Moss WANTS to be a Redskin

Did you not pay attention about PFT?

Did you not pay attention about PFT?

All memo's go directly to my trash folder.

Why'd you choose Antonio Bryant for comparison?I was thinking about the Bucs model, and how they let their top target go and ended up better for it. Bryant and Moss are dissimilar in the way that Bryant is probably done as a pro starter after the injury and that stint with the Bengals, and I think Moss has a (small?) number of good years left. But they're similar in their contributions to their offenses up until the point of the expiring contract.

Ugh, I hate the term number one receiver sometimes...

A lot of what you're saying is, essentially, that it'd be worth it to have guys struggle if the young guys get time on the field. But having a super young receiving core and an inexperienced/less-than-ideal quarterback doesn't always work the way it did for Josh Freeman.

I mean, if Moss wants to be here, and he's willing to sign a fair deal to stay here and retire as a Redskin, I don't see the harm. You can still position Leonard Hankerson as the number one receiver of the future (if he develops into that), but you don't put the pressure on him to bear the brunt of the offensive load on day one. And who knows when the lockout really ends. He might have the playbook but Hank still doesn't have the coaching and hasn't seen live action. What if Hank gets hurt in training camp?

I think in a situation like the Redskins are in, even in rebuild mode, they need to have a veteran guy who can be counted on every game at most positions, so the rookies don't feel as though the world is always on their shoulders.

If he comes cheap and wants to be here I don't see the problem.I try not to focus too much on the outcome when suggesting a plan of action for the Redskins to get better. I know that sounds silly, but I pretty much agree with you that 90% of the time, the plan that the Bucs used isn't going to work as quickly as it did for them and requires patience at best, and might fail no matter what at worst. But I also think that the similarities to the Bucs shouldn't be understated. We did just draft a trio of very promising receivers. I mean, there's no doubt based on what I've been able to put together from their respective college careers that the three guys we took in this draft are ALL better coming out of college than Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly were.

As for Moss coming cheap and wanting to be here, let's go back to the Bryant analogy. Lets say Bryant instead of testing the market signed a very team friendly deal for a high % of guaranteed money, but a deal that would not meaningfully impact the direction of the Bucs in any way. One year later, are the Bucs better off, equal to, or worse off in the passing attack than they currently are? Keep in mind that they would have been congratulated on a good contract when it was signed. But the goal is to have a better team. And I'm not convinced that team X re-signing previously productive veteran Y is particularly important (at best) to the rebuilding process.

Keep in mind though that prior to the draft, I felt the Redskins should bring Portis back. I don't now see a roster spot for him with Helu/Royster in the fold, but I didn't feel like Portis blocking Torain impacted the Redskins rebuilding in any way because I think Torain is an insignificant member of the rebuilding process. So this isn't GTripp just being all anti-veteran. It's about being anti- blocking players who are going to help us win in the future from playing. Like Hankerson, Armstrong, Robinson, Paul, and perhaps Kelly and Austin. None of those players (well, except Armstrong) are older than 24.

The re-signing Moss discussion or the wether to start a rookie WR/young WRs question is kinda similar to the wether or not start a rookie QB.

And I understand your point about the young receivers needing playing time i.e targets.

But with Moss as the focal point of the passing game, where Kyle moves him around a lot: flanker, slot and some split end it creates a good environment for a WR to break in.
Moss is still a respected player that draws attention from opposing defenses.
And there are still available targets (Joey's and Roydell's) that would give the young receivers a chance to get on the field in favorable situations where they have a better opportunity for success because Moss is on the field.

It may only be a limited role (at first) but their production, however limited, would be a boon to the passing game that could develop into a bigger part if they're up to the task.

Damn,we need a QB.Santana Moss is a good example of the Nnamdi Asomugha effect. This basically means that Moss is good enough to command the other team's best defensive coverage asset on a game to game basis (Moss gets like seventy percent of his season production playing teams that don't have a quality defender in the secondary...which is why he's shredded the Cowboys forever while going AWOL against the Giants and Eagles). That's identical to what happens with Nnamdi (and probably soon, Revis). Those guys are so good at covering receivers that what ends up happening is that you're effectively playing 10 on 10 football.

That's the benefit of having Santana Moss. You put him on the field, and while he gets taken away by the other team's best defensive player, that creates better matchups elsewhere. But the Redskins have never been able to win those matchups because they can't protect the passer and beat the coverage elsewhere.

One way or another, the Redskins need a target good enough to be covered by the other team's best defender and still be a meaningful factor in the football game. Once the Redskins have that, I think it would be good to have Moss still on the team, because his usefulness would go up. But unless we're going with all of our eggs in the Hankerson basket, the only way to find the receiver on our team that can be better than Moss is by letting everyone play and throwing them the football. And with Moss commanding 130 (mostly ineffective) targets a year, developing someone else has proven impossible for this time.

Moving on would not hurt in the short term against most opponents because we'd simply go back from playing 10 v 10 to 11 v 11. Sure, it would get a bit harder to beat Dallas without Moss, but who knows, maybe Hankerson will be a stud by midseason. Santana who?

I just thought it was interesting because Bryant was barely with the Bucs, while Moss has been a fixture here for the last 6 or so years

I just thought it was interesting because Bryant was barely with the Bucs, while Moss has been a fixture here for the last 6 or so yearsTrue, but from a roster construction perspective, I'm just not sure it matters.

I think it does matter that Moss wants to be a Redskin. Plenty of players (such as Mr. Rogers) have been here just as long and can't wait to get out. And I don't want it to seem like I was throwing Bryant's name out there to disrespect Moss, because Antonio Bryant was a pretty darn uncoverable player for his two seasons in Tampa. But they made a decision based on his future value, and they made the right one.

I think it's a much more difficult decision for the Redskins and Moss because Moss has been our best receiver for half a decade, but the conclusion needs to be the same.

GTripp-
I think your still discounting Moss production.
We know our passing game last year with Moss + AA was good.

Our passing game sans Moss is a mere projection with a likely worse outcome.

On the other hand our passing game with Moss + AA + Hankerson/Kelly/Austin is very likely to be even better then last year.

We would not only have create favorable match-ups for all the other WRs be keeping Tana we create the possibility of having a dynamic WR corps.
A WR corps that the offense can hang their hat on.

Which I readily admit is kinda moot without a QB.

I don't think I'm discounting Moss' production when I say that the passing offense accomplished what it did last year largely independent of Moss. Not because of him or in spite of him. Just that our results on passes to Moss weren't any better (they were actually a bit worse) than our results on passes to all other players. So if we lose that production when Moss leaves...we're still left with pretty much everything that our passing game accomplished last year, minus one semi-useful movable piece.

I don't think I'm discounting Moss' production when I say that the passing offense accomplished what it did last year largely independent of Moss. Just that our results on passes to Moss weren't any better (they were actually a bit worse) than our results on passes to all other players.Your gonna have to explain this one.
Why do think the above, especially the bolded portion?

So if we lose that production when Moss leaves...we're still left with pretty much everything that our passing game accomplished last year, minus one semi-useful movable piece.How can we lose Moss production without also losing his impact that creates favorable opportunities for other receivers?

Your basically saying that we can lose Moss without missing a beat.

But, you also didn't respond to my other main point.
Adding the young WRs to a group that already includes Moss is how you build a possibly dynamic receiving corps.
Removing Moss is creates a receiving corps that you hope can match the production from last year.

I would rather shoot for a dynamic receiving then corps then aim to match last years production.

I would rather the young receivers replace Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams then the young receivers to attempt to replace Moss.

Your gonna have to explain this one.
Why do think the above, especially the bolded portion?

