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

Very sad to see Coles go, he's a real FOOTBALL player. He is so gritty and plays so hard even when injured or unhappy (or both). I was so sad to hear that he didn't want to be in DC anymore but I am happy with the trade. We got something in return for waht could have been nothing. And a good something too. Moss is so freakin' fast!

Coles certainly does not posess the same speed he once did but he is still strong and has all the intangibles. I think both sides get something good, Coles is a better player at this moment but even if his toe doesn't bother him too much next year or the year after that it will cause him to prematurely age as a football player.

But here is what I think is really important:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Moss ... excels at generating separation working against man coverage.

I remember watching game after game last year when the opposing team stacked the box and still Coles and Gardner just could not get open. With the addition of Patten and Moss this should not be a problem any more. We now posess great speed at wide reciever and this was totally lacking last year with Gardner and a gimpy Coles. The other teams must now respect our speed and play-making ability in the passing game as well as out of the backfield. Patten, Moss, and Portis are all VERY fast and all are big play threats. This completely changes the dynamics of our offensive attack. I still think we need a big reciever to complement these guys (not Gardner, please!) but Patten and Moss could be the new Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders. I think Mike Williams would make a good Art Monk!

hkHog wrote:Very sad to see Coles go, he's a real FOOTBALL player. He is so gritty and plays so hard even when injured or unhappy (or both). I was so sad to hear that he didn't want to be in DC anymore but I am happy with the trade. We got something in return for waht could have been nothing. And a good something too. Moss is so freakin' fast!

Coles certainly does not posess the same speed he once did but he is still strong and has all the intangibles. I think both sides get something good, Coles is a better player at this moment but even if his toe doesn't bother him too much next year or the year after that it will cause him to prematurely age as a football player.

But here is what I think is really important:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Moss ... excels at generating separation working against man coverage.

I remember watching game after game last year when the opposing team stacked the box and still Coles and Gardner just could not get open. With the addition of Patten and Moss this should not be a problem any more. We now posess great speed at wide reciever and this was totally lacking last year with Gardner and a gimpy Coles. The other teams must now respect our speed and play-making ability in the passing game as well as out of the backfield. Patten, Moss, and Portis are all VERY fast and all are big play threats. This completely changes the dynamics of our offensive attack. I still think we need a big reciever to complement these guys (not Gardner, please!) but Patten and Moss could be the new Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders. I think Mike Williams would make a good Art Monk!

I've been thinking about this too. With two very fast receivers, not to mention Jacobs, DMac could make a very good possession reciever. If joe can get his mind right and DMac starts "practicing well", I think we will have a great offense. I think we will anyway, but DMac getting on the right page would help.

Think about it. We got the makings of a great line now, with Portis both running for tons of yards, and catching a lot of balls out of the backfield, ey catching a lot of short to intermediate passes, blazing speed in Moss, Patten and Jacobs, great hands from Thrash and DMac for possession, and last but certainly not least, Ramsey, who will be much better prepared and more confident. Gibbs also has a ton of time to tweak the offense and put a lot more of the playbook into action.

We are going to have a very good offense next year.

I really see us taking a defensive player or trading down in the first round, the more I think about it. I think we got the pieces on offense now.

skinsfan#33 wrote:I would have kept Coles and made him play or docked him his pay if he didn't play. Either way we wouldn't be out $9,000,000 this year and we might have been able to replace him. Personnal I think Coles would have played and caught another 80 or 90 balls, either way once Mar 2 passed and we were going to have to soak up the entire $9M this year if we moved him, I wouldn't have moved him. We took a big step down at WR and got hit with $9M for someone that is no longer here.
Did he give any of his money back? If not he is a THIEF!

It's better t take the Cap hit now rather than infuture years. Next year Coles would have cost us $6-$7 million on the cap (that can now be looked at as a 06 savings)

Gibbs has said he only wants players that want to be Redskins. Sitting Coles would have been the opposite of what Gibbs said.

