So being considered a dynamite WR is more reliable than being considered a dynamite RB?

Those who are in love with this pick are missing the point by those of us who aren't. It's not that he's a bad player, or that he won't fit in. But it doesn't seem, to me at least, that we needed to trade up in order to get him. But people say "oh he's so fast, he's gonna be the new sproles". Cooks is not a running back, therefore when he's on the field there won't be any mystery as to what he's out there for. Other than the occasional reverse play.

All the can't miss talk means nothing to me. I've heard it before. I do think he'll be a good player, for what it's worth, but this is way too much hype for me.

We traded up to get him because of a few teams ahead of us were possibly interested in drafting him. I dont understand why its such a big deal that we traded up to get him. If we gave up multiple pics or next years 1st I could understand.All we gave up is a third. Who in the third round is so important that would have been worth possibly losing a dynamic playmaking wr that was needed. Cooks takes the place of two players that were important in our passing game...Lance and Darren. Darren might have been a rb,but we all know he contributed way more in our passing game. Yes, this draft is deep in wr depth,but who outside of the first is a better prospect than Cooks? Landry,maybe? What if he's not there when we pick? Then what? I want more than just an average wr prospect.

See above for my response to losing a third rounder. As for Wideouts, yes, I do think Landry was a better all around prospect, though obviously not near as fast. But I never really wanted a receiver. I've said that I could live with it, but when I said that I didn't think we would trade up for one.

As for Sproles, yes, he contributed in our passing game, but also in the running game. He was a hard guy to plan for. When he couldn't run last year, you saw how predictable our offense got. It's not the same thing with Cooks, as he is a WR. But that's my point. He's a WR, not a RB, and he cannot replace what Sproles used to be. If we want to believe he's the next Wes Welker, that's one thing, but he is not the same dynamic as Sproles had been.

The 3rd rnd. comment was just my opinion in general. I understand your point about Sproles being dynamic,but to be honest,I dont think we're gonna suffer to bad with him absent in the backfeild. Our offense being predictable was more on Sean than Sproles not being on the field.IMHO.

I agree that we aren't going to miss Sproles much, and that's because he wasn't the same player last year. But we tried to force it with him and that made us predictable. That part IS Sean's fault. So my point is to those who are trying to compare Cooks to the good version of Sproles. It's just a different type of player, altogether in my opinion.

C'mon man, you cant tell me that Cooks doesn't resemble Sproles as far as quick shifty-ness and speed. I think Cooks is a combination of Moore and Sproles talent and skill set.

C'mon man, you cant tell me that Cooks doesn't resemble Sproles as far as quick shifty-ness and speed. I think Cooks is a combination of Moore and Sproles talent and skill set.