BraveHeartFan;2167762 said:
Ok let me see...
So you'd have got Bryant Johnson. Now the problem with our situation, as I've seen it complained about here many times, is that we don't have a great #2 WR option if Owens goes down. And you'd have went after Johnson to fill this? Please. The guy was expendable as a 3rd WR in Arizona because he sucked. He wouldn't have even beat PC out for the #2 spot.
Then next on the list is Darrell Jackson. Are we talking about the same Darrell Jackson that was SO GREAT last year that a WR deprived offense in San Fransico was all to happy to depart with him? Again, no. Jackson couldn't have beaten out PC either.
Finally there is Keary Colbert. Now I'll admit I don't know as much about Keary, as the other two, but that's because I think he's actually played even less ball than the other two. Again you're talking about a guy from a team who is WR deficient, beyond Steve Smith, and they were thinking of letting him leave (Maybe they did I didn't pay attention enough to him) as your answer for our #2 spot?
I agree with Ice that there was simply no, viable, option out there to bring in at the number two spot and you've reenforced that fact by giving 3 options here, none of whom would have been able to beat out PC for the #2 spot.
Like Ice said it wasn't that Jerry missed the ball on getting the job done it simply was that there were no real options out there. The options of Chad Johnson, Roy Williams, and Boldin were never real options. Those teams obviously had no desire to ever deal any of those guys because if they had they'd have taken the insane offers that the Eagles or Commanders were throwing out there to them to get those guys.
If you read my opinions on this matter, I clearly stated, more then once, that I did not believe options were available to us. Ice asked me what I would have done if I could have. I explained what I would have done, if I could have. I don't agree with you on Johnson but that's here nor there. The guy was expendable in Arizona because his contract was up and they couldn't afford to keep him. They can't afford to keep Boldin but yeah, it's because he sucked. I'm certain your correct.
Jackson had a poor year in San Francisco but nobody had a good year in San Francisco last year. Why is that? If you can't keep your QB upright, chances are pretty slim that you may actually be able to complete passes to any WR. That's just kinda how it works. The leading receivers on the team were Gore with 53 and Vernon Davis with 52. When your RBs and TEs are your leading receivers, that's usually and indication that you've shortened up the offense because your having problems protecting your QB long enough to execute longer developing routes, such as the ones your WRs usually run. I think that there is more to the poor season in San Francisco then, "Oh, he sucked." If you look at it objectively, you take into consideration that it was Jackson's first year in that offense and he had never played with those players. You also have to consider that San Francisco gave up 55 sacks last year. San Fran had 4 different guys play QB for them last year because they could not keep anybody healthy. Brand new OC as well. There were a lot of reasons Jackson didn't do well in San Francisco last year but again, nobody really did all that well in the offense. It's not a Jackson thing, IMO. It was more a San Fran thing. I mean, you have to look at the guy for all the years in the NFL. 8 seasons as a starter in the NFL. Not many WRs are starters in their Rookie year. Not only was he a starter but he was a starter for a team who made the playoffs 4 years straight and went to the SuperBowl. He lead Seattle in Receiving 4 of the seven seasons he was there. His Rookie year, 2005 (Injury Season in which he only played in 6 games) and 2002 (2nd leading receiver behind Koren Robinson that year) were the only times he did not lead his team. This player has 104 starts in the NFL. I'm not saying he's TO but I am saying that He's not just, "A Guy". Just a guy kinds of players don't enjoy the success he has had in the NFL 8 seasons. Signing a player like that, especially to a 1 year deal, would not have been a bad thing, IMO. I mean, your saying that Jackson had a horrible season in San Francisco last year but treating Crayton as if he's so far superior to Jackson. Crayton only caught 50 passes last year in a much better offense. Would Crayton have been able to have the kind of season he had for us last year in San Francisco? I seriously doubt it. I think that to say Jackson is not as good as Crayton is delusional. At this point in there careers, I think it's clear that Jackson is the better player. Now, will Crayton develop into a better WR? Perhaps but just to equal the type of WR Jackson is, Crayton will have to put up 3 1000 yard plus seasons. It's foolish, IMO, to say that a guy like Jackson could not have helped us. Even if you just say that TO and Crayton are our starters (which BTW, I did say with respects to Jackson), you can not tell me that he would not have been better then Miles, Hurd, Stanback or any of the other options we currently have at WR. His starting experience alone would have been valuable IMO.
Colbert was stricktly proposed as depth and a 3rd WR option. I never suggested he was our #2 WR. I would have signed the guy because he did show more then any of our WRs not named TO, in 8 games last year. The guy looked to me like he was really coming around. That plus the fact that he has 40 starts in the NFL make him valuable to a team that would be faced with the option of starting Crayton and Hurd, Austin or Stanback if TO were injured. The real issue for me, and it has been pretty much all along, is the fact that outside of TO and Crayton, we have a total of 4 games started between all the WRs on our roster. To me, when you know TO has only had one injury free season his entire career, that's a bit of a concern and there is nobody who is going to tell me that any of these guys couldn't have helped us in that regard, this season. It's just not reasonable to believe that IMO.
