Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

Was going to mention that Matty.. you can't defend the bashing of this thread either.

We are last, we as fans really don't have any idea as to what this O is going to look like and how these players fit. On paper we look terrible at WR. We could get a few surprises with Armstrong and DT coming on strong to compliment SM then we have something to talk about. Galloway will be alright in this short stuff. Who knows... I just know the old guys do scare me, the guy who is out of the IFL is a big ?, small rookie man who has a fumbling problem, and MR Michigan State has had 1 good game in 2 years.

So there is reason for concern. BUT me being the optimist that I am will hope for some good play out of all those question marks up top!

If we are to rank them:

1. Dallas
2. Philly (very close behind Dallas)
3. Giants
4. Redskins

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;729401]The fact that Joey Galloway is starting on this team is horrific. We need Devin Thomas to play out of his mind this year.[/quote]

Honestly I've given up on Devin Thomas and moved on to Anthony Armstrong. Devin Thomas is just a nice special teams player at this point. Heck I'm more excited about Banks as a reciever then I am Thomas, in spite of my instance that returners focus on returning kicks and punts.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

You gotta wonder why Thomas can't succeed. Guy is a physical freak, supremely athletic, and from Mich St!

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=The Goat;729485]You gotta wonder why Thomas can't succeed. Guy is a physical freak, supremely athletic, and from Mich St![/quote]

Mich St isn't a good contributor to good NFL talent. Lorenzo White was the last Spartan that truly excelled in the NFL. It seems MSU QBs are relegated to being Lions backups, etc.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=The Goat;729485]You gotta wonder why Thomas can't succeed. Guy is a physical freak, supremely athletic, and from Mich St![/quote]

At receiver being a physical freak is nice. However without route running, hands, and the ability to read coverage it's practically useless. The reason physical freaks go so early in the draft is because all the attributes listed that are essential to being a successful receiver in the NFL are considered teachable.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;729490]At receiver being a physical freak is nice. However without route running, hands, and the ability to read coverage it's practically useless. The reason physical freaks go so early in the draft is because all the attributes listed that are essential to being a successful receiver in the NFL are considered teachable.[/quote]

There you have it folks...Devin Thomas is unteachable. Who knew?! We should sue Mich St for giving him passing grades :D

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

I cant think of any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=bigm29;729495]I cant think of any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.[/quote]

Thats why you use one as a wideout and the other as a traditional Tight End.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

Well,at least Santana Moss feels the same way...
[url=http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=331815]Santana Moss: "This receving corps is an upgrade from anything I've had here" - EXTREMESKINS.com[/url]

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;728999]Last year Galloway had Tom Brady. And Welker was hurt. Still Galloway could not get on the field and produce. 'Nuff said.[/quote]

So you pick one off yea and us that as the example. How about looking back at just about every year McNabb has played and look at the production he could get ot of WR's like Thrash. Then just look back at every other year Brady has played. If you don't think WR's need a good QB then your probably the only one.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=aceinthehouse;729501]Well,at least Santana Moss feels the same way...
[url=http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=331815]Santana Moss: "This receving corps is an upgrade from anything I've had here" - EXTREMESKINS.com[/url][/quote]

This time last year Cooley was singing JZ's praises (and I was buying it :benched:) When it comes to player speak, just show it on the field. The rest is just PR bs

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;729572]This time last year Cooley was singing JZ's praises (and I was buying it :benched:) When it comes to player speak, just show it on the field. The rest is just PR bs[/quote]


Exactly, the PR MS honeymoon is over now. Now it is show me the money time.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

One of the things you'll see this season is 2 TE sets, where either Davis or Cooley end up in motion to the slot to create mismatches. There aren't too many LBs in the league that can cover those 2, and if you bring a safety up, that'll leave an area open for McNabb to pick apart.

That aside, the only proven entity that the Skins line up at WR is Moss, and he's a 2 or 3 at best on other squads. Guys like Armstrong and Thomas needs to step it up so Moss can see action out of the slot. If either one of those 2 struggle, it'll be a long season. I don't see Galloway lasting the season, and unless Shanny knows something about Roydell Williams that the rest of us don't, McNabb will be throwing a lot of dink and dunks to Portis and Johnson out of the backfield.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

All 6 of our receivers have one thing going for them that no one has touched on yet - they are not Albert Haynesworth. I think many of you completely underestimate the value of players not named Albert Haynesworth. In fact, I just had my fantasy draft this past weekend and in the later rounds, I drafted several players simply because they weren't named Haynesworth. I think that alone will help me win my league this year. If not, its good for atleast 10 points per game per player... I'm just assuming that at around 90 points a game I wouldnt have for each position where I did not draft Albert Haynesworth. Thats got to equal a win, right?

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Mattyk;729418]We're clearly last in the division. Look up what Philly did last year with Jackson, Maclin, and Avant. Our group isn't even close right now.[/quote]

I can't really argue that. They probably are better. They did have a QB though who makes lots of plays and had a decent OL. Jackson is very good, w/ Maclin and Avant coming around. McNabb made all of them better.

This will be an interesting year to see how Moss stacks up w/ Jackson though. Moss could have a great year. Jackson is special though.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=firstdown;729558]So you pick one off yea and us that as the example. How about looking back at just about every year McNabb has played and look at the production he could get ot of WR's like Thrash. Then just look back at every other year Brady has played. If you don't think WR's need a good QB then your probably the only one.[/quote]

Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

Galloway has an impressive resume in this league. I wouldn't let the last 2 years tarnish that. He was simply a bad fit in NE's system. He could really surprise us this year.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;729645]Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.[/quote]


We will just have to see. There are 32 other teams that have a Galloway on their team. He just happens to be a WR but on other teams its QB's, CB's, OL, DL, etc... that are older but the coaches believe they have another productive season or two left in them.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;729627]All 6 of our receivers have one thing going for them that no one has touched on yet - they are not Albert Haynesworth. I think many of you completely underestimate the value of players not named Albert Haynesworth. In fact, I just had my fantasy draft this past weekend and in the later rounds, I drafted several players simply because they weren't named Haynesworth. I think that alone will help me win my league this year. If not, its good for atleast 10 points per game per player... I'm just assuming that at around 90 points a game I wouldnt have for each position where I did not draft Albert Haynesworth. Thats got to equal a win, right?[/quote]

That should have been pretty easy sense there are about 1,000 players to pick from not named AH.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

I think its either 1 of 2 things

1) the FO/coaching staff has no clue how to evaluate WRs and our receiving corps is in fact woefully inadequate
or
2) the WRs are good enough to effectively run [I]our[/I] scheme

I'll go with 2

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=bigm29;729495]I cant think of [B]any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success[/B]. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.[/quote]

The Bears and the Colts come to mind. Of course it depends what you consider significant impact. In my book there are only a handful of players in the NFL warrant the distinction of "Significant Impact."

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Mattyk;729653]Galloway has an impressive resume in this league. I wouldn't let the last 2 years tarnish that. He was simply a bad fit in NE's system. He could really surprise us this year.[/quote]


I'm killing it with him on Madden 11...that has to be taken into factor. Crowd the line and bam, audible to a Galloway streak ...TD.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=bigm29;729495]I cant think of any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.[/quote]

Because its very rare to have 2 top tier TEs.
And i guess it depends on how you define sigificant impact.
Because if there are 2 TEs they don't put up equally big numbers.
Therefore the impact isn't apparent just glancing at stats.
The impact is felt in the favorable match-ups they create.

[url=http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billick-101-2-te-formation/12mgonit]Billick 101: 2 TE Formation - Bing Videos[/url]

[url=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d80d08a60/Playbook-Brian-Billick-on-tight-ends]NFL Videos: Week 14 Playbook: Brian Billick on tight ends[/url]

Off the top of my head recent teams?

Packers- Lee/Finley
Bears- Olsen/Clark
Lions- Pettigrew/Heller/Fitzsimmons

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

The Cooley-McNabb connection
11:16
AM ET
Chris Cooley | Redskins
TopEmail

This season, the Washington Redskins may run a lot of plays out of formations where both Chris Cooley and Fred Davis are on the field, per Rick Maese of the Washington Post. This double-TE strategy is based primarily on two things: the talent level of Cooley and Davis, and the lack of options at wide receiver behind Santana Moss.

In addition, Cooley thinks that McNabb is the type of QB to trust his arm to get the ball into tight spots than his predecessor Jason Campbell. "I expect to get more balls thrown to me with Donovan and more opportunity in coverage when I don't expect passes than with Jason," Cooley said.

Another benefit of using two TEs is making use of them as extra blockers in the running game. Although the Redskins made improving the offensive line a major priority this offseason -- drafting Trent Williams, trading for Jammal Brown and signing Artis Hicks -- it's still a work in progress. Having an extra body out there to control the edge will be vital.

