New Starting Receivers [Archive] - Pigskin Heaven

View Full Version : New Starting Receivers

RaidenDAWG2

07-31-2009, 01:52 AM

With Laveranues Coles departed in the offseason, Chansi Stuckey and Jerricho Cotchery now become the starting receivers in New York.

Will the Jets new starting duo step up their games, or will the absence of the veteran Coles be felt on Broadway?

Dreamers

07-31-2009, 02:06 AM

Jerricho Cotchery has already proved me wrong by stepping right up into that #2 spot and has had 3 great seasons all ready so I have to believe he will continue to improve and impress. I know I have been pushing Chansi Stuckey more then anyone but I'm not so sure he is that other WR just yet. Clowney, Smith, and Stuckey are all great prospects and I have to think one of them really step up this year. For me it is not will one of them step up it is can all 3 of them stay healthy. Stuckey looks to be 100% but it is hard to say until you see him in a real game same can be said for Clowney who looked to beat a recovering Stuckey out last year. I'm still not overlooking Smith at all thou. He really looked like a WR at the end of last year and has the speed to make an impression.

Parrish

07-31-2009, 03:07 AM

I like what I saw from Stuckey last year. He started off hot and then kind of cooled off, but I think he can step his game up and at least be a serviceable #2.

|(evin|(olb|(ritik

07-31-2009, 04:58 AM

I'm more concerned with how Cotchery is going to respond to being the clear cut #1 in town now than I am how the twos and threes are going to respond. He's always had that other guy to take pressure off of him, somebody to play off of, and last year was a bit of a step backward for him. I'm not sure he's that type of premier WR you necessarily want representing the best of your receiving corp, and with an unproven QB to boot.

TexecutedInTampa

08-01-2009, 11:52 PM

r5d3

08-03-2009, 06:48 AM

I'm more concerned with how Cotchery is going to respond to being the clear cut #1 in town now than I am how the twos and threes are going to respond.

I would be equally concerned though. Certainly, about whether Cotcherry can make the transition from #2 to #1, but also if the rest of the clan can step up their production at the same time. I think the receivers could be in for a long season.

Isn't the QB more the question? Just curious.

The only question at QB is who will start, the question at WR will be "are they good enough?"

Hawkeye

08-03-2009, 08:41 AM

I think Cotchery will be fine. I'm also intrigued to see what Mario Urrutia can do. At 6'6" and 232 he would be a excellent target in the red zone. Who knows.....maybe he takes that #2 spot by mid-season.

Dreamers

08-03-2009, 04:53 PM

Jets WRs tired of hearing they're not good enough - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-jets-motivatedreceivers&prov=ap&type=lgns)

Here is what the JETS wrs think of this.

Texecutioner

08-03-2009, 05:12 PM

Hawkeye

08-03-2009, 05:51 PM

Cotchery will not be fine. He's not good enough to be a clear cut #1 WR in this league. Maybe if he was on the Ravens or the Titans that would be understandable, but he's definitely a #2 guy and a good one at that, but he is nothing that will scare team's DB's before a match up against them. The Jets need a lot of help at WR.

So he doesn't scare DBs as a #1, but he's ok as a #2? Since when does the #1 guy have to be the deep threat? No way Michael Irvin was faster than Alvin Harper. Robert Brooks wasn't faster than Antonio Freeman. Cris Carter wasn't remotely faster than Randy Moss. If you're questioning his size, that's one thing, but that should be a problem at either spot.

Dreamers

08-03-2009, 06:12 PM

So he doesn't scare DBs as a #1, but he's ok as a #2? Since when does the #1 guy have to be the deep threat? No way Michael Irvin was faster than Alvin Harper. Robert Brooks wasn't faster than Antonio Freeman. Cris Carter wasn't remotely faster than Randy Moss. If you're questioning his size, that's one thing, but that should be a problem at either spot.
I always hated that #1 = Lt side speedster assumption. Cotchery will stay on the same side and do the same thing. He will be the #1 guy in the #2 spot. The #1 spot #2 wr will be Stuckey, Clowney, or Smith.

Hawkeye

08-03-2009, 10:43 PM

I always hated that #1 = Lt side speedster assumption. Cotchery will stay on the same side and do the same thing. He will be the #1 guy in the #2 spot. The #1 spot #2 wr will be Stuckey, Clowney, or Smith.

Amen. Your #1 WR should always be the guy with the best hands, the guy who can always manage to get open and move the chains. That doesn't always take speed.

|(evin|(olb|(ritik

08-04-2009, 01:14 AM

Anybody who knows anything about offense knows that the term #1 WR has absolutely nothing to do with anything that goes on in the field. Its not a position, nor does it have any bearing on the offense at all. WR's are referred to in offenses by their position, ie X, Z or Y. The numerical denotation is simply an objectivized rating system for fans and defenses to rank players based on threat level. #1 or #2 has nothing to do with which side they line up on or what routes they run in the system. To the contrary, a great WR will play all over the field, left right, slot, as a glorified TE, it means nothing. In this case it can be argued that Cotchery does not provide enough of a threat to be considered a viable #1 WR.

I'd be worried if Cotchery was my #1 WR. As a #2 guy (meaning the defense wasn't necessarily most concerned with him) the guy wasn't exactly dominant, although acceptable for a #2 guy because you expect your #1 guy to be better. If he struggled to crack 1000 yards in as the #2 guy in an offense that wasn't dominated by a clear cut #1, I don't know how he's going to perform when he's the only threat and defenses look to roll his way first.