Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   More Peter King Madness (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/11493-more-peter-king-madness.html)

JoeRedskin 03-13-2006 04:10 PM

More Peter King Madness
 
From his Monday Morning QB:

"I think the Redskins are officially out of their minds. Washington dealt a third-round pick this year and a fourth next year to San Francisco for wideout Brandon Lloyd. This is Lloyd's NFL résumé: three seasons, 105 catches, 14.4 yards per catch, 13 touchdowns. He is a nice deep threat with good hands. But didn't the Redskins already have one of those guys in Santana Moss? In fact, by signing Antwaan Randle El on Sunday (what?!!!!!), the Redskins now have four of the same receiver at spots one through four on the wideout depth chart. Check this out:

Player Height Weight Age
Brandon Lloyd 6-0 192 24
Santana Moss 5-10 185 26
David Patten 5-10 190 31
Antwaan Randle El 5-10 192 26

I'm not saying you have to have receivers of different sizes and shapes, but with the exception of speed, the Redskins, over the last 12 months, have dealt for two receivers (Moss, Lloyd) and signed two others who all fit the same profile. Wouldn't someone on the staff there say, Hey, maybe it's a good idea to get a taller, more physical receiver to play against some of the moose we have at safety in this division, like Dallas' Roy Williams?"

As to the big receiver - I know their is a lot of sentiment for that, but you know what? If you can get open, size don't matter.

As for worrying about Roy Wiliams - Not to worry Peter, we'll just run past him. Twice. In the last 2 minutes of the game.

PWNED 03-13-2006 04:15 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
if i remember correctly we had NO problem with roy williams last year ;)

Schneed10 03-13-2006 04:16 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=PWNED]if i remember correctly we had NO problem with roy williams last year ;)[/QUOTE]

I said something to that effect in his mailbag today. I'd like to see him address it.

drew54 03-13-2006 04:17 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Yeah Peter King is right. The Colts just suck with their sub 6' guys.

We are so stupid.

PWNED 03-13-2006 04:18 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
excellent sig schneed. excellent.

and yes, id really would love to see some kind of answer. i mean we've already discussed this ad nauseum and it's pretty obvious that if you have enough threats, you dont need people to be physical with eVERYONE.

hooskins 03-13-2006 04:20 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=drew54]Yeah Peter King is right. The Colts just suck with their sub 6' guys.

We are so stupid.[/QUOTE]

Haha

skin4Life28 03-13-2006 04:21 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
i hate this fool. he obviously has no sense in football. you take a 6 ft lloyd then add his vertical jump which is damn good and you have yourself a red zone threat and just a threat in general. can't wait till we make him eat his words just like we did with everyone last year.

Hog1 03-13-2006 04:23 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Yo' Pete (and the rest of the anti-Joe/Danny crowd) how many Rings and Billions you got???????????? That's what I thought!

SouperMeister 03-13-2006 04:28 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=skin4Life28]i hate this fool. he obviously has no sense in football. you take a 6 ft lloyd then add his vertical jump which is damn good and you have yourself a red zone threat and just a threat in general. can't wait till we make him eat his words just like we did with everyone last year.[/QUOTE]
King was critical of the Moss for Coles trade also. Lotta good drafting big, physical receivers has done for Detroit. I'll take small and quick WRs over possession guys any day. Somebody should clue King in that Cooley is our possession receiver, and he'll roam much more freely in the middle with our speed at WR.

SouperMeister 03-13-2006 04:32 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=drew54]Yeah Peter King is right. The Colts just suck with their sub 6' guys.

We are so stupid.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention King is the first to fawn all over the Patriots success with 3 receivers 6' or under. If our O-line stays healthy, Saunders will have this machine putting up 30 points per game. Let's see teams try stacking the box against Portis now!

