Dpark, Matthews and Juice...ones a star, can the other be as well

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

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

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

i just think rishard is the better overall receiver, thats pretty much it..he's a very physical and strong receiver with size and great hands, i dont think he's gonna cost to much..and were not paying much in the unit..he had some good chemistry with ryan as well..

"djphinfan wrote:

i just think rishard is the better overall receiver, thats pretty much it..he's a very physical and strong receiver with size and great hands, i dont think he's gonna cost to much..and were not paying much in the unit..he had some good chemistry with ryan as well..

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.

"sports24/7 wrote:

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.

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.

"Finster wrote:

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.

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.

"Finster wrote:

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.

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

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

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.

"Finster wrote:

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.

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.

"sports24/7 wrote:

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.

if I have Matthews as the better overall receiver why would I wanna keep the lesser one? because he has a speed element?....not how I would do it.

"djphinfan wrote:

if I have Matthews as the better overall receiver why would I wanna keep the lesser one? because he has a speed element?....not how I would do it.

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.

"sports24/7 wrote:

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.

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.

"djphinfan wrote:

if I have Matthews as the better overall receiver why would I wanna keep the lesser one? because he has a speed element?....not how I would do it.

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.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

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

matthews isn't gonna get some big contract, this is a mid level signing..stills is just not as good, you dont get rid of good young players, stills can be the #4 hows that?

"Finster wrote:

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.

yeah I dint mean to cut him, it was just how I phrased the answer...im fine with him being the #4..

even with Matthews getting a deal, its still a cheap unit..

"Finster wrote:

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.

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.

"djphinfan wrote:

if I have Matthews as the better overall receiver why would I wanna keep the lesser one? because he has a speed element?....not how I would do it.

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.

"Finster wrote:

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.

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

"sports24/7 wrote:

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.

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.

"Finster wrote:

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.