Ok...hold up. Don't write me off just based off that. I'm not agreeing with this question...
I was listening to the Dan Patrick Show just now and he made the comment that he thinks that the Lions are better off without Calvin Johnson because it opens up the offense more and they aren't solely relying on him to bail them out. Dan Patrick said of course he believes Calvin Johnson was legitimate and was an amazing player...that was just his opinion.
So it had me thinking....could that be the same for us in regards to Allen Robinson? I'm not saying it is or isn't but in the case of Blake Bortles...could he also have been solely relying on Allen Robinson a lot in the past and now it's opening up the offense more?
Again...I am not saying I believe for sure we are better off with Allen Robinson...do not misunderstand me. Just had me thinking in regards to our team with A-Rob when I heard that quote from Dan Patrick on Calvin Johnson. Obviously Calvin Johnson is ahead of A-Rob in talent too so it might not be the case...
No.
The team would be better with him on the field. We're making due without him, but it's not like there was this sudden onslaught of passing yards that we wouldn't have realized if he was out there.
The team is lacking a #1 receiver in his absence. Westbrook may be our one opportunity to sort of fill that role once he's back.
I've said this before. We aren't necessarily better off without him, per se. We are better off when we don't run the offense through him. In my opinion, he is more suited for low volume targets. He is a great safety blanket when you need a conversion and he has one on one coverage and nothing else is open. When Walters was heavily involved in our offense, our offense hummed. No sane person thinks Bryan Walters and Allen Robinson are in the same stratosphere in ability, but some receivers are more suited to see high volume. Robinson is a beast, but he has a low catch rate.
Fair enough...Again, I'm not trying to cause an uproar. I was just curious when I heard Dan Patrick say that.
(09-25-2017, 11:58 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]I've said this before. We aren't necessarily better off without him, per se. We are better off when we don't run the offense through him. In my opinion, he is more suited for low volume targets. He is a great safety blanket when you need a conversion and he has one on one coverage and nothing else is open. When Walters was heavily involved in our offense, our offense hummed. No sane person thinks Bryan Walters and Allen Robinson are in the same stratosphere in ability, but some receivers are more suited to see high volume. Robinson is a beast, but he has a low catch rate.
Great point, I see what you are saying.
(09-25-2017, 11:58 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]I've said this before. We aren't necessarily better off without him, per se. We are better off when we don't run the offense through him. In my opinion, he is more suited for low volume targets. He is a great safety blanket when you need a conversion and he has one on one coverage and nothing else is open. When Walters was heavily involved in our offense, our offense hummed. No sane person thinks Bryan Walters and Allen Robinson are in the same stratosphere in ability, but some receivers are more suited to see high volume. Robinson is a beast, but he has a low catch rate.
This is my feeling too.
Robinson is not the type of WR I want as the main guy. I don't want him as the number 1 WR because despite the year with big numbers I don't see him as that guy. Too many contested catches and a lack of separation. When you have a QB that struggles with consistency and accuracy issues you don't want your number 1 guy lacking separation and having to make so many contested catches.
No, with him on the field Jags have a high completion %, more TD's. He is a great ball fighter.
If he was in there vs the Titians I think that game could have gone very different.
The Jags were finally adjusted vs the Ravens
(09-25-2017, 11:58 AM)FreeAgent01 Wrote: [ -> ]I've said this before. We aren't necessarily better off without him, per se. We are better off when we don't run the offense through him. In my opinion, he is more suited for low volume targets. He is a great safety blanket when you need a conversion and he has one on one coverage and nothing else is open. When Walters was heavily involved in our offense, our offense hummed. No sane person thinks Bryan Walters and Allen Robinson are in the same stratosphere in ability, but some receivers are more suited to see high volume. Robinson is a beast, but he has a low catch rate.
I do agree with this. I think Bortles had become very dependent upon Robinson, and because of that, a lot of our offense did run through him. By removing him from the equation, we're seeing other guys getting an opportunity to gain his confidence. When/if Robinson returns, I think the team will be better off for this chance for other guys to gain the trust of the QB, especially if he ends up sticking around beyond this year.
Ewing Theory doesn't really apply to football in my opinion. Football isn't a sport where a star player can be detriment to a team as no one player consumes the ball or the action like you see in other sports. The only position I can really see it be applicable is QB. I suppose I can envision a scenario where perhaps you always had a lousy team but then some exciting mobile QB came along and made the team better. But as the team develops and gets better talent, the exciting QB becomes a detriment as he doesn't distribute the ball to your playmakers as much as he should.
