Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I'm on the fence, I'd almost not want to sign Moss either. Only because of age and being injury prone. For me as long as we incorporate our new young talent we picked up from the draft.

I'm also on the fence with Austin. Maybe he pans out. Kelly I foresee him getting cut. I suspect history will repeat itself and he will injured yet again or riding the bike on the sideline because of his knees. I guess I'm just over Kelly now.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Edwards, Moss, AA and Hank and we could have a damn good group of WR's

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=SBXVII;810006]I'm on the fence, I'd almost not want to sign Moss either. Only because of age and being injury prone. For me as long as we incorporate our new young talent we picked up from the draft.

I'm also on the fence with Austin. Maybe he pans out. Kelly I foresee him getting cut. I suspect history will repeat itself and he will injured yet again or riding the bike on the sideline because of his knees. I guess I'm just over Kelly now.[/quote]

Injury prone might be a bit of a stretch. Moss hasn't missed a game in 3 years.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Mattyk;810010]Injury prone might be a bit of a stretch. Moss hasn't missed a game in 3 years.[/quote]


I was going to say the same thing, I didn't think he had been injured that often but was to lazy to confirm.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

He's missed all of 4 games in his 6 years here.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=SmootSmack;809942]Don't forget about Kris Jenkins too. He's still a very strong possibility.[/quote]

Well AH will need company on the bench, so great.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Mattyk;810012]He's missed all of 4 games in his 6 years here.[/quote]

THAT MANY!!!! SHOW HIM THE DOOR PLEASE!!! That's 4 games out of 96 not to mention a couple of playoff games. We have to resign him. It's a no brainer

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Not crazy about the idea of getting Braylon... he drops a lot of balls. Also a little worried about the DUI and how he might handle having a John Beck at QB

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;810020]THAT MANY!!!! SHOW HIM THE DOOR PLEASE!!! That's 4 games out of 96 not to mention a couple of playoff games. [B][SIZE=3]We have to resign him. It's a no brainer[/SIZE][/B][/quote]

^^^^^^^^

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

We're not picking up Braylon. This is one thing one guy thought might happen. The original source of this rumor pretty much just said the Redskins could target him. I don't think they will.

Hell, they'd pick Santonio before they picked Braylon, and Santonio has his issues too. But at least Santanio brings the production.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;810007]Edwards, Moss, AA and Hank and we could have a damn good group of WR's[/quote]

Dang, that sounds quite attractive.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;810031]Dang, that sounds quite attractive.[/quote]

edwards for possession, AA for deep and Moss for slot...

[QUOTE=skinsfaninok;810053]edwards for possession, AA for deep and Moss for slot...[/QUOTE]

Edwards "butter fingers" for possession? Really?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Mattyk;810057]Edwards "butter fingers" for possession? Really?[/quote]


He has some drops but He's 6"4 and has long arms. He's a possession guy Imo

Big red zone target which we haven't had in how long?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Armstrong 5'11, 185
Austin 5'11, 175
Banks 5'7, 155
Taurus Johnson 6'1, 218
Maurice Price 6'1, 197
Moss 5'10, 205
Kelly 6'4, 226
Hankerson 6'2, 209
Paul 6'1, 224
Robinson 5'10, 184

Here's are list as of right now. Honestly, I figure Kelly to get injured again or have knee issue's, Moss is 32 y/o but I guess he's worth keeping if he's cheap. I figure only 1 or 2 Rookie WR's will make the active roster and the other one will be on PS, Johnson and Price might be cut to make room for the new guys unless they really shine. For whatever reason I thought of Austin as being a pretty small guy also but he's actually 1 inch taller then Moss. I could see us picking up 1 more vet Edwards or someone just to be safe. Then we would have...

Moss
Armstrong
Banks
Hankerson
Paul
Robinson

Thats 6 not including any on the PS. So picking up another Vet would not hurt us and one of the new guys probably could sit on the PS.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

honestly we still don't know if AA can be a factor again

Edwards drops too many to be considered a possession guy.

