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

When I see this, first I wonder what is wrong with Santana Moss. Is his groin more serious than they're letting on? Does Lloyd really suck and it took two years to find this out? What about Randal El? Is he bad at running pass patterns?

Then I wonder about past mistakes of letting go young undrafted or late draft picks we developed and they became stars or quality starters for other teams. Or even established guys we let go or didn't resign. Off the top of my head: Keenan McCardell, Frank Wycheck, Stan Humphries, Trent Green, Kenard Lang, Brian Mitchell, Champ Bailey, Walt Harris, Antonio Pierce, Derrick Dockery and the list goes on.

Now, you could argue that some moves were good financial moves (like not resigning Dock), but they could have resigned them earlier to avoid escalating salaries.

Final message: KEEP MIKE ESPY and LET'S SEE WHAT HE'S GOT!

HanburgerHelper wrote:Final message: KEEP MIKE ESPY and LET'S SEE WHAT HE'S GOT!

NO HE WON'T SELL JERSEYS!!!!! I'm 200% against Espy. Nevermind the fact that we don't make money off of the jerseys and we share revenue!

Fios wrote:Up and down and punctuation, say it with me

FIOS is still the king

If we sign him he wont get more than the league min and no offense but he is better than james thrash and espy by far. Espy impressed last year in preseason but he also dropped a lot of passes in preseason and he impressed against 4th sting defenses with guys who didnt make their own teams.

Maybe he will end up like bruce smith but bruce was still a decent rusher for a year when we got him. He did win us a game against the Superbowl Rams by sacking Warner in the endzone that year.

Or maybe he will end up like Ray Brown a much older player who came in lead by example and taught the young players a lot and when he was finially called on to play for a few games he held his own.

Keenan McCardell wouldnt be our starter but still can go catch a few balls when they are needed. He still has great hands and I would much rather throw to him as our fourth wideout than james thrash who has lis 20 catches a year and even against KcCardell's worst year ever is much much worse

James Thrash has 20 catches a year because he is only thrown to 20 times a year. Do we really need Keenen McCardell to come in and make those 20 catches?

I need a hero

JansenFan wrote:James Thrash has 20 catches a year because he is only thrown to 20 times a year. Do we really need Keenen McCardell to come in and make those 20 catches?

Yes, because he'll make our off season super bowl team complete. To be honest, this actually is below par for us. (below in a bad way)

LOL, he's 40 years old.

WE MUST SIGN THIS GUY GIVE HIM ELEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS

I love how everyone says how over the hill McCardell is, yet had more yardage last season (437) than Lloyd (365) and Randle El (351). In fact, the only season Lloyd or Randle El had more receiving yards than McCardell in their entire careers was 2004 - McCardell's holdout season - and if you extrapolate McCardell's numbers, he would have easily outproduced those two guys then as well.

This isn't throwing wads of cash at a washed up Bruce Smith, and this isn't trying to fix something that isn't broken by "upgrading" from Ryan Clark to Adam Archuleta. It's bringing in a sure set of hands, a player who has actually produced in the past, to compete on the cheap. What's wrong with that?

Antwaan Randle El and Brandon Lloyd are just dripping with potential, and they very well might actually bring it to the next level this season and render the signing of a guy like McCardell pointless. And we'd be out a little bit of cash and a roster spot (yes, Mike Espy). But what happens if Randle El or Lloyd don't step it up this season? Is the promise of Mike Espy really worth another season like 2006, in which our two and three recievers produced a combined 716 yards?

Steve Spurrier III wrote:I love how everyone says how over the hill McCardell is,

Allow me to indulge you.

So how many years do you expect him to play for us? 4? 5? He's only 37...thats the new 22.

It's going to take him a year to crack the starting line up if we break up the team. So we'll have to end up bringing someone in to replace his wrinkly behind after a possible 3rd year. It's going to take him at least a year to grasp the offense. It's going to take time AFTER he gets a chance to practice with the 1st team offense to gain some type of rhythm with the QB.

I'm sorry but if we're going to waste a roster spot, let's waste it on a position of need.

Are we sure he would be guaranteed a roster spot on the final 53-man squad? Or would he be brought in just to compete for a roster spot, like a lot of other guys we have right now?

We currently have 90 +/- players signed. Obviously, not all will make the final 53-man roster.

Personally, I'd pass on Keenen. But, if he was brought in to compete and makes an impression, then that might not be all bad, only if he was cheap, of course. I'd be surprised if he was better than some of our young guys and I certainly wouldn't give him a free pass on the final 53-man squad. I like Espy and would like to see him get a chance.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So how many years do you expect him to play for us? 4? 5?

Try one. Two max. He's not a long term solution, and that's the point. It's just adding proven depth and security at a great price.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's going to take him a year to crack the starting line up if we break up the team. So we'll have to end up bringing someone in to replace his wrinkly behind after a possible 3rd year. It's going to take him at least a year to grasp the offense. It's going to take time AFTER he gets a chance to practice with the 1st team offense to gain some type of rhythm with the QB.

What? This is a guy who showed up in San Diego after holding out half the season and played (and produced) immediately. He's a wide reciever, not a quarterback or middle linebacker. I can see reasonable arguments against brining in McCardell, but his learning curve isn't one of them.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm sorry but if we're going to waste a roster spot, let's waste it on a position of need.

Bringing in McCardell doesn't preclude us from improving other positions.

You seem to be under the impression that bringing in McCardell constitutes blowing up the team or the wide receiver core. He isn't going to command much money (probably just a bit over the veterans minimum) and the contract won't even guarantee him a spot on the roster. It's low risk, high reward. Remember Kevin Dyson? The Redskins brought a veteran to camp, decided they didn't need him after all, and cut him. Where's the problem?

TEXANS -please- do us a HUGE favour and -please- SIGN THIS GUY!

Vinny and Danny are a bit on the loose after a good offseason of restraint?

Is it too much to ask? PLEASE?

I think bringing in Keenan McCardell would keep Blloyd and Randel El on their toes especially in training camp which will only mean good things for us. If he is not asking for alot then why not make this move? Mike Espy? Please.

Keenan would be a one or two year possibility.

Even at 37 he is clearly better than Randel El and Lloyd.
He wont be expensive to sign while on the other hand Lloyd and Randel are expensive.

YOu might say well signing a player for a year is uselss but if Lloyd performs like he did last year he will be a one more year player even if he does as well as Keenan could do he will be gone next year.

I would much rather have a class act like Keenan for one year than an underachieving Llyod for one year. And I am not saying to get rid of Lloyd but to put pressure on him by adding Keenan is not a bad idea.

Isn't this the exact same thing we've been doing ever since Snyder bought the team? Sign players who used to be great. Will we ever learn? Eight years ago this would have been a great idea. Not now.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Vinny and Danny are a bit on the loose after a good offseason of restraint?

So the Redskins signing Smoot and Fletcher for $50 million is an offseason of restraint, but adding Keenan McCardell for $1 million puts Snyder "on the loose"? What am I missing?

Tacoma Redskin wrote:Isn't this the exact same thing we've been doing ever since Snyder bought the team? Sign players who used to be great. Will we ever learn? Eight years ago this would have been a great idea. Not now.

There's nothing wrong with signing players who used to be great. There is a problem with signing players who used to be great and paying them like they still are great - which is what happened with Smith and Sanders.

No one is expecting McCardell to be the 90/1000/6 stud he was for Jacksonville, and he certainly isn't going to be paid like it. But if he can even just produce like he did last year (his worst professional season since 1994), he can be a valuable insurance policy against some unreliable commodities in Lloyd and Randle El. The potential upside is huge: If Lloyd struggles like he did in 2006, and McCardell bounces back to his 2005 form (70/917/9), it will be a million dollars well worth spent. The downside is minimal: the cost of salary and potentially a roster spot - if he even makes the team.

It seems like people are upset simply because they recognize his name - he's just another player who can come in and compete for playing time.

