Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

Did you not pay attention about PFT?

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=Monkeydad;806407]Did you not pay attention about PFT?[/quote]

All memo's go directly to my trash folder.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=SmootSmack;805537]Why'd you choose Antonio Bryant for comparison?[/quote]I was thinking about the Bucs model, and how they let their top target go and ended up better for it. Bryant and Moss are dissimilar in the way that Bryant is probably done as a pro starter after the injury and that stint with the Bengals, and I think Moss has a (small?) number of good years left. But they're similar in their contributions to their offenses up until the point of the expiring contract.

[quote=NLC1054;805533]Ugh, I hate the term number one receiver sometimes...

A lot of what you're saying is, essentially, that it'd be worth it to have guys struggle if the young guys get time on the field. But having a super young receiving core and an inexperienced/less-than-ideal quarterback doesn't always work the way it did for Josh Freeman.

I mean, if Moss wants to be here, and he's willing to sign a fair deal to stay here and retire as a Redskin, I don't see the harm. You can still position Leonard Hankerson as the number one receiver of the future (if he develops into that), but you don't put the pressure on him to bear the brunt of the offensive load on day one. And who knows when the lockout really ends. He might have the playbook but Hank still doesn't have the coaching and hasn't seen live action. What if Hank gets hurt in training camp?

I think in a situation like the Redskins are in, even in rebuild mode, they need to have a veteran guy who can be counted on every game at most positions, so the rookies don't feel as though the world is always on their shoulders.

If he comes cheap and wants to be here I don't see the problem.[/quote]I try not to focus too much on the outcome when suggesting a plan of action for the Redskins to get better. I know that sounds silly, but I pretty much agree with you that 90% of the time, the plan that the Bucs used isn't going to work as quickly as it did for them and requires patience at best, and might fail no matter what at worst. But I also think that the similarities to the Bucs shouldn't be understated. We did just draft a trio of very promising receivers. I mean, there's no doubt based on what I've been able to put together from their respective college careers that the three guys we took in this draft are ALL better coming out of college than Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly were.

As for Moss coming cheap and wanting to be here, let's go back to the Bryant analogy. Lets say Bryant instead of testing the market signed a very team friendly deal for a high % of guaranteed money, but a deal that would not meaningfully impact the direction of the Bucs in any way. One year later, are the Bucs better off, equal to, or worse off in the passing attack than they currently are? Keep in mind that they would have been congratulated on a good contract when it was signed. But the goal is to have a better team. And I'm not convinced that team X re-signing previously productive veteran Y is particularly important (at best) to the rebuilding process.

Keep in mind though that prior to the draft, I felt the Redskins should bring Portis back. I don't now see a roster spot for him with Helu/Royster in the fold, but I didn't feel like Portis blocking Torain impacted the Redskins rebuilding in any way because I think Torain is an insignificant member of the rebuilding process. So this isn't GTripp just being all anti-veteran. It's about being anti- blocking players who are going to help us win in the future from playing. Like Hankerson, Armstrong, Robinson, Paul, and perhaps Kelly and Austin. None of those players (well, except Armstrong) are older than 24.

[quote=30gut;805707]The re-signing Moss discussion or the wether to start a rookie WR/young WRs question is kinda similar to the wether or not start a rookie QB.

And I understand your point about the young receivers needing playing time i.e targets.

But with Moss as the focal point of the passing game, where Kyle moves him around a lot: flanker, slot and some split end it creates a good environment for a WR to break in.
Moss is still a respected player that draws attention from opposing defenses.
And there are still available targets (Joey's and Roydell's) that would give the young receivers a chance to get on the field in favorable situations where they have a better opportunity for success because Moss is on the field.

It may only be a limited role (at first) but their production, however limited, would be a boon to the passing game that could develop into a bigger part if they're up to the task.

Damn,we need a QB.[/quote]Santana Moss is a good example of the Nnamdi Asomugha effect. This basically means that Moss is good enough to command the other team's best defensive coverage asset on a game to game basis (Moss gets like seventy percent of his season production playing teams that don't have a quality defender in the secondary...which is why he's shredded the Cowboys forever while going AWOL against the Giants and Eagles). That's identical to what happens with Nnamdi (and probably soon, Revis). Those guys are so good at covering receivers that what ends up happening is that you're effectively playing 10 on 10 football.

That's the benefit of having Santana Moss. You put him on the field, and while he gets taken away by the other team's best defensive player, that creates better matchups elsewhere. But the Redskins have never been able to win those matchups because they can't protect the passer and beat the coverage elsewhere.

One way or another, the Redskins need a target good enough to be covered by the other team's best defender and still be a meaningful factor in the football game. Once the Redskins have that, I think it would be good to have Moss still on the team, because his usefulness would go up. But unless we're going with all of our eggs in the Hankerson basket, the only way to find the receiver on our team that can be better than Moss is by letting everyone play and throwing them the football. And with Moss commanding 130 (mostly ineffective) targets a year, developing someone else has proven impossible for this time.

Moving on would not hurt in the short term against most opponents because we'd simply go back from playing 10 v 10 to 11 v 11. Sure, it would get a bit harder to beat Dallas without Moss, but who knows, maybe Hankerson will be a stud by midseason. Santana who?

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

I just thought it was interesting because Bryant was barely with the Bucs, while Moss has been a fixture here for the last 6 or so years

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=SmootSmack;806470]I just thought it was interesting because Bryant was barely with the Bucs, while Moss has been a fixture here for the last 6 or so years[/quote]True, but from a roster construction perspective, I'm just not sure it matters.

I think it does matter that Moss wants to be a Redskin. Plenty of players (such as Mr. Rogers) have been here just as long and can't wait to get out. And I don't want it to seem like I was throwing Bryant's name out there to disrespect Moss, because Antonio Bryant was a pretty darn uncoverable player for his two seasons in Tampa. But they made a decision based on his future value, and they made the right one.

I think it's a much more difficult decision for the Redskins and Moss because Moss has been our best receiver for half a decade, but the conclusion needs to be the same.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

GTripp-
I think your still discounting Moss production.
We know our passing game last year with Moss + AA was good.

Our passing game sans Moss is a mere projection with a likely worse outcome.

On the other hand our passing game with Moss + AA + Hankerson/Kelly/Austin is very likely to be even better then last year.

We would not only have create favorable match-ups for all the other WRs be keeping Tana we create the possibility of having a dynamic WR corps.
A WR corps that the offense can hang their hat on.

Which I readily admit is kinda moot without a QB.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

I don't think I'm discounting Moss' production when I say that the passing offense accomplished what it did last year largely independent of Moss. Not because of him or in spite of him. Just that our results on passes to Moss weren't any better (they were actually a bit worse) than our results on passes to all other players. So if we lose that production when Moss leaves...we're still left with pretty much everything that our passing game accomplished last year, minus one semi-useful movable piece.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=GTripp0012;806605]I don't think I'm discounting Moss' production when [B]I say that the passing offense accomplished what it did last year largely independent of Moss[/B]. Just that our results on passes to Moss weren't any better (they were actually a bit worse) than our results on passes to all other players.[/quote]Your gonna have to explain this one.
Why do think the above, especially the bolded portion?

[quote]So if we lose that production when Moss leaves...we're still left with pretty much everything that our passing game accomplished last year, minus one semi-useful movable piece.[/quote]How can we lose Moss production without also losing his impact that creates favorable opportunities for other receivers?

Your basically saying that we can lose Moss without missing a beat.

But, you also didn't respond to my other main point.
Adding the young WRs to a group that already includes Moss is how you build a possibly dynamic receiving corps.
Removing Moss is creates a receiving corps that you hope can match the production from last year.

I would rather shoot for a dynamic receiving then corps then aim to match last years production.

I would rather the young receivers replace Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams then the young receivers to attempt to replace Moss.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=30gut;806617]Your gonna have to explain this one.
Why do think the above, especially the bolded portion?

How can we lose Moss production without also losing his impact that creates favorable opportunities for other receivers?

Your basically saying that we can lose Moss without missing a beat.

But, you also didn't respond to my other main point.
Adding the young WRs to a group that already includes Moss is how you build a possibly dynamic receiving corps.
Removing Moss is creates a receiving corps that you hope can match the production from last year.

