Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=bigm29;729495]I cant think of [B]any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success[/B]. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.[/quote]

The Bears and the Colts come to mind. Of course it depends what you consider significant impact. In my book there are only a handful of players in the NFL warrant the distinction of "Significant Impact."

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Mattyk;729653]Galloway has an impressive resume in this league. I wouldn't let the last 2 years tarnish that. He was simply a bad fit in NE's system. He could really surprise us this year.[/quote]


I'm killing it with him on Madden 11...that has to be taken into factor. Crowd the line and bam, audible to a Galloway streak ...TD.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=bigm29;729495]I cant think of any offense in recent memory where 2 good tight ends has had a significant impact on thier success. I feel like if Cooley starts all 16 games then Fred Davis is going to have very little impact.[/quote]

Because its very rare to have 2 top tier TEs.
And i guess it depends on how you define sigificant impact.
Because if there are 2 TEs they don't put up equally big numbers.
Therefore the impact isn't apparent just glancing at stats.
The impact is felt in the favorable match-ups they create.

[url=http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billick-101-2-te-formation/12mgonit]Billick 101: 2 TE Formation - Bing Videos[/url]

[url=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d80d08a60/Playbook-Brian-Billick-on-tight-ends]NFL Videos: Week 14 Playbook: Brian Billick on tight ends[/url]

Off the top of my head recent teams?

Packers- Lee/Finley
Bears- Olsen/Clark
Lions- Pettigrew/Heller/Fitzsimmons

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

The Cooley-McNabb connection
11:16
AM ET
Chris Cooley | Redskins
TopEmail

This season, the Washington Redskins may run a lot of plays out of formations where both Chris Cooley and Fred Davis are on the field, per Rick Maese of the Washington Post. This double-TE strategy is based primarily on two things: the talent level of Cooley and Davis, and the lack of options at wide receiver behind Santana Moss.

In addition, Cooley thinks that McNabb is the type of QB to trust his arm to get the ball into tight spots than his predecessor Jason Campbell. "I expect to get more balls thrown to me with Donovan and more opportunity in coverage when I don't expect passes than with Jason," Cooley said.

Another benefit of using two TEs is making use of them as extra blockers in the running game. Although the Redskins made improving the offensive line a major priority this offseason -- drafting Trent Williams, trading for Jammal Brown and signing Artis Hicks -- it's still a work in progress. Having an extra body out there to control the edge will be vital.

- Tim Kavanagh

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;729844]The Cooley-McNabb connection
11:16
AM ET
Chris Cooley | Redskins
TopEmail

This season, the Washington Redskins may run a lot of plays out of formations where both Chris Cooley and Fred Davis are on the field, per Rick Maese of the Washington Post. This double-TE strategy is based primarily on two things: the talent level of Cooley and Davis, and the lack of options at wide receiver behind Santana Moss.

In addition, Cooley thinks that McNabb is the type of QB to trust his arm to get the ball into tight spots than his predecessor Jason Campbell. [B]"I expect to get more balls thrown to me with Donovan and more opportunity in coverage when I don't expect passes than with Jason," Cooley said.[/B]

Another benefit of using two TEs is making use of them as extra blockers in the running game. Although the Redskins made improving the offensive line a major priority this offseason -- drafting Trent Williams, trading for Jammal Brown and signing Artis Hicks -- it's still a work in progress. Having an extra body out there to control the edge will be vital.

- Tim Kavanagh[/quote]

Ouch.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729794]Because its very rare to have 2 top tier TEs.
And i guess it depends on how you define sigificant impact.
Because if there are 2 TEs they don't put up equally big numbers.
Therefore the impact isn't apparent just glancing at stats.
The impact is felt in the favorable match-ups they create.

[url=http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/billick-101-2-te-formation/12mgonit]Billick 101: 2 TE Formation - Bing Videos[/url]

[url=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d80d08a60/Playbook-Brian-Billick-on-tight-ends]NFL Videos: Week 14 Playbook: Brian Billick on tight ends[/url]

Off the top of my head recent teams?

