Renegade7 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Oldskool We dont know how Coles' toe is. If its healthy, hes a beast. Only the coaching staff and his trainers know for certain. The fact that we arent looking at that style of WR in FA means that they have alot of faith in Jacobs being the guy to take over for Coles OR Coles is close to 100%. Who's to say we aren't looking at that style of WR. There's no telling what's going to happen with that toe, and assuming everything is going to be alright would be a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Renegade7 Who's to say we aren't looking at that style of WR. There's no telling what's going to happen with that toe, and assuming everything is going to be alright would be a mistake. Granted that FA hasnt even started but "insiders" have leaked that we looking for replacements for Gardner not Coles. That means that possession receiver is the position that is in need. Again, only the staff and trainers know how Coles' toe is. There is no guessing going on here. They know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 There are better, cheaper, safer options than Porter. At least there will be June 1st. When you have cap problems and major needs elsewhere, you don't blow all your money on a guy who may not be that better than 50/50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenlipper Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 That'll never happen.Williams will look great with an indian on his helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggo44forlife Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I would like to have Porter because he is a mountaineer but I think Williams has alot more upside. And I agree that we would have way to much cash in wideouts if we took both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Oldskool Granted that FA hasnt even started but "insiders" have leaked that we looking for replacements for Gardner not Coles. That means that possession receiver is the position that is in need. Again, only the staff and trainers know how Coles' toe is. There is no guessing going on here. They know. The intent isn't to replace Coles. The idea is to have someone opposite him who can also go deep and a young WR that can catch everything. Three great wrs for Gibbs to use. He doesn't want to get embarrased again, so I believe he's going to make this offense beast again. And a system is only as good as the players making it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Hooper There are better, cheaper, safer options than Porter. At least there will be June 1st. When you have cap problems and major needs elsewhere, you don't blow all your money on a guy who may not be that better than 50/50. We always have "cap problems", Hooper. The major needs are C, DE, and WR. Wow, that's a lot. We could draft all three if we wanted too. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Renegade7 The intent isn't to replace Coles. The idea is to have someone opposite him who can also go deep and a young WR that can catch everything. Three great wrs for Gibbs to use. He doesn't want to get embarrased again, so I believe he's going to make this offense beast again. And a system is only as good as the players making it go. How often does Gibbs use more than 2 WR sets? Unless its 3rd and long, its not often. Remember that max protect means keeping at least 1 player back to block. In this system you have 1 posession receiver and 1 stretch-the-field receiver out there at a time, with a tweener (such as Thrash) out there on occasion. We dont need more Coles/Jacobs types of receivers on this team, no matter what you may believe. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Oldskool How often does Gibbs use more than 2 WR sets? Unless its 3rd and long, its not often. Remember that max protect means keeping at least 1 player back to block. In this system you have 1 posession receiver and 1 stretch-the-field receiver out there at a time, with a tweener (such as Thrash) out there on occasion. We dont need more Coles/Jacobs types of receivers on this team, no matter what you may believe. :doh: My bet is he did it more often when it worked. Maybe around the time he had the posse or set the record for points scored in a season. I could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Renegade7 My bet is he did it more often when it worked. Maybe around the time he had the posse or set the record for points scored in a season. I could be wrong though. With an H-back, versitile RB and 2 competend WR on a run first offense, you dont need to spread it out. The 91 team that we had worked off of play action passing, not chuck-it-up-Martz-style football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Oldskool With an H-back, versitile RB and 2 competend WR on a run first offense, you dont need to spread it out. The 91 team that we had worked off of play action passing, not chuck-it-up-Martz-style football. So we can't have a mix of the two, huh? We can't run the ball and be able to chuck it around as well or if need be? I believe Gibbs is going to change a bit with his overall style of offense. This a leauge set up for the passing game and he should try to take advantage of it. We'll see though. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfujskins Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Renegade7 It's not like we didn't go deep though. The times we did, well, he didn't look anything like he did under Spurrier. He's not the same deep threat he used to be. A helluva WR, but not the deep guy anymore. That toe has to get better, and I don't want to gamble on it. Did you see how much better Coles' looked the last few games when he was getting those shots from the doctor? It's a different offense from SOS's so of course he is not going to look the same (in the sense of his production). Hell, Ramsey doesn't even look the same. Poor guy only brought his completion percentage up by like 10%. And anyways, I don't see what's up with all the belief that his injury to his toe greatly affects his ability to run down the field. The toe affects his CUTTING ABILITY. He is still a burner downfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 "A young WR that can catch everything." I'm sorry, Renegade, but that ain't Porter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Im so tired of this "possession receiver" garbage. Calling Gardner a "possession receiver" is just a nice way of saying he is slow. Porter is the same height as Gardner and outweighs him AND is faster. And he can't POSSIBLY drop as many balls. The offense could not score points last year. We had one of the best defenses in the league last year WITHOUT arguably its best player and injuries to like 5 other key starters. Why are we going to spend money and draft picks there? The offense is what needs attention, specifically a C and a WR OR TWO! Get Porter in FA, get Williams in the first, a solid C will be around in the 