PDA

View Full Version : Ike Bruce??


Newbsies
04-27-2005, 09:59 PM
So I was browsing the FFToday boards today, and many of those guys, including rams fans, seem to think that Isaac Bruce will be released as of June 1. They also believe that Johnnie Morton, Koren Robinson, and Peter Warrick will all be cut. And then there's Javon Walker who is holding out for more money, and of course that tool T.O.

What do you guys think our chances are of landing any of these guys as a #2? I know Robinson has attitude problems, but hey, they might not be as bad as everybody thinks(TJ).

jacquescas
04-27-2005, 10:02 PM
no chance, with mathis added to the group i dont see them adding someone else now.

Grid
04-27-2005, 10:04 PM
Andre Johnson, Jerome Mathis, Corey Bradford, Jabar Gaffney, Derrick Armstrong, Kendrick Starling, Sloan Thomas


What in the world are we gonna do with another wide receiver?

TEs and Tackles please. Another Dlineman and somemore depth at ILB wouldnt hurt either.

outofhnd
04-27-2005, 10:19 PM
Our chances would be great If Jerry jones or Dan Snyder owned the Texans.

WildBlackBear32
04-27-2005, 10:35 PM
Our chances would be great If Jerry jones or Dan Snyder owned the Texans.

Or Mark Cuban. :thumbup

AlexVanderpool
04-27-2005, 10:38 PM
no chance, with mathis added to the group i dont see them adding someone else now.

Im as optomistic about mathis as the next guy, but to think that he is going to step in right away and be the #2 that we need to is ridiculous.

Signing an isaac bruce for 1-2 years would be perfect...

Davis37
04-27-2005, 10:43 PM
Im as optomistic about mathis as the next guy, but to think that he is going to step in right away and be the #2 that we need to is ridiculous.

Signing an isaac bruce for 1-2 years would be perfect...

I dont recall ANYONE every saying Mathis is going to be the #2 this year. Also, I think we already have a pretty solid recieving core right now. They arent great, but better than alot of teams. Bradford is a decent #2 and Gaffeny is great in the slot. I think Mathis will be the #2 next year to stretch the def for AJ. :thumbup

barzilla
04-28-2005, 08:10 AM
dont recall ANYONE every saying Mathis is going to be the #2 this year. Also, I think we already have a pretty solid recieving core right now. They arent great, but better than alot of teams. Bradford is a decent #2 and Gaffeny is great in the slot. I think Mathis will be the #2 next year to stretch the def for AJ.

Hmmmmmmm :hmmm:

It seems to me most teams have two WRs that can catch 50 balls. We have one that is a decent possession WR but no real threat and a speed guy that disappears for games at a time. If that is a good WR group (outside of AJ) then I'd hate to see a bad one.

Davis37
04-28-2005, 09:42 AM
Hmmmmmmm :hmmm:

It seems to me most teams have two WRs that can catch 50 balls. We have one that is a decent possession WR but no real threat and a speed guy that disappears for games at a time. If that is a good WR group (outside of AJ) then I'd hate to see a bad one.

Seattle... they cant even catch the ball

JfromthaTray
04-28-2005, 10:12 AM
Did somebody say Bradford was a decent #2. If Ike Bruce is available, and the price is right, its no question that we should make a move, not to mention he's the type of character guy that the organization likes (Ordained Minister).

infantrycak
04-28-2005, 10:54 AM
Hmmmmmmm :hmmm:

It seems to me most teams have two WRs that can catch 50 balls. We have one that is a decent possession WR but no real threat and a speed guy that disappears for games at a time. If that is a good WR group (outside of AJ) then I'd hate to see a bad one.

Really, would that be:

New England--nope.
Philly--nope.
Pittsburgh--nope.
Atlanta--nope.
Indy--yup.
Minnesota--nope.
St. Louis--yup.
NYJets--nope.
Green Bay--yup.
Denver--yup.
San Diego--nope.
Seattle--nope.

Hmmm, at least for play-off teams (by definition, the most successful last year) that would be 8 nopes and 4 yups. Maybe you set the bar a tad high.

barzilla
04-28-2005, 11:10 AM
Hmmm, at least for play-off teams (by definition, the most successful last year) that would be 8 nopes and 4 yups. Maybe you set the bar a tad high.

