Eli Who?

[Rats]

Originally posted by Stout
See, Buff's right...Boldin might keep going as the #1 receiving OPTION, but he's not a #1 RECEIVER. A teams #1 position receiver is the burner that stretches the field. That's not Boldin. As great as Boldin is and will continue to be, he's a very solid, if not great, possession receiver, that can help break a game open.

So with this logic then Bruce is the #1 reciever on the Rams and not Holt....I can't agree with ya this time buddy...playmakers are always the ones the team are looking to go to with the ball....TO, Hol t, Boldin, while all these guys are not burners....they do stretch the field with the RAC...there is no substitute for players like this....they are the engine of any aerial offense....you need the deep threat but RAC is much more important in a passing offense IMO

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Rats
So with this logic then Bruce is the #1 reciever on the Rams and not Holt....I can't agree with ya this time buddy...playmakers are always the ones the team are looking to go to with the ball....TO, Hol t, Boldin, while all these guys are not burners....they do stretch the field with the RAC...there is no substitute for players like this....they are the engine of any aerial offense....you need the deep threat but RAC is much more important in a passing offense IMO

See, you're going about this ALL WRONG. You simply don't understand the discussion. You're confusing #1 receiving OPTION with the #1 receiving POSITION. The #1 receiving POSITION is an Xs and Os position in the lineup. This is normally held by the deep-threat receiver, or the burner. The #2 receiving POSITION (who often becomes a slot receiver), is the possession-type receiver-in our case, Anquan Boldin.

That doesn't mean your #1 POSITION receiver has to be your #1 receiving OPTION...it's just his damn position on the field. What is so difficult about that?

Anquan Boldin plays the #2 receiving POSITION...THAT IS FACT. Not speculation, FACT. On the roster, on paper, however you slice it. He is also our #1 receiving OPTION. He's our go-to guy, comprende? One is NOT necessarily the other.

I know I don't have the Xs and Os names for this, but damn, it should be clear enough. Those of you who cry because someone says Anquan is not the in the #1 receiver position don't know what the hell they're talking about. He's NOT in that position, though he IS our best receiving option. Plain and simple. Wow.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Originally posted by Stout
I know I don't have the Xs and Os names for this, but damn, it should be clear enough. Those of you who cry because someone says Anquan is not the in the #1 receiver position don't know what the hell they're talking about. He's NOT in that position, though he IS our best receiving option. Plain and simple. Wow.

Wouldn't that be Split End versus Flanker?

 

[MadCardDisease]

usually the Split End lines up on the line of scrimage on the opposite side of the ball from the TE.

The Flanker lines up 1 yard off the line of scrimage and is usually on the same side as the TE.

 

[Rats]

Originally posted by Stout
See, you're going about this ALL WRONG. You simply don't understand the discussion. You're confusing #1 receiving OPTION with the #1 receiving POSITION. The #1 receiving POSITION is an Xs and Os position in the lineup. This is normally held by the deep-threat receiver, or the burner. The #2 receiving POSITION (who often becomes a slot receiver), is the possession-type receiver-in our case, Anquan Boldin.

That doesn't mean your #1 POSITION receiver has to be your #1 receiving OPTION...it's just his damn position on the field. What is so difficult about that?

Anquan Boldin plays the #2 receiving POSITION...THAT IS FACT. Not speculation, FACT. On the roster, on paper, however you slice it. He is also our #1 receiving OPTION. He's our go-to guy, comprende? One is NOT necessarily the other.

I know I don't have the Xs and Os names for this, but damn, it should be clear enough. Those of you who cry because someone says Anquan is not the in the #1 receiver position don't know what the hell they're talking about. He's NOT in that position, though he IS our best receiving option. Plain and simple. Wow.

..........Yes!!!!........but that is not what buff said......it is however what you decided that he said.....idiot

 

[buff17]

Sorry if I didnt explain it all out like that, but this is exactly how I intented it.

 

[Rats]

Originally posted by buff17
Sorry if I didnt explain it all out like that, but this is exactly how I intented it.

