Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

It would seem that we're writing off any possibilities of drafting a AAA WR, but didn't Gibbs state last year going into the draft that we were going after the best talent that's available? Would there be any indication that his philosophy will be different this year?

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Ramseyfan is exactly right. Our WR corps, which was subject to innumerable criticisms last year, is actually worse. We have two new players, but that is meaningless, since they are both worse than the guys they are purportedly replacing (Moss > Coles, Patten > Gardner). Believe me, I love the attitude change, but the skills are not improved. That is why we need a guy who could be a true #1 in Mike Williams.

A DE or a CB is a decent fallback plan, but they should be just that: fallback plans, if we simply cannot get Mike or Braylon. There are no DEs worth taking at 9, and there is incredible CB depth in this draft. We could get a good CB in the 3rd round who isn't distinctly less talented than Rolle or Jones.

For those reasons, I advocate this course of action:
-Trade Rod Gardner to Cleveland for their 3rd round pick (#67).
-Trade that pick (#67) and our first rounder (#9) to the Titans for their 1st rounder (#6) or trade #9, #67, and our 6th rounder (#168) or a future 4th to the Bucs for their 1st rounder (#5). It seems like a lot to give up, but it really is not that much to secure a guy who will very likely be a top WR in the league for years.

Draft (assuming we trade with Titans):
1. Mike Williams, WR, USC
3. Darrent Williams, CB, Oklahoma State
4. Jovan Haye, DE, Vanderbilt
6. Dave Kashetta, TE, Boston College
7. Lang Campbell, QB, William and Mary

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

ignore my boston post before cuz he already signed with the 49ers

[url="http://www.49ersnews.com/street.html"][color=#000000]http://www.49ersnews.com/street.html[/color][/url]

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Riggo44:

If Courtney Brown were available AND IF I had any reason to hope that Courtney Brown could stay healthy, I'd consider him a good guy to sign.

However, other than the fact that Courtney Brown and Lavar Arrington played on the same team at Penn State, I think it is a stretch to call Brown, "LaVar's buddy". It would not surprise me to learn that they had not spoken more than a half dozen times since leaving PSU.

Courtney Brown's problem from about the 10th game of his NFL career to today has been "the injury bug". I suspect his potential will never be "achieved" because of those injuries; and so even if he's a free agent, I'd spend only a VERY modest sum to get him here.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]He means Mike Williams.

Here's a "dose of reality" for you, Bosshog. Our receivers are unproven and need to be worked on. For all we know Moss may walk after this year, Patten has only ever been a #4 in a good offense, Jacobs hasn't seen the field, we've seen what thrash does as a starter, and McCants until I [b]see{/b] otherwise is still in Gibbs doghouse. If we have a chance to get Edwards or Williams - take it. No need to draft a #2 we have four of those. CB isn't a huge concern, though it should be addressed in the near future. We have lots of young guys with talent that our coaching staff wants to look at.[/QUOTE]
ummmm patten was a #2 for the pats, lol and moss was a #1 two seasons ago and would have been last season. so get ur shit straight, our wr's are proven but jacobs and mcants as "EVERYDOWN" wr's.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Boss Hog, Marlin Jackson with our 1st pick? Now that would be a reach. And picking the kids from hampton so he can return balls because of speed is also quite a reach. While speed is great it does not translate into a great returner. Plus with Thrash, Moss, Brown, and you heard it here Morton (ughhh) we have plenty of good ones already.

Marlin Jackson, get real with that one, you must be a diehard Wolverines fan cause only a Michagan alum would make that pick. I agree reciever is pretty much covered but they still might pick one, you never know. Rolle if he is still there will be the pick. He is smart and big which is the type of corner these days that is needed.

Also we have a very good chance of picking a DE with number 9 or the 1st pick in round 2. Your statement "Remember we had guys like Chris Clemons, Demetric Evans and Ron Warner wrecking havoc" What games were you watching cause if I am correct between the 3 of them they had 6 sacks. Clemons the DE did not even play last year, but his brother the LB played. They hardly wrecked havoc, what the Redskins did alot was smoke and mirrors to free up 1 or 2 players for a sack. Double corner blitzs and zone blitzs were the norm. This is how we got pressure.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]ummmm patten was a #2 for the pats, lol and moss was a #1 two seasons ago and would have been last season. so get ur shit straight, our wr's are proven but jacobs and mcants as "EVERYDOWN" wr's.[/QUOTE]

Moss WAS the Jets #1 WR a year ago, but he was set to become the Jets #3. I hardly think that establishes him as a "proven" wideout. He had ONE, count em', ONE good year (Gardner also had a 70+ catch, 1,000+ yard season). He had fewer catches last season than Rod Gardner...who few think is proven.

