Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Steve Smith

  1. #11
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,851

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1101237
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101195
    You talking Carolina Steve Smith?

    Wouldn't be a bad option if we can't get Rice back.

    Problem is, that gives us three receivers in that sort of small, quick build. Harvin, Smith and Aromashodu. We need an outside receiver.
    LOL, you almost got it right. Rice is not an outside reciever.

    From our good friends at Wiki....

    Berrian (sometimes Harving)

    Split end (X or SE): A receiver on the line of scrimmage, necessary to meet the rule requiring seven such players at snap. Where applicable, this receiver is on the opposite side of the tight end. The split end is farthest from center on his side of the field.[5]
    Rice
    Flanker (Z or FL): A receiver lining up behind the line of scrimmage. Frequently the team's featured receiver, the flanker uses the initial buffer between himself and a defender to avoid jamming, legal contact within five yards of the line of scrimmage. The flanker is generally on the same side of the formation as a tight end. As with the split end, this receiver is the farthest player from the center on his side of the field. The flanker is probably lined up just like a split end except that he is just behind the line of scrimmage, being in the backfield and not on the line.[6]
    Harvin (sometimes Rice)

    Slot receiver (Y or SL): A less-formal name given to receivers in addition to split ends and flankers (for example tight-ends who line up wide). These receivers line up between the split end/flanker and the linemen. If aligned with a flanker, the slot receiver is usually on the line of scrimmage, and if with a split end, off the line of scrimmage. As with the flanker position, a featured receiver often takes a slot position with a split end to avoid jamming.[6]
    Close but you are off a bit in your terminology.
    Being a flanker doesn't always determine the type of WR you are. However, you do tend to find more possession type WRs as Flankers because the attention the TE draws helps create more oppotunity for a bigger(sometimes slower) WR. However, in today's NFL, a lof of teams run a double tight formation with no SE but two Flankers. Does this change the job of the WR or the required build? No! Truth betold we still consider Flankers outside WRs and I believe that is what was meant. It was a comparison of Slot/wing back vs. SE/FL

  2. #12
    12purplepride28's Avatar
    12purplepride28 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Steve Smith

    Why are people even talking about Steve Smith on here? This thread is clearly made by PF to bash Mcnabb

    Which I don't know why. We obviously are building around youth. Ponder. He's the future of our franchise no question, which is why I have no problem with the Mcnabb trade, especially for a 6th. Mcnabb is nothing more than a tiny bridge to the other side, which is ponder holding a super bowl trophy in the air.

    It's not like we are getting Mcnabb because we don't have any other option at QB. We are signing him because he has valuable game experience in this league and can undoubtedly help our two young QBs.

    No one is saying McNabb is the answer, just acknowledging that it is helpful to have a veteran presence at the most important position in sports.
    I am NOT here to provide good football insight or rational observations. I am an emotional 19 year old Viking fan and I expect you to adjust your expectations from my posts.

  3. #13
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1101283
    Why are people even talking about Steve Smith on here? This thread is clearly made by PF to bash Mcnabb

    Which I don't know why. We obviously are building around youth. Ponder. He's the future of our franchise no question, which is why I have no problem with the Mcnabb trade, especially for a 6th. Mcnabb is nothing more than a tiny bridge to the other side, which is ponder holding a super bowl trophy in the air.

    It's not like we are getting Mcnabb because we don't have any other option at QB. We are signing him because he has valuable game experience in this league and can undoubtedly help our two young QBs.

    No one is saying McNabb is the answer, just acknowledging that it is helpful to have a veteran presence at the most important position in sports.
    Well,

    It can just as easily be said that Smith can be a stop gap at WR until we get some young guys developed and he can also add veteran leadership to the young guys. I am not saying Smith would be the answer either, just a WR with experience that can help out until they get a better younger guy to take his place.

    There are actually several WR's we could target. From what I have heard Burress has totally changed, is in the best shape of his life, and is mentally prepared to have a great season and he would be cheap so I would be fine with him. Then there is the possibility of a TO/McChunky reunion, Ocho and several other guys we could target. Smith just seems like a guy who could be very much like McChunky at his position.

