Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
I don't disagree that VJax is the better player. But the bolded part is why I think we got a good value (provided Garcon develops, of course).
As for Morgan, it seems to me like we are doing a complete housecleaning at WR. I do not expect Morgan to rot on the bench. I think Morgan is the Housh to Garcon's Ochocinco a la 2005 Bengals.
|
Barring injury (which inevitably will strike, and woohoo! if it doesn't), someone here is resigned to the bench. Otherwise, we're playing with either too many guys on the field or a poor excuse for a right tackle.
But I think the "if he develops" is only half of the value equation, and frankly, it's not the more likely half. If Garcon struggles for any reason (even something that's not his own fault like inconsistent use or misusage), then 1/$13.5 or 2/$21 is a difficult burden for the team to carry. Much more difficult on the downside than a $7 mil/year for a true no. 1 receiver between the ages of 28-30 is an upside for the roster.
My biggest beef is that Josh Morgan might actually have some hidden upside that might make him a no. 1 receiver in the future (kind of like Armstrong in 2010), but he's going back to the market in two years whether he works out or not. The signing that should have had the backloaded upside potential doesn't have that potential. That's the kind of missed opportunity that Bruce Allen typically seizes, at least with every position except wide receiver.
And that makes me terrified as to what an Eddie Royal contract might look like because Royal is not even a good (or remotely acceptable) offensive player. He did win a game for Denver with a punt return though last year.