Anyone but skin homers really think

[burmafrd]

that they are better at #1 and #2 WR and starting TE? That seems to me an obvious NO but I am looking for opinions.

 

[Hostile]

Most that I have talked to want to talk 4 WRs not 2 or even 3. Bring up that 4 WR sets are getting rarer and it barely ripples the water.

 

[burmafrd]

Most plays are 2 WR and 1 TE. That should be what is rated. How good your #3 and #4 is really only applys on such limited occasions it should not be part of the equation.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's a difficult argument when you're looking at their receivers and TE's vs. ours.

I think Owens is a better receiver than Moss as Owens has the ability to hurt you with short, intermediate, and deep routes. However, Moss put up a helluva year and led all receivers in yards per catchable passing attempt according to KC Joyner.

Glenn has shown that he's great in one-on-one situations. He has great speed, but not Santana Moss great so he can be taken out of the game if they roll safety coverage to his side (which wasn't the case with Moss last year). Lloyd hasn't been nearly as good, but you have to think he could be a really good #2 guy, especially if he had some better QB play. I think you have to go with Glenn because he's proven he's a better #1 WR and in general, has proven himself a lot more than Lloyd ever has.

I'd take Randle El over Crayton, although how much is the question. Sometimes you think Randle El is something special, sometimes you think otherwise. The same could be said for Crayton.

I'd take Witten over Cooley, but just slightly. Witten is a better deep threat and has produced a better DPAR than Cooley in each of the last two years. Still, the difference is rather marginal.

Then you've got Fasano vs. David Patten left.

All of this could change rather drastically because we'll get to see the affect that Moss and Owens can have since this will be the first time in a long time they'll both have talented supporting casts around them.


Rich..........

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Most plays are 2 WR and 1 TE. That should be what is rated. How good your #3 and #4 is really only applys on such limited occasions it should not be part of the equation.

Not in today's NFL. More and more teams are using 2 TE sets (although not in the fashion that we plan to use them) or 3 WR sets. I believe Cincinnati's base formation is the 3 WR set. I also believe that while most Skins fans think they will be going to the same type of scheme Saunders had in KC, I believe the scheme will more closely resemble Cincinnati's.


Rich...........

 

[burmafrd]

Moss has had one great year; Owens has had many. That alone should give Owens the edge. Glenn has the edge over Lloyd as well. Whether RL is better then Clayton remains to be seen- both should be pretty much equal now. Witten is better and has done more longer. So clear edge there.
Anyway you try and look at it the Boys have a better set.

 

[The30YardSlant]

"The Washington Commanders have the greatest set of WRs in the NFL. They are not undersized, do not have questionable hands, and love taking hits. Chris Cooley is the prototypical TE and will be a superstar in this league. Mark Brunell's arm is the best in football, and any accusation regarding his noodle arm status is simply nonsense."

 

[dstew60105]

"The Washington Commanders have the greatest set of WRs in the NFL. They are not undersized, do not have questionable hands, and love taking hits. Chris Cooley is the prototypical TE and will be a superstar in this league. Mark Brunell's arm is the best in football, and any accusation regarding his noodle arm status is simply nonsense."

Don't forget about Brunell's incredible durability.

 

[bobtheflob]

I made my weekly trip over to ES and glanced over a thread about ESPN's ranking of teams' WR's. I thought they were a little overrated in that ranking myself but not by a whole lot, but I did think it was funny that they claimed that Lloyd is one of the top 5 #2 WR's in the league when an argument could easily be made that he's only the 3rd best one in the NFC East.

 

[skinsngibbs4life]

Moss has had one great year; Owens has had many. That alone should give Owens the edge. Glenn has the edge over Lloyd as well. Whether RL is better then Clayton remains to be seen- both should be pretty much equal now. Witten is better and has done more longer. So clear edge there.
Anyway you try and look at it the Boys have a better set.

I dont know what you are talking about, but in the last 3 years, Santana has had 3 nice seasons. In 2003, he had 1100 yards and 10 TDs. In 2004 he dropped of some, but still produced 840 yards in one less game. And then we all know the success that he produced last year.

And just so you know, most of the skins fans over at ES thought that they overrated us, and a lot thought the 'boys should be rated higher

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158961

 

[sacase]

You can't say Chis Cooley is even comparable to Witten. They play different positions. The game is completly different from the TE position rather than the H back position. So this year will be telling since he should be playing the TE position.

 

[burmafrd]

Moss has had nice years- one great year- TO has had MONSTER MULTIPLE YEARS. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[kartr]

Moss has had nice years- one great year- TO has had MONSTER MULTIPLE YEARS. What part of that do you not understand?

