Michael Lewis @ reciever.

WhoDat · 06-26-2003, 12:27 PM

I also disagree... this team has more than enough speed on the field on offense... what we need is a big keyshawn johnson type guy to go and sit in the middle of the field to open it up more for guys like horn and stallworth... and yes, Lewis in 4 WR sets.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-26-2003, 12:59 PM

From what I\'m hearing, no one wants Lewis to play #3 receiver because he is too valuiable in the return game.

I don\'t want Lewis injuried either, but anyone rememeber a receiver with the vikings that was about the same size as Lewis, by the name of Andre Carter?

Lewis may not be another Andre Carter.But how will we know unless Lewis is given the opportunity?

I have no problem with Lewis as the #4 recevier, but if he does have the ablity to be a 1000 yard receiver, then it would be pretty foolish for him to not be given the opportunity.

Another thing is that come contract time for Lewis, if he wants to play receiver more and he is not given the chance to, I promise you another team will.

[Edited on 26/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

saint5221 · 06-26-2003, 01:02 PM

I llike Lewis but Jerome is the man for #3 reciver. He is a tough reciver perfect for the 3 slot. Last year after the disappearance of our tight ends he was forced to go over the middle a lot more than usual and ran some routes a tight end usually would. He got killed but made alot of big catches. He said he had never been hit so hard or so much in his career. This year he should be able to play more in a natural reciver role and be very valuable in the #2 spot if Stallworth has further injury problems.He should be very productive for us in either place. Lewis still has a place and hopefully will grow into a more complete player, but as of now Pathon should still be #3.

[Edited on 6/26/2003 by saint5221]

lumm0x · 06-26-2003, 04:59 PM

I don\'t want Lewis injuried either, but anyone rememeber a receiver with the vikings that was about the same size as Lewis, by the name of Andre Carter?

No, I don\'t remember any Andre Carter. Do you mean Anthony Carter? He was 5\'11\" and about 180lbs. Lewis is a bit smaller at 5\'8\", 165 lbs, but if that\'s the guy you mean, then yeah he was a very productive reciever over his career and not a large WR by any means.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-26-2003, 05:05 PM

Thanks LummOx,

Yeah that\'s who I meant. I should have never forgotten that name, as many times as he tourched the Saints.

lumm0x · 06-26-2003, 05:13 PM

The game is all about winning. That\'s it. Nothing else matters. If playing Lewis at #3 WR wins us games then play him. If playing Pathon or someone else at #3 wins us games then play him. I would give Lewis a share of reps running the plays. If the coaching staff worries about a guy getting hurt on a passing play then that player definitely should not play special teams. I\'d hazard to guess that you\'ll see a guy lying on the field with pain after a special teams play more often than any passing down. Sure durability must be factored, but this is a contact sport. If you remove a playmaker from a play because he could get hurt we\'d have all our back-ups to watch and the starters could look nice and neat and wave at us.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-26-2003, 05:21 PM

LummOx,

That\'s my feeling on the issue exactly. I don\'t know if he\'s the guy or not, but I\'m just saying give the guy a shot. If he can\'t do it fine!!

There is nothing I can really add to what you said but anyone who thinks any differently doesn\'t understand competition.

LordOfEntropy · 06-26-2003, 05:36 PM

Lumm0x, Billy, I\'ve read many of your posts and have agreed with most (nearly all) of the things you\'ve said.

In this case, however, I think the primary issue is where is the threshold, where is the balance that gives the Saints the best shot at the big one? Do the Saints have a better chance of winning with Lewis@3 or Pathon@3?

Personally, I think they\'re best shot is with Lewis sticking to special teams (factoring in fatigue, size, and injury risk) with Pathon sticking to the slot.

I may have given the impression the Saints should not risk their valuable players just because of injury risk. No. Rather, It\'s about where can they best utilize the assets they\'ve got, which of course factors in all facets of the game.

That being said, I stick by my lowly opinion. I think Lewis is best utilized on special teams, with only limited appearances in the regular offense.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-26-2003, 05:45 PM

LordOfEntropy,

I can understand your thinking but without giving Lewis a shot at being a true receiver then no one knows what the best is for the Saints getting to the Superbowl.

Now, if he is given the chance and can\'t get the job done, then so be it. Anything other than that is just speculation.

lumm0x · 06-26-2003, 05:46 PM

One thing I\'ve always believed about the way football is structured is that, unlike hockey, baseball, basketball, etc, we only have 16 games to play, not 100+. There is no such thing in the NFL that isn\'t a must win game. One game could be your season. If you don\'t field the best (and by best I mean most productive) player given all current factors (such as if a guy is hurt, if the replacement will be more effective, you use the sub and if the injured guy is better playing with pain, you play him), you are not playing to win. Do you rest a player that\'s hurt with the hope he will be there next week for you, but lose this game because of it? You do if you want to be an unemployed coach. Coaches are graded on winning percentage first, and ability to get to the big game second.
He has big play potential. He\'s proven that. If he generates more by getting increased touches in a trial at #3 then you have to do it. This game is like a lottery. Tommorrow is promised to no one (just to quote sweetness).

