Thread: NFC rankings: wide receivers

[size=13pt]NFC rankings: wide receivers [/size]

Posted: June 25, 2008

Sporting News correspondents
sportingnews.com


In the latest installment of NFL offseason position rankings, SN's correspondents break down the wide receivers in the NFC....

I'm surprised to see the Vikings ranked that high. I actually thought the Vikes would be ranked closer to the bottom. No surprise that the Bears are ranked dead last. It's funny that the Bears fans made fun of our poor WRs last year. Who's laughting now?
;D

It's funny they didn't allude to Tarvaris being the reason our WR were ranked low. It appears to be a fairly objective look at our wide-outs. I think we have alot to prove, but I also believe we are really going to surprise some folks.

"HEY" wrote:

I'm surprised to see the Vikings ranked that high. I actually thought the Vikes would be ranked closer to the bottom. No surprise that the Bears are ranked dead last. It's funny that the Bears fans made fun of our poor WRs last year. Who's laughting now?
;D

I'm laughing, but I'm certainly not Laughting

I guess looking at the WR corps as a whole the list is fairly accurate even if Philly is ranked a little too high and St. Louis is a little low.
IMO the superstars, like Holt, need to carry a little more weight for their teams.
He louds Curtis with 1100 yds last year... whoopty do.
Holt has done that for 8 years straight.

"PurpleTide" wrote:

It's funny they didn't allude to Tarvaris being the reason our WR were ranked low. It appears to be a fairly objective look at our wide-outs. I think we have alot to prove, but I also believe we are really going to surprise some folks.

I agree with your statement there's a lot to prove.
However, Tarvaris wasn't the only reason for the WRs non success last year.
DOn't you think some of the drops are a portion of that.
In fact, I would say if it weren't for the dropped passes there may be some QB questions but not nearly half the amount there is now.
Dropped passes are part of the reason for poor stats that are blamed on the QB for incompletions or even INTs.
Look at Urlachers INT last year.
It was a good pass into Fergusons hands but a good play forced Ferguson to let go of the ball.
In turn, INT.
QBs shouldn't be judged for stats alone.
Some of it had to do with the WRs as well.

Actually, I would never have rated the Cards that high but like his assesment on them and would tend to agree.....

Pretty fair assesment overall.
;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

Actually, I would never have rated the Cards that high but like his assesment on them and would tend to agree.....

Pretty fair assesment overall.
;D

Not to mention they picked up Early Doucet in the draft....

Good assessment, though it goes to show you that having Pro Bowl WRs don't necessarily make a good team when you look at the Cardinals and Lions.

Redskins ranked 12 out of 16? With Santana Moss,El(I am not refering to me
;D) and Malcom Kelly ?
: