Home
i'm an actor, not a reactor

Primary links

  • About
    • About
    • $upport (lol)
    • Ethics
    • FAQ
    • Glossary
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
    • The Editor
    • Advertising/Associate Editor
    • Managing Editor/Hoops
  • MGoStore
    • MGoStore
    • Hail to Old Blue
  • MGoBoard
    • MGoBoard
    • MGoBoard FAQ
    • Michigan bar locator
    • Moderator Action Sticky
  • Useful Stuff
    • Depth Chart By Class
    • Hoops Depth Chart by Class
    • Unofficial Two Deep
    • MGoFlickr
    • Diaries, Windows Live Writer, And You
    • User-Curated HOF
    • Where To Eat In Ann Arbor
  • Schedule/Tix
    • Football Schedule (wiki)
    • Ticket spreadsheet
Home Forums MGoBoard

Navigation

  • Forums
  • Recent posts

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

MGoElsewhere

  • @MGoBlog (Brian)
  • @aceanbender
  • @Misopogon (Seth)
  • @Aeschnepp (Adam)
  • @BISB
  • @EUpchurchPhoto
  • @FullOfTwitt (Fuller)
  • Hail to the Victors 2016
  • MGoFacebook
  • MGoPodcast
  • WTKA
  • Instagram

Michigan Blogs

  • Big House Blog
  • Burgeoning Wolverine Star
  • Genuinely Sarcastic
  • Go Blue Michigan Wolverine
  • Holdin' The Rope
  • MVictors
  • Maize 'n' Blue Nation
  • Maize 'n' Brew
  • Maize And Go Blue
  • Michigan Hockey Net
  • MMMGoBlueBBQ
  • The Blog That Yost Built
  • The Hoover Street Rag
  • The M Zone
  • Touch The Banner
  • UMGoBlog
  • UMHoops
  • UMTailgate
  • Wolverine Liberation Army

M On The Net

  • mgovideo
  • MGoBlue.com
  • Mike DeSimone
  • Recruiting Planet
  • The Wolverine
  • Go Blue Wolverine
  • Winged Helmet
  • UMGoBlue.com
  • MaizeRage.org
  • Puckhead
  • The M Den
  • True Blue Fan Forum

Big Ten Blogs

  • Illinois
    • Illinois Loyalty
    • Illinois Baseball Report
  • Indiana
    • Inside The Hall
    • The Crimson Quarry
  • Iowa
    • Black Heart, Gold Pants
    • Fight For Iowa
  • Michigan State
    • The Only Colors
  • Minnesota
    • GopherHole.com
    • The Daily Gopher
  • Nebraska
    • Corn Nation
    • Husker Max
    • Husker Mike's Blasphemy
    • Husker Gameday
  • Northwestern
    • Sippin' On Purple
    • Lake The Posts
  • Notre Dame
    • The House Rock Built
    • One Foot Down
  • Ohio State
    • Eleven Warriors
    • Buckeye Commentary
    • Men of the Scarlet and Gray
    • Our Honor Defend
    • The Buckeye Nine
  • Penn State
    • Slow States
    • Black Shoe Diaries
    • Happy Valley Hardball
    • Penn State Clips
    • Linebacker U
    • Nittany White Out
  • Purdue
    • Boiled Sports
    • Hammer and Rails
  • Wisconsin
    • Bruce Ciskie

