sumodat Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Well, I don't mind being the minority here: I would love to have Bruce! I mean, we are so close. He is the #2 we are looking for. Very reliable hands, exceptional route running, and not expecting to be the #1. He is getting older, but he is still productive. I would welcome Bruce, no doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Of course. The will be the same bobblehead fans that cheered when Patten was signed and started calling him General Patten, even though anyone who followed him and knew his stats was not surprised that he stank up FedEx Field before his injury.Hopefully Gibbs wont make the same mistake twice. I thought Patten could be reasonably effective, and still do, but I think he's better suited to the #3 role. I don't think it was a mistake to pick up Patten, just maybe a bit too much money. To be pair there is no way you can tell me the problems at #2 WR last year were all on the WR corps. Brunnell almost never looked their way for hatever reason. Patten was open a lot of the time, but it seemed Mark only threw him the ball when it was tight fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm not sure I agree with this move. The Redskins need to pursue David Givens. He would be the perfect number 2 for Moss. You could slide Patten into the slot spot. If the Skins get Bruce it would be a big mistake in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I thought Patten could be reasonably effective, and still do, but I think he's better suited to the #3 role. I don't think it was a mistake to pick up Patten, just maybe a bit too much money. To be pair there is no way you can tell me the problems at #2 WR last year were all on the WR corps. Brunnell almost never looked their way for hatever reason. Patten was open a lot of the time, but it seemed Mark only threw him the ball when it was tight fit. thats the isssue. they didnt bring him in as a #3. They brought him in to be a possession receiver and a #2 WR. He has never been effective in that role, either with the Giants or with the Pats and now the trend continues with the Skins. Bruce would not be an upgrade from Patten. Sure he's better than Thrash, Jacobs, et. al. but we need a #2 WR not another ~#3 receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I think Bruce would be a very good addition. What we need is a "possession" receiver who is reliable. A guy that will cross over the middle to bring coverage up to free Moss deep. No one we have scares anyone. Even though Bruce has lost a few steps, I still think he's a threat and would be a perfect complement to Moss. I see Henry Ellard here as well, but I also see Irving Fryar, who made some big catches for us in a short period of time. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 no turf = no Bruce. IMO, I think he is a dome guy and should only play on dome teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 a sarcastic yeah! another aging WR with a Super Bowl ring, then we'll have two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger6202 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 with this cap ordeal though, if '07 is uncapped, we could easily sign him cheap for a year and if he produces, keep him on for longer, and if else, cut/trade him later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I like the idea of signing him and drafting a young WR. He would be a good transitional #2 until the draftee is ready. He'll have a better season here than last season in St Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Martz is the Detoit coach, hence why they want him. Thing is, if Detroit gets him, they are going to have to let a reciever go, or bump one of their decked recieving core into the #4 slot, which I dont think is going to fly. So we could always pick up who Detroit drops as well. But to have a WR of Bruce's calliber would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I like Bruce with Patten in the slot. A burner along with two very good route runners would be a solid receiving corps. I would be very excited to see this move at the right price. I think we'd be even better suited with Bruce than we would Eric Moulds... Isaac won't come in with an ego problem and would really fix the hole at WR. Seriously, who feasible is better than Isaac Bruce at this point? Bruce played great football last season with Torry Holt out with injuries. Two causes of concern do persist however: he was held very much in check against the NFC East last year (he DNP against the Giants) and missed five games due to injury. BUT, it was the first time since '98 that he missed more than one game in a season. And to those saying Bruce is a dome player, do your homework... nothing bothers me more than unguided criticism like that on this board. Bruce had more receptions, yards, YPC, twice as many first downs (14 v. 7), and TDs on the road last year in roughly the same amount of time played. He also had an 18.1 YPC on grass last year versus 12.6 on artificial surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Sexton? That's Ramsey's agent. Good luck with those negotiations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Bruce would be better than any #2 Receiver that the Redskins have right now.....and then some. But my vote (if i had one) would say "no deal" and open up some more briefcases....lets see who else is gonna be available.....Bruce would be a 2nd tier level WR free agent....perhaps all we will be able to afford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogskin1 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 The man is 33, and will turn 34 during the season. Plus his number of catches have decrease considerably over the past few seasons. I know Joe wants that Old Air Coryell feel again, but I think we can do better than this guy. Bruce would be a very good addition to our team for 1-2 years. Several years back, and aging Roy Jefferson was also a very good addition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodie987 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 he is ageing, damaged, demanding, if he leave it will probly be with mike martz.....i dont really want him...? i dont no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Kenzo Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 He is not the long term solution. However, we desperately need a #2 option and Bruce could fill that hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Gibbs loves veterans, and @ 32 Bruce still has a couple productive years in him but I think it's the old agent trick add "and Washington", to drive up bidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I heard this around the office yesterday, i think i called it out on here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-O-G Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Yah, Detroid needs another Wide Reciever. (sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macd36 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 why would detroit be interested in issac bruce???the last thing they need is another WR Just maybe sign Bruce and trade one of there WR's they seem to be over stocked at WR's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Actually, I could see bringing in Bruce and then drafting a WR. Given that a rookie WR is, in most cases, going to be a project, we might look for a somewhat proven commodity that can get us the needed 40-50 catches while doing some grooming. Of course, I'm not convinced that Bruce would give us any marginal improvement over Patten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 i agree that signing ike bruce and drafting a WR in the 2nd round would be a good idea. let bruce start 2 years then let the rookie step in after learning the game from 2 very good WRs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMalcolmConnection Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Bruce would be a welcome addition, but he isn't someone that really goes across the middle. I felt that last year we didn't have an intermediate receiving threat across the middle. Cooley was the intermediate guy, but he was always along the sidelines. Bruce is a burner just like Moss, but he always seemed to shy away from contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shallyshal Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/rams/story/AA8E5C3FD16BAE728625712A00218A23?OpenDocument i can think of better fits for the skins than bruce.. still, he would be better than anything the skins have on the roster except for moss, as of now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shallyshal Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 You know with all the talk of cap hell, we sure are on a lot of FA rumor lists. that is just agents talking to hype up their clients Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.