I would rather shoot for a dynamic receiving then corps then aim to match last years production.

I would rather the young receivers replace Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams then the young receivers to attempt to replace Moss.[/quote]I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive. It's difficult, in my estimation, and look at Moss after Brunell lost the job here and see a guy who has been productive more times than not.

Moss' productivity has been consistent over the last four years or so, in that a target of Santana Moss has produced between 7 and 8 yards each and every season. Since 2010, Moss was targeted an average of 133 times, catching an average of 81 passes and an average of 7.6 yards per target. That's almost perfectly average. 15 of those passes went to the end zone (3.7%), about a standard deviation below average. Moss fumbles about once every 40-42 touches, which is poor for a wide receiver (though not nearly as bad as once in 28-30 for Chris Cooley). His yards per catch is trending downwards mostly because of age, but also because of role change.

If Moss is average (amongst NFL starting WRs) at getting yards, but falls short of standards in TDs, Fumbles, and is trending away from his most effective years, then the sliver of room between playable and unplayable can't be overstated. It's the same mistake the Redskins made with McNabb, which is that he was playable in 2009 the last time we saw his tape, but he was trending in the wrong direction and had little margin for decline. Moss is almost identical. "Effective against no. 2 CBs" is a tough sell for a player in his early thirties, especially when it comes contract time. Moss is already unplayable against top competition, which is to say, there are some games every year where you're already better off not bringing him on the plane if the goal is to win. And there were some games last year where Logan Paulsen and Mike Sellers combined to make more of a difference than Moss.

Now, over a full season, Moss is still going to produce some big days, and he's going to score some TDs, and help an offense overall. He was useful like that in 2010. Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance, can you give a good reason that having Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs? Of course, there are reasons to doubt Kelly, but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to. Moss is somewhere in that "replacement plus" realm, and he could be there for a while.

And I think it's a granted that Roydell Williams/Joey Galloway's targets will go elsewhere. I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=GTripp0012;806621]I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive.[/quote]Moss is a top 10 WR, I'm not sure how you define highly productive but I would argue that Moss is far closer to highly productive then replacement level.

There's alot you said that I disagree with but in short I don't think "effective against No.2 CBs" is an accurate description of Moss. Nor do agree that he is unplayable against top comp.
He simply cannot produce at the level he did if those statements were true, especially when he only had 1 other decent complementary WR in AA.

He was No.4 in yards, No.10 in receptions.

Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)

[quote]Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since [I][B]Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance[/B][/I],[/quote]In your opinion Moss isn't capable of being a major player in a dynamic WR corps.
But, his production suggests otherwise.

[quote]can you give a good reason that having [B][I]Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver[/I][/B] is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs?[/quote]Moss didn't/doesn't produce like a 3rd WR, Moss had top 10 production.

[quote]but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to.[/quote]This is where we disagree, and this is where I believe you discount not only Moss's talent/production but discount the difference in talent between top NFL WRs and the rest of NFL WRs.
You seem to believe its simply a matter of next man up.
But, that's not the case.
Every WR that becomes the main cog in their team's passing game doesn't have top 10 production.

Paraphrasing Mike Irvin: "You cannot anoit someone a number 1 WR, you become a No.1 WR"

[quote]I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.[/quote]A more radical turnover doesn't equal more production from the WRs.

Again, I think its far more likely to have a dynamic WR corps with Moss then without Moss.

And having Moss around creates favorable match-up for Hankerson et al this year and allows them to progress into being the focal point of the passing game rather then being thrust into that role.

Those are the 2 main reason why it makes sense for Moss to come back.
Granted I'm assuming that Mike Shanahan actually has a plan for the QB position like he said he does, and I'm also assuming that QB will be viable.

If there isn't a viable QB under center then re-signing Moss is kinda superfluous.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

Didn't Moss just put up career highs in receptions, and his second most productive season yardage wise?

I mean...the numbers simply don't bare out what you're saying here, GTripp. He seemed to excel in this offense. You're expecting this massive drop in his production when, for all intents and purposes, even though he's a short guy who's speed may not be what it was, he is still producing like a number one receiver.

It's not a matter of disagreeing with you on principal, it's that the numbers he put up last year simply don't bare out what you're talking about.

