Salisbury: "Colts have better recievers"

[frankiesfly]

Sean Salisbury was asked who he thought had the better recievers. The Patriots or the Colts. He gave the egde to the Colts. I don't agree with that. Moss is better than Harrison or Wayne. Wayne I think is better than Stallworth, but not by much. Stallworth is awesome with the run after catch, and can break tackles very well. Something Stallworth is better at than Wayne. Although I think Wayne is the better route runner. Welker in the slot might be the best in the NFL, and between Clark or Watson, I give the edge to Watson. Harrison isn't even healthy and probably won't even play Sunday, so I don't know how Salisbury comes up with the Colts having better recievers. Any thoughts, opinions?

 

[Tyler.Durden]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

just biased bs

 

[Wildo7]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I'll give Salisbury some slack because for the most part, he's been a pretty good supporter of the Pats. I personally think our receivers are better but I can see where the argument can be made that overall, with a healthy Harrison, the combo of Harrison and Wayne could be considered more balanced and threatening overall than Moss and Stallworth (Moss being the best but perhaps Wayne and Harrison both better than Stallworth). Welker throws a wrench into this because he is easily the best #3 WR in the league.

I think most Pats fans look at Watson and see his potential and vast improvements this year and think of a physically gifted TE who will hopefully be great. But Dallas Clark is arguably the 3rd best TE in the league behind Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez and has a larger body of work than Watson. I'd also say Brady>Utecht because of blocking but who knows. All in all I think that Welker gives the edge to the Pats (if not Moss outright) but I can see where Salisbury is coming from. He really likes the Pats so he could also be trying to appear "balanced" like a lot of pundits do.

 

[frankiesfly]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I'll give Salisbury some slack because for the most part, he's been a pretty good supporter of the Pats. I personally think our receivers are better but I can see where the argument can be made that overall, with a healthy Harrison, the combo of Harrison and Wayne could be considered more balanced and threatening overall than Moss and Stallworth (Moss being the best but perhaps Wayne and Harrison both better than Stallworth). Welker throws a wrench into this because he is easily the best #3 WR in the league.

I think most Pats fans look at Watson and see his potential and vast improvements this year and think of a physically gifted TE who will hopefully be great. But Dallas Clark is arguably the 3rd best TE in the league behind Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez and has a larger body of work than Watson. I'd also say Brady>Utecht because of blocking but who knows. All in all I think that Welker gives the edge to the Pats (if not Moss outright) but I can see where Salisbury is coming from. He really likes the Pats so he could also be trying to appear "balanced" like a lot of pundits do.

I agree. I can se why he does give the Colts the edge. That's why I was asking what you guys think. I always here Salisbury speaking highly of the Pats so it kind of shocked me a little that he said the Colts. I'm not taking anything away from Clark I do think that he is a great TE, but Watson has showed signs of greatness this year, and has been more productive. That's why i gave Watson the edge. Thanks for the response.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

Sean Salisbury was asked who he thought had the better recievers. The Patriots or the Colts. He gave the egde to the Colts. I don't agree with that. Moss is better than Harrison or Wayne. Wayne I think is better than Stallworth, but not by much. Stallworth is awesome with the run after catch, and can break tackles very well. Something Stallworth is better at than Wayne. Although I think Wayne is the better route runner. Welker in the slot might be the best in the NFL, and between Clark or Watson, I give the edge to Watson. Harrison isn't even healthy and probably won't even play Sunday, so I don't know how Salisbury comes up with the Colts having better recievers. Any thoughts, opinions?

I'm just waiting for people to give the edge to the Colts at WR and QB (probably WR, RB and QB). Which will make so much sense because ya know Brady with WR's that aren't as good as the Colts WR's has far better "stats", so clearly Manning is better too.


I think the WR's are very closely matched anyway. I'd say more talent on NE, but the Colts receivers (wayne/harrison) have been with manning for so long and have such a great rapport with him.

 

[kolbitr]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

The greatest advantage the Colts have is experience. Manning and those guys have been together for years, and there is no way to match the level of comfort that longevity brings.

 

[solman]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

Sean Salisbury was asked who he thought had the better recievers. The Patriots or the Colts. He gave the egde to the Colts. I don't agree with that. Moss is better than Harrison or Wayne. Wayne I think is better than Stallworth, but not by much. Stallworth is awesome with the run after catch, and can break tackles very well. Something Stallworth is better at than Wayne. Although I think Wayne is the better route runner. Welker in the slot might be the best in the NFL, and between Clark or Watson, I give the edge to Watson. Harrison isn't even healthy and probably won't even play Sunday, so I don't know how Salisbury comes up with the Colts having better recievers. Any thoughts, opinions?

