Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck
Just pretend one of them is a WR.
Then, we have two highly paid WRs (Hilton, Allen) and one highly paid TE (Doyle) and no one would bat an eye at that pay structure.
As of right now, those three guys are 3 of 4 targets whom Luck trusts and depends on the most (add in Moncrief) and whom will power our passing offense with others chipping in bit roles (Dorsett, Rogers, Swoope, Gore).
I fully expect both Allen and Doyle to deliver in 2017 or else know that they will be gone probably starting next year; especially if Swoope continues to progress. I suspect that Allen is much more on the bubble than Doyle because, so far, Doyle has only shown year-to-year improvement in his game.
Next year, our "highly paid" receivers might be Hilton, Moncrief and Doyle and I don't think anyone would have an issue with it and be saying "you can't pay that much money to your wide receivers!!!!"
Cheers,
|
Except they aren't WRs or used like WRs, neither one of them
I like what Doyle does for the team but he clearly is a tight end. And Allen is not healthy enough and on the field enough to justify the money he was paid last year.
If one of them were used like a WR, in the slot like a Jimmy Graham or even how Dallas Clark was used with Manning, you'd have a better argument.
I understand what you are saying, but just paying a tight end more money because your WRs don't make as much and aren't used as much is a hard justification.
The answer should be the find a way to use the WRs you have more, not pay the tight ends more because your offensive scheme relies on them the most.