Is our WR corps one of the top 5 worst in the league? (poll)

King Dog · Mar 6, 2015

I have my own thoughts, but wanted to see what the consensus was on the board.

Basis4day · Mar 6, 2015

Hmm. Maybe.

Lockette and Walters are FA, Richardson is at least going to be on PUP next year. Tthe WR corp is in a bit of a flux.

See where were at after a week of FA?

nash72 · Mar 6, 2015

Its not one of our strong points, that's for sure.

Scottemojo · Mar 6, 2015

We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.

King Dog · Mar 6, 2015

Scottemojo":it0yp5iv said:
We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.

Maybe....One thing is for sure. Edelman absolutely exposed our secondary. We had nothing for him.

It hurt seeing Burley padded up on the sideline, but inactive. I think he would have made a difference when Lane went down.

Tical21 · Mar 6, 2015

We won't be after we add Jaelen Strong and Ty Montgomery

kjreid · Mar 6, 2015

The WR corp does so many things for the team kick off, return team, great blockers on the edges and generally they come down with the ball or play great As DB's when needed. I absolutely believe they have top 20 value as opposed to bottom 5

Brithawk · Mar 7, 2015

Scottemojo":1uq8bchf said:
We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.

Call it receiving corps & include Gronk then try & place the Pats in the bottom 10.

The threat of Gronk opened up things for all the other Pats

BirdsCommaAngry · Mar 7, 2015

So if we're in the bottom five...

Miami
Jacksonville
Oakland
Minnesota
St. Louis
Carolina
KC
Tennessee
Cleveland

... then that means at least 5 teams from this list have a better group of WRs than us.

Does. Not. Compute.

brimsalabim · Mar 7, 2015

Scottemojo":2w4kocbi said:
We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.

But they are #1 at TE and have Tom Shady.

CPHawk · Mar 7, 2015

BirdsCommaAngry":3cbtv5gb said:
So if we're in the bottom five...

Miami
Jacksonville
Oakland
Minnesota
St. Louis
Carolina
KC
Tennessee
Cleveland

... then that means at least 5 teams from this list have a better group of WRs than us.

Does. Not. Compute.

Yes, minny, Rams, panthers, KC and the Browns all have a #1 and 2 WR. We have a bunch of 3-5 types. That said the Browns 1 has his head so far up his ass, I'd take our guys.

Schadie001 · Mar 7, 2015

Just because we are a run first team does not mean our WR's aren't good. They make some huge catches at just the right time. I think we have a few guys who are average but top 5 worst, really?

hawksurething · Mar 7, 2015

Scottemojo":32kftykc said:
We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.

Wrong Lafell is good. Always was. He just needed a receiver that demands so much attention like Gronk & a O-line to give him time. edelman is a good slot WR,but I think Baldwin can be better than him in the slot.

Truth is hawks are at the bottom,so much so that Deion Sanders,Irvin,rice,etc say it publicly its so bad. Anytime you have undrafted WRs as starters your at the bottom. Now if you got a stud WR that demands double coverage & a undrafted WR?...that will work out OK. Maybe.

With a Run first team that keeps 8 in the box with a star like lynch...WRs are supposed to produce numbers like Dez did with Murray,Irvin did with Emmit,etc... Yet they produced weak TDs and can't get open vs good CBs in single coverage enough.

why gamble with your QBs health ? I'm surprised Wilson did not get hurt last year having to wait for our WRs to get clearly open. He could have risked throwing to them while they had just a little separation, but we seen how many INTs that produces with the kearse game. Did yall see that game ?

Hawkfan77 · Mar 7, 2015

King Dog":1riwbstc said:
Scottemojo":1riwbstc said:

We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.

Click to expand...

Maybe....One thing is for sure. Edelman absolutely exposed our secondary. We had nothing for him.

It hurt seeing Burley padded up on the sideline, but inactive. I think he would have made a difference when Lane went down.

That's not even close to being one sure thing. Not even close.

Completely agree with Scott, we were fine last year to win the SB and fine this year to get to the SB with supposedly the worst receiving group in the NFL

scutterhawk · Mar 7, 2015

King Dog":1e01efhs said:
Scottemojo":1e01efhs said:

We might be bottom 5, but the team that beat us in the SB is probably bottom 10.

