- Joined:
- Aug 16, 2011
- Posts:
- 22,157
- Liked Posts:
- 13,394
- Location:
- Favorite Corner Bar
My favorite teams
A 1000 yard #3 WR doesn't happen often in the NFL
Why are we bringing Packers players on the Bears board?AR's production last year had nothing to do with the actual player AR.
AR is an actual #1 WR in this league but all many can see of him is what Matt Nagy made him into last season.AR's production last year had nothing to do with the actual player AR.
But of course you need to factor in that he didn't play as our #3 WR last year, he played mostly as our #1. If he would of been playing as our #3 behind ARob and add any other #2 WR in there with him then he wouldn't of had 1000 yds.A 1000 yard #3 WR doesn't happen often in the NFL
For Mooney to be a #3 WR, that would imply that there are 64 other WR's that are better than him. I am confident most would have trouble naming 32 better than Mooney much less 64. There is a legitimate argument to say he is a #2 WR, but saying he is a #3 WR is pretty fucking dumb.I have. Mooneys career stats are worse than all 4 WRs I mentioned (Aka two good teams).
Let me know exactly where I’m wrong?
Thanks
And there are teams in the league that didn't even get 1000 yards from their #1 WR.But of course you need to factor in that he didn't play as our #3 WR last year, he played mostly as our #1. If he would of been playing as our #3 behind ARob and add any other #2 WR in there with him then he wouldn't of had 1000 yds.
The quote in the article is “Mooney would be a #3 on a good team”. The posts following say that’s bullshit. I then named two teams with 2 better receivers than Mooney, where he would be a #3.So, his stats are not as good as #1 WR so he's a #3. Got it.
TYSM!
See my post above.For Mooney to be a #3 WR, that would imply that there are 64 other WR's that are better than him. I am confident most would have trouble naming 32 better than Mooney much less 64. There is a legitimate argument to say he is a #2 WR, but saying he is a #3 WR is pretty fucking dumb.
I disagree that his production would take such a hit in this hypothetical scenario. On a good team he would be better leveraged wouldn't you agree?The quote in the article is “Mooney would be a #3 on a good team”. The posts following say that’s bullshit. I then named two teams with 2 better receivers than Mooney, where he would be a #3.
Where is the disconnect?
The quote in the article is “Mooney would be a #3 on a good team”. The posts following say that’s bullshit. I then named two teams with 2 better receivers than Mooney, where he would be a #3.
Where is the disconnect?
The quote in the article is “Mooney would be a #3 on a good team”. The posts following say that’s bullshit. I then named two teams with 2 better receivers than Mooney, where he would be a #3.
Where is the disconnect?
Lets look at all the "good teams"See my post above.
Again, where is the disconnect?
My argument is, and I quote, “So this article isn’t as far fetched as you are all making it seem.”Lets look at all the "good teams"
Denver--better than both of their starters
Las Vegas--a clear #2 on this team
KC--a clear #1 on this team
LAC--could be a #2 or the #3 here
NE--a clear #1 on this team
MIA--a clear #3 on this team
BUFF-- a clear #2 on this team
Pitt-- a clear #2 on this team
Balt--a clear #1
Cincy-- a clear #3
Cleveland--a clear #2 or even a #1 as Cooper hasnt been a great #1 in sometime
Tennessee- a clear #1
Dallas--a #2 WR
Philly--could be the #2 or 3 depending on how you look at it
GB--a #1 WR
LAR--a #3 WR
TB--currently a #2 since Goodwin is injured
Sorry but your argument simply doesnt hold up
See above. Never did I say that. You’re the type of trash on here that prefers to make smart ass comments instead of taking an extra second to read what someone is actually saying.You are correct, there are only 2 good teams in the NFL
Ok you named 2 teams, that is where the disconnect...unless you are saying there is only 2 good teams in the league. what is the criteria for what is considered a good team? A winning record? a playoff team? so lets set the parameters, you tell me what the baseline for a good team is?The quote in the article is “Mooney would be a #3 on a good team”. The posts following say that’s bullshit. I then named two teams with 2 better receivers than Mooney, where he would be a #3.
Where is the disconnect?
So you're saying that he'd be a #3WR on a bad team?See above. Never did I say that. You’re the type of trash on here that prefers to make smart ass comments instead of taking an extra second to read what someone is actually saying.
My argument is, and I quote, “So this article isn’t as far fetched as you are all making it seem.”
If you are incapable of reading English words, this means, it’s not 100% incorrect, since at least two teams would have Mooney as a #3. It wouldn’t be 0 teams.
There’s the disconnect. You cannot understand English sentences. I can’t help you there, sorry.
D'uh, its only the 2 teams the he listed therefore his argument is valid. You didnt catch taht?Ok you named 2 teams, that is where the disconnect...unless you are saying there is only 2 good teams in the league. what is the criteria for what is considered a good team? A winning record? a playoff team? so lets set the parameters, you tell me what the baseline for a good team is?