all Rams receivers, catch% & drop%, 2013 & 2014

Both listings say 2013. Which is 2014? I hope it’s the top one because it’s a little better.

zn wrote:

Lance Kendricks 27 1 38 71.1% 2.6%

I will be really disappointed if we cut this guy.

I really don’t understand why he isn’t a fan favorite. Or trusted more by the coaches.

wv wrote:

Well, i dunno. He’s kinda like Laurinaitis
in that he doesnt really make big splashy
plays that make you go “Wow.”

I guess we’re using different metrics here.

It’s nice to have a star at any position. But, I don’t really ask for that. A team needs solid, pro-level competence. At a given position, it needs a guy who accomplishes the required key role.

At MLB, in my view, the key role is running a D-front that consistently contains the run. A good MLB stuffs the run enough to force teams into 3rd and must-pass situations.

I’ve never seen Laurinaitas fulfill this key role. His defenses have throughout his career been known as vulnerable to the running game. Nor do I see JL coming up and making play after play against RBs.

By contrast, Lance is, in my mind, the perfect example of a solid, above average, competent, trustworthy TE.

First, he does what TEs need to do. He blocks. Well. Damn well. Inline. On the move. He can go in motion and provide punch for the running game from a wide variety of angles and positions. That, my friend, is a TE’s job. He’s done it since he got here. A team can win playoff games with a TE doing that.

Second, he’s a pretty good receiver. He’s not a stud. He’s not a “wow,” Gronk type, and that has become the paradigm of stardom at the position. Of course, it’s great to have a Gronk if you can find one. But, lots of teams have won rings without a super-stud TE. What Lance gives you is pretty good route running, catching, and the occasional big play.

When you put the 2 together, you have unusual versatility. Not many TEs BOTH block and catch passes as well as Lance does. And that means you don’t have to sub to get your TE aligned with different kinds of play and formation. Having him on the field does not tip off the defense or limit your options. Motion with Lance can pose a variety of genuine threats.

In my view, Lance is an above average TE who accomplishes the core challenge and gives you the occasional big play. To me, that sort of player is always valuable, even if he never threatens the Pro Bowl.

Now, Harkey is pretty good, too. He has a knack of making big 3rd D conversions. It’s nice to have him on the team. My sense is that Lance is a better down-field route runner. But I like them both and, frankly, I WANT them both.

The problem is Cook. Cook is no bust, nor does he really break the bank. He has been productive for us. But he can’t block, and while he does give you the Wow factor at times, on a play-to-play basis, I don’t know that he gives us as much as either Lance or Harkey do. Cook gives you a narrow set of outcomes and can be taken out of the game by a good defense. He can’t get the running game going. He can’t accomplish the core task of the TE, and his downfield threat is not consistent enough to build an offense on.

But because Cook is there, doing what he does, Lance and Harkey’s productivity gets squeezed. Not only do they lose snaps, but the running game does not get a chance to build continuity with Lance out there blocking in 6-7 different ways. A running game requires reps to build momentum. With Cook, it’s hard to do that, and Lance languishes.

Tell you what. If Lance were to go somewhere with a solid offense and a good QB, he would raise the level of the running game and might well produce Pro Bowl level receiving numbers. I have never felt that the Rams had the offense to make full use of him.

Between the 3, I’d keep Lance and Harkey, cut Cook, and pick up another solid, move-the-chains WR. But that’s just me.