Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/1622-sporting-news-analysis-wide-recievers.html)

Big C 06-25-2004 03:24 PM

Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers
 
I just picked up the new issue of the Sporting News Magazine. They have been rating each teams positions each week, this week it was wide recievers. I was expecting to open it up and see an A or at least a B on it, but we got a C+...Now i am really confused on this one. They say we are worse there than...
Cardinals
Falcons
Panthers
Bears
Lions
Packers
Vikings
Saints
Giants
Eagles
Rams
Seahawks
Buccaneers
Bills
Bengals
Browns
Texans
Colts
Dolphins
Patriots
Jets
Raiders
Steelers
and Titans...

Apparently we are equal with The Jaguars... and only stronger than
49ers
Cowgirls(Cowpies, etc)
Ravens
Broncos
Chiefs
and Chargers...

Does anyone else think this is total BS? I know id rather be in our situation than most of those teams, save the Rams and Seahawks maybe, Colts, and Steelers. Rediculous

Daseal 06-25-2004 05:16 PM

This list looks like total BS. Cardinals had a rookie sensation and a new rookie this year. How are they #1. Falcons receivers didn't help them much last year.

I think Coles, Gardner, Jacobs, and McCants should rank a bit higher. Did the magazine give any sort of reasons? Also, I think the Cowboys should be higher. I mean they have Glen, Keyshawn, and that other dude =p

Big C 06-25-2004 05:29 PM

The teams above us are in alphabetical order basically...not by grade, sorry to confuse. But the article is written by paul woody, and he gives no negatives except about Rod Gardner, saying that he has good size, and a good attitude, and a good route runner, but saying that he gets poor seperation and has questionable speed and hands. He also said that Jacobs could be the suprise of the bunch this year, and has big play ability...

SkinsRock 06-25-2004 05:36 PM

While I agree that it is a BS grade, like everything else, they have to prove that they are a good as we think they are.
I bet that by mid-season this grade will be up to a B+ or better....

diehardskin2982 06-25-2004 06:19 PM

its okay Street & Smiths has us going to the NFC Divisional Playoffs and the overall average grade for our WR's in the mags is a B

JWsleep 06-25-2004 06:30 PM

I'm all for predictions, but this just seems made up. I mean, what is the basis for this stuff? Anyway, I'll take wins over stats and pre-season grades anyday! And let them underestimate us as long as they want. Try single covering our #2 and see how it goes. Oh, and watch the #3. Oh, and don't forget the h-back. And is that Chad Morten or Clinton Portis catching a pass out of the backfield? I like our weapons, and our offensive staff. The numbers will take care of themselves.

Big C 06-25-2004 06:44 PM

go look it up in the stores, i didnt make this stuff up, i hope ur not talking about me

Mattyk 06-25-2004 07:02 PM

Right now I'd have to agree, other than Coles we really don't have any proven guys.

Yes Gardner has had some success and don't get me wrong I'm not writing him off, but the way he regressed last year is a concern (even though some of it had to do with the offensive schemes). And it's also concerning the way he continues to drop balls and commit stupid penalties. For a guy who's played 3 seasons in the league, he should be more focused by now. Hopefully the new staff can help him out in that regard.

Right now we have Coles and a bunch of guys with potential.

Big C 06-25-2004 07:27 PM

Gardners regression, at least in the statistics, also has to deal with him becoming the #2 reciever. When he got 1,000 yards, he was the #1

Daseal 06-25-2004 07:58 PM

Am I the only one who feels the Cowboys are getting a shaft in these rankings? As much as I hate to say it, the strength of that team lies in the WR corps. This isn't saying who's throwing them the ball, but by talent alone they're better than us, IMO. I think we have a good set of receivers, but as it's been said above, a lot of unproven talent.

Mattyk 06-25-2004 08:39 PM

[QUOTE=Big C]Gardners regression, at least in the statistics, also has to deal with him becoming the #2 reciever. When he got 1,000 yards, he was the #1[/QUOTE]
So is it no possible for a #2 WR to get 1000 yards? Not sure what you're trying to say.

Dave Butz Baby! 06-25-2004 09:27 PM

As far as the number one or two receivers go and yardage, in 1989 the Joe Gibbs lead Skins had [b]3[/b] recievers with over 1,000 yards (Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders) and two other times (1986, 1991) have had 2 receivers over 1,000 yards. That's on top of Gibbs coaching six 1,000 yards rushers (1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, and 1991). So '86 and '91 were also great years... 2 thousand yard receivers as well as a thousand yard back. That's some production in both facets of the offensive game.

I'd think there are enough balls to go around in this offense. Whoever steps up to the plate and does their job well will get every carry or reception they can handle... Gibbs will make sure he will!

Big C 06-25-2004 10:10 PM

what im saying is that when u go from #1 to #2, it is normal to see less balls thrown your way, what do u think i was saying. He barely had 1,000 as a number one, makes sense to me/ Of course it is possible, but its not as PROBABLE

Mattyk 06-25-2004 10:55 PM

My point is being the #2 is no excuse for not playing well. Can you honestly say that Gardner played well last year?? I saw him take a step back last year, some of that may have been due to him not being the go to guy, but a part of that has to fall on him as well. He still drops way too many balls, is too inconsistent and still commits too many mental errors, ie dumb penalties.

Big C 06-25-2004 11:56 PM

All that i said was that his regression in statistics may have been partially attributed to him not seeing the ball as much, being the second option. Something i noticed is his average is low, only 10 yards, while he still caught 60 passes, which isnt too bad. We threw a lot of screens to him this past season, possibly the reason for the average, or maybe because he dropped the longer passes.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.06485 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