Nice breakdown of WRs

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/throwthedamball/status/1729576931299823974?s=20

[DaveBrown74]

Wan'Dale just isn't very good.

Not for a top 50 pick anyway.

[Bob In PA]

The best thing about the chart in the O.P. is how the NY logo stands out from the others. Bob

[Bob In PA]

Wan'Dale just isn't very good.

Not for a top 50 pick anyway.

DB: I advise caution in interpreting the chart. Focusing on just the Giants players shown...

They each run different routes from a variety of starting positions and are featured against different defenses.

Some types of routes don't register on the "separation" chart. For one thing, I think it only include routes run on the defensive side of the line of scrimmage.  For another, the longer the routes you're asked to run, the greater your opportunity to gain separation.

Bob

[DaveBrown74]

DB: I advise caution in interpreting the chart. Focusing on just the Giants players shown...

They each run different routes from a variety of starting positions and are featured against different defenses.

Some types of routes don't register on the "separation" chart. For one thing, I think it only include routes run on the defensive side of the line of scrimmage.  For another, the longer the routes you're asked to run, the greater your opportunity to gain separation.

Bob

Bob,

Just to be clear, I had that opinion before I saw this chart. It didn't really bolster or weaken my view. It was more just a comment. I simply don't think Robinson was a good pick where we took him. Is he worthy of being on an NFL roster? Yes, for sure. Is he as good as what I would expect for a wide receiver taken in the top 50? No. Do I think he's durable? No. Overall just not a very good pick in my opinion.

That doesn't mean his useless. Just means I think we could have done better. Or, put another way, I think you can get players who are similar to Wan'Dale (give or take) later in the draft most years, if that's the sort of player you're after.

[Philosophers]

Wan'Dale just isn't very good.

Not for a top 50 pick anyway.

I think you have to consider how the WR is used as well.  If a WR is used mostly as a short yardage WR less time to get separation.  Maybe that's why WanDale is where he is.

[Ed Vette]

I think you have to consider how the WR is used as well.  If a WR is used mostly as a short yardage WR less time to get separation.  Maybe that's why WanDale is where he is.

And how often targeted and made catches for a body of work. Aiyuk is a beast and the Giants didn't have to face him TY. He was out.

[Bob In PA]

I think you have to consider how the WR is used as well.  If a WR is used mostly as a short yardage WR less time to get separation.  Maybe that's why WanDale is where he is.

Phil: Thanks for saying in one sentence what I didn't make clear in my entire post. lol

[BluesCruz]

nice to see our WRs are moving up the stack

for years we had one of the worst WR stables in the NFL

Another factor is Waller who for all practical purposes is a WR (plays like one anyway)

Would love to see Tommy D and Kafka use Bellinger more

[kingm56]

I think you have to consider how the WR is used as well.  If a WR is used mostly as a short yardage WR less time to get separation.  Maybe that's why WanDale is where he is.

I think Jeff's point still stands.  Is a top 50 pick worth spending on a 'Short Yardage" WR, who's not adept at moving the chains?  Obviously, Robinson is not going to play the X, as he lacks the speed to do so; his game is predicated on twitch, which limits him to the Y.  Thus, we spent a high draft pick on a WR with limited adaptability/range, which I believe is Jeff's point. 

[Bob In PA]

I think Jeff's point still stands.  Is a top 50 pick worth spending on a 'Short Yardage" WR, who's not adept at moving the chains?  Obviously, Robinson is not going to play the X, as he lacks the speed to do so; his game is predicated on twitch, which limits him to the Y.  Thus, we spent a high draft pick on a WR with limited adaptability/range, which I believe is Jeff's point. 

king: It's a good point, but somebody has to do that job. His predecessor was 40th overall (2nd round) (Shep).

IMO you get your players anywhere you can and be grateful they're not busts.  Robinson is not a bust.

When Saquon is gone (or they stop over-using him) I think you'll see that Robinson can do a lot of other stuff too. He's a good piece to the puzzle. That's why they picked him (versatility) so to that extent I agree strongly with the point... I think they're trying to give him a greater variety but choosing between him and Saquon is usually an easy choice because Saquon is the better pass-blocker.

Bob

[kingm56]

king: It's a good point, but somebody has to do that job. His predecessor was 40th overall (2nd round) (Shep).

IMO you get your players anywhere you can and be grateful they're not busts.  Robinson is not a bust.

When Saquon is gone (or they stop over-using him) I think you'll see that Robinson can do a lot of other stuff too. He's a good piece to the puzzle. That's why they picked him (versatility) so to that extent I agree strongly with the point... I think they're trying to give him a greater variety but choosing between him and Saquon is usually an easy choice because Saquon is the better pass-blocker.

Bob

That's a fair point, Bob; plus, it's one I happen to agree with.  A WR like Ike Hillard is invaluable to team; however, Robinson hasn't demonstrated those abilities.  In retrospect, would you draft Robinson again?  I wouldn't, which mean's I agree with Jeff's overall premise. 

[Ed Vette]

king: It's a good point, but somebody has to do that job. His predecessor was 40th overall (2nd round) (Shep).

IMO you get your players anywhere you can and be grateful they're not busts.  Robinson is not a bust.

When Saquon is gone (or they stop over-using him) I think you'll see that Robinson can do a lot of other stuff too. He's a good piece to the puzzle. That's why they picked him (versatility) so to that extent I agree strongly with the point... I think they're trying to give him a greater variety but choosing between him and Saquon is usually an easy choice because Saquon is the better pass-blocker.

Bob

He's not being utilized properly by the QB and sometimes the route. He should be the Wes Welker or the Beasley. Tommy has passed on him for the deeper routes. He's the guy that get you the third down conversion when the Defense sends the house. He can be used in the Slot or the Z. He can be used coming out of the backfield. As long as he's off the Line and not pressed he will get open. He's the perfect Receiver for Tyrod Taylor.

[Bob In PA]

That's a fair point, Bob; plus, it's one I happen to agree with.  A WR like Ike Hillard is invaluable to team; however, Robinson hasn't demonstrated those abilities.  In retrospect, would you draft Robinson again?  I wouldn't, which mean's I agree with Jeff's overall premise. 

king: My answer is no... but ONLY because he has been injured "too much."

If you told me the same guy wouldn't be injured in his 1st good game (about 3 of 4 games into last yr according to my lousy memory) and told me he would play every game this year, then I absolutely would have still taken him.

It's my view he's much better than he has shown, primarily because he is used to getting a Saquon-level work load and once he starts seeing the ball more and staying on the field longer (and for more games in a row) he'll show why they drafted him.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

I think you have to consider how the WR is used as well.  If a WR is used mostly as a short yardage WR less time to get separation.  Maybe that's why WanDale is where he is.

Here's the thing, short yardage WRs should be scoring high on the YAC axis.  Right now, Won'Dale is below average in both separation and yards after the catch