Sperm Edwards Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Because Coles did better with the Skins? Actually, yes. He was a pro-bowler in 2003 with Tim Hasselbeck and Patrick Ramsey throwing the rock in Spurrier's idiotic fun 'n' gun offense. Then in 2004, his QB to start the season was Brunell who, aside from one game, was so bad that Gibbs had to bench his hand-picked QB for Ramsey, who finished up the season. Still caught 90 passes that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 If having Coles is a "problem" in our offense because of Chad, then you remove Chad from the offense, not Coles. Coles is way easier to replace than Chad. Even though Coles is closer to the perfect wr than Chad is the perfect qb, if you remove Chad I believe the team would fold up like '05. At least last year. This year hopefully Clemens will be better prepared. I don't think Coles is a problem, but I've seen wr like Moss catching any crap that was thrown up there. Look at Eli. Imagine what his numbers would be like without Plaxico bailing him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I think Moss would extend chads range since he can be aggresive in fighting for the ball when he wants to be. So Chad would be able to throw more deep balls and the higher arc he would have to put on it would not effect Moss as much as Coles. Didn't we have another Moss on our team who was one of those seed guys. Don't remember that working as well as Coles. And I don't think it was sideline Santana's fault either, he produced much better in Wash with a QB with a bigger arm. A burner who can stretch the field and go for the deep ball is not really someone who fits in with our strengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Actually, yes. He was a pro-bowler in 2003 with Tim Hasselbeck and Patrick Ramsey throwing the rock in Spurrier's idiotic fun 'n' gun offense. Then in 2004, his QB to start the season was Brunell who, aside from one game, was so bad that Gibbs had to bench his hand-picked QB for Ramsey, who finished up the season. Still caught 90 passes that year. So now pro bowl appearences make you a great player? Because statistically Coles has been at his best with Chad at QB. And if Brunnell was so bad in 2004 why did he looks so good throwing to S Moss in 2005? Around and around we go. The bottom line is all QB's except 2 or 3 have strengths and weaknesses. That is why you surround them by players that cut down on the exposure of their weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 So now pro bowl appearences make you a great player? Because statistically Coles has been at his best with Chad at QB. And if Brunnell was so bad in 2004 why did he looks so good throwing to S Moss in 2005? Around and around we go. The bottom line is all QB's except 2 or 3 have strengths and weaknesses. That is why you surround them by players that cut down on the exposure of their weaknesses. If you ask the crew around here, Vilma's one pro-bowl appearance (as an alternate no less) means he is great & we should keep him forever, no matter how badly he fits on this defense & no matter how many of his tackles are after the RB drags him 3 yards & past the first-down marker. You think going from Coles to Moss was the reason for Brunnell playing better? Did you watch a Washington game that year? He was atrocious & didn't even complete half his passes. Whatever he was for a while in 2002, Pennington is right now a mediocre QB. He's not horrible (though sometimes he looks that way), and he's not very good (though sometimes he looks that way as well). Mediocre is still enough to make him better than the trio of Hasselbeck, Ramsey, and Brunnell were during Coles' tenure in Washington. You won't get me to argue that from 2003-2004 those three were worse than Chad. But that doesn't make Coles a better receiver now than he was in Washington. Far less does it mean that Coles is only good because of Chad Pennington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Didn't we have another Moss on our team who was one of those seed guys. Don't remember that working as well as Coles. And I don't think it was sideline Santana's fault either, he produced much better in Wash with a QB with a bigger arm. A burner who can stretch the field and go for the deep ball is not really someone who fits in with our strengths. The difference is that RMoss can go up and get the ball, SMoss just gets stepped on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravejamriot Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 why not just go get T.O.? I mean come on, Moss has talent, but he's a headache. If they bring him in, then there goes everything the front office says about character and team players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Didn't we have another Moss on our team who was one of those seed guys. Don't remember that working as well as Coles. And I don't think it was sideline Santana's fault either, he produced much better in Wash with a QB with a bigger arm. A burner who can stretch the field and go for the deep ball is not really someone who fits in with our strengths. In my opinion I think speed guys like S.Moss need a guy that can throw rockets and hit them in stride 20-30 yards down the field so they can keep on running. I don't know if R.Moss is really considered a speed guy anymore but he might of just been hiding it for the last few years but I do feel that any time a receiver has to catch a high arcing pass then height, strength, and mindset mean everything. Randy used to have all 3 of those traits but would be hard to tell what he has left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 If you ask the crew around here, Vilma's one pro-bowl appearance (as an alternate no less) means he is great & we should keep him forever, no matter how badly he fits on this defense & no matter how many of his tackles are after the RB drags him 3 yards & past the first-down marker. You think going from Coles to Moss was the reason for Brunnell playing better? Did you watch a Washington game that year? He was atrocious & didn't even complete half his passes. Whatever he was for a while in 2002, Pennington is right now a mediocre QB. He's not horrible (though sometimes he looks that way), and he's not very good (though sometimes he looks that way as well). Mediocre is still enough to make him better than the trio of Hasselbeck, Ramsey, and Brunnell were during Coles' tenure in Washington. You won't get me to argue that from 2003-2004 those three were worse than Chad. But that doesn't make Coles a better receiver now than he was in Washington. Far less does it mean that Coles is only good because of Chad Pennington. I think we agree that neither Chad nor Coles makes each other better. I just feel that Randy Moss would take away Chad's weakness of not being able to throw downfield. That is all. And I'm not one of the ones who believes keeping Vilma is the best thing to do. Anthough I unlimitly defer to Mangini on this one as he will know best whether Vilma will ever be great in this defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.