Is it the QB or the Receiver?

I do not advocate bringing in Plax. I only bring it up to illustrate that if we were talking about throwing big money at an aging receiver who just had one good year after several mediocre years that we would all be in a tizzy against it. Since it is Moose we are in favor of it. Look at it from a third party's position and it is not a slam dunk to bring him back.

 

one good year after several mediocre years? Yep, it's Moose's fault we had revolving QBs and offensive schemes for the years following him leading the NFC in receptions. Moose is not Plexiglass Burress. Compare him to Hines Ward, Joe Horn, or somebody who isn't just a down-field threat.

The fact remains that everytime Moose has been a focal point in the offense, he has stepped up and performed. It's not like he could control the number of times he's been thrown to with Jeff Lewis, Weinke, and Peete.

 

Once again, if Moose were to take up the Ricky Williams lifestyle and never play football again what would you want us to do in free agency? Should we spend a lot of money on a receiver who will be 32 by the start of the season? Take away the fact that we all like Moose and then see if it makes sense to give him a big money deal. I would like him back too but not if it hampers our ability to build the OL.

 

Yes, depending on the receiver. There have been a lot of guys who were in their prime in the early 30s. You've heard of Jerry Rice, right? It's not like a 32 year old WR is the same as a 32 year old running back. I'm not saying spend big money on ANY 32 year old WR, but in this case, age is not a factor.

Joe Horn was 2nd in yardage, and he's 32 or 33. Torry Holt will be 30 soon. Isaac Bruce was 5th in yardage and he's 33 or so. TO is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and he's 32. Age just is not that big of a factor in WRs, unless they've had multiple injuries. No, I wouldn't spend Moose money on Bruce, but I'd sure spend it on any of these other top 5 guys.

 

Throw out the age then, does it makes sense to have money in two "number one receivers" while we have Colbert who had a good rookie year? If Moose were gone already would you rather sign a Joe Horn or a good right tackle and a good free safety?

 

Yes, it makes sense. Did Pitt spend money on Ward and Burress? Did Indy spend on Harrison and Wayne? Did St. Louis spend on Bruce and Holt? Even Philly has spend big money and early picks on WRs, they just haven't panned out. Even Capers has spent on 2 number one WRs in Houston. If your one "number one reciever" gets hurt, do you really want Colbert and Hankton starting? Yes, we may have to skimp on WR because of our salary cap situation and other needs, but certainly, teams need 2 "number one recievers" to do anything. I'm still not convinced that Smith is a number one reciever. He's a play-maker certainly, but can he take the physical toll of getting fed the ball 90 times a year?

 

Well, that's the problem when you cling to a point. You start suggesting that a player is a #2 receiver just because the other guy got a lot of receptions early in 03. When the O worked right, late in the year, there wasn't a division of catches like that, nor was there in the playoffs. In the right situation, Smith is getting the big plays and Moose is making more catches in high percentage range. I don't see Colbert being a guy you can feed, and then you're just feeding Smith all day.

 

I do not question Moose being a good player and valuable but I do not think our need is as great at wideout as it is on the OL and some other areas.

Indy and St Louis paid both wideouts at the expense of the defense. Pittsburgh is going to let Plax walk rather than pay him big bucks.

 

Why not? They have Randel El who would fit the Steve Smith role in that offense extremely well, and Ward obviously fills the Moose role. I don't think Indy and St. Louis have spend on wideouts at the expense of the defense. You've seen them use first day picks on defense the last few years, right? Mike Doss, Adam Archuleta, Jimmy Kennedy, Pina Tinosamoa, Robert Thomas, Travis Fisher, Damiene Lewis, Ryan Pickett, Tommy Polley, Dwight Freeney, Larry Tripplett, Idrees Bashir, and a ton of others. Both of those teams have used a ton of picks on defense, so it's not like they're just signing street FAs because they've used all their money on wideouts...

 

With Burress, you're seeing a guy who's getting into FA because his team doesn't want him - he's not been that great. He had good years in 01, 02, and nothing much since. Too few yards, rec, TD, so they don't need him. They can easily start Randle-El and get a bigger slot guy and be fine.

While the situation's similar - don't spend for an existing receiver because a potential replacement is there, it obviously neglects the difference between three disappointing seasons in a row from a guy who lacks the fire and a guy who hustles every down and makes Pro Bowl.