Packers- Lee/Finley
Bears- Olsen/Clark
Lions- Pettigrew/Heller/Fitzsimmons[/quote]

The Pats may have that Gronkowski kid and the other TE to send out against defenses along with Welker and Moss.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;729645]Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.[/quote]

Galloway's job here is to simply make defenders respect the side of the field opposite Moss. I'm not sure what the #3 is supposed to do in NE. Also, why did Belichick decide to gamble with Galloway in the first place when he could've cut him at the end of the preseason? The answer is obvious, his athleticism and other skills are still there, although obviously not "perfectly" preserved.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

^^^^^^^
[quote=Lotus;729645]Of course WR's need a good QB. No one is arguing against that.

The point I made was specifically about Galloway. Last year he had a good QB and still could not get it done. In fact, he hasn't gotten it done for several years. He'd be retired if we didn't offer him a home. That's pathetic.[/quote]

I did a lil research:

[B][COLOR="Olive"]
Galloway struggled with the offensive system and was inactive the last three games after catching just seven passes in the first three.

"He's had a great career and this is one of those things that just didn't work out," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "I don't think it's anybody's fault or anything that you just pinpoint."[/COLOR][/B]
Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain
ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss says the Patriots admitted a mistake in cutting Joey Galloway on Tuesday. Story
•Reiss' blog | Questions for mailbag
•ESPNBoston.com

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4579557]Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston[/url]
-Me:
I'n not sure when he got to Pats training camp but from my research it seem like it was just a bad fit not a matter of lack of ability.
It seemed like with Moss, Welker and the other weapons he was the odd man out after all there are only so many targets.

But, although i'm a bit skeptical myself, i think he's here as more of a mentor then anything else, he'll certainly have more opportunities here then in New England.

By all acccounts he's looked good in training camp.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729893][B][COLOR="Olive"]
Galloway struggled with the offensive system and was inactive the last three games after catching just seven passes in the first three.

"He's had a great career and this is one of those things that just didn't work out," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "I don't think it's anybody's fault or anything that you just pinpoint."[/COLOR][/B]
Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain
ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss says the Patriots admitted a mistake in cutting Joey Galloway on Tuesday. Story
•Reiss' blog | Questions for mailbag
•ESPNBoston.com

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4579557]Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston[/url]

I'n not sure when he got to Pats training camp but from my research it seem like it was just a bad fit not a matter of lack of ability.
It seemed like with Moss, Welker and the other weapons he was the odd man out after all there are only so many targets.

But, although i'm a bit skeptical myself, i think he's here as more of a mentor then anything else, he'll certainly have more opportunities here then in New England.

By all acccounts he's looked good in training camp.[/quote]

Well this is going to reek of homerism but lets try and spin this. When Josh McDaniels brought his system to Denver Eddie Royal had a huge drop off. Galloway was successful though in Grudens system which is somewhat similar to Shanahans.

Anyway what are we looking for? Two 1,000+ yard guys. Moss will get at least 1,100 yards. Cooley will get 800. Armstrong or someone else will get as few as 500 and as much as 700. Fred Davis will get around 300 or 400 yards.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=30gut;729893]^^^^^^^


I did a lil research:

[B][COLOR="Olive"]
Galloway struggled with the offensive system and was inactive the last three games after catching just seven passes in the first three.

"He's had a great career and this is one of those things that just didn't work out," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "I don't think it's anybody's fault or anything that you just pinpoint."[/COLOR][/B]
Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain
ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss says the Patriots admitted a mistake in cutting Joey Galloway on Tuesday. Story
•Reiss' blog | Questions for mailbag
•ESPNBoston.com

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4579557]Joey Galloway released by New England Patriots; team re-signs Tully Banta-Cain - ESPN Boston[/url]
-Me:
I'n not sure when he got to Pats training camp but from my research it seem like it was just a bad fit not a matter of lack of ability.
It seemed like with Moss, [B]Welker [/B]and the other weapons he was the odd man out after all there are only so many targets.

But, although i'm a bit skeptical myself, i think [B]he's here as more of a mentor then anything else[/B], he'll certainly have more opportunities here then in New England.

By all acccounts he's looked good in training camp.[/quote]

I appreciate the homework. But Welker was hurt last year, giving Galloway a time to shine. He didn't. Nor did he during his last year in Tampa.

Also, if he were only a mentor, he would be there for emergencies and otherwise be talking up people on the sideline. Instead, in the preseason, he was on the field a good amount in first quarters of games. Maybe things will change during the regular season (Armstrong and/or Thomas step up), but the formula remains: the more time Galloway spends on the field, the more our WR crew looks like a train wreck.