As for AA, I think he proved he belongs as a legit deep threat.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;810060]honestly we still don't know if AA can be a factor again[/quote]

He caught passes from both McNabb and Rex. In fact I think Rex might have done a better job of finding him. If he only caught passes from one of them then I would be more worried.

People don't want to admit it, but Receivers are starting to become a dime a dozen.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;810058]He has some drops but He's 6"4 and has long arms. He's a possession guy Imo

Big red zone target which we haven't had in how long?[/quote]

...You know, Santonio Holmes is 5'10", and he's still a big red zone target. They throw him a lot of back shoulder fades on DB's who are a hair taller than him.

I keep hearing about this mystical "big red zone target", but I just don't see them in fashion as much as Redskins fans like to say. Maybe it's because they feel like we haven't had one, but red zone production isn't just about having a big wide receiver who is a "big target".

In the red zone, it's more about quarterbacks making quicker decisions in a smaller space and making better decisions at that. Having a tall guy in the red zone is a plus, but it's not necessary, especially if the defense knows you're probably going to be throwing the ball to the tall guy because he's tall.

Tall=/=good receiver, nor does it equal a good red zone target.

Fans kept screaming "TALL, TALL, TALL!" at Vinny Cerrato, so he drafted two of the tallest receivers available, then got a tall-ish tight end. So far, only Fred Davis has proven to be a viable target down in the red zone on a someone consistent basis (all three of his touchdowns were down on the goal line).

Besides, didn't we just draft two (actually talented, actually productive) tall wide receivers?

I think we need to kick the height fetish and just get players at the wide receiver position that can catch the football period.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

If I were the Redskins I would make an offer to Marc Bulger. IMO he has the best chance to be a legit starter and play at a high level. He has the chance to be the next Kurt Warner, meaning I'm comparing how Warner went to NY and then on the Az. If you can get a line and some wr's around him he can be as good as some of the 2nd tier guys below Brady, Manning, Brees and Rivers.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;810065]...You know, Santonio Holmes is 5'10", and he's still a big red zone target. They throw him a lot of back shoulder fades on DB's who are a hair taller than him.

I keep hearing about this mystical "big red zone target", but I just don't see them in fashion as much as Redskins fans like to say. Maybe it's because they feel like we haven't had one, but red zone production isn't just about having a big wide receiver who is a "big target".

In the red zone, it's more about quarterbacks making quicker decisions in a smaller space and making better decisions at that. Having a tall guy in the red zone is a plus, but it's not necessary, especially if the defense knows you're probably going to be throwing the ball to the tall guy because he's tall.

Tall=/=good receiver, nor does it equal a good red zone target.

Fans kept screaming "TALL, TALL, TALL!" at Vinny Cerrato, so he drafted two of the tallest receivers available, then got a tall-ish tight end. So far, only Fred Davis has proven to be a viable target down in the red zone on a someone consistent basis (all three of his touchdowns were down on the goal line).

Besides, didn't we just draft two (actually talented, actually productive) tall wide receivers?

[B]I think we need to kick the height fetish and just get players at the wide receiver position that can catch the football period[/B].[/quote]

This.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I don't think I've heard anybody put it better recently than you NLC

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfan69;810071]If I were the Redskins I would [B]make an offer to Marc Bulger[/B]. IMO he has the best chance to be a legit starter and play at a high level. He has the chance to be the next Kurt Warner, meaning I'm comparing how Warner went to NY and then on the Az. If you can get a line and some wr's around him he can be as good as some of the 2nd tier guys below Brady, Manning, Brees and Rivers.[/quote]

EW. Old. Pass. I guarantee you we aren't throwing away money or players to trade for old washed up vet QB's. They only guy I would ever consider trading for is Kyle Orton, and I don't think that will happen. Build our other areas of need this off season and get a good QB in the draft this year. We aren't going to fix the whole team in one go.

