One of the most common reactions I saw to the Eagles' signing of Miles Austin included the following sentiment: "Well, at least he's better than Riley Cooper." However, I saw some others suggest that Austin isn't even better than Cooper at this point.
I'm not here to make an argument for either side. They're obviously both not very great, and that's putting it generously. But for the sake of SCIENCE, I must ask this extremely depressing question for Eagles fans: which one is worse?
Let's look at the facts.
Cooper will be 28 in September. He's coming off a season where Pro Football Focus graded him the worst wide receiver in the entire NFL (111th out of 111). He finished the 2014 season with 55 receptions for 577 yards (10.5 average) and three touchdowns. He also fumbled once. Cooper dealt with a high-ankle injury that forced him to miss most of last year's training camp but otherwise he's been pretty healthy. He's never played less than 11 games and he played all 16 the past two seasons.
Austin will be 31 in late July. The veteran pass catcher posted 47 receptions for 568 yards (12.1 average) and two touchdowns for the Browns in 2014. Though Austin was slightly more productive than Cooper last season (especially considering the lackluster state of the Browns' offense), he's obviously way more of an injury risk. Austin hasn't played in all 16 games since 2010. He's missed 15 games in the past four seasons; nine in the last two.
So... take your pick. Who is worse?