Could Thrash Become #2 WR

This is of course, the legitimate criticism to these 2006 numbers. In my defense, I'd say that it wasn't close enough to even argue sample size...but then again thats subjective.

I still think you are severly overvaluing the effect of the second receiver in the offense, especially since you are saying that we should play the lesser of two evils. It's not even like the Calvin Johnson vs. James Thrash argument of draft week...in which of course I argued that the position was too insiginificant to use a top six pick on CJ, which the Lions are about to learn the hard way. This is James Thrash vs. Lloyd/Randle El...hes probably better, but talking purely win expectancy...if this move changes our win expectancy in any given game more than half a percent in either direction, I'd be beyond shocked. And when you are talking about fractions of percents of win expectancy in a single game, that to me is the definition of insignificant.

But to each their own.

Well, I respect your opinion. I think you're incorrect about it being an insignificant position, but I respect it none the less.

I disagree that the 2nd WR is insignificant, and here is why. Without that #2 to take pressure off the #1, the offense needs to rely on the running game much more, and it's much harder to win games. Yes, it can be done, but you rely too heavily on other areas. We need an efficient offense. That requires a good #2 WR, and I just don't think Thrash is the guy.
I really feel Lloyd will have a breakout season. The guy has a ton of talent, but you're right, he's an ass. So it's hard to get on board with him. I just really see a 50+ rec and 800+ yard performance out of Lloyd is Campbell is worth his salt.Isn't Cooley that number two target aleady?

Also, I believe that a very good WR (which Moss qualifies as) can take pressure off himself. Theres only a few ways to play a receiver, and if a receiver can beat a DB in multiple ways, theres nothing a defense can do schematically to stop him.

Think about it, as long as the defense is in zone (as most NFL teams usually are), there's always going to be holes in every zone. Moss is good enough to exploit these holes.

If the defense is in man, and they choose to put a second guy on Moss, then they may be able to take him away. BUT, theres a reason that no teams consistently do this. It's because on all plays not designed to go to Santana Moss, the defense is basically playing with ten guys.

See, it doesn't really matter who is playing across from him. Theres only a limited amount of coverages a defense can play, and theres nothing a team can do to take advantage of a team not having a good second wideout (outside of using an inferior cover man against the second wideout, but this would happen anyway).

Well, I respect your opinion. I think you're incorrect about it being an insignificant position, but I respect it none the less.Same to you. I often reconsider my opinion on this one, but my experience in the game always leads me in the same direction.

If your experience with the game tells you that a second reciever carries lots of responsibility, theres no reason to side with me against your insticts.

Just trying to give you another way to think about it.

Same to you. I often reconsider my opinion on this one, but my experience in the game always leads me in the same direction.

If your experience with the game tells you that a second reciever carries lots of responsibility, theres no reason to side with me against your insticts.

Just trying to give you another way to think about it.

I appreciate that.
It's all moot anyway, cause Lloyd will be given the shot, and I just have a strong feeling he is going to do very well this year.

I appreciate that.
It's all moot anyway, cause Lloyd will be given the shot, and I just have a strong feeling he is going to do very well this year.And this is the best possible point one can make.

No matter how right we know we are and how passionate we get in our arguments, we won't affect the way things are decided in the NFL at all.

And this is the best possible point one can make.

No matter how right we know we are and how passionate we get in our arguments, we won't affect the way things are decided in the NFL at all.


What??? My opinion doesn't translate to on field production? WTF! I don't know what is real anymore!

LOL

Doesn't mean that you and me wouldn't be better than at least half the GMs in the business anyway.

I'm serious on this one. We so would be.

Doesn't mean that you and me wouldn't be better than at least half the GMs in the business anyway.

I'm serious on this one. We so would be.

I firmly believe that.
I have a unique ability to see talent, and a lot of time predict how players will do.
I do tend to think that some players on our team are better than they are at times, but I see the NFL for what it is.
I'd LOVE to be a GM.

James Thrash will always have a spot on this team because he works harder than anyone on it. My standard complaint with any underperforming Redskin for the past ten years is "If we could only put James Thrash's head on (Michael Westbrook, Trung Canidate, Brandon Lloyd, etc.)..."

Frankly, Thrash has put up good metrics when he is out there in an offensive role. Typically, this has happened late in the season, when injuries have increased his position in the rotation. If he sees earlier action because of his skill and efforts, good for him and us.

i will never understand this boards infatuation with James Thrash. every team has a " James Thrash" type. a good team guy, and produces when given the chance. can not be anything more then what you already see. he will fill the same role he had last season. special teamer, and a fill in due to injury. everyone that plays in this league simply cannot become a star