How can we lose Moss production without also losing his impact that creates favorable opportunities for other receivers?

Your basically saying that we can lose Moss without missing a beat.

But, you also didn't respond to my other main point.
Adding the young WRs to a group that already includes Moss is how you build a possibly dynamic receiving corps.
Removing Moss is creates a receiving corps that you hope can match the production from last year.

I would rather shoot for a dynamic receiving then corps then aim to match last years production.

I would rather the young receivers replace Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams then the young receivers to attempt to replace Moss.I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive. It's difficult, in my estimation, and look at Moss after Brunell lost the job here and see a guy who has been productive more times than not.

Moss' productivity has been consistent over the last four years or so, in that a target of Santana Moss has produced between 7 and 8 yards each and every season. Since 2010, Moss was targeted an average of 133 times, catching an average of 81 passes and an average of 7.6 yards per target. That's almost perfectly average. 15 of those passes went to the end zone (3.7%), about a standard deviation below average. Moss fumbles about once every 40-42 touches, which is poor for a wide receiver (though not nearly as bad as once in 28-30 for Chris Cooley). His yards per catch is trending downwards mostly because of age, but also because of role change.

If Moss is average (amongst NFL starting WRs) at getting yards, but falls short of standards in TDs, Fumbles, and is trending away from his most effective years, then the sliver of room between playable and unplayable can't be overstated. It's the same mistake the Redskins made with McNabb, which is that he was playable in 2009 the last time we saw his tape, but he was trending in the wrong direction and had little margin for decline. Moss is almost identical. "Effective against no. 2 CBs" is a tough sell for a player in his early thirties, especially when it comes contract time. Moss is already unplayable against top competition, which is to say, there are some games every year where you're already better off not bringing him on the plane if the goal is to win. And there were some games last year where Logan Paulsen and Mike Sellers combined to make more of a difference than Moss.

Now, over a full season, Moss is still going to produce some big days, and he's going to score some TDs, and help an offense overall. He was useful like that in 2010. Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance, can you give a good reason that having Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs? Of course, there are reasons to doubt Kelly, but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to. Moss is somewhere in that "replacement plus" realm, and he could be there for a while.

And I think it's a granted that Roydell Williams/Joey Galloway's targets will go elsewhere. I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.

I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive.Moss is a top 10 WR, I'm not sure how you define highly productive but I would argue that Moss is far closer to highly productive then replacement level.

There's alot you said that I disagree with but in short I don't think "effective against No.2 CBs" is an accurate description of Moss. Nor do agree that he is unplayable against top comp.
He simply cannot produce at the level he did if those statements were true, especially when he only had 1 other decent complementary WR in AA.

He was No.4 in yards, No.10 in receptions.

Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)

Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance,In your opinion Moss isn't capable of being a major player in a dynamic WR corps.
But, his production suggests otherwise.

can you give a good reason that having Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs?Moss didn't/doesn't produce like a 3rd WR, Moss had top 10 production.

but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to.This is where we disagree, and this is where I believe you discount not only Moss's talent/production but discount the difference in talent between top NFL WRs and the rest of NFL WRs.
You seem to believe its simply a matter of next man up.
But, that's not the case.
Every WR that becomes the main cog in their team's passing game doesn't have top 10 production.

Paraphrasing Mike Irvin: "You cannot anoit someone a number 1 WR, you become a No.1 WR"

I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.A more radical turnover doesn't equal more production from the WRs.

Again, I think its far more likely to have a dynamic WR corps with Moss then without Moss.

And having Moss around creates favorable match-up for Hankerson et al this year and allows them to progress into being the focal point of the passing game rather then being thrust into that role.

Those are the 2 main reason why it makes sense for Moss to come back.
Granted I'm assuming that Mike Shanahan actually has a plan for the QB position like he said he does, and I'm also assuming that QB will be viable.

If there isn't a viable QB under center then re-signing Moss is kinda superfluous.