Guys, look, everyone knows Espy is the answer based on some training camp and pre-season performances against second and third string players. When is the last time a guy who looked solid in those situations didn't pan out? The answer is never. It's a lock.
The idea that the coaches might see some value in having a guy like McCardell around for a season has NO MERIT whatsoever.
I know it seems practically impossible to reach this conclusion but McCardell can not possibly help this team, in any way, at all.
The fact that the FO has spent a season making solid moves means they are bound to make a bad one, that is a fact. They are clearly going to give him a 10 year deal with 100% guaranteed money. To suggest that this might have some upside is foolish and naive.

everydayAskinsday wrote:it would be interesting.. Ive been opposed to most of the threads I've seen suggesting we bring in aging vets but Keenan is a classy guy and from what Im gathering the Redskins really feel like we might be able to make a run this year at the super bowl..

I know that seems far fetched coming off the year we had last year but even Portis has made the comment that he feels this group we have now has one year left to make it happen before they are broken up .. so who knows

sorry, that struck me as funny.

I like Mike Espy a lot; I think he's one of our great practice-squad stories. However, he reminds me a lot of Robert McCune (remember him?). McCune had everything that you like to see in a low draft pick: an amazing physique, a good story (his military background), and an all-around likeable character.

There are a lot of reasons why it feels good to cheer for Mike Espy: he's a hard worker, his dad gives him some name recognition, and he's had some flashes of potential. So while he's on the team all of the diehard Redskins fans know his name and hope that he does well.

Yet if Espy were to disappear tomorrow because we signed Keenan McCardell (just like McCune was cut before '06 to make room on the roster), I doubt anyone would really miss him. Probably, by 2008 no one will even be talking about him, and in all likelihood he'll simply be a practice-squad story for another team. Certainly, the Redskins won't be sitting at home in January watching Espy become the next Superbowl MVP for another team.

Redskins offer McCardell the minimum

Keenan McCardell - WR - SD - Jun. 20 - 12:49 pm et

The Redskins reportedly offered Keenan McCardell something close to the veteran's minimum to sign with them. They won't guarantee him a spot on the team.

He's debating between Houston and Washington and will probably come to a decision this week. McCardell, 37, wouldn't make sense on most teams, but both of these squads could use a little veteran depth in camp. McCardell is from the Houston area, so Washington will have to outbid them. Jun. 20 - 12:49 pm et
Source: Washington Post

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/player ... 835&spln=1

No guaranteed spot on the team. The vet's minimum salary. A vet to push the young guys in camp and to share with them some valuable knowledge. And the problem would be???

Let's not get carried away, folks. This isn't all bad.

SkinsFreak wrote:No guaranteed spot on the team. The vet's minimum salary. A vet to push the young guys in camp and to share with them some valuable knowledge. And the problem would be???

Let's not get carried away, folks. This isn't all bad.

I don't have a problem with this situation. That seems fair enough.

Fios wrote:Guys, look, everyone knows Clark is the answer based on some training camp and regular season performances against second and third string players. When is the last time a guy who looked solid in those situations didn't pan out? The answer is never. It's a lock.

The idea that the coaches might see some value in having a guy like Adam Archuleta around for a season has NO MERIT whatsoever.
I know it seems practically impossible to reach this conclusion but Arch Deluxe can not possibly help this team, in any way, at all.

The fact that the FO has spent a season making solid moves means they are bound to make a bad one, that is a fact. They are clearly going to give him a 10 year deal with 100% guaranteed money. To suggest that this might have some upside is foolish and naive.

I fixed that for you.

Bold = Corrections to your sly sarcasm.
Yellow = True THere was no sarcasm there.
Orange = Don't act like it couldn't happen. LOLOLOL.

The F/O has my support thus far but I'm still hesitant and they scare me.

I say we settle this with that wholesome, good old dose of sunshine known as a dog fight

I think you have been drinking too much Fios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7062002006.html

Oh well I guess since he's rejected our offer we won't be going to the super bowl.

Our closing window of opportunity has prematurely closed shut. Our current WR's will be uninterested in bettering themselves without a father figure in their lives like Keenan.