I think you're responding to a different person.Cameron Giles wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:56 amSo you went from saying that Waddle was the WR3, to now saying that Ruggs was the WR3 since he ran significantly more routes. Ok. What % of those routes was he targeted on?Sriracha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:49 am
They might be in the running for most overrated WR core of all time.
As for if that's an excuse for Ruggs to suck in college? No, it isn't.
He "outproduced" Waddle by 70 receiving yards while running 60% more routes!
https://puu.sh/IbNB2/6bf8cc59e2.png
Everything keeps going back to the talent on the field. Jerry Jeudy was the best WR in college as a sophomore. DeVonta Smith won the Heisman. All of these guys were high-level WR recruits. Jaylen Waddle looked like the Heisman frontrunner when Jeudy and Ruggs left.
My only point is that you can't point at WRs who played with nobody in college and wonder why Ruggs didn't do what they did. There's a huge difference. Ignoring it is intellectually dishonest, even if you feel Ruggs wouldn't have been great regardless.
My only contention in this debate is the poor attempt to excuse his abhorrent analytical profile because of his target competition.
You can play in a talented receiving room and still suck. That's exactly what Ruggs did in college. How his game translates and/or transforms to/in the NFL is anyone's guess, but I remain pessimistic.