Best Wide Receiver In the League - Page 2

number20 · #41 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009, 01:59 PM

I think 0-16 probably pushes CJ down a couple of pegs on lists around the league as well. It's rare losers are rewarded with any sort of top ranking in any sport.

The real question is: what am I doing indoors on such a nice day?

cruzer1 · #42 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by number20

I think 0-16 probably pushes CJ down a couple of pegs on lists around the league as well. It's rare losers are rewarded with any sort of top ranking in any sport.

The real question is: what am I doing indoors on such a nice day?

He led the league in TD's, yet had bad play from the QB position. He didn't play defense, and doesn't have much to do with the reason they were 0-16. He was by far their best player, and kept them in some games they otherwise had no business (Houston, both Minnesota's, GB at home, etc...) being in.

Buddha · #43 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarGod19

Best WR In NFL 2009 | SportsRoids Inject Yourself

2009: The Best WR's in the NFL - Associated Content
Had Chad Ochocinco at 5, but I'd take CJ over him anyday

NFL - CBSSports.com Football
Prisco has him at 9, behind Welker which is laughable...but a user ranked CJ at 3

IGN: Top 10 NFL Wide Receivers
Has him at 7, but has Boldin and Roddy White in front of him...funny

Just some sites off google that I found...not defending my opinion or putting anyone else's down...just bored mostly

Ok, the only site that has him listed in the top 5 is a fantasy site talking about his fantasy value.

Buddha · #44 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruzer1

He led the league in TD's, yet had bad play from the QB position. He didn't play defense, and doesn't have much to do with the reason they were 0-16. He was by far their best player, and kept them in some games they otherwise had no business (Houston, both Minnesota's, GB at home, etc...) being in.

The GB game for sure, but the Houston game? He caught two passes, bu one happened to be for 90 yards on a busted coverage. He didn't keep them in that game. Minnesota? Same thing. He caught 4 balls in the first game and 3 in the second. That's not keeping them in the game. Keeping them in the game would be if he was uncoverable and kept moving the chains, not occasionally hitting on a big play.

number20 · #45 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruzer1

He led the league in TD's, yet had bad play from the QB position. He didn't play defense, and doesn't have much to do with the reason they were 0-16. He was by far their best player, and kept them in some games they otherwise had no business (Houston, both Minnesota's, GB at home, etc...) being in.

That's actually not the point I'm making (I pretty much agree with your stats). Regardless of whether or not it's a valid position to take, I'm just saying the tendency for losing records to influence these kinds of decisions does in fact exist. You can't argue that. I would submit that many are entering 0-16 into it as a condition along with other variables. (You'd have to admit it's pretty impossible to wave off such a historic record as a non-factor.)

I suppose it starts with which stance people want to take - 'team', or 'individual'. Barry Sanders was probably another victim of the above reasoning. Yes it's a team sport - yet I personally don't swallow specious 'team' arguments concerning individual performances. "No rings", "didn't make people around him better", etc. Almost by definition, demolishing those arguments with individual stats never seems to sway the opinion of anyone stubbornly arguing from the 'team' side.

I really should be outside...

GuitarGod19 · #46 (**permalink**) 07-11-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddha

Ok, the only site that has him listed in the top 5 is a fantasy site talking about his fantasy value.

Two of the sites had him in the top 5, the one with Prisco had a user rank him at 3. And the other article talked about how good he was and how he's a top teir talent and wouldn't be suprised to see him put up 1400yds and 15TDs, the last line says he's going to put up great fantasy numbers, safe to say that equals that someone thinks he is THAT good to think he could do that.

Like I said, not defending my point, but some people that rank WRs are just ludacris on who they put in front of him...Chad Ochocinco? Please...Wes Welker? HAHA...it all has to do with exposure with most writers and the Lions simply have none. I'm more interested in what true fans think than the writers.

djhutch · #47 (**permalink**) 07-12-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddha

The GB game for sure, but the Houston game? He caught two passes, bu one happened to be for 90 yards on a busted coverage. He didn't keep them in that game. Minnesota? Same thing. He caught 4 balls in the first game and 3 in the second. That's not keeping them in the game. Keeping them in the game would be if he was uncoverable and kept moving the chains, not occasionally hitting on a big play.

I'm not trying to start a fight but this same kind of argument used to be used about Barry Sanders, because he'd be stopped 10 times for no gain & then bust one 90 yards. There's something to be said for the threat of the big play at any time. I will say I don't think the Lions utilized CJ as well as they could/should have last year, so I can see his evaluation in terms of the Elite WRs would suffer. I do think he's got the most potential, though.

Buddha · #48 (**permalink**) 07-12-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djhutch

I'm not trying to start a fight but this same kind of argument used to be used about Barry Sanders, because he'd be stopped 10 times for no gain & then bust one 90 yards. There's something to be said for the threat of the big play at any time. I will say I don't think the Lions utilized CJ as well as they could/should have last year, so I can see his evaluation in terms of the Elite WRs would suffer. I do think he's got the most potential, though.

But Barry touched the ball 20 times a game, CJ touched it twice.

If Barry had a game where he gained 0 yards on 1 carry and then 90 yards on another carry, and that's all he did for the game, even if the other team gameplanned to stop Barry I wouldn't say he kept them in that game.

cruzer1 · #49 (**permalink**) 07-12-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddha

But Barry touched the ball 20 times a game, CJ touched it twice.

If Barry had a game where he gained 0 yards on 1 carry and then 90 yards on another carry, and that's all he did for the game, even if the other team gameplanned to stop Barry I wouldn't say he kept them in that game.

CJ affects defenses as much as Barry did. Teams gameplan around CJ as much as they planned for Barry.

Buddha · #50 (**permalink**) 07-12-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruzer1

CJ affects defenses as much as Barry did. Teams gameplan around CJ as much as they planned for Barry.

And if that gameplan resulted in Barry touching the ball twice, I wouldn't say that he kept them in the game. It tells me that the other team was able to effectively contain him for all but two plays. That's not keeping your team in the game, that's the definition of not being able to single handedly effect the outcome of the game in your team's favor.

FloridaTigers · #51 (**permalink**) 07-12-2009, 11:36 PM

Ted Ginn, Jr.

djhutch · #52 (**permalink**) 07-13-2009, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddha

But Barry touched the ball 20 times a game, CJ touched it twice.

If Barry had a game where he gained 0 yards on 1 carry and then 90 yards on another carry, and that's all he did for the game, even if the other team gameplanned to stop Barry I wouldn't say he kept them in that game.

Touche.