Scottemojo":dx8howwz said:
The whole supporting cast argument, which is crap, is about Lynch. Otherwise, the supporting cast nod goes to Indy. The offensive line in Indy gets a lot of criticism, but like Wilson, a lot of that is on Luck for holding the ball a long time.
The fact that Luck has really been forcing the ball to Hilton lately... to me says a lot less about Hilton and a lot more about how mediocre their WR depth is (though I do like Moncrief). Wayne looks oooooold this year and Nicks is a has-been. You would have to really love Hilton to take that group over Baldwin, Kearse, Richardson, and Norwood. By my count that's four young, good WRs versus two for them. Granted, in 2012 and 2013, I'm taking the Colts receivers.
Hilton is dangerous, and fits their vertical offense well, but he's a bit too gimmicky for me. Reminds me of Brandin Cooks. He'll have huge games against certain matchups and disappear in other games. Until very recently he hasn't been a week in, week out threat, and I think that has changed only because the other WRs in that group are lacking or just cutting their teeth.
Allen is a do anything TE. Fleener has been a disappointment for me (he was a stud at Stanford), but he's hardly terrible.
I'd take our TE group over theirs when Miller is healthy, but it's pretty close. I know he's taken some shit lately, but I see a lot of talent in Willson. He's not a guy I'd want as a #1 TE, but he's the perfect H-back / TE hybrid in terms of ability. I think he'd be a star on teams that feed the ball to TEs more and care little about TE blocking.
RBs, no contest. Lynch alone makes it so. I would take Bradshaw over Turbin for sure, but probably not Michael. And after that, their RBs are a joke.
OL, not sure. I haven't watched much of their OL, but I do think Seattle's OL has generally outplayed their reputation (when healthy) for most of the Wilson era.
OC... yeah, probably an edge for Indy there.