Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-25-2004, 03:24 PM   #1
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
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
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-25-2004, 05:16 PM   #2
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,214
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
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 05:29 PM   #3
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
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...
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 05:36 PM   #4
Impact Rookie
 
SkinsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crofton, MD
Age: 44
Posts: 907
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....
SkinsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 06:19 PM   #5
What will Shanny do this offseason?
 
diehardskin2982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,318
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
diehardskin2982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 06:30 PM   #6
Propane and propane accessories
 
JWsleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 45
Posts: 4,587
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.
__________________
Hail from Houston!
JWsleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 06:44 PM   #7
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
go look it up in the stores, i didnt make this stuff up, i hope ur not talking about me
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 07:02 PM   #8
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,625
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.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 07:27 PM   #9
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
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
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 07:58 PM   #10
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,214
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.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 08:39 PM   #11
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
So is it no possible for a #2 WR to get 1000 yards? Not sure what you're trying to say.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 09:27 PM   #12
Special Teams
 
Dave Butz Baby!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Reston, VA
Age: 44
Posts: 450
As far as the number one or two receivers go and yardage, in 1989 the Joe Gibbs lead Skins had 3 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!
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Dave Butz Baby! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 10:10 PM   #13
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
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
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 10:55 PM   #14
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,625
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.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2004, 11:56 PM   #15
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
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.
Big C 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 04:55 AM.


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 0.26296 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