Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

I would rather have Thrash in there than one of the other guys under-achieving. We know what we can expect from him and if he is in there every week for the whole season, I know we could get 50 catches out of him. Can we get 50 catches out of LLoyd? I dunno.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=70Chip;338814]I would rather have Thrash in there than one of the other guys under-achieving. We know what we can expect from him and if he is in there every week for the whole season, I know we could get 50 catches out of him. Can we get 50 catches out of LLoyd? I dunno.[/quote]


This seems to be the big stopper. There is NO reason really he couldnt be the number 2, because the players that are there for those positions are underachieving. I reiterate, F*** B. Lloyd.

Hey. Brandon. Catch a TD. Stop rapping, take the...thats right,...take the headphones off and catch the f***ing ball dill weed. Dude. Your almost as useless as a Mark Brunell.

Llyod has to prove himself to me.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

I agree about Lloyd. Antwaan actually started to produce when someone could actually get him the ball. I really think Antwaan will be a big factor for us this year. I'm still not sold at all on Lloyd and I think Thrash will have a bigger year than him again.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

he avg at best lets hope the hell not.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=Cowell;338823]I agree about Lloyd. Antwaan actually started to produce when someone could actually get him the ball. I really think Antwaan will be a big factor for us this year. I'm still not sold at all on Lloyd and I think Thrash will have a bigger year than him again.[/quote]


If Thrash has better stats as the end of the year the Lloyd, I nominate Lloyd for "Douche-bag Of The Year" award.

Dont worry. He's a shoo-in...

and coming in a close second...THIS!

[IMG]http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.aolsportsblog.com/media/2007/03/bradygolfer.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

boy he it that happen i'm so happy we spent all the draft picks and signing bonues on ARE and Lloyd

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

lloyd is such a waste. The niners sure got over on us in that trade. Bad enough we gave up draft picks the signing bonues is a killer right now.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

Ya. As it stands, Lloyd REALLY f***ed us. That is unless he steps up and does great things this year. [U] GREAT [/U]things.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

lloyd didnt f--- us our scouting department did. Or gibbs,little danny and good ole vinny. Lloyd just got paid cant blame him, he cant help that he sucks.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

No, Lloyd HAS the talent. Almost once a week in '05 with the Niners he would make a one handed catch and he put up pretty decent stats that year. Lloyd just needs to do his f***ing job and STFU.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

he probably doesnt care as much since he got paid for nothing. alot of guys have talent. Maybe he needs to get a heart. Tell you what if clark was hurt like lloyd is he would be playing so would have monk. Old school. These guys get paid and dont care.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;338717]no way. Ricky Proehl could run. thrash has absolutely no speed. he is a good special teamer. no more, no less. if he gets on the field alot this season, it means one of 2 things. the skins are blowing someone out. or they are getting blown out[/QUOTE]

What I meant was when Saunders was the receivers coach for the Rams, it was all about Holt, Bruce, Faulk, and Az-Hakim. Those were the main guys and the headline grabbers.

But in the clutch Warner could always count on Proehl. Thrash serves the same capacity. Not talking about style of play.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

proehl was very underated. He was good for the cards and the ramns

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338780]Why does it matter who plays the No. 2 receiver?[/QUOTE]

Cause if we have someone with the talent level as Thrash at #2, we are in deep poo. That's why it matters. According to the stats I already provided for you, Thrash is accustomed to getting 13-17 catches a season and barely reaching 200 yards, if you think that's a #2, then this argument will go no where. So I will say it again, if thrash is our #2, our season is over.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

hmm lets see clark was a number 2 wr. rice had taylor. etc helps alot. Wish we had a number 2 instead of alot of number 3's on this team

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338858]Cause if we have someone with the talent level as Thrash at #2, we are in deep poo. That's why it matters. According to the stats I already provided for you, Thrash is accustomed to getting 13-17 catches a season and barely reaching 200 yards, if you think that's a #2, then this argument will go no where. So I will say it again, if thrash is our #2, our season is over.[/quote]Accustomed? What, is Thrash going to break down into particle matter the moment he hits 20 catches?

Please explain why it matters that Thrash didn't have a lot of playing time in the past.

By your argument, we are already screwed because Lloyd and Randle El aren't very good. Should we just forfeit the season now?

I don't disagree with you often, jsarno, but in this case, I couldn't disagree more. Please excuse my consistently incorrect use of punctuation;?!."