Okay, let's go team by team:

Philly- I'd agree they have one great one and mediocrity for the rests, but they would say that is one of their weaknesses.

New England- They may not have two fifty guys but they have three or four fourty plus guys.

Pittsburgh- A great running attack and Plaxico Burress was hurt most of the season. Still, they have a much better group then we have collectively.

Atlanta- they came close but they don't have an AJ. I would think Atlanta wants to improve their unit.

Minnesota- Moss is better than AJ and their number two was a more consistent deep threat than Bradford.

Jets- definitely more a running offense than ours. They don't have a game breaker like AJ but they have better all-around guys.

San Diego- I consider their tight end almost like a reciever.

Seattle- point taken.

I think my point is still clear. The teams that have situations worse than ours or equal to ours ALL wanted to improve their reciever situations. So should we, so no, I don't think I'm setting the bar too high.

infantrycak
04-28-2005, 11:28 AM
I think my point is still clear. The teams that have situations worse than ours or equal to ours ALL wanted to improve their reciever situations. So should we, so no, I don't think I'm setting the bar too high.

Of course the team should constantly be looking to improve and every team wants more and more production out of their skill positions. That said, the literal statement of most have two guys with over 50 receptions isn't accurate--they want it sure, but they don't have it.

jr0ck
04-28-2005, 12:12 PM
We have one that is a decent possession WR but no real threat and a speed guy that disappears for games at a time.

i really can't get into this mentality. if a WR can run, jump and consistantly catch the football how are they not a 'threat'? i saw jabar score a few times last year :hmmm: . as for bradford disapearing, i'm sure he didn't do it by choice. it takes at least six guys (T to T and QB) to get one wide reciever the football, so the odds of bradfords production drop being all on him are pretty slim. and for the most part, better teams produce player's with better numbers. if we can get the offense clicking to the level we expect it to next season and bradford drops a few balls that should have been caught, i'll discuss this in a different light; but for now bradford is a solid #2 as much as gaffney is fully capable of being a 'threat'.

barzilla
04-28-2005, 12:33 PM
That said, the literal statement of most have two guys with over 50 receptions isn't accurate--they want it sure, but they don't have it.

Okay, lets take a look at just the AFC since they are our main competition

Bengals- Johnson 95, Housh. 73
Bills- Moulds 88, Evans 48
Broncos- Smith 79, Lelie 54
Browns- Northcutt 55, Bryant 42
Chargers- Gates 81, Parker 47
Chiefs- Gonzalez 102, Kennison 62, Morton 55
Colts- Harrison 86, Wayne 77, Stokley 68
Dolphins- McMichael 73, Chambers 69, Booker 50
Jags- Smith 74, Edwards 50
Jets- McCareins 56, Moss 45
Patriots- Givens 56, Patten 44
Raiders- Porter 64, Curry 50
Ravens- Johnson 35, Taylor 34
Steelers- Ward 80, Randel El 43
Texans- Johnson 79, Gaffney 41
Titans- Mason 96, Bennent 80

Okay, by my count eight out sixteen teams had two recievers with 50 or more receptions, but three other teams came with five catches of doing that. Only one team had a second reciever with fewer catches than the Texans. Honestly, I think we can say the Ravens, Browns, Jets, and maybe the Pats had worse wide reciever situatuations than us. I'll do the NFC soon.

As for how a wide reciever can disappear? Well, he simply doesn't get open enough to get the ball. Bradford has always tantilized us with his skills, but he has never produced consistently. Honestly, I thought he would be one of the expansion/first free agent guys to get jettisoned. Oh well.........

El Tejano
04-28-2005, 12:35 PM
If we brought in Buchannon and gave Glenn his papers, We could bring in Bruce and give Bradford his papers.

ATX
04-28-2005, 01:00 PM
look at detroit. they've picked 3 of the most talented Wr's in the draft the past 3 years. you know what though, they're still gonna suck and may have some cap problems in the coming years. you can't always have the best at every position. did everybody give up on gaff or what? the guy came out early and this will be his 4th year and he should improve like every year he's been here. plus armstrong hasn't really been given a chance to shine either. another thing, i'd throw out there is there's alot more competition at the WR spot, so this should improve play by everybody.

WildBlackBear32
04-28-2005, 01:39 PM
look at detroit. they've picked 3 of the most talented Wr's in the draft the past 3 years. you know what though, they're still gonna suck and may have some cap problems in the coming years.

