MVN: 5 Players Who Could Breakout in '08

[VetSkinsFan]

Kelly or THomas should have a big rookie year. Santana Moss should have a big year as well.

I wonder if all the starter spots on WR up for grabs in competition? Or is it already a sealed deal for WR no1 and no2?

I think Santana Should definatley be no1 , I am not sold on Randle El being the no. 2 guy though? I actually would like it to be decided by competing in practice.

I guess you missed the multiple threads and discussions where ARE will be the slot receiver.....

[BnGhog]

Kelly or THomas should have a big rookie year. Santana Moss should have a big year as well.

I wonder if all the starter spots on WR up for grabs in competition? Or is it already a sealed deal for WR no1 and no2?

I think Santana Should definatley be no1 , I am not sold on Randle El being the no. 2 guy though? I actually would like it to be decided by competing in practice.

I guess you missed the multiple threads and discussions where ARE will be the slot receiver.....

That was never officially stated. Zorn said he would like to see ARE moved to the slot, but he didn't say that was official or set in stone.

[CanesSkins26]

Kelly or THomas should have a big rookie year. Santana Moss should have a big year as well.

I wonder if all the starter spots on WR up for grabs in competition? Or is it already a sealed deal for WR no1 and no2?

I think Santana Should definatley be no1 , I am not sold on Randle El being the no. 2 guy though? I actually would like it to be decided by competing in practice.

I guess you missed the multiple threads and discussions where ARE will be the slot receiver.....

It's a weird situation. Zorn has mentioned ARE moving to the slot, but he's also referred to him as a starter. Either Thomas or Kelly is going to have to step up and take the #2 roll because if ARE remains a starter I think our passing game is once again going to be mediocre.

[brad7686]

Kelly or THomas should have a big rookie year. Santana Moss should have a big year as well.

I wonder if all the starter spots on WR up for grabs in competition? Or is it already a sealed deal for WR no1 and no2?

I think Santana Should definatley be no1 , I am not sold on Randle El being the no. 2 guy though? I actually would like it to be decided by competing in practice.

I guess you missed the multiple threads and discussions where ARE will be the slot receiver.....

It's a weird situation. Zorn has mentioned ARE moving to the slot, but he's also referred to him as a starter. Either Thomas or Kelly is going to have to step up and take the #2 roll because if ARE remains a starter I think our passing game is once again going to be mediocre.

Moss and ARE should not be guaranteed a starting job. I doubt the rookies will do good enough to push them both out of the 1 and 2 slots, but you never know. If you don't post a 1000 or even 800 yard season you should not be guaranteed a starting job IMO

[VetSkinsFan]

Kelly or THomas should have a big rookie year. Santana Moss should have a big year as well.

I wonder if all the starter spots on WR up for grabs in competition? Or is it already a sealed deal for WR no1 and no2?

I think Santana Should definatley be no1 , I am not sold on Randle El being the no. 2 guy though? I actually would like it to be decided by competing in practice.

I guess you missed the multiple threads and discussions where ARE will be the slot receiver.....

It's a weird situation. Zorn has mentioned ARE moving to the slot, but he's also referred to him as a starter. Either Thomas or Kelly is going to have to step up and take the #2 roll because if ARE remains a starter I think our passing game is once again going to be mediocre.

Moss and ARE should not be guaranteed a starting job. I doubt the rookies will do good enough to push them both out of the 1 and 2 slots, but you never know. If you don't post a 1000 or even 800 yard season you should not be guaranteed a starting job IMO

It's not in the team's best interest to start two rook wideouts. In addition, if you deny that the WR corps production (in addition to the rest of the team) WASN'T hurt by soft tissue injuries (which leans towards the training staff, not the players), then I'll concede that we have nothing to talk about.

[SkinsFreak]

It's not in the team's best interest to start two rook wideouts.

If the argument is for not the starting rookie wideouts instead of Moss and ARE, then I agree. But I can promise you, Thomas and Kelly will be starting this year. There will be a plethora of packages and we need these guys to play. I can absolutely envision Thomas and Kelly starting over Mix and Thrash. We will have several 4 receiver sets, or formations, and Thomas and Kelly bring tangibles that Moss and ARE don't. So the four of them are the perfect compliment of receivers.

I don't buy the notion that it takes several years for WR's to develop. I think some here are a bit trigger shy simply based on a few bad selections in Gardner and Westbrook. If a rookie gets thrown to, then he should make an impact, much like Colston and Bowe have, as they were simply involved. If they get thrown at and can't catch, then they really shouldn't be playing WR in the Pros. The distinction being that if they're involved in the play selection, and get thrown to, they should be contributors. Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football.