  4. #14
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,851

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101240
    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1101237
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101195
    You talking Carolina Steve Smith?

    Wouldn't be a bad option if we can't get Rice back.

    Problem is, that gives us three receivers in that sort of small, quick build. Harvin, Smith and Aromashodu. We need an outside receiver.
    LOL, you almost got it right. Rice is not an outside reciever.

    From our good friends at Wiki....


    Rice
    Flanker (Z or FL): A receiver lining up behind the line of scrimmage. Frequently the team's featured receiver, the flanker uses the initial buffer between himself and a defender to avoid jamming, legal contact within five yards of the line of scrimmage. The flanker is generally on the same side of the formation as a tight end. As with the split end, this receiver is the farthest player from the center on his side of the field. The flanker is probably lined up just like a split end except that he is just behind the line of scrimmage, being in the backfield and not on the line.[6]
    Are you telling me the flanker doesn't line up on the outside of the formation?

    Drop the technical terms, it's getting old. We know you like to appear more educated in the game then anybody else by referring to receivers by the Y/Z who run 4 routes and 7 routes and 0 tech DT's, we all get it, we just choose not to play along.

    Like you say, it's a "Discussion site". If I want to call a flanker an outside receiver (which he is), I damn well will.
    Different people call things differently. I don't think you should be so quick to assume he was trying to purposely skirt the issue. Lighten up man.

  5. #15
    12purplepride28's Avatar
    12purplepride28 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "kevoncox" #1101286
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101240
    Are you telling me the flanker doesn't line up on the outside of the formation?

    Drop the technical terms, it's getting old. We know you like to appear more educated in the game then anybody else by referring to receivers by the Y/Z who run 4 routes and 7 routes and 0 tech DT's, we all get it, we just choose not to play along.

    Like you say, it's a "Discussion site". If I want to call a flanker an outside receiver (which he is), I damn well will.
    Different people call things differently. I don't think you should be so quick to assume he was trying to purposely skirt the issue. Lighten up man.
    I believe this is the important part of the post.
    I am NOT here to provide good football insight or rational observations. I am an emotional 19 year old Viking fan and I expect you to adjust your expectations from my posts.

  6. #16
    12purplepride28's Avatar
    12purplepride28 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1101284
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1101283
    Why are people even talking about Steve Smith on here? This thread is clearly made by PF to bash Mcnabb

    Which I don't know why. We obviously are building around youth. Ponder. He's the future of our franchise no question, which is why I have no problem with the Mcnabb trade, especially for a 6th. Mcnabb is nothing more than a tiny bridge to the other side, which is ponder holding a super bowl trophy in the air.

    It's not like we are getting Mcnabb because we don't have any other option at QB. We are signing him because he has valuable game experience in this league and can undoubtedly help our two young QBs.

    No one is saying McNabb is the answer, just acknowledging that it is helpful to have a veteran presence at the most important position in sports.
    Well,

    It can just as easily be said that Smith can be a stop gap at WR until we get some young guys developed and he can also add veteran leadership to the young guys. I am not saying Smith would be the answer either, just a WR with experience that can help out until they get a better younger guy to take his place.

    There are actually several WR's we could target. From what I have heard Burress has totally changed, is in the best shape of his life, and is mentally prepared to have a great season and he would be cheap so I would be fine with him. Then there is the possibility of a TO/McChunky reunion, Ocho and several other guys we could target. Smith just seems like a guy who could be very much like McChunky at his position.
    I wouldn't be against getting Steve Smith. I believe it's important to have a vet at all positions and he is a good WR still. But you completely missed the point of my post.

    And a stopgap at WR while younger guys is not a real thing anyways. Rookie WRs never ride the bench until they are ready, but rookie QBs do all the time. I believe that with McNabb we retain a chance at the playoffs and getting Ponder and Webb some good learning experiences on the bench.
    I am NOT here to provide good football insight or rational observations. I am an emotional 19 year old Viking fan and I expect you to adjust your expectations from my posts.

  7. #17
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1101304
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1101284
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1101283
    Why are people even talking about Steve Smith on here? This thread is clearly made by PF to bash Mcnabb

    Which I don't know why. We obviously are building around youth. Ponder. He's the future of our franchise no question, which is why I have no problem with the Mcnabb trade, especially for a 6th. Mcnabb is nothing more than a tiny bridge to the other side, which is ponder holding a super bowl trophy in the air.

    It's not like we are getting Mcnabb because we don't have any other option at QB. We are signing him because he has valuable game experience in this league and can undoubtedly help our two young QBs.

    No one is saying McNabb is the answer, just acknowledging that it is helpful to have a veteran presence at the most important position in sports.
    Well,

    It can just as easily be said that Smith can be a stop gap at WR until we get some young guys developed and he can also add veteran leadership to the young guys. I am not saying Smith would be the answer either, just a WR with experience that can help out until they get a better younger guy to take his place.

    There are actually several WR's we could target. From what I have heard Burress has totally changed, is in the best shape of his life, and is mentally prepared to have a great season and he would be cheap so I would be fine with him. Then there is the possibility of a TO/McChunky reunion, Ocho and several other guys we could target. Smith just seems like a guy who could be very much like McChunky at his position.
    I wouldn't be against getting Steve Smith. I believe it's important to have a vet at all positions and he is a good WR still. But you completely missed the point of my post.

    And a stopgap at WR while younger guys is not a real thing anyways. Rookie WRs never ride the bench until they are ready, but rookie QBs do all the time. I believe that with McNabb we retain a chance at the playoffs and getting Ponder and Webb some good learning experiences on the bench.
    Oh, I got your point. I just decided not to humor you with the acknowledgement.:evil:

  8. #18
    12purplepride28's Avatar
    12purplepride28 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,852
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1101343
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1101304
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1101284
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1101283
    Why are people even talking about Steve Smith on here? This thread is clearly made by PF to bash Mcnabb

    Which I don't know why. We obviously are building around youth. Ponder. He's the future of our franchise no question, which is why I have no problem with the Mcnabb trade, especially for a 6th. Mcnabb is nothing more than a tiny bridge to the other side, which is ponder holding a super bowl trophy in the air.

    It's not like we are getting Mcnabb because we don't have any other option at QB. We are signing him because he has valuable game experience in this league and can undoubtedly help our two young QBs.

    No one is saying McNabb is the answer, just acknowledging that it is helpful to have a veteran presence at the most important position in sports.
    Well,

    It can just as easily be said that Smith can be a stop gap at WR until we get some young guys developed and he can also add veteran leadership to the young guys. I am not saying Smith would be the answer either, just a WR with experience that can help out until they get a better younger guy to take his place.

    There are actually several WR's we could target. From what I have heard Burress has totally changed, is in the best shape of his life, and is mentally prepared to have a great season and he would be cheap so I would be fine with him. Then there is the possibility of a TO/McChunky reunion, Ocho and several other guys we could target. Smith just seems like a guy who could be very much like McChunky at his position.
    I wouldn't be against getting Steve Smith. I believe it's important to have a vet at all positions and he is a good WR still. But you completely missed the point of my post.

    And a stopgap at WR while younger guys is not a real thing anyways. Rookie WRs never ride the bench until they are ready, but rookie QBs do all the time. I believe that with McNabb we retain a chance at the playoffs and getting Ponder and Webb some good learning experiences on the bench.
    Oh, I got your point. I just decided not to humor you with the acknowledgement.:evil:
    Suuuure you did. Turning into a Mcnabb hating Marrdro...
    I am NOT here to provide good football insight or rational observations. I am an emotional 19 year old Viking fan and I expect you to adjust your expectations from my posts.

  9. #19
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101240
    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1101237
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101195
    You talking Carolina Steve Smith?

    Wouldn't be a bad option if we can't get Rice back.

    Problem is, that gives us three receivers in that sort of small, quick build. Harvin, Smith and Aromashodu. We need an outside receiver.
    LOL, you almost got it right. Rice is not an outside reciever.

    From our good friends at Wiki....


