cmoore Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 (edited) those Dolphin guys are a good call...if only they had a QB. If Chambers can get 7 TDs from that lousy group, that is saying something. Easy to forget about them... Edited August 24, 2005 by cmoore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamomo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Three Pro-Bowlers -- Boston, Booker, and McMichael Chambers would've been a Pro-Bowler with any QB who had just a little bit of talent. 946199[/snapback] I think the poll is about the best WR corps in the NFL, this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Three Pro-Bowlers -- Boston, Booker, and McMichael Chambers would've been a Pro-Bowler with any QB who had just a little bit of talent. 946199[/snapback] Booker had some solid years in Chicago but his best years are behind him. Boston was a beast for a few years but steriods have(allegedly) taking it's toll on his mind and body. McMichael hits his wife too often to be my WR wish list. Chambers is not enough to over come the others shortcomings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenokee Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I definitely don't understand why somebody would think that Detroit's or Arizona's WRs are better than they are. I dont understand how someone could think that these two clubs dont have deep talent at WR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I would add Cincy...maybe St. Louis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 (edited) I dont understand how someone could think that these two clubs dont have deep talent at WR 946322[/snapback] Read what I wrote--I didn't say they aren't talented (and if I were starting a team from scratch today I might prefer Detroit or Arizona's WR's to the Rams). I said that I don't see how they could currently be considered better than Holt, Bruce, Curtis & McDonald. The Lions and Cardinals have tons of basically unproven potential. The Rams have WR's are proven. Edited August 24, 2005 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I'm surprised there is no mention of Holt/Bruce/Curtis/McDonald yet for the Rams. I definitely don't understand why somebody would think that Detroit's or Arizona's WRs are better than they are. 945903[/snapback] Have to agree with weigie on this one. StL has a potent bunch with experince, youth, speed, and potential. But I'd have to go with Indy. 945921[/snapback] Read what I wrote--I didn't say they aren't talented (and if I were starting a team from scratch today I might prefer Detroit or Arizona's WR's to the Rams). I said that I don't see how they could currently be considered better than Holt, Bruce, Curtis & McDonald. The Lions and Cardinals have tons of basically unproven potential. The Rams have WR's are proven. 946475[/snapback] Voted for "other", as I thought "St. Louis" from the outset. Indy's trio is nice (set of four, if you count Clark)... but St. Louis' is just as good, I think. Holt is young and studly. Bruce, while old and crusty, is steady and dependable. Curtis/McDonald (and Furrey?) are on par with Stokley, though... maybe better? Let's not forget the Rams also have a certain Marshall Faulk that is pretty deadly on receptions, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Walker, Driver and Ferguson. Fergie should be a starter in GB and would be for most teams in the league. 945954[/snapback] I LIKE WALKER AND DRIVER. They need to prove it again this year however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 OK, I've got it down between Indy, Oakland, St. Louis, and Detroit. Let's break it down... #1s. Moss > Harrison > Holt > R. Williams #2s. Bruce > Porter > Wayne > Rogers #3s. Gabriel > Curtis > M. Williams (unproven rookie) > Stokley Looks like Oakland wins. Too bad they're wasting all of that talent on Kerry Collins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallBoy02 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Without question it's Indy...they've proven it already. The Raiders could have a awesome receiving core as well. With Randy Moss, jerry Porter, and Ronald Curry they can cause damage. At this point we can't put them in fron of Indy for a couple reasons. They haven't played a game yet and we don't know how the other receivers from oakland are going to act if one isn't getting the ball their way. The thing with Indy, they're not a selfish team. Another reason you can't put the Raiders in front of indy is because of Collins. We have to see what he actually can do with this talented team. Peyton on the other had, we do have a good idea what he can do. The lions shouldn't be in front of the Raiders, just becuase they have three talented receivers (One is a rookie and the other hasn't played complete season in his first two years) shouldn't bump them in front of proven receivers. Besides Roy Williams, the other two receivers haven't proven themselves. But without a doubt Indy takes this poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Not such an easy call. Indy is tempting, but I wonder if that's because of how we associate the Manning air attack. Moss/Porter/Curry is pretty hot, but so are those three bucks in Detroit. Hmmm.... 945849[/snapback] Curry? Hasn't Gabriel taken his spot? I'm surprised there is no mention of Holt/Bruce/Curtis/McDonald yet for the Rams. I definitely don't understand why somebody would think that Detroit's or Arizona's WRs are better than they are. 945903[/snapback] Ya gotta include the Rams here. Bruce has lost a step, but still crafty. Holt is a top 3 WR in most books. Curtis and McDonald are great @ 3 & 4. Walker, Driver and Ferguson. Fergie should be a starter in GB and would be for most teams in the league. 