3rd. Coles, Williams, Porter------undefendable. Not to mention Portis and Cooley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I think we should first sign david givens then draft mike williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by brandies I would prefer to spend money on a good center and a decent OL instead of signing porter, then drafting Williams. Then trade the rest of our Draft choices to trade up and get a good DE. I agree somewhat. I would take a lower level gut like Givens from the Pats and draft Williams or Edwards. I would also get a good center in FA as a very high priority, and draft a DE in the second or third round, depending on whether there is anyone the coaches feel is worth trading up to round 2 for. Blocking TE is also a concern, but that can be addressed in FA pretty easily I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkaD Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 When do you think Williams will be taken? I bet he's one of the first 5 WR's taken, but some have him going in the 2nd or 3rd round. I doubt it, that high in the draft. Porter would be a great addition if Oakland lets him go. I like either him or David Givens for free agents. We definitely need to add at least one proven wide-out. We'll see what Gibbs wants to do, but I bet he goes with proven players at WR. Lates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I love it! I definately think we will get a FA WR and draft a WR also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkaD Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I hope Williams is around by the time we pick in the 1st round. That guy has great size and speed. He's got great hands too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffSchmeff Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 People seem to forget that we have a gamebreaking RB in Clinton Portis. If the offensive line had played up to par, the WR corps would have produced much more. Don't tout CP's numbers as an argument; look at his averages. That said, our passing game will succeed when and if we can effectively establish the running game. Everyone knows that Gardner is gone. The question is, how do we replace him? I know that Taylor hasn't had a lot of chances, but he has much much more upside than Jerry Porter, and he's locked into a contract. If you want reliability, why not take a chance on a guy like Derrick Mason, who's likely to be a cap cut, then draft Williams if he's there? I've been the biggest "Draft DE" guy here, but if there isn't someone of value available when we pick, why reach? I think the offense can still be successful with the parts it has now. The oline will surely be revamped in the offseason, which will in turn improve our ability to rush the ball. If we pick up one part at WR that can help us, the ability to set up the pass with the run will be there. Gibbs didn't exclusively run 2WR sets in his last tenure here; he had 3 WRs in at least one season here with 1000 yards apiece. He'll figure it out. [/drunken rambling post] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalRaider Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Art Take this for what it's worth, but, there have been reputable whispers that have come to my attention that indicate the team has ZERO interest in Jerry Porter. Rumor has it that as the team prepares to look over free agent video packages of various players, the coaching staff did not want anything with Porter put together. If this is true, it would be a solid indication Porter is not in the offseason plans. You guys want nothing to do with Leon Porter. Take this from a Raider fan that had to endure 16 games of this garbage this year... but Leon wasn't even the best WR on the team. It was Ron Curry... by a mile. I can't wait to see the jackass GM that spends franchise WR money on a career #2. Leon = Peerless Price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by Renegade7 Hmmm.. given we're getting rid of two WRs (gardner and McCants), how would ya'll feel about signing Jerry Porter AND drafting Mike Williams. That's a lot of potential mismatches and weapons at Ramsey's disposal for the passing game. And we don't know for sure that Coles will ever be, well, Coles again. Just a thought. I think we should sign Edge and Shuan Alexander too:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by SoCalRaider You guys want nothing to do with Leon Porter. Take this from a Raider fan that had to endure 16 games of this garbage this year... but Leon wasn't even the best WR on the team. It was Ron Curry... by a mile. I can't wait to see the jackass GM that spends franchise WR money on a career #2. Leon = Peerless Price Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. Porter is nothing more than an underachiever his entire career. 3 years ago in the playoffs against N.E. They were waiting for him to breakout and take over for Brown and Rice. Guess what. They're still waiting. He's inconsistent. Sound famaliar? He's often injured. Do we need that, especially with a team like ours that relies on ball control, as if we need it at all? He comes up with a big game once every three games and dissappears the rest of the time. Rod Gardner? Listen folks, the only way we would go after Porter is if we had a WR who put the fear of God opposite him to take the pressure off. We don't. We have a better WR in Rod Gardner. Look at the numbers. He's also not as injury prone. No we do not want Porter. We are supposed to be upgrading here folks. I don't like Plaxico, because he has near Gardner production. But I'd take him over Porter any day. The fact is that the WR's in the FA pool this year aren't that great. They aren't as good as people make them out to be. You have the following relatively big names available either via trade or by FA signing: Rod Gardner Plaxico Burress Joey Porter David Givens Randy Moss Am I missing someone? The first three are all inconsistent WR's. Burress and Gardner are the only ones who have proven themselves to be SOMEWHAT reliable. It goes like this. Burress>Gardner>Porter. We need a consistent reciever people and I'm sorry to say that unless it's Givens(Haven't seen much of him) or Burress(Doubt it, people in Pitt say he's overrated and inconsistent.) that WR isn't in the FA pool. Our best bet is WR by draft and letting Taylor Jacobs and Thrash compete for the 2/3 spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 i agree that we should avoid the FA wide receivers as well, but i dont think anyone can put porter behind gardner. The rest of the teams certainly wont be, we'll be lucky to get a 3rd round pick for gardner, and porter will be signing a huge contract somewhere in a few weeks. There will be much more demand for him than there is for gardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Porter sucks we need to draft Williams let Taylor and Thrash play more. FA money on the def and off lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.