well, pretty accurate IMO. i am not a big fan of us getting rid of our top two receivers last year only to not really find equal replacements (you could argue about Wilford for Booker, i guess), but.... eh.... crap
That ranking is too high. We shouldn't even get a ranking. Youth, inexperience, inconsistency, and a who's who of practice squad players competing for the #3 WR job. In a pass-happy rule system, you need top WR's. And that's why most of the top teams in the league are at the top here.
There is some good potential in there, but until some of these guys actually produce on the field, a low ranking is def. appropriate. Losing Chambers short term will sting, but he wasnt going anywhere with us. He wasnt getting better, and wasnt winning games for us, so we moved him for a pick. Not a bad move for a rebuilding franchise, but it does hurt us this year certainly. We definately need at least 2 guys to step up and be consistent ball catchers, and need Ginn to really become a threat and Wilford just to be consistent and catch those first downs and TDs. If nobody steps up, its definately a point we will need to look at in the draft and FA after this year. Also, dont count out us going after a possible cap casualty or something before the season starts. Certainly wont be a bigtime player, but a stable veteran at the #2-3 spot cant hurt.
Yeah, but the person who traded Chambers out isn't here anymore. This FO might not have done the same, they might have, who knows. Chambers wasn't getting any better here but the team is now poised to. He could have been an asset. Oh he did have 970 yards which included having to adjust to a new team midway. That's an improvement from the year before. 272 yards and a TD in the playoffs was pretty damn good too. He was their WR in the playoffs. In the game vs. Tenn it was VJ who got 100 yards and a TD yet the Tenn CBs kept saying you gotta watch out for Chambers. In light of what Cam and Muel were doing, yes trading Chambers made a bunch of sense, and it was good for ALL parties involved. But that agenda has changed. Maybe this new FO thinks the same thing, rather have that #2/Henne than Chambers. maybe not. Right now I don't disagree with being ranked #16. Maybe we're better off with him. But it just means someone else has to step up.
pfft, they both need asterisks! Rice did his in 12 games, Moss in 16. That is no good! Welker? pshawww! Welker had the most catches, but his YPA were Reggie Bush like! He's not a receiver, just a glorified tailback!
Count me among those that believe this ranking may be a bit too optimistic. Ginn has to prove he's a capable #1, not just a glorified #2 starting on a bad team. Honestly, if I'm rating #1 receivers, there's a number of folks I'd put ahead of him. Wilford for Booker is an even exchange, although Wilford is more capable in the red zone. He's a middle-of-the pack guy leaning Top 15 for me. Hagan, Camarillo, and Kircus may step up into the #3 role, but I'm not sold on any of them, for various reasons. Much like Ginn, I'd tend to put them towards the bottom of #3s in the league. With that in mind, I have to believe this ranking is much too high - for the reasons cited in the first sentence. Youth and inexperience. That's not good to have at such a critical position.
Well there goes the whole point of my post. The only teams that I'd maybe put our guys in front of are Tennessee and maybe Jacksonville. Still, I can't put up much of an argument with us at 16 out of 16.
Trading Chambers for Henne is a reason why Mueller deserves a swift kick in the butt. That and bypassing Quinn in my book. With Parcells and Co. very reluctant to devote efforts on WR's, Mueller really left us in a huge hole at that spot with no verified talent that could take a long time to overcome. Keeping in mind, the good WR's Parcells has had over the years were ones Parcells did not want to begin with and was forced to take in (Glenn, TO).
I hate losing ginn's production on returns by reducing his role. Ideally, this is how it goes: 1) THIS year, because we are desperate, we play Ginn as our number one. The experience of going up against #1 corners has him elevate his game to a high level. His kickoff/punt return duties are halved though. We see 6 receiving touchdowns and 2 return touchdowns from the young man. 2) We draft a #1 receiver next year. 3) In 2009 Ted becomes a #2 reciever with #1 talent, and SCORCHES cornerbacks. He is also allowed back onto kickoff and punt returns full time. We see 7 receiving touchdowns and 5 return touchdowns from the young man. That's the only thing that'd make me happy. He is a threat to score on EVERY return. How do you take those touches away from him?