945954[/snapback] Gotta give GB props here too. Driver and Walker have both performed at high levels & Ferguson has shown potential. I haven't seen much from Rogers as a pro. He was a stud in college, but has spent his pro career mending his glass collar bones. If Rogers does stay healthy, he and the Williams boys will be fun to watch. Boldin and Fitzgerald should be formidable if the O-line holds long enough for Warner. Johnson and Lee have skills. This offense could be HUGH if Warner gets time. I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamomo Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Good points all, and great question. I interpreted this to mean the BEST WR corps in the NFL, excluding all other possibly relevant, but peripheral information. That means QB, O-line, offensive coordinator don't really matter. If I was a team owner and I had my choice of any WR today, I'd take Moss. Say what you want, but it's hard to argue with that. For #2 receivers in the league, Porter can be compared to Driver, Wayne, Bruce, Fiztgerald, Rodgers, or any other #2 quite favoribly. I call this a draw, at best. As a #3, would you really pick Stokely or K.Curtis over Curry OR Gabriel? Not me. Both Gabriel and Curry have the talent to be a #2, maybe not now, but soon. OAK has a clear-cut edge at #1, draw at #2, edge at #3 and #4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 OK, I've got it down between Indy, Oakland, St. Louis, and Detroit. Let's break it down... #1s. Moss > Harrison > Holt > R. Williams #2s. Bruce > Porter > Wayne > Rogers #3s. Gabriel > Curtis > M. Williams (unproven rookie) > Stokley Looks like Oakland wins. Too bad they're wasting all of that talent on Kerry Collins. 946664[/snapback] WHAT??? You can't be serious. OK, your #1 WR rankings are right-on. Your #2 rankings, though... Bruce and Porter over Wayne? What exactly are you smoking? Can I have some? No wait, I don't want any. And your #3's... Gabriel, Curtis and an unproven rookie over Stokley? I know Stokley's hurt, but should be fine by or close to the start of the season. That is an incredibly bombastic ranking. I'll bite: 1: Moss, Harrison, Porter, Williams 2: Wayne, Bruce, Porter, Rogers (very close between Bruce & Porter) 3: Stokley, Curtis, Gabriel, Williams (very close between Gabriel & Williams, even if he is an unproven rookie. Gabriel is an unproven burner, nothing else.) Where the separation is, following up on my prior post in this thread, is the fact that the Rams have solid #4 and #5 guys to complement their already strong top-3. If we were going on 1-2-3 guys only, it'd have to be the Colts, and it looks like the majority here agrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) #2s. Bruce > Porter > Wayne > Rogerswins. Too bad they're wasting all of that talent on Kerry Collins. 946664[/snapback] Seriously? I'd take Wayne at the top of that list. #3s. Gabriel > Curtis > M. Williams (unproven rookie) > Stokley 946664[/snapback] NO WAY. I can see Williams ahead of Stokley on potential, but there is not a chance in hell I'd take Kevin Curtis or Gabriel over Stokley. Edited August 25, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamomo Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 NO WAY. I can see Williams ahead of Stokley on potential, but there is not a chance in hell I'd take Kevin Curtis or Gabriel over Stokley. 946790[/snapback] Let's talk #3 receiver. Same QB, offense, everything. You need a #3 receiver. You have your choice of a healthy Stokley or a healthy Curry right now. Who do you choose? I think it's Curry all the way. Stokley's a product of the system. Curry is a true talent. Gabriel will be #4 on the Raider's depth chart, making their WR corps as deep as any other team, in addition to the obvious talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aqualung Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I'm surprised there is no mention of Holt/Bruce/Curtis/McDonald yet for the Rams. I definitely don't understand why somebody would think that Detroit's or Arizona's WRs are better than they are. 945903[/snapback] Check the WB, you will find your answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) I knew this would be a good debate. I still say Oakland. Give me Moss - he's one-in-a-million and is at least one head above the other #1s. The #2s are very close. I'd probably take Wayne, then Porter. But Oakland is still right there. Then for the #3, it's sort of a wash, but I do think Stokley and Gabriel/Curry (take your pick) are