Mr Dee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Listen, any receiver who can get this team positive yards, around the ten yard mark, consistently, should be in the lineup. I don't care how he got them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Listen, any receiver who can get this team positive yards, around the ten yard mark, consistently, should be in the lineup. I don't care how he got them. If you hadn't started with "listen" I would have completed disregarded this post. Bigblue204, Logan007, Mr Dee and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Not too hard to replace his production when he can't stay in the lineup. Pulse and a passport is all it takes, eh? Talent? Pffft. Wonder how much longer BC is going to put up with that Andrew Harris clown? He's injured again. At least they can rest assured that his production won't be hard to replace. Given the choice, which one would you rather have on your team? This would have to be classified as a non-point. Aaron Rodgers? Not sure, but if we're playing make believe then that's my answer. We've had Canadian bodies taking up space on the field who catch balls once in a while. Receiving threats? The only one since Gerald Wilcox who comes anywhere close to being a player defences feel threatened by is Watson. Does he get injured? Sure. Will we easily find a player with comparable talent to replace him? No. We can probably find another Hargreaves fairly easily. I sure don't want that. The ability to find playmaking NI receivers seems to be greatly overestimated by some here. Look at Ottawa. They have no talent at all for NI receiving. They have Matt Carter. He has 356 yards so far this season. Is that better than all our guys? Yep. Is he better than any of our guys? Nope. He has been targeted over and over by Burris in that offence and has 356 yards to show for it, and I'm guessing those numbers include the forward progress he makes before he fumbles the ball. I'm pretty sure he's been targeted more than all our NI's combined, and then multiplied by 2. If a decent NI receiver had that opportunity he'd have around 700 yards already. Fantuz hasn't seen half that much pigskin and he has almost 500 yards. Carter is getting the biggest opportunity he will ever have in his career and is showing himself to be a larger-bodied Geoff Drover. Watson has actual talent. Moving him and replacing him with what will almost certainly be a significantly inferior player, a guy with a passport and a pulse? I think that's a terrible move for the Bombers, and an obvious downgrade in overall talent. That thing we keep saying needs to be upgraded. Taking him out and putting in a Matt Carter/Hargreaves/Drover/longlistofuselessNIreceiversoverthelast15years? On purpose? Barf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Listen, any receiver who can get this team positive yards, around the ten yard mark, consistently, should be in the lineup. I don't care how he got them. If you hadn't started with "listen" I would have completed disregarded this post. I did. Should have started with "read". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlue Posted October 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 The point of this thread was to get Watson blocking less and receiving more ... so it deteriorates into trading Watson for a roll of duct tape! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinBlue Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 A roll of duct tape is better than somebody constantly in and out of the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 At this point, without depth, it's better to have him then not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 A roll of duct tape is better than somebody constantly in and out of the lineup. Yes, a roll of duct tape would share the team lead for receiving touchdowns... (place all the eye rolls here) Blue-urns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBlink Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Floyd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 A roll of duct tape is better than somebody constantly in and out of the lineup. Yes, a roll of duct tape would share the team lead for receiving touchdowns... (place all the eye rolls here) ………..Eye rolls aren't enough, we need a dislike button. Blue-urns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 A roll of duct tape is better than somebody constantly in and out of the lineup. Yes, a roll of duct tape would share the team lead for receiving touchdowns... (place all the eye rolls here) But there's so many useful things we can do with duct tape... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 A roll of duct tape is better than somebody constantly in and out of the lineup. Yes, a roll of duct tape would share the team lead for receiving touchdowns... (place all the eye rolls here) But there's so many useful things we can do with duct tape... Is that Joe Mack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoman Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 A roll of duct tape is better than somebody constantly in and out of the lineup. Yes, a roll of duct tape would share the team lead for receiving touchdowns... (place all the eye rolls here) But there's so many useful things we can do with duct tape... Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigseye Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Not too hard to replace his production when he can't stay in the lineup. Pulse and a passport is all it takes, eh? Talent? Pffft. Wonder how much longer BC is going to put up with that Andrew Harris clown? He's injured again. At least they can rest assured that his production won't be hard to replace. Given the choice, which one would you rather have on your team? This would have to be classified as a non-point. Aaron Rodgers? Not sure, but if we're playing make believe then that's my answer. We've had Canadian bodies taking up space on the field who catch balls once in a while. Receiving threats? The only one since Gerald Wilcox who comes anywhere close to being a player defences feel threatened by is Watson. Does he get injured? Sure. Will we easily find a player with comparable talent to replace him? No. We can probably find another Hargreaves fairly easily. I sure don't want that. The ability to find playmaking NI receivers seems to be greatly overestimated by some here. Look at Ottawa. They have no talent at all for NI receiving. They have Matt Carter. He has 356 yards so far this season. Is that better than all our guys? Yep. Is he better than any of our guys? Nope. He has been targeted over and over by Burris in that offence and has 356 yards to show for it, and I'm guessing those numbers include the forward progress he makes before he fumbles the ball. I'm pretty sure he's been targeted more than all our NI's combined, and then multiplied by 2. If a decent NI receiver had that opportunity he'd have around 700 yards already. Fantuz hasn't seen half that much pigskin and he has almost 500 yards. Carter is getting the biggest opportunity he will ever have in his career and is showing himself to be a larger-bodied Geoff Drover. Watson has actual talent. Moving him and replacing him with what will almost certainly be a significantly inferior player, a guy with a passport and a pulse? I think that's a terrible move for the Bombers, and an obvious downgrade in overall talent. That thing we keep saying needs to be upgraded. Taking him out and putting in a Matt Carter/Hargreaves/Drover/longlistofuselessNIreceiversoverthelast15years? On purpose? Barf. We won't be starting 3 international linemen forever, ideally 1 maybe 2, in either case national receivers will simply be a luxury not a need. We need O and D national linemen and if Watson lands us one, we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'd agree if we were talking about 2011 Watson. We aren't. We probably never will see that player again. If we can get value for him and we turn it down hoping he's going to be more than an average player with some ability to do some good things every once and awhile when his body lets him, we're not building our team correctly IMO. This team is going to win in 2015 and 2016, and Watson likely will be a minor factor in that if he is at all. Floyd and mbrg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't see how trading our Canadians helps us, We lack Canadian depth so now we want to trade it? Doesn't make sense to me at all. Oh and anyone who thinks we can get a starting Canadian oline or dline for Watson, you have got to be kidding me. When was the last time a team traded a starting Canadian oline for a Canadian receiver who is injured all the time? Never? So not sure why it would start now. Are GM's dumber now a days than they were in the past? Only way you could probably trade Watson for a Canadian Olineman is if they Canadian Olineman was injured most the time too and how does that help us again? Seriously, reading some of these posts, one would almost assume some of you think we could get like Josh Bourke or some all star for Watson, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. At best we'd probably get a guy like Neufeld or Who was that guy we traded woodson for from Toronto? Parenteau? Yeah a guy like that, You ain't getting much for Watson so the best thing to do is hang on to him until you have someone who can replace him. As much as some think that guy exists, he doesn't right now. Draft Nic Demski? Sure then maybe we can think about moving Watson. Logan007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 Wow. We are so flush with NI talent at the skill positions that we can trade them away. I never realized we had such an immense stockpile of first rate Nationals waiting in the wings. Seriously though, trading Watson would be immensely stupid right now. If we go into FA and pry Andy Fantuz or Durie or someone away or draft a stud like Demski then we can play around with the notion. Until then it is crazy talk by a frustrated fan base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'd agree if we were talking about 2011 Watson. We aren't. We probably never will see that player again. If we can get value for him and we turn it down hoping he's going to be more than an average player with some ability to do some good things every once and awhile when his body lets him, we're not building our team correctly IMO. This team is going to win in 2015 and 2016, and Watson likely will be a minor factor in that if he is at all. While I disagree to a certain extent, I'm liking this post because it is not moronic. Which can't be said about several others. My preference to keep Watson is also from a big picture perspective. Next year we're almost certain to use our 1rst round pick on a lineman. Probably an Olineman. Nic Demski isn't coming here until at least 2017 when he gets his first chance to be a free agent. So lets say we can get a 3rd round pick for Watson. Is our team more likely to be better in 2015 and 2016 with that player or with Watson? Assuming we get typical 3rd round value for a 3rd round pick, we're better with Watson. He is a starting 7 NI now and will certainly still be next year, and not just because he has a passport and a pulse. Can another player also start in his place? It's a silly question because the rules mandate another player has to start. The important question is whether or not that player, say Julian FG, is better or as good as Watson, and subsequently, is the player who now backs up Kohlert and Julian FG (Carter) as good as Julian FG? My opinion is no and no. So we've downgraded at 2 roster spots to acquire a 3rd round pick. And what of this 3rd round pick? Is he likely to be a starting 7 NI now or in the future? All things being equal, the