Why is Naanee still are #2 WR?

[KARASMATIC444]

I just dont understand this. He has not shown any ability to produce for this team, why keep him at #2. I understand we do 3 wide most of the time and Lafell is out there, but i still just dont understand why we dont put lafell #2 and just try out all out other WR at #3 from time to time. you would have to think one of them could atleast clear out the defenders with speed, and be an upgrade over Naanee, without even being able to catch.

[Crixtala]

our

[KARASMATIC444]

man, i did it didnt I? and here is where i get told im stupid a billion times..

[PantherBrew]

Cause he is poop.

get it?

[dksmith17]

My theory is he just knows the plays better than Brandon and if Brandon continues to out play him and learn the playbook he will earn more reps. I haven't seen anything in run blocking that separates them and Brandon is clearly making more plays. They basically line up in the exact same spots too. I am guessing its just a matter of time before Barndon unseats him.

[Lumps]

The English language is made up of a multitude of words which are often misused. People sometimes rely on their preconceived notion of what a word means without actually knowing how to use them properly. Some might use words based on how they hear it without knowing what the word really means. One good example is the words ‘our’ and ‘are’.

Our is a word which originates from the Middle English oure and the Old English Å«re, Å«ser . It is an adjective which means ‘belonging to us’ or of us. In Northern England, it used before a person’s name to indicate that the person belongs to one’s family or if the person is a very close friend. The sentence ‘I’m going to meet our Mary at the airport.’ is one good example of this usage.

‘Are’ came from the Middle English arn, aren, and the Old English earun, earon. It is a verb used as a second person singular simple present tense of the word ‘be’ in the sentence ‘John, where are you going?’ In the sentence ‘We are not coming’, it is in the first person plural simple present tense of the word ‘be’. It can also be in the second person plural simple present tense if used in the sentence similar to ‘Mary and John, are you listening’. The sentence ‘They are here somewhere’, showed ‘are’ as a third person plural simple present tense of the word ‘be’.

Both ‘Are’ and ‘Our’ are words we use very often. Sentences will not be complete without them. But not everyone knows how they can be properly placed in sentences. It is always best to know the proper usage of every word in sentences so that we can correctly send our message across.

Summary:

1.Our is an adjective while are’ is a verb.

2.Our means belonging to us while are is the simple present tense of the verb be.

3.Our originates from the middle English word oure while are originates from the middle English word arn, aren,

Read more: Difference Between Our and Are | Difference Between | Our vs Are http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-our-and-are/#ixzz1ZRRtZqWZ

[KARASMATIC444]

The English language is made up of a multitude of words which are often misused. People sometimes rely on their preconceived notion of what a word means without actually knowing how to use them properly. Some might use words based on how they hear it without knowing what the word really means. One good example is the words ‘our’ and ‘are’.

Our is a word which originates from the Middle English oure and the Old English Å«re, Å«ser . It is an adjective which means ‘belonging to us’ or of us. In Northern England, it used before a person’s name to indicate that the person belongs to one’s family or if the person is a very close friend. The sentence ‘I’m going to meet our Mary at the airport.’ is one good example of this usage.

‘Are’ came from the Middle English arn, aren, and the Old English earun, earon. It is a verb used as a second person singular simple present tense of the word ‘be’ in the sentence ‘John, where are you going?’ In the sentence ‘We are not coming’, it is in the first person plural simple present tense of the word ‘be’. It can also be in the second person plural simple present tense if used in the sentence similar to ‘Mary and John, are you listening’. The sentence ‘They are here somewhere’, showed ‘are’ as a third person plural simple present tense of the word ‘be’.

Both ‘Are’ and ‘Our’ are words we use very often. Sentences will not be complete without them. But not everyone knows how they can be properly placed in sentences. It is always best to know the proper usage of every word in sentences so that we can correctly send our message across.

Summary:

1.Our is an adjective while are’ is a verb.

2.Our means belonging to us while are is the simple present tense of the verb be.

3.Our originates from the middle English word oure while are originates from the middle English word arn, aren,

Read more: Difference Between Our and Are | Difference Between | Our vs Are http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-our-and-are/#ixzz1ZRRtZqWZ

thanks for setting me straight.

[Snake]

The English language is made up of a multitude of words which are often misused. People sometimes rely on their preconceived notion of what a word means without actually knowing how to use them properly. Some might use words based on how they hear it without knowing what the word really means. One good example is the words ‘our’ and ‘are’.

Our is a word which originates from the Middle English oure and the Old English Å«re, Å«ser . It is an adjective which means ‘belonging to us’ or of us. In Northern England, it used before a person’s name to indicate that the person belongs to one’s family or if the person is a very close friend. The sentence ‘I’m going to meet our Mary at the airport.’ is one good example of this usage.

‘Are’ came from the Middle English arn, aren, and the Old English earun, earon. It is a verb used as a second person singular simple present tense of the word ‘be’ in the sentence ‘John, where are you going?’ In the sentence ‘We are not coming’, it is in the first person plural simple present tense of the word ‘be’. It can also be in the second person plural simple present tense if used in the sentence similar to ‘Mary and John, are you listening’. The sentence ‘They are here somewhere’, showed ‘are’ as a third person plural simple present tense of the word ‘be’.

