| . | ||
 |
||
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 Location: Waukegan, Illinois
Registered: 02-14-2000
Posts: 3719
|
Posted
NFC rankings: wide receivers
It is rather subjective. He doesnt give an objective reason for his conclusion. Therefore his rationalization is bizarre at best. |
 Location: Normal, Illinois
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 5673
|
Posted
I think the Packers are the deepest, but I can see how he'd put Arizonam with their duo of Fitzgerald and Boldin at the top. Those guys are fantastic. Our tanden of Jennings and Driver isn't far off, but I think the Packers strength is in numbers with Jones, and probably Nelson.
|
 Location: Siberia
Registered: 01-10-2004
Posts: 10422
|
Posted
The have 1 ranking accurate. The Bears are last.
|
 Location: Seattle,Wa.
Registered: 09-04-2000
Posts: 535
|
Posted
The bears still SUCK!
|
|
Registered: 08-25-2006
Posts: 165
|
Posted
The author lost all of my respect when he rated the Queens WR's #10, what a joke.
|
 Location: The shed behind Boris Castle.
Registered: 03-20-2005
Posts: 6684
|
Posted
What are you talking about man, they got BERNARD BERRIAN! He's the missing piece......he's going to make the people say "Troy Williamson, who's that?"...of course he's the one who was supposed to make people say "Randy who?" |
 Location: Annoying, but generally harmless
Registered: 09-22-2000
Posts: 10228
|
Posted
Troy Williamson did it first. |
 Registered: 01-11-2002
Posts: 10893
|
Posted
Of course the rankings are subjective. They're rankings.
I think they're pretty reasonable. Arizona does have the best starting tandem. And the Vikings might seem high at 10, but all of the groups at 11-16 are similarly shaky due to age/injury/general suckiness. In truth, none of those groups are any good, and Berrian and Rice might reasonably be better than any tandem the other teams can field. |
 Location: "beat me like a rented mule" - Henry
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 20180
|
Posted
 |
 Location: Proud member of MRSA
Registered: 09-22-2002
Posts: 25111
|
Posted
Post modernism is a harsh mistress. |
 Location: Jersey Shore
Registered: 05-02-2006
Posts: 1118
|
Posted
I agree, Max. The teams below the Vikings completely BLOW, anyway. Sidney Rice came on last season and we all know how Berrian can get behind defenses. The Vikings still blow, but not as hard as the Skins and Bucs. |
 Location: Mattoon Il
Registered: 11-26-2003
Posts: 1996
|
Posted
I would contend that the teams on that list (other than the Giants) underneath the Packers WR corps blow as far a proven talent goes (Detroit sux until proven otherwise). There might be a guy or two here or there but the WR talent seems to be solidly in favor of the AFC. |
|
Location: "beat me like a rented mule" - Henry
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 20180
|
Posted
I love you! |
 Location: What in the wide wide world of sports is going on out there?
Registered: 10-04-2004
Posts: 9408
|
Posted
Did you mean postmodernism or post-modernism? |
 Location: Somewhere
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 13371
|
Posted
Maybe Deep can give us the insight on the talent the Bears are stacking up at the WR spot.
|
|
Location: Proud member of MRSA
Registered: 09-22-2002
Posts: 25111
|
Posted
They're both meaningless. *fin* |
|
Location: Siberia
Registered: 01-10-2004
Posts: 10422
|
Posted
Donald Driver is so under-rated
 |
|
Location: Proud member of MRSA
Registered: 09-22-2002
Posts: 25111
|
Posted
Everybody knows he's only a good #2. |
 Location: Mother Angelica's Habit
Registered: 05-21-2004
Posts: 1103
|
Posted
He hates Aaron Rodgers too. |
|
Location: Waukegan, Illinois
Registered: 02-14-2000
Posts: 3719
|
Posted
Cant we all just get along.
|
|
Location: Madison, WI USA
Registered: 08-18-2000
Posts: 8055
|
Posted
I probably would go with the Packers by the slightest of margins. If the Cardinals hadn't lost Bryant Johnson, I would have leaned towards the Cardinals. Boldin had some injury problems last year, and I just see the Packers depth (Jones/Martin/Nelson) being further along than the Cardinals reserves (Breaston/Doucet).
I think the Panthers should be higher because Steve Smith is absolute top-notch and Muhammad and Hackett are good complimentary receivers for him. If Laurent Robinson comes on for the Falcons their receiving group could be really, really good. Roddy White had a huge year last year, Robinson is looking like he could be solid, Jenkins would be a nice fit as a #3 receiver like Bryant Johnson was for the Cardinals last year, Joe Horn is still floating around in the mix and rookie Harry Douglas could prove to be a keeper in a couple years. I think that's a fair assessment for the Vikings. If Rice improves he and Berrian should be OK as starters. Wade is a good option as a #3 receiver. I'm not sure if Allison fits long term as a receiver or if he's more of a return specialist, but anyway you look at it he's got a nice combo of skills and is a good developmental prospect as a pass-catcher. I agree that Seattle has a lot of question marks but if Branch and Engram are both on the field then this group is in the top half in the NFC. Branch/Engram and Burleson are all good players. And someone like Ben Obomanu could emerge as a solid #3 receiver down the road. The Buccaneers could easily have the worst set of receivers in the NFC. After Galloway I don't see much of anything. I'll probably never figure out what happened to Michael Clayton after his rookie year, but if he's able to rebound at this point I will be shocked. Hillard's better days are behind him and I'd be surprised if he could repeat the 700-yard season he had last year. Stovall hasn't done much. I really like Dexter Jackson as a future prospect, but he's a rookie out of Appalachian State. I'd probably put the Bear receivers ahead of the Buccaneer receivers. |
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | TimesFour | ||
| Servlet | eve2da035 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "X4 News" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
