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