Links of Note

  • Baseball
    • College Baseball Today
    • The College Baseball Blog
  • Basketball
    • Ken Pomeroy
    • Hoop Math
    • John Gasaway
    • Luke Winn/Sports Illustrated
  • College Hockey
    • Chris Heisenberg (Class of 2016)
    • College Hockey Stats
    • Michigan College Hockey
    • Hockey's Future
    • Sioux Sports
    • USCHO
  • Football
    • Smart Football
    • Every Day Should Be Saturday
    • Matt Hinton/Grantland
    • Football Study Hall
    • Football Outsiders
    • Harold Stassen
    • NCAA D-I Stats Page
    • The Wizard Of Odds
    • CFB Stats
  • General
    • Sports Central
  • Local Interest
    • The Ann Arbor Chronicle
    • Arborwiki
    • Arbor Update
    • Ann Arbor Observer
    • Teeter Talk
    • Vacuum
  • Teams Of The D
    • Lions
      • Pride of Detroit
    • Pistons
      • Detroit Bad Boys
      • Need4Sheed
    • Tigers
      • Roar Of The Tigers
      • Bless You Boys
      • The Daily Fungo
      • The Detroit Tigers Weblog
    • Red Wings
      • Winging It In Motown
      • On The Wings
    • Michigan Sports Forum

Beveled Guilt

Site Search

Diaries

  • New
  • Popular
  • Hot
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - April 2008: No Spring Game at the Big House! Hockey loses to ND in the Frozen Four!
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 4 days ago
  • Thirteen unlucky minutes (TL;DNR-This is a bit of rant about the refs)
    docwhoblocked - 3 weeks ago
  • Fan Satisfaction Index End of Season Bball Survey
    OneFootIn - 3 weeks ago
  • How likely are we to revert to the mean?
    Bo Glue - 3 weeks ago
  • It's time to avenge Villanova's 1985 NCAA tourney upset over Michigan
    Communist Football - 3 weeks ago
  •  
  • 1 of 2
  • ››
more
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - April 2008: No Spring Game at the Big House! Hockey loses to ND in the Frozen Four!
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 1,538 views
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 237 comments
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - April 2008: No Spring Game at the Big House! Hockey loses to ND in the Frozen Four!
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 9 comments

MGoBoard

  • New
  • Recent
  • Hot
  • Moderator Action Sticky 2018
    4 replies
  • Dantonio: players will decide if Reschke can rejoin the team
    58 replies
  • Brandon Wimbush Highlights in Notre Dame Spring Game
    19 replies
  • OT: Archer Danger Island
    23 replies
  • OT: Golden State Killer suspect arrested in California
    32 replies
  • SIAP: U of M Dearborn Bball Team Needs the Money Cannon!
    5 replies
  • Ibi Watson to Dayton.
    46 replies
  • NFL Draft Eve Debate
    84 replies
  • Scrimmage Observations
    121 replies
  • Quote from Nebraska A.D.
    90 replies
  • PSA: 2018 FOOTBALL SEASON TICKET UPGRADES
    10 replies
  • More MSU takes. From USA Today
    65 replies
  • OT: National Park Week; What's Your Favorite?
    173 replies
  • New Q&A with Cam McGrone, video
    3 replies
  • Rice Commission recommendations to be released today
    77 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››
  • Dantonio: players will decide if Reschke can rejoin the team
    58 replies
  • OT: Golden State Killer suspect arrested in California
    32 replies
  • Brandon Wimbush Highlights in Notre Dame Spring Game
    19 replies
  • Moderator Action Sticky 2018
    4 replies
  • Quote from Nebraska A.D.
    90 replies
  • OT: Archer Danger Island
    23 replies
  • PSA: 2018 FOOTBALL SEASON TICKET UPGRADES
    10 replies
  • NFL Draft Eve Debate
    84 replies
  • Scrimmage Observations
    121 replies
  • Ibi Watson to Dayton.
    46 replies
  • OT: Rick Pitino Rumored to be Candidate for Detroit Mercy Job
    80 replies
  • OT: National Park Week; What's Your Favorite?
    173 replies
  • More MSU takes. From USA Today
    65 replies
  • Harmoniously OT: UM Men's Glee Club in AZ
    18 replies
  • SIAP: U of M Dearborn Bball Team Needs the Money Cannon!
    5 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››
  • OT: National Park Week; What's Your Favorite?
    173 replies
  • The Evolution of Commerce - What Industries are Dying, What's Thriving?
    148 replies
  • Pep Hamilton on Shea: Can extend the play, make all the throws, plus other QB's
    129 replies
  • In-state recruiting rankings update
    125 replies
  • OT - Jalen Hurts possibly looking to transfer
    121 replies
  • Scrimmage Observations
    121 replies
  • Notre Dame Spring Game: analysis from M n B, video
    119 replies
  • Hello? Boring Tuesday POSbang Happy Hour Thread
    117 replies
  • Nebraska football
    105 replies
  • OT: Map of college stadiums that sell alcohol
    96 replies
  • Karsen Barnhart - did we cool on him?
    92 replies
  • OT: College Football video games coming back
    90 replies
  • Quote from Nebraska A.D.
    90 replies
  • UCF Knights unveil 2017 championship banner
    89 replies
  • NFL Draft Eve Debate
    84 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››

Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

Good receiving corps composed entirely of possession receivers?

39 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
February 20th, 2010 at 9:18 PM
#1
Bleedin9Blue
Bleedin9Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1928
Good receiving corps composed entirely of possession receivers?

A friend and I were just discussing receivers due to Shawn Conway committing. Since a lot of the discussion in the comments was focused on his average-ish speed and large size, many people were pegging him as a small TE or "just" a possession receiver.

That made me think, can you consider your receiving corps "good" if they only have possession receivers? What about in our offense specifically, can our receivers as a group be considered good (or better) if we don't have a home run threat?

Note: I'm not trying to say that [having only possession receivers] is our current situation, I'm just asking the question because I think it's interesting.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Tags:
  • MGoBoard
  • Conway
  • Michigan
  • Receivers

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:23 PM
#2
Blue_Bull_Run
Blue_Bull_Run's picture
Joined: 11/25/2008
MGoPoints: 1336
We did alright on offense in 2009

And I don't think we had a real home run threat. Hemmingway and Stomun showed shades of being deep threats, but I can't recall any "home runs" that they hit.

Would you call Odoms a home run threat as a receiver? A lot of his catches come underneath the coverage - but he has the speed to potentially beat them ... is that really any different, though, than a RB taking one to the house?

But yeah, I think teams can do quite fine with "just possession receivers." It helps to have the deep route to spread the field, but not all QBs can hit the deep route, anyways ... and possession receivers can get deep occasionally, too (see Greg Mathews).

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 2:30 AM
(Reply to #2) #3
jg2112
jg2112's picture
Joined: 11/25/2008
MGoPoints: 7764
You can't?

Let me help you out:

Junior Hemingway: v. Western Michigan, 45 yard bomb from Forcier. Touchdown.

Darryl Stonum: v. Michigan State, that TD was a catch and run (about 50 yards of run), for about a 75 yard TD pass.

Let's add:

Roy Roundtree: a 75 yard reception against Illinois, that would have been a TD if but for one more yard.

There - I just gave you three guys that if given the opportunity, can get deep and have speed. And let's not forget that Je'Ron Stokes has 4.4 - 4.5 speed, and lord help the defense that has to stick Denard on a deep route.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 3:15 AM
(Reply to #30) #4
Blue_Bull_Run
Blue_Bull_Run's picture
Joined: 11/25/2008
MGoPoints: 1336
Thanks for two examples

Roundtree, however, quite likely falls under possession receiver, as evidence by the fact that he got run down...

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 8:22 PM
(Reply to #30) #5
Eyebrowse
Eyebrowse's picture
Joined: 07/06/2009
MGoPoints: 1394
I was thinking along the

I was thinking along the lines of, if you have posession recievers and assuming that said receivers don't have elite top speed, then the importance has to come with their ability to break tackles and/or their agility in order to really get their YAP up. Receivers that can work in space don't necessarily require excellent top speed but rather the footwork and ability to make guys miss. Just a thought.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:24 PM
#6
rman247
rman247's picture
Joined: 01/24/2010
MGoPoints: 405
Yes

You can throw the ball short with ease. I would rather have that than all speed.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:26 PM
(Reply to #3) #7
Drake
Drake's picture
Joined: 07/30/2009
MGoPoints: 15
Speed stretches the field and