Both ‘Are’ and ‘Our’ are words we use very often. Sentences will not be complete without them. But not everyone knows how they can be properly placed in sentences. It is always best to know the proper usage of every word in sentences so that we can correctly send our message across.

Summary:

1.Our is an adjective while are’ is a verb.

2.Our means belonging to us while are is the simple present tense of the verb be.

3.Our originates from the middle English word oure while are originates from the middle English word arn, aren,

Read more: Difference Between Our and Are | Difference Between | Our vs Are http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-our-and-are/#ixzz1ZRRtZqWZ

tl;dr

[Lumps]

Naanee knows the playbook and is more of a display at this point. Not sure what else he is good for. Also without Gettis it's slim pickins. Lafell seems like the best option though.

If it were me I'd rotate Edwards and Naanee after Smith and Lafell. Edwards needs more game experience and be tested thoroughly while we are young and making mistakes if this team ever wants to justify taking him so early.

[CRA]

I wonder if Chud could be more stubborn than Rivera.

Rivera made it clear when he was brought in he was a defensive guy....so his greatest input would be there. Rivera seems to admit when guys aren't playing great and move on to the next man (see Pugh and Stanford just 3 weeks in). Pugh had been talked up for awhile before the move.

On offense it has been pretty glaring Stewart and LaFell need to leapfrog....but nothing per Rivera seems to be changing.

[KARASMATIC444]

Naanee knows the playbook and is more of a display at this point. Not sure what else he is good for. Also without Gettis it's slim pickins. Lafell seems like the best option though.

If it were me I'd rotate Edwards and Naanee after Smith and Lafell. Edwards needs more game experience and be tested thoroughly while we are young and making mistakes if this team ever wants to justify taking him so early.

Thats what i wish they would do. Not simple give up on Naanee, but rotate him in with the other guys, to see who can develop some chemistry with Cam. I understand AE has suspect hands in crowds but, he might not have anyone on him a time or two and could be useful when wide open. as for the other guys, we have yet to see anything out of them. I just dont understand why. I could see if we had a strong WR core that the guys we have wouldnt see the field. but we dont. they have played well and cam is good at getting guys the ball, I just think they need to evaluate that position a little.

[Seltzer]

I don't see what the big deal is about LaFell starting (being the #2) and Stewart not "starting."

Our #2 WR is the fourth option in this offense behind Smitty, Olsen, and Shockey. LaFell has played well and earned playing time, and he is getting it. He is on the field a substantial amount of time, even if he isn't the #2 WR. Naanee hasn't made a ton of plays, but in true fairness to him, he has come up with some nice 1st down grabs, and Cam has overthrown him quite a bit and flat out missed him in the endzone in the Packers game.

Not saying Naanee is a great WR, but he isn't Dewayne Jarrett bad either. The coaches obviously think he can contribute or they would replace him. They haven't hesitated on defense. It has been apparent Pugh is getting killed playing pass coverage in the nickel package. I wouldn't say Naanee is hurting us.

And our offense has been clicking between the 20's pretty well. I think the biggest area where the lockout hurt us is red zone offense. That is something that will get better in time.

And for RB, D-Will and Stewart get almost the same amount of carries. As long as we are getting production from the running back group as a whole, I don't think it matters. Stewart has outplayed D-Will the first 3 games, but there have certainly been a lot of times when Stewart has been outplayed too. D-Will is still the "starter," but that really doesn't mean anything relative to the actual number of carries they are getting. I still believe D-Will is going to have a good year.

[Doyle]

man, i did it didnt I? and here is where i get told im stupid a billion times..

Booger is stupid!!!!!

[KARASMATIC444]

I don't see what the big deal is about LaFell starting (being the #2) and Stewart not "starting."

Our #2 WR is the fourth option in this offense behind Smitty, Olsen, and Shockey. LaFell has played well and earned playing time, and he is getting it. He is on the field a substantial amount of time, even if he isn't the #2 WR. Naanee hasn't made a ton of plays, but in true fairness to him, he has come up with some nice 1st down grabs, and Cam has overthrown him quite a bit and flat out missed him in the endzone in the Packers game.

Not saying Naanee is a great WR, but he isn't Dewayne Jarrett bad either. The coaches obviously think he can contribute or they would replace him. They haven't hesitated on defense. It has been apparent Pugh is getting killed playing pass coverage in the nickel package. I wouldn't say Naanee is hurting us.

And our offense has been clicking between the 20's pretty well. I think the biggest area where the lockout hurt us is red zone offense. That is something that will get better in time.

And for RB, D-Will and Stewart get almost the same amount of carries. As long as we are getting production from the running back group as a whole, I don't think it matters. Stewart has outplayed D-Will the first 3 games, but there have certainly been a lot of times when Stewart has been outplayed too. D-Will is still the "starter," but that really doesn't mean anything relative to the actual number of carries they are getting. I still believe D-Will is going to have a good year.

i can understand that a little, and im not as worried about it with the RB, because they can simply give more carries to one or the other. they only reason i care about it with the WR2 spot is because they are almost always on the field, and i would prefer us to have 2 guys that are actually performing on the field when we are 2 wide. Then when we go 3 wide or more, start rotating these other guys in and see who showes up. But in all reality, i cant complain too much with our passing attack so this is not too pressing, but im just curious why we dont change things up a bit.