I guess I'm in a semantics mood so I'm going to argue I'd argue the word "weapons," too.
Signing Chig isn't a sign of neglect. I'd even argue Chig is far more of a weapon than Ertz even if Chig isn't as good a tight end or just as productive a tight end. You can also make the argument that he was either the top or second best tight end available.
Signing White and Ford aren't signs of neglect. Both are legit 3rd down backs. They have real NFL production. Adding them to a 800 yard rookie that set the league on fire during the first six weeks of the season last year ain't neglect. It's building a very solid committee. I don't think you can make the argument that they were the best running backs available, but you might be able to make the argument that White was the best receiving running back available.
So again, if you want to say that Peters has neglected wide receiver, I think that's an argument that can be made. I think it's unreasonable to say "support" and equally unfair to say "weapons."
If you're going to take issue with my wording — all in good spirits — I can say the same back to you.
I never said any of this was a “sign of neglect.” That’s not the argument I’m making.
Go back to the pre-FA threads. You’d probably have a hard time finding anyone pushing harder than I was for them to sign Chig. Same thing at RB. I’m pretty sure I was one of the first people pushing the Rachaad White idea months before the signing happened. I complimented the Ford signing, too, and even recently talked him up.
On Day 3 of the draft thread last year, I was also one of the louder voices pushing Croskey-Merritt.
I’m not bringing this up to pat myself on the back. My point is the opposite: using a stock market analogy, I’m actually very familiar with these pieces because most of them were players I personally liked before Washington acquired them. These are largely
my own stock picks coming into play.
But sticking with that analogy, I wasn’t buying Apple, Nvidia, or some established blue-chip stock. I was bargain shopping. Especially with someone like Rachaad White.
What I think is happening in these discussions is at some spots any proof of action from Peters gets treated as proof the problem is solved or close enough. As if acknowledging the team added pieces automatically means those pieces will develop into Microsoft-level outcomes.
Voice_of_Reason said my view on helping Jayden is overly simplistic. Respectfully, I think the opposite is true. To me, a lot of the defense of Peters’ offensive approach has been overly simplistic — it often boils down to projecting players without proven pedigree into far bigger roles than they’ve shown they can handle so far in their career. We’re essentially assuming the medium level software company becomes Microsoft because we like the stock.
And there’s also a bit of an unintended strawman mixed in here. Criticizing what they’ve done at Z receiver doesn’t mean people are claiming Peters has “done nothing.” Nobody is making an all-or-nothing argument like that.
This reminds me a lot of the 2023 offensive line debate. Back then, people said critics weren’t factoring in scheme enough, upside enough, development enough. But disagreeing with the
best-case scenario for how a unit might come together doesn’t mean someone is “missing the plot.”
I’m not missing the plot here either. I can paint the optimistic scenario for almost every move they made — because many of these players were guys I personally wanted. I understood the upside before the team even acquired them.
So I don’t really need explanations about how these players
could work out. I already know the bull case because I bought into many of these players before Peters acquired them.
The disagreement is simply about risk assessment. It’s risky to assume that every bargain buy hits its ceiling, every developmental player blossoms, every injury concern disappears, and every projection breaks perfectly in your favor. Could it all work out? Absolutely. But acting like concerns are invalid simply because there’s a theoretical upside case for each player individually is where I disagree.
I love Chig as a player. But he hasn’t shown he’s peak Ertz yet — honestly, he hasn’t even shown he’s Commanders-version Ertz yet. Could he become that in Washington? Absolutely. That’s why I wanted them to sign him in the first place.
But I also can’t just assume that because I’m enthusiastic about the player, we suddenly found our own Kelce and now the burden at WR magically disappears. That’s projecting the absolute best-case scenario as if it’s already reality.
And to me, that’s the disconnect in some of these debates.
 }})
