Redskins Add WRs Pierre Garcon and Joshua Morgan

Who says Hank can't be a number 1?

Who says Hank can't be a number 1?

It's like Greg Cosell's article (which you can read here (http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-central/47046-q-and-a-with-greg-cosell.html)) says, the definition of a #1 wide receiver is overrated in this day and age of 3 wr sets designed to exploit mismatches (i.e. your #1 WR lining up in the slot against a linebacker/safety, etc.). But whomever is saying Hankerson won't contribute is someone who's opinion I wouldn't necessarily agree with.

^ Because he's small and fast I assume. He's like Devery Henderson , speedy deep threat and not much else.

exactly who he is, except not good. he will be gone, he has to be. i would like to keep moss to help mentor the youngins, and he can still contribute.

It's like Greg Cosell's article (which you can read here (http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-central/47046-q-and-a-with-greg-cosell.html)) says, the definition of a #1 wide receiver is overrated in this day and age of 3 wr sets designed to exploit mismatches (i.e. your #1 WR lining up in the slot against a linebacker/safety, etc.). But whomever is saying Hankerson won't contribute is someone who's opinion I wouldn't necessarily agree with.

yeah, people get carried away almost as if #1 wr is a position, like if you don't have one it's like not having a true point guard! Just need decent playmakers, consistent routes & good hands. I'd rather three guys rack up 800+ yards each in a balanced attack than see one wr get 1400 himself.

yeah, people get carried away almost as if #1 wr is a position, like if you don't have one it's like not having a true point guard! Just need decent playmakers, consistent routes & good hands. I'd rather three guys rack up 800+ yards each in a balanced attack than see one wr get 1400 himself.


IMO can't argue with that.

^ Because he's small and fast I assume. He's like Devery Henderson , speedy deep threat and not much else.

Right, he's a straight ahead speed guy for the most part. Run the go route and that's it.

He's not shifty or quick enough for the slot.

It's like Greg Cosell's article (which you can read here (http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-central/47046-q-and-a-with-greg-cosell.html)) says, the definition of a #1 wide receiver is overrated in this day and age of 3 wr sets designed to exploit mismatches (i.e. your #1 WR lining up in the slot against a linebacker/safety, etc.). But whomever is saying Hankerson won't contribute is someone who's opinion I wouldn't necessarily agree with.Cosell's argument, while legitimate, doesn't really apply to the Redskins offense under Kyle Shanahan. If Kyle is specifically designing or modifying plays to get Pierre Garcon the ball in critical situations, then he's treating him like the proverbial no. 1 receiver. If he's doing it for someone else, like Hankerson or Gaffney or Morgan, then they are the no. 1 receiver.

You don't need to know who the Redskins think their no. 1 target is in March, because they'll show you themselves in September.

The Redskins don't try to spread the field and win matchups like that, because that's more responsibility at the LOS than they want their QB to have. They want to win the matchup on Wednesday, lineup, and go play. In that sense, who the go-to guy is will always be very important to the success of the offense.

Cosell's argument, while legitimate, doesn't really apply to the Redskins offense under Kyle Shanahan. If Kyle is specifically designing or modifying plays to get Pierre Garcon the ball in critical situations, then he's treating him like the proverbial no. 1 receiver. If he's doing it for someone else, like Hankerson or Gaffney or Morgan, then they are the no. 1 receiver.

You don't need to know who the Redskins think their no. 1 target is in March, because they'll show you themselves in September.

The Redskins don't try to spread the field and win matchups like that, because that's more responsibility at the LOS than they want their QB to have. They want to win the matchup on Wednesday, lineup, and go play. In that sense, who the go-to guy is will always be very important to the success of the offense.

I agree with your points, but if Kyle decides none of the guys stand out from each other (i.e. we have a collective group of #2's but not one clear guy we can always depend on to beat the d) and then schemes to exploit mismatches on d, then the relevance of the #1 wide receiver is minimized. But if he decides to draw up plays designed to get Garcon the ball the most, then yes Garcon would be defined as the #1.

Either way, I'm not as low on Kyle here as others are, and I do believe now that we have guys we can depend on to make plays, Kyle S. will put them in position to do so. If it turns out that Hankerson or Garcon is our true #1 wideout, so be it. I just want points on the board, and to not be hamstrung by our crappy quarterback.

Either way, I'm not as low on Kyle here as others are, and I do believe now that we have guys we can depend on to make plays, Kyle S. will put them in position to do so. If it turns out that Hankerson or Garcon is our true #1 wideout, so be it. I just want points on the board, and to not be hamstrung by our crappy quarterback.

Griffin hasn't even taken a snap yet give him time!!

Griffin hasn't even taken a snap yet give him time!!

Lol that's a nice funny you made there.