Sporting News' Analysis: Wide Recievers

Gardners regression, at least in the statistics, also has to deal with him becoming the #2 reciever. When he got 1,000 yards, he was the #1
So is it no possible for a #2 WR to get 1000 yards? Not sure what you're trying to say.

As far as the number one or two receivers go and yardage, in 1989 the Joe Gibbs lead Skins had 3 recievers with over 1,000 yards (Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders) and two other times (1986, 1991) have had 2 receivers over 1,000 yards. That's on top of Gibbs coaching six 1,000 yards rushers (1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, and 1991). So '86 and '91 were also great years... 2 thousand yard receivers as well as a thousand yard back. That's some production in both facets of the offensive game.

I'd think there are enough balls to go around in this offense. Whoever steps up to the plate and does their job well will get every carry or reception they can handle... Gibbs will make sure he will!

what im saying is that when u go from #1 to #2, it is normal to see less balls thrown your way, what do u think i was saying. He barely had 1,000 as a number one, makes sense to me/ Of course it is possible, but its not as PROBABLE

My point is being the #2 is no excuse for not playing well. Can you honestly say that Gardner played well last year?? I saw him take a step back last year, some of that may have been due to him not being the go to guy, but a part of that has to fall on him as well. He still drops way too many balls, is too inconsistent and still commits too many mental errors, ie dumb penalties.

All that i said was that his regression in statistics may have been partially attributed to him not seeing the ball as much, being the second option. Something i noticed is his average is low, only 10 yards, while he still caught 60 passes, which isnt too bad. We threw a lot of screens to him this past season, possibly the reason for the average, or maybe because he dropped the longer passes.

go look it up in the stores, i didnt make this stuff up, i hope ur not talking about me


Big C! I was talking about the sports journalists, not you! Sorry, should have made that clear. Guess I'm just ready for it to begin for real, and I'm getting tired of all the predictions, etc. And it's not even July! :banghead:

cowboys and redskins don't have receivers??? man... i'd hate to play a team that does then. We even got good QBs to throw to them, unlike a certain team in an undisclosed dallas location :D

Our offense was simply offensive last year, it was Coles and little else. There's a reason we went 5-11, and our receivers weren't a B last year. Matter of fact, there was no position on our team last year that would rate a B, unless you were strictly speaking about cornerbacks.

And I definitely don't agree. The productivity was down across the board last year and when Ramsey got hurt we were pretty much done. This is a new season, but there hasn't even been a preseason game so I think the Sporting News is a little lazy and is underestimating the new coaching staff.

If I could see the offense run about 50 less wide receiver screens this season, I'll be happy.

If I could see the offense run about 50 less wide receiver screens this season, I'll be happy.

truer words have never been spoken. there were what, 4 or 5 of them a game almost? the only ones that worked for anything were the ones to gardner for him to throw down field.

yeah, running 5 receiver sets so often is begging to have your QB killed. Mccants did have 6 TDs and short yardage, so i'd count that too. We also have trash here and taylor is actually going to get some minutes, so i can't really see eye to eye with such a low ranking... maybe someone's lazy, or they just don't like washington.