Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2005, 12:39 PM   #16
Impact Rookie
 
memphisskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Age: 42
Posts: 960
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Potentially we have quite an impressive array of wideouts, in terms of production the grade of C is generous. We were last in plays of 40+ yards last year and near the bottom in plays of 20+ yards. To change that we went out and got some more speed at wideout, which will hopefully result in more big plays. I like our guys, I've been a Taylor Jacobs fan since draft day 3 yrs ago, and hopefully they play at higher than a C level.

I think the success of our offense will rest on the offensive line.
memphisskin is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-23-2005, 12:59 PM   #17
Pro Bowl
 
BigSKINBauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 26
Posts: 5,637
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisskin
Potentially we have quite an impressive array of wideouts, in terms of production the grade of C is generous. We were last in plays of 40+ yards last year and near the bottom in plays of 20+ yards. To change that we went out and got some more speed at wideout, which will hopefully result in more big plays. I like our guys, I've been a Taylor Jacobs fan since draft day 3 yrs ago, and hopefully they play at higher than a C level.

I think the success of our offense will rest on the offensive line.
40 yard plays..... i thought those were only in fairytales. i have forgotten how they look
BigSKINBauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 02:24 PM   #18
Special Teams
 
dirtbag2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 293
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

I loved LC but that's why I didnt mind seeing him go. He could still make guys miss, but as far as route running and making cuts, he was hindered. Also we threw to him like 140 times and he only had 90 catches, thats not very good...even with #8 throwing it to ya.
dirtbag2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 02:56 PM   #19
The Starter
 
Riggo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Clemente CA
Age: 40
Posts: 2,389
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

We can't be any worse then we where last year. :vomit-smi I just wish we had at least one WR over 6 ft. I guess this is the new version of the "Smurfs". I just hope they can play as well as the first version did.
But we should be a lot better then last year.


__________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Riggo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 02:59 PM   #20
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtbag2112
I loved LC but that's why I didnt mind seeing him go. He could still make guys miss, but as far as route running and making cuts, he was hindered. Also we threw to him like 140 times and he only had 90 catches, thats not very good...even with #8 throwing it to ya.
I don't know if you can call #8 passes an actual throw. They were more like a pitch a lob or to put it better I think our long snapper could hike the ball further between his legs than Brunell could throw the ball. LOL
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 02:59 PM   #21
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,563
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

At least we have McCants and Dyson...
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 03:57 PM   #22
Impact Rookie
 
memphisskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Age: 42
Posts: 960
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

I think we have a lot of weapons at wideout, Coles and Gardner were more like scuds last year. Now a lot of that had to do with our offensive line play, deep routes had to be scrapped because there was no time and it took our qbs 12 weeks before either of them hit anything that even resembled a rhythm. Coles hasn't been right since injuring his toe two years ago, and 50/50 is well 50/50. There are still a lot of ifs, "if Taylor Jacobs can stay healthy, if Moss can handle the #1 receiver spot, if Ramsey can consistently play with poise and patience..."

Seems to me that we'll definitely have some defined roles for these guys, McCants did a good job in red zone situations under Spurrier so I don't see why he can't do the same under Gibbs. I don't think the Smurfs or the Fun Bunch had too much size but they were both successful groups of receivers. Hopefully Ramsey can get these guys the ball.
memphisskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 06:56 PM   #23
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

we now have the rb and receiver corps that spurrier always wanted...
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 01:40 PM   #24
Impact Rookie
 
SkinsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crofton, MD
Age: 44
Posts: 907
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riggo44
We can't be any worse then we where last year. :vomit-smi I just wish we had at least one WR over 6 ft. I guess this is the new version of the "Smurfs". I just hope they can play as well as the first version did.
But we should be a lot better then last year.


McCants and Dyson are both over 6'. But yeah, it is like the "New Smurfs".....but remember that with the originals, Monk was there as the big tall WR to offset them, so I'd expect either DMac or Dyson to stick around in that role (hopefully McCants!)

And yes,we should be a lot better than last year!

SkinsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 04:41 AM   #25
Playmaker
 
Redskins8588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ridgway, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,519
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection
Meh. I would say with how unproven we are, that would be a fairly accurate assessment.
I agree with you, but what I didnt add was that if you look they gave the Lions an A- and they even said that this grade was based only on potential. That is crazy to me, yes the Lions have an awsome wr stable,but they are more unproven than our wide outs...
__________________
"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 06-25-2005, 02:01 PM   #26
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redskins8588
I agree with you, but what I didnt add was that if you look they gave the Lions an A- and they even said that this grade was based only on potential. That is crazy to me, yes the Lions have an awsome wr stable,but they are more unproven than our wide outs...
But the Lions' wideouts potential is much more likely and credible than ours. Any one of the Lions' three wideouts has the potential to become hall-of-famers. That's more than can be said for Patten and Moss (not to knock them).
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 12:00 AM   #27
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,563
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redskins8588
I agree with you, but what I didnt add was that if you look they gave the Lions an A- and they even said that this grade was based only on potential. That is crazy to me, yes the Lions have an awsome wr stable,but they are more unproven than our wide outs...
True. Typically I only check people in our division. But good observation...
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 10:46 AM   #28
Playmaker
 
Redskins8588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ridgway, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,519
Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
But the Lions' wideouts potential is much more likely and credible than ours. Any one of the Lions' three wideouts has the potential to become hall-of-famers. That's more than can be said for Patten and Moss (not to knock them).
You are right they have the more potential than Patten or Moss to be HOF'ers but I dont see them developing into that type of receiver this season...
__________________
"I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor
Redskins8588 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 12:03 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 0.31519 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