Smaller, faster receivers
-
- Hog
- Posts: 1090
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 pm
- Location: Palm Springs, CA
Smaller, faster receivers
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.
-
- #######
- Posts: 7225
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:13 pm
- Location: Washington D.C.
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.
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!!
___________________________
___________________________
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.
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.
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.
-
- Hog
- Posts: 897
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:16 am
- Location: Mclean, VA
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
- blchizzleke
- Hog
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:14 pm
- Location: PA
Re: Smaller, faster receivers
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!!
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

joebagadonuts on IsaneBoost's signature:
-- "I laughed. I cried. Better than Cats"
-- "I laughed. I cried. Better than Cats"
- jazzyjimmy
- swine
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:39 pm
- Location: Brooklyn NY
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
ey 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)
R.I.P. Sean Taylor (April 1, 1983 - November 27, 2007)
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
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!
-
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
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.