The case for a Wide Reciever

Against my better judgement, I would not mind if the Colts took a receiver in the first round. Obviously I know the right thing is to take a promising defensive player to bolster the front 7. But I can't get past the idea that maybe the best way for the Colts to stay competitive is to keep the offense smoking hot. The run defense may very well be a multiple year rebuilding project with or without a first rounder dedicated to the issue. They have no depth at WR.

I'm going to throw out a name: Dwayne Jarrett out of USC. Once projected to go in the first fifteen picks, his so-so workout for scouts has his stock falling, possibly a late round one or even round two pick. He's 6' 5" and catches everything that you throw at him. He's the all-time PAC-10 leader in touchdown receptions. Peyton would find a way to get this guy 10 scores every year.

That said, here's all the reason why we know the Colts shouldn't do this:

1. It can take up to three years to develop a wide receiver. Why not just pay to re-sign Moorehead, who is just about to become useful?

2. The Colts defense was historically bad last year.

3. They already have the two best WRs in the league. Besides, they did fine without Brandon Stokely or any type of reliable third receiver last year.

4. WRs in the first round don't have a great history. . . why not just steal one in the third or fourth round?

Deshawn Zombie's comments: I don't think a WR is a bad idea. The Football Outsider stats this week showed that the first round IS the best time to get a productive wideout. The problem is that it takes WRs 2 to 3 years to develop. Many people questioned whether Reggie Wayne was a bit of a bust after his rookie year, and now he is elite. I think that a lot of wideouts would perform better if they were given time to learn an offense. If Jarrett makes it to pick 32, you HAVE to take him.