(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.

---