Scouting Report on Reche

[pats1]

Grade: 68

Expert's Take
More quick than fast - best against zone - doesn't like a lot of contact - poor blocker - frequently injured.

EDIT: I've taken F.B.N.'s advice and just given a basic summary instead of posting all of it.

 

[skri65]

I dont get it, they say that Cladwell doesn't have the size to get many of the jump balls yet they say the Givens has "good size." They're the same size and weight...explanation please?

 

[pats1]

I dont get it, they say that Cladwell doesn't have the size to get many of the jump balls yet they say the Givens has "good size." They're the same size and weight...explanation please?

And interestingly enough, they have McGinest rated a 69.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I guess Felger at least read this or it's pretty much the league wide skinny on Reche.

Their take on Givens is just about they way I perceived him. He was a fine #2 for a team with a solid #1 and a credible #3 who also had a QB like Brady spreading it around and mixing in a viable running game. As a potential #1 or an elite #2 with #1 potential in waiting, no. But somebody wanted to pay him as if he was so.....

Ditto Willie.

When they reveiwed the season this is what they saw. Two players they would like to have kept but in no way could justify overpaying by $2M per year.

Want to share Vinatieri and possibly Branch and Seymour and Koppen FWIW?

 

[Miguel]

I am not sure that it is OK to post subscriber material on this board. Ian is the one who get into trouble.

 

[pats1]

I am not sure that it is OK to post subscriber material on this board. Ian is the one who get into trouble.

No problem. I shall cease and desist!

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm not sure when they wrote up those assessments - but apparently they have Caldwell rated higher than Givens (?!)

Sorry but that bucket don't hold water - I think that even BB & SP would admit that Caldwell isn't expected to be the #2 WR. He's good for depth and might have some "upside" given his age and experience, but Givens is a MUCH better receiver than Caldwell.

 

[pats1]

I'm not sure when they wrote up those assessments - but apparently they have Caldwell rated higher than Givens (?!)

Sorry but that bucket don't hold water - I think that even BB & SP would admit that Caldwell isn't expected to be the #2 WR. He's good for depth and might have some "upside" given his age and experience, but Givens is a MUCH better receiver than Caldwell.

No, Caldwell is a 68, Givens is a 74.

 

[oldrover]

Givens' two biggest problems IMHO were his injury-proneness and his tendency to fade in and out of the game. This guy seems like a carbon-copy.

 

[hwc]

No, Caldwell is a 68, Givens is a 74.

Wow. That's only an extra half million bucks of cap room for each additional rating point for Givens! Such a deal.

Or, maybe it would be smarter to have Keyshawn Johnson and Reche Caldwell for the cost of Givens' new contract? I guess that wouldn't suck too bad.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I am not sure that it is OK to post subscriber material on this board. Ian is the one who get into trouble.

I read those and then rework it to a few sentences...like Miguel says...that's not free material. I even get a bit nervous doing it like I do.

 

[PatsSteve1]

I dont get it, they say that Cladwell doesn't have the size to get many of the jump balls yet they say the Givens has "good size." They're the same size and weight...explanation please?

* Givens uses that size ti his advantage and Calwell doesn't, even though it's about the same size.

 

[Pats726]

No, Caldwell is a 68, Givens is a 74.

That is interesting...I wonder why???

 

[pats1]

That is interesting...I wonder why???

How so? Givens is the better player. Givens has the better rating.

 

[RayClay]

That is interesting...I wonder why???

But low, sell high.

I wouldn't want some of the panicky posters handling my portfolio.