SECTION 11
vibraslap
Is this thread serious?
Michael Floyd - womp womp
- Thread starter 1DS
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,260
- Reaction score
- 65,453
agreed. I'm not a big fan of the pick, but give the kid some time before saying "He was brought in to open it up for fitz... and he HASN'T!" or he's a bust after one freaking game.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Posts
- 5,710
- Reaction score
- 754
How many catches do you expect him to have when:
1. Theres Larry
2. Andre Roberts played great
3. Doucet is our slot guy
4. Heap made an impact
5. Floyd is our #4 WR
Id be shocked if he had a reception in that game.
1. Theres Larry
2. Andre Roberts played great
3. Doucet is our slot guy
4. Heap made an impact
5. Floyd is our #4 WR
Id be shocked if he had a reception in that game.
PACardsFan
ASFN Icon
I'm a ND fan & watched this guy's ENTIRE college career. His play & his numbers speak for themselves. To think this guy isn't a bonafide stud is absolutely ludicrous. Having watched EVERY game he played in college, I absolutely loved the pick. I'm not saying that as a ND homer, because there have been many ND players (like Jimmy Clausen) who I would have puked if we even considered drafting them. Floyd will be outstanding, just wait & see.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
To be fair to the original poster, I think the expectation was that Andre Roberts would be moved into the slot, and Doucet would become the #4 WR. I think that makes the most sense from a matchup and strategic perspective.
I think that fans should note (not even be concerned about, just note) that the Cards weren't particularly motivated to re-sign Doucet. They let him sit out in free agency for three or four weeks before signing him to a modest contract.
I think I like Doucet more than the Cards do. They drafted Michael Floyd in the first round for a reason. I'm not worried or concerned or anything yet, but it's not like there aren't signs for note in the idea that our first round pick got one look in the first game of the year, and barely got a mention during the broadcast outside of one very negative play (it's been said a lot, but a wide receiver should never be called for false start).
These threads become less inappropriate if Floyd hasn't started making some impact by mid-season. Jurecki was saying yesterday that the Cards would probably like to bring Floyd around like they did DRC. Now why you'd want to treat a three-year starter at Notre Dame with the same kid gloves you treated a kid from Tennessee State is another argument.
Lights
Newbie
He had 1 target the whole game. You have to be trolling, being around that long, you can't be that stupid.
To be fair, the lack of targets isn't an excuse for him, IMO. Lack of targets could mean he's not getting open--either in the game or in practice--enough for the QB to be looking at him.
I'm still not really all that worried about him yet, but pointing to his targets isn't a good way to let him off the hook.
Take your dome back please.
Yea...I thought it was little early to break out the "womp womp", too...
Yes, it is. If you aren't getting targets, you aren't getting a chance.
Sort of. kind of.
Doesn't he have to take responsibility for his targets to a degree? If he's not getting open, why would they throw him the ball?
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Posts
- 5,710
- Reaction score
- 754
There is a read progression.
You think with our Oline, Skelton or Kolb can successfully go from 1. Larry, 2. Andre, 3. Doucet, to 4. Michael and deliver the ball?
Heck no.
Usually, it goes Larry, Andre, Larry, dump off to RB or TE before the OLB crushes you. All in a matter of 3-4 seconds.
This is what I was thinking.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
That's fair, but as Bodha points out, there is a progression. There probably aren't a lot of plays where the #4 WR is the primary option (although I'd disagree that the options are always in line with the personnel--there are plenty of plays where Larry Fitzgerald doesn't necessarily expect the ball in the design of the play).
I think we can fairly say that Floyd probably hasn't earned more looks in the offense and hasn't earned more snaps on game day. That's what we know for sure right now.
Whether that's a short- or long-term concern is something that I don't think we have enough data on.
Yet.
Right.
Cbus cardsfan
Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 21,312
- Reaction score
- 7,112
The only cause for concern would have been if he was a healthy inactive. And, I'm still not sure that would be cause. Kendall Wright had 3 catches, which obvioulsy means he going to be 3 times better than Floyd 
.
.
Sounds more like a list of reasons to have drafted someone else in the first round.
I don't know if Floyd will be good or not but hearing that he is slow off the line of scrimmage and struggles to get separation is not encouraging as we already had a roster full of those guys.
Hopefully he'll follow Andre Roberts lead and overcome those problems and become a highly productive player.
az1965
Love Games!
Total BS
I thought the general consensus here was that they should always take BPA. Not draft for need...
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,510
- Reaction score
- 16,007
General consensus, yes, unanimous no. Besides, what exactly is BPA? The definition seems to slide a bit from team to team. I think you should take the player that you think can help your team the most. You never take a mediocre player at a position of need over an excellent player at a position of strength but other than that, there is a lot of wiggle room in the BPA approach.
We need to address the offensive line in the draft. If there is an obviously better talent at another position, so be it, but if the difference grades out incrementally, we need to stop drafting wide receivers and start drafting offensive lineman.
Steve
I'm in the minority that believes we got good talent at great places in the draft for Oline. 4th round pick for a starting RT that looked pretty good and then Kelemete even later. I'm happy with that personally. Time will tell though...
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,510
- Reaction score
- 16,007
