Foxsports Wide Receiver/Tight End Rankings

[724Skinsfan]

Why is Steve Smith considered the best in the league? Not insinuating that he isn't a top WR but he need's to show me more consistency than having 2 out 3 good years. He may well be on his way to a Hall of Fame career but let's face it he got a lot of looks last year. His performance needs to be equaled this year for me to crown him the NFL's top WR.

I'll take Holt as my #1 receiver with Chad Johnson close behind.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Another idiotic comment from a Fox guy.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5...T=HCP&GT1=8393

I guess that Fox has no clue that Gibbs was an offensive innovator back in the day and that Saunders and Gibbs are from the same tree.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Another idiotic comment from a Fox guy.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5...T=HCP&GT1=8393

I guess that Fox has no clue that Gibbs was an offensive innovator back in the day and that Saunders and Gibbs are from the same tree.

What the hell is he talking about here? :

"New England Patriots -- Replacing kicker Adam Vinatieri with Martin Gramatica may be the strategic equivalent of subbing Guillermo Mota for Jonathan Papelbon."

Can someone tell me who the hell Guillermo Mota and Jonathan Papelbon are? You're right. This guy made absolutely no sense.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

What the hell is he talking about here? :

"New England Patriots -- Replacing kicker Adam Vinatieri with Martin Gramatica may be the strategic equivalent of subbing Guillermo Mota for Jonathan Papelbon."

Can someone tell me who the hell Guillermo Mota and Jonathan Papelbon are? You're right. This guy made absolutely no sense.

Yeah this idiot is just dropping random metaphors bc he thinks that makes him sound cool, but instead he is coming off as a total tool.

[GTripp0012]

Here's the roll call:
The New York Giants, losers of Super Bowl XXXV, finished 7-9 in 2001.
The St. Louis Rams, losers of Super Bowl XXXVI, finished 7-9 in 2002.
The Oakland Raiders, decisive losers of Super Bowl XXXVII, finished 6-10 in 2003.
The Carolina Panthers, losers of Super Bowl XXXVIII, finished 7-9 in 2004.
The Philadelphia Eagles, losers of Super Bowl XXXIX, finished 6-10 in 2005.

The Raiders were 4-12 that year. And definately didn't lose any more "decisively" then the Giants did in 2000. This article isn't even accurate.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Raiders were 4-12 that year. And definately didn't lose any more "decisively" then the Giants did in 2000. This article isn't even accurate.

We seem to be getting a lot of that from football writers this offseason. Who was it that recently said the Redskins win over the Bucs was their first playoff win since 1992?

[dmek25]

offensive line play is the key to winning in this league. thats why im so suprised alot are picking the cowboys to win. it takes a couple of seasons to develope chemistry and they are going in with 3 new starters on the o line

[#56fanatic]

i do think 13 may be a bit too low, but you can't argue with most of them. Look what TO did for philly, and they had no receivers at all. Put him with Terry Glen and Jason Witten, they could be damn good. Colts are the colts, cincy, all those teams have proven WRs. Lloyd is young and had 1 decent season, Randel el is unproven as a #2 or #3. I dont think some of the teams, Pittsburg, KC and a couple others should be ahead of us, but for the most part it seems pretty accurate.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

...Randel el is unproven as a #2 or #3...

Randel-El is a proven #3 WR.

[firstdown]

He did have alot of good to say about or man Cooley.

[MTK]

There's a comfort level there and a trust factor between Harrison and Manning. I think Manning will always look for Harrison when they need a big catch. They are the modern day Montana to Rice.

No matter what the numbers say, Harrison will be his top target until they no longer play together.