- Tim Kavanagh

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;729844]The Cooley-McNabb connection
11:16
AM ET
Chris Cooley | Redskins
TopEmail

This season, the Washington Redskins may run a lot of plays out of formations where both Chris Cooley and Fred Davis are on the field, per Rick Maese of the Washington Post. This double-TE strategy is based primarily on two things: the talent level of Cooley and Davis, and the lack of options at wide receiver behind Santana Moss.

In addition, Cooley thinks that McNabb is the type of QB to trust his arm to get the ball into tight spots than his predecessor Jason Campbell. [B]"I expect to get more balls thrown to me with Donovan and more opportunity in coverage when I don't expect passes than with Jason," Cooley said.[/B]

Another benefit of using two TEs is making use of them as extra blockers in the running game. Although the Redskins made improving the offensive line a major priority this offseason -- drafting Trent Williams, trading for Jammal Brown and signing Artis Hicks -- it's still a work in progress. Having an extra body out there to control the edge will be vital.

- Tim Kavanagh[/quote]

Ouch.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729794]Because its very rare to have 2 top tier TEs.
And i guess it depends on how you define sigificant impact.
Because if there are 2 TEs they don't put up equally big numbers.
Therefore the impact isn't apparent just glancing at stats.
The impact is felt in the favorable match-ups they create.

[url=http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billick-101-2-te-formation/12mgonit]Billick 101: 2 TE Formation - Bing Videos[/url]

[url=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d80d08a60/Playbook-Brian-Billick-on-tight-ends]NFL Videos: Week 14 Playbook: Brian Billick on tight ends[/url]

Off the top of my head recent teams?

Packers- Lee/Finley
Bears- Olsen/Clark
Lions- Pettigrew/Heller/Fitzsimmons[/quote]

The Pats may have that Gronkowski kid and the other TE to send out against defenses along with Welker and Moss.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;729645]Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.[/quote]

Galloway's job here is to simply make defenders respect the side of the field opposite Moss. I'm not sure what the #3 is supposed to do in NE. Also, why did Belichick decide to gamble with Galloway in the first place when he could've cut him at the end of the preseason? The answer is obvious, his athleticism and other skills are still there, although obviously not "perfectly" preserved.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

^^^^^^^
[quote=Lotus;729645]Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.[/quote]

I did a lil research:

[B][COLOR="Olive"]
Galloway struggled with the offensive system and was inactive the last three games after catching just seven passes in the first three.

"He's had a great career and this is one of those things that just didn't work out," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "I don't think it's anybody's fault or anything that you just pinpoint."[/COLOR][/B]
Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain
ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss says the Patriots admitted a mistake in cutting Joey Galloway on Tuesday. Story
•Reiss' blog | Questions for mailbag
•ESPNBoston.com

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4579557]Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston[/url]
-Me:
I'n not sure when he got to Pats training camp but from my research it seem like it was just a bad fit not a matter of lack of ability.
It seemed like with Moss, Welker and the other weapons he was the odd man out after all there are only so many targets.

But, although i'm a bit skeptical myself, i think he's here as more of a mentor then anything else, he'll certainly have more opportunities here then in New England.

By all acccounts he's looked good in training camp.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729893][B][COLOR="Olive"]
Galloway struggled with the offensive system and was inactive the last three games after catching just seven passes in the first three.

"He's had a great career and this is one of those things that just didn't work out," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "I don't think it's anybody's fault or anything that you just pinpoint."[/COLOR][/B]
Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain
ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss says the Patriots admitted a mistake in cutting Joey Galloway on Tuesday. Story
•Reiss' blog | Questions for mailbag
•ESPNBoston.com

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4579557]Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston[/url]

I'n not sure when he got to Pats training camp but from my research it seem like it was just a bad fit not a matter of lack of ability.
It seemed like with Moss, Welker and the other weapons he was the odd man out after all there are only so many targets.

But, although i'm a bit skeptical myself, i think he's here as more of a mentor then anything else, he'll certainly have more opportunities here then in New England.

By all acccounts he's looked good in training camp.[/quote]

Well this is going to reek of homerism but lets try and spin this. When Josh McDaniels brought his system to Denver Eddie Royal had a huge drop off. Galloway was successful though in Grudens system which is somewhat similar to Shanahans.

