Anthony Armstrong or Cole Beasley?

[ZeroClub]

It looks like there is a roster spot battle between Anthony Armstrong (5-11, 179lbs, 30 yrs old) and Cole Beasley (5-8, 180lbs, 24 yrs old).

Which one do you want to make the team?

 

[cmd34(work)]

Whitey.

 

[bbgun]

the cracker

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Normally I'd go for the special teamer, but in this case I'd go Beasley because I think he can play a role in the first-team offense. And our backup safeties will probably be good STers to make up for a backup WR that isn't.

 

[Midswat]

Beasley.

Never understood the Armstrong love. Yeah, I get he's fast. But Beasley is more versatile, quick, and has a knack for getting open on underneath routes.

 

[bbgun]

no more Amendola mistakes

 

[Jon88]

The creepy ass cracka.

I wonder how he plays on wet grass.

 

[bkeavs]

Beasley has the quick twitch that Armstrong lacks

 

[cmd34(work)]

Beasley has the quick twitch that Armstrong and Floyd lacks

Fixed.

 

[bkeavs]

Fixed.

 

[Jon88]

I'm just amazed at how well-rounded Jerry is. He was able to look at Shaun Rogers leg X rays and determine he wouldn't be a good player in the NFL so we took Tony Dixon instead.

He was wrong, but still.

 

[ZeroClub]

Beasley.

Never understood the Armstrong love. Yeah, I get he's fast. But Beasley is more versatile, quick, and has a knack for getting open on underneath routes.

I've heard the case made that Armstrong is more versatile, the better special teams player, and better prepared to play out wide or in the slot. And the speed thing is nothing to sneeze at.

I'm a little surprised that so few here are backing Armstrong.

With that said, I have a hunch that Beasley will be the crafty and ultra-reliable 4th receiver who will manage to move the chains when the receivers running deeper patterns just aren't open. So I'd rather have him too.

 

[Omegasupreme]

Because I have eyes...

It seems like there is more of a hope of what Beasley could be with crafty Amendola or Wes Welker-ish traits. But he really hasn't shown anything other than 15 recs on 24 targets. But my issue is he is not fast, or shifty in traffic once he has the ball, he is not a homrerun threat, he can't fight for the first down, and has no size to fall forward like a Sproles or MJD would, at the same stature. So between the two options, if you give the 24 targets to an exceptionally fast player who is shifty, is fast, can play multiple roles in the offense and special teams, you might end up with a lot more yards for those 15 recs than 8.5 yards per reception.

Right now, all of the special traits of Cole Beasley can be found in Dwayne Harris, Miles and Dez, but none of the special traits of Armstrong are in the first four WRs in terms of pure speed.

 

[Rock Slamdance]

Beasley. No evidence of blacks being successful at the position.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

What is up with your proclivity for Gaysians?

 

[Jon88]

What is up with your proclivity for Gaysians?

And then calling everyone else gay.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I've heard the case made that Armstrong is more versatile, the better special teams player, and better prepared to play out wide or in the slot. And the speed thing is nothing to sneeze at.

I'm a little surprised that so few here are backing Armstrong.

With that said, I have a hunch that Beasley will be the crafty and ultra-reliable 4th receiver who will manage to move the chains when the receivers running deeper patterns just aren't open. So I'd rather have him too.

Are you? Considering the audience here. Which I guess would mean, you'd be a lot surprised if they were backing Armstrong.

 

[Sheik]

I like Armstrong cuz he reminds me of Sammy Davis Jr. and the California raisins.

 

[Iamtdg]

Beasley has looked like shit this offseason. I'm willing to give Armstrong more of a chance.

 

[Omegasupreme]

Speed loses. Small wins.

Armstrong cut.

In a related story, Jimmy Johnson just put a claim on Armstrong off the waiver wire to help him on his boat, because he just likes speed.