Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;338949]i will never understand this boards infatuation with James Thrash. every team has a " James Thrash" type. a [B]good team guy, and produces when given the chance[/B]. 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[/QUOTE]

That is exactly what James Thrash is. He's not going to be any more especially at this point in his career, I think he's only got a few more years left.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

James Thrash is exactly what Dmek said. A good team guy who produces, he may not be our most talented reciever, but after Cooley and Moss he certainly is the most realiable.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=dmek25;338949]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[/quote]

I think it might have something to do with the fact that he chooses not to rap. And as far as that last sentence:

[YT]9aKVpxR4rUc[/YT]

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

70's old school. i love sly and the family

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;338949]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[/QUOTE]

Exactly, 100% agree.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

From the Wash. Times, on the subject of LLoyd. I am inclined to agree. But I would like to see one of the young guys emerge as the #2/3. Still, you can't knock Thrash for his effort and consistency--at least he's there if we need him to step up.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Send this guy packing [David Elfin]

The Redskins should send a message now: cut Brandon Lloyd.


The malcontent receiver has been as big a bust as now-departed safety Adam Archuleta was and on top of that, he threw his helmet during a game last year. Lloyd admitted that this offseason was the first one during which he ever really worked out, and the result has been that he has missed half of training camp with shin splints.


The Redskins have plenty of cap room. Even if they give tight end Chris Cooley a big contract, they have the cap room. Lloyd might be a gifted athlete, but he's not a standup guy in the locker room. Corey Bradford, Jason McAddley, Mike Espy or any of the other backup receivers can score zero touchdowns as well as Lloyd and for a heck of a lot less money and aggravation.


Cut Brandon Lloyd now.

[/COLOR]

[url=http://video1.washingtontimes.com/redskins/]The Washington Times, America's Newspaper[/url]

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;339066]From the Wash. Times, on the subject of LLoyd. I am inclined to agree. But I would like to see one of the young guys emerge as the #2/3. Still, you can't knock Thrash for his effort and consistency--at least he's there if we need him to step up.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Send this guy packing [David Elfin]

The Redskins should send a message now: cut Brandon Lloyd.


The malcontent receiver has been as big a bust as now-departed safety Adam Archuleta was and on top of that, he threw his helmet during a game last year. Lloyd admitted that this offseason was the first one during which he ever really worked out, and the result has been that he has missed half of training camp with shin splints.


The Redskins have plenty of cap room. Even if they give tight end Chris Cooley a big contract, they have the cap room. Lloyd might be a gifted athlete, but he's not a standup guy in the locker room. Corey Bradford, Jason McAddley, Mike Espy or any of the other backup receivers can score zero touchdowns as well as Lloyd and for a heck of a lot less money and aggravation.


Cut Brandon Lloyd now.

[/COLOR]

[url=http://video1.washingtontimes.com/redskins/]The Washington Times, America's Newspaper[/url][/QUOTE]

But he has also come out and apologized for that, and his head should be on straight now. I also saw reports that he worked out all offseason, and that might be why he has shin splints right now. We'd be dumb to drop him now with no back up plan in order. If this was going to be done, we should have prepared for it.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

not happening, "Im clicking with my wife, but doesn't mean I'm breaking up with my girlfriend"!

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

wish they would cut lloyd

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=DEVIL'S OWN;339090]not happening, "Im clicking with my wife, but doesn't mean I'm breaking up with my girlfriend"![/quote]
great line, but dont know if it fits here

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

So let's see if I understand jsarno's point.

Because Thrash hasn't ever had a really big year he is slow. This flies directly against the stats I provided earlier and which noone has refuted. Someone even noted how he "flew" past the other Redskins on a play last year.

I think he hasn't had such big production any year because he has "Art Monk syndrome." Most receivers strike me as the type who are always in the QB and coach's face saying "throw me the ball, throw me the ball." Thrash seems like one of the few who doesn't bother them, and therefore he has fewer balls thrown to him.

As far as the importance of the #2 receiver, if the #2 is a speed demon who can catch the ball it really stretches out the field, allowing a lot more space for ALL receivers on the field.

Thrash strikes me as having a lot of the traits of Art Monk (albeit at a lower skill level):
Almost no boneheaded plays.
Knows where the sticks are.
Few drops.
Comes back to the QB (to help him bail out) when he sees a lot of pressure. (I think he's the only receiver on the current team who does this.)