Thank goodness for Cooley and Davis.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;729894]Well this is going to reek of homerism but lets try and spin this. When Josh McDaniels brought his system to Denver Eddie Royal had a huge drop off. Galloway was successful though in Grudens system which is somewhat similar to Shanahans.

Anyway what are we looking for? Two 1,000+ yard guys. Moss will get at least 1,100 yards. Cooley will get 800. Armstrong or someone else will get as few as 500 and as much as 700. Fred Davis will get around 300 or 400 yards.[/quote]

I'm not sure i'm willing to spin it that far positive on Galloway.
But here's my prediction for the receivers based on McNabb throwing for 3,825 yards (i have it over in extremeskins but there cite is down so this is from memory so there might be errors)

Moss-80+ catches 1250 yard
Cooley+Davis-117 catches 1100 yards
Armstrong-46 catches 725
Devin Thomas+Galloway+Roydell Williams-40 575 yards
or
Armstrong/Devin/Galloway/Williams-86 catches for 1300 yards
The RBs-23-230 yards

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

Honestly, I have faith in McNabb and Shanahan. Shanahan has orchestrated some great offenses in his day, and while we won't rival the Colts, he can make us respectable. McNabb is a top tier QB, and he will elevate the play of everyone around him with some time. Moss had an 84 catch, 1483 yard season with BRUNELL throwing him the ball. I think we can all safely agree McNabb is MUCH better than Brunell. Also, Moss has had 149 catches over the past two years, unfortunately they weren't for many yards since Campbell liked to throw the ball in the first row than down field. He liked his over the middle patterns. Of course, I know Moss accomplished his 84 catch feat 5 years ago, but he's a VERY talented wr. He just needs a good QB to pull it out of him.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

I think many Redskins fans are going to be shocked when they watch the offense function like a proper and dangerous unit this year.

There will be ups and downs, but it is going to be a sight many faithful fans are not familiar with.

Quite honestly the Redskins offense has been dangerous for maybe 1 1/2 seasons out of the last ten.

It has been just awful to watch and I think some people don't even remember what it's like to be able to make the opposing defense run around in circles looking like a bunch of idiots.

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=Lotus;729900]I appreciate the homework. But Welker was hurt last year, giving Galloway a time to shine. He didn't. Nor did he during his last year in Tampa.[/quote]

So basicly thanks for the research but you're going to ignore it?
Just for the sake of accuracy Wes Welker was injured long after Galloway was released.
And the reps would have and did go to their young developmental receivers Julian Edleman or Aiken anyway.
Bellichik admitted that it was a mistake bringing Galloway in not because he couldn't play but because he wasn't needed (inactive for 3 games prior to his release).

Look it, i have my doubts about Galloway as well, but to say that he didn't get the job done in New England after Welker went down simply isn't accurate.

[quote]Also, if he were only a mentor, he would be there for emergencies and otherwise be talking up people on the sideline. Instead, in the preseason, he was on the field a good amount in first quarters of games. Maybe things will change during the regular season (Armstrong and/or Thomas step up), but the formula remains: the more time Galloway spends on the field, the more our WR crew looks like a train wreck.[/quote]

I didn't know that being a mentor came with set parameters, lol.
I don't recall seeing Galloway on the field that much during preseason, in fact i would say he was on the field less then any other WR.
(But when he was on the field he was getting open)
I still don't see how this receiving corps can be considered a train wreck with or without Galloway.

HTTR!

Re: (Vent thread) I'm sorry,but the notion,that the Redskins have "no" receivers is just stupid!
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;729627]All 6 of our receivers have one thing going for them that no one has touched on yet - they are not Albert Haynesworth. I think many of you completely underestimate the value of players not named Albert Haynesworth. In fact, I just had my fantasy draft this past weekend and in the later rounds, I drafted several players simply because they weren't named Haynesworth. I think that alone will help me win my league this year. If not, its good for atleast 10 points per game per player... I'm just assuming that at around 90 points a game I wouldnt have for each position where I did not draft Albert Haynesworth. Thats got to equal a win, right?[/quote]

You will be dominant on 4th and 1