If it's about getting younger, just say you don't want him around because you want to get younger. But his numbers the past two seasons have been good, and receivers are having longer careers all the time.

If anything, a receiver core that featured Moss, Hankerson and Armstrong would allow Moss to be more productive if Hankerson [i]becomes[/i] the number one receiver. And it's still a big if. But if Hankerson can be the kind of threat that commands double teams, that allows Moss to excel in the slot.

If you subscribe to the "well, we're just going to lose anyone, so there's no point in trying to win" theory, then starting a bunch of rookies and second-year players is fine. But again; there's no guarantee you end up like the Bucs.

You could just end up like the Panthers. And they still had Steve Smith, but Smith doesn't really scare anyone like he used to.

Teams still respect Santana Moss. They still realize he can burn them and be a big playmaker and be productive no matter who the quarterback is. I mean, how many quarterbacks has he had since he came into the league? And he still produces?

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=30gut;806623]Moss is a top 10 WR, I'm not sure how you define highly productive but I would argue that Moss is far closer to highly productive then replacement level.

There's alot you said that I disagree with but in short I don't think "effective against No.2 CBs" is an accurate description of Moss. Nor do agree that he is unplayable against top comp.
He simply cannot produce at the level he did if those statements were true, especially when he only had 1 other decent complementary WR in AA.

He was No.4 in yards, No.10 in receptions.

Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)

In your opinion Moss isn't capable of being a major player in a dynamic WR corps.
But, his production suggests otherwise.

Moss didn't/doesn't produce like a 3rd WR, Moss had top 10 production.

This is where we disagree, and this is where I believe you discount not only Moss's talent/production but discount the difference in talent between top NFL WRs and the rest of NFL WRs.
You seem to believe its simply a matter of next man up.
But, that's not the case.
Every WR that becomes the main cog in their team's passing game doesn't have top 10 production.

Paraphrasing Mike Irvin: "You cannot anoit someone a number 1 WR, you become a No.1 WR"

A more radical turnover doesn't equal more production from the WRs.

Again, I think its far more likely to have a dynamic WR corps with Moss then without Moss.

And having Moss around creates favorable match-up for Hankerson et al this year and allows them to progress into being the focal point of the passing game rather then being thrust into that role.

Those are the 2 main reason why it makes sense for Moss to come back.
Granted I'm assuming that Mike Shanahan actually has a plan for the QB position like he said he does, and I'm also assuming that QB will be viable.

If there isn't a viable QB under center then re-signing Moss is kinda superfluous.[/quote]I have quoted 30 gut here, but I am also responding to NLC1054, because I think they agree and their points are complementary.

I do think it's a gross misuse of stats to say that Moss was a top ten receiver because he was top four in receptions and top ten in yards. Yards are *incredibly* dependent on receptions. Top four in receptions but top ten in yards = not good. Not a good supporting argument of being a top ten player at a position, at least in the context of how I am defining "top ten" player.

I am defining it by you asserting there are nine or fewer receivers in football you would deem more valuable than Santana Moss. This may not be what you're saying at all, but this is what I'm reading. Disproving such an assertion is almost too easy for me to do if the only basis is how often one is thrown to.

[quote]Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)[/quote]

My focus is here. As I write this very sentence, I have not done the exercise I am about to do. I have a hunch that held just to 2010 standards, that Moss shakes up a lot better vs if we expand the sample. My *idea* is that the players above are cherry picked, but who knows, I could be attacking the wrong thing.

I do know where Moss ranks because I am not uninformed re: Moss' past. And while I know where the baselines for performance are and where Moss stacks up against those baselines, I still find value in knowing where similar players rank.

[quote][B]2009[/B]
Roddy White 165 targets/1153 yards=6.99
Moss 146/1115=7.55
Reggie Wayne 149/1264=8.48
Colston 107/1074=10.04
Larry Fitz 153/1092=7.14

[B]2008[/B]
Roddy White 148 targets/1383 yards=9.34
Moss 138/1044=7.57
Reggie Wayne 130/1128=8.67
Colston 88/760=8.64
Larry Fitz 154/1431=9.29

[B]2007[/B]
Roddy White 137 targets/1204 yards=8.79
Moss 115/808=7.03
Reggie Wayne 156/1515=9.71
Colston 144/1202=8.35
Larry Fitz 167/1412=8.46[/quote]

Obviously, the comparison gets less valuable the further we go back. However, it's quite clear that your 2010 comparison doesn't do anything to show Moss favorably, but rather shows an overall downward trend in how efficient Roddy White and Larry Fitzgerald have been in recent years. White, though, has seen a touchdown spike that mitigates the meaningful impact of getting fewer yards per target.

Would now seeing, clearly, that Moss has been pretty much the same mediocre player for the last four years change your other dependent assertions? Because, IMO, any proposition that requires the belief that Moss has been an above average starting NFL receiver at any point in the last four years to stand can be knocked down by a rather stiff breeze.

I think teams still have to, and do, respect Santana Moss because it wouldn't make sense to force the Redskins to go deep to him and gamble that they can't. But defenses know that it's not that difficult to actually take him away as long as they come prepared to do so. And there are defensive coordinators who lost their jobs two or three years ago who had no trouble limiting Moss' impact on a game. The numbers are quite clear on that. Moss just isn't valuable if he's going underneath the sticks every play because the Redskins can't spring him deep.

As a quick, but direct response to NLC's argument: I don't see how you could say Moss "excelled" last year with [URL="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr2010"]meaningful statistical ranks[/URL] such as "32" and "39", [URL="http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=WR&season=reg"]and 38th in YPT[/URL]. Maybe you didn't know Moss is not a top 30 receiver in any meaningful statistical category? Sure, he's doing okay in heavily use-dependent numbers, perhaps something with the name "Total" in the category, but I'll open the floor up to you to find something that ranks receivers by usefulness and thinks Moss is in the top 20 of anything.

He was 18th in Success Rate this year among-st NFL receivers ([URL="http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=WR&season=reg"]Advanced NFL Stats[/URL]), so I suppose that that could be the high-water mark for where he ranks. Anything higher than that just isn't based in anything that happened in reality. In practicality, he's probably somewhere between the 35th and 40th best receiver in the NFL, and trending downward.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

New rule, until the lockout ends-GTripp and 30Gut can only post in tweet form. 140 characters or less :)

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=SmootSmack;806909]New rule, until the lockout ends-GTripp and 30Gut can only post in tweet form. 140 characters or less :)[/quote]#ButIDontWanna

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=GTripp0012;806913]#ButIDontWanna[/quote]

Well done

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[YT]H92ZQ15sB90[/YT]

'Tana working out with Ochocinco and Andre Johnson. Looks like Moss put on some muscle. I know it's only simple route stuff and cone drills, but I think Moss looks a little more explosive then he did at the end of the season. Probably healthier than he was last year.

Still wouldn't mind having 89 back...

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

What a receiving corps. Ochocinco, Moss, and Johnson. Who ya gonna cover who ya gonna cover. *Gets in face and shakes head repeating "who ya gonna cover" in annoying voice.*

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=NLC1054;808434][YT]H92ZQ15sB90[/YT]

'Tana working out with Ochocinco and Andre Johnson. Looks like Moss put on some muscle. I know it's only simple route stuff and cone drills, but I think Moss looks a little more explosive then he did at the end of the season. Probably healthier than he was last year.

Still wouldn't mind having 89 back...[/quote]


Some good stuff, Ocho is a funny dude some of the jokes that were being said made me LMAO.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

Id like to see Moss play the slot. What outside linebacker or safety playing 15 yards off him will be able to stick him?

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=NLC1054;808434][YT]H92ZQ15sB90[/YT]

'Tana working out with Ochocinco and Andre Johnson. Looks like Moss put on some muscle. I know it's only simple route stuff and cone drills, but I think Moss looks a little more explosive then he did at the end of the season. Probably healthier than he was last year.

Still wouldn't mind having 89 back...[/quote]

If you were just watching the footwork you probably wouldn't know that Andre Johnson was head and shoulders the best player in the group would you.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

Moss has some productive years still in him. He's been a playmaker, a goto guy, and a total REDSKIN for us.
God only knows how many shit for brains, traitorous, back stabbin', over the hill losers we have pinned our misguided hopes and $$ on in the past. I have NO problem with the......potential of taking a flyer on Moss.
HTTR..........

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;808436]What a receiving corps. Ochocinco, Moss, and Johnson. Who ya gonna cover who ya gonna cover. *Gets in face and shakes head repeating "who ya gonna cover" in annoying voice.*[/quote]

Take a short cut and enclose the post with
[/johncena]

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Santana-Moss-wants-to-sign-with-Redskins-quickly.html]Santana Moss wants to sign with Redskins quickly | National Football Post[/url]

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=Mattyk;809681][url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Santana-Moss-wants-to-sign-with-Redskins-quickly.html]Santana Moss wants to sign with Redskins quickly | National Football Post[/url][/quote]

Excellent news!

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

I really don't see Moss with another team. I haven't heard his name mentioned with the other FA WRs by the sports talking heads. It will be nice to have him to mentor the young wideouts.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

He wants to be here, and with a short time period for free agents to get up to speed with a new offense it makes sense to get a deal done with him.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=Mattyk;809722]He wants to be here, and with a short time period for free agents to get up to speed with a new offense it makes sense to get a deal done with him.[/quote]

Yeah. In any other offseason, maybe we're not quick to sign him. This year, that's just one less headache to try and deal with.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

Pay Santana a nice bonus, but nothing crazy. Hope he can stay here & be on a good team again like 05.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

Devin Hester is campaigning for the Bears to get Santana.

[url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-hester-wants-bears-to-sign-santana-moss-20110712,0,5447028.story]Hester wants Bears to sign Santana Moss - chicagotribune.com[/url]

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=NLC1054;805289]I think the roster for wide receivers probably will be Santana Moss, Armstrong, Hankerson, Niles Paul, Terrence Austin and Aldrick Robinson.

Roydell Williams is gone. I really think that, unless Malcolm Kelly has a phenomenal offseason, he'll be gone too, possibly even if he stays healthy. Mike likes his receivers to be able to play special teams as well, and Kelly's proven to fragile to do that. And with Niles Paul and Aldrick Robinson being able to return kicks, Banks is at a disadvantage unless he proves he can make a big time impact as a receiver.

It's more nerve racking to me that Armstrong could end up being our only "veteran" receiver. That's putting a lot of pressure on all the rookies to step up and play right away, and they'll be under an intense microscope. Shanahan likes his players to be versatile, which is why guys like Niles Paul and Aldrick have a pretty solid chance of making the team, where as some of the other guys have less of a chance.[/quote]


I agree with you. I would like to see the guys we drafted this year to make the team as they are more physical than Austin or Banks and Kelly. Keep Santana and sign him to a two year deal, then he can retire a Skin.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

I can't believe you people...totally dismissing Mike Furrey...I mean he is still on the roster

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

I could see Moss in Chicago, we need to sign him

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=SmootSmack;810461]I can't believe you people...totally dismissing Mike Furrey...I mean he is still on the roster[/quote]


If Furrey can get back into his groove like he did with the Lions a few years ago I say keep him, but we will see. Last year sucked so bad with the offense that you really couldn't evaluate if the guy declined or not.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=Monkeydad;810383]Devin Hester is campaigning for the Bears to get Santana.

[URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-hester-wants-bears-to-sign-santana-moss-20110712,0,5447028.story"]Hester wants Bears to sign Santana Moss - chicagotribune.com[/URL][/quote]


If the Bears do sign him to a rather sweet deal, we would have to let him go. We still are in desperate need for some young FA help on both sides of the line.

Re: Moss WANTS to be a Redskin
 

[quote=SmootSmack;810461]I can't believe you people...totally dismissing Mike Furrey...I mean he is still on the roster[/quote]

He [I]did [/I]have like 98 catches that one year for Detroit. When I think of Mike Furrey, words like one hit wonder def. don't come to mind.

Seriously though, the Skins should just resign Santana. He doesn't want long term, so don't give him long term. The way I see it, he's a productive guy who knows the system. And since we don't have too many of those currently on the roster, just resign him. I don't want a WR depth chart where everyone is an unknown.