[VetSkinsFan]

It's not in the team's best interest to start two rook wideouts.

If the argument is for not the starting rookie wideouts instead of Moss and ARE, then I agree. But I can promise you, Thomas and Kelly will be starting this year. There will be a plethora of packages and we need these guys to play. I can absolutely envision Thomas and Kelly starting over Mix and Thrash. We will have several 4 receiver sets, or formations, and Thomas and Kelly bring tangibles that Moss and ARE don't. So the four of them are the perfect compliment of receivers.

I don't buy the notion that it takes several years for WR's to develop. I think some here are a bit trigger shy simply based on a few bad selections in Gardner and Westbrook. If a rookie gets thrown to, then he should make an impact, much like Colston and Bowe have, as they were simply involved. If they get thrown at and can't catch, then they really shouldn't be playing WR in the Pros. The distinction being that if they're involved in the play selection, and get thrown to, they should be contributors. Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football.

Key contributors and starters are not necessarily one in the same. Nowhere in MY post did I say that they won't contribute or there won't be packages where they won't be utilized. I've never said that I want Thrash/Mix to start over these two guys. I've merely stated that I would like to see Mix get his chance, just as many, many people lobbied for BLloyd to get his chance.

I don't buy the notion that it takes several years for WR's to develop.

This can or cannot be true. It depends on the individual receiver's experience and college offense in addition to their personal development.

Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football

You should know as well as the mere mortal populace that college production doesn't guarantee NFL success. I'm not judging either way, but you've given us a money back guarantee.

[SkinsFreak]

Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football

You should know as well as the mere mortal populace that college production doesn't guarantee NFL success. I'm not judging either way, but you've given us a money back guarantee.

I said there's "evidence these guys can catch a football". How is that a "money back guarantee" of NFL success? But I do guarantee they'll be contributors, regardless of production. We didn't draft these guys that high, at a position off severe need, to sit on the bench or become diversions.

[HogInSlop]

The thing I really like about Malcolm Kelly is his attitude -- he has an enormous chip on his shoulder since he fell so far in the draft. I am VERY excited about these two in general. We have a receiving corps that could cause some serious mismatches, esp in the red zone with ey, Davis, Mix, Kelly and Thomas all 6'2" or above...or well above.

[SkinsFreak]

Key contributors and starters are not necessarily one in the same.

Sorry, I didn't have time earlier, but please let me elaborate. Before every game, teams put out a list of starters. I'm not sure, but I would presume the proposed offensive starters are from a standard formation, meaning they may submit a list with two starting WR's. That may be the process in the formality.

My contention is that if on the opening offensive series, Kelly or Thomas see the field in different formations, then they are "starting". What if the first or second offensive play is a 3 or 4 receiver formation? My point, in general, whether they are deemed starters or not, they should be playing on every offensive series, and therefore, at least in my mind, are considered starters.

As for Mix, I'm fairly confident he will make the team. But Mix's numbers from college aren't even in the same discussion as Thomas and Kelly, and Mix has very little experience at the NLF level. He made a few catches in preseason for the Giants and a couple of plays on special teams for the Skins. I know he's been here for a while, so he's ahead from that standpoint, but in my mind, from a complete body of work perspective, Mix has very little over the two rookies. The Skins will have a minimum of 5 starting WR's, so again, I believe Mix is "in the mix", but he will have to outshine the rookies, and I don't see that happening. I believe both Kelly and Thomas are far more talented. That's my opinion.

[yupchagee]

Key contributors and starters are not necessarily one in the same.

Sorry, I didn't have time earlier, but please let me elaborate. Before every game, teams put out a list of starters. I'm not sure, but I would presume the proposed offensive starters are from a standard formation, meaning they may submit a list with two starting WR's. That may be the process in the formality.

My contention is that if on the opening offensive series, Kelly or Thomas see the field in different formations, then they are "starting". What if the first or second offensive play is a 3 or 4 receiver formation? My point, in general, whether they are deemed starters or not, they should be playing on every offensive series, and therefore, at least in my mind, are considered starters.

As for Mix, I'm fairly confident he will make the team. But Mix's numbers from college aren't even in the same discussion as Thomas and Kelly, and Mix has very little experience at the NLF level. He made a few catches in preseason for the Giants and a couple of plays on special teams for the Skins. I know he's been here for a while, so he's ahead from that standpoint, but in my mind, from a complete body of work perspective, Mix has very little over the two rookies. The Skins will have a minimum of 5 starting WR's, so again, I believe Mix is "in the mix", but he will have to outshine the rookies, and I don't see that happening. I believe both Kelly and Thomas are far more talented. That's my opinion.

