Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


(Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2010, 12:47 AM   #46
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359 View Post
At receiver being a physical freak is nice. However without route running, hands, and the ability to read coverage it's practically useless. The reason physical freaks go so early in the draft is because all the attributes listed that are essential to being a successful receiver in the NFL are considered teachable.
There you have it folks...Devin Thomas is unteachable. Who knew?! We should sue Mich St for giving him passing grades
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-08-2010, 02:32 AM   #47
Special Teams
 
bigm29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mt. Laurel, NJ
Age: 26
Posts: 353
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

I cant think of any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.
__________________
Hail Redskins!!!
bigm29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 02:42 AM   #48
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 28
Posts: 14,165
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigm29 View Post
I cant think of any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.
Thats why you use one as a wideout and the other as a traditional Tight End.
__________________
Charlie: Okay. Take off your seat belt.
Alan: Why?
Charlie: Because when I slam on the brakes I want to watch you go through the windshield.
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 05:59 AM   #49
Special Teams
 
aceinthehouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Springfield,Missouri
Posts: 463
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Well,at least Santana Moss feels the same way...
Santana Moss: "This receving corps is an upgrade from anything I've had here" - EXTREMESKINS.com
__________________
The 1991 Redskins team,is the greatest team of all time. Their average margin of victory is the greatest of all Superbowl winning teams! HTTR!!
aceinthehouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 09:39 AM   #50
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 49
Posts: 15,818
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Last year Galloway had Tom Brady. And Welker was hurt. Still Galloway could not get on the field and produce. 'Nuff said.
So you pick one off yea and us that as the example. How about looking back at just about every year McNabb has played and look at the production he could get ot of WR's like Thrash. Then just look back at every other year Brady has played. If you don't think WR's need a good QB then your probably the only one.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:00 AM   #51
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 46
Posts: 12,176
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceinthehouse View Post
This time last year Cooley was singing JZ's praises (and I was buying it ) When it comes to player speak, just show it on the field. The rest is just PR bs
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:04 AM   #52
Franchise Player
 
mredskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,563
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
This time last year Cooley was singing JZ's praises (and I was buying it ) When it comes to player speak, just show it on the field. The rest is just PR bs

Exactly, the PR MS honeymoon is over now. Now it is show me the money time.
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!
mredskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:18 AM   #53
Playmaker
 
BDBohnzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Frederick, MD
Age: 35
Posts: 4,439
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

One of the things you'll see this season is 2 TE sets, where either Davis or Cooley end up in motion to the slot to create mismatches. There aren't too many LBs in the league that can cover those 2, and if you bring a safety up, that'll leave an area open for McNabb to pick apart.

That aside, the only proven entity that the Skins line up at WR is Moss, and he's a 2 or 3 at best on other squads. Guys like Armstrong and Thomas needs to step it up so Moss can see action out of the slot. If either one of those 2 struggle, it'll be a long season. I don't see Galloway lasting the season, and unless Shanny knows something about Roydell Williams that the rest of us don't, McNabb will be throwing a lot of dink and dunks to Portis and Johnson out of the backfield.
__________________
Bad Things man, I mean bad things...

“WE TOOK HIM IN THE SIXTH ROUND SO WE'RE NOT SMART EITHER.” - Shanny on what the Skins saw in Alfred Morris
BDBohnzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:02 AM   #54
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

All 6 of our receivers have one thing going for them that no one has touched on yet - they are not Albert Haynesworth. I think many of you completely underestimate the value of players not named Albert Haynesworth. In fact, I just had my fantasy draft this past weekend and in the later rounds, I drafted several players simply because they weren't named Haynesworth. I think that alone will help me win my league this year. If not, its good for atleast 10 points per game per player... I'm just assuming that at around 90 points a game I wouldnt have for each position where I did not draft Albert Haynesworth. Thats got to equal a win, right?
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:26 AM   #55
The Starter
 
redsk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,351
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
We're clearly last in the division. Look up what Philly did last year with Jackson, Maclin, and Avant. Our group isn't even close right now.
I can't really argue that. They probably are better. They did have a QB though who makes lots of plays and had a decent OL. Jackson is very good, w/ Maclin and Avant coming around. McNabb made all of them better.

This will be an interesting year to see how Moss stacks up w/ Jackson though. Moss could have a great year. Jackson is special though.
redsk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:32 AM   #56
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,324
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
So you pick one off yea and us that as the example. How about looking back at just about every year McNabb has played and look at the production he could get ot of WR's like Thrash. Then just look back at every other year Brady has played. If you don't think WR's need a good QB then your probably the only one.
Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:43 AM   #57
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 79,506
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Galloway has an impressive resume in this league. I wouldn't let the last 2 years tarnish that. He was simply a bad fit in NE's system. He could really surprise us this year.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:09 PM   #58
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 49
Posts: 15,818
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.

We will just have to see. There are 32 other teams that have a Galloway on their team. He just happens to be a WR but on other teams its QB's, CB's, OL, DL, etc... that are older but the coaches believe they have another productive season or two left in them.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:11 PM   #59
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 49
Posts: 15,818
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
All 6 of our receivers have one thing going for them that no one has touched on yet - they are not Albert Haynesworth. I think many of you completely underestimate the value of players not named Albert Haynesworth. In fact, I just had my fantasy draft this past weekend and in the later rounds, I drafted several players simply because they weren't named Haynesworth. I think that alone will help me win my league this year. If not, its good for atleast 10 points per game per player... I'm just assuming that at around 90 points a game I wouldnt have for each position where I did not draft Albert Haynesworth. Thats got to equal a win, right?
That should have been pretty easy sense there are about 1,000 players to pick from not named AH.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 02:26 PM   #60
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,098
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

I think its either 1 of 2 things

1) the FO/coaching staff has no clue how to evaluate WRs and our receiving corps is in fact woefully inadequate
or
2) the WRs are good enough to effectively run our scheme

I'll go with 2
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut 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 02:47 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 0.37796 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