    Rice
    Flanker (Z or FL): A receiver lining up behind the line of scrimmage. Frequently the team's featured receiver, the flanker uses the initial buffer between himself and a defender to avoid jamming, legal contact within five yards of the line of scrimmage. The flanker is generally on the same side of the formation as a tight end. As with the split end, this receiver is the farthest player from the center on his side of the field. The flanker is probably lined up just like a split end except that he is just behind the line of scrimmage, being in the backfield and not on the line.[6]
    Are you telling me the flanker doesn't line up on the outside of the formation?

    Drop the technical terms, it's getting old. We know you like to appear more educated in the game then anybody else by referring to receivers by the Y/Z who run 4 routes and 7 routes and 0 tech DT's, we all get it, we just choose not to play along.

    Like you say, it's a "Discussion site". If I want to call a flanker an outside receiver (which he is), I damn well will.
    Hey wait a minute, wait a minute. Aren't you, along with Caine the ones who hate things like BR or any other source that doesn't back everything up with facts so that no one wanders down the wrong path?

    In this case you wrong wrong wrong. Don't try to use the "Its a discussion" site crap with me.

    Just playing you and Caines game thats all. Don't like it, quit hacking on me for discussion ideas.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  10. #20
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Steve Smith

    Quote Originally Posted by "kevoncox" #1101248
    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1101237
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1101195
    You talking Carolina Steve Smith?

    Wouldn't be a bad option if we can't get Rice back.

    Problem is, that gives us three receivers in that sort of small, quick build. Harvin, Smith and Aromashodu. We need an outside receiver.
    LOL, you almost got it right. Rice is not an outside reciever.

    From our good friends at Wiki....

    Berrian (sometimes Harving)

    Split end (X or SE): A receiver on the line of scrimmage, necessary to meet the rule requiring seven such players at snap. Where applicable, this receiver is on the opposite side of the tight end. The split end is farthest from center on his side of the field.[5]
    Rice
    Flanker (Z or FL): A receiver lining up behind the line of scrimmage. Frequently the team's featured receiver, the flanker uses the initial buffer between himself and a defender to avoid jamming, legal contact within five yards of the line of scrimmage. The flanker is generally on the same side of the formation as a tight end. As with the split end, this receiver is the farthest player from the center on his side of the field. The flanker is probably lined up just like a split end except that he is just behind the line of scrimmage, being in the backfield and not on the line.[6]
    Harvin (sometimes Rice)

    Slot receiver (Y or SL): A less-formal name given to receivers in addition to split ends and flankers (for example tight-ends who line up wide). These receivers line up between the split end/flanker and the linemen. If aligned with a flanker, the slot receiver is usually on the line of scrimmage, and if with a split end, off the line of scrimmage. As with the flanker position, a featured receiver often takes a slot position with a split end to avoid jamming.[6]
    Close but you are off a bit in your terminology.
    Being a flanker doesn't always determine the type of WR you are. However, you do tend to find more possession type WRs as Flankers because the attention the TE draws helps create more oppotunity for a bigger(sometimes slower) WR. However, in today's NFL, a lof of teams run a double tight formation with no SE but two Flankers. Does this change the job of the WR or the required build? No! Truth betold we still consider Flankers outside WRs and I believe that is what was meant. It was a comparison of Slot/wing back vs. SE/FL
    Of course there are variations to the sets. Hell we saw TE's broke out in flanker positions.

    Thats not my point, nor what was meant.

    Bleed says we need an outside reciever. We don't. We need an inside guy that is big and strong that can out jump/out muscle defenders in the intermediate routes and in the red zone.

    A OUTSIDE GUY DOESN'T DO THAT. He outruns his defender. Nothing more, nothing less.

    In an effort to make sure Bleed wasn't going down the wrong path I posted some facts for him. Thats what he wants all the time.....Links and facts.

    Not my fault he got all pissy cause he was wrong.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Steve Smith-USC
    By threepete21 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 12:46 PM
  2. Steve Smith
    By marstc09 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-16-2006, 05:40 PM
  3. The next Steve Smith???
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-03-2006, 01:34 PM
  4. STEVE SMITH
    By hovan in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-25-2006, 02:45 PM
  5. Steve Smith
    By vikings minnesoulija in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-15-2004, 03:38 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •