Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Concerns over WR recruiting

123457

Comments

  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 115,580 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    dnc said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.

    Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.

    Least important doesn't mean unimportant. The Seahawks receivers might not be elite but they make the plays they're asked to make (three in the top ten in catch rate including two in the top 5) and they're willing blockers, too. Alabama has had Julius Jones (h/t to sachiko for the edit: Julio, dammit) and Amari Cooper during their run, I doubt Saban agrees that receivers don't matter.

    UW doesn't win the 91 title without Super Mario.

    I don't think this bored is obsessed with WR's, if anything I think this bored has overcorrected on WR's because Sark attracted 4 star wideouts like ISIS attracts homocidal psychopaths. "Sark thought receivers were most important, therefore they don't matter at all."

    They aren't everything, but they do matter. UW isn't going to make the leap to a playoff caliber team unless they either do a better job of recruiting receivers or a better job of developing them. Or probably abundance.
    Orlando McKay is often over looked but he stretched defenses big time on that 91 team. We also had at least two great tight ends that could block and catch and probably chew gum as well.

    McKay and Mario were small and over looked but could actually play the game. to me, Mario not winning the Heisman is the biggest gripe ever in that category for the Huskies. It was a field devoid of an obvious superstar and Mario was the best player on the best team
    You think Mario was better than Stan Empterman??
    I didn't know Stan was eligible
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,855
    RaceBannon said:

    dnc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    dnc said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.

    Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.

    Least important doesn't mean unimportant. The Seahawks receivers might not be elite but they make the plays they're asked to make (three in the top ten in catch rate including two in the top 5) and they're willing blockers, too. Alabama has had Julius Jones (h/t to sachiko for the edit: Julio, dammit) and Amari Cooper during their run, I doubt Saban agrees that receivers don't matter.

    UW doesn't win the 91 title without Super Mario.

    I don't think this bored is obsessed with WR's, if anything I think this bored has overcorrected on WR's because Sark attracted 4 star wideouts like ISIS attracts homocidal psychopaths. "Sark thought receivers were most important, therefore they don't matter at all."

    They aren't everything, but they do matter. UW isn't going to make the leap to a playoff caliber team unless they either do a better job of recruiting receivers or a better job of developing them. Or probably abundance.
    Orlando McKay is often over looked but he stretched defenses big time on that 91 team. We also had at least two great tight ends that could block and catch and probably chew gum as well.

    McKay and Mario were small and over looked but could actually play the game. to me, Mario not winning the Heisman is the biggest gripe ever in that category for the Huskies. It was a field devoid of an obvious superstar and Mario was the best player on the best team
    You think Mario was better than Stan Empterman??
    I didn't know Stan was eligible
    If my memory serves he finished fourth, second most first place votes. Can't remember if he got invited to New York but I want to say he did.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    FremontTroll said:

    @HeretoBeatmyChest you still like our WRs? Lenius developing into a #1?

    The WRs should have been better. Mickens had the talent of a #1 but coaching never got through to him. Lenius and Pettis did not make the big leap from year 1 to 2 that many good freshman do.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,566
    edited January 2016
    image

    I can fix your receiver problem. I'm tanned, rested, and ready
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter