No mention of Stills DJ? You don't believe Stills can excel in Gase's offense?

 

With Gase's love of the WR screen game, Matthews is a natural fit. No reason not to re-sign him unless he's demanding top flight money.

 

The thing is, Stills brings something to the table that none of those other guys do. That's why I don't think you can sacrifice his reps in favor of Matthews. Parker, Landry, and Stills all have the ability to fill different roles, and fill them quite nicely. This past regime did not use Stills to his strengths. That could be different with a competent coaching staff.

 

I think Matthews is a lot more important to our offense than many think, because all WRs aren't just interchangeable, he's the perfect SE to Parkers FL, and obviously Landry in the slot.

Leaving ourselves with say, Stills and Parker outside isn't a good idea because neither guy is great getting off the press, one of those guys should be able to play against press CBs because one of the outside WRs has to line up on the line of scrimmage, the SE.

Matthews is very comfortable vs press, and as DJ pointed out, a physical WR, he can body up on guys and has a good speed/acceleration/strength ratio, and was probably the best WR for the Fins prior to getting injured, he had the highest catch rate on the team with 70%, 4TDs, 660+yds and a 15+ YPC, and he was the SE, he was taking all the press coverage and most of the attention of the other teams top CB.

The passing game was affected by his loss, Tanne only threw 4 TDs after game 12, Parker, Landry and Matthews never had a chance to all be working together out there and I think they make for a VERY effective WR starting trio.

I love Landry, but he is getting used too much, with Matthews and Parker out there that will change, and I think Landry's per catch effectiveness will rise, even if his catch totals drop, because your leading WR getting 110 catches and only 1100+yds and just 4 TDs is not a recipe for success, it's Hartline syndrome, forcing the ball to a guy who should not be the focus of a passing game.

This trio is really custom made for each other, they should be looking to sign Matthews imo, it should be a priority, and you have 3 WRs that are very good at their spot on the field, that's the way you build a team.

PS, sign Miller too please, thank you.

 

The thing with Stills is that he is the definition of a one trick pony, he's a good 3rd or 4th WR, he shouldn't be manning an outside spot as a starter, he is a very nice 4th WR for this squad.

 

agree that Landry was overused at times. Still, he had a chance to break it for a big gain at any moment.
But I agree with Sports 24/7 that Stills does have a skill set that the others don't. The bigger question is, if we keep Mathews to give us a nice quadruplet of WRs, will Gase truly be able to change his gameplan on a weekly basis to attack defenses. If he can then having Stills will be a big benefit on weeks when we need his skills.

 

I think both Stills and Mathews are the definition of 3rd and 4th WRs. good ones at that.

 

I will have to disagree here, I think Matthews is a solid starter, a good SE, he racked up his numbers going up against a lot of #1 CBs, and it was solid production, Stills is a decent deep threat, but struggles as a starter, perfect 4th WR for this squad imo.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Kenny Stills is not Mike Wallace. He's obviously at his best when running vertical, but I think the skillset is there to be more than just a guy running a 9 route every play. And I think he's better outside than he is in the slot, which is fine because Landry is best in the slot. As far as a starter, most teams essentially start 3 WRs anyway.

 

because Stills isn't that expensive and you need 4 WRs to get through a season.

 

Parker, Matthews, Landry. Develop your own I always say.
Honestly I know we have cap issues. I'd like for this scenario to play out.

 

No, Stills is not Wallace, if he was I'd have no problem starting him, he's a poor man's Wallace, he really is just a one trick pony, and is not prone to the big play, they are infrequent with him, 11 TDs out of 196 targets in 3 years, less than 50% catch rate here, which is bad.

 

Due to Stills cheap price tag this year I don't think it's an issue keeping him, it's less than 1 mil.

Those 4 Wrs make a great set of WRs, all different pieces, doing their part, although I think that Parker will also be a deep threat, which I think you've already mentioned before, and if that does come to pass, Stills becomes a expendable after this season, unless he comes back cheap in 17.

 

He's not a poor man's Mike Wallace, he's a better all-around WR. He tracks the ball far better than Wallace, and he attacks the ball far better than Wallace. He also runs the route tree better. Wallace, with 9 more targets had 33 more yards and one less TD than Stills. Is he really a poor man's version of Wallace? And are you really going to throw out numbers under the joke of an offensive system Stills was in last year? What was his catch rate in 2014? I'll tell you, it was 78.8%, which was 4th in all of football and is a fantastic number. What was it his rookie year? 69.6%, or 13th in the NFL. Catch rate is not something I'm worried about with Stills.

 

Personally, I don't think there's very much of a discernible difference between the two players in talent. I think in the right system, Kenny Stills can become a very good #3 WR. I think Matthews benefited from being in a system that was better suited to him rather than it was to Stills. But even if they're close, then yes, I would rather have the guy who can stretch the defense on the field if I feel good about what my other two WRs can do.

 

Stills is like your perfect #4 situational style WR. Which really isnt a bad thing, especially for us.

 

Rishard views himself as a starter but that's not happening with us. Stills is a playmaker, w/ a better QB. Regardless of the org's public THill support I strongly believe there will be QB competition this off-season. Gase would be crazy to completely hitch his wagon to THill.

IMO a perfect scenario would be to let Rishard, OV & Lamar walk(for big contracts) and then get the comp picks in 2017.
Don't be surprised to see many teams decline to retain several of their FAs b/c starting in 2017 teams will be able to trade compensatory picks which will then allow for much needed draft maneuvering.

 

The real Mike Wallace is a poor man's version of Mike Wallace.

 

But what did Wallace do with Tanne? 10 TDs in 14, and most of them were short passes, always playing vs the #1 CB with at least a bracket double, while Stills was playing with a future 1st ballot HoFer at QB in 14, caught 60 passes and only 3 TDs.

