before we signed Marshall, I wanted the Giants to take a look at Quick as our "big" receiver...I think the Rams never used him correctly...plus they had a horrible passing game...
"Redskins signed WR Brian Quick, formerly of the Rams, to a one-year contract.
The Rams reached for Quick at No. 33 overall in the 2012 draft, and it took him years to figure out the pro game coming out of small-school Appalachian State. Rams staffers were comparing him to Vincent Jackson and Terrell Owens coming out of college. Obviously, those comps never materialized, but Quick has good size at 6'3/218 and has a strong 14.3 career YPR average. Quick figures to slide in as the No. 4 receiver as long as Josh Doctson is healthy."
Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter
NTTAWWT
Oh, fuck! I'm getting old, dammit!
How deep to you want to be?
Injuries aside, having three quality corners his about as good as your going to get, without sacrificing in other areas of your team............
I thought the same thing for a second. Then I realized it was Pryor who the Skins got. Two big receivers, to go along with Crowder at the slot and Reed as the TE, is a pretty good arsenal.
Quote:
Presently Blake would be the #4 CB on our depth chart. That's not good enough.
How deep to you want to be?
Injuries aside, having three quality corners his about as good as your going to get, without sacrificing in other areas of your team............
Add to the 3 quality DBs a quality DLine and I don't think you can ask for much more. Health is always a concern, but we should be in good shape defensively.
And Pryor/Quick is a definite downgrade from Jackson/Garcon.
Pryor was just as good as Garcon last year and is 3 years younger. And Garcon had much better QB play and other weapons around him.
But as a whole, the Skins WRs are worse off than last year unless Doctson makes a huge jump.
Quote:
He was a very good wideout for them. Neither Pryor or Quick or Docston are as good as he was.
Pryor was just as good as Garcon last year and is 3 years younger. And Garcon had much better QB play and other weapons around him.
But as a whole, the Skins WRs are worse off than last year unless Doctson makes a huge jump.
He may have been as good statistically, but he's not as good as Garcon (who obviously is on the downside). If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have Garcon.
Doctson's the wildcard. He's got the talent to be a top WR, but it's anyone's guess at this point what he'll do in 2017.
Crowder's a dangerous player as a WR and PR, but he's completely different than Jackson who is arguably still a top 5 deep threat. Jackson's speed added an extra dimension to that offense and helped stretch the field.
Skins were 2nd in the NFL in passing yards per game last year, at almost 300 ypg, and you think they will be better this year? Wow, that's scary.
Well, obviously if you're projecting over the next 3 or 4 years Pryor would be the better wideout considering Garcon probably won't be playing before long. But as of this moment, I'm still going with Garcon. I'm talking present value within the Skins offense as opposed to Garcon. Not to take anything away from what Pryor has accomplished in his transition from QB to WR - but no one was knocking down his door in free agency. Teams are still unsure of who he is as a player. I'll go with the proven vet. Just my opinion.
Quote:
He was a very good wideout for them. Neither Pryor or Quick or Docston are as good as he was.
Pryor was just as good as Garcon last year and is 3 years younger. And Garcon had much better QB play and other weapons around him.
But as a whole, the Skins WRs are worse off than last year unless Doctson makes a huge jump.
People had a similar attitude about Benjamin when he signed with San Diego.
Pryor seems OK at best until he proves otherwise.
I like Crowder. He reminds me of Victor Cruz. Which is also why I don't see him being a great all-around receiver. I think he would struggle on the outside.
Their defense is suspect. They've brought in a new DC. But they'll score. And even if the QB were to go down, I like Colt as one of the best backups in the league. Washington split with the Giants last season. It's not like they're the '76 Bucs.
Quote:
but Pryor is on the upswing and Garcon looks more like he's on the downside of his career. I think it's likely that Pryor is the better WR in 2017 and significantly better over the next 3-4 seasons.
Well, obviously if you're projecting over the next 3 or 4 years Pryor would be the better wideout considering Garcon probably won't be playing before long. But as of this moment, I'm still going with Garcon. I'm talking present value within the Skins offense as opposed to Garcon. Not to take anything away from what Pryor has accomplished in his transition from QB to WR - but no one was knocking down his door in free agency. Teams are still unsure of who he is as a player. I'll go with the proven vet. Just my opinion.
Garcon just signed a 5 year deal with SF, so they clearly think he'll be playing at least 3 years (can't really cut him before then).
