Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


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

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2010, 10:09 AM   #1
Lotus
Fire Bruce NOW
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,434
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
How the hell can you rank WR's who have had a piss poor QB's? Last time I checked it took both to have a passing attack,
Last year Galloway had Tom Brady. And Welker was hurt. Still Galloway could not get on the field and produce. 'Nuff said.
__________________
Bruce Allen when in charge alone: 4-12 (.250)
Bruce Allen's overall Redskins record : 28-52 (.350)
Vinny Cerrato's record when in charge alone: 52-65 (.444)
Vinny's overall Redskins record: 62-82 (.430)
We won more with Vinny
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 09:39 AM   #2
firstdown
Living Legend
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 62
Posts: 15,817
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Last year Galloway had Tom Brady. And Welker was hurt. Still Galloway could not get on the field and produce. 'Nuff said.
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.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 11:32 AM   #3
Lotus
Fire Bruce NOW
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,434
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Bruce Allen when in charge alone: 4-12 (.250)
Bruce Allen's overall Redskins record : 28-52 (.350)
Vinny Cerrato's record when in charge alone: 52-65 (.444)
Vinny's overall Redskins record: 62-82 (.430)
We won more with Vinny
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:09 PM   #4
firstdown
Living Legend
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 62
Posts: 15,817
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.

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.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 06:37 PM   #5
SirClintonPortis
Pro Bowl
 
SirClintonPortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,052
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness".

Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten.

The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.
SirClintonPortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:12 PM   #6
30gut
Playmaker
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

^^^^^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.
I did a lil research:


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."

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

Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston
-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.
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:17 PM   #7
Dirtbag59
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 41
Posts: 14,750
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post

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."

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

Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston

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.
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.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:42 PM   #8
30gut
Playmaker
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359 View Post
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.
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
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 07:38 PM   #9
Lotus
Fire Bruce NOW
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,434
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
^^^^^^^


I did a lil research:


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."

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

Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston
-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.
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.
__________________
Bruce Allen when in charge alone: 4-12 (.250)
Bruce Allen's overall Redskins record : 28-52 (.350)
Vinny Cerrato's record when in charge alone: 52-65 (.444)
Vinny's overall Redskins record: 62-82 (.430)
We won more with Vinny
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 08:05 PM   #10
30gut
Playmaker
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
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.
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.
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!
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 10:59 PM   #11
Lotus
Fire Bruce NOW
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,434
Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
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!
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!
__________________
Bruce Allen when in charge alone: 4-12 (.250)
Bruce Allen's overall Redskins record : 28-52 (.350)
Vinny Cerrato's record when in charge alone: 52-65 (.444)
Vinny's overall Redskins record: 62-82 (.430)
We won more with Vinny
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.24434 seconds with 11 queries