Patten was argably anywhere from the #2 to the #4 wideout for the Pats. David Givens appeared in 1 less game than Patten and had 12 more catches. Moreover, the Pats spread the ball around so much because they relied on depth more than stars. Finally, in EIGHT seasons, Patten has yet to crack the 900 yard mark in a season, let alone the 1,000 yard mark. He'd had ONE season of 60+ catches. So, I'm not sure how he can be considered a "proven" starting-caliber wideout.

Thrash....proven? Okay, we just disagree on that one.

McCants....proven? Proven what? That he can be inactive for 11 games last season on a wide recieving corps ridiculed by many posters on this site and implicitly by Gibbs.

Some of these guys have a lot of promise (Moss, Jacobs, McCants), but it's a HUGE stretch to say they're "proven" guys.

Between our ENTIRE recieving corps, I count ONE, UNO, a SINGLE 1,000 yard season. Other than Thrash, the only guy who has even been considered a possible true #1 wideout is Moss (who, as noted has only 1 1,000 yard season under his belt). How is that proven?

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

I still think the general consensus is that we take Williams if he is available. That being said, I also wouldn't be too upset to take a CB first and a DE second in the draft. Just as I have (and Daseal) have been saying, give Daniels a chance!

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

If Williams is there at #9 I don't see a better value for the pick.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Most definitely. I'm just worried about the Titans right now... I'd much rather just see them take Pac Man and deal with it.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

I am not sure that our WR situation is as bad as it is being made out to be. Yes we don't have a "proven" multiple year 1K yd season guy, but what we do have is 4 guys that have played regularly. Remember the skins will still be a run oriented team, and they need speed to keep the safties back. Moss and Patten provide that. Actually, I think it is briilliant. Teams will have to keep safties back, unless they RISK the possiblity of major big plays similar to what the Pats did to the Steelers in the AFC Championship game. Yes Coles when healthy, was MUCH better than both of our new additoins, but he hasn't been healthy for a while. This whole offense is based on Portis.

I would like the skins to look at the CB position first, the DE position 2nd, and then best available player.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Very true lifetimeskin... If we can get the secondary to respect those wideouts, Portis will have a lot of room to run after hitting the second level.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

I don't think our wide receiving corps is a disaster, but it's undoubtedly a weak point on our team. And yes, I'm aware that every team has weak points. I just took issue with the "proven" part of the assessment of our WR corps.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Hopefully behind a much-improved line these guys will finally get the chance TO prove themselves.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=lifetimeskin] This whole offense is based on Portis.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is the best point that nobody has made (at least that I have seen) this week.. All the hemming and hawing and boo-hooing over the trade and our WR, we tend to forget we're still a running team. We're not trying to be the '99 Rams.. Portis & Betts are going to account for 65% of the offense in a well executed Gibbs offense.. The passing game is designed for big plays and short 3rd down conversions.. That's the way it is operating when it's at it's peak.. With Rabach, a healthy Jansen and Portis with a year under his belt knwoing the offense he could have a great year which will open up the passing game, regardless of the WR we have..

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

I would bet $100 that over 70% of the Warpathers will be asking for a new starting WR next offseason.

Any takers?

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

Again, Gibbs is just filling in the blanks that he feels he needs to make his system work. He wants more speed at receiver (Moss, Patten) to open it up for Portis and hit a few long balls. Patten has better hands then Gardner, so I think that that will be an upgrade. We could definitley get better at WR, but I think we could really shore up the team more for years to come by trading down and getting more young talent.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]Again, Gibbs is just filling in the blanks that he feels he needs to make his system work. He wants more speed at receiver (Moss, Patten) to open it up for Portis and hit a few long balls. Patten has better hands then Gardner, so I think that that will be an upgrade. We could definitley get better at WR, but I think we could really shore up the team more for years to come by trading down and getting more young talent.[/QUOTE]

Considering the lack of star power in the draft this year, trading down is a good idea. Moreover, I always love the idea of hoarding draft picks. Then again, those are the very same reasons why it will be hard for us to trade down.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

This has probably been addressed somewhere in this thread, I'm just too lazy to look for it, but what about Rod Gardner?

