Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Coles Big Toe...I'm worried

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2004, 10:19 PM   #16
Special Teams
 
SKINS73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 190
If Coles becomes injured I think Gardner, McCants and Thrash could step it up. We're deep at receivers...
SKINS73 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-05-2004, 10:49 PM   #17
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Skins73:

The Redskins' "depth at receiver" is a mirage. The depth you speak of is a reflection of the fact that you recognize the names of people who play WR for the team. And as a fan, you project that all of these guys will perform a whole lot better for the team in th future than they have ever performed in the NFL in the past. That is simply not a likely occurence.

If Thrash has to substitute for Coles, that is a big problem. Thrash is not a bad receiver or a bad guy, but his career in Philly shows that he is NOT SUFFICIENT as a lead receiver on a contending NFL team.

McCants still has to show that he is a top level receiver. I love his game and think he could play the "Art Monk role" in the 2004 offense. But that is conjecture until he gets the job done in a game that means something.

Jacobs is nothing but potential. And "potential" means that he has not yet accomplished anything. If he had actually accomplished something, then he would have "realized" all of that potential that he may - or may not - have.

Gardner has been an underachieving WR who has an overblown estimate of his value and his ability. He needs to be 200% better than he has ever been in his entire NFL career to be worth the trouble it will take to re-sign him next offseason.

Now hear this: If Coles goes down or if he plays hurt for the whole season, the WRs on this team will be a significant weak-link in the chain.
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2004, 11:23 PM   #18
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
yes if coles were to go down, we would be worse, but i think ur goin a little overboard there, i think those guys could step up
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 12:33 AM   #19
Playmaker
 
Redskins8588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ridgway, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
Skins73:

The Redskins' "depth at receiver" is a mirage. The depth you speak of is a reflection of the fact that you recognize the names of people who play WR for the team. And as a fan, you project that all of these guys will perform a whole lot better for the team in th future than they have ever performed in the NFL in the past. That is simply not a likely occurence.

If Thrash has to substitute for Coles, that is a big problem. Thrash is not a bad receiver or a bad guy, but his career in Philly shows that he is NOT SUFFICIENT as a lead receiver on a contending NFL team.

McCants still has to show that he is a top level receiver. I love his game and think he could play the "Art Monk role" in the 2004 offense. But that is conjecture until he gets the job done in a game that means something.

Jacobs is nothing but potential. And "potential" means that he has not yet accomplished anything. If he had actually accomplished something, then he would have "realized" all of that potential that he may - or may not - have.

Gardner has been an underachieving WR who has an overblown estimate of his value and his ability. He needs to be 200% better than he has ever been in his entire NFL career to be worth the trouble it will take to re-sign him next offseason.

Now hear this: If Coles goes down or if he plays hurt for the whole season, the WRs on this team will be a significant weak-link in the chain.

You think that Thrash could be a #1 receiver over Gardner?
__________________
"I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor
Redskins8588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 01:39 AM   #20
Camp Scrub
 
SittingBull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax< VA
Posts: 89
I dont think anyone said Thrash would replace Coles as #1 if he had to sit out but I believe we would be sufficient at wide reciever with a rotation of Gardner, Jacobs, Mccants and Thrash. Of course not as good but definitely better than the Eagles wide receiver corps last year that made it to the NFC championship.
SittingBull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 01:43 AM   #21
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,626
I'm not quite so worried about the receivers we have beyond Coles

McCants: True, he's not a number one receiver but he's improved each year he's been in the league and there's no need to think that won't continue

Jacobs: The big question mark. True, he hasn't accomplished anything yet but let's not jump to any conclusions on him yet. He showed flashes

Gardner: I think he'll have a big year. It's remarkable how "motivated" a player can get when there's a new contract looming around the corner

Thrash: veteran presence/calming influence

I'd put our receivers up with any others in the division. And I think two things will really benefit the passing game. First of all, with Portis in the backfield opponents at the very least have to respect the run and respect of the running game almost always benefits the passing game. Also, the NFL intends to crackdown on bumping and grabbing of receivers beyond the 5-yard bump zone so yeah I'm not all that worried about the receivers.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 05:26 AM   #22
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
Smack, I have to strongly agree with SC on this one. We have already seen a couple years ago that Gardner is a miserable failure as a #1 WR. We have no one that has shown any ability to perform that role. Without a viable #1, a team is doomed to a lousy passing game, as Philly can attest to during a couple years with Thrash as #1. Many other teams have had similar experiences over the past few years. When an average defensive team can blanket all of your receivers without any double coverage, they can put a great deal more pressure on the QB and on the running game. I really like our receivers with Coles as #1 (great options for #2/3), but see a huge dropoff without him.

