Pre-season chat

[BullsFan23]

Wasn't sanchez the starter in that game? If so, then Clowney was in with the first team. I said it may be a reach and it will be hard to dethrone cotchery, but brad smith, come on man.

No, Clemons was the starter.

What do you mean Brad Smith come on?

He's a good all around player, better then Clowney and about the same level as Stuckey.

He's a sure handed possession guy that can lineup at QB in the Wildcat and and is a good option on reverses.

Clowney has one thing going for him, speed.

If he wasn't as fast as he is he wouldn't even be in the league.

There's no way Clowney is any higher then #3 on the depth chart.

He's a great deep threat, but he has very average hands and has poor size for a #1 or #2. You can't go deep every play, and like I already said, he can't be trusted on the short and intermediate routes.

[BullsFan23]

Just wanted to hear what everyone thought about what we've seen so far this pre-season. Cutler looked bad, Orton looked horrible, KC has got to be partially retarded for having D-Bowe on the 3rd team. D-Mac looked pretty d**n good and the Balt D looks to be a powerhousw once again. Stafford and Sanchez both looked good in thier pro debuts. Speaking of which write down this name DAVID CLOWNEY. Last year he led all WR in pre-season, so far he has the best pre-season game. Add in the fact that Laverneus Coles wasn't signed and that he's working with the first team and u got a future star. i know it sounds far fetched, but the numbers don't lie and who else is going to be the #1 WR for NYJ.
Oh yeah, my BUCS don't look to disapoint anyones predictions about how bad we will be, but I can deal with a rebuilding year.
Pretty much just bored at home and want 2 talk some football

There only doing that during the preseason to send a message to D-Bo to work harder.

[BullsFan23]

The Bowns and Rams look like they will be fighting for the No.1 overall pick. I give the edge to the Browns to get it though.

What does that have to do with preseason?

You can't judge how a team will finish off of one preseason game.

If that was the case you could of said the Lions would have won the Superbowl after they're preseason record last year (4-0).

I understand there at the bottom of the league right now, but that's a very naive thought at this point in time.

[BullsFan23]

I hope so aswell, Michael Bush also looked good

That Chaz Schilens kid looks legit.

He's got nice size and I could see him fighting Walker or DHB for the #1 this season.

[dfr52]

What does that have to do with preseason?

You can't judge how a team will finish off of one preseason game.

If that was the case you could of said the Lions would have won the Superbowl after they're preseason record last year (4-0).

I understand there at the bottom of the league right now, but that's a very naive thought at this point in time.

Neither team made drastic steps to improve themselves this off season and it showed. The Rams had a good draft and are young team so I think they can develop. I saw every Browns game last season and the team looked the same, if not worse last night. To be honest I couldn't even tell their was a coaching change.

[jprt80]

I didn't watch the game only saw the highlights and though sanchez. Brad Smith is nothing to write home about he is a less than average rec AT BEST his best year he had 325 yds rec. Last year he finished w/ a whopping 64 yds receiving. BTW I still stand behind my numbers don't lie theme. The same holds true here. You can't honestly say that anyone of these guys will be the clear cut #2. Stuckey seems to look good and even great at times, but he still is far from top notch coming in w/ just over 350 yds last season. I take back the #1 comment b/c Cotchery is definately that guy, but I don't feel anyone of these other guys is a lock for the #2. As far as speed being the only thing he has going for him, that is the case w/ many WR in the league that have been succesful. (steve smith & santan moss to name a couple) You are usually a speed WR or a possesion WR. Those who can do both are the truly great WR in the league.

No, Clemons was the starter.

What do you mean Brad Smith come on?

He's a good all around player, better then Clowney and about the same level as Stuckey.

He's a sure handed possession guy that can lineup at QB in the Wildcat and and is a good option on reverses.

Clowney has one thing going for him, speed.

If he wasn't as fast as he is he wouldn't even be in the league.

There's no way Clowney is any higher then #3 on the depth chart.

He's a great deep threat, but he has very average hands and has poor size for a #1 or #2. You can't go deep every play, and like I already said, he can't be trusted on the short and intermediate routes.

[BullsFan23]

I didn't watch the game only saw the highlights and though sanchez. Brad Smith is nothing to write home about he is a less than average rec AT BEST his best year he had 325 yds rec. Last year he finished w/ a whopping 64 yds receiving. BTW I still stand behind my numbers don't lie theme. The same holds true here. You can't honestly say that anyone of these guys will be the clear cut #2. Stuckey seems to look good and even great at times, but he still is far from top notch coming in w/ just over 350 yds last season. I take back the #1 comment b/c Cotchery is definately that guy, but I don't feel anyone of these other guys is a lock for the #2. As far as speed being the only thing he has going for him, that is the case w/ many WR in the league that have been succesful. (steve smith & santan moss to name a couple) You are usually a speed WR or a possesion WR. Those who can do both are the truly great WR in the league.

So you didn't even watch the game yet you feel you can predict, rank, and break down the players?

Your obviously a stat guy, so here's one for ya.

Clowney had a whopping one catch last year, the numbers don't lie.

And lets not forget that Smith plays QB, HB, WR, and ST.

But you wouldn't know that if you didn't watch the games.

Smith was hurt a good portion of the season and was bouncing back and forth from number 3 to number 4 on the depth chart, which would explain his poor numbers.

I'm not saying Smith is a good number 2, but considering Clowney can't catch, and Stuckey looks like a very good slot, Smith is the #2 IMO.

Steve Smith and Moss can catch, Clowney has very, very average hands and no team would have him higher then #3, and even that is a stretch.

With that being said, Clowney looks like an ideal #4 who can come in on passing downs and stretch the field.

But he's not an everydown type player.

Smith and Stuckey and clearly better all around players then Clowney.

[BullsFan23]

I didn't watch the game only saw the highlights and though sanchez. Brad Smith is nothing to write home about he is a less than average rec AT BEST his best year he had 325 yds rec. Last year he finished w/ a whopping 64 yds receiving. BTW I still stand behind my numbers don't lie theme. The same holds true here. You can't honestly say that anyone of these guys will be the clear cut #2. Stuckey seems to look good and even great at times, but he still is far from top notch coming in w/ just over 350 yds last season. I take back the #1 comment b/c Cotchery is definately that guy, but I don't feel anyone of these other guys is a lock for the #2. As far as speed being the only thing he has going for him, that is the case w/ many WR in the league that have been succesful. (steve smith & santan moss to name a couple) You are usually a speed WR or a possesion WR. Those who can do both are the truly great WR in the league.

And BTW, possession WRs like Brad Smith and Cotchery usually don't get a lot of receiving yards, that's what players like Clowney is for, so don't look into that as a negative.

Cotchery and Smith are not deep threats, there the guys that get a higher number of catches and TD passes and are security blankets fro the QB.

They go over the middle and make the tough catch.

Just a generalization, but it's fairly accurate.

[jprt80]

I'll give ya stuckey, but not smith. I have this thing called work that I do at night so that's why I didn't watch the game. I feel so lucky to have a know-it-all like yourself to fill me in on everything. btw I saw the one catch stat, that's why I didn't post that one. Smith playing four postions is not relivant at all b/c we aren't talking about any other positions. The fact that he plays at other spots doesn't make him a good WR. Actually when that is the case it's b/c someone doesn't do well at any postion and coaches figure it's good to have them on the roster in case of an urgent need. Anyway the season will tell when it gets here.
Always like a good debate.

So you didn't even watch the game yet you feel you can predict, rank, and break down the players?

Your obviously a stat guy, so here's one for ya.

Clowney had a whopping one catch last year, the numbers don't lie.

And lets not forget that Smith plays QB, HB, WR, and ST.

But you wouldn't know that if you didn't watch the games.

Smith was hurt a good portion of the season and was bouncing back and forth from number 3 to number 4 on the depth chart, which would explain his poor numbers.

I'm not saying Smith is a good number 2, but considering Clowney can't catch, and Stuckey looks like a very good slot, Smith is the #2 IMO.

Steve Smith and Moss can catch, Clowney has very, very average hands and no team would have him higher then #3, and even that is a stretch.

With that being said, Clowney looks like an ideal #4 who can come in on passing downs and stretch the field.

But he's not an everydown type player.

Smith and Stuckey and clearly better all around players then Clowney.

[jprt80]

I agree w/ u on that one, that's a given.

And BTW, possession WRs like Brad Smith and Cotchery usually don't get a lot of receiving yards, that's what players like Clowney is for, so don't look into that as a negative.

Cotchery and Smith are not deep threats, there the guys that get a higher number of catches and TD passes and are security blankets fro the QB.

They go over the middle and make the tough catch.

Just a generalization, but it's fairly accurate.