bartshan-83 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I usually subscribe to the old addage that CB's are really WR's who cant catch. 811028[/snapback] Or run disciplined routes. Bingo. Being 5'9 and fast is not the main reason why Steve Smith is a great WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 What's the point of all this? Regardless of how good McGee may or may not be, WR is arguable our deepest position. What do we possibly get out of having another one? Now if McGee can play LT that would be something worthwhile to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Let's look at the bigger picture. Are we unhappy with the play of our current WRs? I'm not. I think they are bright spots on this team and for the most part they have risen to the challenge. I would like them to get more touches, but for the most part that isn't their fault. So basically, we would be taking one of our good receivers off of the field to replace him with a guy who is new to the position and by doing so, ruining his ability to play CB (where we actually need a lot of help). And since the best part of his game is returning kicks, I'm assuming we wouldn't want to take away that dimension of his game. Practically the only time this poor bastard would be off the field is during halftime! But once the possibility of playoffs is out of our reach, then sure...let's knock ourselves out and put him in there a few times for shizits and grins. It might be the only thing worth watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Good thought, bad idea. McGee has a lot of potential as a CB and has all the tools to be a great one. He just has to overcome the funk he's in right now, most of which I feel is mental. If anything, I think he should focus MORE on defense than he is now. Their is only a 1 year age difference (Smith is older). What if we gave McGee a shot at receiver ... just a thought. What do you think? 810800[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 CBs are more valuable than WRs in the NFL, they are rarer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 This could be a big week for McGee -- as you know Brady will be trying to pick on him as often as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Just a quick thought, how many dropped would be INT verses INTs does McGee Have? If I recall most CB lack the ability to catch the ball on a consistant basis, thats why they play def. 811042[/snapback] I recall our rookies dropping a bunch at Chicago. Im not sure about McGee ... maybe? Bingo. Being 5'9 and fast is not the main reason why Steve Smith is a great WR. 811140[/snapback] of course not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bflojohn Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I've said previously that getting the ball in the hands of McGee occassionally would be a dynamic that teams would be forced to deal with... maybe another comparison is Tim Anderson, he could be converted to O-line ala Fred Wakefield in Arizona. The truth is that talent evaluators are (or should) always searching for ways to get the optimum out of the players on the roster. It is a very feasable argument, IMO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Your acting somewhat ridiculous dont you think? What was "silly" about my rebuttals. I brought in relevant facts. 811030[/snapback] No.....not at all. Your premise.....even though you know it is....& I quote...."......it was just a thought to waste time." Steve Smith is of similar to McGee in size and age & both have good Return games. Smith the WR started to concentrate on his WR role more.....& became an awesome WR. Should we give McGee a shot at WR based on this?(even though he is a CB whereas Smith was a WR)......with obvious implications that he might(within reason) be able to achieve Smith levels otherwise why ask the question in the first place. If not that & you were simply saying "Golly, do you think McGee could become an OK WR if we tried him out?" It is a totally pointless question since why swap a great KR & potentially top CB for an OK WR? Now come on....anyone with half a brain can grab pieces of information to formulate a rebuttal to anything. Since you know this is a throw-out-there/throw-away idea, to rebut the obvious is argumentative & disingenuous. I don't have a problem with you doing that(that can be fun & is probably why I'm still typing), but you seem to have taken on board the initial premise....you no longer play devil's advocate for a silly concept, you are actually arguing the case with fervor & taking offense when the stupidity of the premise is pointed out. Examples:- "What is the difference between a great kickoff returner who plays offense and a great kickoff returner that plays defense." Nothing in their KR abilities....but that was not what you were asking. Do you really not know the difference? "McGee is a CB, meaning he has the speed to stay with WR's and their routes, so he must have the speed to atleast be an average WR." OK....then all one needs to be an average WR in the league is speed. "BTW: Do you remember Troy Brown? Do you remember him? In 2004 he had 17 tackles and 3 INT's and 2 fumble recoveries as a CB on defense and 17 receptions and a TD on offense ... but he plays OFFENSE , not DEFENSE ... right?" Again with the..."This guy did it so why not ours?" argument. It doesn't even correlate (WR-CB, not CB-WR). In the entire thread, these 3 points are the only rebuttals you have made. Silly arguments? I just don't understand why you would throw out an idea that you have said multiple times is a waste of time(with your initial post being neutral to the idea) & then argue against the obvious with it....& take offence when people point out what it is you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Jeez...this is like one of those "I am bored out of my skull, and I can't wait until football season starts" threads we usually start to see in May and June....... 810812[/snapback] That is pretty funny---cuz this season seems like a waste already--like its over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Maybe we should try him on the oline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 No.....not at all. Your premise.....even though you know it is....& I quote...."......it was just a thought to waste time." Steve Smith is of similar to McGee in size and age & both have good Return games. Smith the WR started to concentrate on his WR role more.....& became an awesome WR. Should we give McGee a shot at WR based on this?(even though he is a CB whereas Smith was a WR)......with obvious implications that he might(within reason) be able to achieve Smith levels otherwise why ask the question in the first place. If not that & you were simply saying "Golly, do you think McGee could become an OK WR if we tried him out?" It is a totally pointless question since why swap a great KR & potentially top CB for an OK WR? Now come on....anyone with half a brain can grab pieces of information to formulate a rebuttal to anything. Since you know this is a throw-out-there/throw-away idea, to rebut the obvious is argumentative & disingenuous. I don't have a problem with you doing that(that can be fun & is probably why I'm still typing), but you seem to have taken on board the initial premise....you no longer play devil's advocate for a silly concept, you are actually arguing the case with fervor & taking offense when the stupidity of the premise is pointed out. Examples:- "What is the difference between a great kickoff returner who plays offense and a great kickoff returner that plays defense." Nothing in their KR abilities....but that was not what you were asking. Do you really not know the difference? "McGee is a CB, meaning he has the speed to stay with WR's and their routes, so he must have the speed to atleast be an average WR." OK....then all one needs to be an average WR in the league is speed. "BTW: Do you remember Troy Brown? Do you remember him? In 2004 he had 17 tackles and 3 INT's and 2 fumble recoveries as a CB on defense and 17 receptions and a TD on offense ... but he plays OFFENSE , not DEFENSE ... right?" Again with the..."This guy did it so why not ours?" argument. It doesn't even correlate (WR-CB, not CB-WR). In the entire thread, these 3 points are the only rebuttals you have made. Silly arguments? I just don't understand why you would throw out an idea that you have said multiple times is a waste of time(with your initial post being neutral to the idea) & then argue against the obvious with it....& take offence when people point out what it is you are doing. 811581[/snapback] DIBS meet Message Board. Message board meet DIBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts