elkabong82 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Sorry but in general you will do well big time receivers. Let's look at the top teams:Pats: Moss Green Bay: Driver Dallas: Terrell Owens NY Giants: Burress San Diego: Gates, Chambers Colts: Harrison, Wayne Even if the numbers for all of these recievers aren't impressive, they have an effect on the game every time they step on the field. It doesn't matter how much they actually touch the ball. The Bengals and the Cardinals are the exception rather than the rule. You have to have a sound football team for the big-time receiver to make a big-time difference, and those teams are severely lacking in certain departments. Did you read the article? Here is a clipping: Last year was the same story. Only one team with a receiver who ranked in the top 10 (the Colts had two) even reached the playoffs. Over the past five years, only 15 of the 50 receivers who ranked in the top 10 in yards made it to the postseason. Gates is a TE, and the Chargers just got Chambers mid-season. Chambers was on the worst team in the NFL, the Dolphins, this season as well. The Rams were the 2nd worse team in the league, and they have Holt. You already mentioned the Bengals and Cards, who have 4 of the best WRs in the NFL, yet can't make the playoffs. The Lions have a great WR corp, and can't make the playoffs. The Texans have Andre Johnson, and can't make the playoffs. The Raiders couldn't do anything with Moss and Porter. Who were the Pats stand-out WRs in '01, '02, and '04? Steve Smith is a top 5 WR, despite a down year this season, and he defies the "big-possesion" mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I don't want a "Big Time" WR, I just want a WR with some size, strength and bulk. We have enough 5-10 180lb guys running around. It's not about getting a pro bowler, it's about getting a viable redzone target. When your WR don't score a recieving TD until week 10, you have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I agree. To me it's all about the O-line!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While I would like for us to have one big receiver it's really not a need. If moss had been more consistent who knows how many more td's we would have scored. I still don't get why we don't throw more jump balls to cooley. Is he not bigger than the majority of possession wideouts? I think 6'3 250 lbs could outmuscle quite a few db's or lb's. And why not throw moss and randle el quick slants from the 10 yardline and in since they aren't tall. I don't think we even took advantage of the personnel we have. Yep. Cooley had a great year, but wasn't totally utilized to his potential. He was needed inside more times to block because of the injuries to the line. He would have a big first half several games, and then fade away in the second. Also, those short slants are something that the team should've used more. But as with the wide receiver screens of a couple of years ago, if you put into it too much, it'll stop working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatboy41 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I disagree. We need a big WR. We have no explosive playmakers. We have no explosive offensive attack. Santana Moss may get open downfield once in a blue moon, but it's not something that happens often. Randle El and Moss are always doubled up and half the time look like they can't even see the ball because they're shorter than every CB in the league. As much as I hate him look at what TO brings for the Cowboys, or Randy Moss for the Patriots. One explosive attack that at ANY moment can turn into a touchdown, and one of the reasons they're feared so much is because of how hard they are to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I don't want a "Big Time" WR, I just want a WR with some size, strength and bulk. We have enough 5-10 180lb guys running around. It's not about getting a pro bowler, it's about getting a viable redzone target. When your WR don't score a recieving TD until week 10, you have a problem. Couldn't agree any more. Someone who can run the fade route. Someone who picks on Tiny CBs. Over the middle, first down machine. Moss won't have to step up if he's got a guy running up the Receptions column- Moss'll just have to get open up top to destroy defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abu69 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 We don't necessarily need a 'big-time' guy, just a big guy with good hands who will convert third downs and make catches when we need it. We already have the ability to stretch the field. Bingo. Think of all the throws juuuuust too far ahead/behind/above our munchkin corps. A big target with good hands starts sucking some of those in, and we're a much more efficient offense. BONUS: JC's confidence goes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman_SKins Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 this article doesnt mean much. although you don't have to have a big time reciever, it surely helps. especially since we dont have anyone to go to for the jump ball in the endzone. big time recievers also pull double coverage which opens up other recievers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papabear Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While I will grant you this, are we so sure this is a condemnation of the WRs we have or could it be as much a QB or O-line issue? Or a play calling issue? Maybe a combination of all the above? I think this last idea the most likely. I concur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck812 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While I would like for us to have one big receiver it's really not a need. If moss had been more consistent who knows how many more td's we would have scored. I still don't get why we don't throw more jump balls to cooley. Is he not bigger than the majority of possession wideouts? I think 6'3 250 lbs could outmuscle quite a few db's or lb's. And why not throw moss and randle el quick slants from the 10 yardline and in since they aren't tall. I don't think we even took advantage of the personnel we have. Cooley is bigger but he cant seem to jump over a beer can. His best asset is using his wide body to shield defenders off of him and when you get closer to the goal line it draws the defenders closer to the LOS which usually takes away the slant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggs43 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I think Anthony Mix is what we need, a big, red zone target that can just catch a fade or a slant. We don't need a TO or Randy Moss (although it would be nice). I'm not expecting too much from Mix this upcoming season, but I'd like to see how he develops. I'm sure he'll work w/ Campbell this offseason to help his progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long n Left Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Aonother prime example of using stats to make a logically questionable argument. In this guy's example, a stud WR is someone who catches a prepondrance of balls for their team. Usually when that happens, it means the team only has one WR worth a crap. Look at consistently winning teams, playoff teams, and you'll find that they have two or three, sometimes four WRs who can get the job done. This takes the onus off one guy and spreads the ball around, thereby forcing the defense to defend the whole field, and opening up lanes for the run game and TEs. Also, these "stud" receivers referred to in the article often play on bad teams who are forced to throw more in come-from-behind mode. They'll get lots of yardage andcatches in garbage time when the game is already decided. I also notice this guy's failure to mention Greg Jennings for GB who ONLY caught 12 TD passes, and was one of the leaders in YPC this year--stats far more indicative of "studliness" in WRs IMO. For the Skins, Santana is too up and down, and Randle El had a good year, but struggled to stay healthy (as did Moss.) The addition of one more solid WR that can stay healthy for the most part, and make the tough catch over the middle would open up the offense for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 The author of this article is right...There is no need for big-time Wr's, but their is a need for a BIG WR....I want to see an article about a passing offense that has been successful with tiny WR's like the ones we have...5'9 to 6'0... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 No Need for Big Time Recievers I found this article very interesting considering all the talk here about trading for Johnson or Fitzgerald or some other "big time" receiver. While I guess I can get on board the idea of a big possession receiver or big target for shooting at the End Zone from inside the 10 yard line, after reading this, I am fine with the guys we have here now. It just does not appear as important to me as perhaps it does to a lot of other guys on this board. Thoughts? Yes, it's perfectly okay that Santana drops every other ball that's thrown to him. That gives our punter or more game time to exercise his leg. When perfectly healthy, Santana can sometimes get behind a defender and make a big play. I can't recall him ever going up in a crowd and coming down with the ball. Ever. We need a real number one. Brady isn't so good as his receivers make him look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While I will grant you this, are we so sure this is a condemnation of the WRs we have or could it be as much a QB or O-line issue? Or a play calling issue? Maybe a combination of all the above? I think this last idea the most likely. Its def an O-line and to a lesser extent, WR problem and not a QB problem. How many dropped passes did our WR's have this season? All season? Our starting recievers are short, one thinks he can rap, and Keenan and Caldwell were on the guest list at the Last Supper. We need some height, some youth, and some ambition from our WR's who have none of those charactoristics. Our O-line is a pile of Old men and back-ups. If we upgrade the O-line and maybe luck out with a FA or WR in a trade, I see us being alright. Campbell is good and has shown flashes of brilliance. Im sure he lobbied pretty hard to get Mix here, and I hope that helps out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yes, it's perfectly okay that Santana drops every other ball that's thrown to him. That gives our punter or more game time to exercise his leg. When perfectly healthy, Santana can sometimes get behind a defender and make a big play. I can't recall him ever going up in a crowd and coming down with the ball. Ever. We need a real number one. Brady isn't so good as his receivers make him look. Jacksonville two years ago. Brunell to Santana foir something like 53 yards, he went up between two defenders and snatched it, then took it to the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever21 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 None of our WR scored a touchdown until week 10 we def need something. Exactly. I don't think this article applies to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Bingo. Think of all the throws juuuuust too far ahead/behind/above our munchkin corps. A big target with good hands starts sucking some of those in, and we're a much more efficient offense.BONUS: JC's confidence goes up. Double Bonus: Another big target free's up Cooley in the Redzone and for 1st downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 The author of this article is right...There is no need for big-time Wr's, but their is a need for a BIG WR....I want to see an article about a passing offense that has been successful with tiny WR's like the ones we have...5'9 to 6'0... We won SB 17 with Monk out and had the smurfs. When Houston, Atlanta and Detroit ran the Run and Shoot, at least 3 of their 4 WR's were under 6 ft tall. Haywood Jeffires was the big target for Houston, Herman Moore for Detroit and Haynes for Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Jacksonville two years ago. Brunell to Santana foir something like 53 yards, he went up between two defenders and snatched it, then took it to the house. Also in that same season at home against the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Jacksonville two years ago. Brunell to Santana foir something like 53 yards, he went up between two defenders and snatched it, then took it to the house.Maybe we should give this Brunell kid another look? Who is he with now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Very funny. I liked it. Seriously, what would have happened if, on every pass play of the last year, the Skins QB, whether JC or TC, had one more second to throw? What if he'd had two seconds? At Seattle, TC had a wide open Santana, but got hit just as he was letting the ball fly. How many times would one or two seconds have made a difference? With one or two seconds more, do you think the QB could have found an open receiver? Only OL will give you those extra seconds. It doesn't matter how big or how fast your WR is if your QB is lying on his back with a 300 pound DL pounding him into the dirt. Last year all we heard is Calvin Johnson this, Calvin Johnson that. Detroit has drafted the best WR available for how many years now? And how close was that game when we played Detroit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40Gut Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 :applause: Well said Colts: Wayne, Harrison, ClarkPats: Deion Branch. . .Moss, Walker, Stallworth 49ers: Rice Cowboys: Irvin Steelers: Lynn Swann Redskins: Monk, Saunders Our Moss is not as well rounded or consistent as these players, neither healthwise, or performance wise. You ever see Rice, Irvin, or Wayne drop 5 passes in a game? Miss a large number games in multiple back to back seasons? Dynasty teams that win Superbowls and are good year in year out have at least 1 great receiver. A great receiver doesn't have to be a flashy FA signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Great article for those who want to make big trades for Chad Johnson or Roy Williams. I still hope the Redskins draft a WR this year, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2006Skins Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 We currently have Cooley as a big target to look for when in trouble on 3rd down... But we may have a SHORT term answer in Anthony Mix (pretty quick and is 6'5") and Caldwell for possession receivers. I've never been a big fan of ARE as a receiver. I think whoever the new HC is should have open competition for WR on #1-5. I think what we'll find is ARE will underperform and Caldwell will be a decent #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.