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

thrash is a hard worker, great team player. but he is no way a number 2 wr.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

lloyd does suck and ARE is a punt returner who is a number 3 wr at best

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338864]Accustomed? What, is Thrash going to break down into particle matter the moment he hits 20 catches?

Please explain why it matters that Thrash didn't have a lot of playing time in the past?

By your argument, we are already screwed because Lloyd and Randle El aren't very good. Should we just forfeit the season now?

I don't disagree with you often, jsarno, but in this case, I couldn't disagree more.[/QUOTE]

How about this, Thrash doesn't have the talent to be a #2.
If Lloyd and ARE play like they did last season, then yes, we will be in just as much trouble, but I don't see that happening. Lloyd is going to break out, and ARE will be a good playmaker.
Why is it everyone annoints Thrash? The man has never done anything significant, yet we think he can be a valuable #2???? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

The 2nd WR is just that...the second best wide receiver on your team (who plays the second most snaps or catches the second most passes). There are no skill qualifications for a No. 2 reciever. It's a media term, and not even one of the better ones.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338867]How about this, Thrash doesn't have the talent to be a #2.
If Lloyd and ARE play like they did last season, then yes, we will be in just as much trouble, but I don't see that happening. Lloyd is going to break out, and ARE will be a good playmaker.
Why is it everyone annoints Thrash? The man has never done anything significant, yet we think he can be a valuable #2???? That doesn't make any sense at all.[/quote]Alright, I see your point, but see my above post. Thrash is the number 2 if he's more talented than Lloyd and Randle El.

How have you reached your conclusion that he's worse? Conjecture based on age? Because it certainly wasn't on receiver effeciency in any of the last Lloyd's career.

And much more significantly, how can this possibly be important enough to determine anything, much less the outcome of the season?

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338868]The 2nd WR is just that...the second best wide receiver on your team (who plays the second most snaps or catches the second most passes). There are no skill qualifications for a No. 2 reciever. It's a media term, and not even one of the better ones.[/QUOTE]


I agree, but do you really see Thrash as that guy?

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=GTripp0012;338869]Alright, I see your point, but see my above post. Thrash is the number 2 if he's more talented than Lloyd and Randle El.

How have you reached your conclusion that he's worse? Conjecture based on age? Because it certainly wasn't on receiver effeciency in any of the last Lloyd's career.

And much more significantly, how can this possibly be important enough to determine anything, much less the outcome of the season?[/quote]


He isn't more talented than either Randle El or Lloyd but he has been more consistent and realiable over his career than the other two.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338869]Alright, I see your point, but see my above post. Thrash is the number 2 if he's more talented than Lloyd and Randle El.

How have you reached your conclusion that he's worse? Conjecture based on age? Because it certainly wasn't on receiver effeciency in any of the last Lloyd's career.

And much more significantly, how can this possibly be important enough to determine anything, much less the outcome of the season?[/QUOTE]


Because I really feel we need a better than average passing attack this year to be a good team.

About him being worse than Lloyd or ARE, both of those guys are more gifted and talented. Sure Thrash will work hard, but he doesn't have the speed or athleticism to be what we need out of a #2 WR.
I honestly feel Thrash is a nothing player on our team. We can easily replace him and his production. I like the guy, he has heart, so I have no problem keeping him, but we need special production out of the #2 spot, and Thrash can't and won't fill that bill for us.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338871]I agree, but do you really see Thrash as that guy?[/quote]Yes. I have no reason to think that Lloyd or Randle El are primed for a breakout year as a WR.

Randle El was a converted QB, who never played the position in college. Anything the Steelers got, and now we get from him is a bonus. There are certain football skills Randle El has valuable to any NFL team (and warrent playing time), but being a quality NFL receiver is not one of them. He can however play the part in a pinch.

Lloyd was a fourth rounder who never quite lived up to his draft position, and then got a big pay day. Not sure how long we are supposed to wait on him to show football skill that he never proved he had at any point (college or pros). Circus catches aside, Lloyd has yet to show that he belongs in the NFL.

Thrash was our best WR last year ([URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php"]by the efficency metric[/URL]). Now Moss was hurt and is very obviously a better player, and Thrash's age suggests that he is not likely to be better than last year, but that gap between him and ARE/Lloyd is pretty sizable. Nothing to spit on.

The best argument against Thrash starting this year is that the 2nd receiver position is too insigificant to give to a journeyman WR who will be blocking growth of ARE as a NFL receiver, and Brandon Lloyd as a giant a**hole. But if the point is to start the best 11 players, hard to convince me that Thrash doesn't belong.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338874]Because I really feel we need a better than average passing attack this year to be a good team.