Don't sign a washed up vet just to say you did, sign someone who will have a great impact down the road and wait until you can get a QB with good value and hopefully longevity. It's not like we would sign a vet QB to groom a young guy we already have for the future. I doubt anyone we have here will be a long term solution for our team at the QB position for years to come.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Gak...Bulger is a beat up has been, I'd rather sign Steve deBerg.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I think the one thing we will see with us signing free agents will be the deals will not be crazy which will be a nice change. Another thing will be a better overall strategy with us taking our time and not out bidding ourselves like we did in the past. I dont expect after at 12:01 am when the period begins, 100 million guarentee floating along multiple phonelines outta the Skins FO...thank god for BA.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;810065]...You know, Santonio Holmes is 5'10", and he's still a big red zone target. They throw him a lot of back shoulder fades on DB's who are a hair taller than him.

I keep hearing about this mystical "big red zone target", but I just don't see them in fashion as much as Redskins fans like to say. Maybe it's because they feel like we haven't had one, but red zone production isn't just about having a big wide receiver who is a "big target".

In the red zone, it's more about quarterbacks making quicker decisions in a smaller space and making better decisions at that. Having a tall guy in the red zone is a plus, but it's not necessary, especially if the defense knows you're probably going to be throwing the ball to the tall guy because he's tall.

Tall=/=good receiver, nor does it equal a good red zone target.

Fans kept screaming "TALL, TALL, TALL!" at Vinny Cerrato, so he drafted two of the tallest receivers available, then got a tall-ish tight end. So far, only Fred Davis has proven to be a viable target down in the red zone on a someone consistent basis (all three of his touchdowns were down on the goal line).

Besides, didn't we just draft two (actually talented, actually productive) tall wide receivers?

I think we need to kick the height fetish and just get players at the wide receiver position that can catch the football period.[/quote]


So Andre Johnson isn't a better red zone option than Santana Moss?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Did anyone actually think he'd stay out of trouble?

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820b24fd/article/report-cincinnati-police-arrest-pacman-for-incident-at-bar?module=HP_headlines]NFL.com news: Report: Cincinnati police arrest 'Pacman' for incident at bar[/url]

[QUOTE]Jones was intoxicated and uncooperative when asked to leave the bar, witnesses said, according to the television station. Police were called, but Jones still wouldn't leave, so he was placed under arrest. He tried to escape his handcuffs, and two officers had to restrain him, according to the report.

[/QUOTE]

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;810113]So Andre Johnson isn't a better red zone option than Santana Moss?[/quote]

Andre Johnson is an excellent wide receiver period. Not just a red zone target. He's the best receiver in the league and he happens to be call, but he's not good BECAUSE he's tall. He's a big target in the red zone and he's physical, but my point is you don't [i]need[/i] those guys to be productive in the red zone. Lots of other football teams who don't have Andre Johnson or Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald get by with having smaller wide receivers.

But we saw it in the Cowboys game that Santana Moss is a fine red zone guy. He snagged two touchdowns in the red zone. It's not about height, it's about route running and quick decisions buy the quarterback. Would I rather have Andre Johnson? Sure. But that's because Johnson's a better all around receiver at this stage of his career, and it's a nice plus that he happens to be tall. (And even then, they're not throwing him a lot of fade routes; he's just beating guys with his route running).

And like I said; we drafted a wide receiver that's 6'2", another that's 6'1", we have a guy on the roster who is 6'4", and two tight ends that are 6'3" and 6'4"-ish a piece. How many more big bodied tall guys do we need before we have a "legitimate red zone threat"?

The problems in the red zone have been less about "we don't have enough tall guys!" and more about not having quarterbacks who are able to make those quick reads in the red zone and getting the ball out. Look at what Rex did at the end of the season; for all Rex's flaws, when we got down in the red zone, we were scoring touchdowns instead of kicking field goals.

With Donovan we could go on a great drive, but once we got inside the 30 or 20 and the field got shorter, he struggled. Don't know how many times he actually had a guy open but he checked the ball down or threw it to someone who wasn't going to be able to score or manage to underthrow a five yard pass. (See: Cooley, TWICE in the Tampa Bay game).

Tall guys are a plus, but they're not necessary.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;810143]Andre Johnson is an excellent wide receiver period. Not just a red zone target. He's the best receiver in the league and he happens to be call, but he's not good BECAUSE he's tall. He's a big target in the red zone and he's physical, but my point is you don't [I]need[/I] those guys to be productive in the red zone. Lots of other football teams who don't have Andre Johnson or Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald get by with having smaller wide receivers.

But we saw it in the Cowboys game that Santana Moss is a fine red zone guy. He snagged two touchdowns in the red zone. It's not about height, it's about route running and quick decisions buy the quarterback. Would I rather have Andre Johnson? Sure. But that's because Johnson's a better all around receiver at this stage of his career, and it's a nice plus that he happens to be tall. (And even then, they're not throwing him a lot of fade routes; he's just beating guys with his route running).

And like I said; we drafted a wide receiver that's 6'2", another that's 6'1", we have a guy on the roster who is 6'4", and two tight ends that are 6'3" and 6'4"-ish a piece. How many more big bodied tall guys do we need before we have a "legitimate red zone threat"?

The problems in the red zone have been less about "we don't have enough tall guys!" and more about not having quarterbacks who are able to make those quick reads in the red zone and getting the ball out. Look at what Rex did at the end of the season; for all Rex's flaws, when we got down in the red zone, we were scoring touchdowns instead of kicking field goals.

With Donovan we could go on a great drive, but once we got inside the 30 or 20 and the field got shorter, he struggled. Don't know how many times he actually had a guy open but he checked the ball down or threw it to someone who wasn't going to be able to score or manage to underthrow a five yard pass. (See: Cooley, TWICE in the Tampa Bay game).

Tall guys are a plus, but they're not necessary.[/quote]


I agree and I also see in the red zone why we struggle.. Small Wr's make it harder on QB's. Unless your Tom Brady, Manning or Rodgers right now you really see teams with that BIG WR make plays down there often..
DET, AZ, HOU, MIA, DALLAS, SD.. All have big targets and all have good offenses accept maybe Miami. I'm JS it helps to have a Tall WR for that main reason.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I'm not concerned about guys "making plays". I'm concerned about guys catch the football. Devin Thomas was tall but he was a crap red zone target because he was a crappy route runner.

Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Brandon Marshall, and Dallas' receivers aren't good because they're tall, they're good because they're great receivers. Being tall HELPS, but it is not the determining factor in red zone success. Quick quarterback decision making is. A short guy is just as likely to make a play as a big guy in the red zone if the quarterback knows where to go with the ball.

Again, two nice red zone guys are Cooley and Davis, but there were more than a couple times where, despite being open, and despite being big targets, McNabb flat out missed them. So it really falls on the quarterback to make it happen with whatever weapons he has.

Not that I don't like big, tall wide receivers, but I don't also buy the "taller guys are easier to find" argument, especially if a guy comes open. Most wide receivers are going to be as tall if not slightly taller than most DB's in the league. And like I said, I think most of the tall receiver fetish from the Redskins' fan standpoint is that people feel as though we haven't had any of those guys.

We have had those guys before, but they were all either lazy, weren't good as running their routes, or their only defining attribute was being kinda tall and that was it. It's the execution that makes Andre Johnson a frakkin' beast, not his height.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;810113]So Andre Johnson isn't a better red zone option than Santana Moss?[/quote]

So Malcolm Kelly isn't a better red zone option than Santana Moss?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinster;810146]So Malcolm Kelly isn't a better red zone option than Santana Moss?[/quote]

Or Devin Thomas. Or Marko Mitchell. Or Brandon Lloyd...

