Coles Big Toe...I'm worried

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I can think of VERY few teams that have two “true” no. 1 wideouts on their roster. The Rams and Steelers are the only teams that I know of that have two solid #1 wideouts in Bruce and Holt and Ward and Burress (and Burress is a borderline-top notch WR) respectively.

We have more depth at WR than any other team in the league. If Coles goes down of course our passing attack would suffer; any team’s passing game would falter if their #1 WR was out. But, I think our team would be the least affected team if everyone’s #1 wideout was out of action.

I can’t say anything about McCants because no one has seen him play as the #2 wideout.

Jacobs is also hard to judge since he got so little playing time last year. But, Gibbs apparently thinks very highly of Jacobs and according to various press reports, raved about how good he looked on film and at the mini-camps. I defer to Gibbs on this one and take his word for it that Jacobs will develop into a quality wideout.

Thrash is not a top notch receiver, as everyone saw when he was at Philadelphia, but I think VERY highly of him. He’s played against Champ Bailey, Will Allen, Terrance Newman, and every other top corner Philly went up against. He was Philly’s top wideout and while that doesn’t say much, it does indicate, to me at least, that he is a decent #2 and a VERY good #3 wideout.

Gardner is a very good #2 possession receiver. People think he isn’t as good as he really is because:
#1 he was a first-rounder and so people automatically have very high expectations for him;
#2 he hasn’t had the running game going to draw defenders closer to the line;
#3 until last year he was the best receiver on our roster, thereby drawing double-coverage on occasion and always getting covered by the defenses’ top corners;
#4 he had less time to get open because our o-line was so crappy under Spurrier;
#5 until last year he didn’t have a very good veteran WR to tutor him; and
#6 he hasn’t had a good, experienced QB under center with whom he can establish a rapport. The lack of stability under center has hurt not just our record, but the performance of our wideouts. WRs need to know their QB and vice-versa to be effective.

I think there are several teams that would like to have Thrash, Gardner, and McCants as their top 3 receivers. So, even if Coles were to be injured this season, I must say that our depth at WR is pretty good.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

another point that will help our offense that i don't think i saw mentioned is the fact that brunnel is a much more accurate passer than any of our qbs since brad johnson. gibbs play calling will make a huge difference in the route running of the wrs since there will be a whole lot less audibles called and thus less chances for mix ups on what the play being run is. and portis' arrival will prevent defenses from playing too lose in the secondary. anyone else think with coles not being a 100% that gibbs might keep 6 wrs on the active roster and thus allow Cloman the oppurtunity to get some playtime? does anyone know why coles opted not to have the surgery cuz obviously resting it didn't help it as much as we'd have liked? and like it's been noted before, if gibbs is liking what he's seen from Jacobs and Mccants from game footage and the mini camps, who r we to question him, lol?

[Hogskin]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Gardener is a very good #2 possession receiver. People think he isn’t as good as he really is because:
#1 he was a first-rounder and so people automatically have very high expectations for him;
#2 he hasn’t had the running game going to draw defenders closer to the line;
#3 until last year he was the best receiver on our roster, thereby drawing double-coverage on occasion and always getting covered by the defenses’ top corners;
#4 he had less time to get open because our o-line was so crappy under Spurrier;
#5 until last year he didn’t have a very good veteran WR to tutor him; and
#6 he hasn’t had a good, experienced QB under center with whom he can establish a rapport. The lack of stability under center has hurt not just our record, but the performance of our wideouts. WRs need to know their QB and vice-versa to be effective.

I couldn't resist replying to your 6-point post:
#1 - This had absolutely no bearing on my evaluation
#2 - Good point - with the caveat that my response to #3 may actually indicate the reverse is true.
#3 - Actually, he got very, very few double coverages. Since he could be covered well by one man, teams blitzed the hell out of our QB with their "extra" man - this also hurt our running game. He is not a good #1 WR.
#4 - Again a good point, but part of the problem with the line was that our opponents could blitz at will, and our RB's were inept at handling the blitz (Snyder waived the one good blocking back we had).
#5 - Excellent point - and he had some questionable receiver coaching also.
#6 - Agree, but if he continues to drop passes in critical (3rd down) situations as in the past, he may not get that opportunity.

[SKINS73]

If Coles becomes injured I think Gardner, McCants and Thrash could step it up. We're deep at receivers...

