Redskins Add WRs Pierre Garcon and Joshua Morgan

[Lotus]

I don't get the we-overpaid-for-Garcon crowd. Indy offered him $7 mil a year and we had to offer just a bit more to get him. That's what we did. It's not like we threw VJax money at him.

Griffin to Garcon is going to rule.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I don't get the we-overpaid-for-Garcon crowd. Indy offered him $7 mil a year and we had to offer just a bit more to get him. That's what we did. It's not like we threw VJax money at him.

Griffin to Garcon is going to rule.

I agree on Garcon's price. We are at a point where we are bringing in younger talent that hopefully is on the rise, and paying competitively (not crazy dollars). I think the Skins fan base just has become a little schizo as we get back to a sane FO situation. Get Everybody -- Don't pay HIM.

That said, one thing I do hope, is that we are properly valuing our own. This FO has spent alot of efforts, FA signings/later draft picks, on WR, and I would like us to find some of those diamond in the roughs.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I don't get the we-overpaid-for-Garcon crowd. Indy offered him $7 mil a year and we had to offer just a bit more to get him. That's what we did. It's not like we threw VJax money at him.

Griffin to Garcon is going to rule.

Typical over reactionary BS. Dudes act like we gave him a Calvin Johnson contract or something. He was considered the third best WR prospect (production/age combo) in free agency and he got the 2nd best contract, mostly because Colston went back to NO and he's had 2 micro fracture surgeries in the past 26 months. He got a contract that when it's all said and done will be around market for a moderately productive WR who is 26 years old and his curve is ascending.

I think that the perfect offseason for some people would be if we:
-Re-signed all of our players whose jerseys they have hanging in their closet
-In free agency signed young, All pro players (preferably guards and tackles) to incentive laden contracts with a base salary of what else, VET MIN
-Repeatedly traded down until we had 2 picks in every round (not sure if they'd ever be used though)

And of course, win 13 games with 'young, hungry' players.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I don't get the we-overpaid-for-Garcon crowd. Indy offered him $7 mil a year and we had to offer just a bit more to get him. That's what we did. It's not like we threw VJax money at him.

Griffin to Garcon is going to rule.

I don't think Garcon is 7 mil a year type of wr. He's been up and down and struggles with routine catches. But we see it all around the league, teams overpay if they really want a guy. I'm actually OK with Garcon cause Indy established his value. I just see no need for Morgan or Royal. Spend that money elsewhere.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I don't think Garcon is 7 mil a year type of wr. He's been up and down and struggles with routine catches. But we see it all around the league, teams overpay if they really want a guy. I'm actually OK with Garcon cause Indy established his value. I just see no need for Morgan or Royal. Spend that money elsewhere.

I think the fact Norv in San Diego wanted Garcon over V Jax and the rest of the market speaks pretty high of Garcon's ability

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think the fact Norv in San Diego wanted Garcon over V Jax and the rest of the market speaks pretty high of Garcon's ability

I think Norv wanted Jackson, SD just wasn't going to pay him cause of the risk. Garcon was his 2nd option. Tampa completly overpaid for Jackson IMO.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I think Norv wanted Jackson, SD just wasn't going to pay him cause of the risk. Garcon was his 2nd option. Tampa completly overpaid for Jackson IMO.

Right the risk, if San Diego and Norv truly wanted him he woulda never hit the market. Norv had multiple opportunities to sign V Jax, he went after Garcon instead.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I don't get the we-overpaid-for-Garcon crowd. Indy offered him $7 mil a year and we had to offer just a bit more to get him. That's what we did. It's not like we threw VJax money at him.

Griffin to Garcon is going to rule.

VJax would have been more taxing on the cap (particularly in 2012, when Jackson is counting $13 million against TBs cap and Garcon about $4.5 against ours). But Jackson is a MUCH better player than Garcon, and he likely deserves the difference.

Age is a big deal though. If Garcon develops as the Shanahan's expect (given this deal), he could be a bargain in years 3-5. Where as Jackson will almost certainly be overpaid in the same years.

Garcon though has to get past years 1 and 2 though. $10 mil/year for two seasons for a receiver who doesn't develop is tough to swallow no matter how much cap space one has. The Bucs aren't projecting Jackson to turn into a number one for them, as he already is. Which is the big difference.

Plus the Morgan signings suggests the Shanahan's don't think this signing is a slam dunk. If it is a great move and Garcon-Griffin is the new Harrison-Manning, Morgan will rot on the bench for a year and then look for work in 2013, B. Lloyd-style.

But Morgan's speed and versatility gives the Redskins a non-Armstrong option if one too many Griffin bombs go through Garcon's hands.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

VJax would have been more taxing on the cap (particularly in 2012, when Jackson is counting $13 million against TBs cap and Garcon about $4.5 against ours). But Jackson is a MUCH better player than Garcon, and he likely deserves the difference.

Age is a big deal though. If Garcon develops as the Shanahan's expect (given this deal), he could be a bargain in years 3-5. Where as Jackson will almost certainly be overpaid in the same years.

Garcon though has to get past years 1 and 2 though. $10 mil/year for two seasons for a receiver who doesn't develop is tough to swallow no matter how much cap space one has. The Bucs aren't projecting Jackson to turn into a number one for them, as he already is. Which is the big difference.

Plus the Morgan signings suggests the Shanahan's don't think this signing is a slam dunk. If it is a great move and Garcon-Griffin is the new Harrison-Manning, Morgan will rot on the bench for a year and then look for work in 2013, B. Lloyd-style.

But Morgan's speed and versatility gives the Redskins a non-Armstrong option if one too many Griffin bombs go through Garcon's hands.

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.

[Skins4L]

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.

Santana Moss HEALTHY> Josh Morgan.

I wouldnt bank on Morgan just yet and hes comming off a sidelining injury.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Skins4L

Santana Moss HEALTHY> Josh Morgan.

I wouldnt bank on Morgan just yet and hes comming off a sidelining injury.

I don't disagree about the injury of Morgan's. But I was talking more about the plan in the ideal, not the reality. No one knows the reality right now.

As for Santana > Morgan, that is debatable. But even if we grant that (and I do like Santana), it must be asked: will that still be true in two years?

[GTripp0012]

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.