Best Cowboy WR Since Irvin Was Drafted

[superpunk]

Then I'm not understanding the point you're making or what you're asking. Statistically, last year was not Glenn's "Best year ever" His numbers were about the same as they had been throughout his career when he's not injured, suspended, and he has a decent QB.

The point wasn't really about Glenn at all. I only mentioned him in passing, talking about our offense.

TO appears to be the catalyst that made this offense go from "meh" to "wow". Besides making up words in the post, I think it's all correct.

I'd offer a question for Glenn-votes.

What do you think of the difference in offensive production from 05 to 06? Keep in mind that we were still a top offense with Drew Bledsoe, even though he turned the ball over alot. Glenn had been here for years, but it seems that TO's presence really opened some things up. Glenn had one of his best years ever, playing across from TO - I'm sure he benefitted as well.

Just another thought to drop into a discussion that is nearing critical mass.

Glenn had been here for a few years. TO gets here, and we explode.

Coincidence? Or were there other factors?

 

[WoodysGirl]

The point wasn't really about Glenn at all. I only mentioned him in passing, talking about our offense.

TO appears to be the catalyst that made this offense go from "meh" to "wow". Besides making up words in the post, I think it's all correct.

Glenn had been here for a few years. TO gets here, and we explode.

Coincidence? Or were there other factors?

I would say the insertion of Romo is what made this offense go. For about 5 games, his numbers were off the charts. These are their numbers before the NYG.

Through houston game
Glenn 295/337 - 13.48 ypc finished w/15
Owens 22/277 - 12.59 ypc finished w/13.9

But again this is just adding another piece of criterion into a simple question about "Best Cowboy WR since Irvin was drafted"

 

[DallasEast]

Terry Glenn

93, 42.27%
Terrell Owens

96. 43.64%

If neither of the two frontrunners receive 50% of the overall vote, can we just declare this poll null and void? No? Dang.

I betcha a bunch of votes from Miami-Dade county were not counted! Recount! Hanging chads! Hanging chads!

 

[YosemiteSam]

so i put my hair up under my hat and i went up to ask him why...

He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you

woah!

Illegal procedure. Loss of 10 yards. Replay 1st down.

 

[Concord]

 

[superpunk]

I would say the insertion of Romo is what made this offense go. For about 5 games, his numbers were off the charts. These are their numbers before the NYG.

Through houston game
Glenn 295/337 - 13.48 ypc finished w/15.48

Owens 22/277 - 12.59 ypc finished w/13.9

But again this is just adding another piece of criterion into a simple question about "Best Cowboy WR since Irvin was drafted"

I think you're missing the point.

Romo did make the WR's stats better - but the offense didn't get much better, statistically, upon his insertion.

It did get better last year overall, even with Bledsoe. So - clearly TO had an enormous impact there, unless you want to credit the new tackles, which I can fully accept. Either way, TO "appears" to have affected our offensive production much more than Glenn - either because other teams are so afraid of him, or something else.

I'm not sure a straight correlation can be drawn - but at the least, TO seems like a major catalyst in our offensive improvement. Much more so than Glenn was his first few years here.

Is that a feather in TO's "Best Cowboys receiver since Irvin" cap?

 

[WoodysGirl]

I think you're missing the point.

Romo did make the WR's stats better - but the offense didn't get much better, statistically, upon his insertion.

It did get better last year, even with Bledsoe. So - clearly TO had an enormous impact there, unless you want to credit the new tackles, which I can fully accept. Either way, TO "appears" to have affected our offensive production much more than Glenn - either because other teams are so afraid of him, or something else.

I'm not sure a straight correlation can be drawn - but at the least, TO seems like a major catalyst in our offensive improvement. Much more so than Glenn was his first few years here.

Is that a feather in TO's "Best Cowboys receiver since Irvin" cap?

I don't think I missed the point. You go from talking about Glenn's production to the overall offensive production to TO's contribution. Red herring points.

I just wouldn't point to just one thing and say that's why the offense was so much better. Romo was a factor, better tackle play was a factor, TO was a factor, a healthy Glenn was a factor, a healthy Julius to go with Barber, maybe even better play calling.

It doesn't change that I would still vote for Glenn based on my initial criteria.

 

[adamknite]

I would say the insertion of Romo is what made this offense go. For about 5 games, his numbers were off the charts. These are their numbers before the NYG.

Through houston game
Glenn 295/337 - 13.48 ypc finished w/15
Owens 22/277 - 12.59 ypc finished w/13.9

But again this is just adding another piece of criterion into a simple question about "Best Cowboy WR since Irvin was drafted"

Actually that's only 1.28 yards per catch, but man that sure is a lot of catches though.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyways on topic: I don't know. I think when looking at the players listed careers, Owens is the best WR since Irvin. When you look at production as a Cowboy, Glenn is probably the best. I'm riding the fence for now.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Actually that's only 1.28 yards per catch, but man that sure is a lot of catches though.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyways on topic: I don't know. I think when looking at the players listed careers, Owens is the best WR since Irvin. When you look at production as a Cowboy, Glenn is probably the best. I'm riding the fence for now.

Oopsie... lol

multi-tasking is a bia.

 

[5Stars]

Well, I couldn't care less if T.O. was here or not, however, I had to give the knucklehead credit!

 

[superpunk]

I don't think I missed the point. You go from talking about Glenn's production to the overall offensive production to TO's contribution. Red herring points.