They will make the playoffs this year. Orlovsky = Marino.

ATX
04-28-2005, 01:46 PM
They will make the playoffs this year. Orlovsky = Marino

are you kidding? the texans have a better chance to make the playoffs.

TheOgre
04-28-2005, 03:15 PM
I think IF Charles Rogers stays healthy, he will get traded after this season.

El Tejano
04-28-2005, 03:42 PM
One thing I don't think we thought of concerning Isaac Bruce is how he plays on grass or whatever we have compared to astroturf.

DoCt3rJ
04-28-2005, 03:50 PM
Why do you people think were fine cause we got Jerome Mathis? Nobody would of heard of this guy if he haden't ran that 40. He drops alot of balls, another Bradford, with more speed, less height. The guy is a project, we need another WR.

LBblitz
04-28-2005, 03:50 PM
One thing I don't think we thought of concerning Isaac Bruce is how he plays on grass or whatever we have compared to astroturf.
I am not for the idea of getting bruce however, the question would be him playing in all weather conditions, not neccessarily grass/turf. Since our schedule this year has one game threatening to be a "cold" game I guess he wouldnt have a problem. IMO our current trend is getting youth and speed and that we already have a pretty solid WR group I doubt we would get him. (someone said peter warrick earlier in this thread... :hmmm: )

Mr Shush
04-28-2005, 04:04 PM
I think Mathis was basically brought in as a KR and gunner, and to back up Buchanon as PR. If he ever starts at wide receiver I'd frankly just see that as a bonus.

Vinny
04-28-2005, 04:15 PM
I think Mathis was basically brought in as a KR and gunner, and to back up Buchanon as PR. If he ever starts at wide receiver I'd frankly just see that as a bonus.
The team took him because they think he can develop into a legit WR. I think he can analogize to Chris "tippy-toes" Sanders, the Ohio State speedster-project WR that the Oilers took in the 3rd round a few years before they split town. Sanders just didnít have the elusiveness or return skills of Mathis. He was more of just a straight line runner. Hopefully Mathis develops like Sanders never really did. As for Bruce? I don't think we would pursue him.

barzilla
04-28-2005, 08:16 PM
I looked at the NFC and saw that half of the teams had two WRs with 50 catches or more. 75% of the teams had number two recievers with more catches than Jabbar Gaffney. However, I have never said that Gaffney was the problem. Gaffney is a fine slot reciever on obvious passing situations. The problem is Corey Bradford. He just isn't enough for a number two reciever. Most of the teams that had #2 guys with 40+ catches had guys similar to Bradford in skills, but they produced nearly twice as many catches as him.

For me, the prototype I was thinking of was Lee Evans of Buffalo. He had only 47 catches last year in support of Eric Moulds, but he had over 800 yards receiving with 9 touchdowns. So, no, I'm not thinking of going the way of Detroit with their three WRs taken in the top ten. I just want one functional down the field threat.

If something happened where Bradford was suddenly unproductive last season then I might chalk it up to something in the OL or with DC, but he hasn't produced like those 40+ catch guys in ANY season of his career. Why should we believe he will start now? I don't pretend to know the answer (in terms of what is out there on the free agent market). I think Warrick would be intriguing, but I can see a case for Bruce on a one or two year basis. All I know is that the defensive shuffles don't disappoint me as the neglect towards the offense this off-season. I'll put my faith in CC that he will do something as of June 1st. Yes, the defense was sub-par last year and I'm glad they're doing something about it, but we're not talking about the Colts on offense here. Carr for all of his yardage still did not throw a lot of touchdown passes and Davis (even though he had 1000 yards) was not as productive as a sophomore as he was as a rookie. I was hoping something would get done.

El Tejano
04-29-2005, 02:15 PM
Mathis has been compared to be a Lee Evans type receiver.

Oh and Vinny, if Mathis could have the production that Sanders had in his rookie and sophmore season that would be awesome. I think if he is like that though he will be around alot longer than Sanders because he seems to have more of a open field game than Sanders.

Vinny
04-29-2005, 03:53 PM
Sanders and Mathis have different styles but have the same kind of project timetable to me. Mathis seems explosive like the Saints Michael Lewis when you watch those Yahoo profile shorts. Lewis is much smaller though.