Prior to Wallace, when was the last time a WR caught 10 TDs here? I don't know what happened in Minny, but Wallace still avgs 7 TDs a year for his career, even with 2015 included.

 

Wallace did that during Tannehill's best season as the #1 WR. Stills did that in a season in which Tannehill struggled, and there was complete chaos on offense. You can't compare the two. It's not like they put Stills in Wallace's spot. You also can't compare the total numbers of the two when Stills was in NO because he was a 1st and 2nd year player who was the #3 or #4 option there. You're not making apples to apples comparisons here.

I'm curious what exactly makes Stills the poor man's version of Wallace? What characteristics in their games make you say that? Wallace is faster, I'll give you that. But while Tannhill did struggle some with the deep ball, Wallace didn't make his life easier with his struggles tracking and attacking the ball. Those aren't holes I see in Stills's game. I also think Stills is a better route runner with better hands.

 

Wallace was not very useful in Minnesota.

 

Even when you are kind of putting down others you just have to throw RT in there as the problem. 'with a better QB' when he came from the Saints doesn't make sense.

I will bet you a 'crow eat' post right now the Gase has hitched his wagon to RT and he has a pretty good year this upcoming one. And I really hope we don't waste our second on Brissett... and I love the Pack too.

 

Not too bad as a 3 IMO. Give him a chance with an OC/HC that has some sort of a clue of what they are doing.

 

I compared their 2014 seasons, Stills was with Brees.

Tanne had his highest rating throwing to Wallace, so this idea that Wallace was a problem is not holding water, and the reason I say that Stills is a poor mans version is obvious, just look at production.

 

Like NO? They had no problem letting a cheap, young WR leave, he's a decent deep threat, but that's about it.

 

Letting go and a cut a quite different.

 

Tannehill had his highest rating throwing to his #1 WR? I should hope so. Again, you can't fairly compare the production of a #3/4 WR to a #1 and expect them to be even close. And yet they were. Wallace had 30 more targets than Stills did in 2014, and with that many fewer targets Stills had 69 more yards than Wallace. And when we compared their production in 2015, how did that go?

 

He had a fantastic catch rate in NO last year though. Now, I don't pin catch rate on the WR, it's just a stat, but it measures efficiency of the passing offense when the WR is targeted. 63 targets, but only 27 catches. That's terrible. Only 2 drops too.

Last year he had a 75% catch rate which is fantastic especially considering he's not Jarvis Landry and playing close to the LOS.

 

He was more efficient with NO, but they used him a lot different than we did, he was always a 3rd or 4th WR and always in motion, because he's not good getting off his man, he's fast, but not quick or strong, and he's not a great route runner, so it is much better to get him a head start by designating him as a "move" WR, which is why he was at a higher rate, also Brees is better than Tanne.

I don't have a problem with Stills, he's just not a good starting boundary WR, Parker and Matthews both missed significant time due to injury but clearly out shined Stills, who despite being in every game was 5th in rec for us, 1 ahead of Parker who hardly played, and Stills doesn't hit the big plays often, only 11 TDs in 3 years, with a ton of targets.

I think he's a great 4th WR for us, and if we didn't have Landry I'd be happy with him as 3rd WR, but if he's manning a boundary starting position I don't think he has much impact, like it was this year.

 

The reason I say one trick pony is that I think he has speed, and that's about it, I can't see him filling any other role besides speed WR, he's not quick or strong, so that leaves him with his speed, and even then, he's much better when used in motion.

 

I don't really see why Matthews would take a cheap deal to be the #3 option here, I think its going to be very hard for us to keep him. It would be a very nice unit with a healthy Parker playing from the get go. Matthews could get the same type of deal from Green Bay, Seattle, New England, maybe Carolina. I like him, hope we can keep him but it would probably take a tag or overpaying for us to keep him. Not to mention that we've treated him like **** for a good portion of his career so he probably has no loyalty whatsoever to the Phins and I can't blame him.

 

When people talk about Wallace being a problem, I think generally, they are referring to the deep ball. In 2014 Wallace certainly did more than I thought he would/could, really shining in the short to intermediate range, and catching a bunch of touchdowns.

 

I don't think you can look at it as he'll be the 3rd option, he'll be the #1 or #2 WR, a starting boundary WR, he's playing the #1 or #2 CB, and I don't think he'll be as expensive as you think.

With Parker and Matthews teams can't put a 1 or 2 CB on Landry, without Parker and then without Matthews teams were able to do that at times, as much as I like Landry he was targeted way too many times, of all the WRs that were targeted 150 times he was last in yds and TDs, in fact of all the WRs that were targeted 100+ times, only 2 had fewer TDs, and that's like 40 WRs.

Like I said, I love Landry, but we are simply not getting the bang for the buck as far as production, we are getting the excitement because he's an exciting player, but too many of his plays are 3 yard passes turned into 9 yard gains, 166 targets for 1100 yds and 4 TDs isn't part of a winning formula, you HAVE TO get more from 166 targets than that.

With Matthews AND Parker out there I think Landry's effectiveness will go up a lot on a per play basis, turning him into the weapon I think he can be, as the outlet WR he can do a lot of damage, but the primary WRs have to be drawing more attention for that to come to pass, because right now he is just an overused outlet WR, and he gives you everything he's got, but truth is, physically he's limited, so he can't be a #1 WR, but can be a dynamic outlet WR, but the 2 primary's have to be drawing attention away from him.

I think Matthews is very important to the success of our offense.

 

Been saying this all along.. we need to re-sign both Miller and Matthews. Parker and Landry will form a good WR duo, but put Matthews in the mix and it's something defenses will have to seriously game plan against. Sometimes it's better to be very good in one aspect of the game and less than average elsewhere than be average everywhere.