Anyway what are we looking for? Two 1,000+ yard guys. Moss will get at least 1,100 yards. Cooley will get 800. Armstrong or someone else will get as few as 500 and as much as 700. Fred Davis will get around 300 or 400 yards.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729893]^^^^^^^


I did a lil research:

[B][COLOR="Olive"]
Galloway struggled with the offensive system and was inactive the last three games after catching just seven passes in the first three.

"He's had a great career and this is one of those things that just didn't work out," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "I don't think it's anybody's fault or anything that you just pinpoint."[/COLOR][/B]
Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain
ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss says the Patriots admitted a mistake in cutting Joey Galloway on Tuesday. Story
•Reiss' blog | Questions for mailbag
•ESPNBoston.com

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4579557]Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston[/url]
-Me:
I'n not sure when he got to Pats training camp but from my research it seem like it was just a bad fit not a matter of lack of ability.
It seemed like with Moss, [B]Welker [/B]and the other weapons he was the odd man out after all there are only so many targets.

But, although i'm a bit skeptical myself, i think [B]he's here as more of a mentor then anything else[/B], he'll certainly have more opportunities here then in New England.

By all acccounts he's looked good in training camp.[/quote]

I appreciate the homework. But Welker was hurt last year, giving Galloway a time to shine. He didn't. Nor did he during his last year in Tampa.

Also, if he were only a mentor, he would be there for emergencies and otherwise be talking up people on the sideline. Instead, in the preseason, he was on the field a good amount in first quarters of games. Maybe things will change during the regular season (Armstrong and/or Thomas step up), but the formula remains: the more time Galloway spends on the field, the more our WR crew looks like a train wreck.

Thank goodness for Cooley and Davis.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;729894]Well this is going to reek of homerism but lets try and spin this. When Josh McDaniels brought his system to Denver Eddie Royal had a huge drop off. Galloway was successful though in Grudens system which is somewhat similar to Shanahans.

Anyway what are we looking for? Two 1,000+ yard guys. Moss will get at least 1,100 yards. Cooley will get 800. Armstrong or someone else will get as few as 500 and as much as 700. Fred Davis will get around 300 or 400 yards.[/quote]

I'm not sure i'm willing to spin it that far positive on Galloway.
But here's my prediction for the receivers based on McNabb throwing for 3,825 yards (i have it over in extremeskins but there cite is down so this is from memory so there might be errors)

Moss-80+ catches 1250 yard
Cooley+Davis-117 catches 1100 yards
Armstrong-46 catches 725
Devin Thomas+Galloway+Roydell Williams-40 575 yards
or
Armstrong/Devin/Galloway/Williams-86 catches for 1300 yards
The RBs-23-230 yards

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

Honestly, I have faith in McNabb and Shanahan. Shanahan has orchestrated some great offenses in his day, and while we won't rival the Colts, he can make us respectable. McNabb is a top tier QB, and he will elevate the play of everyone around him with some time. Moss had an 84 catch, 1483 yard season with BRUNELL throwing him the ball. I think we can all safely agree McNabb is MUCH better than Brunell. Also, Moss has had 149 catches over the past two years, unfortunately they weren't for many yards since Campbell liked to throw the ball in the first row than down field. He liked his over the middle patterns. Of course, I know Moss accomplished his 84 catch feat 5 years ago, but he's a VERY talented wr. He just needs a good QB to pull it out of him.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

I think many Redskins fans are going to be shocked when they watch the offense function like a proper and dangerous unit this year.

There will be ups and downs, but it is going to be a sight many faithful fans are not familiar with.

Quite honestly the Redskins offense has been dangerous for maybe 1 1/2 seasons out of the last ten.

It has been just awful to watch and I think some people don't even remember what it's like to be able to make the opposing defense run around in circles looking like a bunch of idiots.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;729900]I appreciate the homework. But Welker was hurt last year, giving Galloway a time to shine. He didn't. Nor did he during his last year in Tampa.[/quote]

So basicly thanks for the research but you're going to ignore it?
Just for the sake of accuracy Wes Welker was injured long after Galloway was released.
And the reps would have and did go to their young developmental receivers Julian Edleman or Aiken anyway.
Bellichik admitted that it was a mistake bringing Galloway in not because he couldn't play but because he wasn't needed (inactive for 3 games prior to his release).

Look it, i have my doubts about Galloway as well, but to say that he didn't get the job done in New England after Welker went down simply isn't accurate.