In my view, he could make an excellent #2, especially if he gets enough passes his way to make him a credible threat. Of course, if he has lost his speed that's another thing entirely.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=mike340;339565]So let's see if I understand jsarno's point.

Because Thrash hasn't ever had a really big year he is slow. This flies directly against the stats I provided earlier and which noone has refuted. Someone even noted how he "flew" past the other Redskins on a play last year.

I think he hasn't had such big production any year because he has "Art Monk syndrome." Most receivers strike me as the type who are always in the QB and coach's face saying "throw me the ball, throw me the ball." Thrash seems like one of the few who doesn't bother them, and therefore he has fewer balls thrown to him.

As far as the importance of the #2 receiver, if the #2 is a speed demon who can catch the ball it really stretches out the field, allowing a lot more space for ALL receivers on the field.

Thrash strikes me as having a lot of the traits of Art Monk (albeit at a lower skill level):
Almost no boneheaded plays.
Knows where the sticks are.
Few drops.
Comes back to the QB (to help him bail out) when he sees a lot of pressure. (I think he's the only receiver on the current team who does this.)

In my view, he could make an excellent #2, especially if he gets enough passes his way to make him a credible threat. Of course, if he has lost his speed that's another thing entirely.[/QUOTE]

I think we all just saw you as a little overzealous with those numbers.
Here is an article off ESPN:
[i]Yuck. This receiving corps was disappointing last year and didn't get any better for '07. Randle El never has caught more than 47 passes in a season, and that total came in 2002, his rookie year, so it's hard to know what Gibbs and owner Dan Snyder were thinking giving him big guaranteed money last season. He's an adequate slot guy but shouldn't be owned in any but the deepest leagues. Brandon Lloyd has a big mouth and crummy hands that got him benched by the end of '06, and other than an eight-game stretch for the '05 49ers, he's barely been an adequate pro. [b]Stay away from him and from James Thrash, whose speed is gone and who is nothing but a fourth receiver.[/b][/i]
You can find the entire report here:
[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/2007draftkit/story?id=2968865]ESPN - Harris: Washington fantasy team preview - Fantasy Football[/url]

So as you can see, the professionals seem to think he's got nothing left in the tank, and from what I saw last year, I am certain that is true.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

Didn't we first have Thrash when Norv was with the skins? Dang that guy is old...no way.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

Yeah, but then he was on the Eagles for a couple of years.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=jsarno;339571]I think we all just saw you as a little overzealous with those numbers.
Here is an article off ESPN:
[I]Yuck. This receiving corps was disappointing last year and didn't get any better for '07. Randle El never has caught more than 47 passes in a season, and that total came in 2002, his rookie year, so it's hard to know what Gibbs and owner Dan Snyder were thinking giving him big guaranteed money last season. He's an adequate slot guy but shouldn't be owned in any but the deepest leagues. Brandon Lloyd has a big mouth and crummy hands that got him benched by the end of '06, and other than an eight-game stretch for the '05 49ers, he's barely been an adequate pro. [B]Stay away from him and from James Thrash, whose speed is gone and who is nothing but a fourth receiver.[/B][/I]
You can find the entire report here:
[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/2007draftkit/story?id=2968865"]ESPN - Harris: Washington fantasy team preview - Fantasy Football[/URL]

So as you can see, the professionals seem to think he's got nothing left in the tank, and from what I saw last year, I am certain that is true.[/quote]
How come writer are pro's when we agree with what they are saying but are skum and suck when one does not agree with what they say?

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=firstdown;339633]How come writer are pro's when we agree with what they are saying but are skum and suck when one does not agree with what they say?[/quote]

It's called homerism 101

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

Plain and simple, whoever performs best in preseason should be the #2. The job should be wide open for competition. If it's Thrash or Espy then so be it. We simply do not have anybody on our WR corps that have shown anything to merit being a number #2. To me, potential doesn't mean a damn thing. I want to see production.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

Thrash is a great WR to put in the game in a crucial situation where Moss and Cooley will be covered heavily. He's like a secret weapon. :)

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;339633]How come writer are pro's when we agree with what they are saying but are skum and suck when one does not agree with what they say?[/QUOTE]

Well, a "professional" gets paid for their expertise. These guys are getting paid to tell us about their opinions of the players / teams. If they are wrong all the time, they will be out of work.