06-26-2003, 12:27 PM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Michael Lewis @ reciever. I also disagree... this team has more than enough speed on the field on offense... what we need is a big keyshawn johnson type guy to go and sit in the middle of the field to open it up more for guys like horn and stallworth... and yes, Lewis in 4 WR sets.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

06-26-2003, 12:59 PM	#12
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Michael Lewis @ reciever. From what I\'m hearing, no one wants Lewis to play #3 receiver because he is too valuiable in the return game. I don\'t want Lewis injuried either, but anyone rememeber a receiver with the vikings that was about the same size as Lewis, by the name of Andre Carter? Lewis may not be another Andre Carter.But how will we know unless Lewis is given the opportunity? I have no problem with Lewis as the #4 recevier, but if he does have the ablity to be a 1000 yard receiver, then it would be pretty foolish for him to not be given the opportunity. Another thing is that come contract time for Lewis, if he wants to play receiver more and he is not given the chance to, I promise you another team will. [Edited on 26/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-26-2003, 01:02 PM	#13
saint5221 500th Post Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 598	Michael Lewis @ reciever. I llike Lewis but Jerome is the man for #3 reciver. He is a tough reciver perfect for the 3 slot. Last year after the disappearance of our tight ends he was forced to go over the middle a lot more than usual and ran some routes a tight end usually would. He got killed but made alot of big catches. He said he had never been hit so hard or so much in his career. This year he should be able to play more in a natural reciver role and be very valuable in the #2 spot if Stallworth has further injury problems.He should be very productive for us in either place. Lewis still has a place and hopefully will grow into a more complete player, but as of now Pathon should still be #3. [Edited on 6/26/2003 by saint5221]
saint5221 500th Post Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 598

06-26-2003, 04:59 PM	#14
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Michael Lewis @ reciever. I don\'t want Lewis injuried either, but anyone rememeber a receiver with the vikings that was about the same size as Lewis, by the name of Andre Carter? No, I don\'t remember any Andre Carter. Do you mean Anthony Carter? He was 5\'11\" and about 180lbs. Lewis is a bit smaller at 5\'8\", 165 lbs, but if that\'s the guy you mean, then yeah he was a very productive reciever over his career and not a large WR by any means.

06-26-2003, 05:05 PM	#15
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Michael Lewis @ reciever. Thanks LummOx, Yeah that\'s who I meant. I should have never forgotten that name, as many times as he tourched the Saints.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

06-26-2003, 05:13 PM	#16
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Michael Lewis @ reciever. The game is all about winning. That\'s it. Nothing else matters. If playing Lewis at #3 WR wins us games then play him. If playing Pathon or someone else at #3 wins us games then play him. I would give Lewis a share of reps running the plays. If the coaching staff worries about a guy getting hurt on a passing play then that player definitely should not play special teams. I\'d hazard to guess that you\'ll see a guy lying on the field with pain after a special teams play more often than any passing down. Sure durability must be factored, but this is a contact sport. If you remove a playmaker from a play because he could get hurt we\'d have all our back-ups to watch and the starters could look nice and neat and wave at us.

06-26-2003, 05:21 PM	#17
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Michael Lewis @ reciever. LummOx, That\'s my feeling on the issue exactly. I don\'t know if he\'s the guy or not, but I\'m just saying give the guy a shot. If he can\'t do it fine!! There is nothing I can really add to what you said but anyone who thinks any differently doesn\'t understand competition.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-26-2003, 05:36 PM	#18
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Michael Lewis @ reciever. Lumm0x, Billy, I\'ve read many of your posts and have agreed with most (nearly all) of the things you\'ve said. In this case, however, I think the primary issue is where is the threshold, where is the balance that gives the Saints the best shot at the big one? Do the Saints have a better chance of winning with Lewis@3 or Pathon@3? Personally, I think they\'re best shot is with Lewis sticking to special teams (factoring in fatigue, size, and injury risk) with Pathon sticking to the slot. I may have given the impression the Saints should not risk their valuable players just because of injury risk. No. Rather, It\'s about where can they best utilize the assets they\'ve got, which of course factors in all facets of the game. That being said, I stick by my lowly opinion. I think Lewis is best utilized on special teams, with only limited appearances in the regular offense.
	can anyone help me id this tune? it goes thwap thwap boom tch boom tch boom tch. Qui a laissez sortir les chiens!

06-26-2003, 05:45 PM	#19
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Michael Lewis @ reciever. LordOfEntropy, I can understand your thinking but without giving Lewis a shot at being a true receiver then no one knows what the best is for the Saints getting to the Superbowl. Now, if he is given the chance and can\'t get the job done, then so be it. Anything other than that is just speculation.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-26-2003, 05:46 PM	#20
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Michael Lewis @ reciever. One thing I\'ve always believed about the way football is structured is that, unlike hockey, baseball, basketball, etc, we only have 16 games to play, not 100+. There is no such thing in the NFL that isn\'t a must win game. One game could be your season. If you don\'t field the best (and by best I mean most productive) player given all current factors (such as if a guy is hurt, if the replacement will be more effective, you use the sub and if the injured guy is better playing with pain, you play him), you are not playing to win. Do you rest a player that\'s hurt with the hope he will be there next week for you, but lose this game because of it? You do if you want to be an unemployed coach. Coaches are graded on winning percentage first, and ability to get to the big game second. He has big play potential. He\'s proven that. If he generates more by getting increased touches in a trial at #3 then you have to do it. This game is like a lottery. Tommorrow is promised to no one (just to quote sweetness).