have been more worthless to this team.
People were ready to go to war over the Amendola praise, saying Stanback had oodles more potential as a receiver than Amendola did. Well that didn't work out so well.
But in the end we got Ogletree, who looks better now than Amendola did when we gave him his shot.
I liked Amendola at Tech as I did Welker. I am glad Amendola has an NFL job as they are hard to come by so good for him. He's a Houston area kid and I have nothing but the best wishes toward him.
Do I think he is as good as Wes Welker? Nope. Welker came to Tech as running back from Oklahoma who wasn't recruited by either major Oklahoma college. He obviously developed quite nicely.
Tech plays inside WRs who are quick and get into areas for quick passes. They make ideal future NFL slot guys because they know how to get off coverage quickly and find little hole sot sit down in and because they catch a zillion passes as a collegiate between practices and games. Few schools routinely throw 50 times a game.
I wouldn't say it's an either or with Ogletree/Amendola though.
I'd say it is Amendola/Rossum.
Rossum is another local kid from Skyline high that went on to Notre Dame. Heck of a good return guy historically but he is very much up there in age and offers nothing else but returns.
I don't think ranking WR's 1-5 is a good way to build a depth chart.
I think you go 3-deep at x, y, and z.
x- RW11, Austin, Ogletree
y- Austin, Crayton, Hurd
z- Crayton...
I think we really have a hole at that slot position where a guy is used to playing inside and sitting down into seems or finding creases.
Maybe it doesn't matter much in this offense but I'd want to get a quick guy for that duty.