"Browns won't target a WR in the first round"
-
The QB makes the WR good, not the other way around.
How good were Demaryius Thomas' seasons before Peyton?
How good is Jennings after he left Rodgers?
We need a good QB. We do not need WR.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
The QB makes the WR good, not the other way around.
How good were Demaryius Thomas' seasons before Peyton?
How good is Jennings after he left Rodgers?
We need a good QB. We do not need WR.
The QB makes the WR good, not the other way around.
How good were Demaryius Thomas' seasons before Peyton?
How good is Jennings after he left Rodgers?
We need a good QB. We do not need WR.
Ding ding ding. Superbowl was a bunch of nobody wr corps. Just need wr who don't have stone hands.
-
The QB makes the WR good, not the other way around.
How good were Demaryius Thomas' seasons before Peyton?
How good is Jennings after he left Rodgers?
We need a good QB. We do not need WR.
The QB makes the WR good, not the other way around.
How good were Demaryius Thomas' seasons before Peyton?
How good is Jennings after he left Rodgers?
We need a good QB. We do not need WR.
No no no, on good teams with good QBs, the QB makes the WR good.
But on bad teams with bad QB's, the WR makes the QB good.
Case and point, Josh Gordon when he played with Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell
-
The QB makes the WR good, not the other way around.
How good were Demaryius Thomas' seasons before Peyton?
How good is Jennings after he left Rodgers?
We need a good QB. We do not need WR.
No no no, on good teams with good QBs, the QB makes the WR good.
But on bad teams with bad QB's, the WR makes the QB good.
Case and point, Josh Gordon when he played with Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell
No no no, on good teams with good QBs, the QB makes the WR good.
But on bad teams with bad QB's, the WR makes the QB good.
Case and point, Josh Gordon when he played with Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell
The flaw in your argument is that those qbs didn't win dick. Gordon got a lot of garbage time stats but those qbs rarely looked good.
-
One thing Farmer has said time and again is they want to improve at every position. The Browns don't have a very good receiver on the roster so you upgrade when possible.
-
No no no, on good teams with good QBs, the QB makes the WR good.
But on bad teams with bad QB's, the WR makes the QB good.
Case and point, Josh Gordon when he played with Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell
The flaw in your argument is that those qbs didn't win dick. Gordon got a lot of garbage time stats but those qbs rarely looked good.
The flaw in your argument is that those qbs didn't win dick. Gordon got a lot of garbage time stats but those qbs rarely looked good.
I said they were bad QBs obviously they didn't win shit I said they were bad. Did you miss that part?
-
No no no, on good teams with good QBs, the QB makes the WR good.
But on bad teams with bad QB's, the WR makes the QB good.
Case and point, Josh Gordon when he played with Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell
The flaw in your argument is that those qbs didn't win dick. Gordon got a lot of garbage time stats but those qbs rarely looked good.
The flaw in your argument is that those qbs didn't win dick. Gordon got a lot of garbage time stats but those qbs rarely looked good.
I think his main argument is that it's not one way or the other.
Put a guy talented enough at any position, he'll overcome the talent deficit at his complementary position.
For the "QB makes a WR good" theory, though...a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that a good QB both distributes the ball well and recognizes both when and where open receivers are or will be. The best WR is an open one.
There are few instances of a franchise QB just hitting a single WR over and over and over for the duration of either of their careers. There are instances, sure, namely Jerry Rice and Montana/Young. But, generally speaking, I think you'll see a more even pass distribution with truly upper echelon franchise QB's (Manning, Brady, Rodgers) than their counterparts.
It's one of those chicken and the egg scenarios. Does a great receiver command more targets because he's great or do quarterbacks target him more because everyone else sucks?
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
The WR is a complementary part of the offense, the final piece if at all.
Rice was only drafted after SF had the #1 offense with the leading catcher being Roger Craig.
qb and ol are what win... wr don't matter because they touch the ball only 4 plays a game.
-
Carl Davis, DT - Iowa
Anybody else watch this kid? Sometimes he's a little high in his stance and doesn't use the greatest leverage, but damn ... He's intriguing.
-
stupid faggots on here still with the OL/DL bs. you need a true WR1.
-
Boring troll is boring.
-
I said they were bad QBs obviously they didn't win shit I said they were bad. Did you miss that part?
Obviously I did!
-
The flaw in your argument is that those qbs didn't win dick. Gordon got a lot of garbage time stats but those qbs rarely looked good.
I think his main argument is that it's not one way or the other.
Put a guy talented enough at any position, he'll overcome the talent deficit at his complementary position.
For the "QB makes a WR good" theory, though...a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that a good QB both distributes the ball well and recognizes both when and where open receivers are or will be. The best WR is an open one.
There are few instances of a franchise QB just hitting a single WR over and over and over for the duration of either of their careers. There are instances, sure, namely Jerry Rice and Montana/Young. But, generally speaking, I think you'll see a more even pass distribution with truly upper echelon franchise QB's (Manning, Brady, Rodgers) than their counterparts.
It's one of those chicken and the egg scenarios. Does a great receiver command more targets because he's great or do quarterbacks target him more because everyone else sucks?
I think his main argument is that it's not one way or the other.
Put a guy talented enough at any position, he'll overcome the talent deficit at his complementary position.
For the "QB makes a WR good" theory, though...a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that a good QB both distributes the ball well and recognizes both when and where open receivers are or will be. The best WR is an open one.
There are few instances of a franchise QB just hitting a single WR over and over and over for the duration of either of their careers. There are instances, sure, namely Jerry Rice and Montana/Young. But, generally speaking, I think you'll see a more even pass distribution with truly upper echelon franchise QB's (Manning, Brady, Rodgers) than their counterparts.
It's one of those chicken and the egg scenarios. Does a great receiver command more targets because he's great or do quarterbacks target him more because everyone else sucks?
Totally agree. I missed his point.
-
stupid faggots on here still with the OL/DL bs. you need a true WR1.
Oh for sure, I mean shit the Seahawks and Patriots both have amazing WR1's right? Also I mean hell, its not like losing an OL guy like Mack made a change in the offensive performance right?
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login