Could our WR be better than last year?

[slanidrac16]

Quick, Who led the team in recieving touchdowns? Actually it was a 3 way tie. Shipp, Makovicka and Kevin Kasper, and Kasper only played in 4 games!!!

How in the world can we NOT be better. We were PATHETIC!
Boston 32-512-and 1td
Sanders 34-400-and 2td
Jenkins 21-250-and 1td

Kaspers #'s over a 16 game schedule would be,
Kasper 60-720-and 12tds
I don't see Kasper as our go to guy , but I do see him as a Ricky Proehl type wr.
McCaddely #'s over 16 games would be,
McCaddely 43-602-2
Hell, THAT would be better than Boston last year. I see no reason why he won't be better than Sanders.

I also think that Jeff Blake will make defenses play a bit more honest than we are use to in the past. Lets face it ( and lets not turn this into a plummer post) more often than not if our wr got behind a defender MOST of the time the ball was not delivered where it was suppose to be. They either had to slow up and inevitably was tackled or the ball was over thrown.

I also think Fred Jones will play a MUCH bigger role this season. There is no reason in the world he shouldn't post #'s much like Todd Heap did last year with the Ravens (68-836-6td).

Boston, Sanders and Jenkins combined totals from last year will not be hard to match. (87-1162-4td).

Hell, Bryant Johnson might do that all by himself!

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by slanidrac16
Boston, Sanders and Jenkins combined totals from last year will not be hard to match. (87-1162-4td).

Hell, Bryant Johnson might do that all by himself!

Um, I don't know what league you play in, but, other than the TD totals, those are nearly Pro-Bowl numbers. Thosre are the numbers that you expect from a #1 WR, only with at least twice as many TDs. Marvin Harrison had 143/1722/11 in 2003. Jimmy Smith was 80/1027/7. Mushin Muhammad was 63/823/3.

If our WRs from last year top the depth chart, and continues their averages from last season over 16 games, we're going to lose 12-15 games. Someone has to step up.

 

[earthsci]

Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by kerouac9
Um, I don't know what league you play in, but, other than the TD totals, those are nearly Pro-Bowl numbers.

Read the post again. That's their combined total. That sucks. All three of them. Together. I think that the point that he was making is that considering how little those three contributed, our WR's this year look better than last year.

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by earthsci
Read the post again. That's their combined total. That sucks. All three of them. Together. I think that the point that he was making is that considering how little those three contributed, our WR's this year look better than last year.

No, I get that. What I'm saying is that hoping that Bryan Johnson can get those combined numbers this year is neigh impossible. My point is that someone needs to step up, or they're going to have ten players in the box even in 3WR sets. Our WRs have to be better than next year, or we'll be picking #1 overall in 2004.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Originally posted by slanidrac16
I also think Fred Jones will play a MUCH bigger role this season. There is no reason in the world he shouldn't post #'s much like Todd Heap did last year with the Ravens (68-836-6td).

I think this is a critical point.

 

[earthsci]

Ah, gotcha! I agree with your comment on the receivers. In that light, we need to win what we can at the beginning of the season. I actually think that we will be playing much better in the second half of the season after the younger guys get used to the pro game.

 

[slanidrac16]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by kerouac9
No, I get that. What I'm saying is that hoping that Bryan Johnson can get those combined numbers this year is neigh impossible. My point is that someone needs to step up, or they're going to have ten players in the box even in 3WR sets. Our WRs have to be better than next year, or we'll be picking #1 overall in 2004.

I happen to agree with you about Johnson posting those kind of numbers. That was said in jest. However, most of us have shuddered at the thought of losing Boston, Sanders and Jenkins from last year, when in reality we got virtually no production at all from our starting 3 wr.
I'd be willing to bet 2 gallons of Cardinal Kool-aid that combination of Johnson, McCaddely and Kasper will exceed the numbers of our 3 starters from last season.

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by slanidrac16
I happen to agree with you about Johnson posting those kind of numbers. That was said in jest. However, most of us have shuddered at the thought of losing Boston, Sanders and Jenkins from last year, when in reality we got virtually no production at all from our starting 3 wr.
I'd be willing to bet 2 gallons of Cardinal Kool-aid that combination of Johnson, McCaddely and Kasper will exceed the numbers of our 3 starters from last season.

We only had those three WRs playing together for, what, seven games? I take that bet, that our starting 3 WRs in 2003 do not match or better the 2002 numbers through the first seven games. I sincerely, sincerely doubt it.

To say that we lose nothing with DB is just myopic homerism. He had a knee injury going into the preseason, and tried to play though it because it was a contract year. Combined through 2001 and 2002, he had 169 grabs for 2754 yards and 15 tds. Do you think it's any coincidence that we went 4-4 with him and 1-7 without him? He's a letigimate elite reciever. He averaged 16 yards per catch. That's good for Top 10 in the league in 2003. Defenses had to always know where he was on the field at all times. He'll be missed by the offense. To say otherwise is self-delusion.

 

[JasonKGME]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by kerouac9
We only had those three WRs playing together for, what, seven games? I take that bet, that our starting 3 WRs in 2003 do not match or better the 2002 numbers through the first seven games. I sincerely, sincerely doubt it.

To say that we lose nothing with DB is just myopic homerism. He had a knee injury going into the preseason, and tried to play though it because it was a contract year. Combined through 2001 and 2002, he had 169 grabs for 2754 yards and 15 tds. Do you think it's any coincidence that we went 4-4 with him and 1-7 without him? He's a letigimate elite reciever. He averaged 16 yards per catch. That's good for Top 10 in the league in 2003. Defenses had to always know where he was on the field at all times. He'll be missed by the offense. To say otherwise is self-delusion.

Thru 7 games? Hmm that actually might be an interesting bet. That means the top 3 WR's this year per game will have to average 12.4 receptions for 166 yards and .6 TD's per game for the 7 games. I think that is doable.

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by JasonKGME
Thru 7 games? Hmm that actually might be an interesting bet. That means the top 3 WR's this year per game will have to average 12.4 receptions for 166 yards and .6 TD's per game for the 7 games. I think that is doable.

For what it's worth, Blake averaged 15.4 completions for 196.29 and 1.43 TDs per game, but that's all catches, not just WRs. Todd Heap averaged 4.29 catches for 58 yards and 0.29 TDs over that period, and Jamal Lewis averaged 2 catches for 12.50 yds and 0.14 TDs per game. Total that up, and Blake averaged 9.11 recpts to WRs for 125.79 yds and 1 TD per game. With better WRs.

 

[AZ1766]

welll let us know how this works out... please?

 

[Russ Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by kerouac9
For what it's worth, Blake averaged 15.4 completions for 196.29 and 1.43 TDs per game, but that's all catches, not just WRs. Todd Heap averaged 4.29 catches for 58 yards and 0.29 TDs over that period, and Jamal Lewis averaged 2 catches for 12.50 yds and 0.14 TDs per game. Total that up, and Blake averaged 9.11 recpts to WRs for 125.79 yds and 1 TD per game. With better WRs.

Not sure he had better WR's last year he basically had Travis Taylor and Heap and that was it. Taylor caught 61 balls the next best WR was Stokely with 24.

AS bad as we were last year they might have been worse, the difference was Blake used his TE.

Jurecki seemed to be implying Freddie wouldn't be a major target for us again this year. I'm not sure I buy that he still caught 44 balls last year playing with a QB who has never really liked to throw to his TE that much. Blake seems to like to throw to his TE's more I think Freddie could be a bigger part of the offense this year, god I hope so 1 TD from your TE is ridiculous in this day and age.

The thing I am concerned about is the amount of , for lack of a better word, coordinating that needs to be done on offense with a new QB, new RB, new FB, and 2 new WR's in the mix. Throw in a new OC and a new offense and you can see even with a bunch of experienced guys who'd played together there's adjusments to be made, but with our youth the potential is there for a real learning curve.

All I know is if I'm Jeff Blake right now I'm going into camp and preseason saying the only guy on this team I've heard of is Jones and Emmitt Smith.

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Not sure he had better WR's last year he basically had Travis Taylor and Heap and that was it. Taylor caught 61 balls the next best WR was Stokely with 24.

Travis Taylor would be the #1 WR on the Cards in a heartbeat. Stokley would probably start, as well.

I share your concerns about coordinating the offense along with teaching the new WRs and a new OC, but I got roundly bitch-slapped last time I mentioned it by Skorp, so I'll let others voice my concerns.

Where did Jurecki say that Freddie wasn't going to be involved? That sounds to me like a dumb thing to say. Why'd we get him if we're not going to use him. He's a Top 5 TE in this league if he gets some attention.

 

[Goldfield]

I for one have never been more excited about our chances!

We still have some holes to fill, but I cant remember us ever being this close...

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by BEERZ
I for one have never been more excited about our chances!

We still have some holes to fill, but I cant remember us ever being this close...

to what?

 

[Russ Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could our WR be better than last year?

Originally posted by kerouac9

Where did Jurecki say that Freddie wasn't going to be involved? That sounds to me like a dumb thing to say. Why'd we get him if we're not going to use him. He's a Top 5 TE in this league if he gets some attention.

Sorry wasn't Jurecki at all, was Kent Somers.