The NFL does a good enough job running off guys who aren't talented or who have lost their talent with age/injury. If ARob became a detriment because he was taking reps away from better WRs on the bench, ARob wouldnt see the field because the better WRs would already be playing.
while i agree we are better as a team with him on the field. Bb5 is not. Arob is a diva wr wanting the ball all the time. i know many ask why hurns didnt get the ball much last year well BB5 was to busy force feeding arob. Arob is not elite he drops balls all the time and hands them to defenders. With him we get more TD but with him because BB5 has to feed him and he cant control all his catches we get more int.
A rob comes down with 50 50 balls 75% of the time. You want him on your team.
Robinson is our best overall wide receiver. The team definitely missed him.
One thing I am wondering is if Robinsons diva like attitude hurts bortles normal process.
We have heard the rumors that Robinson isn't bortles biggest supporter combined with him complaining when he doesn't get the ball....i think that might be the only benefit of him not being on the field, bortles might be operating more confidently.
Nope, we would be even better with him. I'm just glad we seem to have players that can work without him too..
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
I’m honestly excited to get DeDe Westbrook back. Gonna open the offense up even more.
This is one of the bigger leaps to take based off of one good outing.
(09-25-2017, 11:51 AM)Brett Wrote: [ -> ]Ok...hold up. Don't write me off just based off that. I'm not agreeing with this question...
I was listening to the Dan Patrick Show just now and he made the comment that he thinks that the Lions are better off without Calvin Johnson because it opens up the offense more and they aren't solely relying on him to bail them out. Dan Patrick said of course he believes Calvin Johnson was legitimate and was an amazing player...that was just his opinion.
So it had me thinking....could that be the same for us in regards to Allen Robinson? I'm not saying it is or isn't but in the case of Blake Bortles...could he also have been solely relying on Allen Robinson a lot in the past and now it's opening up the offense more?
Again...I am not saying I believe for sure we are better off with Allen Robinson...do not misunderstand me. Just had me thinking in regards to our team with A-Rob when I heard that quote from Dan Patrick on Calvin Johnson. Obviously Calvin Johnson is ahead of A-Rob in talent too so it might not be the case...
I think there might be something to that theory. Instead of throwing jump balls because Robinson doesn’t get much separation, he was leading his receivers yesterday.
the answer is simple. No but it does make jags more of a team cause now they are not counting on the superstar player to carry them. in the long run it will make them a better team when he returns next year because bortles will have devolped trust with other revivers then just roberson if we need a 1st on 3rd down.
I think it will help Blakes development and force him to go through his progression more. We are a better offense with Arob but without him it forces Blake to be a better quarterback.
(09-25-2017, 11:51 AM)Brett Wrote: [ -> ]Ok...hold up. Don't write me off just based off that. I'm not agreeing with this question...
I was listening to the Dan Patrick Show just now and he made the comment that he thinks that the Lions are better off without Calvin Johnson because it opens up the offense more and they aren't solely relying on him to bail them out. Dan Patrick said of course he believes Calvin Johnson was legitimate and was an amazing player...that was just his opinion.
So it had me thinking....could that be the same for us in regards to Allen Robinson? I'm not saying it is or isn't but in the case of Blake Bortles...could he also have been solely relying on Allen Robinson a lot in the past and now it's opening up the offense more?
Again...I am not saying I believe for sure we are better off with Allen Robinson...do not misunderstand me. Just had me thinking in regards to our team with A-Rob when I heard that quote from Dan Patrick on Calvin Johnson. Obviously Calvin Johnson is ahead of A-Rob in talent too so it might not be the case...
I understand the nature of your question.
Pundits made similar arguments about Brett Favre early in his career, when he lost Pro bowl WR Sterling Sharpe (Shannon's older brother) to a career ending injury. The logic was that Sharpe was such a dominant factor at WR, his loss would, by its very nature, make a young Favre less dependent on him and force him to go through his progressions more, making him better at it and ultimately, a better QB
I would say the team, as a whole, is not better with AR15 out. However, under the logic articulated above, I suppose it's possible Bortles drives some longer term benefit from Robinson's absence, to the extent Bortles had developed an over-reliance on Robinson. I wouldn't characterize Bortles as suffering from that, though the coaches may have a different opinion.