I know the plan is to trade him, but let's just say they don't. Suppose they don't get the right offer and decide ultimately to just hold onto him. Do you bury him at the bottom of the depth chart and just let him walk next offseason? Do you make him a #1 or 2 and showcase his value possibly for a midseason trade? Clearly you wouldn't draft a receiver then, right?

And lest you think it's a lock that RG won't be here come September, from Saturday's Washington Post:

"This week, Coach Joe Gibbs said Washington is willing to keep Gardner if the club isn't satisfied with the return. And according to sources familiar with the situation, Gardner hasn't yet been dealt partly because Washington has been choosy about offers."

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=BossHog]Get this into your freakin' head people! We will not be drafting a WR in the early rounds in the upcoming draft! No Mike Williams, no Troy Williamson, no Mark Clayton. With the additions of Moss and Patten along with Thrash, Jacobs, and Gibbs' reiterated favorite, McCants, why? It's more likely for us to draft a WR in the later rounds who's willing to be the return man and do the dirty work on special teams. Our draft priorities should reflect need at CB, DL, MLB, TE, in no particular order. I believe it's imperative that we trade down for a lower first rounder and a second rounder. And if we can get at least a third round pick for the Gardner trade, we should be able to fufill those needs with some great talent. How's this?

1. CB Marlin Jackson Michigan
2. DE Matt Roth Iowa
3. TE Alex Smitn Stanford
3. MLB Barrett Rudd Nebraska
4. DT Eric Coleman Clemson
5. WR Jerome Mathis Hampton (That's right! He won't be selected in the early rounds)
6. C Vince Carter Oklahoma
7. Go figure

Of course, the chips don't have to fall exactly this way. As every selection garners consideration of drafting the best player available that fills your need. :oink:[/QUOTE]

If either William's or Edward's is there when we pick were taking taking 1 of them! Patten was the #4 reciever for the Pat's this past season, and Moss was being demoted from #1 to #3 those are the fact's, the only way we trade down is if both are gone.

I want to know where all the big time Lavar supporter's are? If we keep yapping about a DE obviously nobody has any real belief that Lavar will be able to pressure the QB? And if he is everything everyone here say's he is we will pressure the QB as well as anyone. If we were the #3 D without Lavar we should be able to better that with him, In which case improving 1 of the best defenses in the league at the expense of 1 of the worst offenses in the league is just ridiculous.

Jackson, Mathis, and Carter are good pick's, but good luck getting them in the round's your presenting, only if we trade down and take Jackson in the first rd. will we get him, I would like to add Vincent Jackson WR to that list, only if we miss out on the big 2, then and only then if we know we can get a #1 reciever in the second rd. do we look to take Jackson in the first after we trade down, and a backup center/guard to groom is more of a necessity right now than a DE.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE]BossHog, It's more likely for us to draft a WR in the later rounds who's willing to be the return man and do the dirty work on special teams. Our draft priorities should reflect need[/QUOTE]

Return man????????? We have how many???????

Return man is the last thing we need in this upcoming draft.

Moss, Brown, Morton, as well as Bett's and Thrash, we must lead the NFL in return men.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Return man????????? We have how many???????

Return man is the last thing we need in this upcoming draft.

Moss, Brown, Morton, as well as Bett's and Thrash, we must lead the NFL in return men.[/QUOTE] Hey we agree on somthing. The world is becomming a bette place.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=HermosaBeach Skin Fan]You're absolutely right. We're WAY worse off than we would have been. I think Moss is better than Gardner (we should have drafted him initially), but he has durability problems. Coles was good, but obviously unhappy. SO WHAT! We're taking a 9million dollar cap hit because the guy wasn't happy??!!! Lot's of people aren't happy at work. You make a commitment, you should stick it out. We didn't have the cap room to accomidate him and it was stupid to trade him. Even if we didn't trade him, we could have had cap room to pick up a guy through FA had he decided to sit.