"TE Freddie Jones was supposed to be a key ingredient for the offense last year, but he never fit into the scheme. He was inconsistent and wondered about his role, but it might not change much in 2003. He's a talented receiver, but he won't be the primary target. "

I still say Jones was a victim of Jake, he never really liked to throw to his TE even Gedney never really caught a lot of balls. Jake tended to have a favorite guy, Moore, Centers, later on Boston, and he didn't ever really develop a rapport with a TE other than Gedney and even Chris didn't catch a whole lot of balls.

That's why I find it amusing people are saying Jake will convince Shannon Sharpe to play this year, if Sharpe pays attention at all to stats he's got to wonder how much he'll see the ball? In fairness jake has never played with a great TE but Sharpe isn't great anymore.

 

[Goldfield]

Originally posted by cheesebeef
to what?

to being able to compete...

 

[40yearfan]

Originally posted by cheesebeef
to what?

<p>To having an offense that can score points in all 4 quarters instead of just the 3rd and 4th quarters.

 

[kerouac9]

Beerz, 40Year:

I'm staggered that you see that kind of potential in THIS team, when last year's team has so much more potential to be explosive. Are you really saying that you think that McAddley, Gilmore and Foster/Johnson/Boldin is a more impressive starting lineup to you than Boston/Sanders/Jenkins was last year? Ugh. Please.

This group has potential to be as, if not more, explosive than last year's squad had the potential to be, but the gamble is much, much greater, and if the rooks play like rooks, and the guys we have don't make a quantum leap, it's going to be a really, really long season.

 

[slanidrac16]

Our QB is going to complete roughly 300 passes this year. SOMEBODY is going to catch them.
My original bet for the 2 gallons of Cardinal Kool-aid says that our top 3 recievers this year will out perform the 3 starters from last year. Last years starters played a combined total of 27 games. They had 87 catches, 1162 yards, and 4 tds. That is a little over 3 catches a game for 43yds and .11 tds per game.
I'm saying that if Johson, Kasper, and McCaddely(or whoever our starters may be) start the first 9 game of the season(for a total of 27 games) the will exceed those totals.
I don't think that will be too hard to match.

I'm an NOT saying they will be everything we need , but they will exceed last years numbers.

 

[Goldfield]

Yes I do... Boston cannot be replaced, but he did not ever play at his full potential either... I still will not argue that any of the guys we have can ever replace him....


But Sanders? and Jenkins??? Give me a break, I like McAddley, 10 times more than either of those 2.

Johnson and Boldin, both could become 2 very solid players. That alone is exciting to me...


I wanted to see new faces in here. I WANTED Sanders(overpaid) and Jenkins(wanted to be over paid) gone... Boston is the only one that hurts(real bad)...


But the true improvment of this team will be at the QB position. We should now have consistency, which we never had the last 6 years... No more floating ducks, the defence is waiting to pounce on. No more waiting for the prevent defence to start moving the chains!

You have your opinion, and I have mine. Nobody is right or wrong... Yet... But soon we will both know

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by slanidrac16
Our QB is going to complete roughly 300 passes this year. SOMEBODY is going to catch them.
My original bet for the 2 gallons of Cardinal Kool-aid says that our top 3 recievers this year will out perform the 3 starters from last year. Last years starters played a combined total of 27 games. They had 87 catches, 1162 yards, and 4 tds. That is a little over 3 catches a game for 43yds and .11 tds per game.
I'm saying that if Johson, Kasper, and McCaddely(or whoever our starters may be) start the first 9 game of the season(for a total of 27 games) the will exceed those totals.
I don't think that will be too hard to match.

I'm an NOT saying they will be everything we need , but they will exceed last years numbers.

You've got it... Sucker.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Hell yeah!

Yes, of course our recievers are better than last year. They are young and inexperienced but oh well. At least they are young. I look for McAddley, Bolden, and Johnson to become quite a threat.
McAddley, and Bolden I feel will make HUGE impacts this year. They are going to benefit from Blakes "jump-ball" pass. As Johnson will not, but Johnson will be our possesion receiver.

And the reason they will be better? BECAUSE A BLIND MAN CONVENTION COULD GROUP A BETTER RECIEVING CORE THAN WE HAD LAST YEAR!

 

[Goldfield]

You might wanna hold of on that bet.

With an improved QB

A more effective running game, with shipp & smith, running behind Hodgins.

And a new more exciting offence with OC Jerry sullivan, the odds of us being able to throw the ball alot more are very high...


We were ranked what n the nfl in passing? I bet it wasnt good at all...

 

[slanidrac16]

Originally posted by BEERZ
You might wanna hold of on that bet.

With an improved QB

A more effective running game, with shipp & smith, running behind Hodgins.

And a new more exciting offence with OC Jerry sullivan, the odds of us being able to throw the ball alot more are very high...


We were ranked what n the nfl in passing? I bet it wasnt good at all...

Its to late for him to back out now. I'm fillinf the cooler as we speak!!!