Simple Question What's Your Answer and Reason

[*rfaulk34*]

(03-20-2021, 11:47 PM)Whatever Wrote: Thomas had 10 catches on 21 targets for 144 yards and no TD's in his Rams career.

He had 13 catches on 21 targets for 132 yards and 1 TD last year.  19 of those targets were from Burrow.

So, given the similar number of passes thrown his way, he had a higher catch %, lower yards per catch, better yards per target, and 1 more TD with Burrow.

I think it's fair to say he was better with Burrow.  However, it's not some night and day difference.  He's a STer/#5 or #6 WR.  He was still a STer/#5 or #6 WR with Burrow.  The guy didn't catch a pass after week 7.

We also heard this line last off-season.  We don't need a WR early.  Burrow was supposed to turn Auden Tate into a #2 WR.  Didn't happen.  The guy does make his receivers better, but you can only polish turds so much.

Get the kid an OL.  Get him the weapons he needs.  Don't cheap out on his supporting cast.

(re: my P.S.) Why are we debating Mike Thomas? A question was asked, comparable stats were given. 1, from a span of 3 years, the other from a span of 8 games. We're not debating if Mike Thomas is good/averag/bad. We're pointing out that Burrow was able to use him better in a shorter amount of time. The highlighted red is exactly what i was saying. 

Give him the line and i bet a guy like Thomas would put up better numbers. I'm sure we both agree that's the way it would play out, regardless of what receiver we are talking about. BUT give him a better line with Boyd, Higgins, a guy like Rashod Bateman, a decent TE and a healthy Mixon and he should shred. 

P.S. maybe i read the attitude of your first couple lines wrong?