By the same token, with Owens now in the Philly mix, I believe their passing game will take a HUGE step up, across the board. Owens' presence will improve their entire offense.
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 10:13 AM   #23
Thank You, Sean.
 
Gmanc711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Age: 28
Posts: 7,499
I'm in disagreement with you guys as well. Gardner has defintley not been that big of a disapointment, if you ask me. As the #1 reciver in 2002 he had over 70 catches, 1,000 yrds and 8 TD's. I dont really understand how that is a huge dissapointment. His rookie year he had 41 rec for 700 yrds and 4 TD's and then last season he had 60 rec for 600yrds and 5 TD's.

Now as a #1, you cant really ask for a whole lot more. Those numbers dont make him one of the dominating people in the league, but they are still solid numbers. Now Gardner is a #2 to Coles, and I think those numbers from a #2 are at least solid and certinley not dissapointing.

As for the other recivers, McCants does what he is supposed to do. I dont expect him to go out and be a #1 guy, hes not that. He's a exellent change of pace guy, and he makes big catches when it counts. Thrash is a solid reciver, nothing spectacular, but hes a good addition to the team. Jacobs, I agree, is a huge question mark, but we can only hope for the best with him. As long as our recivers stay healthy, I dont think theres a better unit in the division.
__________________
#21
Gmanc711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 10:24 AM   #24
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,085
I agree with gmanc711 on Gardner, yes last year was a bit of a disappointment for Rod stats wise, but 60 catches is pretty solid for a #2 guy when you compare him to other guys across the league.

I think his problems last year came more from the system, it just seemed like Spurrier never really tried to get him the ball on a consistent basis, and when he did it was on dink and dunk screen crap. The only game where they tried to get the ball down the field to him was against Atlanta and he had his best game of the season.

Of course Rod does suffer from a lack of focus at times, dumb penalties, doesn't always fight for the ball like he should, etc. But we could certainly do ALOT worse at the #2 spot than him. Right now I wouldn't feel comfortable having to count on McCants, Jacobs or Thrash as the #2.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 10:36 AM   #25
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmanc711
I'm in disagreement with you guys as well. Gardner has defintley not been that big of a disapointment, if you ask me. As the #1 reciver in 2002 he had over 70 catches, 1,000 yrds and 8 TD's. I dont really understand how that is a huge dissapointment. His rookie year he had 41 rec for 700 yrds and 4 TD's and then last season he had 60 rec for 600yrds and 5 TD's .... Now as a #1, you cant really ask for a whole lot more. Those numbers dont make him one of the dominating people in the league, but they are still solid numbers.
I have to agree with Gmanc711 on that point. Gardner is not an dominating receiver, but he's not exactly what I'd call a "huge disappointment" either. He's solid and capable, with his fair share of flaws as well. His first season was memorable more for his drops than anything else. But in '02, with no continuity at the quarterback position, he still put up good numbers. With the addition of Coles last year, it shouldn't be a surprise that his numbers would fall slightly -- not to mention overall deficiencies in offensive production due mainly to poor coaching, playcalling, and miserable offensive line protection.

That said, losing Coles to injury or having him at less than 100% will no doubt have an adverse affect the offense this year. We need him at tip-top shape. Depending on Gardner, McCants, Thrash and Jacobs may suffice against certain teams, but in the real battles with quality defensive opponents, the Redskins will be at a clear disadvantage without him. Hopefully in those situations, a hefty dose of Clinton Portis will help secure the win.

Let's just hope for a completely healthy Laveranues Coles all season long.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 11:23 AM   #26
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
OK guys, you are right, I went a bit far in my assessment as a "miserable failure" - but just the same he was NOT a good #1. Don't forget how bad our offense was that year. You can blame a lot of things, but one major one HAS to be that defenses were all getting away with single coverage on all of our receivers. Gardner's numbers did not tell the whole story. He can not carry a passing game. Coles can. In fact, don't expect Gardner to carry the #2 job throughout the season. If he does not lose it in training camp, I expect him to lose the job by week 4. #2 and #3 receivers will not include Gardner. Reasons for this assessment?

