Dropped Passes

[Hail to the Redskins]

I just have to say...

Santana Moss can still be one of the most productive receivers in the league RIGHT NOW...

and Anthony Armstrong / Chris Cooley / Fred Davis ... if used properly ... we are not HORRIBLE in receiving weapons...

to all of the McNabb apologists... explain THE ST LOUIS RAMS!!

They have a Rookie QB... and name ONE RECEIVER FOR THEM!

QB 1:
* 2010 Record: 6-6 (team was 1-15 last year!)
* 61% comp, 2,600+ yds, 17 TDs, 10 INTs
* 11 TDs/2 INTs over last 7 games means he is LEARNING HIS NEW OFFENSE
* Leading receiver had 326 CAREER receiving yds coming into 2010

QB 2:
* 2010 Record: 5-7 (team was 4-12 last year)
* 58% comp, 3,100+ yds, 12 TDs, 15 INTs
* 8 TDs, 12 INTs over last 7 games means he is.... ummm.... letting everyone blame is terrible receiving corps
* Has TWO... yes TWO... PRO BOWL RECEIVERS

I am not trying to bash McNabb... I am just sick of hearing everyone talk about us having terrible receivers... it is our QB and our OC... other coaches & QBs would be FINE with our weapons... regardless of the terrible O-Line (see Chicago Bears & Indy Colts)

Things that make you go hmmmm....

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

I just have to say...

Santana Moss can still be one of the most productive receivers in the league RIGHT NOW...

and Anthony Armstrong / Chris Cooley / Fred Davis ... if used properly ... we are not HORRIBLE in receiving weapons...

to all of the McNabb apologists... explain THE ST LOUIS RAMS!!

They have a Rookie QB... and name ONE RECEIVER FOR THEM!

QB 1:
* 2010 Record: 6-6 (team was 1-15 last year!)
* 61% comp, 2,600+ yds, 17 TDs, 10 INTs
* 11 TDs/2 INTs over last 7 games means he is LEARNING HIS NEW OFFENSE
* Leading receiver had 326 CAREER receiving yds coming into 2010

QB 2:
* 2010 Record: 5-7 (team was 4-12 last year)
* 58% comp, 3,100+ yds, 12 TDs, 15 INTs
* 8 TDs, 12 INTs over last 7 games means he is.... ummm.... letting everyone blame is terrible receiving corps
* Has TWO... yes TWO... PRO BOWL RECEIVERS

I am not trying to bash McNabb... I am just sick of hearing everyone talk about us having terrible receivers... it is our QB and our OC... other coaches & QBs would be FINE with our weapons... regardless of the terrible O-Line (see Chicago Bears & Indy Colts)

Things that make you go hmmmm....

Danny Amendola! What's my prize?

They also had Donnie Avery (young and decent) before he was lost for the season and they also traded for Mark Clayton who made a huge impact before he too was lost for the season. And their rookie tackle Roger Saffold is playing great enough that they moved 2009 #2 overall pick Jason Smith to the right side.

So yes, Sam Bradford is deserving of some praise, but their o-line is also playing decent enough to give him enough time to pass. And if they aren't, well their coaches have adjusted to the pressure probably by going to screens/quick passes/3 step drops/etc. to give him time to get the ball out of there.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by mooby

Danny Amendola! What's my prize?

They also had Donnie Avery (young and decent) before he was lost for the season and they also traded for Mark Clayton who made a huge impact before he too was lost for the season. And their rookie tackle Roger Saffold is playing great enough that they moved 2009 #2 overall pick Jason Smith to the right side.

So yes, Sam Bradford is deserving of some praise, but their o-line is also playing decent enough to give him enough time to pass. And if they aren't, well their coaches have adjusted to the pressure probably by going to screens/quick passes/3 step drops/etc. to give him time to get the ball out of there.

And that's a part of the game many QBs are better at than McNabb. Bradford is one of them, along with other things.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

And that's a part of the game many QBs are better at than McNabb. Bradford is one of them, along with other things.

Obviously I'd rather have Bradford than McNabb for a variety of reasons, but it does no good bitching about it knowing we are stuck with McNabb for the forseeable future. Let's focus on making McNabb's second season go way better than his first, and we can worry about our quarterback of the future later.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I didn't see, but was Terrance Austin out there at WR at all?

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Yeah and what's Cincy's record?

I'm more concerned with the OL. Let's start there rather than worrying about the WRs. It's not like Moss is having a horrible season.

Honestly Im not worried about anything because there is so much to be worried about. I agree OL is first priority. I was just pointing out that TO is better than our #1 WR. Thats not good considering he was a FA for so long and he was ours for the taking. My other point was, we have no excuse to complain about WR position because WR's were avalible, that is all on FO.

Secondly TO drops so many passes because he has so many attempts and actually tries to make catches that are sometimes impossible to catch. He's a playmaker plain and simple.

