PDA

View Full Version : The WR corps



flea
09-04-2012, 01:24 PM
Truth be told, I'm preparing a fantasy draft and have my eye on the Seahawks for some sleeper WR production. Of course Tate is the upside play, but beyond him how is the depth chart shaking out? Who in the offense do you think Wilson will rely upon (assuming you think he'll keep the job)? How was Edwards in camp? Just generally looking for a scoop on a team I don't follow enough.

NateyB24
09-04-2012, 02:24 PM
Rice if he can stay healthy, Edward's looked like Wilson's blanket when he needed to throw the ball up and Baldwin should be a nice fantasy WR although he has been hurt and has had no preseason games under his belt.

jej
09-04-2012, 05:45 PM
John Stamos.

ccg34
09-05-2012, 12:20 AM
I would draft Charly Martin in the 1st, if I were you. The dude is a beast. He has the rushing skills of Adrian Peterson, can throw like Brees, can tackle like Ray Lewis, and catch like Calvin Johnson. He also has the best td celebrtion dances. He maybe the greatest player of all time on offense and defense when all is said and done.

flea
09-05-2012, 12:24 AM
Rice if he can stay healthy, Edward's looked like Wilson's blanket when he needed to throw the ball up and Baldwin should be a nice fantasy WR although he has been hurt and has had no preseason games under his belt.

Thanks, you stand out among this astute and literate group.

ElFuturoDeESPN
09-05-2012, 12:58 AM
I've been snagging Zach Miller as a FA in a few of my deeper leagues. Could be a nice option/security for Russell if he puts up a healthy year.

FWBrodie
09-05-2012, 02:45 AM
Evan Moore is probably a better bet for numbers from TE to be honest.

NateyB24
09-05-2012, 09:45 AM
Sound's like Lynch is going to be doubtful for this game on Sunday i couldn't find a link but i saw it on NFL AM.

Turbin might be a good pickup for somebody he reminds me a lot of Lynch where he keeps his legs churning but has a bit more speed if you give him a hole.

This whole back spasm thing has me worried long term with Lynch we kept 5 back's and this is probably the reason why.

Vinny642
09-05-2012, 10:05 AM
Both Tate and Baldwin have upside potential, depending how late you get them, Sidney Rice CAN be good if he stays on the field, and considering he is our number 1... it should mean more chances

NateyB24
09-05-2012, 10:40 AM
Both Tate and Baldwin have upside potential, depending how late you get them, Sidney Rice CAN be good if he stays on the field, and considering he is our number 1... it should mean more chances

Tate is out 2-3 week's though with an injury.

Vinny642
09-05-2012, 10:51 AM
Tate is out 2-3 week's though with an injury.

Yeah I know, I mean't when he eventually comes back

mberr
09-05-2012, 05:09 PM
Well I asked this same question a while back and have since kept Doug Baldwin on my bench even though it's been tempting to drop him for Braylon Edwards or other WRs like LaFell or Jon Baldwin.

Currently thinking of dropping Isaac Redman for Turbin, but I need to see how things play out for the rest of this week... Does Carroll usually make announcements early in the week or is it going to take up until game time?

NateyB24
09-05-2012, 05:47 PM
A sleeper might be Charlie Martin he isn't going to burn anybody but he catches the ball when thrown his way and he runs solid routes.

With Golden Tate's knee sprain Edward's is likely to take his spot so he will be starting against the Cardinal's.

jej
09-05-2012, 06:35 PM
Am i the only one who gets annoyed by these? Isnt there a fantasy help forum?

flea
09-05-2012, 06:47 PM
Lighten up, son. It's a good way for you to talk about your wideouts. Thanks to the others.

Labgrownmangoat
09-05-2012, 07:46 PM
First, congrats to the OP on "corps," which is correct but rarely used.

