Could Thrash Become #2 WR

So let's see if I understand jsarno's point.

Because Thrash hasn't ever had a really big year he is slow. This flies directly against the stats I provided earlier and which noone has refuted. Someone even noted how he "flew" past the other Redskins on a play last year.

I think he hasn't had such big production any year because he has "Art Monk syndrome." Most receivers strike me as the type who are always in the QB and coach's face saying "throw me the ball, throw me the ball." Thrash seems like one of the few who doesn't bother them, and therefore he has fewer balls thrown to him.

As far as the importance of the #2 receiver, if the #2 is a speed demon who can catch the ball it really stretches out the field, allowing a lot more space for ALL receivers on the field.

Thrash strikes me as having a lot of the traits of Art Monk (albeit at a lower skill level):
Almost no boneheaded plays.
Knows where the sticks are.
Few drops.
Comes back to the QB (to help him bail out) when he sees a lot of pressure. (I think he's the only receiver on the current team who does this.)

In my view, he could make an excellent #2, especially if he gets enough passes his way to make him a credible threat. Of course, if he has lost his speed that's another thing entirely.

So let's see if I understand jsarno's point.

Because Thrash hasn't ever had a really big year he is slow. This flies directly against the stats I provided earlier and which noone has refuted. Someone even noted how he "flew" past the other Redskins on a play last year.

I think he hasn't had such big production any year because he has "Art Monk syndrome." Most receivers strike me as the type who are always in the QB and coach's face saying "throw me the ball, throw me the ball." Thrash seems like one of the few who doesn't bother them, and therefore he has fewer balls thrown to him.

As far as the importance of the #2 receiver, if the #2 is a speed demon who can catch the ball it really stretches out the field, allowing a lot more space for ALL receivers on the field.

Thrash strikes me as having a lot of the traits of Art Monk (albeit at a lower skill level):
Almost no boneheaded plays.
Knows where the sticks are.
Few drops.
Comes back to the QB (to help him bail out) when he sees a lot of pressure. (I think he's the only receiver on the current team who does this.)

In my view, he could make an excellent #2, especially if he gets enough passes his way to make him a credible threat. Of course, if he has lost his speed that's another thing entirely.

I think we all just saw you as a little overzealous with those numbers.
Here is an article off ESPN:
Yuck. This receiving corps was disappointing last year and didn't get any better for '07. Randle El never has caught more than 47 passes in a season, and that total came in 2002, his rookie year, so it's hard to know what Gibbs and owner Dan Snyder were thinking giving him big guaranteed money last season. He's an adequate slot guy but shouldn't be owned in any but the deepest leagues. Brandon Lloyd has a big mouth and crummy hands that got him benched by the end of '06, and other than an eight-game stretch for the '05 49ers, he's barely been an adequate pro. Stay away from him and from James Thrash, whose speed is gone and who is nothing but a fourth receiver.
You can find the entire report here:
ESPN - Harris: Washington fantasy team preview - Fantasy Football (http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/2007draftkit/story?id=2968865)

So as you can see, the professionals seem to think he's got nothing left in the tank, and from what I saw last year, I am certain that is true.

Didn't we first have Thrash when Norv was with the skins? Dang that guy is old...no way.

Yeah, but then he was on the Eagles for a couple of years.

I think we all just saw you as a little overzealous with those numbers.
Here is an article off ESPN:
Yuck. This receiving corps was disappointing last year and didn't get any better for '07. Randle El never has caught more than 47 passes in a season, and that total came in 2002, his rookie year, so it's hard to know what Gibbs and owner Dan Snyder were thinking giving him big guaranteed money last season. He's an adequate slot guy but shouldn't be owned in any but the deepest leagues. Brandon Lloyd has a big mouth and crummy hands that got him benched by the end of '06, and other than an eight-game stretch for the '05 49ers, he's barely been an adequate pro. Stay away from him and from James Thrash, whose speed is gone and who is nothing but a fourth receiver.
You can find the entire report here:
ESPN - Harris: Washington fantasy team preview - Fantasy Football (http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/2007draftkit/story?id=2968865)

So as you can see, the professionals seem to think he's got nothing left in the tank, and from what I saw last year, I am certain that is true.
How come writer are pro's when we agree with what they are saying but are skum and suck when one does not agree with what they say?

How come writer are pro's when we agree with what they are saying but are skum and suck when one does not agree with what they say?

It's called homerism 101

Plain and simple, whoever performs best in preseason should be the #2. The job should be wide open for competition. If it's Thrash or Espy then so be it. We simply do not have anybody on our WR corps that have shown anything to merit being a number #2. To me, potential doesn't mean a damn thing. I want to see production.

Thrash is a great WR to put in the game in a crucial situation where Moss and Cooley will be covered heavily. He's like a secret weapon. :)

How come writer are pro's when we agree with what they are saying but are skum and suck when one does not agree with what they say?

Well, a "professional" gets paid for their expertise. These guys are getting paid to tell us about their opinions of the players / teams. If they are wrong all the time, they will be out of work.

Like Matty said, it's homerism 101 as to why we get all pissed when they something negative about our guys, but fact is, 9 times out of 10, they are right. Maybe 8 out of 10.

Like Matty said, it's homerism 101 as to why we get all pissed when they something negative about our guys, but fact is, 9 times out of 10, they are right. Maybe 8 out of 10.

I can't agree. Look, for example, at their pre-season predictions of how most teams will fare. They are consistently wrong. I'm usually as good as "the experts" at picking who will win X game, as are the vast majority of laypeople.