Smaller, faster receivers

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Post Reply
aswas71788
Hog
Posts: 1090
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA

Smaller, faster receivers

Post by aswas71788 »

I have had reservations about the receivers for this year. I noticed that of the 29 passes that were caught last night, 5 were for more than 20 yards. Seems to me that is an improvement over last year....keeping in mnd that this was a pre-season game, it still seems better.
The Hogster
#######
#######
Posts: 7225
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by The Hogster »

That is a good way to look at it. Another stat that jumps out to me is that our quarterbacks combined for 330 passing yards. We didn't see that type of production last year either.

Both Brunnell and Campbell passed for more than 110 yards, and we struggled at times to get one quarterback over 100 yards in a game.

On Redskins.com Gibbs mentioned that as well. He said that he anticipates that 6 plays of 20yds or more per game would probably lead the league in "Big Plays" so coming in at 5 is a positive sign, and that was with the starters only playing aobut 30 percent of the game.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________
oafusp
Hog
Posts: 1977
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:13 pm
Location: VA

Post by oafusp »

I think the shot gum really helped. I noticed a lot of plays out of the shotgun were successful, giving the QB a better view and more time to see the defense.

i didn't like the fact that the passes were to the sidelines. it's kind of hard to get yards after the catch when you get pushed out of bounds...

There's an article in the Wash Post Monday about the small receivers. But we've already seen that article 3 or 4 times in the last few months.
burp.
User avatar
cvillehog
Hog
Posts: 5220
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by cvillehog »

The WRs mostly looks sharp. They seemed to get some separation. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say if they ran precise routes, but they mostly seemed to be where the QBs expected them to be. I'm encouraged.
oafusp
Hog
Posts: 1977
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:13 pm
Location: VA

Post by oafusp »

The Hogster wrote:That is a good way to look at it. Another stat that jumps out to me is that our quarterbacks combined for 330 passing yards. We didn't see that type of production last year either.


I think that had more to do with the fact we were losing by 2-3 touchdowns the entire game. Gotta sling it when you're getting your ass kicked.
burp.
washington53
Hog
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:16 am
Location: Mclean, VA

Post by washington53 »

Well even though Ramsey struggled in the game. But overall our offense was an improvment, with 330 passing yards. I hated the 68 rushing yards but CP only played for one series. I think our new receivers looked good. But Mcants had quite a few receptions. Hope he can develop on that
Defense wins championships
User avatar
blchizzleke
Hog
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: PA

Re: Smaller, faster receivers

Post by blchizzleke »

aswas71788 wrote:I have had reservations about the receivers for this year. I noticed that of the 29 passes that were caught last night, 5 were for more than 20 yards. Seems to me that is an improvement over last year....keeping in mnd that this was a pre-season game, it still seems better.


Keep in mind though that of those 5 that were over twenty yards atleast three were in the winding moments of the game when the Panthers were just playing a prevent defense. :(
Beat the Cowboys!!
User avatar
Shabba
swine
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: rock hill, sc
Contact:

Post by Shabba »

I like the smaller wr's as well mainly because of there speed. If we can remember, Rickey Sanders, Gary Clark and some of the rest were small and fast.
'Washington DC, America's most exciting city'
Smithian
-----------
-----------
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Arkansas

Post by Smithian »

I still have a small wish we had drafted Mike Williams and Marlin Jackson. Jackson doesn't have too much speed, but neitheer did Smoot.

Still pretty happy with out first round picks.
"I said when he retired that Joe Gibbs was the best coach I'd ever faced." - Bill Parcells
User avatar
mattyk72
piglet
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 8:32 pm
Contact:

Post by mattyk72 »

The size issue is overblown. Production is what really matters. The NFL is too concerned about QBs who are 6-3, 230 lbs and now that trend is moving toward the wideouts as well.
air_hog
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 10:01 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by air_hog »

washington53 wrote:Well even though Ramsey struggled in the game. But overall our offense was an improvment, with 330 passing yards. I hated the 68 rushing yards but CP only played for one series. I think our new receivers looked good. But Mcants had quite a few receptions. Hope he can develop on that


The only reason we had so many passing yards and so few rushing yards, was because we were down the whole game :oops:
joebagadonuts on IsaneBoost's signature:
-- "I laughed. I cried. Better than Cats"
User avatar
jazzyjimmy
swine
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:39 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Post by jazzyjimmy »

I like the possibility of making big plays with these smaller, faster receivers but I do have some questions about their durability. Moss and Patten have been pretty injury prone. We gotta get some better pass protection for Ramsey and some better playcalling this year.
JPM36
####
####
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:41 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Post by JPM36 »

Our WRs remind me a lot of the Patriots WRs. Small, quick, good route runners, good hands. They lack the physicality of a Rod Gardner, but they bring other things to the table. Throw in Chris Cooley and you have the makings of a decent passing attack if any of the QBs can step up.
R.I.P. Christopher Wallace (May 21, 1972 - March 9, 1997)

R.I.P. Sean Taylor (April 1, 1983 - November 27, 2007)
User avatar
hkHog
Hog
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:06 pm

Post by hkHog »

air_hog wrote:
washington53 wrote:Well even though Ramsey struggled in the game. But overall our offense was an improvment, with 330 passing yards. I hated the 68 rushing yards but CP only played for one series. I think our new receivers looked good. But Mcants had quite a few receptions. Hope he can develop on that


The only reason we had so many passing yards and so few rushing yards, was because we were down the whole game :oops:


I disagree completely. This was a preseason game, the score didn't count at all. We were out there to run our offense and see what we could do. We may have been trying to score quickly but that had nothing to do with the score and we didn't just desperately fling it around.

And as for the other suggestion that Carolina was playing prevent D that is also silly. In the preseason, particularly when the scrubs are in, you want to see what your guys can do and if they can do it in a game-like atmosphere. You don't want to say, "Great, our third string D can sure play some great prevent D!" You want to see if those guys can play, period.

Preason games don't matter! The score doesn't matter! The only thing that matters is getting the guys real experience and seeing who can play and who can't!
crazyhorse1
ch1
ch1
Posts: 3634
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Post by crazyhorse1 »

The tendency to bash Ramsey is causing some people to be less than disappointed about Patten's and Moss' performance Saturday night. Sure, Ramsey wasn't sharp-- agreed. But that doesn't mean Patten and Moss were getting separation. If they had been, Ramsey would have been at least throwing the ball in their direction. He wasn't. Moss was open long early. After that, zip. Patten didn't beat anybody. Tell me I'm wrong. I would like to think I'm wrong.
Post Reply