Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Eddie Royal could fit Bucs' profile « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

bucsquad

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1345
Offline
#30 : March 01, 2012, 03:00:12 PM

I see Royal going to the Redskins, He could return to the coach that he had his success with and went to VT for college, but I wouldn't mind adding him.


chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#31 : March 01, 2012, 03:16:34 PM

Giants didnt have a true #1 last year with all the injuries(Cruz stepped up for sure), Saints dont have a true #1, Packers no longer have a true #1(was Jennings for awhile), Steelers didnt have a true #1 when they won the SB, Patriots havent had a #1 in awhile......most SB winners(or even the SB losers) in the last decade havent had a true #1.


So why is a true #1 needed again? It seems a good stable is more valuable than a true #1 in todays NFL. Id love to hear a legitimate explanation explaining differently.

While I will agree that a #1 is not needed to win a championship...having one certainly helps..

I highly disagree with a few of your examples.

Giants had a 1a. Nicks and 1b. Cruz. To say that Nicks is not a top tier legit #1 receiver..well that tells me that he must have slept with your sister..or ran over your dog..but yes..the Pats this year..no Legit #1
Greg Jennings was absolutely a #1 when they won it two years ago....and is still a top 10 WR
Mike Wallace was playing at a #1 receiver level and is now considered a top 10 receiver by many.
Yes, the saints had no top tier WR...but the Colts...Reggie Wayne..legit #1 that season.
The year before..both the Steelers and the Cards had legit #1s...Holmes and Fitzgerald
07...Same story..Plax #1...Moss #1.

Just because a receiver doesn't play at the other-worldly level that Megatron plays...doesn't mean they aren't a legit #1.

So. I think you are..for the most part...incorrect.

: March 01, 2012, 03:20:27 PM chace1986


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.

tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7634
Online
#32 : March 01, 2012, 05:12:39 PM

Wallace wasnt a #1 then.

Giants have become like the Saints and Packers with a stable of good WRs and any given week any of their WRs shows up as a number 1, not necessarily the same guy week in and week out. Jennings has fallen in the Packers scheme with the emergence of other WRs and the abilities of Rodgers.

Holmes has had 1 good/great year, but Ive never seen him as  true #1.

Wayne and Fitzgerald are the two exceptions

Im waiting for you to explain differently as youve provided the examples that are begining to be shown as an exception. Todays NFL is proving a stable is more important that 1 good/great WR. Also, guys like Royal and Garcon are often the types of #2/3 WRs that take the top off of the defense and allow #1s to have greater success. The only other way is a top 5 QB. Freeman may get ther one day, but he is not right now.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#33 : March 01, 2012, 05:42:30 PM

Wallace wasnt a #1 then.

Giants have become like the Saints and Packers with a stable of good WRs and any given week any of their WRs shows up as a number 1, not necessarily the same guy week in and week out. Jennings has fallen in the Packers scheme with the emergence of other WRs and the abilities of Rodgers.

Holmes has had 1 good/great year, but Ive never seen him as  true #1.

Wayne and Fitzgerald are the two exceptions

Im waiting for you to explain differently as youve provided the examples that are begining to be shown as an exception. Todays NFL is proving a stable is more important that 1 good/great WR. Also, guys like Royal and Garcon are often the types of #2/3 WRs that take the top off of the defense and allow #1s to have greater success. The only other way is a top 5 QB. Freeman may get ther one day, but he is not right now.

#1 receiver by your definition must need to be putting up HOF numbers to get that tag from you...

Wallace was definitely the #1 in 2010...because he followed up his ROY performance by solidifying himself as an excellent weapon for Ben R and he had pretty good #s to boot..
Plax and Moss were top 10 WRs in 2007..so add those two names to the exceptions.
Yes Greg Jennings is now in more of the stable Wr...but in 2011 he was a monster and carried that receiving core.

Overall...I agree with the "stable of WRs" is where things look to be headed...but to say teams with a bonafide #1 have had less success recently than the teans with a stable of wrs, is: 1. Not factual and 2. an attempt to modify history to fit your argument.
One thing I think can't be denied is that we need a guy brought in that is better than MW19...whether you want to call that WR a #1...is entirely up to you...at the end of the day..#1 WR is a label that is subjective so this who's is who isnt could go on forever.
: March 01, 2012, 07:56:58 PM chace1986


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17039
Offline
#34 : March 01, 2012, 07:49:19 PM

Eddie sucks Royally.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

xBuCsX_4_XeVax

User is on moderator watch listWatched
*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1435
Offline
#35 : March 01, 2012, 08:02:15 PM

with a better OL and Freeman getting his crap together i think Benn can be a #1 WR cuz he has the physical tools and he has a full year under his belt

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17039
Offline
#36 : March 01, 2012, 08:09:14 PM

with a better OL and Freeman getting his crap together i think Benn can be a #1 WR cuz he has the physical tools and he has a full year under his belt

Benn needs to get his crap together more so than Freeman. He can start by learning how to properly run routes.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

xBuCsX_4_XeVax

User is on moderator watch listWatched
*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1435
Offline
#37 : March 01, 2012, 08:18:45 PM

with a better OL and Freeman getting his crap together i think Benn can be a #1 WR cuz he has the physical tools and he has a full year under his belt

Benn needs to get his crap together more so than Freeman. He can start by learning how to properly run routes.

ok even with him not running proper routes was still our best option at WR...and just like any other sport you have to get players involved so that they can play harder...so that they don't feel like they're running routes in vain

xBuCsX_4_XeVax

User is on moderator watch listWatched
*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1435
Offline
#38 : March 01, 2012, 08:20:15 PM

Freeman couldn't hit open targets all year long.. don't know if it was because of his thumb but whatever the situation was he was god awful

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17039
Offline
#39 : March 01, 2012, 08:25:30 PM

Freeman couldn't hit open targets all year long.. don't know if it was because of his thumb but whatever the situation was he was god awful

Freeman did struggle with accuracy at times . It probably did have to do with his thumb , and his mechanics get sloppy sometimes ( Sullivan will fix that hopefully) .

 But there were also times when Wr's could not get open , or get any seperation , or stretch the field.  Then we would fall behind and Freeman would have to force the ball into those tight situations to try and make a play . It wasn't all his fault .

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

BTownBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5828
Offline
#40 : March 01, 2012, 08:25:31 PM

I'd prefer taking a chance on Royal to overpaying for Manningham.  Royal can be the deep ball threat the team is looking for.

agreed.

ALong13

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1739
Offline
#41 : March 01, 2012, 09:35:07 PM

I wouldn't mind bringing Royal in....Fast, reciever. Ran a 4.39 at the combine just a few years ago, is young, and in my opinion much better than manningham. If We can't get Garcon or Jackson...Royal would be okay with me.


GMACsBlankey

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2649
Offline
#42 : March 01, 2012, 10:04:25 PM

Eddie Royal can't catch.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23214
Offline
#43 : March 01, 2012, 10:05:58 PM

Eddie Royal can't catch.



Besides being pretty fast, he is a good return guy also.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#44 : March 01, 2012, 10:07:24 PM

Eddie Royal can't catch.



Besides being pretty fast, he is a good return guy also.

$3 mil a year...at most.


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Eddie Royal could fit Bucs' profile « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools