Art Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 I have been taught in a thread below that the Cowboys have better depth at receiver than the Redskins. That depth is represented by the following: Rambo Swinton Bryant The Redskins depth, which is lesser it seems, is represented by the following: Lockett Anthony Thompson (And yes, I too hope McCants moves up this list and Anthony is gone.) Given this projection, the Cowboy reserve receivers have totalled the following numbers as NFL players. 10 catches. 145 yards. 1 touchdown. Given this projection, the Redskins reserve receivers have totalled the following numbers as NFL players, and young ones to boot: 256 catches. 3355 yards. 21 touchdowns. Now, I look at this and see something different. But, Cowboy fans have now assured me THEY do indeed have more depth. They have Rambo, Bryant and Swinton afterall. I am having difficulty seeing this, but, perhaps that's my "homeristic" qualities, right? I mean, why don't I see 10 catches for 145 yards and 1 touchdown as greater than 256 catches, 3355 yards and 21 touchdowns? Obviously there's something wrong with the way I look at this, right? Clearly so, eh? I mean, they have Bryant, Rambo and Swinton afterall. What more do they need to prove their point? I humbly stand corrected. Dallas does indeed have more depth at receiver than Washington. I was thinking about NFL production and stuff like that. I wasn't thinking about Rambo, Bryant and Swinton being listed out in a row and therefore having an advantage because their names were uttered. Now that I recognize the debate I will be certain to offer the same. Hey, did you guys know we have better starters on the offensive line. We have Jones, Moore and Loverne inside. I don't need more than that though. Thanks Cowboy fans. You've taught me a great debating stance to take from here on out. Quick, everyone, NAME our players so we can have advantages before they name there players and take it from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Yeah Art, but one of their guys is named "Rambo!" :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanbu Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 It's comforting to know that the Cowboys have so much WR depth. They will need to use them based on the injury history of Galloway and Rocket. I never hope for injuries on our adversaries, but if they happen I'm glad that their backups will stand tall for the rivalry with the Redskins. :rolleyes: HTTR, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Rambo and Bryant both have alot of potential but are unproven. I wanted us to draft Rambo instead of Monds in 2001 .. I think the Raiders nabbed him. The fact is though, if one of the starters goes down, Rambo's not really gonna be a great every down receiver. He's a big play guy, but isn't gonna be a consistant go to guy. That said, he hasn't made a big play in the NFL yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 art, the difference is between the future of the cowboys young recievers and the peaked out WRs of the skins. that's as good as it got for the skins back ups...they peaked, they have their chances in thsi league and that's as good as it got.......22 receptions in 2001 for locket, 13 for anthony, and three for thomson.....great stats from recent performance of this group.....it looks like they are on a decline already.. ..though I don't count on swinton or rambo (better than the previous group we had though, at least swinton is a decent return man), I like bryant who by all means according to most publications was the best WR out of college this year and fell because of attitude problems (supposedly) who has been compared to Moss (mainly due to winning the blitnikoff award in his sophmore year and perhaps attitude) and who has yet to reach his top potential, vs. three of "as good as it gets bunch". no thank you...keep lockett, thomson and anthony. I would gladly let you have them, their stats and I keep our young bunch.... I hope this makes you fell better....keep telling yourself this stuff and you may someday believe it.... I wonder why you put yourself through this every year? you keep bringing up stats, and talking up big storm and every year the skins fail and you disappear for good three or four months.... don't tourcher youself like this, I worry about you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 10, 2002 Author Share Posted August 10, 2002 Shawn, it's too damn easy for me when you do this. "art, the difference is between the future of the cowboys young recievers and the peaked out WRs of the skins. that's as good as it got for the skins back ups...they peaked, they have their chances in thsi league and that's as good as it got.......22 receptions in 2001 for locket, 13 for anthony, and three for thomson.....great stats from recent performance of this group.....it looks like they are on a decline already.." Anthony is 26. Thompson is 25. Lockett is 28, and our oldest receiver if we think Doering can't make it and Doering is 29. Gardner is young. As is McCants. As is Russell. As is Skaggs. As is Green. We have just as much young talent in our receiving group as you do. We have more proven talent than you do. We also have guys that are young. So do you. Why is it that YOUR young guys are the future of the Cowboys, but all our guys are meaningless? Understand that not only do we have guys that have performed in the NFL, but, we ALSO have the young guys who have not. Gardner was a better prospect last year than Bryant this year. He's entering his second season. Sorry Shawn, but the facts don't support you here. Not only do we have youth, but we receivers who have played in the NFL and aren't over the hill. You'd better hope no one figures out that Galloway is playing on three-year old reputation at this point and starts to realize he's probably not very good anymore eh? "..though I don't count on swinton or rambo (better than the previous group we had though, at least swinton is a decent return man), I like bryant who by all means according to most publications was the best WR out of college this year and fell because of attitude problems (supposedly) who has been compared to Moss (mainly due to winning the blitnikoff award in his sophmore year and perhaps attitude) and who has yet to reach his top potential, vs. three of "as good as it gets bunch"." Swinton and Rambo are the guys you had in the previous group. You can't say you like them better today than you did a year ago because THEY were there a year ago and did nothing but back up guys you seem to not like as much. Pathetic really Shawn. Further, Bryant is a fine prospect. As Smoot was. Bryant was the best receiving prospect in this draft. As Smoot was. Both fell. Smoot worked out. Bryant probably will too. And, Bryant was a lesser prospect than Gardner was in the draft before, as Smoot was a lesser prospect than Jammer was in this draft. Bryant was best in the worst class as Smoot was. Both are good players, but, realistically we know Smoot would probably have been third or fourth this year just as Bryant would have been fourth or fifth last. "no thank you...keep lockett, thomson and anthony. I would gladly let you have them, their stats and I keep our young bunch.... I hope this makes you fell