The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Why would Hackett be better than a draft pick???????

Signing Hackett and A draft pick, both are hit or miss.

The down sides ...

Hackett might be hurt most of the season.
OR
The Draft pick might not make the adjustment to the NFL.

The up sides...

Hackett don't get hurt and will play good at best (He's no T.O. or Moss)
OR
There is a chance a draft pick not only becomes good but maybe better than avg. Who knows.

There is more upside to a Draft pick than there is to Hackett. IMO We don't need to sign him.

Free agent D.J. Hackett will visit the Redskins on Wednesday.

It's the first free agent visit for either side. Hackett knows the offense Washington will run under new coach Jim Zorn and would fit nicely as a big wideout opposite Santana Moss. The Redskins have signed no big name free agents so far. It wouldn't be a surprise if Hackett doesn't make it out of D.C.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2008/03/seahawks_wr_to_visit_redskins.html?nav=rss_blog

CanesSkins26 wrote:Maybe Snyder and Vinny haven't actually learned anything. I mean what team wouldn't want a receiver that has missed over 30 games in 4 seasons.

Listen, you know I want a stud receiver in the draft. I've been quite open about that and I've had reservations about Hackett. But you gotta know this is Zorn's choice and desire to bring DJ in for an interview, not Vinny's or Dan's. At the right price, Hackett will have quite a bit to offer. Zorn is aware of DJ's capabilities and DJ knows the system. Much like Collins was brought in to help teach Saunders' system, DJ will do the same with Zorn's system. I seriously doubt they'd break the bank to get him and I still think they'll bring in another receiver.

SkinsFreak wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:Maybe Snyder and Vinny haven't actually learned anything. I mean what team wouldn't want a receiver that has missed over 30 games in 4 seasons.

Listen, you know I want a stud receiver in the draft. I've been quite open about that and I've had reservations about Hackett. But you gotta know this is Zorn's choice and desire to bring DJ in for an interview, not Vinny's or Dan's. At the right price, Hackett will have quite a bit to offer. Zorn is aware of DJ's capabilities and DJ knows the system. Much like Collins was brought in to help teach Saunders' system, DJ will do the same with Zorn's system. I seriously doubt they'd break the bank to get him and I still think they'll bring in another receiver.

If they bring in another starting caliber receiver then Hackett is fine. But if they sign Hackett (no matter how cheaply he comes) with the expectation that he is going to be a starter, then it is a terrible move. Having talent, knowing the system, and being inexpensive doesn't matter one bit if we are going to have to find a receiver to take his place once he gets hurt.

Last season we got 7 touchdowns from our wide receivers. There were 21 individual receivers in the NFL that had at least 7 touchdowns by themselves. We need an upgrade at the position or it is going to be very difficult for JC to progress and for our offense to take a step forward. Signing Hackett is going to do little to improve the situation and will probably make things worse because someone is going to have step in for him when he gets injured.

CanesSkins26 wrote:If they bring in another starting caliber receiver then Hackett is fine. But if they sign Hackett (no matter how cheaply he comes) with the expectation that he is going to be a starter, then it is a terrible move.

I disagree, if they sign him, he better play. His knowledge of the system, alone, is extremely valuable in our situation. We still need 4-5 starting caliber receivers. If signed, he'll play. If Zorn thinks he's valuable, to any degree, then he's fine with me. AGAIN, I still think they'll add a another starting receiver.

SkinsFreak wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:If they bring in another starting caliber receiver then Hackett is fine. But if they sign Hackett (no matter how cheaply he comes) with the expectation that he is going to be a starter, then it is a terrible move.

I disagree, if they sign him, he better play. His knowledge of the system, alone, is extremely valuable in our situation. We still need 4-5 starting caliber receivers. If signed, he'll play. If Zorn thinks he's valuable, to any degree, then he's fine with me. AGAIN, I still think they'll add a another starting receiver.

I agree that if they add another starting receiver then Hackett can be a worthwhile risk. However, if he is the only starting caliber receiver that they sign, the move does more harm than good. He gets hurt every season and when he does we are back to an innefective lineup of Moss/Thrash/ARE and that lineup isn't going to scare anyone. There aren't very many good receivers available as free agents and if they sign Hackett do you still think that they are going to use a first (or even a second) rounder on a receiver? If not then they've done nothing to upgrade a very mediocre group of receivers. Only the Buffalo Bills got less touchdowns from their receivers than we did last season.

