How Do Owens And Roy Williams Stack-Up Against Other Top WR'S?

[J.Allen69U]

Yall play the Bears the Giants play the Niners.

If you are refering to the Vikings, I do not play for them therefore I play no one. The team I cheer for, the Giants, play the Niners.

 

[ajk23az]

Yall play the Bears the Giants play the Niners.

He is a Giants fan...

 

[JordanTaber]

Marvin Harrison's washed up, Reggie Wayne is a system receiver. I have always had a sneaking suspicion T.J. Houshmandaldafsljkfasdlkjsfalkjfesaljkfesaljk is too.

Fitzgerald and Boldin are the only pair who stack up, and Boldin is so injury-prone it almost makes that duo non-existent.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The hype that they are the best WR tandem. And Catch17 I can tell you are the type that doesn't like to hear something that they don't agree with but sometimes you need to step and be objective.

Who asserted that Williams and Owens constituted the best tandem in the league?

In my opinion, the basic premise of your initial question is flawed. You asked us to rate Owens/Williams against the better wide receiver tandems in the league. And due to the fact that Williams and Owens have yet to play a snap together, our answers can only be based on potential production.

In terms of pure potential and nothing else (because we have nothing else to go on), Williams and Owens can be one of the best tandems in the league.

 

[J.Allen69U]

Who asserted that Williams and Owens constituted the best tandem in the league?

In my opinion, the basic premise of your initial question is flawed. You asked us to rate Owens/Williams against the better wide receiver tandems in the league. And due to the fact that Williams and Owens have yet to play a snap together, our answers can only be based on potential production.

In terms of pure potential and nothing else (because we have nothing else to go on), Williams and Owens can be one of the best tandems in the league.

I did not create this thread, and I believe the 2nd person to respond said they were most likely the best tandem. But thanks for you opinion.

 

[AtlCB]

Yeah on paper. Kinda like your secondary was #1 before the season started.

You do realize we have two pro bowl starters out with injuries in the secondary. Your comment was idiotic at best and poor trolling at worst.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I did not create this thread, and I believe the 2nd person to respond said they were most likely the best tandem. But thanks for you opinion.

Regardless of who created this thread, we're talking solely in terms of potential. You seem to want us to account for actual production.

Well, guess what?

There isn't any. We can only speak hypothetically.

 

[J.Allen69U]

You do realize we have two pro bowl starters out with injuries in the secondary. Your comment was idiotic at best and poor trolling at worst.

You really consider Roy Williams (safety) a legit pro bowler? You think he HELPS in coverage?

 

[J.Allen69U]

Regardless of who created this thread, we're talking solely in terms of potential. You seem to want us to account for actual production.

Well, guess what?

There isn't any.

I acutally made a statement earlier agreeing with that point of view. But someone asked for my opinion so I shared it with them.

 

[AtlCB]

I did not create this thread, and I believe the 2nd person to respond said they were most likely the best tandem. But thanks for you opinion.

You may want to re-read his response. I didn't see him implying that they were "most likely the best tandem."

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You really consider Roy Williams (safety) a legit pro bowler? You think he HELPS in coverage?

Williams has made pro bowl numerous times. His coverage deficiencies are well-documented, but clearly, he's a legitimate pro bowler.

 

[AtlCB]

You really consider Roy Williams (safety) a legit pro bowler? You think he HELPS in coverage?

He's a lot better than the other scrubs we tossed out there.

I have a question for you troll: If the VaGiants lost two starters in the secondary (including one of their best starters), do you seriously think the defense wouldn't suffer?

 

[J.Allen69U]

You may want to re-read his response. I didn't see him implying that they were "most likely the best tandem."

"potentially, it is very close if not better."

Your right he did not imply it he flat out said it.

 

[AtlCB]

"potentially, it is very close if not better."

Your right he did not imply it he flat out said it.

Notice the word POTENTIALLY. Webster's has a nice website where you can look up the definitions of words you do not understand.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

"potentially, it is very close if not better."

Your right he did not imply it he flat out said it.

He said "potentially."

Again, we can only speak in terms of potential. And, he's right: Williams and Owens have the potential to become the best tandem in the league.

 

[J.Allen69U]

Notice the word POTENTIALLY. Webster's has a nice website where you can look up the definitions of words you do not understand.

Thanks pal, but the part where it says "if not" cancells out the word potentially. Thanks the the english lesson.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Thanks pal, but the part where it says "if not" cancells out the word potentially. Thanks the the english lesson.

Explain. :laugh2:

 

[J.Allen69U]

Explain.

Sure thing.
Roy Williams and TO are potentially the best WR tandem in the NFL, and if they are not potentially the best than they are the best.

 

[RainMan]

Wow. Is English not your first language?

The sentence structure indicates they're potentially among the best, and could be the best. Not that they are the best.

For instance: "This presidential race potentially could be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, landslides ever" isn't saying it is going to be the biggest landslide ever.

It states it could be a landslide, with the highest potential of being the biggest ever. But never does it flatly state it certainly will be the biggest landslide ever.

 

[J.Allen69U]

Wow. Is English not your first language?

The sentence structure indicates they're potentially among the best, and could be the best. Not that they are the best.

For instance: "This presidential race potentially could be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, landslides ever" isn't saying it is going to be the biggest landslide ever.

It states it could be a landslide, with the highest potential of being the biggest ever. But never does it flatly state it certainly will be the biggest landslide ever.

That is what I just said but you used a different example.
Originally Posted by AtlCB
You may want to re-read his response. I didn't see him implying that they were "most likely the best tandem."