Who are you most excited to see Friday?

[-X-]

we know u love Pettis

Even if I didn't *appreciate* Pettis, there's no way he or Givens is not making this team (IMO).

 

[FRO]

Even if I didn't *appreciate* Pettis, there's no way he or Givens is not making this team (IMO).

Agreed. I don't know why we would want to get rid of either. Both can be solid role players. Last year showed us that they shouldn't be starters, but they both have very usable skill sets.

 

[lockdnram21]

Even if I didn't *appreciate* Pettis, there's no way he or Givens is not making this team (IMO).

your probably right but if they keep getting the same all through camp one of them or both probably want see the field much especially when Bailey comes back

 

[-X-]

Agreed. I don't know why we would want to get rid of either. Both can be solid role players. Last year showed us that they shouldn't be starters, but they both have very usable skill sets.

Zactly. It's all about situational groupings.

We can talk about one or the other leaving next year. Their experience (especially Pettis') is kind of important right now.

 

[lockdnram21]

Agreed. I don't know why we would want to get rid of either. Both can be solid role players. Last year showed us that they shouldn't be starters, but they both have very usable skill sets.

Zactly. It's all about situational groupings.

We can talk about one or the other leaving next year. Their experience (especially Pettis') is kind of important right now.

what good is experience if your on the bench? One or the other is going to be on the bench like Quick was most of the year. unless something dramtically changes

 

[FRO]

what good is experience if your on the bench? One or the other is going to be on the bench like Quick was most of the year. unless something dramtically changes

Injuries do happen. Many teams keep 6 WRs. I think we will too.

 

[OC_Ram]

I

For me it's Quick as well as the WRs in general. This is the one position we have all been waiting for a long time take a step forward and not being considered the weakest position on the team as well as one of the weaker groups in the NFL. If they elevate their play this team will be hard to beat with this defense and running game. I'm also looking to see this offense do better in penalties. They were not good last year.

was going to write my own response to the OP but it would have been a carbon copy of this ^^^

 

[12intheBox]

Injuries do happen. Many teams keep 6 WRs. I think we will too.

Sure, it would be nice to keep a 6th WR - but are you willing to lose Westbrooks or Bryant or even Garrett Gilbert in order to keep him around?

It would be one thing if we were talking about a special teams stud but we aren't. The roster is too deep to include a "just in case" guy.

Week 5 - One of those receivers is gone methinks.

 

[Athos]

How this new and improved Quick looks.

Moe getting reps in the slot.

Donald.

Gaines.

 

[woofwoofmo]

1. Overall defense - Will the GW influence be immediately seen
2. Secondary - Who will step up and make a run for the team, in what I think is the weakest area.
3. Ability to run the ball - With Bradford not playing, want to see how the line holds up and what holes they can open in a pretty vanilla game plan.
4. Special Teams - Who can make a play and enhance their chances for making roster

 

[-X-]

what good is experience if your on the bench? One or the other is going to be on the bench like Quick was most of the year. unless something dramtically changes

You're mistaking full-time starters with WR groupings. This team doesn't have a Torry Holt/Ike Bruce combination that plays all snaps. This team utilizes different WR groupings at different times. There won't be a receiver on this team who plays every snap of the game. I understand you want to jettison what you consider to be dead weight in Pettis and/or Givens, but then all you're doing is limiting what the OC can do at different times AND replacing experience with rookies. I mean, how many times do you want to field an offense that has a year of experience?

 

[FRO]

Sure, it would be nice to keep a 6th WR - but are you willing to lose Westbrooks or Bryant or even Garrett Gilbert in order to keep him around?

It would be one thing if we were talking about a special teams stud but we aren't. The roster is too deep to include a "just in case" guy.

Week 5 - One of those receivers is gone methinks.

I would be willing to keep a 6th WR over Westbrooks and Bryant. Britt is injury prone. Plus Pettis can play special teams and Givens can return kicks.

 

[12intheBox]

Pettis has been pedestrian at best on STs and If Givens can return, why haven't we seen it?

