I suspected you'd throw a stat like that out on Cribbs, but there is no denying that he is SO much more than just a receiver. He's very effective in the wildcat and his return prowess is so nasty that fans are quickly forgetting the names Dante Hall and Devin Hester.

Again, there is little to be gained from arguing the semantics of who's-worse-than-who, particularly considering that none of these guys are likely to ever be traded for one another. I made a point about who I'd rather have -in my opinion- and I stick by it. You don't necessarily agree, and I'm cool with that. We've disagreed many times over the years and have had some good debates and some worthless ones in the process. If you wanna play the back and forth game about hypotheticals, fine, I'm game, we can do that... however this is probably gonna turn into one of those aforementioned worthless debates. We can sit here and voraciously defend our opinions on what's likely a moot point, but I feel our time spent on the forums could be better utilized.

We already have the best player in the NFL to run the Wildcat. Why do we need another for a gimmick offense that will slowly but surely fade away as Chad Henne continues to develop into the focal point of the offense?

And of course Cribbs stats as a receiver are relavent. We need a receiver who can fill the role of a #1 receiver, not one who can catch a few short passes and then be the backup in a gimmick offense.

Want to sign Cribbs as a return man? Great. I'm all for it. But then pay him like a return man.

To me your opinion is further evidence of the "grass is greener" syndrome. You prefer players you've barely seen over the players we have here. But the players you are talking about, like Cribbs, do not fill the primary need on offense of a #1 receiver.

The debate will be as worthwhile or worthless as you want to make it. If you want to continue arguing that Cribbs is a better receiver than our four primary guys, it will be worthless. He is not a receiver. He is a utility player.

Precisely my point, he is a utility player and definitely makes this an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Do i think he could be the answer to our quandary at #1 receiver.... Hell no.

If you want to discuss names that I do believe are worthy of that #1 WR spot for us, then let's move on to names like Marshall and Boldin... or we could even get back on topic and discuss names like Dez Bryant, who I feel we won't go after.

Ok so if you don't view Cribbs as the answer at receiver, why bring him into a conversation that involves our wide receiver group?

And we do not have a need for a triggerman in the Wildcat. And even if we did, that formation will be phased out while Henne continues to cement himself as the quarterback of the future and the leader of this team. If he takes the next step, I doubt you see him being pulled off the field 6-10 times a game or even 2-3 times a game to run the Wildcat.

I am 100% all for bringing in Cribbs to return kicks and punts. He is phenomenal in that capacity.

But that is not what we are discussing here.

I don't think this team needs another WR project to develop.

You completely missed the point of my entire post. I know Hartline is a rookie. We all agree that Cleveland was terrible offensively last year, correct? So naturally, production last year for the Browns receivers will be terrible. So tell me, how does using their stats from other teams and other seasons NOT help my argument? Furrey is capable of catching 98 passes and 6 TD's in a season. Something Miami's receivers haven't had since Chambers.
Hartline is pretty good, no? That's why he was playing flanker for the second half of the season, NOT as a 3rd or 4th receiver as you state. Massaquoi's numbers are comparable even though he was on a crappy team.

What I'm saying is that Stuckey and Furrey were good elsewhere, and Massaquoi and Robiskie are rookies, therefore, the Browns problem is not at receiver. Just as it isn't in Miami.

Maybe Cleveland's offense was terrible because of their receivers. They miss Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow Jr.



Because players can decline from year to year or flourish in one system but fail in another.



Yeah, four years ago.

Daunte Culpepper is capable of a 39 TD season as well...



Hartline started TWO games. Massaquoi started EVELEN.

I don't know what EVELEN is, but I don't know what difference it makes who starts how many games. Why don't you go break down the tape and see how many snaps they got in. Then break down how many of those snaps were passing plays. Then look to see if they were open, and the quarterback missed him.
Culpepper could throw 39 TD passes before he wreck up his knee. Furrey hasn't had any such injury. You're really reaching here, Rich.

Sure, send me a copy.

If you don't think it makes a difference that one guy was the #1 receiver while the other guy was a rotational player, then there is no point in continuing the discussion with you.



You're citing numbers a guy put up 4 years ago and has not come close to matching since, but I'm reaching?

No I'm simply demonstrating how silly your argument is by being equally silly.

No, the following year he had 61 grabs with Detroit. After that, he got hurt, then wound up in Cleveland's mess of an offense.
That's not even close to your "silly" argument about Culpepper was 6 yeas ago, and he got severely injured and hasn't done ANYTHING since.
So yes, you're reaching.
As for Massaquoi versus Hartline, again, there is a lot contingent upon who was throwing the passes, and how effective the OLine is. If the quarterback has no time to throw it, of course he's not going to get it to Massaquoi, but because his stats reflect that, he's suddenly less of a receiver?
Child, please.

I only brought him into the equation when you mentioned Cleveland's receivers. All I did was point out that however miniscule his role may be, most consider him to have some role in the receiving corps. Does he play the role of a true X or Y receiver? ...No, but he's an extremely talented football player, and therefore brings some talent, however small, to Cleveland's receiving corps.



No where am I suggesting that we need him or any other replacement to run the wildcat in the future if we're able to retain Ronnie and choose to continue use of the formation. Again, that only came up to point out that the guy is obviously multi-talented.



Agreed, nor is it what I'm trying to discuss. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, this is supposed to be a thread about Dez Bryant that has now run way off track. Did I contribute to bringing it off track? ...Yes. But honestly I have no desire to perpetuate this debate with you further. You have your opinion, I have mine, and I'm able to respect both without beating this topic further into the ground. We've had several debates like this over the last +/-5 years when you started coming to this site, and while not all of your debates with members here remain civil, somehow you and I have always found a way to keep it civil when we disagree... for what it's worth I'd like to keep it that way. You really have nothing to gain from trying to change my mind, so what's the point? Sometimes the most honorable part of valor is the ability to know when to let go even when you don't want to. Honestly, part of the reason my participation in this site has declined over the last few years is because the recent trend of bickering quickly turns these threads from fun to boring or aggravating. Big Dave has built a beautiful site and you and I both know the amount of effort he's dedicated. Hopefully you can agree with me that if we don't owe it to each other, then we at least owe it to Dave to not always argue and at least keep the tone around here somewhat fun.

If you can't tell, despite my aggravation I'm trying to offer an olive branch here, Rich.
I propose we agree to disagree, and quash this thing like gentlemen before it turns ugly.
It's not like either of us are Filth-Jets-fans, so lets not bother getting heated about some unrealistic scenario or comparison when we really both want the same thing at the end of the day.... a better Dolphins team, one way or another.