Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voyageur" data-source="post: 956892" data-attributes="member: 17953">Your response does not address the age issue. If we're talking about past production, I agree, there's a vast difference, but you can't have it both ways. Saying it's age, when convenient, then saying it's past performance when it's convenient is like comparing apples to bananas.Watkins is still at an age where - if healthy - could possibly produce some seriously decent numbers with a QB like Rodgers making him one of his favorite targets.I doubt very much that the Packers were stupid enough to sign someone to a contract that they didn't believe could contribute to a healthy passing game.I respect the opinion of others on this issue, as long as they don't keep changing their criteria for judgement. So, which is it, age or production that determines what the prime age is to play in the NFL? It can't be both.</blockquote>

Total: 544 (members: 4, guests: 540)