Probaly the most over rated position in football for providing a championship difference.[/quote

Maybe....One thing is for sure. Edelman absolutely exposed our secondary. We had nothing for him.

It hurt seeing Burley padded up on the sideline, but inactive. I think he would have made a difference when Lane went down.

Click to expand...

Edelman exposed what Billycheat already knew about our Secondary, they were badly banged up, and at about 70% capacity, he took full advantage of it, and STILL came close to losing this game.
Had all our guys been anywhere near 90%, Edelman wouldn't have exposed shit.
As far as the Poll by the OP?, are there really 95% ( that figures out to be THIRTYONE other teams) that are considered to have better Receivers than the Seahawks?..........SERIOUSLY?...........REALLY?
The answer to the question (as framed), is a resounding....NO.

scutterhawk · Mar 7, 2015

hawksurething":37lk8khv said:
Wrong Lafell is good. Always was. He just needed a receiver that demands so much attention like Gronk & a O-line to give him time. edelman is a good slot WR,but I think Baldwin can be better than him in the slot.

Truth is hawks are at the bottom,so much so that Deion Sanders,Irvin,rice,etc say it publicly its so bad. Anytime you have undrafted WRs as starters your at the bottom. Now if you got a stud WR that demands double coverage & a undrafted WR?...that will work out OK. Maybe.

With a Run first team that keeps 8 in the box with a star like lynch...WRs are supposed to produce numbers like Dez did with Murray,Irvin did with Emmit,etc... Yet they produced weak TDs and can't get open vs good CBs in single coverage enough.

why gamble with your QBs health ? I'm surprised Wilson did not get hurt last year having to wait for our WRs to get clearly open. He could have risked throwing to them while they had just a little separation, but we seen how many INTs that produces with the kearse game. Did yall see that game ?

This is NONSENSE^^^^

Missing_Clink · Mar 7, 2015

You'd have to be looking at it through some very thick neon green glasses to believe that the Hawks do not have a bottom 5 WR corps. They are clearly among the league's worst and least talented, and no amount of homerism makes that untrue. I'm just hoping this is the year management finally gets it right at the position

hawksurething · Mar 7, 2015

scutterhawk":2fzs23g8 said:
hawksurething":2fzs23g8 said:

Wrong Lafell is good. Always was. He just needed a receiver that demands so much attention like Gronk & a O-line to give him time. edelman is a good slot WR,but I think Baldwin can be better than him in the slot.

Truth is hawks are at the bottom,so much so that Deion Sanders,Irvin,rice,etc say it publicly its so bad. Anytime you have undrafted WRs as starters your at the bottom. Now if you got a stud WR that demands double coverage & a undrafted WR?...that will work out OK. Maybe.

With a Run first team that keeps 8 in the box with a star like lynch...WRs are supposed to produce numbers like Dez did with Murray,Irvin did with Emmit,etc... Yet they produced weak TDs and can't get open vs good CBs in single coverage enough.

why gamble with your QBs health ? I'm surprised Wilson did not get hurt last year having to wait for our WRs to get clearly open. He could have risked throwing to them while they had just a little separation, but we seen how many INTs that produces with the kearse game. Did yall see that game ?

Click to expand...

This is NONSENSE^^^^

Its nonsense that you say its nonsense, without give anything to prove its nonsense!

Wilson makes our nondrafted WRs look decent,flynn sucked with them,then did good again in GB before he got older & weaker. u can't handle the truth ?

Deionsanders is right. How is what he said about our WRs nonsense ?

CPHawk · Mar 7, 2015

Lafell would easily be the best WR on our team.

hawksurething · Mar 7, 2015

CPHawk":3ia0qwq0 said:
Lafell would easily be the best WR on our team.

Your 100% correct . it is a freaking shame. Lol.

Pats have elite Gronk ! Then they get a good WR in lafell. Always have good run game & defense. And amazing O-lines.

Why pats get all that complete team & not us hawks ? Why would anyone not want us to have a complete team anyways ? What is their hidden agenda ?

Huh " why not us".

Is our WR corps one of the top 5 worst in the league? (poll)

Is our WR corps one of the top 5 worst in the league?

Yes

No

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads