Don't Be Fooled by the Balls That I Caught, I'm Still Joshua with the Blocks

He showed great PRESENCE on the block not to throw a block into the defender's back when the defender was turned around. He set the screen and waited for the defender to turn back around before throwing the block. There are players that are not present enough to make that play in the moment and will throw that block into the defender's back. If he does that, no TD and more "cut Morgan" posts.

The replay of his block is at 48 seconds

RG3 76 Yard TD Run Against Vikings 10/14/2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d5SfBUhtyk)

I think Moss perceived lack of production is due to the focus on developing the younger receivers.
I think Moss would be more productive given more targets but this offense should/is trying to wean themselves of Moss.Washington Redskins 2012 Statistics - Team and Player Stats - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins)

Moss is tied for 2nd in reception with: 16 receptions on 20 targets
3 plays of 20+ yards
10 1st downs
96 YAC

Morgan played a nearly flawless game on Sunday. We all know what a great blocker he is, but he really could have had a 100 yard receiving day had RG3 seen him a couple of times. He was wide open on crisply run routes multiple times. I've been saying I didn't understand why we wanted Morgan, why not just sign Garcon? Maybe it should be the other way around

No No No NO!!! Garcon was the most epic signing of all time and will turn this team around for decades to come!

ummm ... okay, maybe he wasn't.

Morgan played a nearly flawless game on Sunday. We all know what a great blocker he is, but he really could have had a 100 yard receiving day had RG3 seen him a couple of times. He was wide open on crisply run routes multiple times. I've been saying I didn't understand why we wanted Morgan, why not just sign Garcon? Maybe it should be the other way aroundThe performance of the offense sans Garcon is kinda calls into question how much we 'needed' him.

A starting line-up of Morgan and Moss w/ Eric Winston or another upgrade at RT would've been fine with me.

Garcon adds a threat, would it be good to have him out there - absolutely. I think what's even better is that we can be missing the designated #1 receiver and still be threatening to put up 20+ points a game. Let him get healthy, and add that dimension back in as the season develops. Hard to <accurately> judge the signing based on one good game and one mystery foot sprain.

Maybe Garcon can get healthy and play CB?

Hard to <accurately> judge the signing based on one good game and one mystery foot sprain.You can judge by his absence though, and the offense is just fine without him.

You can judge by his absence though, and the offense is just fine without him.

Couldn't we make the same case for Winston? Sure Polumbo isn't going to go to any probowl any time soon, but I don't hear his name called on penalties, and we seem to have some degree of success offensively. (he's not calling out the fans in the stands either a la Winston).

Couldn't we make the same case for Winston? Sure Polumbo isn't going to go to any probowl any time soon, but I don't hear his name called on penalties, and we seem to have some degree of success offensively.Maybe you could, but I can't and here's why: Moss and Morgan have been good in place of Garcon.

Polumbus has not been a good RT and having him as starters means Jordan Black is the next man up.
One could argue if it wasn't for their ineptitude we win the Bengals game.

Pro Football Focus is the only site that has individual OL rankings, (i don't subscribe) but here's what I could find from them about Winton and Polumbus.

Charles and Draughn have received help from their offensive line with starters Ryan Lilja, Jon Asamoah, Eric Winston, and Rodney Hudson combing for a +15.8 run blocking grade.

But considering he was working against Tyler Polumbus, his day could have been much better, as Polumbus is the third worst offensive tackle in our grades