Eagles ink McCants?

illdefined · 09-01-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

If he wasn't going to fit in, why not cut him and make room for people who will? Sometimes we get too attached to certain players, wanting them to succeed and they just don't have what it takes...

thats fine, but where's the replacement for his role?

That Guy · 09-02-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdefined

thats fine, but where's the replacement for his role?

Cooley! biger, tall, slow, good hands... its pretty close, except cooley blocks better.

illdefined · 09-02-2005, 02:52 PM

Cooley plays the passing TE role, and you can bet he will be thoroughly looked at by defenses every play, and double covered in the red zone.

we still lack a tough, quick(enough), tall possesion WR for over the middle/red zone. what can Moss and Patten really do inside the ten?

skinsguy · 09-02-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

That just happens to be more TDs than any wide redeiver caught for our team last year.

And nothing that cannot be duplicated or bettered by somebody else wlling to put forth the effort.

That Guy · 09-02-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdefined

Cooley plays the passing TE role, and you can bet he will be thoroughly looked at by defenses every play, and double covered in the red zone.

we still lack a tough, quick(enough), tall possesion WR for over the middle/red zone. what can Moss and Patten really do inside the ten?

over their careers? a lot more yardage and TDs than mccants will ever have.

illdefined · 09-02-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

over their careers? a lot more yardage and TDs than mccants will ever have.

ugh, fine not darnerian, but his role.

That Guy · 09-02-2005, 10:53 PM

again cooley fills his role, you dont need speed if you only have 10 yards to work in, if you want a second, maybe royal, TEs fit his role, cause thats basically what mccants was (minus the blocking)... i don't know why there's this insistance that it HAS to be a WR thats 6'+ and TEs don't count. The arguement you're making is kinda vague and the answer you're looking for isn't well defined.

illdefined · 09-02-2005, 11:17 PM

TE's don't exactly "spread" the defense to create more opportunities and agreed, you don't need speed (Moss, Patten, Jacobs). you need quickness, to make your defender commit, and physicality, to outmuscle him.

Cooley is a godsend, but we can't be one-dimensional in the redzone. Gibbs has done particulary well with possession type receivers in the past, and not just for the redzone. it's the only thing in this offense that's conspicously missing.

BleedBurgundy · 09-02-2005, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdefined

Cooley is a godsend, but we can't be one-dimensional in the redzone. Gibbs has done particulary well with possession type receivers in the past, and not just for the redzone. it's the only thing in this offense that's conspicously missing.

I agree, we definitely could use a possession wideout. I don't think we have anyone who fits that mold on the team right now. I wouldn't even say we have anyone with "great" hands. Some playmaker's to be sure, but no viable options as a possession receiver...

Inside the ten yard line, I think Cooley will obviously be the prime target with Royal catching some balls. We'll probably use Moss and Patten as decoys (somewhat) when we're that close and throw to the RB coming out of the backfield...

BleedBurgundy · 09-02-2005, 11:36 PM

[QUOTE=That Guy]i don't know why there's this insistance that it HAS to be a WR thats 6'+ and TEs don't count. QUOTE]

I think that the opportunity to win some "jump balls" is an important one... I don't see many TE's not named Gonzalez thriving in that situation, maybe I'm wrong... Who's our tallest receiver right now?

steveo395 · 09-03-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I think that the opportunity to win some "jump balls" is an important one... I don't see many TE's not named Gonzalez thriving in that situation, maybe I'm wrong... Who's our tallest receiver right now?

taylor jacobs....6'0"

BleedBurgundy · 09-03-2005, 12:29 AM

That's not going to get it done...

MTK · 09-03-2005, 01:02 AM

Height doesn't necessarily = TDs.

Moss had 10 TDs in 2003.

Daseal · 09-03-2005, 01:37 AM

Matty, earlier you used the whole that was 2 years ago argument. Those TDs were two years ago. Our offense last year actually was able to drive into opponents territory and it just sputtered in the red zone. I have a feeling we're going to have the same problem. We dont have a receiver that you can send out there for a nice corner fade pattern. Many DBs are going to be much taller than our WR's. SPeed is great for the big play, but I'm worried about our red-zone offense and lack of size.

I expect to see Robert Royal / Chris Cooley split out wide with nemo/Sellers playing some H back in those situations.

MTK · 09-03-2005, 01:46 AM

Well, last year on only 45 catches Moss had 5 scores. Still pretty effective for a short guy.

I think this need for a big WR thing is really overblown.

Besides, most of the time our offense sputtered in the redzone because we couldn't convert short yardage situations. We had Gardner last year, if being tall is all that was needed, why didn't we just toss it to him down there?

There's obviously more to being successful in the redzone than just having a tall WR.

09-02-2005, 02:52 PM	#33
illdefined Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: nyc Age: 48 Posts: 2,631	Re: Eagles ink McCants? Cooley plays the passing TE role, and you can bet he will be thoroughly looked at by defenses every play, and double covered in the red zone. we still lack a tough, quick(enough), tall possesion WR for over the middle/red zone. what can Moss and Patten really do inside the ten?

09-02-2005, 10:53 PM	#37
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: Eagles ink McCants? again cooley fills his role, you dont need speed if you only have 10 yards to work in, if you want a second, maybe royal, TEs fit his role, cause thats basically what mccants was (minus the blocking)... i don't know why there's this insistance that it HAS to be a WR thats 6'+ and TEs don't count. The arguement you're making is kinda vague and the answer you're looking for isn't well defined.

09-02-2005, 11:17 PM	#38
illdefined Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: nyc Age: 48 Posts: 2,631	Re: Eagles ink McCants? TE's don't exactly "spread" the defense to create more opportunities and agreed, you don't need speed (Moss, Patten, Jacobs). you need quickness, to make your defender commit, and physicality, to outmuscle him. Cooley is a godsend, but we can't be one-dimensional in the redzone. Gibbs has done particulary well with possession type receivers in the past, and not just for the redzone. it's the only thing in this offense that's conspicously missing.

09-02-2005, 11:36 PM	#40
BleedBurgundy Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,471	Re: Eagles ink McCants? [QUOTE=That Guy]i don't know why there's this insistance that it HAS to be a WR thats 6'+ and TEs don't count. QUOTE] I think that the opportunity to win some "jump balls" is an important one... I don't see many TE's not named Gonzalez thriving in that situation, maybe I'm wrong... Who's our tallest receiver right now?

09-03-2005, 12:29 AM	#42
BleedBurgundy Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,471	Re: Eagles ink McCants? That's not going to get it done...

09-03-2005, 01:02 AM	#43
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,570	Re: Eagles ink McCants? Height doesn't necessarily = TDs. Moss had 10 TDs in 2003.

09-03-2005, 01:37 AM	#44
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	Re: Eagles ink McCants? Matty, earlier you used the whole that was 2 years ago argument. Those TDs were two years ago. Our offense last year actually was able to drive into opponents territory and it just sputtered in the red zone. I have a feeling we're going to have the same problem. We dont have a receiver that you can send out there for a nice corner fade pattern. Many DBs are going to be much taller than our WR's. SPeed is great for the big play, but I'm worried about our red-zone offense and lack of size. I expect to see Robert Royal / Chris Cooley split out wide with nemo/Sellers playing some H back in those situations. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

09-03-2005, 01:46 AM	#45
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,570	Re: Eagles ink McCants? Well, last year on only 45 catches Moss had 5 scores. Still pretty effective for a short guy. I think this need for a big WR thing is really overblown. Besides, most of the time our offense sputtered in the redzone because we couldn't convert short yardage situations. We had Gardner last year, if being tall is all that was needed, why didn't we just toss it to him down there? There's obviously more to being successful in the redzone than just having a tall WR.

Eagles ink McCants?

Locker Room Main Forum