It's hardly a red herring. There may not be direct correlation, but there is some there. Much of our offense was the same, and even with Drew Bledsoe in there (how many times can this be mentioned) we were still producing as a top unit.

TO was a notable addition that undoubtedly contributed to this. Glenn had been here, and the offense was kind of plugging along - TO gets here, and there's an explosion.

It's possible that it's merely coincidence, and that other factors were largely responsible. I just think you have to look at TO's arrival, and our offensive explosion, and acknowledge the correlation - no matter how many other factors you want to toss in there. So maybe, what TO accomplished for this team dwarfs what Glenn has done?

 

[iceberg]

The point wasn't really about Glenn at all. I only mentioned him in passing, talking about our offense.

TO appears to be the catalyst that made this offense go from "meh" to "wow". Besides making up words in the post, I think it's all correct.



Glenn had been here for a few years. TO gets here, and we explode.

Coincidence? Or were there other factors?

yea, romo. you give all the credit to TO cause it seems to suit the argument. from the stats previously posted, he wasn't doing well under bledsoe.

maybe it's a "team" and looking at 1 person to make the whole difference is just a bit...silly. if TO were all that and a bucket of extra crispy chicken, then why not do we well under bledsoe?

from vintage (thanks man)
57 catches, 805 yards, 8 TDs with Romo starting 10 games
5.7 catches, 80.5 yards, .8 TDs per game with Romo

28 catches, 375 yards, 4 TDs with Bledsoe starting 6 games.
4.67 catches, 62.5 yards, .667 TD per game with Bledsoe
-----

say in the same 10 games coming up 40% on results to be consistant:

28+12 (2.8 x 4 rounded up) = 40
375+160 = 535 yards.

the fact is TO did better w/Romo than Bledsoe.

so it would appear that romo has as much to do with TO's success as maybe TO. you still seem to be giving TO all the credit for our offense doing so well and that doesn't seem to be the case to me.

 

[iceberg]

It's hardly a red herring. There may not be direct correlation, but there is some there. Much of our offense was the same, and even with Drew Bledsoe in there (how many times can this be mentioned) we were still producing as a top unit.

TO was a notable addition that undoubtedly contributed to this. Glenn had been here, and the offense was kind of plugging along - TO gets here, and there's an explosion.

It's possible that it's merely coincidence, and that other factors were largely responsible. I just think you have to look at TO's arrival, and our offensive explosion, and acknowledge the correlation - no matter how many other factors you want to toss in there. So maybe, what TO accomplished for this team dwarfs what Glenn has done?

if we were producing as a "top unit" w/bledsoe he'd not have been benched by papa parcells.

red herring applies.

 

[DallasEast]

Breaking News: Newly crowned Belmont Stakes winner Rags to Riches has formerly issued a challenge to race the winner of this poll. Sources say that Chad Johnson has already put $10K on the horse...

 

[iceberg]

Actually that's only 1.28 yards per catch, but man that sure is a lot of catches though.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyways on topic: I don't know. I think when looking at the players listed careers, Owens is the best WR since Irvin. When you look at production as a Cowboy, Glenn is probably the best. I'm riding the fence for now.

i don't think you're riding the fence. both are accurate answers but don't apply to each other. some want one answer to be right in both situations and that just isn't happening.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Breaking News: Newly crowned Belmont Stakes winner Rags to Riches has formerly issued a challenge to race the winner of this poll. Sources say that Chad Johnson has already put $10K on the horse...

My question is: Who's the better receiver Rags to Riches, TO, or Glenn?

 

[superpunk]

For christ's sake people (read: iceberg) learn how to read before responding to posts. Learn what a red herring is, as well.

We averaged 29 ppg with Bledsoe. 25 with Romo. (I didn't use the Giants game, split). As a unit - we produced, regardless of the QB. It's not about whether or not TO was better with Romo or not - THAT is a red herring, as TO's production does not equate to our offense's production.

TO get here, we exploded. You can choose to acknowledge the correlation or not, but there is no red herring or even any other logical fallacy inherent in that idea. I have acknowledged that he may not be the sole reason, but he was clearly a significant catalyst.

 

[Seven]

Terry Glenn. I'm sure all his athletic attributes have been discussed. IMO, the guy is a mouse. He plays his game and you never hear from him. I find this especially admirable due to the fact he was a definite whiner when with the Patriots and I labeled him as such. Since he's been with Dallas you could not ask for a better set of hands. He's a dying breed in the way he goes at the ball to make up for lack of height.

Now......#81 has a chance to do what he does, which is phenominal, but I'm still waiting. I'd be willing to wager Garrett will end my impatience.

 

[DallasEast]

My question is: Who's the better receiver Rags to Riches, TO, or Glenn?

Can you add 'Other' to the list of choices? I have a medical condition...

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1526184&postcount=115

 

[iceberg]

For christ's sake people (read: iceberg) learn how to read before responding to posts. Learn what a red herring is, as well.

We averaged 29 ppg with Bledsoe. 25 with Romo. (I didn't use the Giants game, split). As a unit - we produced, regardless of the QB. It's not about whether or not TO was better with Romo or not - THAT is a red herring, as TO's production does not equate to our offense's production.

TO get here, we exploded. You can choose to acknowledge the correlation or not, but there is no red herring or even any other logical fallacy inherent in that idea. I have acknowledged that he may not be the sole reason, but he was clearly a significant catalyst.

whatever. (read: whatever)