Folks Going Nuts For Bucs WRs

July 16th, 2017

How good will Bucs WRs be?

It may not be worst to first, but it sure is going from the bargain bin to top shelf.

That seems to be what is happening with the Bucs receivers.

Joe typed blisters on his fingers for more than a year, that the receiving corp must be given a significant upgrade since the Bucs invested in a franchise quarterback.

And anyone watching games with a clear eye last year saw the Bucs had a big time receiver like Mike Evans, a solid if not strong tight end in Cam Brate, and glorified camp meat after that.

(Memo to Bucs types: Yes, Joe understands Rudy Humphries is a nice possession receiver but if he was that good, you wouldn’t have massively upgraded your receivers, right?)

Now, though we are still a little over a week before training camp begins, it seems the Bucs have one of the NFL’s best receiving corps. This comes from two national NFL types.

First is Field Yates of BSPN. He believes the Bucs receivers are so good with DeSean Jackson, O.J. Howard, Chris Godwin and Evans, that the group is “nightmarish.”

Then there is former NFL wide receiver Nate Burleson. The co-host of “Good Morning, Football,” seen weekday mornings on NFL Network, picked the Bucs as having the No. 7 wide receiver group in the NFL. Burleson’s co-host, Peter Schrager, shrieked that the ranking was too low!

When is the last time the Bucs had a top-10 receiver group? Maybe not since the glorious 2002 Super Bowl season when the Bucs had Keyshawn Johnson and Keenan McCardell.

Maybe.

14 Responses to “Folks Going Nuts For Bucs WRs”

  1. Joe Jurevicius 2002 Says:

    Can’t forget bout me either!

  2. B Coburn Says:

    Joe jurevicious was no slouch either… too bad about the injury. That panthers game ruined us. Both alstott and jj down. He really came on strong in the playoffs and started out strong the following year before injury

  3. Lunchbox Says:

    I’d take this receiver group over the Super Bowl group. I loved what they were able to do, but essentially you had 3 Possesion type receivers with only a so-so TE. Now we’ve got a Possesion/speed receiver in Evans, another one in Godwin, a true burner in DJax, a returning TE at least as good as we’ve had in many years, and a rookie TE with athleticism we’ve never had at the position. Yeah, I’ll take this group any day. Sure wish we had Alstott though.

  4. Dave Says:

    I agree that it s a top receiver group but it still needs to be proven. Good thing proven right now is Mike Evans and Cameron Brate. Humphries is good, but that’s it. Godwin shows a lot of promise. OJ seems legit. DJax has been awesome, but elsewhere.
    If those 3 play like we think they can, then it will be nightmarish for opponents.

  5. Buccaneer Bonzai Says:

    They are not the best of anything…yet

    It’s all hype until we see it on the field. I don’t doubt they will be good, but I hate saying just how good. Certain distinctions should be earned before awarded.

  6. Buccaneer Bonzai Says:

    Let me clarify…I DO think we’ll have a Superbowl worthy group of WRs, but its all talk until they do it.

    And people are overlooking a WR.

    Evans, Jackson, Humphries, Godwin AND WALKER.

    Toss in Brate, Godwin and Sims and that is 8 top targets in the passing game. If they prove their potential, they will be the number one receiving unit.

  7. Buccaneer Bonzai Says:

    Heh Joe…will we get a final roster predi tion article this year before first cuts?

  8. macabee Says:

    Bonzai,

    There will be only one cut down day this year. FYI.

    Just in case someone didn’t notice, there was a NFL rule change to the training camp cut down process. No more cut down to 75 players, then a final cut down to the 53 roster. Now there will be only one cut down day. Teams will be required to get rosters down from 90 to 53 players no later than 4 p.m. ET on Sept. 3. Might wanna keep your kids off the street, this could be brutal!

    https://www.sbnation.com/2017/5/23/15680812/nfl-rule-change-roster-cuts-2017

  9. JP4 Says:

    Keyshawn & McCardell were a top-10 WR combo in 2002? Nope, not even close. Top WR Marvin Harrison alone that year had just 36 fewer yards than both of them put together. Bucs had only the 15th ranked passing offense in 2002, so no combination of Bucs receivers (even including Jurevicious & RBs Alstott & Pittman) combined on a level of top-10.

    Maybe the combo of Mark Carrier/Bruce Hill in the late 80s, but I would argue the Bucs have NEVER had a top-10 receiving group in their history. They’ve not exactly been very good at drafting WRs.

    As for this group…we will see. It definitely has the potential, but I agree with Bonzai that it means nothing until it happens on the field in games that count.

  10. Pickgrin Says:

    You Da MAN Jason Licht.

    Operation #weaponsforWinston = Mission accomplished.

    Another fine job of turning a team weakness into a strength in 1 offseason.

    Last year it was CB.

    The year before, OL (although that task is not finished).

    My bet for next year is focus on the front lines – both Defense and Offense

  11. Dewey Selmon Says:

    Morris Owens and John McKay Jr. they were top 10 in 76.

  12. unbelievable Says:

    Jurevicious made some of the craziest circus catches. Tough luck on the injury…

  13. JimmyJack Says:

    If DeSean Jackson cant break an 80 yarder on Thirsday Night he is dead to me. I dont care how many yards he gets against the wretched Saints D. Hes been given the big dollars. He needs to show up for the big games. Anything less is unforgivable.

  14. SOEbuc Says:

    Burelson is the biggest dumba$$ and gets to much face time on that show. Probably why I stopped watching. This is not just because I’m a gigantic Bucs fan, but when naming his top five WR, Evans was no where to be found. He had Jarvus Landry, who is one of the best WR in the league, but no ME13. After he named his top five, Schreger came out with a cardboard photo of Evans on his face lol and you could see everyone was like yeah Nate you’re a f-ing moron for not having Evans.

 

Leave a Reply