(06-02-2016, 01:38 AM)Nately120 Wrote: So we should make coaching decisions based on a guy's twitter activity?  Argh, can't we just see which of them is best at being a WR?

(06-02-2016, 01:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Um....  your #2 is your possession receiver.  A guy that can run slants, curls, outs, things like that of the short-to-intermediate range and getting YAC is exactly what we want.  Run good routes and get the yards to move the chains.

He might get a lot of slot work and be a TJ type of receiver, which just means that the young guys are stepping up on the outside, which is good.

But I like Lafell as a route runner and YAC guy.......  we have AJ to go deep 

(06-02-2016, 12:13 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: While i agree to a point players still are considered by what they do best.

A bigger body like Lafell is usually used outside more often than in the Slot in the NFL.

We will move our guys around lots i am sure like we did last year for sure and Boyd could be on the outside
with Lafell in the Slot at times. I just consider Boyd to be more of a Slot receiver myself. Quick, possession WR
with great hands. That is not Lafell who is a big bodied YAC guy with speed.

(06-02-2016, 12:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: LaFell was in the slot 63% of the time his last year in CAR. That was also the way he was most effective. I'm not saying he won't be on the outside, but he himself said when he got here he wanted to play in the slot more. In NE they made him play outside and it may be one of the reasons his production never lived up.

(06-02-2016, 11:59 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I never expected Boyd to start out Wide over Lafell, never. Boyd is a Slot receiver in the NFL, 2nd best one in the
Draft behind Sterling Shepard in my opinion. He will be starting in the Slot come opening day barring injury is what
i truly believe. Especially with Eifert out.

That is unless Core just lights up the world and even then Core is a Wideout and not a Slot receiver.

(06-02-2016, 12:32 PM)bengalsturntup5532 Wrote: Lefell lafell whatever,it doesnt matter when He drops it. Ive seen video evidence of it last year.

(06-02-2016, 12:32 PM)bengalsturntup5532 Wrote: Lefell lafell whatever,it doesnt matter when He drops it. Ive seen video evidence of it last year.

(06-02-2016, 01:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: LaFell's career drop % is significantly better than Mo Sanu's.

He was coming back from injury last year and shaking off rust when he came back.

(06-02-2016, 01:39 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: LaFell has 278 career receptions, Sanu has 152. If Sanu and LaFell had equal career receptions, the percentage would probably closer.

Sanus drop percentage should drop once he is in Atlanta and adds more receptions to his total.

(06-02-2016, 01:49 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Not following this logic at all. Sanu's worst season as far as drop % was 2014, when he was used the most.

So how is more usage going to lower his drops? 

Point blank, LaFell's drops are greatly exaggerated by folks who simply don't like the signing. If I need to, I can compare LaFell's drop % to many other good WRs and anti-LaFell guys aren't going to like the results. One rusty game with numerous drops does not = dude has terrible hands. His career numbers show that his hands are pretty average. Not bad.

(06-02-2016, 01:57 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: cant bash lafells drops during a year he was battling injuries if we don't bash eifert for the same thing.

(06-02-2016, 01:57 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: cant bash lafells drops during a year he was battling injuries if we don't bash eifert for the same thing.

(06-02-2016, 02:53 PM)ochocincos Wrote: TD receptions may be the differentiating factor for those bashing LaFell but not Eifert. Eifert had 13 TDs and LaFell had 0. Both had practically the same number of targets (72 for Eifert vs 74 for LaFell), but LaFell only had 37 receptions compared to Eifert's 52 receptions. Now obviously not every target is fully catchable and therefore resulting in a drop if not a reception, but I think people may be thinking differently if LaFell had more receptions with that many targets.

So if a player is getting in the end zone far more often, that player may be far more forgiven compared to someone with very similar stats except for TD receptions.

(06-02-2016, 03:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The drops were an anomaly for LaFell and so were the lack of TDs. He had 7 TDs in 2014 (9 if you count playoffs) and 5 the year before that. Pretty much all of his drops happened in his first game off the PUP list. I think people are judging him too harshly for 1 game, and a season where he only played 11 games at less than 100% coming off a foot injury. 

Feet are pretty important to WR's. So is timing, which he was probably lacking with Brady after such a long layoff.

(06-02-2016, 03:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The drops were an anomaly for LaFell and so were the lack of TDs. He had 7 TDs in 2014 (9 if you count playoffs) and 5 the year before that. Pretty much all of his drops happened in his first game off the PUP list. I think people are judging him too harshly for 1 game, and a season where he only played 11 games at less than 100% coming off a foot injury. 

Feet are pretty important to WR's. So is timing, which he was probably lacking with Brady after such a long layoff.

(06-02-2016, 01:12 PM)Shady Wrote: I guess we both disagree with Dehner's claim that Boyd is "questionable" as a slot WR. WTF, Paul? 

(06-02-2016, 03:14 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I agree about the drops and timing, but think the seven touchdowns in 2014 was more of an anomaly.  He only has 20 total in his entire six year career.

(06-02-2016, 03:14 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I agree about the drops and timing, but think the seven touchdowns in 2014 was more of an anomaly.  He only has 20 total in his entire six year career.