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

U can't count MK guys he doesn't even play

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;810149]U can't count MK guys he doesn't even play[/quote]

That's the point that's trying to be made. Skill is more important than physical measurables. If we can get good value on a big bodied WR red zone guy then great, but it is more important to get good value than to reach for a perceived need. Someone that can get separation is better than just a big body.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Part of the reason Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas were drafted were because of fans consistently complaining about the fact that we had no tall receivers/red zone threats, despite their being much better prospects who have done much more. For as much crap as Dan Snyder gets, he actually sort of does listen to what everyone happens to complaining about at the moment.

So he got a guy who everyone knew was injury prone before the draft because at 6'4", he was one of the tallest wide receivers available, but for some reason picked up one year wonder Devin Thomas before him. And then, he picked a tall tight end in Fred Davis, even though he already had a starting tight end in Chris Cooley, who is also friggin' tall and was ALREADY a red zone threat.

This in a draft where Jordy Nelson, DeSean Jackson, Mario Manningham, Eddie Royal, Pierre Garcon, Stevie Johnson, Early Doucet...all these guys of various shapes and sizes who have had a lot more success than DT and MK. All in the name of finding the mythical "red zone threat", when really address needs other places would've benefited us more.

But alas, this thread is supposed to be about free agency.

...Heh-heh, wouldn't it be funny if DT ended up getting cut by the Giants and ended up back here?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Malcolm Kelly isnt a better anything.....

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I never said you had to be big to score TDs guys lol I just said it helps.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;810153]Part of the reason Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas were drafted were because of fans consistently complaining about the fact that we had no tall receivers/red zone threats, despite their being much better prospects who have done much more. For as much crap as Dan Snyder gets, he actually sort of does listen to what everyone happens to complaining about at the moment.

So he got a guy who everyone knew was injury prone before the draft because at 6'4", he was one of the tallest wide receivers available, but for some reason picked up one year wonder Devin Thomas before him. And then, he picked a tall tight end in Fred Davis, even though he already had a starting tight end in Chris Cooley, who is also friggin' tall and was ALREADY a red zone threat.

This in a draft where Jordy Nelson, DeSean Jackson, Mario Manningham, Eddie Royal, Pierre Garcon, Stevie Johnson, Early Doucet...all these guys of various shapes and sizes who have had a lot more success than DT and MK. All in the name of finding the mythical "red zone threat", when really address needs other places would've benefited us more.

But alas, this thread is supposed to be about free agency.

...Heh-heh, wouldn't it be funny if DT ended up getting cut by the Giants and ended up back here?[/quote]I completely agree re: red zone and height. The teams that are best in the red zone are the teams that are best in all other parts of the field.

Height does help in the red zone because of the mismatches it creates with smaller DBs...just like it helps when you're on your own 35 yard line. Mismatches are mismatches. The best mismatch you can have is being a more dominant football player than the guy you are lining up against. And thus, the best way to cash in TDs in the Red Zone is to have a bunch of dominant players, not a bunch of tall guys.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=GTripp0012;810159]I completely agree re: red zone and height. The teams that are best in the red zone are the teams that are best in all other parts of the field.

[B]Height does help in the red zone because of the mismatches it creates with smaller DBs...just like it helps when you're on your own 35 yard line. Mismatches are mismatches.[/B] The best mismatch you can have is being a more dominant football player than the guy you are lining up against. And thus, the best way to cash in TDs in the Red Zone is to have a bunch of dominant players, not a bunch of tall guys.[/quote]

That's all I was trying to say..

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I think it has more to do with the opponants CB's and how tall they are. If they are taller then our WR's then balls will get batted away or intercepted. We would be forced to run slants and curls. So it is nice to have tall WR's since most CB's are starting to come out 6' plus.