 

[lockdnram21]

You're mistaking full-time starters with WR groupings. This team doesn't have a Torry Holt/Ike Bruce combination that plays all snaps. This team utilizes different WR groupings at different times. There won't be a receiver on this team who plays every snap of the game. I understand you want to jettison what you consider to be dead weight in Pettis and/or Givens, but then all you're doing is limiting what the OC can do at different times AND replacing experience with rookies. I mean, how many times do you want to field an offense that has a year of experience?

what Rookies?If healthy and play up to potential i expect Britt, Austin, Bailey,and hopefully Quick to get majority of the snaps. especially with us being a running team i dont see snaps for givens or pettis. Especially if we use more 2 te sets. one of them will get a couple snaps a game and the other probably want dress on game days(after Bailey comes back) Sorry but thats how I see it

 

[12intheBox]

I look at the bottom of the roster as the developmental guys. We know what Pettis is - and it's not like he doesn't have value - he does. But he is a known value and he is our 5th or 6th WR depending on the matchup.

Westbrooks, as an example, is an unknown. He could be a complete nobody or he could be all pro in a few years.

If I'm filling the 53rd roster spot with a guy who isn't going to dress anyway (we aren't dressing 6 WRs are we?), and I'm comfortable with the other 5 WRs week in and week out, I'm taking the lotto ticket.

 

[-X-]

what Rookies?If healthy and play up to potential i expect Britt, Austin, Bailey,and hopefully Quick to get majority of the snaps. especially with us being a running team i dont see snaps for givens or pettis. Especially if we use more 2 te sets. one of them will get a couple snaps a game and the other probably want dress on game days(after Bailey comes back) Sorry but thats how I see it

You don't have to apologize for having a different view. So, you see four receivers and that's it? When has that ever happened? I'm not saying Pettis and Givens are going to be getting a ton of snaps. I'm saying they're going to have roles. And we're not going to be a running team in the sense that you're describing it. We're going to be a team that uses the run to set up the passing game via playaction. I can't necessarily guarantee there will be a need for the two (Givens/Pettis) this year, but that's really all this has been about. The idea that one or the other will be cut this year is the only thing I took issue with. If you think one of them will be gone, then I guess we just don't see eye to eye on that. Anything's possible, I suppose, but I think their value (however low anyone thinks it is) is there ... this year.

 

[lockdnram21]

You don't have to apologize for having a different view. So, you see four receivers and that's it? When has that ever happened? I'm not saying Pettis and Givens are going to be getting a ton of snaps. I'm saying they're going to have roles. And we're not going to be a running team in the sense that you're describing it. We're going to be a team that uses the run to set up the passing game via playaction. I can't necessarily guarantee there will be a need for the two (Givens/Pettis) this year, but that's really all this has been about. The idea that one or the other will be cut this year is the only thing I took issue with. If you think one of them will be gone, then I guess we just don't see eye to eye on that. Anything's possible, I suppose, but I think their value (however low anyone thinks it is) is there ... this year.

aw ok im not saying they will get cut im just saying one of them will play the role that Bailey played at the beginning of the season(no snaps on offense or not dressed at all and the other will play The role Quick played in the beginning a couple snaps here and there with limited targets.

 

[12intheBox]

aw ok im not saying they will get cut im just saying one of them will play the role that Bailey played at the beginning of the season(no snaps on offense or not dressed at all and the other will play The role Quick played in the beginning a couple snaps here and there with limited targets.

Here is what I don't get .... why would you do that with a guy like Pettis?

You do that with Quick and Bailey because you are giving them time to develop. Pettis is developed. This is him - this is what he is. And again, he is an NFL receiver - I'm not saying that he isn't. He has a skillset that is usable - he is a big target - but we seem to already have big targets that have passed him.

If he isn't going to make the field on Sundays and you aren't developing him for Sundays in 2016 - then whats the point?

Truth is, I'd like to keep him in case we suffer injuries. But a 53 man roster fills up fast. Really fast.

 

[lockdnram21]

Here is what I don't get .... why would you do that with a guy like Pettis?

You do that with Quick and Bailey because you are giving them time to develop. Pettis is developed. This is him - this is what he is. And again, he is an NFL receiver - I'm not saying that he isn't. He has a skillset that is usable - he is a big target - but we seem to already have big targets that have passed him.

If he isn't going to make the field on Sundays and you aren't developing him for Sundays in 2016 - then whats the point?

Truth is, I'd like to keep him in case we suffer injuries. But a 53 man roster fills up fast. Really fast.

in case somebody gets injured you can put a receiver in that Bradford already trust so things can continue smoothly