[quote]Also, if he were only a mentor, he would be there for emergencies and otherwise be talking up people on the sideline. Instead, in the preseason, he was on the field a good amount in first quarters of games. Maybe things will change during the regular season (Armstrong and/or Thomas step up), but the formula remains: the more time Galloway spends on the field, the more our WR crew looks like a train wreck.[/quote]

I didn't know that being a mentor came with set parameters, lol.
I don't recall seeing Galloway on the field that much during preseason, in fact i would say he was on the field less then any other WR.
(But when he was on the field he was getting open)
I still don't see how this receiving corps can be considered a train wreck with or without Galloway.

HTTR!

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;729627]All 6 of our receivers have one thing going for them that no one has touched on yet - they are not Albert Haynesworth. I think many of you completely underestimate the value of players not named Albert Haynesworth. In fact, I just had my fantasy draft this past weekend and in the later rounds, I drafted several players simply because they weren't named Haynesworth. I think that alone will help me win my league this year. If not, its good for atleast 10 points per game per player... I'm just assuming that at around 90 points a game I wouldnt have for each position where I did not draft Albert Haynesworth. Thats got to equal a win, right?[/quote]

You will be dominant on 4th and 1

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=wilsowilso;729911]I think many Redskins fans are going to be shocked when they watch the offense function like a proper and dangerous unit this year.

There will be ups and downs, but it is going to be a sight many faithful fans are not familiar with.

Quite honestly the Redskins offense has been dangerous for maybe 1 1/2 seasons out of the last ten.

It has been just awful to watch and I think some people don't even remember what it's like to be able to make the opposing defense run around in circles looking like a bunch of idiots.[/quote]

That is probalby accurate. 2005 was a good offense and 2007 when Collins ran it. Spurrier had a flash here and there but you are right, we haven't had a great offense since Norv.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729919]So basicly thanks for the research but you're going to ignore it?
Just for the sake of accuracy Wes Welker was injured long after Galloway was released.
And the reps would have and did go to their young developmental receivers Julian Edleman or Aiken anyway.
Bellichik admitted that it was a mistake bringing Galloway in not because he couldn't play but because he wasn't needed (inactive for 3 games prior to his release).

Look it, i have my doubts about Galloway as well, but to say that he didn't get the job done in New England after Welker went down simply isn't accurate.



I didn't know that being a mentor came with set parameters, lol.
I don't recall seeing Galloway on the field that much during preseason, in fact i would say he was on the field less then any other WR.
(But when he was on the field he was getting open)
I still don't see how this receiving corps can be considered a train wreck with or without Galloway.

HTTR![/quote]

I didn't ignore your research, I just was looking at facts a different way.

Your point about Galloway's being released before Welker was injured is a good one. Thank you for that.

Still, the Galloway that I saw in the preseason was not getting open much. I remain skeptical.

But we'll see soon enough. And, needless to say, I don't WANT us to have a train wreck for a WR corps. I want us to kick some ass. Maybe a light will come on for DT or Armstrong will be that receiver who comes out of nowhere to take the league by storm.

HTTR!

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;729972]Still, the Galloway that I saw in the preseason was not getting open much. I remain skeptical.

But we'll see soon enough. And, needless to say, I don't WANT us to have a train wreck for a WR corps. I want us to kick some ass. Maybe a light will come on for DT or Armstrong will be that receiver who comes out of nowhere to take the league by storm.
HTTR![/quote]

Like i said i'm skeptical about Galloway myself and view him as mentor more then an integral part of the passing game. But, i'm not ready to count him out, if he's healhty and knows the system were talking about a guy that who's career YPC is higher then some guys single season career high.

I would bank on Anthony Armstrong emerging as the No.2 WR option.

Here's some interesting quotes from Kyle that give us a hint towards who will be the No.2 WR at least for this Sunday:

[quote=Kyle Shanahan says]coaches haven't yet decided whether Galloway starts opposite of Santana Moss on Sunday[/quote]
[url=http://twitter.com/RICKMAESE]Rick Maese (RickMaese) on Twitter[/url]

[quote=kyle shanahan on Devin Thomas]He's not slated to do a whole lot for us [Sunday] because of the group ahead of him." [/quote]
[url=http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/9/8/1676881/devin-thomas-redskins-wide-receiver-depth-chart-cowboys]Devin Thomas: Not Really In The Redskins' Plans On Sunday - Half Smokes - SB Nation DC[/url]

But, it could just be coachspeak

HTTR!