Moss has also had a good year with Brunell, so the timing and synchronicity already in place, whereas, Bledsoe has never played with TO, and will have to develop chemistry,plus, there will be no personality issues between Moss and Brunell,plus, Bledsoe has struggled to produce consistently with good receivers and running backs.

 

[Gamebreaker]

Moss has had nice years- one great year- TO has had MONSTER MULTIPLE YEARS. What part of that do you not understand?

And what exactly does that have to do with 2006? Nothing. Jerry Rice had more monster seasons than any reciever in NFL history, doesn't mean he could crack either one of our starting lineups right now.

Basing Owens being better than Moss off only career statistics is a poor argument. I do believe Owens is slightly better, but not for that reason.

 

[sacase]

And what exactly does that have to do with 2006? Nothing. Jerry Rice had more monster seasons than any reciever in NFL history, doesn't mean he could crack either one of our starting lineups right now.

Basing Owens being better than Moss off only career statistics is a poor argument. I do believe Owens is slightly better, but not for that reason.

You are such a homer. Owens is reguarded as one of the best if not the best receiver in the NFL. Moss is only reguarded as a guy who had one great season and is a great, but not an elite player. BIG difference. Owens is better than Moss is so many ways it isn't even funny.

 

[Vintage]

And what exactly does that have to do with 2006? Nothing. Jerry Rice had more monster seasons than any reciever in NFL history, doesn't mean he could crack either one of our starting lineups right now.

Basing Owens being better than Moss off only career statistics is a poor argument. I do believe Owens is slightly better, but not for that reason.

Yeah, and no....

While the 2005 season will not have a direct effect on the 2006 season in terms of how a player has played...it can still be relevant.

Admittedly, just bec. a player has a good season one year does not guarantee them to have a good year, the next year. And similarily, a bad season in one year does not guarantee a follow up of the same the following year.

However, looking at a players past can give you a level of expectation, that is justified. If a certain player has played at a high level for the past 3 years, is it unfair to expect a high level of play the following year? No. Why? Because history suggests that player will play at a high level again. It does not guarantee it, but it does give you a level of expectation.

Similarily, if a player has one good year out of five years, and the good year being the most recent....its not illogical to assume he has either turned the corner, or it was a fluke season....bec. history suggests it was an anomaly thus far in that player's career.

So yea, it is relevant and irrelevant.

And using Rice (a retired WR) is a stretch to say the least, in your arguement.

 

[SultanOfSix]

And what exactly does that have to do with 2006? Nothing. Jerry Rice had more monster seasons than any reciever in NFL history, doesn't mean he could crack either one of our starting lineups right now.

Basing Owens being better than Moss off only career statistics is a poor argument. I do believe Owens is slightly better, but not for that reason.

Is this Commander logic?

 

[Gamebreaker]

Yeah, and no....

While the 2005 season will not have a direct effect on the 2006 season in terms of how a player has played...it can still be relevant.

Admittedly, just bec. a player has a good season one year does not guarantee them to have a good year, the next year. And similarily, a bad season in one year does not guarantee a follow up of the same the following year.

However, looking at a players past can give you a level of expectation, that is justified. If a certain player has played at a high level for the past 3 years, is it unfair to expect a high level of play the following year? No. Why? Because history suggests that player will play at a high level again. It does not guarantee it, but it does give you a level of expectation.

Similarily, if a player has one good year out of five years, and the good year being the most recent....its not illogical to assume he has either turned the corner, or it was a fluke season....bec. history suggests it was an anomaly thus far in that player's career.

So yea, it is relevant and irrelevant.

And using Rice (a retired WR) is a stretch to say the least, in your arguement.

Yeah, Rice was a stretch.

Regardless, my main point was simply using career stats shouldn't be your main argument for x player over y player. The strengths and weaknesses of that players' game should be more relevant.

 

[Hostile]

Yeah, Rice was a stretch.

Regardless, my main point was simply using career stats shouldn't be your main argument for x player over y player. The strengths and weaknesses of that players' game should be more relevant.

I think the point was that Owens is not past his prime while Rice obviously is.

Make it Rice at 32 years old and how do you think your example works?

It pays to read through something before posting it. What you posted was rather silly. Just food for thought.

 

[Gamebreaker]

Is this Commander logic?

It never fails in here, to counter any argument a Commander fan makes with silly dumb comments like "Commander logic" without actually countering anything at all. Please.

Somehow, it doesn't seem somewhat vague to compare two recievers not by the strengths and weaknesses they bring to the field, their playmaking ability, or even durability, but solely by career stats that can be skewed due to other circumstances that have nothing to do with the individual ability of that player. You're smarter than that.