ugh, stovall? that guy is the poster boy for underachieving.... he had every opportunity to be the #2 guy in Tampa last year, then completely shot himself in the foot. no thanks to stovall, especially not in a trade for JT. just a quick question for everyone saying we're NOT 32. please list/explain which teams you feel are worse than us in the WR department. Not Tennesse, as was previously explained (two 700+ yard receivers), not Denver (Marshall alone trumped our entire WR corps), i mean who? Even San Fran's Battle & Jackson are better. so, for the sake of argument and this thread, please explain who is worse and why.
I think too many people here are assuming that Ginn will fulfill his potential. While he certainly has as good a shot as any young WR to become elite, its still what it is - potential. Regardless, I could really care less about our WRs at this point. I'm fine with who we have, considering our offense is going to be based on our O-Line mauling the opposing front-7.
Out with the old, in with the new. Ginn doesn't have THAT much to go, to catch up with Booker. Remember, Chambers was villified for dropped passes, while Booker had his slipping problem. Booker was the only Dolphins on the dropped passes leaderboard last year. http://sports.iwon.com/nfl/stats/league/passesdropped.html (Wow look at all the Colts on there, they're the new Miami) Booker hasn't been any good for a few years. As a veteran, he gave us ... 556 yards and 1 TD. Ted Gave us 420 yards and 2 TDs, not counting his Return game. Now, I'm not sitting here arguing that our squad is better than Chicagos. But ... as a seasoned vet and 130 yards better in a more prominent WR role, I would hardly call that "better"
Why even worry about their assessment? That was last year, under a different coach, different offensive coordinator, different staff and a defeatest attitude. Truthfully, we haven't had the quarterback to bring out the best and make the most use of our wide receivers in a long, long time. Just as an example, Dan Marino could take the most average wide receivers and make them look good. This is a new year, a new staff from top to bottom and a new attitude. I know, I know, we have been saying this over and over, change after change but you have to believe in something. Previous staff / coaches hung on to players long after they had shown they were not worth keeping. If it was because they didn't want to admit to a mistake or hope that the player would eventually prove their worth, who knows? One thing I feel confident in is that Parcells, Ireland and company wont repeat that philosophy and will not be satisfied with players who don't contribute but that is JMO.
Chicago, SF, and Atlanta sure. But don't discount what Gage and Williams can do. Two 700 yard WR's playing for a QB that's not really that good at passing is pretty good. And they're young and improving. Dwayne Bowe is going to be a star and started out better than Ginn with an equally unsure QB situation. We don't have the star nor the depth as well.
i don't think i could possibly disagree with your post more.... Booker had a couple of drops, but he NEVER reached Chambers territory with drops. He was much more consistent that the always-forgiven Chambers. Booker wasn't a perennial probowler, but he was consistent with his numbers and you knew what you'd get out of him. Regarding the teams you listed, i'd have to disagree with you on each account. Tennessee: Roydell Williams had over 700 yards and 4 TDs, AND Justin Gage had 750 yards and 2 TDs. We didn't have anyone that hit those numbers, much less two players. kansas city: Their tight end counts as a WR since he plays that position a lot... Tony Gonzalez needs no explanation. 1200 yards last year and 5 TDs... Dwayne Bowe? 1,000 yards as a rookie and 5 TDs. This might be the weakest team of the bunch, and if you remove tony gonzalez since he's a TE, i would still rank them higher than us b/c of bowe... we don't have anyone close to bowe. so they're not even close to us. Chicago: well this one might be a better argument.... they let berrian & muhammed walk (their two best WRs), but if you did count them, they both surpass anything we have. counting what they have for 2008 (Booker, Lloyd, Bradley, Davis, Hester) i'd STILL put them above us, or at the very least on par with us. Booker will do better up in chicago, i wouldn't be surprised to see 700 yards out of him next year. Lloyd is a guy who did well at the start of his career but was in a bad situation in washington. He's not a probowler, but he's a solid 3rd WR or so. Hester is a huge wildcard. i think he'll do very well in a starring WR role. i guess when you look at the team as a whole you could make a case between them an us.... so say they'd be 30, 31, or 32, with us & san fran being the other spots. Atlanta: another team that will be misleading b/c of such poor QB play.... but Roddy White alone kills any TWO guys combined we currently have on our roster... 