Second, Rice has the highest upside, followed by Edwards. Each has his own risks, injury in the case of Rice and dropsies in the case of Edwards.

jej
09-05-2012, 09:02 PM
Lighten up, son. It's a good way for you to talk about your wideouts. Thanks to the others.

Ok "pops".

Just saying, there's a fantasy section for a reason.

NateyB24
09-05-2012, 09:37 PM
First, congrats to the OP on "corps," which is correct but rarely used.

Second, Rice has the highest upside, followed by Edwards. Each has his own risks, injury in the case of Rice and dropsies in the case of Edwards.

Rice is going to have all the coverage leaving guy's like Edward's,Baldwin,Martin and Tate when he comes back 1 on 1 at times.

FWBrodie
09-07-2012, 01:17 AM
First, congrats to the OP on "corps," which is correct but rarely used.

Second, Rice has the highest upside, followed by Edwards. Each has his own risks, injury in the case of Rice and dropsies in the case of Edwards.

x2

Pet peeve.

mberr
09-07-2012, 02:54 AM
what do other people say? crops? corpse? core?

FWBrodie
09-07-2012, 08:52 AM
Core.

Seattle4Ever
09-07-2012, 10:34 AM
Yeah it's annoying.

House
09-14-2012, 02:05 AM
Golden looked "Explosive" at practice playing split end opposite Rice... excited to see what he does vs DAL...
http://m.nfl.com/news/0ap1000000061880/

NateyB24
09-14-2012, 02:36 AM
Golden looked "Explosive" at practice playing split end opposite Rice... excited to see what he does vs DAL...
http://m.nfl.com/news/0ap1000000061880/

I bet Tate doesn't drop that slant i really don't think Tate is a get down the field fast guy but he is great at catching things thrown his way.

jej
09-14-2012, 06:35 PM
It will be great if Tate can be a complement to Rice. I still want a WR in the 2nd round tho, maybe first if Tate doesn't break out.

NateyB24
09-14-2012, 10:34 PM
It will be great if Tate can be a complement to Rice. I still want a WR in the 2nd round tho, maybe first if Tate doesn't break out.

I think we should address it in the first round if one is there i think there will be at least 3 1st round receivers if they all decide to come out.

jej
09-14-2012, 10:58 PM
Yeah, but if Tate plays well, there could be bigger needs for the first.

NateyB24
09-15-2012, 12:41 AM
Yeah, but if Tate plays well, there could be bigger needs for the first.

Nah i still think we should think receiver can't count on Rice staying healthy and judging by last game we need a game changer nobody could beat one on one but Rice.

House
09-15-2012, 12:54 AM
Nah i still think we should think receiver can't count on Rice staying healthy and judging by last game we need a game changer nobody could beat one on one but Rice.

Grabbing a WR in the 1st Rd (such as a R. Woods) would make Sidney Rice a SCARY #2

jej
09-15-2012, 11:31 AM
It's a lot easier to find a good receiver in the 2nd/3rd than it is to find other positions. I think we are gonna need a lineman first. We have a shot at Wilson in the 2nd anyway.

If Tate plays like a #2 we don't need to get a receiver in the 1st.

House
09-15-2012, 12:35 PM
It's a lot easier to find a good receiver in the 2nd/3rd than it is to find other positions. I think we are gonna need a lineman first. We have a shot at Wilson in the 2nd anyway.

If Tate plays like a #2 we don't need to get a receiver in the 1st.

Cant say i agree with you... Tate was a 2nd rd pick and we're still working on him. Studs like AJ Green and Julio Jones are GAMECHANGERS. Our FO has also found great values guys in later rds

NateyB24
09-15-2012, 12:42 PM
Cant say i agree with you... Tate was a 2nd rd pick and we're still working on him. Studs like AJ Green and Julio Jones are GAMECHANGERS. Our FO has also found great values guys in later rds

Agreed, When you take a WR in the 2nd round they are usually a project.

If Irvin develops into that pass rusher i really can't think of a bigger need then a true #1 receiver or a pass catching TE.