Thanks for the clarification Buff...we pretty much understood what you were saying....but when someone thinks that the rest of us can't comprehend English and then has the gall to say that Boldin is solid but not great as a possession reciever I feel it is an obligation to point out what they are missing....however K9 was not talking position he was talking option...which unlike others I feel is more than a solid option. My point which was not addressed is that even though a possession reciever or the #2 has a role to fill they indeed can stretch the field when they are overly talented like Boldin is. He is difficult to jam at the line so not unlike the #1 reciever the Db will play way off to limit the run after the catch also requiring help from a saftey or LB leaving Backs or TE uncovered....so although Q is just a position receiver or a #2...he is more than solid and I would say he has shown to be great his first season

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Rats
..........Yes!!!!........but that is not what buff said......it is however what you decided that he said.....idiot

Well, I took what I thought he said...which happened to be right...clarified, which you concede is right...and now I'm the idiot? Sure, and the Pope's Jewish too

You misunderstood. Deal with it, please.

 

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by MadCardDisease
That's the thing with Fitzgerald. He has a great head on his shoulders much like Quan. Basically he is a faster version of Quan.

Where did you find this speed for Fitzgerald. That is the knock on him. No speed. Anquans clone.

 

[JeffGollin]

Yeah, but we already have a "#1" WR in Anquan.
I agree with those who say that Boldin isn't a true #1 WR.

Perhaps it would be fairer to change terminology. A fast-break passing offense needs a variety of components.

Certain receiving capabilities are key.

One component is route running, toughness, clutch play dependibility, great hands. Q has this.

But another is deep capability

And another is a big physical presence. (If you're lucky, you can get a guy who combines big physical presence with home run speed. This kind of guy is commonly referred to as the #1 wideout).

To call either Q, the home run guy or the big physical guy #1, #2 or #3 does a disservice. You need all three.

Right now, we're missing big physical and deep home run (though maybe Bryant Johnson can provide the latter with time).

 

[Southpaw]

Re: Re: Eli Who?

Originally posted by red desert
I am 100% with you. Fitzgerald is better than Rogers and Andre Johnson. Would be great to have Josh "rock" these few games and convice mgmt. that he's the guy, then, get the number one pick, trade down one or two slots (preferably one) and get Fitzgerald. Get a number for the following year by trading down and take Tommie Harris who decided to stay in school.

I know, I know... dream on.

I assume that is a subjective judgement, when you say Fitzgerald is better than Andre Johnson and Charles Rogers. I do not concur. THose 2 WRs you mentioned have all of the skills plus blazing speed and the ability to seperate. Fitz has neither of those qualities. He makes acrobatic catches. He has warts. If you saw his last 2 games this year, he was shut down in both and a non factor. He is Anquan Boldin with size. No field stretcher. That is why Boldin went in the 2nd round, not the first.

 

[Rats]

Originally posted by Stout
Well, I took what I thought he said...which happened to be right...clarified, which you concede is right...and now I'm the idiot? Sure, and the Pope's Jewish too

You misunderstood. Deal with it, please.

Your an Idiot in the sense that you have to condesen d to make your point...which in the original thread was not clear as to option or position....and you didn't respond to importance of what the thread was addressing...there are ways of communicating with out being a ******...which you have been in this thread...hope ya having fun.....

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Rats
Your an Idiot in the sense that you have to condesen d to make your point...which in the original thread was not clear as to option or position....and you didn't respond to importance of what the thread was addressing...there are ways of communicating with out being a ******...which you have been in this thread...hope ya having fun.....

Nope. This is my first response post. And I quote,

'See, Buff's right...Boldin might keep going as the #1 receiving OPTION, but he's not a #1 RECEIVER. A teams #1 position receiver is the burner that stretches the field. That's not Boldin. As great as Boldin is and will continue to be, he's a very solid, if not great, possession receiver, that can help break a game open.'

There was nothing difficult about this post. Same thing I said condescendingly the second time. He's a #2 positional guy that can still break the game open. Now, either:

1-You didn't read the post, and continued assuming the wrong thing.

2-You read the post and didn't understand it. Now, if you understood it the second time around, then something's wrong, because it's the EXACT same thing I said the first time, only frustrated.

Also, you have to understand, you aren't the only one who's done this. Everyone just assumes when they hear Boldin's a #2 receiver, he isn't being given proper respect. And they're wrong. Thus I did NOT quote you, or call you out by name. You just assumed you were the ONLY one I was addressing.

So. I submit, am I an idiot for all of this? After reading through this, I highly doubt, unless you're biased, you can come to that conclusion.

 

[Rats]

Originally posted by Stout
Nope. This is my first response post. And I quote,

'See, Buff's right...Boldin might keep going as the #1 receiving OPTION, but he's not a #1 RECEIVER. A teams #1 position receiver is the burner that stretches the field. That's not Boldin. As great as Boldin is and will continue to be, he's a very solid, if not great, possession receiver, that can help break a game open.'

There was nothing difficult about this post. Same thing I said condescendingly the second time. He's a #2 positional guy that can still break the game open. Now, either:

1-You didn't read the post, and continued assuming the wrong thing.

2-You read the post and didn't understand it. Now, if you understood it the second time around, then something's wrong, because it's the EXACT same thing I said the first time, only frustrated.

Also, you have to understand, you aren't the only one who's done this. Everyone just assumes when they hear Boldin's a #2 receiver, he isn't being given proper respect. And they're wrong. Thus I did NOT quote you, or call you out by name. You just assumed you were the ONLY one I was addressing.

So. I submit, am I an idiot for all of this? After reading through this, I highly doubt, unless you're biased, you can come to that conclusion.

Its not what you said ....you were correct.....but how you said it. Enough, lets talk football...so your point is that we have a #2 position guy because he doesn't have sprinter speed? What was his avg YPC...I would say for sake of argument...that a14 to 15 ypc would qualify you as a deep threat and that most would consider that to be...did Q have such an avg ? And if he did then in todays NFL...while not technically a #1 position as a "flanker"...with so many different sets in an offense how did you determine him not to be the #1 position....simply speed? I think that lacks forsight of todays game versus traditional football.

 

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Rats
Its not what you said ....you were correct.....but how you said it. Enough, lets talk football...so your point is that we have a #2 position guy because he doesn't have sprinter speed? What was his avg YPC...I would say for sake of argument...that a14 to 15 ypc would qualify you as a deep threat and that most would consider that to be...did Q have such an avg ? And if he did then in todays NFL...while not technically a #1 position as a "flanker"...with so many different sets in an offense how did you determine him not to be the #1 position....simply speed? I think that lacks forsight of todays game versus traditional football.

The point of a deep threat is so that the underneath and medioum stuff doen't draw tight coverage. Life would be a lot easier for Boldin with a legitimate deep threat. His 13.6 ypc is a lot of hard work and hard hits. His career may not last long without some help to take the pressure off. Think about next year when he isn't exactly a secret.

 

[Rats]

Originally posted by wallyburger
The point of a deep threat is so that the underneath and medioum stuff doen't draw tight coverage. Life would be a lot easier for Boldin with a legitimate deep threat. His 13.6 ypc is a lot of hard work and hard hits. His career may not last long without some help to take the pressure off. Think about next year when he isn't exactly a secret.

I would agree that a I Bruce type threat would help tremendously and would help ease Q burden. It should be a top priority to find one if we are going to be a top offense. But we need to realize in todays NFL that guys like Boldin Holt Ward TO have redefined what a possession type reciever does. They draw Lb and Saftey coverage on more than just 3rd down in certain types of offenses. They are the playmakers in todays NFL. pe spend on a wr in the top 5 unless they were a Moss might not be the way to go. The NFL has changed in the way personel is used especially wr. Deep fast recievers are catching under neith and slant patterns routinly game planned.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Rats
Its not what you said ....you were correct.....but how you said it. Enough, lets talk football...so your point is that we have a #2 position guy because he doesn't have sprinter speed? What was his avg YPC...I would say for sake of argument...that a14 to 15 ypc would qualify you as a deep threat and that most would consider that to be...did Q have such an avg ? And if he did then in todays NFL...while not technically a #1 position as a "flanker"...with so many different sets in an offense how did you determine him not to be the #1 position....simply speed? I think that lacks forsight of todays game versus traditional football.

See, I'm not selling him short as a possession receiver. He's not a flanker, and no matter what you say about it, he's still not the flanker. You seem to understand that at first, but turn around and say I have no foresight for labelling him that. Uh, well, the team and the logistics of football put him there, not me. I'm just passing it along as it is.

But, as I have been saying, that doesn't mean he can't be the best receiver on our team, or the first option on our team. You agree with the main thrust of my argument then say 'that lacks foresight of today's game', yadda yadda yadda.

He's our best receiver. He's the #2 receiver. Those are the facts, without 'foresight' or anything else. He's one of the best out there today, and he's not our flanker.