Hog1 03-13-2006 04:34 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Toooooo much attention given to "typical attributes", by so-called experts who produce nothing, and are never held accountable for their redicularium. Not enough given to ability of a player to deliver the goods. Our guys live by jungle law "eat or be eaten". Media types live by the the cafeteria law. $5.95, ALL THE SHIT YOU CAN EAT!

steveo395 03-13-2006 04:44 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
holy crap...save this article

peter king is retarded

scowan 03-13-2006 04:45 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Hey Peter King, I remember some small receivers on the St. Rams back in 2000 and how did they do? Bruce, Holt and Hakim. If you can get separation, who cares how big you are. The rules are set up for speed at the receiver position. You don't have to always be physical to be sucessful. Let's face it, Peter King hates the Skins! What more needs to be said.

MTK 03-13-2006 04:45 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Apparantely King is on the big WR bandwagon too. Kinda surprised since he has no love for Monk, one of the best big WRs ever.

Hypocrite.

RiggoRules 03-13-2006 04:50 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
We do have a big, physical receiver: Chris Cooley.

Keeping in mind the role of Al Saunders in this, how do you think the Chiefs would have done with Moss, R-El & Lloyd (I'm not saying that Cooley is Gonzo, but the kid has some chops)? My guess is that they would have been pretty amazing.

The question I have for all the haters: Is it jealousy or envy?

MTK 03-13-2006 04:51 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=RiggoRules]The question I have for all the haters: Is it jealousy or envy?[/QUOTE]

Both, with a little ignorance sprinkled on top.

SmootSmack 03-13-2006 04:52 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=scowan]Hey Peter King, I remember some small receivers on the St. Rams back in 2000 and how did they do? Bruce, Holt and Hakim. If you can get separation, who cares how big you are.[/QUOTE]

I was just thinking the same thing. This could be the 2000 Rams (who had Al Saunders as WR coach) all over again. Check out the comparisons:

2000 St. Louis Rams (with stats for 2000 season):

Marshall Faulk (5'10", 211 lbs., 27) 253 carries, 1359 yards, 18 TDs, 81 rec., 830 yards, 8 TDs

Isaac Bruce (6'0", 188 lbs., 27) 87 rec., 1471 yards, 9 TDs
Az-zahir Hakim (5'10", 189 lbs, 23) 53 rec., 734 yards, 4 TDs
Torry Holt (6'0", 190 lbs., 24) 82 rec., 1635 yards, 6 TDs
Ricky Proehl (6'0", 190 lbs., 32) 31 rec., 441 yards, 4 TDs

2006 Washington Redskins:

Clinton Portis (5'11, 205 lbs., 25-when 2006 season begins)

Santana Moss (5'10", 185 lbs., 25)
Brandon Lloyd (6'0", 192 lbs., 25)
Antwaan Randle El (5'10", 192 lbs., 27)
David Patten (5'10", 190 lbs., 32)
Chris Cooley (6'3", 265 lbs., 24)

PWNED 03-13-2006 04:55 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
very true, and honestly i think we may even have more weapons than them. i just really watn brunell to spread the ball around lke warner did.

CooleyAsCanBe 03-13-2006 04:56 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
I'm not too worried about having all four be the same size, I am more worried about having the last three be comparable in skill, and thus think they all deserve the ball. Patten was already complaining about not getting the ball enough when he was the clear number two before his injury (that sounds funny, number two, poop, hahaha) and although I don't think he is as good as the two guys we are bringing in, he is definitely in their same category.

I guess opening up the offense with our new OC Saunders might help get more balls out there, and having three legitimate WR threats on the field at a time will help Portis, but I think I would have preferred to get EITHER Randle El OR Lloyd, and spend the other contract on a DE or LB or DB.

But, hey, if we end up having enough money for everyone, the more the merrier. Depth is nice, but I think one great receiver and two good receivers is enough. Draft a rookie or sign a cheap vet for the fourth spot.

P.S. Schneed, yesterday I somehow followed a link to an Eagles message board and read their "Skins bashing" thread from around February. You were tearing them up. It was hilarious. Belated congratulations.