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

I'm late coming to this party. I will apologize right now especially if a lot of what I'm saying has been said, but skimming through the first few posts I felt I needed to comment.

I like everyone else knows we have two awsome TE's. However it remains to be seen how they will be used in MS's offense. I've heard people saying we need a two TE package. Some would argue that there has been two TE packages but usually one stays back to block and the other goes out on a passing route. It will be interesting to see how MS uses two pass catching TE's on the same play.... thats if he even utilizes it. But keep in mind OL protection will be an issue.

My next issue is in regards to the TE's as well ... sorta, when all we had was Moss as a decent WR opposing teams doubled up on him and stacked their DL. It made it dificult for us to run the ball, forced the QB to get rid of the ball early, and took Moss out of every play. ARE and Thomas were not getting the job done. In our present situation will Davis and Cooley see the field at the same time? Will Armstrong step up? Does Galloway still have gas in his tank? Will Banks survive the whole season? Basically there are a lot of questions.

On top of all this Moss, if I remember correctly, has not stayed healthy a whole season. He either has had a pulled hammy or groin muscle. Now we are down to, what some want to only see, an old man in Galloway and a never before started Armstrong. Then you have R.Williams whome the Skins cut last yr cause he was not good enough and Thomas who basically was not running good routes or getting seperation. So if all opposing teams have to do is put their best CB on Moss, stack the DL, and cover the TE's me might be in a world of trouble unless a WR steps up. Which is why some are worried. If we had a proven, young WR, then I think a lot of people would settle down.

But just as some say it's all speculation that we have bad WR's, it's also speculation that we have decent WR's. I think the key in my book and I'm praying I'm right was getting rid of Hixon. I said it enough to convince myself that Hixon was our problem and that he was not teaching/coaching the WR's up or helping them with their route running. I have heard the fan base that says these are professionals and they should already know that stuff but just because they have been to college does not mean that each player has gotten or been taught the techniques needed for each and every position.

The first game will tell us all what we have. Hopefully with the better scheme, better coaching, better QB, our WR's will look awsome and we will be just another team playing together with no names. Even though the big name proven vet would have settled my nerves a bit more.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=SBXVII;730139]My next issue is in regards to the TE's as well ... sorta, when all we had was Moss as a decent WR opposing teams doubled up on him and stacked their DL. It made it dificult for us to run the ball, forced the QB to get rid of the ball early, and took Moss out of every play. ARE and Thomas were not getting the job done. In our present situation will Davis and Cooley see the field at the same time? Will Armstrong step up? Does Galloway still have gas in his tank? Will Banks survive the whole season? Basically there are a lot of questions.[/quote]

You make a lot of broad generalizations here and theres too much i don't agree with to address them.

But Davis and Cooley will be on the field at the same time quite often.

[quote]On top of all this Moss, if I remember correctly, has not stayed healthy a whole season. He either has had a pulled hammy or groin muscle.[/quote]

Not every season and he's not out for long.
Also muscle/tendon issues are common place for WRs, its not unique to Moss.

[quote]Now we are down to, what some want to only see, an old man in Galloway and a never before started Armstrong. Then you have R.Williams whome the Skins cut last yr cause he was not good enough and Thomas who basically was not running good routes or getting seperation.[/quote]

Yes, Joey Galloway is an old man, no argument there.
At some point every WR has never started a game.
Roydell Williams was cut because of injury.
Plenty of team have a less accomplished and less talented 3rd WR then Devin Thomas.

[quote]So if all opposing teams have to do is put their best CB on Moss, stack the DL, and cover the TE's me might be in a world of trouble unless a WR steps up. Which is why some are worried. If we had a proven, young WR, then I think a lot of people would settle down.[/quote]

Moss will eat most CB alive if they play him straight man-to-man especially since he'll be playing the Z (off the line) which makes it much more difficult to press him. And Kyle Shanahan is well known for being able to get WRs open through different formations, motions and shifts.

Cover Cooley and Davis with who? LBs? Safeties?
-Bring it on

The 2nd WR or 3rd receiving option just needs to be competent ala David Anderson, Jacoby Jones and Kevin Walter anything else is a bonus.

[quote]The first game will tell us all what we have.[/quote]

The 1st game will tell us a little, but the NFL is a game of match-ups and adjustments. What's true in week 1 may not be true in week 5 what's true in week 5 may not be true in week 9.