Like Matty said, it's homerism 101 as to why we get all pissed when they something negative about our guys, but fact is, 9 times out of 10, they are right. Maybe 8 out of 10.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;339763]Like Matty said, it's homerism 101 as to why we get all pissed when they something negative about our guys, but fact is, 9 times out of 10, they are right. Maybe 8 out of 10.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree. Look, for example, at their pre-season predictions of how most teams will fare. They are consistently wrong. I'm usually as good as "the experts" at picking who will win X game, as are the vast majority of laypeople.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;339765]I can't agree. Look, for example, at their pre-season predictions of how most teams will fare. They are consistently wrong. I'm usually as good as "the experts" at picking who will win X game, as are the vast majority of laypeople.[/QUOTE]


I was referring to them picking us. They have been right for many years except for one year, and that's when we won 10 a couple years ago and we were predicted to win 4 or 5.
Fact is, we always say 9-12 wins, and it's happened only 2 times in the past decade.
We are usually wrong, and they are usually right. This is generally cause we over value players (ie: Thrash) and have an amazing love for the team. Ie: Homerism.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[quote=firstdown;338645]Here is a good article which I was going to place in the news section but thought that this could be something that others may want to discuss. The article talks about how Trash has had extra playing time with JC in training camp due to others injuries and the two are really clicking. We never think of him as the #2 guy but if he is really clicking with JC as the article says and the coaches are saying then who knows. I myself have wondered why we do not use him more as it seeems that when he is called upon makes the play. So check out the article and lets hear what you think.
[URL="http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=130049&ran=177175"]ARTICLE: At 32, Thrash is preparing for another breakout year (The Virginian-Pilot - HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com)[/URL]

The Va. Pilot is doing a daily player profile and interview which they seem to do a good job. So now that I have found them on line I will post them in the news section unless its something worth discussing.[/quote]

My mother was at the Welcome Home Lunch and sat beside him last year. Got his sig on the Skins schedule book thing they handed out. She gave it to my son - That is the ONLY reason it would be nice if he became a #2 WR.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;339783]I was referring to them picking us. They have been right for many years except for one year, and that's when we won 10 a couple years ago and we were predicted to win 4 or 5.
Fact is, we always say 9-12 wins, and it's happened only 2 times in the past decade.
We are usually wrong, and they are usually right. This is generally cause we over value players (ie: Thrash) and have an amazing love for the team. Ie: Homerism.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I don't disagree with anything you've said above. But I don't think they were right because of their expertise. Rather, I think they are going to say we will be bad until we start proving to them that we can actually win on a consistent basis. In other words, they are behind the curve. If we post two back-to-back winning seasons, they will start predicting how great we will be in Year 3, even if we end up losing 16 games in year 3.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;339783]I was referring to them picking us. They have been right for many years except for one year, and that's when we won 10 a couple years ago and we were predicted to win 4 or 5.
Fact is, we always say 9-12 wins, and it's happened only 2 times in the past decade.
We are usually wrong, and they are usually right. This is generally cause we over value players (ie: Thrash) and have an amazing love for the team. Ie: Homerism.[/QUOTE]

To be specific, this is how many wins we have had since Gibbs left after the 92 season:
14 wins - 0 times
13 wins - 0 times
12 wins - 0 times
11 wins - 0 times
10 wins - 2 times
9 wins - 1 time
8 wins - 3 times
7 wins - 1 time
6 wins - 3 times
5 wins - 2 times
4 wins - 1 time
3 wins - 1 time

That's an average of only 6.79 wins per season. Ouch.

That's 14 seasons, and only had 9 wins or more 3 times, but 8 times we had fewer than 7 wins.
The only times we have been right was 99 (and I am saying that loosely since we predicted closer to 12 wins and a super bowl) and 05.
The only times the writers have predicted us to do well was in 99 and they were wrong about 05. The rest of the years, they were right.
We have been a doormat of football for too long, it's about time we show the world what we're made of.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;339795]Ah, I don't disagree with anything you've said above. But I don't think they were right because of their expertise. Rather, I think they are going to say we will be bad until we start proving to them that we can actually win on a consistent basis. In other words, they are behind the curve. If we post two back-to-back winning seasons, they will start predicting how great we will be in Year 3, even if we end up losing 16 games in year 3.[/QUOTE]


Good point, and very true.
But we here will continue to "predict" great things with no real reason behind it. AT least they are using reason.

Re: Could Thrash Become #2 WR
 

........... nope I doubt it