better....keep telling yourself this stuff and you may someday believe it...." Good. And then we can add our young bunch to the mix, right? Russell, McCants, Skaggs all are young guys who could be our future too. We have the same young guys you have. We just have better guys buffering between them and the starters than you guys. That's why we have better depth. "I wonder why you put yourself through this every year? you keep bringing up stats, and talking up big storm and every year the skins fail and you disappear for good three or four months.... don't tourcher youself like this, I worry about you..." Shawn, I'm not predicting greatness with this team. It's far to difficult to do with new coaching. If everything clicked, and Spurrier is right about his offense, then sure, we could be sweet. If not, not. But, while you're worrying about me, what's it tell us that you are so hyped on a twin 5-11 ball club. Talk about disappointment. Hey. At least I was built up and we finished second. You finished last. Advantage Art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorEye Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by Art Shawn, it's too damn easy for me when you do this. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 C'mon, Art, admit it. You love this. Do you pay these guys to come on here and tee themselves up for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizer Jose Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Ouch, Shawn... How's that for "tourcher"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy GatorEye quote Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience That was great!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 10, 2002 Author Share Posted August 10, 2002 Sonny's on target here . I'm roasting 12 pounds of pork on the grill today for the next eight hours so, when I have extra time, I'm always going to enjoy banter with my Cowboy fan friends. Though there are times I wish they understand the topic they're discussing better to make it harder on me, I guess that's wishful thinking. Oh, how I miss Dale sometimes . Really the only response they have to this argument is, "You're right. You are deeper, but, we think we'll be better this year and years to come." Perhaps so. That's the only point I can make about our starting receivers. Sure, they are better right now. I do think we'll be better this year and for years to come. But, until we are, we aren't. For them, because they are Cowboys, they are better, period and they have talent across the board. For us, anyone who isn't proven is a question mark. For them, anyone who's not proven is a future star. It's remarkable really . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 may be I should have clarified, two years ago, we had a really crappy bunch of recievers, this group looks a lot better...anthony and lockket...have had theiir chances in this league and failed to show anything and have gone down hill even.... that's doesn't look too good.....you may think that bryant was a lower prospect than gardner, but reality is that you don't know unless they both would have been in the same draft...and they weren't.....that is just opinion....again here you go with taking opinions and making them into facts and then using them in your arguments.... like I said, I like our prospects better than the skins, and that's an opinion..... and I guess that would make brandon stokley a better player than thomson and anthony since he had better stats last year, and chiaverini was a better WR than anthony since he had better stats as well and was a proven player in this league since he had a decent year in clevveland in 1999 and houshmandzadeh in Cinci is also a better player since last year he had 21 reception and anthony couldn't come close.... you are using stats to support your claims right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 10, 2002 Author Share Posted August 10, 2002 Shawn, reply within... "may be I should have clarified, two years ago, we had a really crappy bunch of recievers, this group looks a lot better." Fair enough. One idiotic statement out of the bundle removed from consideration for the mistake it was in your presentation. Thanks for clearing THAT up. "..anthony and lockket...have had theiir chances in this league and failed to show anything and have gone down hill even.... " Yawn. Shawn, while I'll grant you that Anthony has been given a chance in the league, being a starter previously, having 50 catches and 7 TDs and performing acceptably, he seems to have lost his ability to be a starter in the league, and at 26 would seem to be stepping into a depth role. Lockett has never been given a chance in the league to start. He has been an adequate No. 3 receiver and he has not diminished in his performance so much as he went from one team with a pretty fair offense to our team with a horrid one. I think you know that. "that's doesn't look too good." It doesn't look completely true either. "....you may think that bryant was a lower prospect than gardner, but reality is that you don't know unless they both would have been in the same draft...and they weren't.....that is just opinion....again here you go with taking opinions and making them into facts and then using them in your arguments.... " Sorry Shawn, but to compare draft classes people rate them on largely the same scale. Gardner was higher on the scale than Bryant. Jammer was higher on the scale than Smoot. I can't make Smoot higher because he was the best in his draft and Jammer was the best in his. You can't make Bryant higher because he was the best receiver in his class. He was rated the same by most everyone. A very solid prospect who was a notch below the top three or four that came out the year before. That doesn't diminish him, but, it does put into perspective that Gardner was almost uniformly a more highly rated player than Bryant and Gardner was in a stronger draft class. "like I said, I like our prospects better than the skins, and that's an opinion..... " That's fine. You can like your prospects better than the Skins. You, however, can't like your production better than the Skins and that's where we have you. We also have prospects too. "and I guess that would make brandon stokley a better player than thomson and anthony since he had better stats last year, and chiaverini was a better WR than anthony since he had better stats as well and was a proven player in this league since he had a decent year in clevveland in 1999 and houshmandzadeh in Cinci is also a better player since last year he had 21 reception and anthony couldn't come close.... you are using stats to support your claims right?" Uh, what? Thompson has three career catches in his first year on the playing field. He's not a better player than ANYONE. He may be a better prospect than some, but, he's not a better player. When discussing depth at a position it's about performance, not hope. You HOPE your guys can perform at some competent level. We have hope for guys like that too. We also have guys who HAVE performed at some competent level and until you guys have, they have not, and there is our advantage. Sorry it couldn't be yours. But, wish upon the Star and that will make it so I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.