Page 2 of 4

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:09 pm
by jodcon
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:03 pm
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:59 pm
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:37 am
I heard there was some experimental training regimen that would add 3-6 inches in length....those would make some big wide receivers.
My mom said you are not an expert on length...not sure how she knows that...
I could respond to this in so many not so nice ways....but I won't.
I kind of teed it up for you

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:47 pm
by argh!
griz98 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:50 am
So far there are two in this class; shouldn't a team have a couple in every class?
i count at least 5

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:17 pm
by grizindabox
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:09 pm
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:03 pm
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:59 pm
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:37 am
I heard there was some experimental training regimen that would add 3-6 inches in length....those would make some big wide receivers.
My mom said you are not an expert on length...not sure how she knows that...
I could respond to this in so many not so nice ways....but I won't.
I kind of teed it up for you
Yeah, but I draw the line at mom jokes...unless you're a real dick.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:18 pm
by grizindabox
argh! wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:47 pm
griz98 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:50 am
So far there are two in this class; shouldn't a team have a couple in every class?
i count at least 5
List them

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:25 pm
by jodcon
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:17 pm
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:09 pm
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:03 pm
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:59 pm


My mom said you are not an expert on length...not sure how she knows that...
I could respond to this in so many not so nice ways....but I won't.
I kind of teed it up for you
Yeah, but I draw the line at mom jokes...unless you're a real dick.
Thanks for putting me on the non-dick list. You know, that doesn't sound that great either...

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:00 pm
by grizindabox
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:25 pm
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:17 pm
jodcon wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:09 pm
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:03 pm


I could respond to this in so many not so nice ways....but I won't.
I kind of teed it up for you
Yeah, but I draw the line at mom jokes...unless you're a real dick.
Thanks for putting me on the non-dick list. You know, that doesn't sound that great either...
Well, more dinners and gifts is all I can say.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:52 am
by AZGrizFan
BozAngelesGriz wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:58 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:27 am
AZGrizFan wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:58 am
PlayerRep wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:31 am


It's my understanding that the receiver position is essentially being eliminated, now that Jensen and Stitt are gone. The goal is to keep under 5 receivers, but only ones under 6' or over 6'5". Once the receiver group is decreased in size, there will be room on the depth chart to start listing and using fullbacks. With only 1 receiver graduating this year, it may be several years before the fullbacks can be used. By then, it is expected that there will be at least 10 on the roster.
That's what I've heard as well. 6-9 years is the anticipated transition time. #RTD...it's a journey, not a destination.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is now required ready for high school football commits.
Maybe we will finally know what a “quality loss” really is
:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

POTY right there gentlemen. And, if you don't get the reference, consider yourself EXTREMELY lucky!

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:35 am
by PlayerRep
AZGrizFan wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:52 am
BozAngelesGriz wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:58 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:27 am
AZGrizFan wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:58 am


That's what I've heard as well. 6-9 years is the anticipated transition time. #RTD...it's a journey, not a destination.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is now required ready for high school football commits.
Maybe we will finally know what a “quality loss” really is
:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

POTY right there gentlemen. And, if you don't get the reference, consider yourself EXTREMELY lucky!
Most people who played the game, or understand it, know what a quality loss is. The playoff selection committee understood, in their selection of teams like Northern Iowa. UM didn’t have any this year. Don’t think the Cats did either, but didn’t go back to check their schedule. Drake’s loss to Iowa St was a quality loss.

Who knows, without looking, what the city destination is in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:43 am
by Silenoz
fanofzoo wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:33 pm
Silenoz wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:51 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:31 am
griz98 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:50 am
So far there are two in this class; shouldn't a team have a couple in every class?
It's my understanding that the receiver position is essentially being eliminated, now that Jensen and Stitt are gone. The goal is to keep under 5 receivers, but only ones under 6' or over 6'5". Once the receiver group is decreased in size, there will be room on the depth chart to start listing and using fullbacks. With only 1 receiver graduating this year, it may be several years before the fullbacks can be used. By then, it is expected that there will be at least 10 on the roster.
Question.

What if we just fielded 11 guys who were tight ends slash fullbacks? Like a combination? Or would that just be unfair to the rest of FCS?
I think that would be really unfair to our QB.
There is no QB

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:09 am
by Raider
grizindabox wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:18 pm
argh! wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:47 pm
griz98 wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:50 am
So far there are two in this class; shouldn't a team have a couple in every class?
i count at least 5
List them
He can’t.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:26 pm
by AZGrizFan
PlayerRep wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:35 am
AZGrizFan wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:52 am
BozAngelesGriz wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:58 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:27 am


Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is now required ready for high school football commits.
Maybe we will finally know what a “quality loss” really is
:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

POTY right there gentlemen. And, if you don't get the reference, consider yourself EXTREMELY lucky!
Most people who played the game, or understand it, know what a quality loss is. The playoff selection committee understood, in their selection of teams like Northern Iowa. UM didn’t have any this year. Don’t think the Cats did either, but didn’t go back to check their schedule. Drake’s loss to Iowa St was a quality loss.