Speed stretches the field and gives you room for short routes and safeties cant come into the box if they have to worry about the deep ball, so runningbacks benefit from fast WRs.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:58 PM
(Reply to #9) #8
Bleedin9Blue
Bleedin9Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1928
Yep

This is exactly why I was asking this question, because if you can't keep the safeties back then it's that much harder to even get the ball to your possession receivers since there are simply more defenders.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:24 PM
#9
ntclark
Joined: 01/14/2009
MGoPoints: 18
Thinking of good teams with

Thinking of good teams with all possession receivers, the New England Patriots before Moss showed up fit that bill. Deion Branch, Troy Brown, and David Givens were never really deep threats. I don't think anyone would consider that a good corp, though.

To answer your question, no, I think you need at least one deep threat to really open up a passing game.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:45 PM
(Reply to #4) #10
Blue_Bull_Run
Blue_Bull_Run's picture
Joined: 11/25/2008
MGoPoints: 1336
How about the Saints

I'm not sure where to draw the line between "possession receiver" and "home run threat," but I don't think the Saints receivers were particularly explosive?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 11:34 PM
(Reply to #12) #11
Irish
Irish's picture
Joined: 06/05/2009
MGoPoints: 3696
I didn't watch Colston much

I didn't watch Colston much this year but previous years he stretched the field for the Saints regularly

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 11:46 PM
(Reply to #18) #12
Drake
Drake's picture
Joined: 07/30/2009
MGoPoints: 15
Robert Meachum and Devery

Robert Meachum and Devery Henderson are also very explosive to go along with Colston.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:32 AM
(Reply to #20) #13
Irish
Irish's picture
Joined: 06/05/2009
MGoPoints: 3696
I knew they both had their

I knew they both had their moments but I wasn't sure how regularly they contributed, thanks

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:25 PM
#14
BlockM
BlockM's picture
Joined: 07/03/2008
MGoPoints: 28426
I think it depends on the

I think it depends on the quality of the QB they have throwing to them. Having a speedster or two would really help out a QB that isn't quite as accurate as they'd probably be getting open a little bit easier. A corp of only possession receivers would be great if a QB can place the ball just about wherever he wants.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:28 PM
#15
Space Coyote
Space Coyote's picture
Joined: 06/18/2009
MGoPoints: 35079
If you don't have people that

If you don't have people that can stretch the field then you're not going to have a great WR core. You can do good things near the end zone perhaps with all possession types, but in the open field, especially in the spread that RR runs, it is extremely important to be able to do things well in open space.

I think with can have an OK WR core with all possession types, those that at least make a D cover slants, ins, and fades near the end zone, but it is difficult to have a good or better when you can't utilize many of the other various routes, such as deep ins, deep outs, deep anything really, and WR screens.

Just to point out, I know Michigan has had possession receivers in the past that were good at deep ins and deep crosses and what not, but with the offense that was run then more protection packages could be used to allow them time to get open or to the position they needed. In the spread you are typically left with only one other blocker, a RB or TE, but two at most, and the various things you can do with them is somewhat more limited.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 10:39 PM
(Reply to #6) #16
OHbornUMfan
OHbornUMfan's picture
Joined: 01/22/2010
MGoPoints: 2183
Important point

I think it's great that you point out the importance of receivers being good in space in this offense. It's vital that receivers be able to make the catch and make a man miss. IMO, you don't need breakaway speed to make somebody miss. An underneath catch followed by a broken tackle (or broken ankles) can become a huge play.

However, if your entire receiving corps is lacking deep speed, more d-backs will be within 15 yards of the line, making it more likely that multiple tackles will need to be avoided to gain really big chunks.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:25 PM
#17
clarkiefromcanada
clarkiefromcanada's picture
Joined: 11/21/2008
MGoPoints: 37504
I really

like possessions.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:26 PM
#18
GBOD79
GBOD79's picture
Joined: 07/14/2009
MGoPoints: 3423
I think the main advantage of

I think the main advantage of having big WR's is the fact that they will be able to block better on the outside. I think this is a point that is being overlooked.

