Eagles solve WR problems

Jabar Gaffney is a lot better than people give him credit. You got to keep in mind that the Texans were a bad team through and through. Gaffney will certainly do better with the Eagles. Of course he is no replacement for T.O. but I can see him collecting 60 balls and 800 yards.

That would easily be a career year for him.

Either way he's not someone to be too overly concerned about, that was the point of the thread.

Yea they're problem is solved alright...
Jabar Gaffney's totals from 2002-2005 (4 seasons) with the Texans:
171 for 2009 yards 11.7 avg 7 TDs
Santana Moss totals from 2002-2005 with Jets/Redskins:
235 for 3899 yards 16.6 avg 28 TDs
Brandon Lloyd totals from 2003-2005 (3 seasons) with 49ers:
105 for 1510 yards 14.4 avg 13 TDs
Greg Lewis totals from 2003-2005 with Philly:
71 for 839 yards 11.8 avg 1 TD

heres a current list of Philly's WR core from nfl.com:
Reggie Brown 2 yrs exp
Carl Ford 2 yrs exp
Michael Gasperson 1 yr exp
Jabar Gaffney 4 yrs exp
Greg Lewis 4 yrs exp
Darnerian McCants 5 yrs exp
Billy McMullen 4 yrs exp
Todd Pinkston 6 yrs exp


again, a group of 3 and 4 type receivers except for brown. nobody knows what pinkston is going to have this year either

Jabar Gaffney is a lot better than people give him credit. You got to keep in mind that the Texans were a bad team through and through. Gaffney will certainly do better with the Eagles. Of course he is no replacement for T.O. but I can see him collecting 60 balls and 800 yards.


i think that is highly optimistic. more likely 20-30 receptions unless they really try to force the ball in to him

I just hope I get a high enough pick in this year's Warpath Fantasy Football league to get Gaffney in the first round before someone else snatches him up.

2004 regular season. Brian Westbrook had 73 receptions for 703 yards in just 13 games. He had 6 receiving td's. 7 receptions of 20+ yds. and 3 receptions of 40+ yards. Any wide receiver in their scheme compliments Brian, not the other way around.

Dont forget about Brian.


yup.. but they cannot count onhim taking a whole season of pounding the ball and being their primary receiving threat. he keeps breaking down. he needs to be a constant threat, but a decoy sometimes to spare him.
problem is that without TO he is the only real threat all the time. brown could step up, but needs to prove he cando it consistently or it is all on westbrook

Lol

2004 regular season. Brian Westbrook had 73 receptions for 703 yards in just 13 games. He had 6 receiving td's. 7 receptions of 20+ yds. and 3 receptions of 40+ yards. Any wide receiver in their scheme compliments Brian, not the other way around.

Dont forget about Brian.I disagree - In 2004, Westbrook and Owens fed off each other in the Eagles offense. In the Eagles scheme, Owens and Westbrook presented two very distinct/different ways to attack a defense. They were each a gamebreaker. In the Eagles offense, each was a top weapon and benefitted greatly from the fact that focusing a defense on a great pass catching RB created very exploitable openings for a top WR and vice/versa. Take away one and the other would burn you.

Now, w/ the WR "threats" so limited, defenses can focus on Westbrook. He will still get some receptions and yards. W/o a WR focusing the attention outside and deep, however, he won't find as many holes in the coverage and won't be stuck one on one w/ LB's. Instead, D's will now be able to bracket him. Their TE's are good but not gamebreakers. Good, disciplined defense will keep this team from racking up points.

And Sean Taylor keep their WR's arms shorter than an Eagles fan's penis.

I agree with Matty that Gaffney isn't a great wideout and doesn't solve the Eagles problems.

But, keep in mind two things that have been alluded to already: (1) Gaffney averaged about 40 catches a year with David Carr under center (which is pretty good); and (2) Philadelphia had a decent offense before T.O.

As to the second point, I think a lot of people are underestimating the Eagles. Prior to T.O.'s arrival, the Eagles had a good offense. The Eagles were decent when they had Freddie Mitchell, Todd Pinkston, and James Thrash at wideout - that says a lot. They spread out the ball between those awful wideouts, Brian Westbrook, Chad Lewis, and L.J. Smith and did just fine. Were they a high powered offense? No. Were they an explosive offense? No. But they were good enough to propel them to the playoffs for several consecutive seasons.

Don't think the Eagles' offense is going to be a cakewalk. Remember, we barely beat them when McNabb was coming off an injury, Todd Pinkston was on IR, their #1 wideout was a rookie, and their offensive line was mangled. While our offense and defense are improved and I'm not terribly worried about the Eagles, I wouldn't assume that we will have an easy time beating them.

As to the second point, I think a lot of people are underestimating the Eagles.

That's what I was kind of worrying about, too. But I don't think gibbs lets anything get him overconfident over any opposing team, especially any in the nfc east.

... but I was also more worried in the idea that they're so bad that they can't be as bad as they seem. I don't actually believe that they are good at all. The question is: how bad off are they ?

That's what I was kind of worrying about, too. But I don't think gibbs lets anything get him overconfident over any opposing team, especially any in the nfc east.

... but I was also more worried in the idea that they're so bad that they can't be as bad as they seem. I don't actually believe that they are good at all. The question is: how bad off are they ?

I doubt Gibbs underestimates anyone. I think he has a lot of respect for the Eagles.

I don't think they're bad off at all. With a lot of people returning from IR and the acquisitions of Darren Howard and Shawn Barber, I would say they're better off than they were before they got T.O. There will be a drop off from their 2004 offensive producion, but they're still a force to be reckoned with. They worry me more than the Giants or Cowboys.