[sportscurmudgeon]

Skins73:

The Redskins' "depth at receiver" is a mirage. The depth you speak of is a reflection of the fact that you recognize the names of people who play WR for the team. And as a fan, you project that all of these guys will perform a whole lot better for the team in th future than they have ever performed in the NFL in the past. That is simply not a likely occurence.

If Thrash has to substitute for Coles, that is a big problem. Thrash is not a bad receiver or a bad guy, but his career in Philly shows that he is NOT SUFFICIENT as a lead receiver on a contending NFL team.

McCants still has to show that he is a top level receiver. I love his game and think he could play the "Art Monk role" in the 2004 offense. But that is conjecture until he gets the job done in a game that means something.

Jacobs is nothing but potential. And "potential" means that he has not yet accomplished anything. If he had actually accomplished something, then he would have "realized" all of that potential that he may - or may not - have.

Gardner has been an underachieving WR who has an overblown estimate of his value and his ability. He needs to be 200% better than he has ever been in his entire NFL career to be worth the trouble it will take to re-sign him next offseason.

Now hear this: If Coles goes down or if he plays hurt for the whole season, the WRs on this team will be a significant weak-link in the chain.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Skins73:

The Redskins' "depth at receiver" is a mirage. The depth you speak of is a reflection of the fact that you recognize the names of people who play WR for the team. And as a fan, you project that all of these guys will perform a whole lot better for the team in th future than they have ever performed in the NFL in the past. That is simply not a likely occurence.

If Thrash has to substitute for Coles, that is a big problem. Thrash is not a bad receiver or a bad guy, but his career in Philly shows that he is NOT SUFFICIENT as a lead receiver on a contending NFL team.

McCants still has to show that he is a top level receiver. I love his game and think he could play the "Art Monk role" in the 2004 offense. But that is conjecture until he gets the job done in a game that means something.

Jacobs is nothing but potential. And "potential" means that he has not yet accomplished anything. If he had actually accomplished something, then he would have "realized" all of that potential that he may - or may not - have.

Gardner has been an underachieving WR who has an overblown estimate of his value and his ability. He needs to be 200% better than he has ever been in his entire NFL career to be worth the trouble it will take to re-sign him next offseason.

Now hear this: If Coles goes down or if he plays hurt for the whole season, the WRs on this team will be a significant weak-link in the chain.

You think that Thrash could be a #1 receiver over Gardner?

[SittingBull]

I dont think anyone said Thrash would replace Coles as #1 if he had to sit out but I believe we would be sufficient at wide reciever with a rotation of Gardner, Jacobs, Mccants and Thrash. Of course not as good but definitely better than the Eagles wide receiver corps last year that made it to the NFC championship.

[SmootSmack]

I'm not quite so worried about the receivers we have beyond Coles

McCants: True, he's not a number one receiver but he's improved each year he's been in the league and there's no need to think that won't continue

Jacobs: The big question mark. True, he hasn't accomplished anything yet but let's not jump to any conclusions on him yet. He showed flashes

Gardner: I think he'll have a big year. It's remarkable how "motivated" a player can get when there's a new contract looming around the corner

Thrash: veteran presence/calming influence

I'd put our receivers up with any others in the division. And I think two things will really benefit the passing game. First of all, with Portis in the backfield opponents at the very least have to respect the run and respect of the running game almost always benefits the passing game. Also, the NFL intends to crackdown on bumping and grabbing of receivers beyond the 5-yard bump zone so yeah I'm not all that worried about the receivers.

[Hogskin]

Smack, I have to strongly agree with SC on this one. We have already seen a couple years ago that Gardner is a miserable failure as a #1 WR. We have no one that has shown any ability to perform that role. Without a viable #1, a team is doomed to a lousy passing game, as Philly can attest to during a couple years with Thrash as #1. Many other teams have had similar experiences over the past few years. When an average defensive team can blanket all of your receivers without any double coverage, they can put a great deal more pressure on the QB and on the running game. I really like our receivers with Coles as #1 (great options for #2/3), but see a huge dropoff without him.

By the same token, with Owens now in the Philly mix, I believe their passing game will take a HUGE step up, across the board. Owens' presence will improve their entire offense.

[Big C]

yes if coles were to go down, we would be worse, but i think ur goin a little overboard there, i think those guys could step up

[Gmanc711]

I'm in disagreement with you guys as well. Gardner has defintley not been that big of a disapointment, if you ask me. As the #1 reciver in 2002 he had over 70 catches, 1,000 yrds and 8 TD's. I dont really understand how that is a huge dissapointment. His rookie year he had 41 rec for 700 yrds and 4 TD's and then last season he had 60 rec for 600yrds and 5 TD's.

Now as a #1, you cant really ask for a whole lot more. Those numbers dont make him one of the dominating people in the league, but they are still solid numbers. Now Gardner is a #2 to Coles, and I think those numbers from a #2 are at least solid and certinley not dissapointing.

As for the other recivers, McCants does what he is supposed to do. I dont expect him to go out and be a #1 guy, hes not that. He's a exellent change of pace guy, and he makes big catches when it counts. Thrash is a solid reciver, nothing spectacular, but hes a good addition to the team. Jacobs, I agree, is a huge question mark, but we can only hope for the best with him. As long as our recivers stay healthy, I dont think theres a better unit in the division.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I'm in disagreement with you guys as well. Gardner has defintley not been that big of a disapointment, if you ask me. As the #1 reciver in 2002 he had over 70 catches, 1,000 yrds and 8 TD's. I dont really understand how that is a huge dissapointment. His rookie year he had 41 rec for 700 yrds and 4 TD's and then last season he had 60 rec for 600yrds and 5 TD's .... Now as a #1, you cant really ask for a whole lot more. Those numbers dont make him one of the dominating people in the league, but they are still solid numbers.

I have to agree with Gmanc711 on that point. Gardner is not an dominating receiver, but he's not exactly what I'd call a "huge disappointment" either. He's solid and capable, with his fair share of flaws as well. His first season was memorable more for his drops than anything else. But in '02, with no continuity at the quarterback position, he still put up good numbers. With the addition of Coles last year, it shouldn't be a surprise that his numbers would fall slightly -- not to mention overall deficiencies in offensive production due mainly to poor coaching, playcalling, and miserable offensive line protection.

That said, losing Coles to injury or having him at less than 100% will no doubt have an adverse affect the offense this year. We need him at tip-top shape. Depending on Gardner, McCants, Thrash and Jacobs may suffice against certain teams, but in the real battles with quality defensive opponents, the Redskins will be at a clear disadvantage without him. Hopefully in those situations, a hefty dose of Clinton Portis will help secure the win.

Let's just hope for a completely healthy Laveranues Coles all season long.

[Hogskin]

OK guys, you are right, I went a bit far in my assessment as a "miserable failure" - but just the same he was NOT a good #1. Don't forget how bad our offense was that year. You can blame a lot of things, but one major one HAS to be that defenses were all getting away with single coverage on all of our receivers. Gardner's numbers did not tell the whole story. He can not carry a passing game. Coles can. In fact, don't expect Gardner to carry the #2 job throughout the season. If he does not lose it in training camp, I expect him to lose the job by week 4. #2 and #3 receivers will not include Gardner. Reasons for this assessment?

- Gardner STILL drops too many passes and runs too many bad pass routes
- Gibbs will not tolerate that
- Gibbs has been heaping praise on Jacobs and McCants - nothing for Gardner. With Gibbs, that is a real indication of things to come, not just lip service. Keep listening to him to get a glimpse of future plans.

[SmootSmack]

Hogskin, even with Thrash as the #1 receiver the Eagles still managed to do fairly well for themselves getting to the championship game. Granted a better receiving game would probably have gotten them in the Super Bowl but what I wouldn't give to at least the Skins make the conference championship game after so many years...

But anyway, I'm looking at my post again and thinking maybe I was a bit unclear on what I meant. I like Gardner and I'm really rooting for him but I'm not making any claims on Gardner, McCants or Jacobs taking Coles' spot as the top receiver on the team. I was just trying to say that the depth isn't so bad.

Sure the team could have problems if Coles goes down, but so could the Eagles if Owens aggravates his shoulder injury from last year or the Giants if Toomer aggravates his thigh injury.

[MTK]

I agree with gmanc711 on Gardner, yes last year was a bit of a disappointment for Rod stats wise, but 60 catches is pretty solid for a #2 guy when you compare him to other guys across the league.

I think his problems last year came more from the system, it just seemed like Spurrier never really tried to get him the ball on a consistent basis, and when he did it was on dink and dunk screen crap. The only game where they tried to get the ball down the field to him was against Atlanta and he had his best game of the season.

Of course Rod does suffer from a lack of focus at times, dumb penalties, doesn't always fight for the ball like he should, etc. But we could certainly do ALOT worse at the #2 spot than him. Right now I wouldn't feel comfortable having to count on McCants, Jacobs or Thrash as the #2.