Random Commanders Thoughts

Heh. I'm actually not all that down on our receivers. I'm just not expecting them to be as good as last year. To be fair, last year they were fairly spectacular so not being that good isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If we don't sign Cousins soon, however, look out. [emoji846]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just giving you a hard time. I could see it being a struggle, and I could see them being highly productive - just depends on what we have in Pryor and Doctson and how quickly it all gels.

I'm still hoping like hell they get a deal down with KC8 here in the next couple weeks.

I expect our current group of receivers to out perform last years squad by a decent margin. In the second half of last season Garcon and Desean got targeted more and Crowder less. I think both squandered their opportunities. How many times did Jackson "take the top" off the defense? 2-3 years ago they used to state not many qbs can overthrow Jackson. Cousin's did and did you notice the defender is not losing ground like he once did. Granted that's just an observation and not necessarily scientific or factual. I have no reason in the world not to be excited about Crowder Cousins Reed, add a trio of big talented guys like Pryer, Doctson,Hurt. Yeah I'm feeling pretty good.
The defense will be better, that will help everyone's numbers, I like the depth at Rb, TE, and both Tackles. The right side of our Oline is fine. Where are we at LG and C? We have some quality backups, are there a couple of starters there? That's the question. Our running game needs to be more consistent on first downs and moving the chains. How much better is the question?

I went to NFL.com and looked up Generic receiving stats between the 18th ranked Garcon and the 23rd ranked Desean Jackson. Terrelle Pryor was ranked 22.
Receptions Garcon 79, Pryor 77, Djax 67...yds per game Garcon 65, Pryor 62.9, Djax 67, TD's Garcon 3, Pryor 4, Djax 5...Stats are overrated but still hold a lot of value here. Cap wise the Skins are way ahead cutting Djax and Garcon loose and replacing them with Pryor and possibly Doctson. I have no axe to grind I think Garcon and Djax get to leave on good terms and got paid well for their twilight years as starters presumably. I didn't see the explosive plays from Djax very often last year. 40+ yd receptions is 0 for Desean. Granted Pryor also had 0...Garcon had 3!!!

Cycleans said:

big talented guys like Pryer, Doctson,Hurt.

Click to expand...

Did you mean to type (Maurice) Harris instead of Hurt ?
At first I thought "Hurt" was a jab at Doctson always being hurt

Yes I did...some of the fringe players names get me confused.

Oh, and we used to have a Guard named Maurice Hurt, so maybe that factored in, with Maurice Harris.

Cycleans said:

I expect our current group of receivers to out perform last years squad by a decent margin. In the second half of last season Garcon and Desean got targeted more and Crowder less. I think both squandered their opportunities.

Click to expand...

Ok, each of the 32 teams has two starting WRs. So, by the law of averages, an average team would have one WR in the top 32, and then their second best WR would be ranked somewhere in the 33-64 range.

If the Redskins' top two WRs were ranked, what was it, 18th and 23rd? ... that's very VERY good. Not only does that mean we had two number one-calibre WRs, but they both produced even though neither got the ball all that much. A little more digging into NFL.com's stats show that, of the top 23 WRs, Garcon and Jackson were least two targeted on the entire list.

So if you are thinking 'Garcon and Jackson got targeted more' as if they were somehow getting more throws than they deserved, well, a quick look at those stats say otherwise. They were actually targeted less than they should have been for top WRs, but still managed to both produce. That is a very rare quality. One I doubt we will see again for awhile.

How many times did Jackson "take the top" off the defense? 2-3 years ago they used to state not many qbs can overthrow Jackson. Cousin's did and did you notice the defender is not losing ground like he once did. Granted that's just an observation and not necessarily scientific or factual.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think this may be a case of 'Player X wasn't perfect so therefore he was bad.'

Jackson was ranked, um, first in yards per reception last year. That is not the stat of a player who can't stretch the field or make opposing teams respect his ability to go over the top. In fact, that's the stat of a player who's better at it than anyone else. We don't have anyone on the team like that now. Which is fine, not many teams do, but when you couple that with the loss of Garcon it will kinda hurt. Pryor looks like he might be a fine player. Hard to know after just one year, but he looks good. He might make up for the loss of one those guys. I sure hope he does.

I have no reason in the world not to be excited about Crowder Cousins Reed, add a trio of big talented guys like Pryer, Doctson,Hurt. Yeah I'm feeling pretty good.

Click to expand...

Sure. If we spent last year languishing with players like Jabar Gaffney and Anthony Armstrong, I'd be thrilled to be going into the season with Pryor and some hotshot rookie (second year rookie whatever) and Crowder. It's not a total crap lineup. But I think it's a bit of a prayer to suggest they'll be significantly better than the crew that put up the best passing offense in team history.