BnGhog wrote:Why would Hackett be better than a draft pick???????

Signing Hackett and A draft pick, both are hit or miss.

The up sides...

Hackett don't get hurt and will play good at best (He's no T.O. or Moss)
OR
There is a chance a draft pick not only becomes good but maybe better than avg. Who knows.

There is more upside to a Draft pick than there is to Hackett. IMO We don't need to sign him.

You forgot the biggest upside of all. He knows the system and is able to help teach the other receivers quicker.

How about this...and I have thought about it for a total of 10 seconds, but has Holmgren's offense ever had an absolute stud at WR, or merely just three or four great route runners? And how about some of Holmgren's spin off coaches? It's true in Phily with Reid (except one year when TO was there). It's true with Dick Juron in Chicago and starting to look that way in Buffalo. It's not true with Marriuchi in San Fran, but heck, how do you get rid of Rice if he's signed, and ownership wouldn't let him get rid of Owens (they often fought). What I'm wondering is, does the Holmgren offense put emphasis on top talent at the WR spot, or just WR's that are excellent route runners with excellent hands? Isn't that what Hackett is? And is this the reason that we aren't going after Chad Johnson (via trade), Randy Moss, Bernard Barrian, and Andre Davis? Does Zorn think he can get the job done (and save money) with lessor WR's, or even rookies? If so, I think it's a great way of thinking. WR's are a dime a dozen.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Last season we got 7 touchdowns from our wide receivers. There were 21 individual receivers in the NFL that had at least 7 touchdowns by themselves. We need an upgrade at the position or it is going to be very difficult for JC to progress and for our offense to take a step forward.

you very well could be right, but you also might be totally wrong. the problem is, ]there is absolutely no way to tell how much of that pitiful stat was the result of our WRs not being good enough, and how how much was because 99.23% of the time when we got into the red zone, Gibbs the Archaic sent out the hilarious "Heavy Jumbo" package with, yep, ONE wide receiver (often james thrash). and 99.23% of those heavy jumbo plays were either runs or passes to cooley.

how many TDs would the WRs on the other teams have if you removed all the ones they scored from within the red zone? i'm guessing probably around 7, maybe up to 10 or 12.

we know for a fact that gibbs was EXTREMELY conservative. and i suppose we don't know if the WRs could've made the plays if asked to, unless we look at their career stats, and i'm too lazy to do that right now.

die cowboys die wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:Last season we got 7 touchdowns from our wide receivers. There were 21 individual receivers in the NFL that had at least 7 touchdowns by themselves. We need an upgrade at the position or it is going to be very difficult for JC to progress and for our offense to take a step forward.

you very well could be right, but you also might be totally wrong. the problem is, ]there is absolutely no way to tell how much of that pitiful stat was the result of our WRs not being good enough, and how how much was because 99.23% of the time when we got into the red zone, Gibbs the Archaic sent out the hilarious "Heavy Jumbo" package with, yep, ONE wide receiver (often james thrash). and 99.23% of those heavy jumbo plays were either runs or passes to cooley.

how many TDs would the WRs on the other teams have if you removed all the ones they scored from within the red zone? i'm guessing probably around 7, maybe up to 10 or 12.

we know for a fact that gibbs was EXTREMELY conservative. and i suppose we don't know if the WRs could've made the plays if asked to, unless we look at their career stats, and i'm too lazy to do that right now.

I agree with you that the conservative approach in the red zone was a contributing factor. However, the career numbers of our receivers show that they aren't exactly scoring machines. Moss, during his career, has shown that he can score touchdowns, but he doesn't consistently score the way elite receivers do and his numbers have declined each of the past 2 seasons. Outside of him, we really don't have any other receivers that are capable of scoring touchdowns on a consistent basis. Thrash is a #4 or 5 receiver and has scored 4 touchdowns in the past 5 seasons. Mix has 3 career receptions and no td's. In college he never scored more than 3 in one season. Randle El has 11 career td's in 6 seasons and has never had more than 3 td's in one season. Caldwell, even though not under contract currently, has 11 career td's in 6 seasons. Hackett, when healthy, hasn't show himself to be capable of scoring touchdowns on a regular basis, having a career high of 4 td's in 2006. So yes the conservative offense likely has an impact on the numbers, but I think the main problem is that our receivers as a whole just aren't all that talented.