Who knows, without looking, what the city destination is in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
I've done a great job of blocking that entire POS from my memory. :evil: :evil:

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:53 pm
by fanofzoo
Silenoz wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:43 am
fanofzoo wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:33 pm
Silenoz wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:51 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:31 am


It's my understanding that the receiver position is essentially being eliminated, now that Jensen and Stitt are gone. The goal is to keep under 5 receivers, but only ones under 6' or over 6'5". Once the receiver group is decreased in size, there will be room on the depth chart to start listing and using fullbacks. With only 1 receiver graduating this year, it may be several years before the fullbacks can be used. By then, it is expected that there will be at least 10 on the roster.
Question.

What if we just fielded 11 guys who were tight ends slash fullbacks? Like a combination? Or would that just be unfair to the rest of FCS?
I think that would be really unfair to our QB.
There is no QB
Oh yeah, duh. Better go hit it again.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:26 pm
by garizzalies
I don’t know why the WR room gets a pass on here. Some played good at times, and got better; most did not and seemed out of place or misused.
Here’s a real hot take: if not for the failures in the WR room, Griz make the playoffs. The argument can be made that they cost us at least one game, possibly two.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:32 pm
by AZGrizFan
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:26 pm
I don’t know why the WR room gets a pass on here. Some played good at times, and got better; most did not and seemed out of place or misused.
Here’s a real hot take: if not for the failures in the WR room, Griz make the playoffs. The argument can be made that they cost us at least one game, possibly two.
Well, they get the ball (collectively) several hundred times a year, so there’s bound to be a mistake or two. Definitely know the RB position cost us one game for certain.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:45 pm
by garizzalies
AZGrizFan wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:32 pm
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:26 pm
I don’t know why the WR room gets a pass on here. Some played good at times, and got better; most did not and seemed out of place or misused.
Here’s a real hot take: if not for the failures in the WR room, Griz make the playoffs. The argument can be made that they cost us at least one game, possibly two.
Well, they get the ball (collectively) several hundred times a year, so there’s bound to be a mistake or two. Definitely know the RB position cost us one game for certain.
Maybe. But the popular argument around here is to blame the Oline for everything, and I could see that argument for the play in your mind, but not the playS in mine

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:35 am
by reinell30
Maybe just maybe, we can get WR's that can all catch the ball besides JLM and Sammy. We had/have a lot of WR's titled on this team. Now we need WR's who really are WR's not only by name.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:32 am
by AZGrizFan
reinell30 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:35 am
Maybe just maybe, we can get WR's that can all catch the ball besides JLM and Sammy. We had/have a lot of WR's titled on this team. Now we need WR's who really are WR's not only by name.
:roll: :roll:

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:33 am
by AZGrizFan
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:45 pm
AZGrizFan wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:32 pm
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:26 pm
I don’t know why the WR room gets a pass on here. Some played good at times, and got better; most did not and seemed out of place or misused.
Here’s a real hot take: if not for the failures in the WR room, Griz make the playoffs. The argument can be made that they cost us at least one game, possibly two.
Well, they get the ball (collectively) several hundred times a year, so there’s bound to be a mistake or two. Definitely know the RB position cost us one game for certain.
Maybe. But the popular argument around here is to blame the Oline for everything, and I could see that argument for the play in your mind, but not the playS in mine
:lol: :lol:

Not sure the WR's gave up the punt return for a TD. That cost us one game. Or the fumble on the goal line. That cost us another. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around. :thumb: :thumb:

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:26 pm
by '68griz
AZGrizFan wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:33 am
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:45 pm
AZGrizFan wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:32 pm
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:26 pm
I don’t know why the WR room gets a pass on here. Some played good at times, and got better; most did not and seemed out of place or misused.
Here’s a real hot take: if not for the failures in the WR room, Griz make the playoffs. The argument can be made that they cost us at least one game, possibly two.
Well, they get the ball (collectively) several hundred times a year, so there’s bound to be a mistake or two. Definitely know the RB position cost us one game for certain.
Maybe. But the popular argument around here is to blame the Oline for everything, and I could see that argument for the play in your mind, but not the playS in mine
:lol: :lol:

Not sure the WR's gave up the punt return for a TD. That cost us one game. Or the fumble on the goal line. That cost us another. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around. :thumb: :thumb:
This, for sure.

Re: more wide receivers

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:20 pm
by bgbigdog
'68griz wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:26 pm
AZGrizFan wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:33 am
garizzalies wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:45 pm
AZGrizFan wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:32 pm


Well, they get the ball (collectively) several hundred times a year, so there’s bound to be a mistake or two. Definitely know the RB position cost us one game for certain.
Maybe. But the popular argument around here is to blame the Oline for everything, and I could see that argument for the play in your mind, but not the playS in mine
:lol: :lol:

Not sure the WR's gave up the punt return for a TD. That cost us one game. Or the fumble on the goal line. That cost us another. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around. :thumb: :thumb:
This, for sure.
Both receiver fumbles were turned into touchdowns @ WIU. The punt return was offset by Flowers kick off return. But you’re right, there’s enough blame to go around.