KDawg Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 As per usual, I did the search thing, came up with nada so here goes: It seems that alot of people have the opinion that we need a big wide receiver to compliment Santana Moss. I'm not quite sure that I see the logic in that. Santana Moss is a speedy, quick receiver (as you all know) and he manages to get plenty of opportunities and catches. So, why not go for another fast, small wide receiver? I realize that in light of the Lloyd signing this thread is late, however, I'm still curious to know the fascination with big receivers... Is it because the media had said so? Is it because other members of ES.com suggested it? Or is it simply because you feel a big receiver is a necessity on an NFL team? Personally, I don't think a big wide receiver would hurt, but I don't know how much it would help either. I'm not huge on Randel-El, I like the guy and not to mention he's got the skills necessary to help us win, but I'd love to have him lining up along side Moss. Two speed guys, in my opinion, would be a much more effective combo than a speed guy and a "possession" guy. How do you cover both of them? Add Lloyd in there now, Cooley and Portis and it seems like an impossible task to stop them... So why is it that we need a big receiver? Help me understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Lloyd isn't a "speed" guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 i dunno if people remember the fun bunch or posse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 So why is it that we need a big receiver? Help me understand I'm not convinced that is the reason we signed Lloyd. Good WR's come in all shapes and sizes. If anything should jump out at us with this move (and looking at last year's moves), it's that the Redskins are interested in pursuing guys that can play, regardless of their size. So to answer your question, we DON'T need a big receiver. We need good receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 Lloyd isn't a "speed" guy I know that. I never said he was. And I certainly wasn't implying that Lloyd is a big receiver, because he's really not. I was stating that I probably should have posted this thread a few days ago, though And zoony, I'm in agreement with you, 110%. That's the way I feel it should be. I just see a fascination with big receivers here and I'd like to understand why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Because if you come up against a defense that can match speed, you lose your advantage. It's just like buying stocks - diversify. If we have a burner and a body banger, the defense has to show a wider range of capabilities in order to stop both our guys. Having a big WR who can block downfield increases Santana's YAC, and will also be able to wear out a defender starting at the line. If the big 2 WR starts getting catches, the theory is that the defense will have to provide an additional person to assist with coverage. This frees up Santana to go longer, get open, make the big plays, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 Because if you come up against a defense that can match speed, you lose your advantage. It's just like buying stocks - diversify.If we have a burner and a body banger, the defense has to show a wider range of capabilities in order to stop both our guys. Having a big WR who can block downfield increases Santana's YAC, and will also be able to wear out a defender starting at the line. If the big 2 WR starts getting catches, the theory is that the defense will have to provide an additional person to assist with coverage. This frees up Santana to go longer, get open, make the big plays, etc. Smaller guys can block downfield too. Cooley and Portis in the flats along with a #3 should be able to neutralize any disadvantage two speed guys would give us. Although I see your reasoning, and it does make sense. But I'm still not sold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 What big reciever is on the market with any speed other then TO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azmodeus13 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Bryant, Jurevicius (gone),Bradford, Davis, Gaffney, Gardner (shudder), Morgan, Finneran, Walter, Washington, White, Moorehead, Aiken, Armstrong, Boerigter, Williams, Lee, Kircus, Hymes, McAddley... I think Lloyd is a lot faster than some of y'all think - just not elite speed... look at his video again and see how he pulls away from a couple of people after the catch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknsrbck26 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 We need a big wr because it gives a chance at jump balls, also it helps in the Red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Joe Hog Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 To catch the ball in traffic in the End Zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Wu Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 To catch the ball in traffic in the End Zone. The red zone playcalling by the end of last season was very effective, because they went out of their way to avoid traffic. We all know Brunell can throw bombs but the short passes are a coin toss sometimes, so this worked out very well. Guys like Cooley and Sellers became very adept at seperating from the crowd just to avoid the need to go up high and it worked. Basically what I'm saying is that we have plenty of red zone targets, certianly one more wouldn't hurt anything but the greater need was a second downfield threat IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 See the list below and you'll see a pattern. Tell me what percenatge of WR's over 6'0 make the top 25. Teams are utilizing their TE/HB more and more as their "big" possession receivers and we are seeing the speed wr's become the cream of the crop. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=rec&sort=yds&league=nfl&season=2&year=2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck812 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Speed is great outside the 20 yrd line. Inside the 20, you end up with all that speed and no where to run. You need someone who has size and strength to catch the ball in traffic or you have to have a very accurate QB. The accuracy of our QB is essentially non existent and the closest thing we have to a big WR is Cooley who draws coverage from LBs in the redzone who are just as big and strong as he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Did you see the end of last season. There's your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Speed is great outside the 20 yrd line. Inside the 20, you end up with all that speed and no where to run. You need someone who has size and strength to catch the ball in traffic or you have to have a very accurate QB. The accuracy of our QB is essentially non existent and the closest thing we have to a big WR is Cooley who draws coverage from LBs in the redzone who are just as big and strong as he is. That's true to some extent, but if you look at the TD leaders in that list they are almost all under 6'0. You can still utilize a speed receiver inside the 20. If a defense chooses to play bump and run and fails to get a good check they are toast. If they choose to play five yards off the line they are setting themselves up for a fake that leaves their shoes behind. I just think there are far more options with the speed guy vs that big possession receiver. Ricky Sanders used to break ankles and he was the number three receiver. So a corp of Moss, Lloyd, El and add Cooley to the mix is going to give DC a serious headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Did you see the end of last season. There's your answer. Care to elaborate on this? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhi4582 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Exellent post! I agree 100%. You don't have to be Big to be a possession Reciever. You don't have to be big to be a red zone threat either. Torry Holt is very good in the red zone. You just need to create separation. AS far as jump balls go, you don't have to be the tallest or biggest, its about ball reaction and knowing how to turn your body against a defender. Just watch the Lloyd highlight reel on here. He showed great concentration and ball reaction going up there and snagging balls away from defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 In short, I don't think Gibbs is necessarily looking for a "big" or "small" WR. He's looking for a talented playmaker at the #2 spot that will force defenses to spread their secondary coverage, and not focus exclusively on Moss. Check out his highlights - he should be a stud for us at the #2 slot. Add Randel or Givens along with Patten, and you've got a WR corps that will keep every opposing DC awake at night. As I said in an earlier post, it literally becomes untenable for opposing defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 Some of you guys don't quite get it, or quite frankly are reading too much into the post... I never said anything about going after a possession receiver. I'm asking about the fascination here on ES.com, what free agent possession receivers that are out there isn't at all a part of the question. As has been already posted by a few members, you don't need a big receiver to be a red zone threat. Sellers, Cooley, Portis, and yes, even Moss made plays in the red zone last season. It's not necessary to have a big, tall player. Quite frankly, that big receiver being a red zone threat theory is a myth that I believe began when Darnerian McCants was making plays in the red zone, or at least it popularized itself with 'Skins fans at that point. As far as the comment saying "Did you see the end of last season," goes, yes, I did. And I have no idea what that means. Sellers was catching passes in the red zone, Cooley was making plays, Moss was making plays and Portis was playing well. Not sure what the end of last season had to do with anything... Unless you're referring to our offensive output, in which case I can point out a number of circumstances that may have hurt our output... David Patten getting hurt, like it or not, really hurt our pass game, all attention was shifted to Moss. Then, James Thrash was hurt, leaving Taylor Jacobs and Jimmy Farris as our receivers... That didn't help matters one bit. Brunell had an injury and was clearly not the same Mark Brunell that was playing in the beginning of the season. In fact, it looked like the Mark Brunell of the 2004 season was out there playing. It was the playoffs versus two tough defenses. We missed key plays on both offense and defense that limited our ability to win.... But still, this isn't a topic about last season. I'm not quite sure why you went there with that comment at all. Perhaps explaining would make me better understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I'm still waitng on that guy to elaborate in regards to last season Dawg. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazhog Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 So why is it that we need a big receiver? Help me understand We don't need a big receiver... We need talented wideouts who can get open... Moss is a speed guy, Lloyd is a get open guy who is not slow and his speed is respectable. When a defense matches your speed, you out scheme them with coaching and talented WR's... Which Moss needs the help!!! Mr. Santana faced way to much multiple coverages... How much better will he be with help at the WR corps??? Wow! Wow! Wow! I know the rest of the NFL doesn't want to see our WR's become better... and how much better will our running game be with a passing game that can burn a defense??? CP is as excited as anybody.......... hmmmmmmmmmmm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 We don't need a big receiver... We need talented wideouts who can get open...Moss is a speed guy, Lloyd is a get open guy who is not slow and his speed is respectable. When a defense is matched with speed, you out scheme them coaching and talented WR's... Which Moss needs the help!!! Mr. Santana faced way to much multiple coverages... How much better will he be with help at the WR corps??? Wow! Wow! Wow! I know the rest of the NFL doesn't want to see our WR's become better... and how much better will our running game be with a passing game that can burn a defense??? CP is as excited as anybody.......... hmmmmmmmmmmm! CP is going to be sick this year. The days of eight and even nine in the box are no more. That last line is a big reason why we are going after the likes of Lloyd and El. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 I love alot of the responses in this thread, but alot of them don't really have much to do with the whole fascination about big WRs. No need to explain to me we need talented receivers, I'm well aware of that and I share the same opinion I want to see WHY I should think we need a big receiver... But again, I appreciate the replys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I think the reason people are still hung up on the "big" reciever is a hold over mentality from th 90's to just a couple years ago. Back when alot of contact was allowed between recievers and corners the michael irvin mold of reciever was the way to go, cause he was big and strong enough to ward off the mugging corner. The smurfs, or small fast recievers, were the exception to the rule creating seperation by speed and routes rather than fighting the fight. Today, the league has started to enforce its contact rules so it is diminishing the need for big recievers. IMO this is why people are so fixated on big recievers, cause they are over looking the new enforcement policies and are still in the old mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.