Gentlemen..............DJ Hackett will be a skin, no ifs ands or buts about it. Thats what all coaches do when they get new jobs "bring in guys that know thier systems" see Alvin Harper as a skin example...........i guarentee dude will not leave Redskins park w/o a contract.

I think dude would be a good addition.........he fricken killed us in the playoff game.

CanesSkins26 wrote:I agree with you that the conservative approach in the red zone was a contributing factor. However, the career numbers of our receivers show that they aren't exactly scoring machines.

Again, most of which was a product of the system. cheifhog44 and die cowboys die have extremely valid points. You say the numbers of our current crop of receivers isn't very good (didn't Moss break the Skins single season receiving record?) and don't scare anyone. Gibbs had a very conservative offense and the passing game of that offense stressed taking big shots down the field, a lower percentage passing game. ARE also played in a conservative offense in Pittsburgh. The Pat's receivers put up big numbers, but they pass the ball 95% of the time. Yeah, Randy Moss is one of the best, but he wouldn't get all those touchdowns in a conservative offense.

Zorn will run the WCO, and receivers in that style of offense are utilized with greater frequency and are far more productive. That said, ARE, Moss, ey, Hackett, Mix and Thrash will all have better numbers just from the the system itself. ARE, Moss and ey are all great YAC receivers, so that in itself, will threaten defenses and force them to give greater respect to our receivers abilities. The change of system alone, will change they way defenses view our receivers.

Free agent receiver D.J. Hackett "has been criticized for not practicing hard enough," according to the Washington Times.

Hackett has been brittle and could be knocked as a system player, but we've never heard anything remotely close to this before. The Times goes on to say that Hackett's practice habits "summon unhappy memories of Redskins bust Brandon Lloyd." Hackett is a former fifth-round pick who molded himself into a starter in Seattle, over proven Bobby Engram and pricey Nate Burleson.

www.rotoworld.com

chiefhog44 wrote:How about this...and I have thought about it for a total of 10 seconds, but has Holmgren's offense ever had an absolute stud at WR, or merely just three or four great route runners? And how about some of Holmgren's spin off coaches? It's true in Phily with Reid (except one year when TO was there). It's true with Dick Juron in Chicago and starting to look that way in Buffalo. It's not true with Marriuchi in San Fran, but heck, how do you get rid of Rice if he's signed, and ownership wouldn't let him get rid of Owens (they often fought). What I'm wondering is, does the Holmgren offense put emphasis on top talent at the WR spot, or just WR's that are excellent route runners with excellent hands? Isn't that what Hackett is? And is this the reason that we aren't going after Chad Johnson (via trade), Randy Moss, Bernard Barrian, and Andre Davis? Does Zorn think he can get the job done (and save money) with lessor WR's, or even rookies? If so, I think it's a great way of thinking. WR's are a dime a dozen.

I remember the Packers getting 100+ receptions out of Sterling Sharpe. I also remember the Seahawks shelling out some $$$ for Deiion Branch just a season or two ago, so they must put some emphasis on WR talent. They also drafted Koren Robinson high in the first round when he was supposed to be the next Tory Holt. The Iggles went out and signed T.O. to big bucks and also traded for Dante Stallworth, so they must not believe it is simply a collective group of mediocre WR's needed. So no, I'm not buying that argument. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need to add any more receivers, we have plenty of mediocrity now.

I say, if D.J. costs more than mediocre $$ (salary + bonus in guaranteed money - approx. 1-1.5 mil/year) then it is a bad move. Given that we plan to add another talented WR in the draft, we would have a crowded stable of Moss, ARE, D.J., Thrash, Mix, drafted rookie (or two) and possibly Calwell. I don't see what DJ could bring to that table where it would be worth more than 1-1.5 mil guranteed a year. Below that price, it would be worth the gamble, even if he ends up a nice red zone target and 3rd or 4th WR.

fleetus wrote:I say, if D.J. costs more than mediocre $$ (salary + bonus in guaranteed money - approx. 1-1.5 mil/year) then it is a bad move.

In this market, that's not mediocre FA money; that's barely over the veteran minimum.

Realistically, 3 million a year seems to be mediocre money in this market.

But I agree with you in principle; he doesn't deserve a huge pay day.

The veteran minimum for a player like Hackett is approx. 500k. I'm saying we could offer triple that. Stallworth, a much better WR, only got 10 mil (of his 35 mil) guaranteed over 7 years. So we could offer Hackett a 5 year 15 mil contract with 5 mil guarnteed, for example. We would never pay him more than 2 mil a year unless he played lights out.

Zorn will run the WCO, and receivers in that style of offense are utilized with greater frequency and are far more productive. That said, ARE, Moss, ey, Hackett, Mix and Thrash will all have better numbers just from the the system itself.

That's an assumption with no basis in fact. Ideally, that is what will happen. However, until we actually see how the players perform in this system, to suggest that their production will increase simply due to the new system is premature. Outside of Moss and ey, that list of receivers isn't impressive at all and is made up of has beens (Thrash), a guy that has produced absolutely nothing in the NFL (Mix), and an injury prone player with apparently questionable practice habits and a history of injuries (Hackett).

Hackett couldn't put up big numbers in Seattle's system with one of the NFC's best qb's running it, so why would he all of a sudden do better here with a less successful qb?

Mix was mediocre in college despite having two top 5 running backs drawing most of the defense's attention and still couldn't do better than 3 td's in a season. A new system is no guarantee that he will step up. Does he even have the speed/quickness/agility to run routes in an NFL offense?

Thrash is a great team guy and does well on special teams, but in reality he shouldn't even be in consideration for serious minutes at receiver.

ARE, Moss and ey are all great YAC receivers, so that in itself, will threaten defenses and force them to give greater respect to our receivers abilities. The change of system alone, will change they way defenses view our receivers.

I agree on Moss and ey, but completely disagree on ARE. He hasn't shown any ability with the ball after making a catch in his time here. In fact, he seems to go down easier than any other receiver on our roster. He tries really hard and I give him lots of credit for that, but after 6 seasons in the NFL it's unrealistic to expect him to all of a sudden turn into a game breaker. At this point his career numbers are just slightly above those of Reche Caldwell.[/quote]

Californiaskin wrote:Gentlemen..............DJ Hackett will be a skin, no ifs ands or buts about it. Thats what all coaches do when they get new jobs "bring in guys that know thier systems" see Alvin Harper as a skin example...........i guarentee dude will not leave Redskins park w/o a contract.

I think dude would be a good addition.........he fricken killed us in the playoff game.

You also said Todd Collins was the worst signing in Redskins history.

So that means Hackett won't hack it in D.C. Dang it. Now I hope we don't sign him.

Jake wrote:

Californiaskin wrote:Gentlemen..............DJ Hackett will be a skin, no ifs ands or buts about it. Thats what all coaches do when they get new jobs "bring in guys that know thier systems" see Alvin Harper as a skin example...........i guarentee dude will not leave Redskins park w/o a contract.

I think dude would be a good addition.........he fricken killed us in the playoff game.

You also said Todd Collins was the worst signing in Redskins history.

So that means Hackett won't hack it in D.C. Dang it. Now I hope we don't sign him.

Now Jake...........i also said sean taylor was going to be a stud when many members of this board were crying and frettin about that pick.........and i have manned up and confessed that i was, perhaps, premature in judging the ability of one "has not taken a snap in more than 7 years" 30 year old back up Qb.......
That being said I dont want to hear any crying from you when I am correct once again about Hackett signing a contract when he visits Redskins Park.....

WTF the dude actually has some upside and hes not 100 like the other wide outs weve signed the past few seasons......

fleetus wrote:The veteran minimum for a player like Hackett is approx. 500k. I'm saying we could offer triple that. Stallworth, a much better WR, only got 10 mil (of his 35 mil) guaranteed over 7 years.

You're inconsistent within your own response!

So we could offer Hackett a 5 year 15 mil contract with 5 mil guarnteed, for example. We would never pay him more than 2 mil a year unless he played lights out.

5 for 15 is 3 million a year

That's a reasonable contract in this market. Triple the 500k figure you talked earlier, 1.5 million a year, is not.

CanesSkins26 wrote:
I agree on Moss and ey, but completely disagree on ARE. He hasn't shown any ability with the ball after making a catch in his time here. In fact, he seems to go down easier than any other receiver on our roster. He tries really hard and I give him lots of credit for that, but after 6 seasons in the NFL it's unrealistic to expect him to all of a sudden turn into a game breaker. At this point his career numbers are just slightly above those of Reche Caldwell.

[/quote]

YAC depends a lot on how receivers are used. Neithrt Moss nor ARE will get many yards after contact, but that is true of most WR's. They are paid to avoid tackles, not break them.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Zorn will run the WCO, and receivers in that style of offense are utilized with greater frequency and are far more productive. That said, ARE, Moss, ey, Hackett, Mix and Thrash will all have better numbers just from the the system itself.

That's an assumption with no basis in fact. Ideally, that is what will happen. However, until we actually see how the players perform in this system, to suggest that their production will increase simply due to the new system is premature.

Damn, you'll say anything, won't you? No basis in fact?

Hmmm, a conservative running offense verses an attacking passing offense. You're right, no basis in fact. Whatever...

SkinsFreak wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Zorn will run the WCO, and receivers in that style of offense are utilized with greater frequency and are far more productive. That said, ARE, Moss, ey, Hackett, Mix and Thrash will all have better numbers just from the the system itself.

That's an assumption with no basis in fact. Ideally, that is what will happen. However, until we actually see how the players perform in this system, to suggest that their production will increase simply due to the new system is premature.

Damn, you'll say anything, won't you? No basis in fact?

Hmmm, a conservative running offense verses an attacking passing offense. You're right, no basis in fact. Whatever...

First of all, we don't know exactly how this offense is going to look. You yourself have harped on the fact that JC ran a version of the west coast successfully his senior year of college. Well Borges' version of the WCO called for more running attempts than passing attempts. That was a conservative version of the WCO. The Eagles obviously go in the other direction and pass more than they run. So until we see the offense on the field, you have no idea whether it will be less conservative than what we saw the past few seasons. So until we have some facts all that you are doing is guessing.

And even if the plan is install a more open passing offense than what we had with Gibbs, there is no guarantee that it is going to be successful. So to just assume that the receivers will be more productive without having seen any of our players actually perform in the system is stupid and pointless. There are a number of scenarios under which Zorn's offense could do worse this season than Gibbs'/Al's offense did last year.

CanesSkins26 wrote: Well Borges' version of the WCO called for more running attempts than passing attempts.

Wrong. He aimed for a 50/50 split because of stud RB's, and Zorn may due the same with our stud RB's.

An exaggerated scenario: Would Randy Moss be more productive in a Belichick offense or a Tom Osborne offense? It's pretty simple logic. Are there other factors? Sure. But the system itself will garner more production for any receiver, not just ours.

Wrong. He aimed for a 50/50 split because of stud RB's, and Zorn may due the same with our stud RB's.

Wrong??? Look up the stats for yourself and you'll see that you're the one that's wrong.

If you actually looked at the numbers you would see that in 2004 Auburn attempted 308 passes and had 553 rushing attempts. Obviously a few of those rushing attempts include sacks and broken plays in which JC decided to run the ball, but even if you took away most of JC's rushes, it still wouldn't come close to being a 50/50 split.

An exaggerated scenario: Would Randy Moss be more productive in a Belichick offense or a Tom Osborne offense? It's pretty simple logic. Are there other factors? Sure. But the system itself will garner more production for any receiver, not just ours.

Again, that's simply not true. Last season JC and Collins combine for over 500 passing attempts. That's a relatively high number. So it's not that likely that we are going to be passing that much more this season than we did last season. If our players perform worse in this new system than they did in the old system, they wont be more productive.

"Aimed" for a 50/50 split, and you know where that came from.

He subsequently incorporated substantial play action into his offense to deal with modern defensive schemes and strives for a 50-50 run-pass ratio

Aims and strives are different from the actual. My simple point is that receivers are used far more frequently in the WCO verses a conservative running offense, plain and simple. Argue all you want, doesn't change the elementary comprehension of the two systems.

BTW - I am absolutely amused how you take every topic and search far and wide for any possible negative and then bash the team for it. Well done.