jaydean Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 i know we've talked about this a few days ago, but i have a question. the agent for peerless price says that peerless would be interested in joining the redskins during the offseason to add to our receiver corps. now, first of all, i know he would be a great addition to the team. but here's my question.....do you make him the number one receiver, or number two, or number three? i realize he has to work for it, but where do you guys and girls think he'll end up in the rankings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 If he joins us, it will up to the Ball Coach to decide if hes #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think he would be the #2 and Gardner would be the #1. I think he would compliment Gardner well and it would make for a very formidable recieving corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I'm not sold on Price. Is there anyone else out there that will be an UFA next year who has blazing speed? I just think that Price's success has been due more in part to Bledsoe and Moulds than his talent and ability. I may be wrong, but, who else is out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmootDawg21 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Not really sure how much we should believe Price's agent... Bills | Price Would Like To Be Back - posted at KFFL http://nfl.kffl.com 8:24 PT: The Democrat and Chronicle reports Buffalo Bills free agent WR Peerless Price would like to return to the Bills. "I’ve said all along I want to be back. That’s my first choice. I don’t want to go someplace else and get used to a whole new group of guys and try to meet new friends. I would love to come back," said Price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Actually, it will be up to Peerless Price. If he gets open consistantly when the Skins need a first down or a big play, then he's the #1 receiver. Simple as that. I don't feel the need to designate receivers as #1, #2, etc... Although it seems vogue to call Eric Moulds the Bills' #1 receiver, I don't think it was neccessarily the case--at least for this season. Sometimes Moulds was the go-to receiver. Sometimes Price was the go-to receiver. Both caught more than one game-winning TD this season. Usually, you have one receiver that catches a lot more passes than any others, and is always the first guy a QB looks for in key situations. But you can certainly have more than one guy like that. Buffalo did this season. Jacksonville did when Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell were both there. And in Washington with the Posse. You had more than one clutch receiver. The thing I like about Price is that his talents complement guys we already have like Gardner and Thompson. I think he ought to be looked into. But ultimately, I don't think he's the kind of dominant player you break the bank and mess up your salary cap structure for. I'd like to see him in burgandy and gold, though, because he's got experience and he's on the upswing in his playing career. Price would have to learn the offense, but he's a natural football player with good instincts and ought to make the adjustment much, much more quickly than a rookie who has to make the NFL adjustment as well as learn the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 The #1 receiver is whoever the #1 cornerback is forced to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think we would have two #1.5 WRs. Perhaps neither quite a #1 but both better than most #2s. Together it still addds up to three, and they could be quite effective as a tandem ... especially with some good young talent on the field with them at times. Sort of a poor man's version of Holt and Bruce, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I still don't understand the need to designate a "#1" receiver. The cornerback argument is mostly bogus because very few teams--very few--shadow one receiver with one cornerback. Teams like Philly and Miami and Washington have the advantage of having two strong cover corners, and the corners play sides a lot. (Not all the time). This allows defenses to better disguise their coverages. Plus, more and more teams are playing zone coverages, so corners stick to their sides even more. The arguement for a #1 cornerback is just as inconseqential as the arguement for a #1 receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think that it's better to look at the roles they will be playing in the offense. With Price and Gardner, there will be no number 1. I assume that gardner will catch more balls, and price will have a higher ypc. The whole reason price belongs here is not that we need a guy to come in and totally change the face of our recieving corps. We just need a solid piece of the puzzle and price fits the bill perfectly. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think Laveraneous (SP) Coles of the Jets is a UFA and I'd look into him as well. Price would be a good pick up though. I think the difference between Price and Gardner is that Gardner would catch more TDs in the red zone and Price would give the offense the much needed 40+ yard scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Eparadox: The #1 receiver is whoever the #1 cornerback is forced to cover Exactly! Opposing defensive coordinators decide who your #1 receiver is, not your coach. All of this argument over whether Gardner or Price would be #1 is really dumb. They'll both play. You can get an idea of which receiver is regarded as the best by where the team lines him up. Usually, a team has their most dangerous receiver as their flanker. The flanker is the strong-side receiver, who is often in motion which makes it difficult to jam him at the line. But this can be misleading -- Randy Moss plays flanker and slot (and anything else he wants). The weakside receiver is called the split end when he lines up on the line (because he's on the other end from the tight end), or the slot receiver if he lines up behind it. The flanker lines up a yard behind the line -- again, preventing anyone from jamming him. So I think our argument here really is, who will be our flanker and who will be our slot receiver? I think, given his size and strength, that Gardner would be our slot receiver and Price, given that he's a little faster than Gardner, would be our flanker. Does that mean Price is #1? Not really. It's just a question of using your players talents in the best way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 excellent analysis MR. MADD. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 who was the Redskins #1 receiver in 1986 or 1987? was it Art Monk who caught all the short passes and converted third downs from in close? or was it Gary Clark who inevitably became the player the offense looked to make the big play and break a game wide open or bring us back from a deficit with his 19.0 yard per catch average and knack for getting into the end zone? Sometimes you are lucky enough to have TWO capable #1 receivers on the same team. The Raiders do right now with Rice and Brown, even though they are both ancient :laugh: The Skins MAY have a future #1 in Gardner already. Certainly, Rod's statistics show definite improvement from Year 1 to Year 2. His touchdown totals and 14.5 yard per catch average indicate he is more than just a possession receiver. What he is not is a deep flyer that is going to bust double coverage as a young Rice or Charley Taylor did and score the 75 yard TD. But he doesn't have to do those things to be a #1 receiver here. If Gardner catches the ball consistently, more consistently than he showed in either 2001 or 2002, and he continues his trend in productivity from age 23 to 24, Rod can be a feature player for us in the future. The real question for the Redskins this offseason is to think about what kind of receiver would best be suited to line up across from Gardner. 70 catches for 1,000 yards and 8 td's in a year with little stability at the qb position to me means that Rod deserves a place at the table going into 2003 I think Price IS compatible with Gardner, he brings the deep threat ability we have been lacking. He is a guy with very good quickness and the ability to get RAC yardage. The question is, is he worth $4 million a year with a large bonus? Spurrier seems to be VERY particular in how he wants his receivers to run and catch the ball. Sometimes you bring a productive veteran into that situation and he has his OWN ideas about how to line up and run his patterns. You could see a conflict of egos on that score. That is one of the reasons other than cost I think the Skins passed on a number of veteran receivers that could have helped the team in 2002. Spurrier will need to be sure that he can work ego-wise with whatever player we sign. Not every player in the NFL is as dedicated and coachable as Marvin Harrison folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkNC Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I picked up Peerless in fantasy league this year so I spent some time keying in on him. He has the speed, he has the hands, he has the strenth to take the ball. He does IMO have mental lapses and at times runs the wrong route or a sloppy route. HE would not make a great #1 but would make a great compliment to Rod as people have pointed out. My understanding is he is not the best locker room guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I would love to have Coles, I think he would be the perfect fit. Sure I would love to have Peerless, but so do alot of other teams. I except Hugh Douglass and Peerless to be the 2 most sought out free agents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 a #1 designation is only as good as the player can keep up his stats. I mean If making Price the #1, causes Gardner to get open more and make more catches, then our recieving corps STILL wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.