Time to be real at Wr....

[Q_the_man]

You havent ever watched or payed attention to the draft have you?

And ur point is...... What since Colston was drafted in the 7th, means nothing, means the Saints Scouting Department get Kudos..... or else we should trade our 1st 2nd and 3rd for all late picks, and hope we find a gem....

BTW i saw the Draft when My Cousin was drafted to the Cowboys last year buddy, how about u......

Brady was a 6th round pick, tell me how many experts thought he was a future HOFer, I'll tell u None..... more than likely if u want a surer prospect u take a player in the first compare to the 7th...thought u may be wrong but that the way the cookie crumbles

 

[Hostile]

Who else in the draft or Free agency can we actually get to replace TO, and please don't say Calvin Johnson, Jarrett or Ginn because they will be long gone when we pick.... So who do we replace TO with, please I need to Know

Andre Johnson from the Texans for Julius.

 

[Doomsday101]

Andre Johnson from the Texans for Julius.

I think it would take more for Houston to part with their only Pro Bowl player. However we are talking about Houston so who knows. :laugh2:

 

[Q_the_man]

Andre Johnson from the Texans for Julius.

JJ for Mario Williams.

 

[BigDFan5]

What have any Hall of Fame receivers done for their teams? A lot, to be sure, but a team doesn't necessarily HAVE to have a Hall of Fame WR to win the Super Bowl.

And just as the last 5 or 6 Super Bowl champs had no Pro-Bowlers at WR, Dallas could get there WITHOUT a certain somebody.

And I won't enumerate the list (except to say that a new Def. Coordinator would be nice).

Steelers have a pro bowl WR

Tampa had a pro bowl WR

Rams had 2 pro bowl WRs

Denver had a pro bowl WR

Dallas had pro bowl WR

San Fran had a pro bowl WR

Washington had a pro bowl WR



So in the past 15 years 10 superbowls were won by a team with a WR who as in the pro bowl either around or during that year

Of the other 5 Superbowls 3 were the Patriots who traded their #1 WR for a first round pick

Baltimore who had a GREAT defense

and Green Bay 1996

 

[Shotgun Dave]

So you think since one anomalous team (NE) skewed the results for a few years that proves your point? Sure thing, buddy. Go ahead and throw out the results for the last 40 years of Super Bowls.
By the way, Seattle gave up a 1st round draft pick to get one of NE's receivers. That must mean he isn't a top quality WR.

No, Mr. I-Can't-Read-Properly, what I think is that the last FOUR teams who won the last SIX Super Bowls did not have a WR that went to the Pro Bowl that year. I'm not going to look up 40 years worth of Super Bowls to prove something that the last 6 years - and a lifetime watching the NFL - makes evident. You people generalize too much.

And the Hawks gave up a 1st for Deion Branch, you say? Of COURSE he's a "top quality WR" - just look at his stats!

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302177/gamelogs/2006

For those who can't bear to look at the facts for fear that it will ruin their ability to argue, let me spare you the trouble. Mr. "top quality WR" has 687 yards for the year and has caught a whopping 4 TD's. He has exactly ONE game with more than 80 yards all year. On the other hand, he DID recover a fumble. By your standard, we have FOUR players (Owens, Glenn, Crayton, AND Witten) right now who can take us to a Super Bowl.

It seems you speak too much, too soon.

 

[BigDFan5]

And ur point is...... What since Colston was drafted in the 7th, means nothing, means the Saints Scouting Department get Kudos..... or else we should trade our 1st 2nd and 3rd for all late picks, and hope we find a gem....

BTW i saw the Draft when My Cousin was drafted to the Cowboys last year buddy, how about u......

Brady was a 6th round pick, tell me how many experts thought he was a future HOFer, I'll tell u None..... more than likely if u want a surer prospect u take a player in the first compare to the 7th...thought u may be wrong but that the way the cookie crumbles

:laugh2: So it this how you operate? You say something totally false and then when you are called out on it you go into a rant on a totally different subject that has nothing to do with what was said?


Lets recap

YOU said

Why doesn't it take a 1st to move up, unless u move up one spot, otherwise it will cost a first....

That is false and if you think its true then you do not pay attention. Maybe you can call your "cousin" and he can help you out some

 

[Chocolate Lab]

ShotgunDave gets it.

Besides, are we using Pro Bowls as the measuring stick? I think we all know how bogus those are. Half the time the guys make the Pro Bowl because they're on winning teams, anyway -- it's not like the WR is carrying the whole team to the Super Bowl.

And in our case... Terry Glenn has been a Pro Bowl WR, and he's probably playing about as well as he ever has.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

Steelers have a pro bowl WR

Tampa had a pro bowl WR

Rams had 2 pro bowl WRs

Denver had a pro bowl WR

Dallas had pro bowl WR

San Fran had a pro bowl WR

Washington had a pro bowl WR



So in the past 15 years 10 superbowls were won by a team with a WR who as in the pro bowl either around or during that year

Of the other 5 Superbowls 3 were the Patriots who traded their #1 WR for a first round pick

Baltimore who had a GREAT defense

and Green Bay 1996

And Cincinnati did the Ickey Shuffle once. It doesn't change the fact that the year the last 6 teams won the Super Bowl NOT ONE of their receivers went to the Pro Bowl. Because a team at some point had a Pro-Bowl receiver within a few years of winning a Super Bowl doesn't mean much.

Look it up for yourself.

http://www.probowlonline.com/pro-bowl-past.php

 

[Doomsday101]

I think has more to do with playmakers on your team regardless of the position. Rice and Irvin were differance makers because they made the big plays that changed games on the other hand teams have won SB without having the super star WR but the group as a whole that made up a solid WR core.

 

[BigDFan5]

And Cincinnati did the Ickey Shuffle once. It doesn't change the fact that the year the last 6 teams won the Super Bowl NOT ONE of their receivers went to the Pro Bowl. Because a team at some point had a Pro-Bowl receiver within a few years of winning a Super Bowl doesn't mean much.

Look it up for yourself.

http://www.probowlonline.com/pro-bowl-past.php

Last year the Steelers won the SB Ward had been a pro bowl WR for the previous 4 years in a row


Before that Tampa, Keyshawn was coming off a pro bowl year

I wasnt using "within a few years" I was using the year before or after

So the pro bowl WR was still the #1 WR on the team


The only teams that didnt have a pro bowl WR was Baltimore, New England, and Green Bay

3 teams in 15 years



Rams were one of the last 6 teams and they had Isaac Bruce in the Pro Bowl in 1999 the year they won the SB

As for the Broncos Rod Smith didnt make the pro bowl that year but has been a 3 time pro bowler since then. I assume he was good those years in the superbowl as well since he put up 2400 yards and 18 TDs

 

[Shotgun Dave]

ShotgunDave gets it.

Besides, are we using Pro Bowls as the measuring stick? I think we all know how bogus those are. Half the time the guys make the Pro Bowl because they're on winning teams, anyway -- it's not like the WR is carrying the whole team to the Super Bowl.

And in our case... Terry Glenn has been a Pro Bowl WR, and he's probably playing about as well as he ever has.

Thanks. It just occurred to me that Dallas will DEFINITELY win the Super Bowl this year. Why? Because we have not one but THREE Pro Bowl players catching passes for us! Well, why not? After all, Owens, Glenn and Witten have all been to the Pro Bowl within the last few years!

You say that doesn't make sense? Well, that's the logic I've seen used about 100 times today so it MUST be right!

 

[LaTunaNostra]

ShotgunDave gets it.

Besides, are we using Pro Bowls as the measuring stick? I think we all know how bogus those are. Half the time the guys make the Pro Bowl because they're on winning teams, anyway -- it's not like the WR is carrying the whole team to the Super Bowl.

And in our case... Terry Glenn has been a Pro Bowl WR, and he's probably playing about as well as he ever has.

I wish somehow we could make a deal for Lav Coles.

He'd be a perfect wo for Tony's skill set.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

Last year the Steelers won the SB Ward had been a pro bowl WR for the previous 4 years in a row


Before that Tampa, Keyshawn was coming off a pro bowl year

I wasnt using "within a few years" I was using the year before or after

So the pro bowl WR was still the #1 WR on the team


The only teams that didnt have a pro bowl WR was Baltimore, New England, and Green Bay

3 teams in 15 years

Of course you are correct, I simply didn't understand the nuances of your point. Were you for the Pro Bowl before you were against it?

 

[BigDFan5]

Of course you are correct, I simply didn't understand the nuances of your point. Were you for the Pro Bowl before you were against it?

Ahhh here come the idiotic remarks, you use the pro bowl to judge and then when someone brings up actual facts you retreat to snide comments. Keep at it, this seems to be what you do best

 

[2much2soon]

No, Mr. I-Can't-Read-Properly, what I think is that the last FOUR teams who won the last SIX Super Bowls did not have a WR that went to the Pro Bowl that year. I'm not going to look up 40 years worth of Super Bowls to prove something that the last 6 years - and a lifetime watching the NFL - makes evident. You people generalize too much.

and

John Stallworth
Lynn Swan
Fred Biletnikoff
Cliff Branch
Drew Pearson
Paul Warfield


The point you seem to be avoiding is that Super Bowl teams typically have at least one talented WR capable of dominating a game and opening up the things for the rest of the offense.

One team, NE(not four unique teams), doing it without any WRs widely considered to be of Pro Bowl quality isn't a trend, its an anomaly.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

Ahhh here come the idiotic remarks, you use the pro bowl to judge and then when someone brings up actual facts you retreat to snide comments. Keep at it, this seems to be what you do best

My friend, it was not I who allowed a vagueness into the argument. It was you. I was crystal clear. I will again post the facts as I stated them earlier.

Not a single Super Bowl winner in the last 6 years has had a WR go to the Pro Bowl in the year the Super Bowl was won.

is that clear enough for you? Is this free enough of "snide comments" for you? Shall I paint a picture of the previous 6 Super Bowl winners with their WR corp watching the Pro Bowl in front of their TV sets to illustrate?

DANGIT! I allowed a snide comment to creep in!

 

[Shotgun Dave]

and

John Stallworth
Lynn Swan
Fred Biletnikoff
Cliff Branch
Drew Pearson
Paul Warfield


The point you seem to be avoiding is that Super Bowl teams typically have at least one talented WR capable of dominating a game and opening up the things for the rest of the offense.

One team, NE(not four unique teams), doing it without any WRs widely considered to be of Pro Bowl quality isn't a trend, its an anomaly.

See the post above this one. That should help clarify it for you.

 

[Hostile]

JJ for Mario Williams.

Mario is not a WR.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

and

John Stallworth
Lynn Swan
Fred Biletnikoff
Cliff Branch
Drew Pearson
Paul Warfield


The point you seem to be avoiding is that Super Bowl teams typically have at least one talented WR capable of dominating a game and opening up the things for the rest of the offense.

One team, NE(not four unique teams), doing it without any WRs widely considered to be of Pro Bowl quality isn't a trend, its an anomaly.

Biletnikoff? Warfield? Why don't you cite Festus Cooper? After all, he went to the Pro Bowl (then known as the Mercantile Bowl) back in 1814 out in the Montana Territory and his team won a Super Bowl (then known as the Wagon Wheel Bowl) 6 years later!

Got any support for your argument that's a little more - I don't know - current?