VTSkins897 03-13-2006 05:11 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
they said moss was a downgrade. they're idiots. they should learn from their mistakes... were there even any good "big" WRs available? sure it's nice to have them but i just don't think that's our style.

Beemnseven 03-13-2006 05:15 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Tall wideouts were the thing back in the Jerry Rice, John Taylor and J.J. Stokes days. When it carried over into Dallas during their glory days with Irvin and Harper, if you didn't have at least two starting WRs over 6'2", your team was in trouble.

Someone should get the word to Peter King, and Dan Patrick who made a crack about it too on his radio show, that those days are over. Speed is the name of the game. Everything else is secondary.

GoSkins! 03-13-2006 05:42 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
"Wouldn't someone on the staff there say, Hey, maybe it's a good idea to get a taller, more physical receiver to play against some of the moose we have at safety in this division, like Dallas' Roy Williams?"

He knows what Moss did to them last year. Even with double coverage, Williams was unable to stop Moss. He knows this and still he can't connect the dots.

This level of stupidity is hard to believe. Even for him.

scowan 03-13-2006 05:51 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
This "Physical Receiver" thing is crap. Sure everyone would like to have a T.O. on their team who is big and strong and maybe not get hurt when he gets hit, but once you get past the first 5 yards, if anyone "touches" a WR, he gets called for a penalty. What you need is the abilty to separate from your defender. Even Rice and Irvin and these other "big" receivers that are mentioned had the ability to separate from their defenders. I don't think Marvin Harrison is that big, neither is Steve Smith, or Santana. Those are the guys at the top of the receiving charts last year.

dmek25 03-13-2006 06:08 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
return of the smurfs!who gives a rats ass about what p king has to say?he is still living in the L.T./P.simms era.im glad he seems to know more than coach gibbs on how to run a team

bertoskins 03-13-2006 06:22 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
Roy Williiams cannot catch Santana,
and we have brought 2 more Santana's clone

Paintrain 03-13-2006 06:33 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
I sent an e-mail to King asking:
What's the difference between the way the Redskins WR are configured, small, fast WR (Moss, Lloyd, Randle-El) and the way the Colts WR are configured (Harrison, Wayne, Stokley). Not comparing skill sets, just the way they are comprised. Also, if the current corp is better than last year's corp (Moss, Patten, Thrash) then why are the Redskins 'out of their mind' for improving their team?

I also wanted to point out the relative failures of recent small wr corp like the Steelers (Ward, Randle El), Patriots (Branch, Patten, Givens), Colts, Rams, etc..

Beemnseven 03-13-2006 06:44 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=Paintrain]I sent an e-mail to King asking:
What's the difference between the way the Redskins WR are configured, small, fast WR (Moss, Lloyd, Randle-El) and the way the Colts WR are configured (Harrison, Wayne, Stokley). Not comparing skill sets, just the way they are comprised. Also, if the current corp is better than last year's corp (Moss, Patten, Thrash) then why are the Redskins 'out of their mind' for improving their team?

I also wanted to point out the relative failures of recent small wr corp like the Steelers (Ward, Randle El), Patriots (Branch, Patten, Givens), Colts, Rams, etc..[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm sure if he responds (which he won't) he'd say something like "the difference is that the Colts have Peyton Manning throwing them the ball."

While I disagree with King on the importance of tall wideouts, all these signings mean nothing if Mark Brunell's final 2 games of '05 are a foreshadow of 2006. We cannot discount the quarterback situation. How much does Brunell really have left? Is Jason Campbell ready? Could Todd Collins actually see time starting any games in the regular season? Those are important questions that could be the sole difference between the Redskins going to the Promise Land or falling flat on their face.

shallyshal 03-13-2006 06:49 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]From his Monday Morning QB:

"I think the Redskins are officially out of their minds. Washington dealt a third-round pick this year and a fourth next year to San Francisco for wideout Brandon Lloyd. This is Lloyd's NFL résumé: three seasons, 105 catches, 14.4 yards per catch, 13 touchdowns. He is a nice deep threat with good hands. But didn't the Redskins already have one of those guys in Santana Moss? In fact, by signing Antwaan Randle El on Sunday (what?!!!!!), the Redskins now have four of the same receiver at spots one through four on the wideout depth chart. Check this out:

Player Height Weight Age
Brandon Lloyd 6-0 192 24
Santana Moss 5-10 185 26
David Patten 5-10 190 31
Antwaan Randle El 5-10 192 26

I'm not saying you have to have receivers of different sizes and shapes, but with the exception of speed, the Redskins, over the last 12 months, have dealt for two receivers (Moss, Lloyd) and signed two others who all fit the same profile. Wouldn't someone on the staff there say, Hey, maybe it's a good idea to get a taller, more physical receiver to play against some of the moose we have at safety in this division, like Dallas' Roy Williams?"

As to the big receiver - I know their is a lot of sentiment for that, but you know what? If you can get open, size don't matter.

As for worrying about Roy Wiliams - Not to worry Peter, we'll just run past him. Twice. In the last 2 minutes of the game.[/QUOTE]

wait until he reads about carters contract... he is gonna have a stroke

shallyshal 03-13-2006 06:50 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=Paintrain]I sent an e-mail to King asking:
What's the difference between the way the Redskins WR are configured, small, fast WR (Moss, Lloyd, Randle-El) and the way the Colts WR are configured (Harrison, Wayne, Stokley). Not comparing skill sets, just the way they are comprised. Also, if the current corp is better than last year's corp (Moss, Patten, Thrash) then why are the Redskins 'out of their mind' for improving their team?

I also wanted to point out the relative failures of recent small wr corp like the Steelers (Ward, Randle El), Patriots (Branch, Patten, Givens), Colts, Rams, etc..[/QUOTE]


the league is a bunch of copy cats.. after next year, the smaller receivers willbe in vogue.

besides, roy williams can't hit what he cant catch up to

PSUSkinsFan21 03-13-2006 07:17 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
On he heels of a year in which 8 of the top 10 WRs in terms of receiving yards were 6'1" or shorter (and 6 were 6'0" or shorter) and the top two WRs were Steve Smith and Santana Moss, I struggle to understand King's point. Production is production. Doesn't matter what size you are if you don't get open and catch the ball when it gets to you.

Would he be happier if we still had Rod Gardner and Darnerian McCants instead? Idiot.

GoSkins! 03-13-2006 07:53 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21] I struggle to understand King's point. [/QUOTE]

In the words of Saturday Night Live -

That was very insightful information. Thank you Peter King you ignorant slut.

Longtimefan 03-13-2006 10:30 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=Hog1]Toooooo much attention given to "typical attributes", by so-called experts who produce nothing, and are never held accountable for their redicularium. Not enough given to ability of a player to deliver the goods. Our guys live by jungle law "eat or be eaten". Media types live by the the cafeteria law. $5.95, ALL THE SHIT YOU CAN EAT![/QUOTE]


"Redicularium" I like that. I also agree with your analogy as I mentioned the same thing in one of my earlier post. We spend too much time concerned with these various critical clowns always dissin the team. Their favorite team is probably one our owner has to spend extra to help support, so they're jealous of us because their teams won't spend any money to get better. If Lloyd had been playing opposite a receiver like Moss in SanFran and a better QB to get him the ball, no telling what his numbers would look like.

denim_monger 03-13-2006 11:29 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
this king guy is pretty smart i like to watch him on inside the nfl when i'm busy pounding down brew-has on a friday night wit my girl ahhhhhhhhyearrrrhhhhhhhh

RiggoRules 03-13-2006 11:57 PM

Re: More Peter King Madness
 
[QUOTE=denim_monger]this king guy is pretty smart i like to watch him on inside the nfl when i'm busy pounding down brew-has on a friday night wit my girl ahhhhhhhhyearrrrhhhhhhhh[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, I wonder why people in Chicago are so upset?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.04912 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25