Roo Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Imagine the Oakland WRs, then put Peyton at the helm. That's what I am getting at. What's all of this talk about Bruce Wayne? Talk about the perfect slot receiver: Batman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I hope you're talking about Bruce Smith. 947883[/snapback] I hope you're not laughing at Bruce's career and stats. He will certainly warrant HoF consideration. A few more good years and he's a lock. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BrucIs00.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) 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. 947801[/snapback] Absolutely not. Wayne has yet to do anything without Marvin lined up on the opposite side of the field. Whether it's fair or not, Marvin impacts his stats significantly. Wayne is fast, but not tremendously so. No advantage over Bruce there. Bruce is certainly the better router-runner. When Bruce slows down in a couple of years, I'll agree with you. But not until then. 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. Again, Wayne's numbers are artificially inflated by Marvin's presence. Porter's 998 yds and 9 TDs are pretty good considering that he played with no stud WRs last season and had Kerry Freaking Collins (not quite Peyton Manning) throwing the ball to him. Porter also has better speed than Wayne. Put Wayne on last year's Raiders team and you won't see 1,200 yds and 12 TDs. A comparison of stats between a #2 wideout in (arguably) the most prolific passing offense in NFL history vs. a #1 in a good-but-not-great passing offense is overly-simplistic. Brandon Stokley's '04 stats don't make him a better WR than Chris Chambers. I have nothing against Wayne, but he merely has better-than-average speed and is a better-than-average route-runner. And he's not a big, muscular posession receiver. He doesn't have any significant advantages over Porter or Bruce, besides the fact that he plays on the same offense as Manning, Harrison, and James. 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 In Curtis and Gabriel, I see two younger, faster wideouts with less history of injury. Frankly, I'd rather have those guys on my team than Stokley. But I agree that one can make a good point that Stokley may be better at this moment, so I won't argue with you here. Edited August 25, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) I hope you're talking about Bruce Smith. 947883[/snapback] Hmmm, let's see... Bruce is only 33 and is already 13th all-time in receptions and 13th all-time in receiving yards. He's also the Rams' all-time leading receiver and caught the winning TD in SB 34. Looks like someone didn't do his homework. Edited August 25, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I guess you can compare Wayne and Porter this year since they both are the #2 in the offense. Forget the QB comparison because that isn't part of the equation. We will see what Porter does this year and my guess is he loses his job to Curry because he isn't that good. Porter had over 130+ balls thrown his way and only managed to catch 64 of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I voted other John Stallworth/Lynn Swann--you didn't say current Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 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. 947889[/snapback] I dunno, GM's around the league must agree, 'cause Wayne was a first rounder (30th overall in '01) and Porter a second (47th overall in '00). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 oh, and Bill, if you give 32 GM's the choice of Wayne or Bruce for this season, all of 'em take Wayne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 oh, and Bill, if you give 32 GM's the choice of Wayne or Bruce for this season, all of 'em take Wayne. 948154[/snapback] For this season alone, no they won't. C'mon. Take off the homer glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 For this season alone, no they won't. C'mon. Take off the homer glasses. 948158[/snapback] trust me they're off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 trust me they're off 948162[/snapback] Alright, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamomo Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I dunno, GM's around the league must agree, 'cause Wayne was a first rounder (30th overall in '01) and Porter a second (47th overall in '00). 948153[/snapback] And Travis Taylor was 1st rounder (10th pick) in 2000. Does that mean GM's agree that he's better than Porter and Wayne?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Check the WB, you will find your answers. 947070[/snapback] If I knew what that meant, I might be able to respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 And Travis Taylor was 1st rounder (10th pick) in 2000. Does that mean GM's agree that he's better than Porter and Wayne?! 948199[/snapback] Now thats just silly. But Wayne was drafted earlier than Porter AND has put up better numbers. 'nuff said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Now thats just silly. But Wayne was drafted earlier than Porter AND has put up better numbers. 'nuff said 948359[/snapback] Hey, Ryan Leaf and Cade McNown were both drafted waaaay before Tom Brady, so the GMs must be right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Hey, Ryan Leaf and Cade McNown were both drafted waaaay before Tom Brady, so the GMs must be right! 