chances are slim that you find a starter in the 3rd round of the CFL draft. There are examples, but based on the percentages it is not a good bet. More likely than not we're getting a player of Derek Briggs caliber with that pick, or a Swiston. So here's the net effect of moving Watson - we've downgraded one starting 7 NI spot, we've downgraded one depth spot, and we've added one depth player who's main role will likely be on special teams. On the whole I'd say we're making the team worse both now and in 2015 and 2016. If we can get a pick of value for Watson then it could be a good move, but the big prize in draft picks is finding a NI starter. Which is what we have in Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 The problem is that Watson is declining though. He's a starting NI today, and even at that he'd be low on most teams list with everyone healthy. He can be a good player still, but it's going downhill quick, he's 30 with a huge injury history. I've seen the 2011-2012 Watson a few times this season, mostly in game 1 before he got injured again, but not enough to look at him as a guy I'd rely on moving forward. I don't think we can look at him as a top NI target anymore and if he is ours, we better have a lot of good imports or we are screwed anyways. We are basically in a spot where we need to replace him either way, with someone already on the roster or from somewhere else. If a desperate team wants to give us a shot at adding quality Canadian depth in probably the deepest draft we'll ever see with 9 teams picking, I wouldn't hesitate. sweep the leg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 30 years old with injury history... nailed it. Get something for him while we can. JFG arguably performed better in games this year anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 Watson's injury history is mostly centered around his hamstring. It is very hard for some players to get back to perfect health with hamstring injuries. Some do, some don't, and keep getting the injury. If he could heal completely I would say we should keep him, if he can't, then I'm with those who would trade him but only for very good value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 The problem is that Watson is declining though. He's a starting NI today, and even at that he'd be low on most teams list with everyone healthy. He can be a good player still, but it's going downhill quick, he's 30 with a huge injury history. I've seen the 2011-2012 Watson a few times this season, mostly in game 1 before he got injured again, but not enough to look at him as a guy I'd rely on moving forward. I don't think we can look at him as a top NI target anymore and if he is ours, we better have a lot of good imports or we are screwed anyways. We are basically in a spot where we need to replace him either way, with someone already on the roster or from somewhere else. If a desperate team wants to give us a shot at adding quality Canadian depth in probably the deepest draft we'll ever see with 9 teams picking, I wouldn't hesitate. And my problem with all that is that a declining Watson is still a better player than the guy we'd replace him with. I'm not under any illusions as to what he is. Unless a team greatly overpays for his services, chances are the best 44 we can put on the field has Watson on the roster. Even next year, with him one year older. 30 years old with injury history... nailed it. Get something for him while we can. JFG arguably performed better in games this year anyway. If read literally, then sure, Feoli-G played better in the games Watson did not play in. Otherwise, I vehemently disagree. Feoli-G has greatly exceeded my expectations because I expected nothing of him. He's decent, and to get him on our roster with the equivalent of cleaning empties out of the ditch is one of the good stories of the season. I don't think his ceiling goes any higher than what we see right now though. It's nice to have a NI receiver that doesn't drop 80% of the balls that come his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 JFG has performed admirably for us this year. He is not as good as Watson though. A lot of people are saying that Watson is no good but that simply isn't accurate. He hasn't, admittedly, been lighting it up but he certainly isn't bad. I find it somewhat amusing that we rail on the production of Watson but give Kohlert a free pass on his lack of production. It makes no sense. Both receivers are doing the job we ask of them. They are not primary threats in our offence but did anyone expect them to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 There is nothing wrong with keeping Watson. He's avery good receiver, never mind NI receiver. And, although I'd prefer a healthy Watson, there is nothing wrong when you play a back up like JFG, and he gives us a solid consistent performance. That's a good thing. That's a little depth at least. For us, each piece we replace has to be better or at least equal to, the piece we are replacing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 JFG has performed admirably for us this year. He is not as good as Watson though. A lot of people are saying that Watson is no good but that simply isn't accurate. He hasn't, admittedly, been lighting it up but he certainly isn't bad. I find it somewhat amusing that we rail on the production of Watson but give Kohlert a free pass on his lack of production. It makes no sense. Both receivers are doing the job we ask of them. They are not primary threats in our offence but did anyone expect them to be? Kohlert usually catches everything thrown at him, and obviously got open enough in 2013 to have a decent year. Now you want to blame him for not producing? A little difficult when you don't get thrown to. KOHLERT, R 2013 WPG 45 493 11 47 3 KOHLERT, R 2014 WPG 27 348 12.9 37 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now