My thought: We're set at QB, stick with Ramsey. We're GREAT at RB, Portis is going to be good for a long time. Our OL is good, no needs there. Our WRs STINK. That's by far the deficiency in our offense. Look at teams like the Rams, Even the Eagles with Owens, the Vikings (who's defense sucks), they all have good WRs. You need a good passing game to open up the run game. You become one dimensional, you can't do anything. Our defense is good enough; the glaring needs are at WR, start there.[/QUOTE]

What has Ramsey acutally proven????????? Nothing.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS ﺶ]This has probably been addressed somewhere in this thread, I'm just too lazy to look for it, but what about Rod Gardner?

I know the plan is to trade him, but let's just say they don't. Suppose they don't get the right offer and decide ultimately to just hold onto him. Do you bury him at the bottom of the depth chart and just let him walk next offseason? Do you make him a #1 or 2 and showcase his value possibly for a midseason trade? Clearly you wouldn't draft a receiver then, right?

And lest you think it's a lock that RG won't be here come September, from Saturday's Washington Post:

"This week, Coach Joe Gibbs said Washington is willing to keep Gardner if the club isn't satisfied with the return. And according to sources familiar with the situation, Gardner hasn't yet been dealt partly because Washington has been choosy about offers."[/QUOTE]

I say if they can't find a decent #3 pick then he should be allowed to compete for a starting job just like everyone else. I definitely wouldn't bury him on the depth chart.

Actually I'd be kinda interested to see how Gardner plays in a contract year.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I say if they can't find a decent #3 pick then he should be allowed to compete for a starting job just like everyone else. I definitely wouldn't bury him on the depth chart.

Actually I'd be kinda interested to see how Gardner plays in a contract year.[/QUOTE]


How he would play? Does the last 4 seasons remind you of anything?

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=SKINZ_DOMIN8]How he would play? Does the last 4 seasons remind you of anything?[/QUOTE]

If he's playing for a big money contract who knows, maybe he would hold on to some of those drops. You never know how a guy will play when he's playing for a big payraise. Some guys have career years.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]If he's playing for a big money contract who knows, maybe he would hold on to some of those drops. You never know how a guy will play when he's playing for a big payraise. Some guys have career years.[/QUOTE]

The bottom line is TRUE LONGTIME REDSKINS FANS like myself don't want garbage like Rod Gardner on the team.

When was the last time he broke a tackle for a long gain? Not this past season.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=SKINZ_DOMIN8]The bottom line is TRUE LONGTIME REDSKINS FANS like myself don't want garbage like Rod Gardner on the team.

When was the last time he broke a tackle for a long gain? Not this past season.[/QUOTE]

wow, sorry I wasn't aware I was in the presence of a TRUE LONGTIME REDSKINS FAN.

I guess if I'm considering the possibilities of what happens if we can't find good value for him in a trade I'm not quite on the same level as a TRUE LONGTIME REDSKINS FAN.

LOL

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

That's my point you just made for me. Thank you. Garbage in garbage out. Cut him.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=SKINZ_DOMIN8]That's my point you just made for me. Thank you. Garbage in garbage out. Cut him.[/QUOTE]

zackmills?

:Smoker:

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[quote]When was the last time he broke a tackle for a long gain? Not this past season.[/quote]

How many times did anyone last year? Very few. Gardner made some huge catches for us, he's definitely better than any WR on our roster right now. He can be a 1000yard #1 receiver. He's shown that.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

This time last year everyone was talking about how bad our Defense was going to be. No Tackles, no DE (Rusher) Defense was our strongest suite. I said the Defense would be just fine with what we had, "No Miracle"

I'm going to say this year our WR are going to be just fine because I'm not going to compare what our new additions did with their previous teams. However, viewing the stats of both Moss and Patten the average YPC is better than anything we had last year. Eighteen yards per catch is far better than average, and while neither of them caught 90 balls like Coles did think what their total yards would look like if they did.

Plus, just their presence on the field will make life much more bearable for Portis. The Defense has to respect that speed, and getting that 8th man out the box will make a tremendous difference. Also drafting a Receiver at #9, even one of MW caliber commands a huge signing bonus and considerable $$ we're up against the cap. Many $$ already invested in the WR position.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]zackmills?

