Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Receivers

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2005, 05:38 PM   #16
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,939
Re: Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Can't buy it. Gardner will be our #1 next year. I can see both Moss and Patten seeing a lot of bench time with Jacobs, McCants, and Gardner all getting heavy amounts of play time. Moss and Patten are mediocre #2's but pretty good #3s.
Moss and Patten have proven themselves in the NFL. IMO I think you are selling them short.
On the other hand Jacobs, according to Champ B, is the best practice player to ever play the game (in practice). I can't buy it. Jacobs needs to prove himself. I worry Jacobs (kind of soft) will get his usual injury during training camp and miss the entire preseason....like has done since he joined the Redskins.
Up to now he has to been a bust.
If he gets injured again this year, I think he will get cut.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-30-2005, 06:08 PM   #17
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,662
Re: Receivers

I can't really say Jacobs is a bust - he hasn't really had much of an opportunity up until this point. I will say though, this year is his make or break year in my opinion - the same goes for McCants.

If Rod comes to play this year, by all means let him play. I have a feeling if he's playing for a contract, he'll work his butt off.

It's funny how we talk about #1, #2, or #3 receivers. When the posse was in town, I never considered either one of them better than the other. They always seemed to compliment each other's abilities and performance.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 07:46 PM   #18
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,962
Re: Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlea
We need someone who we know can get 10 yards when we need exactly 10.
That seems to perfectly define what Chris Cooley did for us when we needed it last year. He always knew where to be
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 09:14 PM   #19
Camp Scrub
 
Grayacre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington
Posts: 35
Re: Receivers

Great call TAFKAS -- Cooley was a bright spot for the team last season and nothing suggests that he won't keep getting better.
Grayacre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 10:06 PM   #20
Camp Scrub
 
aprius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Call it Frisco....I am originally from DC
Posts: 56
Thumbs up Re: Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Can't buy it. Gardner will be our #1 next year. I can see both Moss and Patten seeing a lot of bench time with Jacobs, McCants, and Gardner all getting heavy amounts of play time. Moss and Patten are mediocre #2's but pretty good #3s.
Moss has always had an incredible YPR and not been used up to his potential in NY...Moss is far better than Gardener, Patten is a great #2 and ST guy that gives you quality on the field. He compares slightly better than Gardener because he can do more and gives you more yards per reception. McCants may not make it past the June 1 cuts. Jacobs will get a huge opportunity to show his talents this year but dont expect him and Gardener to be here next year if they dont perform.
aprius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 12:02 PM   #21
Special Teams
 
RedskinsJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Connecticut
Age: 39
Posts: 128
Re: Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensewins
New England's spreading the ball around to many receivers has more to do with Tom Brady's great ability to read defenses than their offensive system. Brady reads the defense and throws to the open man. Another great QB (Joe Montana) did the same thing. New England is not the only team to run the Parcells/Bellicheck system, it is basically a multi-formation system derived from the west coast system/pro system. All teams steal or borrow from each other. Remember in the early 80's all teams started running the counter-trey after we debuted it with great success. Once a team invents a new play the very next week most teams are trying it.

In regards to the Redskins in max protection, it was not all the time. They changed it up some depending on the situation. I think Gibbs will be mixing up even more this year. I think the max-protection was more out need than desire, our QB's were killed the years befroe Gibbs arrived.
Again, New England and SanFran run the WC system and we run bubble screens and counter treys still. My point is the point that you made. Brady and that system spreads the ball around. Our system is not designed like that and therefore you can not compare our WR to the Patriots WR.
__________________
Jimoh--- OH NO!
RedskinsJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 02:54 PM   #22
Special Teams
 
jermus22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Age: 32
Posts: 334
Re: Receivers

Just watched an old game tape of 1983 championship against Dallas. We finished that year 8-1, won three playoff games fairly easily, and stomped Miami 27-17 in the Super Bowl. And our receivers were an undersized bunch of dudes nicknamed "The Smurfs." Seems to me that the size of our WRs really isn't important as long as we get production.
__________________
Win it in the trenches.
jermus22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 07:18 PM   #23
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,662
Re: Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by jermus22
Just watched an old game tape of 1983 championship against Dallas. We finished that year 8-1, won three playoff games fairly easily, and stomped Miami 27-17 in the Super Bowl. And our receivers were an undersized bunch of dudes nicknamed "The Smurfs." Seems to me that the size of our WRs really isn't important as long as we get production.

I don't care if our receivers are 6"8 or 5"2, as long as they catch the ball..that is the most important thing!
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 10:34 PM   #24
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Receivers

You're absolutely correct Skinsguy and the coaches have said the same thing. I think we are putting too much emphasis on size when in reality it's not really about size as opposed to execution. The "Smurf's of the 80's and Denver's 3 omigoes were typical examples.

Last year we had "Toe" and "Slow" at the wide receiver positions mostly in two man patterns and it didn't work out well. Our line suffered a blow when Jansen went down and we were semingly out of sink from the beginning and never really recovered. This year we will have a little more explosion at the 1 & 2 positions on the outside and if the line can hold a 3 plus seconds the passing game should be more consistent. Early in the season last year we had constant breakdowns in the offensive line in the passing game, when we fix that problem the entire offense will be more effective.It's not always about size, toughtness, smarts, and "execution" is what get's the job done. Hopefully Ramsey will learn to read defenses better to the extent he wont hold the ball for so long, make better reads, and develop al little touch on his passes. The kid has a very strong arm (not always as accurate as he could be) but I'm looking foreward to seeing him develop a little more touch on his passes, espically those that call for over the linebacker, but in front of the DB. If he develops consistency in this area he stands a good chance of becoming an effective NFL passer. I think this is what Gibbs is looking to see more of from Ramsey this year.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 10:40 PM   #25
Registered User
 
BossHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 665
Re: Receivers

I'm just concerned about how our WRs will be rated on Madden 2006.
BossHog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 11:35 AM   #26
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,939
Re: Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsJunkie
Again, New England and SanFran run the WC system and we run bubble screens and counter treys still. My point is the point that you made. Brady and that system spreads the ball around. Our system is not designed like that and therefore you can not compare our WR to the Patriots WR.
Gibbs system runs more than bubble screens and counter treys. I think RT Jansen's injury and not having an adequate replacement forced Gibbs to use the Max protection more than he wanted to. I still think it was out of need more than desire.
Look at the 1992 Skins, Gibbs threw the ball alot. The Skins were in 3 WR sets all the time and Sanders, Monk and Clark were running more than bubble screens. Gibbs came from the air-Coryell school of offense. When he was at San Diego they threw the ball more than anyone.
I don't care what offense you run, the responsiblity of spreading the ball around goes to the QB. If your #1 and #2 options are covered, throw it to #3 and #4.
Plays breakdown all the time, if an eligible receiver is open throw him the ball.
That is not exclusive to the WC system.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 02:54 PM   #27
Special Teams
 
RedskinsJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Connecticut
Age: 39
Posts: 128
Re: Receivers

I completely agree Defensewins. But it sure seemed like last year he threw a lot of the screens and quick stuff. We didn't try to stretch the field and we didn't use our best talents effectively and some of the players that should have been on the field didn't get a chance to. I realize that 92 team had 3 WR go over 1000 yds. I would love to see that again. I can't really say the Rypien was far and away a better QB than Ramsey. I mean at this point he is but Ramsey has more athletic ability than Ryp and I think given the chance he could be as good as any of our Superbowl quarterbacks.
__________________
Jimoh--- OH NO!
RedskinsJunkie 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 10:01 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 0.39239 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