About him being worse than Lloyd or ARE, both of those guys are more gifted and talented. Sure Thrash will work hard, but he doesn't have the speed or athleticism to be what we need out of a #2 WR.
I honestly feel Thrash is a nothing player on our team. We can easily replace him and his production. I like the guy, he has heart, so I have no problem keeping him, but we need special production out of the #2 spot, and Thrash can't and won't fill that bill for us.[/quote]Jason Campbell=significant. Moss=significant. Cooley=significant. Assuming health of three above guys, only an offensive line disaster regression could possibly stop us from having an above average passing attack. Who the second receiver is=relatively insignificant. There's no one we could play in that position that would give us a bad passing attack. Which is why I felt your initial Thrash comment was way, way, off. It's all cool though, I'm glad you throughly explained your thinking. Not many people do that anymore.

At least based on history, Thrash is the second best player on our roster at the WR position. Lloyd and Randle El should take baby steps foward by virtue of experience, but if either of them was going to be great, it would have happened by last year.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

And I agree that guys like Thrash can be easily replaced...thus the concept known as replacement level, but we don't do the whole young thing. We just pay big money for bad players and then add scrubs. We never sign players who couldnt make it in other camps to play for us, we just roll with what we have...and thus no one ever comes onto the roster worthy of replacing Thrash.

At this point, its too late in the season to bring someone in as the starter. Not enough time to teach the playbook, no matter how many nights player sleeps over at Todd Collins' house.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338878]Yes. I have no reason to think that Lloyd or Randle El are primed for a breakout year as a WR.

Randle El was a converted QB, who never played the position in college. Anything the Steelers got, and now we get from him is a bonus. There are certain football skills Randle El has valuable to any NFL team (and warrent playing time), but being a quality NFL receiver is not one of them. He can however play the part in a pinch.

Lloyd was a fourth rounder who never quite lived up to his draft position, and then got a big pay day. Not sure how long we are supposed to wait on him to show football skill that he never proved he had at any point (college or pros). Circus catches aside, Lloyd has yet to show that he belongs in the NFL.

Thrash was our best WR last year ([URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php"]by the efficency metric[/URL]). Now Moss was hurt and is very obviously a better player, and Thrash's age suggests that he is not likely to be better than last year, but that gap between him and ARE/Lloyd is pretty sizable. Nothing to spit on.

The best argument against Thrash starting this year is that the 2nd receiver position is too insigificant to give to a journeyman WR who will be blocking growth of ARE as a NFL receiver, and Brandon Lloyd as a giant a**hole. But if the point is to start the best 11 players, hard to convince me that Thrash doesn't belong.[/QUOTE]

I applaud the link. But there is a reason he is not in with everyone else, he didn't have enough balls thrown to him, so his numbers could be inflated.
ARE's 3 td's are more than Thrash has had in 6 years with the Skins (not including 2000.) Lloyd averaged over 4 tds a season until last year. Something Thrash never did.
So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, cause I see a huge problem with Thrash as our #2, and if he is, I see us failing miserably.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338889]I applaud the link. But there is a reason he is not in with everyone else, he didn't have enough balls thrown to him, so his numbers could be inflated.[/quote]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 [U][B]severly[/B][/U] overvaluing the effect of the second receiver in the offense, [I]especially[/I] 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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338882]Jason Campbell=significant. Moss=significant. Cooley=significant. Assuming health of three above guys, only an offensive line disaster regression could possibly stop us from having an above average passing attack. Who the second receiver is=relatively insignificant. There's no one we could play in that position that would give us a bad passing attack. Which is why I felt your initial Thrash comment was way, way, off. It's all cool though, I'm glad you throughly explained your thinking. Not many people do that anymore.

At least based on history, Thrash is the second best player on our roster at the WR position. Lloyd and Randle El should take baby steps foward by virtue of experience, but if either of them was going to be great, it would have happened by last year.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338895]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 [U][B]severly[/B][/U] overvaluing the effect of the second receiver in the offense, [I]especially[/I] 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.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338898]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.[/quote]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).

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338901]Well, I respect your opinion. I think you're incorrect about it being an insignificant position, but I respect it none the less.[/quote]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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338906]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;338908]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.[/quote]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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338909]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.[/QUOTE]


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

LOL

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;338912]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

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.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

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