Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers

Big C · 06-25-2004, 04:24 PM

I just picked up the new issue of the Sporting News Magazine. They have been rating each teams positions each week, this week it was wide recievers. I was expecting to open it up and see an A or at least a B on it, but we got a C+...Now i am really confused on this one. They say we are worse there than...
Cardinals
Falcons
Panthers
Bears
Lions
Packers
Vikings
Saints
Giants
Eagles
Rams
Seahawks
Buccaneers
Bills
Bengals
Browns
Texans
Colts
Dolphins
Patriots
Jets
Raiders
Steelers
and Titans...

Apparently we are equal with The Jaguars... and only stronger than
49ers
Cowgirls(Cowpies, etc)
Ravens
Broncos
Chiefs
and Chargers...

Does anyone else think this is total BS? I know id rather be in our situation than most of those teams, save the Rams and Seahawks maybe, Colts, and Steelers. Rediculous

Daseal · 06-25-2004, 06:16 PM

This list looks like total BS. Cardinals had a rookie sensation and a new rookie this year. How are they #1. Falcons receivers didn't help them much last year.

I think Coles, Gardner, Jacobs, and McCants should rank a bit higher. Did the magazine give any sort of reasons? Also, I think the Cowboys should be higher. I mean they have Glen, Keyshawn, and that other dude =p

Big C · 06-25-2004, 06:29 PM

The teams above us are in alphabetical order basically...not by grade, sorry to confuse. But the article is written by paul woody, and he gives no negatives except about Rod Gardner, saying that he has good size, and a good attitude, and a good route runner, but saying that he gets poor seperation and has questionable speed and hands. He also said that Jacobs could be the suprise of the bunch this year, and has big play ability...

SkinsRock · 06-25-2004, 06:36 PM

While I agree that it is a BS grade, like everything else, they have to prove that they are a good as we think they are.
I bet that by mid-season this grade will be up to a B+ or better....

diehardskin2982 · 06-25-2004, 07:19 PM

its okay Street & Smiths has us going to the NFC Divisional Playoffs and the overall average grade for our WR's in the mags is a B

JWsleep · 06-25-2004, 07:30 PM

I'm all for predictions, but this just seems made up. I mean, what is the basis for this stuff? Anyway, I'll take wins over stats and pre-season grades anyday! And let them underestimate us as long as they want. Try single covering our #2 and see how it goes. Oh, and watch the #3. Oh, and don't forget the h-back. And is that Chad Morten or Clinton Portis catching a pass out of the backfield? I like our weapons, and our offensive staff. The numbers will take care of themselves.

Big C · 06-25-2004, 07:44 PM

go look it up in the stores, i didnt make this stuff up, i hope ur not talking about me

MTK · 06-25-2004, 08:02 PM

Right now I'd have to agree, other than Coles we really don't have any proven guys.

Yes Gardner has had some success and don't get me wrong I'm not writing him off, but the way he regressed last year is a concern (even though some of it had to do with the offensive schemes). And it's also concerning the way he continues to drop balls and commit stupid penalties. For a guy who's played 3 seasons in the league, he should be more focused by now. Hopefully the new staff can help him out in that regard.

Right now we have Coles and a bunch of guys with potential.

Big C · 06-25-2004, 08:27 PM

Gardners regression, at least in the statistics, also has to deal with him becoming the #2 reciever. When he got 1,000 yards, he was the #1

Daseal · 06-25-2004, 08:58 PM

Am I the only one who feels the Cowboys are getting a shaft in these rankings? As much as I hate to say it, the strength of that team lies in the WR corps. This isn't saying who's throwing them the ball, but by talent alone they're better than us, IMO. I think we have a good set of receivers, but as it's been said above, a lot of unproven talent.

MTK · 06-25-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big C

Gardners regression, at least in the statistics, also has to deal with him becoming the #2 reciever. When he got 1,000 yards, he was the #1

So is it no possible for a #2 WR to get 1000 yards? Not sure what you're trying to say.

Dave Butz Baby! · 06-25-2004, 10:27 PM

As far as the number one or two receivers go and yardage, in 1989 the Joe Gibbs lead Skins had 3 recievers with over 1,000 yards (Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders) and two other times (1986, 1991) have had 2 receivers over 1,000 yards. That's on top of Gibbs coaching six 1,000 yards rushers (1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, and 1991). So '86 and '91 were also great years... 2 thousand yard receivers as well as a thousand yard back. That's some production in both facets of the offensive game.

I'd think there are enough balls to go around in this offense. Whoever steps up to the plate and does their job well will get every carry or reception they can handle... Gibbs will make sure he will!

Big C · 06-25-2004, 11:10 PM

what im saying is that when u go from #1 to #2, it is normal to see less balls thrown your way, what do u think i was saying. He barely had 1,000 as a number one, makes sense to me/ Of course it is possible, but its not as PROBABLE

MTK · 06-25-2004, 11:55 PM

My point is being the #2 is no excuse for not playing well. Can you honestly say that Gardner played well last year?? I saw him take a step back last year, some of that may have been due to him not being the go to guy, but a part of that has to fall on him as well. He still drops way too many balls, is too inconsistent and still commits too many mental errors, ie dumb penalties.

Big C · 06-26-2004, 12:56 AM

All that i said was that his regression in statistics may have been partially attributed to him not seeing the ball as much, being the second option. Something i noticed is his average is low, only 10 yards, while he still caught 60 passes, which isnt too bad. We threw a lot of screens to him this past season, possibly the reason for the average, or maybe because he dropped the longer passes.