All that is entirely valid Henry - and may still be beside the point. Both Garcon and Jackson are on the downside of their career. That's just a fact. They both likely wanted a big deal - as evidenced by the fact that they both accepted big deals from other teams. Could we have signed one or both? Of course. Would that have proved to be a smart approach? Who knows - but lets not pretend it was some kind of no-brainer.

The most compelling case you make is that we knew what we had in Garcon and Jackson - and don't know everything we need to about guys like Pryor and Doctson (or even Crowder for that matter). That's true. But you also can't extrapolate out from where Garcon and Jackson were last year and state with any certainty that they have 3-5 more years of that in them.

The Redskins made a calculated risk and we'll just have to see how it pans out.

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm just saying I don't see the upcoming corps as as good or better than last years'.

And yeah, it would have been nice if we had been able to keep one of them to help transition to the young guys. It's not exactly like Jackson and Garçon are pushing 40 or something. I understand why it didnt work out that way, but I don't have to be happy about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is like grading a draft. the day after the draft.
We won't know if we made the right decision until we see the receiver crew play a full year, at least.

I'm not beating on you Henry or trying to put words in your mouth. The thing is, just like with the draft, you can't just look at this year - it's what happens over the next 4-5 seasons that will determine whether this looks like a smart move in retrospect or a dumb one. My main point is that teams don't sign the best 53 players to one year deals every year. If they did, it's a no-brainer. But having to look at long-term production vs. cost, that makes these decisions much riskier no matter which prognostication one is making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Number of days remaining, for Kirk and Bruce to get their shit together

I will wager no deal gets done and I'm actually fine with it. Kirk has earned a long term deal but not at stupid prices, I don't care what the market is at. I find his performances when it matters lackluster, no need to tie up stupid money on happy feet mcgill when it's crunch time.

I am only able to wager this : regardless of what happens with Kirk's contract, or lack thereof, the media will tear up the Skins FO, in one way or another.
If he does not sign a LTD, they will come out saying that FO is the ones who incompetently bungled the chance at securing a franchise QB.
If he does sign a LTD, no matter what the numbers are, they will come out saying we overpaid and overspent on an over-rated QB, and call it a typical "Snyder move".

Well, there's only a very select group in the world that knows what has actually transpired as far as negotiations goes. But players want as much security as possible and teams want to mitigate their possible losses in as short a period of time as possible. Both positions are understandable.

If you examine the way big dollar, long term contracts are handled, teams structure their deals with the player getting a big chunk of change in the first 2 or 3 years but the team getting the option of cutting the player afterwards with minimal damage. Example; Garceon (5 yrs/$47.5M) could get released after two years and collect somewhat north of $20M but the 49er's save $27.5M over the last 3. Carr (5 yrs/$125M) could get released after two years and collect over $40M (about the price of two consecutive tags) and the Raiders save $85M over the last 3. In both cases the team gets the advantage of keeping the player who is playing well in the last few years at a discount or letting him go after a couple of years but they've paid a premium for the first two seasons. These are just 2 examples but it's kinda the way these things go. 5 year contracts are really only worth 2 or 3 years.

Again not knowing what's really going on now with negotiations but what if Kirk plays out his tag this year (no LTD) and signs anywhere (including Washington) next year, what kind of deal might he get? Well the $$$ may go up or down but he's still looking at similar terms at best. Guys like Rodgers or Brady actually make very little salary in the beginning years of their contracts but make up for it in guarantees. And not all guarantees are fully guaranteed (due at signing). Some guarantees you actually have to earn by being with the team after 2 or 3 years into the contract.

I find it a bit difficult to imagine that the Redskins wouldn't offer in the neighborhood of $45M fully guaranteed/$75M total guaranteed over 5 years plus whatever salary. Also find it hard to imagine Cousins turning that down. The salary really isn't that significant unless absurdly out of line, it's more of how the contract pans out over the first 2 or 3 years and if Washington has an out there.

IMHO, the Redskins have made their final, best offer (whatever it is or how good it is) and they're leaving it up to Kirk to take it or pass.

JohnssBass said:

IMHO, the Redskins have made their final, best offer (whatever it is or how good it is) and they're leaving it up to Kirk to take it or pass.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, then we are screwed. No way Kirk signs deal.

JohnssBass said:

IMHO, the Redskins have made their final, best offer (whatever it is or how good it is) and they're leaving it up to Kirk to take it or pass.

Click to expand...

bird_1972 said:

If that's the case, then we are screwed. No way Kirk signs deal.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Kirk really hasn't had the chance to respond.
He's been extremely busy on Tweeter, tweeting about other people's contracts.
So, I'd give him about a week.

Well, I hope they've stuck to the offer they think he's worth. No way should they bow to fan pressure, or desperation.

Franchise is 85 years old. Life will go on without #8.

No offense - but the idea that the team has 'made its best offer' with 10 days left until a deadline - that's sort of a silly suggestion. Negotiation is always possible and the closer we get to that deadline the more likely it becomes. Doesn't mean he'll take a LTD but this is far from decided imho.