fansince62 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Grantland Rice's been dead over half a century, Al. Man you're old. but not as old as Joe Gibbs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicekiller Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Campbell benifited from the confidence he is getting from the coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeenzfan Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Randle-El' date=' Thrash, Caldwell, McCardell: 5'10", 6'0", 6'0", 6'1"vs. Moss, Randle-El, Thrash, Lloyd: 5'10", 5'10", 6'0", 6'0" It seemed like Campbell was able to go through his progressions a lot quicker this past game. Gotta wonder if part of that was being able to see his receivers better in traffic. There was also a noticeable absence of those errant passes that go way above the receivers head. This also could have been due to the fact that our receivers had a bit more range (height-wise). What do you guys think?[/quote'] SO basically the difference is just one 6'1'' receiver instead of a 5'10'' as three other heights are basically the same.... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 oooooneeeee last shot so Elka can feel good about all in Skinsland: things are going well. we are 3-1.....this is lights out over last season! do I think a tall, big wide receiver in the mold of a TO, Moss or Calvin Johnson would make the Skins' passing attack even more potent? You bet. A creative offensive mind can work it into situations that inevitably suit that sort of physical advantage. That just makes simple sense to me. I see other teams doing it as we speak. Does the fact that our personnel development has not moved in that direction by design, chance or mistake somehow lessen the value of what is being accomplished now? ummmmm....no. how's that?...can we agree that life is good but that there might be other options..however theoretical/hypothetical given the facts of the situation.....that might also present opportunities for improvement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onnie007 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 I don't think his progressions or the way he played had anything to do with the size of the receiver. I think he just played an outstanding game. I agree. Both of McCardell's catches were made as he was falling down so height had nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 oooooneeeee last shot so Elka can feel good about all in Skinsland: things are going well. we are 3-1.....this is lights out over last season! do I think a tall, big wide receiver in the mold of a TO, Moss or Calvin Johnson would make the Skins' passing attack even more potent? You bet. A creative offensive mind can work it into situations that inevitably suit that sort of physical advantage. That just makes simple sense to me. I see other teams doing it as we speak. Does the fact that our personnel development has not moved in that direction by design, chance or mistake somehow lessen the value of what is being accomplished now? ummmmm....no. how's that?...can we agree that life is good but that there might be other options..however theoretical/hypothetical given the facts of the situation.....that might also present opportunities for improvement? Yup yup. Something to think about for next years draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docsandy Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 If there is any significance in height differences, it is between his and Brunell's. He is 4 inches taller than Brunell. That allows him to see the field better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.