- Gardner STILL drops too many passes and runs too many bad pass routes
- Gibbs will not tolerate that
- Gibbs has been heaping praise on Jacobs and McCants - nothing for Gardner. With Gibbs, that is a real indication of things to come, not just lip service. Keep listening to him to get a glimpse of future plans.
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 12:57 PM   #27
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,626
Hogskin, even with Thrash as the #1 receiver the Eagles still managed to do fairly well for themselves getting to the championship game. Granted a better receiving game would probably have gotten them in the Super Bowl but what I wouldn't give to at least the Skins make the conference championship game after so many years...

But anyway, I'm looking at my post again and thinking maybe I was a bit unclear on what I meant. I like Gardner and I'm really rooting for him but I'm not making any claims on Gardner, McCants or Jacobs taking Coles' spot as the top receiver on the team. I was just trying to say that the depth isn't so bad.

Sure the team could have problems if Coles goes down, but so could the Eagles if Owens aggravates his shoulder injury from last year or the Giants if Toomer aggravates his thigh injury.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 04:36 PM   #28
Camp Scrub
 
exit0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vienna, Va.
Posts: 85
I still remember way back when, when most people didn't really give Monk, Clark and Sanders the respect they deserved. Monk was too slow, Clark and Sanders too little. Just goes to show that execution and production are what really counts... not just physical size and speed. There's lot more stuff that comes into play than just the receiver's stats... in Gardner's defense (and I don't think he really needs any), the offense under Spurrier for the most part looked confused and disorganized.
exit0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 05:00 PM   #29
Playmaker
 
Redskins8588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ridgway, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,519
Remember Albert Connell? Now there was a "miserable failure" for a #1 WR. Yeah he had a good season when Westbrook was healthy. But the following season when Westbrook was injured most of the season, and Connell was to be the #1 WR, he couldn't do nothing.

Anyhow this season is Gardners 4th season in the NFL, and I heard some where that it takes most receivers about 3 years to really come around. Hopefull Gardner will step it up this year and have a better season. When Gardner had his 1,000 yard season he had 3 QB's tossing the ball to him. I also believe that Gibbs wont call plays just for the sake of calling a play. What I mean is that Gibbs sees what talent he has and coaches to there strengths not what he likes to do as wethere to run or pass like Spurrier did.

So Hogskin you are right Gibbs wont tolerate what you mentioned, but Gibbs will coach to his players strengths and put them in situations to make plays.

I just hope that Coles stays healthy and we have a well run offense, no matter what Gibbs does.
__________________
"I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor
Redskins8588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2004, 08:17 PM   #30
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
Smack, I don't think you can attribute the Eagles' finishes the last few years to their receiving corps. Probably among the 3 worst in the league during that time. They got there mainly on defense. I would not want to get along with the Ravens' or Bucs' passing games on the years that they WON super Bowls, either. It's great if you can get there with a sorry offense like the Ravens did, but I don't see that working for the Redskins in the near future. I really think the comments Gibbs has made AND the pickup of Thrash really show he is not comfortable with Gardner. Personally, I am glad, because I never was a fan of Westbrook, and Gardner seems to have much the same problems he did with holding onto the ball and with pass routes.

Exit, you made a great point about Spurrier's offense mess. But going back to the Fun Bunch days, is a bit of a stretch. First, coming in, Clark did not have much respect, but he very quickly proved himself to be a top receiver. Also, DB talent has improved, coverages have improved, and a lot of what used to be called interference is now allowed. But if you want to go back to that time, what I am betting has not changed is that Gibbs would never tolerate frequent dropped passes or fumbles. Hold the ball or you're outta here.

8588, Connell was nothing but a bum. He was still young when the Redskins got rid of him, and he (like Westbrook) very quickly dropped off the map. He was not even a decent bench WR. I have heard that same comment you mentioned about 3 years for a typical WR to make it. But Gardner has had 3 years, and I really don't think guys that have a consistent history of dropped passes (like Westbrook) or bad pass routes (like Desmond) ever make it. Gardner has both of those problems - not as bad as Westbrook & Howard, but bad enough to be a big problem. It would be great for the Skins if a miracle happened and he turned it around, but he won't be on MY fantasy team - I don't expect miracles. Seems more likely to me that Jacobs and McCants have the promising future. In fact, I drafted them both in very late rounds a couple weeks ago in Atlantic City LOL. They are my backups for T.O. and Chad Johnson.

Sorry I am so wordy and argumentative, guys (LOL). But I have a lot of time on my hands right now. When football heats up in a couple weeks, I'll be scarce and you won't have to put up with me any more!!! (Did I hear a huge cheer??)
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 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 0.32828 seconds with 9 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