The data used in the table above were compiled from a pdf published on PE.com.
500kb PDF Link

There’s lots of interesting things buried in these stats. One which I didn’t remember and am not sure I saw, was a Dawkins TD reception. I wasn’t even sure the TD pass went to Brian Dawkins or some other Dawkins who I just didn’t remember on the team. Anyway it is his only TD reception and came during one hell of a game. Can anybody find video of it?

The emphasis seems to be on speed and the ability to run after the catch, as per reid. So I think that we have a good receiving core that has the ability to do that. That was part of the reason I couldn’t believe we let Stallworth go when we did, he was always good for 10-15 extra yac at least. I would rather have 4 fast wr’s that have good hands, are quick, and run excellent routes then 2 “number one” wr’s. Bear in mind something that nobody* has said, the cardinals have, arguably, two excellent, number one recievers in their lineup….how many playoff games have they one in the past 5 years or so? How about the Lions, they have a number one receiver, what about them? Why is it that a number one receiver is going to lead US to the superbowl when it hasn’t worked for those two teams? It’s BS. The patriots got to the superbowl last year not ONLY on the play of their number-one wideout, if I remember correctly it was their TEs that really one the games for them and their ability to pass underneath and create big plays that started between the hash marks, especially in the last games of the season.

But, but, but that number-one WR was able to draw double coverage so that’s what made the difference…bull shit…what made the difference was the REST of the team playing well, and excellent playcalling. That’s what one games for them…period. TO did not bring us a superbowl ring, and he didn’t do it for the Cowboys either.

The reporters of philadelphia are blind and have this, “grass is greener on the other side,” notion about WRs, namely “number-one” WRs. We haven’t had one for several years, so they say, and THAT must be the reason for our troubles.

Bull shit.

I’ve always thought Donovan McNabb was at his best when his stat line reads: ”...has hit 8 receivers today.” I think having a bunch of good receivers is the key to the WC offense and I think the team added a few in the offseason: Booker, Wilson and Jackson. I worry more about the O-Line, whether it gives McNabb enough time to throw, and I think the real key is having good run support. We have three good running backs in Westbrook, Buckhalter, Booker; Hunt could also show us something this year. Hopefully it’s enough to get us back to the Super Bowl.

Hey, let’s step back and not drink the cool-aid so quickly. Although it’s nice to see that our current receiving corp has done better than average Andy Reid receivers, the fact remains none of the corps have won the big one. Furthermore, the NFC East has never been as competitive as it is now.

It’s really hard not to focus on the #1, not because of the numbers they’ll put up, but because of the fear that it brings to the other teams. As much as I love what Curtis has done for this team, teams don’t have to plan around him. This is what would really allow our other receivers put up big numbers. Outside his 14 TDs in 2004, this was the best thing TO brought us, the ability to stretch the defense on reputation alone. That’s a huge advantage when so much talent in the NFL is close to equal.

I’m hopeful that as DeSean gets work into the offense, his speed proceeds him.

I’m going to have to agree with whoever said McNabb is at his best when he hits 6-8 targets a game.