Having Shawn, Ricardo, Jeremy, etc on the outside will enable our RB's and Slots to get to the outside. This will only help our offense.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:30 PM
(Reply to #8) #19
tymacg
tymacg's picture
Joined: 02/04/2010
MGoPoints: 30
I'd say usually

I'd say usually you're right about bigger WR's blocking, but I'd argue with you right now that Odoms is Michigan's best run blocker. Maybe an anomaly but just b/c youre big, doesn't mean you can block (carson butler)

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 12:16 AM
(Reply to #8) #20
Braylon Edwards
Braylon Edwards's picture
Joined: 02/11/2009
MGoPoints: 120
To: Cali

True but, Hines Ward would beg to differ. Blocking has more to do with caring/heart, size does help however.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 9:30 PM
#21
goody
goody's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1532
They have homerun threats

Stonum, Hemmingway, and the freshman Williamson are all outside receivers with size and speed to get behind the defense.

But you can have a successful offense with a bunch of possession receivers if you run an offense with a lot of short passes. Think Texas Tech (before Crabtree) with all those short passes and not a lot of down field throws.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 11:12 PM
(Reply to #11) #22
NorCalGoBloo
Joined: 09/28/2008
MGoPoints: 221
I was thinking...

...of the Texas Tech example myself. When they finally did get Crabtree, though, the offense got even better. I think having a deep threat can be the difference between a proficient and a prolific offense.

Here's to finding the latter this year!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 10:36 PM
#23
Ziff72
Joined: 07/07/2008
MGoPoints: 8336
Football Speed

To all the panic about all of our receivers being slow, I want to say that just because they run a 4.5 doesn't mean they can't be a deep threat. Being a deep threat is not about pure speed, it's about changing speeds and body control. I think most can agree Manningham was a great deep threat for Michigan and he didn't have ridculous speed. D. Howard was relatively slow as a WR and he was ok. Not saying any of the incoming guys will be that, but I wouldn't be too worried about their fake times until we see them. Other effective deep threats without elite speed per a stop watch. Jerry Rice, Sterling Sharpe, Plaxico Biurress, Marvin Harrison, Michael Crabtree.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 11:09 PM
(Reply to #14) #24
Blue_Bull_Run
Blue_Bull_Run's picture
Joined: 11/25/2008
MGoPoints: 1336
Good post, but Manningham ...

...was a blazer. In every sense of the word.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 4:48 AM
(Reply to #16) #25
Michael
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1541
I think it can be argued that

I think it can be argued that Manningham's best asset was his route running ability, rather than his speed. That's not to say that he isn't fast - his last reported forty time was a 4.42 - but that is hardly the reason why he was so wide open throughout his career.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:38 PM
(Reply to #33) #26
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 56299
When a guy steps on the field

When a guy steps on the field as a true freshman and is immediately blowing by veteran CBs, that's not likely due simply to route-running ability. Manningham had a fantastic double-move to shake free, and had the jets to keep separation.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 12:11 AM
(Reply to #14) #27
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 56299
Not the best UM examples

Desmond was extremely fast and shifty - he was the ultimate "electron" guy. Manningham, too, was a flat-out burner.

OTOH, Amani Toomer and Tai Streets weren't super-fast but were still outstanding WRs.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 8:52 AM
(Reply to #21) #28
Ziff72
Joined: 07/07/2008
MGoPoints: 8336
Argument

Ask the Redskins about his speed...shifty yes....pure speed no. Toomer is a great example.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:34 PM
(Reply to #34) #29
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 56299
The NFL is a different

The NFL is a different animal. At the college level, he was more than fast enough.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 20th, 2010 at 11:43 PM
#30
OC_Blue
Joined: 02/15/2010
MGoPoints: -55
It will make the position

