GIFs of Devin Street's Catches

[NeonDeion21]

See the rest at: http://all22breakdown.com/video-watch-all-of-devin-streets-targets-in-his-first-game/

 

[casmith07]

He looks kind of how Williams looked as a rookie. That's a good thing.

 

[CCBoy]

Good focus on a young talent...

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Our depth at WR is kind of ridiculous.

 

[CCBoy]

Marcus Mosher does a great job of digging out Cowboys information...

 

[Sportsbabe]

Our depth at WR is kind of ridiculous.

Which may end up being a bad thing if we lose somebody good because of the numbers (cuts). Broadus was talking about that on Talkin Cowboys. Who you gonna keep and who you gonna cut?

 

[Cebrin]

Which may end up being a bad thing if we lose somebody good because of the numbers (cuts). Broadus was talking about that on Talkin Cowboys. Who you gonna keep and who you gonna cut?

trade

 

[Alexander]

Which may end up being a bad thing if we lose somebody good because of the numbers (cuts). Broadus was talking about that on Talkin Cowboys. Who you gonna keep and who you gonna cut?

It is not ridiculously deep. It stops right at the five mark.

It is a very good five deep group. Bryant, Williams, Beasley, Street and Harris. Keep that group healthy, you are pretty much set.

Who are the other ridiculous talents? Byrd? Newsome? Boyd? Benford? Briscoe? They are players that could get roles because most of them have size, but it is not like we are cutting an elite talent with any of them. None of them carry special talents on special teams, and that is what gets a fourth or fifth WR a job in this league.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He looks kind of how Williams looked as a rookie. That's a good thing.

Looks a lot like Williams now. That deep in he ran on the second one looks identical to one Willimas ran in the first half.

In, deep in, and out in order. Those are staples of this offense now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is not ridiculously deep. It stops right at the five mark.

It is a very good five deep group. Bryant, Williams, Beasley, Street and Harris. Keep that group healthy, you are pretty much set.

Who are the other ridiculous talents? Byrd? Newsome? Boyd? Benford? Briscoe? They are players that could get roles because most of them have size, but it is not like we are cutting an elite talent with any of them. None of them carry special talents on special teams, and that is what gets a fourth or fifth WR a job in this league.

How much have you seen Boyd or Byrd play? How deep do you think other teams WR roster looks? Remember when we trotted out Ogletree at WR3? Its all qualitative generalizations but your seem always negative.

Boyd in particular was making a lot of plays at the scrimmage. WR talent is not an on/off switch and we are talking about talent at the 6-10 spot on the roster. Boyd is not that far off from Street IMO. Byrd not far from that and so on. Spectrum not binary at least if you have to simplify it.

 

[TwoDeep3]

What I liked about the crossing route was how after the catch he split the defenders to get past the sticks. Good field awareness, body control, and avoided a collision. And save for the one he had to dig up off the turf, he caught everything with hands and not his body.

I like this kid.

 

[Alexander]

How much have you seen Boyd or Byrd play? How deep do you think other teams WR roster looks?

Are you kidding me with this argument? Seriously?

Take a look around at rosters across the league. There are tons of weird WR groupings that don't make sense.

Robert Woods right now is running fourth string in Buffalo. It is insane he is behind some white slot WR in Hogan that nobody should care about, but that is how it works. It is about specialties and how the bottom four, five and six fit with special teams.

It is not about marching out a beastly WR group all above 6-3 that can look great in practice.

Dallas is pretty set with what they have.

Byrd or Boyd whipping up on fourth, fifth or sixth CBs on your roster could easily speak to that depth as much as it does their own talent. They are both big boys, but they cannot do much more than that. And it takes more utility to make it as a fourth or fifth WR on an NFL team. When you start talking about how they are playing well as punt or kick returner or as gunners, I might care. Until then, the concern with these players begins and ends with whether they make it onto the practice squad.

Remember when we trotted out Ogletree at WR3? Its all qualitative generalizations but your seem always negative.

We were idiots with Ogletree. He was Garrett's brother's pet and some delusional people in the organization claimed he ran routes as well as Glenn. So what?