Quote:
In comment 13405071 giants#1 said:
Quote:
but Pryor is on the upswing and Garcon looks more like he's on the downside of his career. I think it's likely that Pryor is the better WR in 2017 and significantly better over the next 3-4 seasons.
Well, obviously if you're projecting over the next 3 or 4 years Pryor would be the better wideout considering Garcon probably won't be playing before long. But as of this moment, I'm still going with Garcon. I'm talking present value within the Skins offense as opposed to Garcon. Not to take anything away from what Pryor has accomplished in his transition from QB to WR - but no one was knocking down his door in free agency. Teams are still unsure of who he is as a player. I'll go with the proven vet. Just my opinion.
Garcon just signed a 5 year deal with SF, so they clearly think he'll be playing at least 3 years (can't really cut him before then).
So obviously they feel he's better than Pryor too.
Either way, the original point was to this season and whether the Skins would be better with Pryor or Garcon. Projecting down the road is a different topic.
This draft is literally loaded with CB depth. It's four rounds deep at minimum. If we don't come out of it with at last a nickel CB for future need our FO missed the boat. I think they're well aware of it. I'd take odds a CB is a priority for us on draft day.
This draft is literally loaded with CB depth. It's four rounds deep at minimum. If we don't come out of it with at last a nickel CB for future need our FO missed the boat. I think they're well aware of it. I'd take odds a CB is a priority for us on draft day.
Agreed.
This draft is literally loaded with CB depth. It's four rounds deep at minimum. If we don't come out of it with at last a nickel CB for future need our FO missed the boat. I think they're well aware of it. I'd take odds a CB is a priority for us on draft day.
Giants will get at least one DB in this draft. Last time they didn't draft a single DB was back in 2002.
And on top of this draft being deep at CB, they'll likely also want to plan ahead for a future without DRC. He's only signed for 2017 and 2018 and if his play drops off this season, they could certainly decide to move on and use the substantial cap savings elsewhere.
BillKo : 11:27 am : link : reply
In comment 13404963 Torrag said:
Quote:
Presently Blake would be the #4 CB on our depth chart. That's not good enough.
How deep to you want to be?
Injuries aside, having three quality corners his about as good as your going to get, without sacrificing in other areas of your team............
True, but DRC and Apple, did miss time, and when they went out, the drop off in talent was tremendous....
We need to draft DRC's replacement anyways, he will be another year older....
Not to mention, we need starter/depth at free safety.....hoping Thompson can stay on the field this season, because Berhe, Adams, and the imposter Thompson are not the answer...
Quote:
You watch the Green Bay game? When DRC went down we fell apart. Why? two reasons. Wade and Sensabaugh couldn't cover dick. The Packers had that 4th receiver when they lost Nelson, while we couldn't compensate on our side of the ball.
This draft is literally loaded with CB depth. It's four rounds deep at minimum. If we don't come out of it with at last a nickel CB for future need our FO missed the boat. I think they're well aware of it. I'd take odds a CB is a priority for us on draft day.
Agreed.
But, tell me a team in the NFL that goes four deep at corner.
I'm not saying we won't draft there, because if a good corner is for the picking, the Giants will grab him.
I'd just don't see it as the priority right now..........
Definitely a priority in my opinion.
Right now the Giants have 3 starting quality CBs and crap. The top 3 might be the best in the NFL, but most teams carry 5+ CBs nowadays, and if the season started tomorrow, the last 2 for the Giants would probably be near the bottom of the league. So adding some capable backups is definitely a need. Even if it's a "slot only" guy.
Quote:
As JAG as JAG gets. The Skins have significantly downgraded their receivers.
Yeah I don't get the pants moving for Quick in this place.
He's an easy name to remember, maybe?
Jackson is good but always hurt.
I can see the younger Pryor and Quick being upgrades for them.
Quote:
As JAG as JAG gets. The Skins have significantly downgraded their receivers.
Yeah I don't get the pants moving for Quick in this place.
I see armchair scouts just gravitating to his size and age, and that's about it. The converse is pointing to a guy that's 30 and saying "I wouldn't pay him". Very simplistic reasoning.
Pryor/Doctson/Crowder/Quick > Garcon/DeSean/Crowder/Grant
Not scared of them at all, but I think the WRs could be better. Still think we beat them twice this year.
Quick, Crowder, Pryor can be very complementary but Doctson has star potential imo and his appearance on the field would instantly make the other prospective Skin wr's much better.
But can Doctson stay healthy?
I have my doubts