House
09-15-2012, 01:27 PM
Agreed, When you take a WR in the 2nd round they are usually a project.

If Irvin develops into that pass rusher i really can't think of a bigger need then a true #1 receiver or a pass catching TE.

Very true... Not too many Pass-catching TEs go in the 1st either (depending on our draft # of course)

jej
09-15-2012, 01:34 PM
My point is, if Tate develops, there could be a bigger need to address in the first round.

For example, a starting OLineman is more important that a WR if you have a solid 1-3 already.

jej
09-15-2012, 01:37 PM
http://walterfootball.com/draft2013WR.php

Look at the depth at that position. We could get Wilson in the 2nd, when you guys want him in the first

shen
09-15-2012, 02:09 PM
I want DeAndre Hopkins if he comes out. Looks like most explosive WR thus far.

House
09-15-2012, 02:51 PM
My point is, if Tate develops, there could be a bigger need to address in the first round.

For example, a starting OLineman is more important that a WR if you have a solid 1-3 already.

I understand what you're saying, i was saying i didnt agree with the Good WR in the 2nd rd part.

There will be several "what ifs" that come into play... Guys like Irvin, Tate, Giacomini and several others will be looked at and that'll dictate our draft

NateyB24
09-15-2012, 03:00 PM
We spent to many high round draft picks on Offensive Linemen we can find a RT later in the draft.

Even if the WR class is deep i would still take a WR because i wouldn't want to wait and have to take a lesser WR just so i can grab a guy from a weaker position.

jej
09-15-2012, 06:16 PM
That logic doesn't make sense to me. We haven't found good lineman early, so let's get one later instead?

If our line keeps looking this ******, something needs to be done.

ccg34
09-15-2012, 07:11 PM
Draft talk is way too early. I remember when we thought CB was the position to address last year. We were clamoring for Fitzpatrick. RG3 and Luck were brought up a lot. Remember the idea of trading rounds 1-7 for Luck?

NateyB24
09-15-2012, 08:05 PM
Draft talk is way too early. I remember when we thought CB was the position to address last year. We were clamoring for Fitzpatrick. RG3 and Luck were brought up a lot. Remember the idea of trading rounds 1-7 for Luck?

Fitzpatrick to me would have been good value even though we didn't need it and i still would have taken RG3 or Luck without hesitation.

This team desperately needs a play making WR it's pretty obvious watching this team.


That logic doesn't make sense to me. We haven't found good lineman early, so let's get one later instead?

If our line keeps looking this ******, something needs to be done.

Let me put it this way you would rather draft a less talented Offensive Linemen just because there isn't a lot of them over a more talent WR??

Besides as i said before we have put a lot of early draft picks into our Line Okung,Unger,Moffit and Carpenter.

Seattle4Ever
09-15-2012, 08:59 PM
Are you talking about Fitzpatrick or Kirkpatrick...?

jej
09-15-2012, 08:59 PM
Yeah, and it hasn't panned out. How will drafting them later help?

NateyB24
09-15-2012, 09:20 PM
Yeah, and it hasn't panned out. How will drafting them later help?

We don't need offensive linemen we got our line Okung-Carpenter-Unger-Moffit/Sweezy-Giacomini again why do we need to invest more high picks into it if the WR is more talented and is a bigger need?

The only reason it looked terrible on Sunday is mainly because of Sweezy Moffitt will sure it up when he plays tomorrow.

jej
09-15-2012, 11:30 PM
Because Russ had zero time. If they play like they did week 1, we need something fixed.

NateyB24
09-16-2012, 02:35 AM
Because Russ had zero time. If they play like they did week 1, we need something fixed.

It was Sweezys fault not to bash on the guy he was a 7th round pick converted D-Tackle but he kept letting Dockett through untouched Moffitt should fix this.

shen
09-16-2012, 01:55 PM
A 7th round DT trying to block Dockett, one the best Dlineman in league, hard to figure what went wrong.