Coles did catch a lot of passes last year but he only avg 10.5 ypc Our offense loss nothing in this trade because
1. We picked up Patten
2. We got Moss for Coles
So there are your 80-90 catches next year. If the ypc avg stays relatively close to what they were this year then we come out better

Coles 90 catches for 950 yards 1 TD 10 catches over 20 yards and 52 first downs

Coles replacements
Patten 44 catches for 800 yards 7 TDs 15 catches over 20 yards and 37 first downs
Moss 45 catches for 838 yards 5 TD 13 catches over 20 yards and 35 first downs
Totals 89 catches for 1638 yards 12 TD 28 catches over 20 yards and 72 first downs

We got rid of a player that didn't want to be here and we got something for him. The trade will add no dead money to the future cap and I assume we have the space to absorb the hit this year.
Throw in the fact that he wasn't will to get the toe fixed (meaning a lack of speed) Moss is a even trade

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:I would have kept Coles and made him play or docked him his pay if he didn't play. Either way we wouldn't be out $9,000,000 this year and we might have been able to replace him. Personnal I think Coles would have played and caught another 80 or 90 balls, either way once Mar 2 passed and we were going to have to soak up the entire $9M this year if we moved him, I wouldn't have moved him. We took a big step down at WR and got hit with $9M for someone that is no longer here.
Did he give any of his money back? If not he is a THIEF!

It's better t take the Cap hit now rather than infuture years. Next year Coles would have cost us $6-$7 million on the cap (that can now be looked at as a 06 savings)

Gibbs has said he only wants players that want to be Redskins. Sitting Coles would have been the opposite of what Gibbs said.

Coles did catch a lot of passes last year but he only avg 10.5 ypc Our offense loss nothing in this trade because
1. We picked up Patten
2. We got Moss for Coles
So there are your 80-90 catches next year. If the ypc avg stays relatively close to what they were this year then we come out better

Coles 90 catches for 950 yards 1 TD 10 catches over 20 yards and 52 first downs

Coles replacements
Patten 44 catches for 800 yards 7 TDs 15 catches over 20 yards and 37 first downs
Moss 45 catches for 838 yards 5 TD 13 catches over 20 yards and 35 first downs
Totals 89 catches for 1638 yards 12 TD 28 catches over 20 yards and 72 first downs

We got rid of a player that didn't want to be here and we got something for him. The trade will add no dead money to the future cap and I assume we have the space to absorb the hit this year.
Throw in the fact that he wasn't will to get the toe fixed (meaning a lack of speed) Moss is a even trade

Sowhat you're saying is that Patten and Moss TOGETHER are slightly better than Coles! That would be great if we could play 12 guys at a time to make up for the fact that now it takes two guys to equal one, but since we can't your annalogy is flawed. I don't mind that we got rid of Coles, but there are three things that we should have done differently. Made the thief pay back the $5M, got the deal done before 2 Mar (Coles and the Jets screwed us on that too), and got Moss and a draft pick. WE DIDN"T GET VALUE IN THE TRADE, just like last year!!

I don't mind that we got rid of Coles, but there are three things that we should have done differently. Made the thief pay back the $5M, got the deal done before 2 Mar (Coles and the Jets screwed us on that too), and got Moss and a draft pick. WE DIDN"T GET VALUE IN THE TRADE, just like last year!!

I feel your pain, skinsfan#33

1) You can't force him to pay back $5m, unless you can somehow prove that he didn't sign his contract in good faith, with the intention of seeing it through - isn't that what would be required?

2) It's easy to say get "get the deal done before 2 Mar", but you can't force people to do business with you. The only way that they could have got more in the trade was to have played it cool and waited for a better offer, from a WR-hungry team that had seen all of the other alternatives sign elsewhere. You can't do both.

The deal's a bummer, but with Joe Gibbs in charge, you have to believe we got the best result possible, given the management's desire to sort out the problem quickly.