Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

Potentially we have quite an impressive array of wideouts, in terms of production the grade of C is generous. We were last in plays of 40+ yards last year and near the bottom in plays of 20+ yards. To change that we went out and got some more speed at wideout, which will hopefully result in more big plays. I like our guys, I've been a Taylor Jacobs fan since draft day 3 yrs ago, and hopefully they play at higher than a C level.

I think the success of our offense will rest on the offensive line.

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=memphisskin]Potentially we have quite an impressive array of wideouts, in terms of production the grade of C is generous. We were last in plays of 40+ yards last year and near the bottom in plays of 20+ yards. To change that we went out and got some more speed at wideout, which will hopefully result in more big plays. I like our guys, I've been a Taylor Jacobs fan since draft day 3 yrs ago, and hopefully they play at higher than a C level.

I think the success of our offense will rest on the offensive line.[/QUOTE]
40 yard plays..... i thought those were only in fairytales. i have forgotten how they look:(

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Brown could be a great sleeper, defenses will have to respect his speed. Even if we just toss him in there and let him run nothing but deep routes, he'll have to be accounted for.[/QUOTE]


Couldn't agree more, Brown has scary speed, how much of an opportunity he get's remains to be seen, but we do know that Gibbs really likes the kid.

The one very encouraging thing coming out of redskins park that we may very well be able to hang our hat's on is this, we keep hearing the word SEPERATION, especially from Ramsey, which leads me to believe that wasen't there last season, which makes me very leary of how effective Coles really was? Perhap's that is part the reason Gibbs was pushing Coles to have the toe surgery? It could very well be that Coles just didn't have the elite quickness and speed that Gibbs knew he needed to make the passing game work? Well that is a thing of the past we defiently have elite speed as it stands, the fact that Coles couldn't seperate, coupled with the fact that Gardner wasen't going to either, could point to a lot of our offensive woe's last season, we shall see.

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

I loved LC but that's why I didnt mind seeing him go. He could still make guys miss, but as far as route running and making cuts, he was hindered. Also we threw to him like 140 times and he only had 90 catches, thats not very good...even with #8 throwing it to ya.

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

We can't be any worse then we where last year. :vomit-smi I just wish we had at least one WR over 6 ft. :embarrass I guess this is the new version of the "Smurfs". I just hope they can play as well as the first version did.
But we should be a lot better then last year.


:httr:

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=dirtbag2112]I loved LC but that's why I didnt mind seeing him go. He could still make guys miss, but as far as route running and making cuts, he was hindered. Also we threw to him like 140 times and he only had 90 catches, thats not very good...even with #8 throwing it to ya.[/QUOTE]I don't know if you can call #8 passes an actual throw. They were more like a pitch a lob or to put it better I think our long snapper could hike the ball further between his legs than Brunell could throw the ball. LOL

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

At least we have McCants and Dyson...

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

I think we have a lot of weapons at wideout, Coles and Gardner were more like scuds last year. Now a lot of that had to do with our offensive line play, deep routes had to be scrapped because there was no time and it took our qbs 12 weeks before either of them hit anything that even resembled a rhythm. Coles hasn't been right since injuring his toe two years ago, and 50/50 is well 50/50. There are still a lot of ifs, "if Taylor Jacobs can stay healthy, if Moss can handle the #1 receiver spot, if Ramsey can consistently play with poise and patience..."

Seems to me that we'll definitely have some defined roles for these guys, McCants did a good job in red zone situations under Spurrier so I don't see why he can't do the same under Gibbs. I don't think the Smurfs or the Fun Bunch had too much size but they were both successful groups of receivers. Hopefully Ramsey can get these guys the ball. :dallas:

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

we now have the rb and receiver corps that spurrier always wanted...

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=Riggo44]We can't be any worse then we where last year. :vomit-smi I just wish we had at least one WR over 6 ft. :embarrass I guess this is the new version of the "Smurfs". I just hope they can play as well as the first version did.
But we should be a lot better then last year.


:httr:[/QUOTE]
McCants and Dyson are both over 6'. But yeah, it is like the "New Smurfs".....but remember that with the originals, Monk was there as the big tall WR to offset them, so I'd expect either DMac or Dyson to stick around in that role (hopefully McCants!)

And yes,we should be a lot better than last year!

:httr:

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]Meh. I would say with how unproven we are, that would be a fairly accurate assessment.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, but what I didnt add was that if you look they gave the Lions an A- and they even said that this grade was based only on potential. That is crazy to me, yes the Lions have an awsome wr stable,but they are more unproven than our wide outs...

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]I agree with you, but what I didnt add was that if you look they gave the Lions an A- and they even said that this grade was based only on potential. That is crazy to me, yes the Lions have an awsome wr stable,but they are more unproven than our wide outs...[/QUOTE]

But the Lions' wideouts potential is much more likely and credible than ours. Any one of the Lions' three wideouts has the potential to become hall-of-famers. That's more than can be said for Patten and Moss (not to knock them).

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]I agree with you, but what I didnt add was that if you look they gave the Lions an A- and they even said that this grade was based only on potential. That is crazy to me, yes the Lions have an awsome wr stable,but they are more unproven than our wide outs...[/QUOTE]

True. Typically I only check people in our division. But good observation...

Re: Unit Analysis: Wide Receivers
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]But the Lions' wideouts potential is much more likely and credible than ours. Any one of the Lions' three wideouts has the potential to become hall-of-famers. That's more than can be said for Patten and Moss (not to knock them).[/QUOTE]
You are right they have the more potential than Patten or Moss to be HOF'ers but I dont see them developing into that type of receiver this season...