Please help me settle a football argument-Colts - Page 2

Indiana · #11 11-08-2005, 01:47 PM

Ok, let me clarify the question. Which type of superstar player is more important to a team, the Wide Rec or the Run Back?

Indy

brettbrettr · #12 11-08-2005, 01:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me clarify the question. Which type of superstar player is more important to a team, the Wide Rec or the Run Back?

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, the back. I think, in most cases, the back.

TheRover · #13 11-08-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me clarify the question. Which type of superstar player is more important to a team, the Wide Rec or the Run Back?

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather have the superstar RB than WR. I'd rather sign the superstar WR than RB to a long term contract.

Indiana · #14 11-08-2005, 01:55 PM

Dam, guess I was wrong...I would rather have Harrison than James but most disagree w/me. What wins games for us? I think that D. Rhodes could give enough play action to us for a lot less money than Edge. Personally, I think that the superbowl is remote for us w/o harrison but we could still do it w/o Edge.

Guess I'm wrong,

Indy

Bulldog · #15 11-08-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Harrison is 6 years older than Edge. He is arguably not even the best receiver on the team at this point and will almost certainly not be going forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

RBs are done at 30. WRs (especially technicially superior WRs like Harrison) can go to 34+. They will both stop being effective at about the same time.

Harrison is BY FAR the best WR on the Colts. In 2004, he still led the team in receptions and TDs. This after a 2003 in which he was by far the leader in all receiving categories, and a 2002 in which he shattered the single-season reception record. In 2004, he was always drawing the best and most attention from opposing DBs, and he still led the team statisically. Drawing the conclusion you did from the 2004 stats would be like saying Deion might not have been the best CB on the 1996 Cowboys because he only had two picks.

Harrison has three or four more 1,000-yard, 10-TD seasons in him.

TheRover · #16 11-08-2005, 02:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dam, guess I was wrong...I would rather have Harrison than James but most disagree w/me. What wins games for us? I think that D. Rhodes could give enough play action to us for a lot less money than Edge. Personally, I think that the superbowl is remote for us w/o harrison but we could still do it w/o Edge.

Guess I'm wrong,

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

The last post I made was meant in general terms. For Edge and Marv, I'm not sure what I would do. I'm not real comfortable expecting either one to contribute much two or three years from now. It seems like Harrison is already declining a little, but I could be wrong. I think if Harrison left the Colts would still have an excellent passing game, if Edge left they would have only an average/slightly above average running game.

Soul Daddy · #17 11-08-2005, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Drawing the conclusion you did from the 2004 stats

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you are able to psychicly determine how I arrived at my conclusion. And completely disregard that I mentioned it was arguable. Well done, good post!

chessforlife · #18 11-08-2005, 02:39 PM

harrison.

--the team is built around Manning. thus, you need his neccessary "other end" for the essence of the team to succeed.

kyro · #19 11-08-2005, 02:48 PM

Easily Edge. Isn't Harrison like 44?

brettbrettr · #20 11-08-2005, 02:48 PM

Wow, I"m surprised at the number of Marvin responses. I really don't think there's any WR I'd choose over Edge in this spot. I also think the days of plugging in D Rhodes or another back-up and getting Edge's numbers are long gone. Edge is an excellent RB. He does a lot of things, like yards after the hit, that a lot of RBs just can't do. And of course running the ball sets the foundation for a good passing game, and tremendously helps a defense.