Boyd in particular was making a lot of plays at the scrimmage. WR talent is not an on/off switch and we are talking about talent at the 6-10 spot on the roster. Boyd is not that far off from Street IMO. Byrd not far from that and so on. Spectrum not binary at least if you have to simplify it.

We will see at the final cuts, Fuzzy Wuzzy.[/quote]

 

[hairic]

All or most of his routes/passes he was on the field:

 

[casmith07]

Looks a lot like Williams now. That deep in he ran on the second one looks identical to one Willimas ran in the first half.

In, deep in, and out in order. Those are staples of this offense now.

I like it.

 

[Idgit]

How much have you seen Boyd or Byrd play? How deep do you think other teams WR roster looks? Remember when we trotted out Ogletree at WR3? Its all qualitative generalizations but your seem always negative.

Boyd in particular was making a lot of plays at the scrimmage. WR talent is not an on/off switch and we are talking about talent at the 6-10 spot on the roster. Boyd is not that far off from Street IMO. Byrd not far from that and so on. Spectrum not binary at least if you have to simplify it.

Boyd was my sixth, too. I think he makes the roster before it's all said and done. He's a good candidate to get better, too, as he comes back from all his time off.

 

[xwalker]

Boyd was my sixth, too. I think he makes the roster before it's all said and done. He's a good candidate to get better, too, as he comes back from all his time off.

Newsome had some nice catches in the game also.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you kidding me with this argument? Seriously?

Take a look around at rosters across the league. There are tons of weird WR groupings that don't make sense.

Robert Woods right now is running fourth string in Buffalo. It is insane he is behind some white slot WR in Hogan that nobody should care about, but that is how it works. It is about specialties and how the bottom four, five and six fit with special teams.

It is not about marching out a beastly WR group all above 6-3 that can look great in practice.

Dallas is pretty set with what they have.

Byrd or Boyd whipping up on fourth, fifth or sixth CBs on your roster could easily speak to that depth as much as it does their own talent. They are both big boys, but they cannot do much more than that. And it takes more utility to make it as a fourth or fifth WR on an NFL team. When you start talking about how they are playing well as punt or kick returner or as gunners, I might care. Until then, the concern with these players begins and ends with whether they make it onto the practice squad.



We were idiots with Ogletree. He was Garrett's brother's pet and some delusional people in the organization claimed he ran routes as well as Glenn. So what?



We will see at the final cuts, Fuzzy Wuzzy.

[/quote]

You know Alex. You bring up Buffalo's 4th receiver and then don't even bother to compare him to our 4th receiver. Instead you bring up WR 6 and 7. It's gratuitous if ignorant. You say that I am not that smart? Introspection. You can make it your word of the day.

 

[Alexander]

You know Alex. You bring up Buffalo's 4th receiver and then don't even bother to compare him to our 4th receiver. Instead you bring up WR 6 and 7. It's gratuitous if ignorant. You say that I am not that smart? Introspection. You can make it your word of the day.

Why would I bother to do that when he is actually as good or better than our third?

Here is your word of the day: deflection.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why would I bother to do that when he is actually as good or better than our third?

Here is your word of the day: deflection.

Assumptive bluster. Nice. I cannot deflect what is not there.

You sure do try to front and carry on with this facade though. You have yet to make a substantive point as regards our WR depth.

You throw out one name and give platitudes towards special teams considerations. Then a lot of effort at a derisive tone. Great argument, Alex.

 

[Alexander]

Assumptive bluster. Nice. I cannot deflect what is not there.

You sure do try to front and carry on with this facade though. You have yet to make a substantive point as regards our WR depth.

You throw out one name and give platitudes towards special teams considerations. Great argument, Alex.

Like I said Fuzzy Wuzzy Lumpkins, we will see at final cuts.

The problem is that you just cannot grasp that NFL teams have specified roles for receivers and keep five or six based on how they fit into compartments.

You know, just like telling the difference between coverages.

But keep working at your new hobby though. Watch a lot of "film". One day, you might be able to keep up.