1200 yards? seriously? no one our or roster is even close. San Fran: horrendous QB situation giving their WRs not much to work with (much like ours)... but still, battle had 600 yards with 5 TDs. 5. They also throw to their RB a lot (gore had over 400 yards receiving, more than our 3rd Wr), Vernon Davis had 500 yards receiving, Darrell Jackson had 500 yards and 3 TDs (i think he was frustrated b/c of poor QB play- he's better than that). again you might make a case for this team being as bad as ours.... so fine, call them 30, 31, or 32 as well. Miami: Ginn had 420 yards and 2 TDs... and he's our #1 next year. Hagan had 373 yards, 2 TDs. Camarillo had 228 yards and 2 TDs. solid WR corps there. Wilford had 518 yards receiving and 3 Tds on a team with MUCH better QB play.... so expect lower #'s here for sure. considering the highest yardage by any WR on our team was 518 yards last year, and only 3 TDs... i think thats a solid case to make us currently 32. Next year could change if Ginn breaks out, Wilford fits our system better, and Hagan finally shows up. but until then, going on numbers alone (and not potential), our team i think is most certainly #32 with WRs. don't see how you can argue when the numbers are right there
True, and with Ginn and Hagan, there are no historical norms to look at, Hagan has been a spot starter at best, Ginn only started late in the year leaving Wilford, who is a average NFL Vet Wr. Objectively looking at that, I can see the #32 ranking, we can do much better then that this season, that could happen fairly easily. Gin steps up, Hagan shines, and Wilford performs as his norm, that all depends on the Qb play.
I suspect that if our passing game is as punchless as many expect with our unproven, unstable QB spot and our bottom-ranked receiving corps, then we will be facing a lot of 8-man defensive fronts.
Gruden is THE problem in Tampa Bay. Players like Cadillac Williams, Michael Clayton, Alex Smith, come to Tampa and do great...at first. He plays so many mind games that he destroys young players confidence (see Chris Simms). I think Stovall has size, speed, and ability...he just needs a change of scenery. Hes going to be a good WR in this league. When you watch film of Fasano at ND, its Stovall that jumps out at you.
Chambers averaged around 7-8 drops a year. Trust me, I've looked at it the last few years. It's what happens when you're a part of the CDF, Chambers Defense Force. If you look at my link, Booker dropped 7 last year. Chambers I think had 3-4. Chambers was forgiven, well 900 yards and 7-11 TDs gets you that fogiveness. What's 3 extra drops a year? Reggie Wayne (who is much better, I know) has about the same amount of drops. Andre Johnson is past all of them. T.O., well T.O. Receivers drop balls. We just hate Chambers because he's on our team, and we see each one.
Given our poor downfield options, apparently, I'd expect to see our young QB(s) relying on lots of dump-offs to runningbacks or short passes to the tight-end to supplement our otherwise anemic passing attack. You can also begin to see why we will need power blocking formations ith either 2 tight ends or a TE and a fullback. We'll have to load up pretty good back there, since most defenses will know we are going be running. Then we just depend on better talent, better strength and bture force (offseason conditioning program + big athletes), and good executi of plays/technique. Where we might see the occasional big passing play is when the running game has been effective and the oppostion's safeties have begun cheating up. That when a deep bomb, a play-action, or even a crossing route to a player like Ted Ginn could turn into 6 points. For the 2008 season, I we'll try to pound the ball, but will end up passing a lot more than we want to if our offense struggles to move the bal. I expect it will struggle, as defenses can load up their run defense against our one-dimensional attack. that means more passing, and a ton of punting. The key will be our defense. This regime would probably hope that our defense will be good enough that they can play conservatively on offense and punt the ball away more, in a field-position battle. That way they don't have to force the pass on 3rd and long, they can try safe plays (runs or short passes) and happily punt if we don't make the 1st down. however, if our defense is playing poorly and we are behind, we'll see Beck (or whoever) having to force the ball to our not-so-great receivers and some INTs are sure to result.
And um this is a shock to anyone??? Gee, I wonder where they could have gotten an idea. Give me a break. Golly and I thought Davon Hess was Chris Carter reincarnated. Just goes to show you what us fans really know huh....
i'm not going to argue semantics over who had drops when... fact is chambers has always had problems with drops his whole career. So booker had a down year last year. so what? 7 drops in a full year of starting does not put a dent in this entire conversation. you are guesstimating for next year's production, which is what the article is doing. you can cite "well ginn wasn't a starter" all day long, it doesn't change the fact that you, just like the article, is estimating based on current knowledge. the dolphins homers here are rating based on potential, which is stupid. You know who else has potential? Chris Henry, Matt Jones, Etc.... you rate based on actual production, not potential. We can be optimistic all we want, fact is the article had limited information off of past production to go on.... given that, i find no fault with the article. So lets drop the booker/chambers thing for now... neither are on the team anymore and it has nothing to do with miami's WR rating for 2008
To US he did. but we watch every game on pins and needles. each drop is met with a collective groan and sigh all across thephins community For the last three years, i've seen very notable names on the drops categories. and it's not like it's 30 drops vs. 2. these guys are dropping 8-10 a year, while the better ones are dropping 2-4. Not that huge of a difference if you're catching around, 1000 yards or more. (plus chambers makes catches nobody has business making, that offsets it somewhat compared to WR who can't). anyway, as you say, lets drop that .... for now But I will say this. Hagan definitely has a problem. He catches few too little passes to be on any drops list, which he was a year ago. If he was catching 60 balls then it would balance that. But 4-5 drops with 20 catches, that isn't going to fly with me. I'll take issue with this statement. You can rate based off potential. Lets say you have a receiver, career 500 yarder. 5 years in, he gets 500 yards a season. Then you have a rookie, top flight prospect. No character qustions (henry) or project (converted QB like Jones). His first year, he gets 450 yards. He lit it up in college. WRs take 3 years to develop, so we all feel he'll improve on that. According to you, we have to ignore potential. Just production. All else being equal, receiver #1 produced more. So we have to rank him above receiver #2. I don't buy that at all. Rankings aren't set in stone, you make them with the information you have that day. Potential is something you definitely have to consider.
i really don't care to ever talk about chambers or booker again, much less their drops while here. I DO agree with your #'s statement though... if they are 1,000 yard WRs, the # of drops is somewhat forgiven. Hagan has sucked since he's been here, and he's had the dropsies too. i'm not ok with that. take the rose-colored glasses off. We are not their WR coaches. I'm talking about the article saying we have the 32nd ranked WR corps in the league. If you rated EVERY team based on potential, we'd STILL be 32 dude. seriously. as a writer that is supposed to be non-biased, you think the author is going to rank our team on how it SHOULD perform? no. they are going to rate our team based on who is on the roster and how those people have performed in the past. you're speaking in figurative terms & being wayyy too idealistic for this conversation..... i'm just referring to the article.
I think wide receivers are only as good as their QB. We have had horrible QB's since Marino retired, other than maybe a halfway decent guy in Fiedler, who had a good winning % while he was here. I just think Ginn, Hagan and the rest of the guys will look solid as soon as we settle on our QB.
to a certain extent, maybe. but you can only make that statement if you've seen a WR produce before (example: Randy Moss from minny to oakland, then to NE). Given that guys like Hagan et al have never really put up the big #'s, you can't say that they would improve with better QB play as we don't know if they're of the upper echelon of WRs or not.
you must have missed it when I said this: http://forums.thephins.com/showpost.php?p=233391&postcount=13 YES. if not, you don't do it before the beginning of hte season, you do it last year after the season. you have to rank the team on how it SHOULD perform. How do you account for changes in coaches, personnel, rookies and Free Agents? If not, you don't need a writer for this. You take all the stats from 2007 and before, you add them up, you rank. Done. A monkey can do that. Now, ESPN is pretty close to that sometimes, but That's not what they tried to do here. The writer has to guess or estimate how this unit will do together.