It will make the position evaluations difficult for Brian, I mean how many times can you say, "YMRMFSPA Jason Avant". Just like the eskimos have many words for snow, we may need many words for Jason Avant, like "Young Jason Avant", "Senior Jason Avant", "NFL Jason Avant", "Jason Avant if all of his fingers were broken like Tai Streets", etc.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 12:26 AM
#31
810steveo
810steveo's picture
Joined: 02/25/2009
MGoPoints: 916
you can't have never enough recievers

I like the pick up of shawn conway by the fact adds more depth reciever, and it also ends some stereotype that we only get small speedy reicevers that many said that we put emphesis on in which I disagree on. But adds more wear and tear on the physicals on dbs of the big ten. Also best of luck for shawn for this upcoming season.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 12:58 PM
(Reply to #23) #32
Steweiler
Steweiler's picture
Joined: 12/22/2009
MGoPoints: 325
A 6' 4" receiver also gives you

a great "Jump Ball" threat in the end zone. Let the speedy receivers get their yards in space, moving the team down the field. When there's no 'space' left, I don't see anything wrong with throwing it up to a very tall possession receiver in the corner of the endzone.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 12:50 AM
#33
ciszew
Joined: 01/23/2010
MGoPoints: 435
Size over speed

IMHO I think the staff actually prefers size at the Wide Out position as opposed to burners. As RichRod has said in the past that he actually wants both but I think when it defaults they will take size because the most important think a receiver can do is block. I know it might hurt us in recruiting big time guys but its also a really wise strategy. This is why Ricardo Miller and Jerald Robinson will play split end this year, because they are more that willing and able to take out safeties and LB. To me this seaholm kid fits the mold of what RichRod wants out of his WR. Once Mich starts winning again, (and god please be this year) I think we will be in the running for more explosive WR but I still think RR will look at guys who are willing blockers. I think he wants the speed to come out of the slot, which is why Gallon and D. Rob might get some more looks there.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:06 AM
#34
Smitty D
Smitty D's picture
Joined: 04/01/2009
MGoPoints: 187
JaRon Stokes

I think everyone is sleeping on him. I defintely think he can stretch the field

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:24 AM
(Reply to #25) #35
Bleedin9Blue
Bleedin9Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1928
Redshirt

You know, I actually think we would be "sleeping on him"* less if he'd redshirted. But, since he played all of 8 snaps or so, he used up one year of eligibility. Thus, he's a sophomore and we don't care about them as much [as freshmen] because sophomores are perceived as being known quantities. So, even though we don't really know anything about how good Stokes will be, we're not very excited because he doesn't have "Fr." next to his name.

*By the way, bad choice of words for the internet.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:42 AM
#36
West Texas Blue
West Texas Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1843
Top WRs aren't interested in

Top WRs aren't interested in just blocking. Stonum specifically told Rod that he didn't want to be just a blocking WR, as much negative recruiting was used by teams to discourage him and top flight WRs from joining UM. No deep threat = safeties move closer to line of scrimmage.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 1:43 AM
#37
West Texas Blue
West Texas Blue's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1843
Top WRs aren't interested in

Top WRs aren't interested in just blocking. Stonum specifically told Rod that he didn't want to be just a blocking WR, as much negative recruiting was used by teams to discourage him and top flight WRs from joining UM. No deep threat = safeties move closer to line of scrimmage.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 3:33 AM
#38
burntorange wit...
burntorange wit a lil maize's picture
Joined: 02/20/2010
MGoPoints: 87
yes receiving corp

can be perfectly capable of being "good" and all be possession WRs. if u have a half decent qb that can spread the field. u dont necessarily need a "burner" to score big TDs. id take 5 wes welkers as my top 5 receivers any day. as long as each receiver has some YAC ability.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
February 21st, 2010 at 7:30 PM
#39
MGOARMY
MGOARMY's picture
Joined: 06/22/2009
MGoPoints: 687
I would say the Arizona

I would say the Arizona Cardinals have a great 1-2 punch of poss. recivers, not saying that Fittz and Boldin are slow, but they arn't burners.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.