Would you rather: $8-10 mill a year to spend on WR2 or TE1?

[*ochocincos*]

At some point within the next couple years, Eifert will either get an extension or leave in FA. If he stays, he'll be paid like the #2 target and likely command $8-10 mill a year. If he leaves, the Bengals could potentially bring in some other receiving threat as the #2, and that player could command about $8-10 mill a year.

So I'd like to get everyone's opinion on if the Bengals were to spend $8-10 million a year on a #2 receiving option, would you prefer it go to a WR or TE (could be Eifert)?

WR argument: A good WR2 should be around 1000 yards and hopefully around 6 TDs. They also are more likely to stay healthy given they are going up against CBs, not LBs and safeties as often. However, a WR is most often less involved with blocking compared to a TE, which can be an added benefit to an offense.

TE argument: A receiving TE is usually one of the best options in the red zone because they are such big targets. They add a different wrinkle to an offense by also being pretty difficult to take down in the open field. A good receiving TE is a nice security blanket. However, some drawbacks to a TE being the #2 are that the top TEs are hurt more often compared to WR2's. Guys like Eifert, Gronk, Reed, and Graham have been dinged up a lot during their careers, and their offenses typically suffer when they are out. That is added risk. Last, it's pretty rare that a TE will reach 1000 yards in a season. Last year, only Olsen and Kelce surpassed that milestone, whereas 23 WRs did reach that milestone. Part of this had to do with health though, but that has to always be considered.

So which do you prefer in an ideal scenario?