948373[/snapback] You guys are crackin' me up. Did Leaf or McNown ever put up numbers superior to Brady? No. However, they were valued higher than Brady, thus they were drafted earlier. However they did not produce. Not only did GM's value Wayne ahead of Porter, Wayne has justified this by putting up better numbers. There really is no comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 You guys are crackin' me up. Did Leaf or McNown ever put up numbers superior to Brady? No. However, they were valued higher than Brady, thus they were drafted earlier. However they did not produce. Not only did GM's value Wayne ahead of Porter, Wayne has justified this by putting up better numbers. There really is no comparison. 948385[/snapback] Stokley put up better numbers last year than Chris Chambers, so he's obviously the more talented receiver, right? Receiving numbers are dependent upon the quality of a player's supporting cast. And I can't think of anyone whose numbers have been inflated by his supporting cast than Reggie Wayne and Brandon Stokley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 (edited) You gotta be kidding me. You can't just pull out one year of Stokley's career and say he has been a better overall WR than Chambers. Please, compare their career numbers. Brandon has never caught 69 balls like Chambers has. He's never scored 11 TD's like Chambers has. In comparing their best yardage seasons Stokley's best season only beat Chambers by just over 100 yards. Compare their career numbers, and its not even close. Chambers has been a consistently better WR, is still young, and is on a much worse team. But, Wayne has outproduced Porter in a year-to-year comparison EVERY year. My point about draft position was that obviously NFL GM's felt Wayne had more potential as a WR. And they were right. Edited August 26, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 You gotta be kidding me. You can't just pull out one year of Stokley's career and say he has been a better overall WR than Chambers. Please, compare their career numbers. Brandon has never caught 69 balls like Chambers has. He's never scored 11 TD's like Chambers has. In comparing their best yardage seasons Stokley's best season only beat Chambers by just over 100 yards. 948414[/snapback] Wayne has played on one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history for pretty much his entire career. Porter has not. Porter has succeeded as a #1. Wayne, though no fault of his own, has yet to do so. My point about Stokley was that Indy's offense can take a below-average WR and inflate his numbers substantially. I'm not trying to hate on Reggie, but one would be remiss to not take into account how much Indy's offense affects his numbers. Is that fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Wayne has played on one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history for pretty much his entire career. Porter has not. Porter has succeeded as a #1. Wayne, though no fault of his own, has yet to do so. My point about Stokley was that Indy's offense can take a below-average WR and inflate his numbers substantially. I'm not trying to hate on Reggie, but one would be remiss to not take into account how much Indy's offense affects his numbers. Is that fair? 948446[/snapback] It is something you definitely have to take into consideration. But I genuinely feel that Wayne is the better WR period. Wayne has GREAT hands. And he runs very good routes. The only thing Porter has more of is speed, and I don't think he's a lot faster. I guess we'll find out this year. Both have a "stud" WR on the other side, a good running game, and above average QB's. Interesting to see that the Huddle has Wayne ranked well ahead of Porter this year though. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 It is something you definitely have to take into consideration. But I genuinely feel that Wayne is the better WR period. Wayne has GREAT hands. And he runs very good routes. The only thing Porter has more of is speed, and I don't think he's a lot faster. I guess we'll find out this year. Both have a "stud" WR on the other side, a good running game, and above average QB's. Interesting to see that the Huddle has Wayne ranked well ahead of Porter this year though. . . 948456[/snapback] I've always been really interested to see what Wayne would be able to do without Marvin. But I guess it'll be at least another three years or so before we find out. Agreed that pairing Porter with Moss this year will provide a more accurate Reggie-to-Jerry comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I'm assuming everyone who voted for Detroit's WR's would like to change their vote. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I just saw this thread appear at the top of the page, took one look and knew who was resurrecting it without even glancing at the Last Post By. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I think you'd have to put Arizona near the top of the list at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I think you'd have to put Arizona near the top of the list at this point. 1173330[/snapback] Definitely over Detroit 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.