There are only 22 starters, 11 O & 11 D. There is no way there will be 5 starting WR's. The starting lineup wil have the standard 2 WR's, 1 TE, 1 FB & 1 RB.

[SkinsFreak]

That's what I was implying in my first paragraph. I believe there is a difference between, for example, a non starting tackle, who may never see the field, verses five WR's that will all see the field, in the same game.

[yupchagee]

That's what I was implying in my first paragraph. I believe there is a difference between, for example, a non starting tackle, who may never see the field, verses five WR's that will all see the field, in the same game.

Yes, there is a difference, but 3 of those WR's aren't starters.

[BnGhog]

I thought because you can have a 5 wr set. That you could list 5 starting WRs.

I thought they simply submit their depth chart before the game listing each position and the starters and game day backups at that position, and other than the limit on how many players you can dress on game day there were no limit.

So, at WR spots #1-#5 were starters eventhough you may only use 2 WR most formations.

[BnGhog]

Well, now that I think about it. I think the redskins.com depth chart showed 3 WR positions. Listed as #1 #2 and Slot. If I remember correctly they showed, ARL as Starter last year at both the #2 and Slot. Then the backups behind them. So that would be 3 starters if thats how the NFL does it.

[yupchagee]

Well, now that I think about it. I think the redskins.com depth chart showed 3 WR positions. Listed as #1 #2 and Slot. If I remember correctly they showed, ARL as Starter last year at both the #2 and Slot. Then the backups behind them. So that would be 3 starters if thats how the NFL does it.

That was not the chart I remember seeing on the Skins web site.

[VetSkinsFan]

I thought because you can have a 5 wr set. That you could list 5 starting WRs.

I thought they simply submit their depth chart before the game listing each position and the starters and game day backups at that position, and other than the limit on how many players you can dress on game day there were no limit.

So, at WR spots #1-#5 were starters eventhough you may only use 2 WR most formations.

You're talki ng about dressing WRs that might or could get playing time. I'm talking about a starting line up. If your contention is that they'll see significant playing time, then I have no argument, but that is NOT being a starter.

Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football.

As stated in the same type of position argument about CBs, there are more requirements than just hands. The biggest one is adjustment and adapting to the NFL, which is yet to be seen. This is my only point.

[GSPODS]

Since only Jim Zorn knows what he is doing with the Redskins offense, he could open with two, three, four or five wide receivers.

What qualifies a player as a starter? Being in on the first offensive play?
Being in on the first offensive series?
Being in the first game?
Being at a certain position on the depth chart?

Being that the first game of the season is against the New York Giants, I will not be surprised to see Zorn open the season with every trick in his playbook.

Zorn wants to win. Zorn wants to prove he deserves the head coaching position. And Zorn knows that winning the first game of the season against a division opponent, on the road, sets the tone for the entire season. And Zorn, being a former quarterback and quarterbacks coach, knows that you can never have too many offensive weapons.

Therefore, I will state, without hesitation, that we will see Thomas, Kelly, and Davis on the field in multiple receiver sets against the New York Giants.

If playing in the first game of the season makes a player a "starter", then all of the draft selections will be starters.

[VetSkinsFan]

The assumed starters are usualyl 1 TE, 2 WR, 5 O-line, 1FB, 1RB, 1 QB. There is a depth chart that is established and there are different packages that require different personnel, but just b/c they are on the field at any particular point in time, this DOES NOT necessarily mean that they are starters. This means that additional/different players are required to satisfy various package requirements.

Therefore, I will state, without hesitation, that we will see Thomas, Kelly, and Davis on the field in multiple receiver sets against the New York Giants

If you were to read the whole thread, I don't think that was in question. Therefore, you are addressing a non-debated point.

[GSPODS]

The assumed starters are usualyl 1 TE, 2 WR, 5 O-line, 1FB, 1RB, 1 QB. There is a depth chart that is established and there are different packages that require different personnel, but just b/c they are on the field at any particular point in time, this DOES NOT necessarily mean that they are starters. This means that additional/different players are required to satisfy various package requirements.

What I am addressing is that no one had posted the working definition of a "starter", so this discussion was going nowhere. It is impossible to figure out where anyone will be on the depth chart at this point in time.
Were I making the decisions, I would move Moss to the #2 and Randle El to the #3. I would have Thomas as the #1, Kelly as the #4 and Mix / Thrash (insert name here) as the #5.

By moving Moss to the #2 he would be matched up against the opposing secondary's weaker cornerback. With Thomas and ey or Davis on the strong side, the strong side defense would not have the option of rotating to the weak side, leaving Moss one-on-one with a #2 cornerback. Moss wins that battle 90% of the time. On Moss' side of the field is also Randle El against a safety. I like those odds.