Nobody in their right mind would have picked the Patriots as having the best receivers before this season started.

I think that with a healthy Harrison, the Colts would still deserve the edge.

Keep in mind that the Patriots receivers have Tom Brady throwing to them while the Colts receivers have Manning. Brady makes his receivers look better than they really are. Anyone remember Reche Caldwell?

 

[patsox23]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

Salisbury also picked the Pats to win, 34-30. Just fyi.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

The Pats have better recievers.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

The Pats have better recievers.

Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your *******. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

 

[PATRIOT64]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your *******. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your *******. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

This is now a Genesis thread.

Peter Gabriel > Phil Collins.

 

[The Predator]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I was just wondering why in the recent ESPN poll that I posted 75% of those people surveyed think the Pats have better WRs???

HMMM sounds like the public knows reality and the media created news once again. This is just lame.

For the record, Salisbury is not a quality sports analyst. His behavior is ludicrous, and many opinions ridiculous. That is easily documented.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I agree. I can se why he does give the Colts the edge.

I don't think so. I don't want to think about Moss being a Colt, or Welker. How can anyone think Harrison-Wayne-Gonzalez is better than Moss-Stallworth-Welker? Would you like to swap WRs with them for the rest of the season? Not me!

 

[The Predator]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I don't think so. I don't want to think about Moss being a Colt, or Welker. How can anyone think Harrison-Wayne-Gonzalez is better than Moss-Stallworth-Welker? Would you like to swap WRs with them for the rest of the season? Not me!

You can't talk about the Colts WRs without Dallas Clark. Sure, he is a TE, but for all intense purposes he is a slot receiver. Watson just doesn't measure up to Clark. All in all, 4on4, the Pats have a better WR corps.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

You can't talk about the Colts WRs without Dallas Clark. Sure, he is a TE, but for all intense purposes he is a slot receiver. Watson just doesn't measure up to Clark. All in all, 4on4, the Pats have a better WR corps.

How does Watson not measure up to Clark? Last year's numbers:

Dallas Clark 12 games 30 catches 367 yards 12.2 avg. 4 tds
Ben Watson 13 games 49 catches 643 yards 13.1 avg. 3 tds


This year's numbers:

Dallas Clark 7 games 32 catches 388 yards 12.1 avg. 6 tds
Ben Watson 6 games 18 catches 222 yards 12.3 avg. 5 tds


Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any convincing edge to Clark here.

 

[Aqua4Ever04]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I don't think so. I don't want to think about Moss being a Colt, or Welker. How can anyone think Harrison-Wayne-Gonzalez is better than Moss-Stallworth-Welker? Would you like to swap WRs with them for the rest of the season? Not me!

I think rather than using Gonzalez in comparison to Welker, you should use Dallas Clark. Clark is basically a WR and is a mismatch almost every where he lines up. I think where the big advantage for the Colts is is Wayne v. Stallworth. IMO, Wayne is light years better than Stallworth.

 

[Omega Supreme]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

I think ESPN.com needs to run a poll on something more important and hotly debated than Pats-Colts....who was the better lead singer, Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins.

 

[indycolts685]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

Sean Salisbury was asked who he thought had the better recievers. The Patriots or the Colts. He gave the egde to the Colts. I don't agree with that. Moss is better than Harrison or Wayne. Wayne I think is better than Stallworth, but not by much. Stallworth is awesome with the run after catch, and can break tackles very well. Something Stallworth is better at than Wayne. Although I think Wayne is the better route runner. Welker in the slot might be the best in the NFL, and between Clark or Watson, I give the edge to Watson. Harrison isn't even healthy and probably won't even play Sunday, so I don't know how Salisbury comes up with the Colts having better recievers. Any thoughts, opinions?

I think its safe to say they are all good, but based on this season the edge would have to go to the Pats...

 

[indycolts685]

Re: Salisbury " Colts have better recievers"

How does Watson not measure up to Clark? Last year's numbers:

Dallas Clark 12 games 30 catches 367 yards 12.2 avg. 4 tds
Ben Watson 13 games 49 catches 643 yards 13.1 avg. 3 tds


This year's numbers:

Dallas Clark 7 games 32 catches 388 yards 12.1 avg. 6 tds
Ben Watson 6 games 18 catches 222 yards 12.3 avg. 5 tds


Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any convincing edge to Clark here.

almost even considering Watson has one less game then Clark..