06-25-2004, 07:30 PM	#6
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,717	I'm all for predictions, but this just seems made up. I mean, what is the basis for this stuff? Anyway, I'll take wins over stats and pre-season grades anyday! And let them underestimate us as long as they want. Try single covering our #2 and see how it goes. Oh, and watch the #3. Oh, and don't forget the h-back. And is that Chad Morten or Clinton Portis catching a pass out of the backfield? I like our weapons, and our offensive staff. The numbers will take care of themselves. __________________ Hail from Houston!

06-25-2004, 10:27 PM	#12
Dave Butz Baby! Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Reston, VA Age: 54 Posts: 450	As far as the number one or two receivers go and yardage, in 1989 the Joe Gibbs lead Skins had 3 recievers with over 1,000 yards (Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders) and two other times (1986, 1991) have had 2 receivers over 1,000 yards. That's on top of Gibbs coaching six 1,000 yards rushers (1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, and 1991). So '86 and '91 were also great years... 2 thousand yard receivers as well as a thousand yard back. That's some production in both facets of the offensive game. I'd think there are enough balls to go around in this offense. Whoever steps up to the plate and does their job well will get every carry or reception they can handle... Gibbs will make sure he will! __________________ Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

06-25-2004, 04:24 PM	#1
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers I just picked up the new issue of the Sporting News Magazine. They have been rating each teams positions each week, this week it was wide recievers. I was expecting to open it up and see an A or at least a B on it, but we got a C+...Now i am really confused on this one. They say we are worse there than... Cardinals Falcons Panthers Bears Lions Packers Vikings Saints Giants Eagles Rams Seahawks Buccaneers Bills Bengals Browns Texans Colts Dolphins Patriots Jets Raiders Steelers and Titans... Apparently we are equal with The Jaguars... and only stronger than 49ers Cowgirls(Cowpies, etc) Ravens Broncos Chiefs and Chargers... Does anyone else think this is total BS? I know id rather be in our situation than most of those teams, save the Rams and Seahawks maybe, Colts, and Steelers. Rediculous

06-25-2004, 06:16 PM	#2
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	This list looks like total BS. Cardinals had a rookie sensation and a new rookie this year. How are they #1. Falcons receivers didn't help them much last year. I think Coles, Gardner, Jacobs, and McCants should rank a bit higher. Did the magazine give any sort of reasons? Also, I think the Cowboys should be higher. I mean they have Glen, Keyshawn, and that other dude =p

06-25-2004, 06:29 PM	#3
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	The teams above us are in alphabetical order basically...not by grade, sorry to confuse. But the article is written by paul woody, and he gives no negatives except about Rod Gardner, saying that he has good size, and a good attitude, and a good route runner, but saying that he gets poor seperation and has questionable speed and hands. He also said that Jacobs could be the suprise of the bunch this year, and has big play ability...

06-25-2004, 06:36 PM	#4
SkinsRock Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Crofton, MD Age: 55 Posts: 907	While I agree that it is a BS grade, like everything else, they have to prove that they are a good as we think they are. I bet that by mid-season this grade will be up to a B+ or better....

06-25-2004, 07:19 PM	#5
diehardskin2982 Another Year, another mess. Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,581	its okay Street & Smiths has us going to the NFC Divisional Playoffs and the overall average grade for our WR's in the mags is a B

06-25-2004, 07:44 PM	#7
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	go look it up in the stores, i didnt make this stuff up, i hope ur not talking about me

06-25-2004, 08:02 PM	#8
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Right now I'd have to agree, other than Coles we really don't have any proven guys. Yes Gardner has had some success and don't get me wrong I'm not writing him off, but the way he regressed last year is a concern (even though some of it had to do with the offensive schemes). And it's also concerning the way he continues to drop balls and commit stupid penalties. For a guy who's played 3 seasons in the league, he should be more focused by now. Hopefully the new staff can help him out in that regard. Right now we have Coles and a bunch of guys with potential.

06-25-2004, 08:27 PM	#9
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	Gardners regression, at least in the statistics, also has to deal with him becoming the #2 reciever. When he got 1,000 yards, he was the #1

06-25-2004, 08:58 PM	#10
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	Am I the only one who feels the Cowboys are getting a shaft in these rankings? As much as I hate to say it, the strength of that team lies in the WR corps. This isn't saying who's throwing them the ball, but by talent alone they're better than us, IMO. I think we have a good set of receivers, but as it's been said above, a lot of unproven talent.

06-25-2004, 11:10 PM	#13
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	what im saying is that when u go from #1 to #2, it is normal to see less balls thrown your way, what do u think i was saying. He barely had 1,000 as a number one, makes sense to me/ Of course it is possible, but its not as PROBABLE

06-25-2004, 11:55 PM	#14
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	My point is being the #2 is no excuse for not playing well. Can you honestly say that Gardner played well last year?? I saw him take a step back last year, some of that may have been due to him not being the go to guy, but a part of that has to fall on him as well. He still drops way too many balls, is too inconsistent and still commits too many mental errors, ie dumb penalties.

06-26-2004, 12:56 AM	#15
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	All that i said was that his regression in statistics may have been partially attributed to him not seeing the ball as much, being the second option. Something i noticed is his average is low, only 10 yards, while he still caught 60 passes, which isnt too bad. We threw a lot of screens to him this past season, possibly the reason for the average, or maybe because he dropped the longer passes.

Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers

Locker Room Main Forum