So, knowing absolutely nothing at this point, I will guess the following:

WR1 - Thomas
WR2 - Moss
WR3 - Randle El
WR4 - Kelly
WR5 - Mix / Thrash
HB1 - ey
TE1 - Davis

[SkinsFreak]

VetSkinsFan, I really think you're missing the point and arguing something that's pretty much irrelevant. Maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing... again.

GSPODS makes a valid point, when discussing WR's, especially in a West Coast system, what's the definition of a starter? It's NOT the same as a back-up o-lineman that may never see the field. All five receivers will, and that's the point.

On paper, sure... there may be two designated starters at WR. But what purpose does that serve? Because technically, the first play of the game could include 4 receivers. When discussing receivers, it's pretty much irrelevant. When discussing centers, it's very relevant, a back-up center may never play.

The point? Who cares who will be deemed the "starters" at the WR position? We all know who will be used predominantly at that position, during the course of every game, and that includes Moss, ARE, Thomas, Kelly and perhaps Mix. Name whomever you want as starters for the press release. It will probably be the two guys with the most seniority on the team, but that doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things when discussing receivers in a West Coast system.

One starter, two starters, three starters. . . who gives a crap, that ain't the point.

[SkinsFreak]

Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football.

As stated in the same type of position argument about CBs, there are more requirements than just hands. The biggest one is adjustment and adapting to the NFL, which is yet to be seen. This is my only point.

Thank you Captain Obvious. . . again, that ain't the point some were making.

[VetSkinsFan]

It's not in the team's best interest to start two rook wideouts.

If the argument is for not the starting rookie wideouts instead of Moss and ARE, then I agree. But I can promise you, Thomas and Kelly will be starting this year. There will be a plethora of packages and we need these guys to play. I can absolutely envision Thomas and Kelly starting over Mix and Thrash. We will have several 4 receiver sets, or formations, and Thomas and Kelly bring tangibles that Moss and ARE don't. So the four of them are the perfect compliment of receivers.

I don't buy the notion that it takes several years for WR's to develop. I think some here are a bit trigger shy simply based on a few bad selections in Gardner and Westbrook. If a rookie gets thrown to, then he should make an impact, much like Colston and Bowe have, as they were simply involved. If they get thrown at and can't catch, then they really shouldn't be playing WR in the Pros. The distinction being that if they're involved in the play selection, and get thrown to, they should be contributors. Thomas and Kelly will be contributors this year. With their proven record in college, there's plenty of evidence these guys can catch a football.

It appears that in fact, you, were the one that starting throwing out the variables of the term starter. YOU decide to not know your own definition and get wishy-washy, not me. As I've stated, I believe the starters go as a 2WR, 1TE, 1FB, 1HB formation. You are the one that starts arguing 4WR set in the 1st series could be considered starters or anyone in a varied number of packages could be starters. When you hear that pop and get your head back on straight, we can continue to discuss if you like, but until then, it's hard to follow you when you're all over the road.

[SkinsFreak]

It appears that in fact, you, were the one that starting throwing out the variables of the term starter.

I was talking "starting" from a technical perspective... who will actually play on game day, not from some worthless paper roster for the purposes of a press release, which is what you are referring to. If you have a hard time comprehending the distinction, then I'm sorry, but I don't think my comments were ambiguous. Again, we very well could see Thomas and Kelly on the field during our first offensive series. I don't care what the paper dubs them, or how they are ranked. In that scenario, they are, in fact, engaged in a starting role, REGARDLESS of some standardized list meant for the media.

[VetSkinsFan]

It appears that in fact, you, were the one that starting throwing out the variables of the term starter.

I was talking "starting" from a technical perspective... who will actually play on game day, not from some worthless paper roster for the purposes of a press release, which is what you are referring to. If you have a hard time comprehending the distinction, then I'm sorry, but I don't think my comments were ambiguous. Again, we very well could see Thomas and Kelly on the field during our first offensive series. I don't care what the paper dubs them, or how they are ranked. In that scenario, they are, in fact, engaged in a starting role, REGARDLESS of some standardized list meant for the media.

And again, your definition in your context. I understand completely. Contentions, technical perspectives, worthless paper rosters. There is one standard that we all could have agreed upon(that worthless paper roster) that everyone understands and then expand on that. You, however, chose to stand your ground (which happened to flow wiggle like jell-o) and try to tap dance and side step. I don't disagree with what you were attempting to get at, but the fact that you wouldn't admit that your terminology, in this discussion, was flawed and stuck to it adamantly. For stubbornness, I give you an A. For tapdancing and sidestepping, I give you an A.