Redskins Add WRs Pierre Garcon and Joshua Morgan

[REDSKINS4ever]

Antonio Freeman, former Packers wide receiver, doesn't think the Redskins have a game changer with Garcon, Morgan, and possibly Royal. But that remains to be seen. Just because the Redskins didn't land Colston, Marshall, or V. Jackson, people like Freeman(some NFL analysts) are saying that the Redskins didn't upgrade- that they overpaid for a trio of #2 receivers. I don't think that's the case and we won't know until nearly halfway through the season.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Skins4L]

I dont want Royal too. It will remind me of `06 when we picked up 6 WRs and Brandon Lloyd had like 6 catches all year we had 40 mid tier WRs. We have enough after Pierre & Josh.

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Fwiw, the Eagles are overpaying DeSean Jackson as well. Not quite by as much as we're lining Garcon's pockets in excess of his value, but in the same way that neither team will be able to get value on the contract until year 3 at the earliest, assuming the player even makes it there.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Garcon's yards per target are:

2009 - 8.2
2010 - 7.2
2011 - 7.1

The 2009 figure was primarily a function of going deep about 8-10% more often than in the other years, i.e. being the third receiver. As the second receiver when Austin Collie was injured/ineffective, his effectiveness dropped by about a yard per target.

Reggie Wayne in the same timeframe (for context):

2009 - 8.1
2010 - 7.7
2011 - 7.3

Same drop-off, but not as steep.

[GTripp0012]

And here's Josh Morgan against Michael Crabtree:

Morgan:
2009 - 6.5
2010 - 8.7
2011 - 11.0

Now THAT is a positive trend.

Crabtree:
2009 - 7.3
2010 - 7.3
2011 - 7.0

You could make the argument that Alex Smith's "development" was really just Josh Morgan's development.

[JoLo]

I think both Morgan and Garcon have very nice upside. Garcon already showed how explosive he can be. Didnt he have a few 150 yd games last year? Or atleast close to that, with Painter lol.

[GTripp0012]

More context:

Jabar Gaffney:
2009 - 8.4
2010 - 7.8
2011 - 8.2
(career since 2006: 8.0)

Anthony Armstrong:
2010 - 10.1
2011 - 3.8
(Career - 8.6)

Santana Moss:
2009 - 7.5
2010 - 7.7
2011 - 6.1
(career: 7.9)

Fred Davis:
2009 - 6.8
2010 - 10.4
2011 - 9.0
(career: 8.2)

Donte Stallworth:
2011 - 8.2
(career - 7.8)

It would make sense to conclude that the standard for a Kyle Shanahan receiver is > 8.0 YPT.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

More context:

Jabar Gaffney:
2009 - 8.4
2010 - 7.8
2011 - 8.2
(career since 2006: 8.0)

Anthony Armstrong:
2010 - 10.1
2011 - 3.8
(Career - 8.6)

Santana Moss:
2009 - 7.5
2010 - 7.7
2011 - 6.1
(career: 7.9)

Fred Davis:
2009 - 6.8
2010 - 10.4
2011 - 9.0
(career: 8.2)

Donte Stallworth:
2011 - 8.2
(career - 7.8)

It would make sense to conclude that the standard for a Kyle Shanahan receiver is > 8.0 YPT.

What were his receivers in houston numbers. If they were significantly higher wouldnt that suggest a different answer