Page 1 of 1
Smaller, faster receivers
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:58 pm
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:08 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:08 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:08 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:11 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:04 am
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
Re: Smaller, faster receivers
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:21 am
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.

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:26 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:10 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 9:58 am
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:08 pm
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

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:09 pm
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.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:20 pm
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

ey and you have the makings of a decent passing attack if any of the QBs can step up.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:29 pm
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

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!
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:44 pm
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.