at least on par. Stokely is shifty but sometimes I wondered if anyone was even covering him. For me, St Loius can't hang in the #2 department. And like others have said, Detroit is still sort of a mystery. So because Oakland's trio seems to have a slight edge over Indy's (mostly thanks to Moss), and you could speculate that some of Indy's WRs success is partially due to Peyton's record setting year, I still end up wiih Oakland. Edited August 25, 2005 by Roo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Seriously? I'd take Wayne at the top of that list. 946790[/snapback] Absolutley no way I'd take Wayne over Bruce. Bruce is a future HOFer who put up a 1780-yd season with crap at the #2 wideout position and Chris Miller/Mark Rypien throwing the ball to him. Even at the age of 32, Bruce is still ahead of Wayne. Similary, Porter has gotten it done as a #1, while Wayne still has yet to. That may be unfair, but I have to go with the guy who has SHOWN that he can do it by himself. NO WAY. I can see Williams ahead of Stokley on potential, but there is not a chance in hell I'd take Kevin Curtis or Gabriel over Stokley. I like Stokley, but he did absolutley nothing before joining the Colts. I could easily see Curtis or Gabriel putting up 1,000 yds and 10 TDs in the Colts offense. I'll give the other two a nod over him because Stokley is older, slower, and has had some injury problems over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Talker Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 All are good, but Indy has shown it on the field, so you've got to give them the nod. Well, you don't *got* to, but I did anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I don't understand all the love for Jerry Porter. Every year you hear about this guy breaking out and he does sqaut. IMHO Jerry Porter=Donte Stallworth (all kinds of potential with nothing to show) Porter couldn't beat out the 50 year old Rice and Brown. Curry on the other hand has some serious talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) Absolutley no way I'd take Wayne over Bruce. Bruce is a future HOFer who put up a 1780-yd season with crap at the #2 wideout position and Chris Miller/Mark Rypien throwing the ball to him. Even at the age of 32, Bruce is still ahead of Wayne.947642[/snapback] Wayne over Bruce is a no-brainer right now. Comparing careers, I could definitely see the Bruce over Wayne argument. But at this point in time, Wayne is clearly the better WR. Similary, Porter has gotten it done as a #1, while Wayne still has yet to. That may be unfair, but I have to go with the guy who has SHOWN that he can do it by himself.947642[/snapback] By "getting it done" do you mean 64 catches for 998 yards and 9 TD's? He's been in the league for 5 years. In '03 he only had 28 catches for 361 yards and 1 TD. The year before, 51 catches for 688 and 9 TD's. Those are pretty crappy numbers for a #1 WR. I'll take Wayne and his 77 receptions 1,210 yards and 12 TD's. In '03 he had 68 receptions for 838 yards and 7 TD's. I like Stokley, but he did absolutley nothing before joining the Colts. I could easily see Curtis or Gabriel putting up 1,000 yds and 10 TDs in the Colts offense. I'll give the other two a nod over him because Stokley is older, slower, and has had some injury problems over the years. 947642[/snapback] What do you see in Curtis? 32 catches for 421 yards and 2 TD's is not impressive to me. Especially when you consider he's in the Rams offense. And Gabriel has career highs of 33 catches 551 yards and 2 TD's. Stokley DID put up over 1,000 yards and 10 TD's in the Colts offense. Of course injuries play into things, but Stokley is a perfect fit for a slot WR. Edited August 25, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavinRJohnson Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Bruce is a future HOFer I hope you're talking about Bruce Smith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I don't see how Detroit can be included in this poll. All they've are "what ifs"...A third year player that's missed two years, a second year player that's a beast and someone that hasn't played a down in two years let alone one in the NFL. The Rams are a close second to Indy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Driver, Walker, Ferguson, Franks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamomo Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 By "getting it done" do you mean 64 catches for 998 yards and 9 TD's? He's been in the league for 5 years. In '03 he only had 28 catches for 361 yards and 1 TD. The year before, 51 catches for 688 and 9 TD's. Those are pretty crappy numbers for a #1 WR. I'll take Wayne and his 77 receptions 1,210 yards and 12 TD's. 947801[/snapback] 64 catches for 998 yards and 9 TD's with a new head coach, new offensive system, and new quarterback and NO running game and poor O-line. Not to mention no Peyton Manning, Edge, Marvin Harrison, or Stokely. Swap Porter for Wayne in the Indy system with several years of work with Manning, and I just don't see how Wayne is the better choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.