Thread: NFC rankings: wide receivers

"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

haha, YES, i had to listen to that for the two vikings bears games and i cant wait until berrian goes deep for a TD for the first time in Chicago

"midgensa" wrote:

"El" wrote:

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

:

Are you saying they should be higher?
Moss has averaged a whole 800 yards and 4.5 TDs the last two seasons and has only 2 1,000 yard seasons in a seven year career.
Randle El? Has averaged an entire 500 yards per season in Washington and is one of the most overrated WRs in the league averaging only 500 yards a season over his career and scoring a whole 11 TDs receiving in his six year career.
And Malcolm Kelly is a rookie. These guys could even be ranked lower without much argument.

We know the Vikings have great potential this year however since the Vikings are ranked where they are don't you think the Redskins would be ranked higher?
They are all proven WRs.
You can bring down Moss all you want however at this time he is better than any WR we have.
Randall El is a double threat.
He may not have great yardage but you definately have to cover him.
He can also throw the football.
He can also return kicks / punts.
Look at the intangeables instead of just going by stats alone.


I'm not saying that will be true this year but right now it is true.
Therefore, I would agree they should be higher.