:Smoker:[/QUOTE]

That's what I was thinking!

[QUOTE=Daesel]Gardner made some huge catches for us, he's definitely better than any WR on our roster right now. He can be a 1000yard #1 receiver. He's shown that.[/quote]
When has he shown that? He had one 1,000 yard season (the same number as Moss) in '02.. He is WAY too inconsistent to be a #1 receiver. He makes the spectacular catches you'd expect from a #1 but he also drops passes and false starts like you'd expect from a right tackle..

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Longtimefan]This time last year everyone was talking about how bad our Defense was going to be. No Tackles, no DE (Rusher) Defense was our strongest suite. I said the Defense would be just fine with what we had, "No Miracle"

I'm going to say this year our WR are going to be just fine because I'm not going to compare what our new additions did with their previous teams. However, viewing the stats of both Moss and Patten the average YPC is better than anything we had last year. Eighteen yards per catch is far better than average, and while neither of them caught 90 balls like Coles did think what their total yards would look like if they did.

Plus, just their presence on the field will make life much more bearable for Portis. The Defense has to respect that speed, and getting that 8th man out the box will make a tremendous difference. Also drafting a Receiver at #9, even one of MW caliber commands a huge signing bonus and considerable $$ we're up against the cap. Many $$ already invested in the WR position.[/QUOTE]

only now they'll be covered by #1 CBs not 2s, 3s, and safeties...

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]How many times did anyone last year? Very few. Gardner made some huge catches for us, he's definitely better than any WR on our roster right now. He can be a 1000yard #1 receiver. He's shown that.[/QUOTE]

Are you on drugs? Gardner better than Patten and/or Moss??????????

Seriously, are you on drugs or not???????

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=SKINZ_DOMIN8]Are you on drugs? Gardner better than Patten and/or Moss??????????

Seriously, are you on drugs or not???????[/QUOTE]

Statistically, Gardner is better than both. But stats aren't the be all end all.

There's definately room to argue that Gardner is as good as either of them. When you factor in who Moss and Patten were surrounded by (i.e. Pennington and Brady - two of the league's best QBs), I think there's definately room for argument about the issue.

To say categorically that Gardner is better or worse than either of them isn't that wise IMHO.

A close friend of mine is a HUGE Jets fan and he's been bitching about Moss just as much as we've been bitching about Gardner, albeit for different reasons.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I would bet $100 that over 70% of the Warpathers will be asking for a new starting WR next offseason.

Any takers?[/QUOTE]

I'm not shocked that no one took you up on that bet RamseyFan. The fact is, we sit here and try to be over-optimistic, and tell ourselves that we added Moss and Patten, our WRs are okay. But in our hearts, we can see clearly that we are not okay. Redskins fans bitched and moaned all of last season (well all of the last part of the season, at the beginning of the season there was too much Brunell bitching to fit in any other complaints) about our lack of effective WRs, and believe me, I was at the forefront. And whether we like to admit it or not, we have not improved on that area. It's easy to convince ourselves that we have, with all the changes, but at best we have broken even.

I can understand that if people aren't sold on Mike Williams, they might not want to trade up for him, but if he makes to number 9 he has to be ours, write it down, lights out, 3 minutes to make the pick. Not Antrel Rolle, not Pac-Man Jones, not Shawne Merriman. Nobody is enough to warrant passing on him.

With Williams, our WR corps is set for years. He is young, Moss is young, Jacobs is young. Those guys are absolutely the mirror image of Monk, Sanders, and Clark, and could be together for 6 years or more.

Re: Let's face it. Our WRs are set...
 

I want Gardner gone regardless, I don't care what we get for him, a lot of guy's here are falling back into that trap with Gardner, trust me he will burn you again like he alway's does, I don't care if he beat's out everyone for the job he will burn us in the game, reliability help's to build trust on offense and trust bring's continuity, well that ain't happening with Gardner, he's the little girl with the curl, she's nice to look at, and she'll give you a smile, but she will break your heart everytime, Gardner has to go, I said it before and I will say it again he's part of what we are trying to get away from as a team.