|
Skins73:
The Redskins' "depth at receiver" is a mirage. The depth you speak of is a reflection of the fact that you recognize the names of people who play WR for the team. And as a fan, you project that all of these guys will perform a whole lot better for the team in th future than they have ever performed in the NFL in the past. That is simply not a likely occurence.
If Thrash has to substitute for Coles, that is a big problem. Thrash is not a bad receiver or a bad guy, but his career in Philly shows that he is NOT SUFFICIENT as a lead receiver on a contending NFL team.
McCants still has to show that he is a top level receiver. I love his game and think he could play the "Art Monk role" in the 2004 offense. But that is conjecture until he gets the job done in a game that means something.
Jacobs is nothing but potential. And "potential" means that he has not yet accomplished anything. If he had actually accomplished something, then he would have "realized" all of that potential that he may - or may not - have.
Gardner has been an underachieving WR who has an overblown estimate of his value and his ability. He needs to be 200% better than he has ever been in his entire NFL career to be worth the trouble it will take to re-sign him next offseason.
Now hear this: If Coles goes down or if he plays hurt for the whole season, the WRs on this team will be a significant weak-link in the chain.
|