The Skins are continuing to make BAD decisions when it comes to building a competitive team. They go out and get a McNabb for a win now but then don't pair him up with a win now WR.
(I wont even get into keeping AH on the sidelines)

If we are going to build then build, if we want to win now then make the moves that would allow us to attempt to win. Passing on TO was a big mistake. If it was not then picking up DM was.

You cant have it both ways.

[MTK]

No need to make excuses for his drops, he's a great WR but TO has always dropped his fair share.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

No need to make excuses for his drops, TO has always dropped his fair share.

Lets say we fix the OL, what the heck does that do to fix all the points being scored on us. Continuing to put our teams woes all on the OL is making excuses at this point.

By the time we fix the OL it will be the DL and then the QB, WR's, TE's ect... We will lose more valuable personnel in the next few seasons than we will be able to fill.

Giving the current staff the benefit of the doubt, "IF" they are on the right track, it will be many more years before we will have the right balance of players to be competitive. There are just to many holes to fill. OL is just one of them.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Davis could get us a 4th I bet.. He has alot of upside

If he has so much up side why trade hiom in the first place?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 44ever

Lets say we fix the OL, what the heck does that do to fix all the points being scored on us. Continuing to put our teams woes all on the OL is making excuses at this point.

By the time we fix the OL it will be the DL and then the QB, WR's, TE's ect... We will lose more valuable personnel in the next few seasons than we will be able to fill.

Giving the current staff the benefit of the doubt, "IF" they are on the right track, it will be many more years before we will have the right balance of players to be competitive. There are just to many holes to fill. OL is just one of them.

I don't think anyone is saying OL is the only issue, obviously it's one of many. Still, getting it fixed will go a long way in getting the offense on track. Much more so than plugging in new WRs.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

I just have to say...

Santana Moss can still be one of the most productive receivers in the league RIGHT NOW...

and Anthony Armstrong / Chris Cooley / Fred Davis ... if used properly ... we are not HORRIBLE in receiving weapons...

to all of the McNabb apologists... explain THE ST LOUIS RAMS!!

They have a Rookie QB... and name ONE RECEIVER FOR THEM!

QB 1:
* 2010 Record: 6-6 (team was 1-15 last year!)
* 61% comp, 2,600+ yds, 17 TDs, 10 INTs
* 11 TDs/2 INTs over last 7 games means he is LEARNING HIS NEW OFFENSE
* Leading receiver had 326 CAREER receiving yds coming into 2010

QB 2:
* 2010 Record: 5-7 (team was 4-12 last year)
* 58% comp, 3,100+ yds, 12 TDs, 15 INTs
* 8 TDs, 12 INTs over last 7 games means he is.... ummm.... letting everyone blame is terrible receiving corps
* Has TWO... yes TWO... PRO BOWL RECEIVERS

I am not trying to bash McNabb... I am just sick of hearing everyone talk about us having terrible receivers... it is our QB and our OC... other coaches & QBs would be FINE with our weapons... regardless of the terrible O-Line (see Chicago Bears & Indy Colts)

Things that make you go hmmmm....

Do people forget this is a new system for everyone on the field. Its also a new system for DM after being in one system for 10 or so years. Thats a tough change for a QB to make and then throw on the fact everyone is making the change makes it even tougher. I'm giving every player a pass this year but with that said I will not have any problems with players getting cut. The only reason we won the games we did was because of turn overs and we are no longer getting them so we are loosing.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

and Anthony Armstrong / Chris Cooley / Fred Davis ... if used properly ... we are not HORRIBLE in receiving weapons...

I agree.

to all of the McNabb apologists... explain THE ST LOUIS RAMS!!

I don't consider myself and apologist but i can posit an explanation for the Rams production on offense.

Part of their success is due to their OL.

Center: Jason Brown (who was available and we passed on)
RT: Roger Saffold (rookie) 2nd round
LT: Jason Smith 1st round

The Rams have one of the best OL's in their division and one of the better OL's in the league.

Then its their OC Pat Shurmur from the Eagles.

....other coaches & QBs would be FINE with our weapons... regardless of the terrible O-Line (see Chicago Bears & Indy Colts)

I believe that other OC's would field a much better offensive and passing game with our talent. (Heck Zorn's offense was better w/ a less talented cast).
I'm not saying that Kyle is bad i'm saying that for the offense to play better he has to have a better game plan/play calling.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't think anyone is saying OL is the only issue, obviously it's one of many. Still, getting it fixed will go a long way in getting the offense on track. Much more so than plugging in new WRs.

I agree, but neither was I saying WR was more pressing than OL. But at least it would have made the bigger and quicker impact since its easier to get 1 great receiver than a whole great OL.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 44ever

I agree, but neither was I saying WR was more pressing than OL. But at least it would have made the bigger and quicker impact since its easier to get 1 great receiver than a whole great OL.

Given the choice I would take a stud lineman over a stud WR. Even just one lineman could make a big difference. Meanwhile TO is putting up nice numbers, but that hasn't helped them win.

[firstdown]

One thing we know about DM is that he can win with average WR's because he did that for years in Philly. When they finally get some good talent at WR they trade him.