Grumpy Vet Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 With this post - I'm officially going to Hell. Who can cover our 4 wide set all you WR corps haters??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Generation Die Hard Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by mookie0720 I will sleep on James Thrash at WR. Moss, Gardner, Jacobs, Patten, McCants is all that should see the field on offense next year. Thrash is awesome at what he does, and that's play special teams. I don't think he's nearly the recieving threat of any of those other 5. Maybe 5 years ago, but not now. He may notbe the threathe was but he adds to the depth the theme of this thread:dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by 3rd Generation Die Hard :dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck At least we know you're on our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins3000 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Spreading the field with 4 wides happens all the time in the NFL. Many teams run four wides with an empty back field most noteable is a west coast offense. If anybody thinks that 92 offense will work in 2005 they obviously did not watch any Skins games in 2004. Musgrave was brought in for a reason and it is not to resurrect Brunell. The individual who made this post is correct on a mismatch because a team has to bring in their dime package to cover the wr package because a lb will be toast on a wr. Usually in the dime the weaker dbs are on the field but who is to say our receiving core is not weak also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Generation Die Hard Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Skins3000 Spreading the field with 4 wides happens all the time in the NFL. Many teams run four wides with an empty back field most noteable is a west coast offense. If anybody thinks that 92 offense will work in 2005 they obviously did not watch any Skins games in 2004. Musgrave was brought in for a reason and it is not to resurrect Brunell. The individual who made this post is correct on a mismatch because a team has to bring in their dime package to cover the wr package because a lb will be toast on a wr. Usually in the dime the weaker dbs are on the field but who is to say our receiving core is not weak also. Excellent Post :point2sky That brings the official count to 2 people who understand my thoughts on our WR corps depth. I believe there is a nice happy medium inbetween Gibbs 92' Playbook and Musgrave's Y2K+ Playbook. The counter trey mixed with the west coast offense sounds like a good thought. :geek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Skins3000 Usually in the dime the weaker dbs are on the field but who is to say our receiving core is not weak also. That's the point. Sure, we'll see a mismatch sometimes, especially with Gibbs's penchant for formation shifts and motion, but I'm not sold on our depth being so amazing that our slot receivers can't be covered by nickle and dime corners, or safeties as the case may be. Splitting players out wide also reduces the protection. Teams run four wide frequently, but not every down. Ramsey, although I like him and believe he can be our franchise quarterback, is not the quickest decision maker right now. We need to balance more receiving options with giving him adequate protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpark Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by dfitzo53 That's the point. Sure, we'll see a mismatch sometimes, especially with Gibbs's penchant for formation shifts and motion, but I'm not sold on our depth being so amazing that our slot receivers can't be covered by nickle and dime corners, or safeties as the case may be. Speaking of motion...I really hope the delay of games don't dissuade Gibbs from continuing to use motion. Maybe he needs to use less motion, or speed up the process somehow. But I really like the motion and all of the flexibility it provides out of just one or a few formations. As far as the WRs are concerned...you won't find me arguing that we have a great WR corp. You also won't find me bashing them. I think they can perform. If we have even a slightly threatening passing game and can hook up on a few big ones, our running game will benefit tremendously. Thats what our passing game needs to be about...keeping the D from stacking the box. I see no reason why we cant do that and more with the current WR corp. I expect Cooley to have a larger role as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Grumpy Vet With this post - I'm officially going to Hell. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.