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

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:My fixation IS more on build (big+strong+fast+routes+hands=1), sure.. although Fitz isnt of the same mold. Neither is Beckham as much. Being tall helps- Nelson isnt really the same build as Megstron tho. A Number one imo is some one who goes up and gets it if you throw in his vicinity. Who fights off defenders and has speed to take it all the way. The whole package. Garçon has good hands- not the best. Not overy strong- can get jammed from time to time. Goes down easier then some, not super speedy. He des posses open field shiftyness and has good moves to go w his solid rout tree.

Im not even close to the only poster HERE on this board who considers him a high end 2.. but what ever. Maybe he's a 1 in more peoples eyes then I think.

***That stat line really shows that Garçon was just gettig more balls his way... and that Crabs actually had a higher YPC by nearly 3 yards!! Interesting you never post TDs.. whatd he have last year? 2?

Look at his #'s from '13- 113/1346/5
& his last year in Indy ( with Painter at QB)- 70/947/4.

'14 was an off year & '12 was hampered by injuries. I think he is a #1 WR, although not among the top #1's.

I sure hope you two are right... itd be wonderful if he plays anywhere near as good his price tag this year... which imo is too much. If we could trade him for oline help and nab Crabs id feel like wed win. We lack length:) that wideout threat in the redzone- and I think Crabtree would bolster it.

So sorry if you disagree w my opinion. I feel like we are paying for a younger Andre Johnson (#1), but dont even have a Beckham (#1) talent in Garçon.

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:I sure hope you two are right... itd be wonderful if he plays anywhere near as good his price tag this year... which imo is too much. If we could trade him for oline help and nab Crabs id feel like wed win. We lack length:) that wideout threat in the redzone- and I think Crabtree would bolster it.

So sorry if you disagree w my opinion. I feel like we are paying for a younger Andre Johnson (#1), but dont even have a Beckham (#1) talent in Garçon.

Im with you. Garcon is a good #2 I think but we are paying him likeba good #1. Also in regards to the height... we need a receiver with height because we dont have one, versatility in our wr corps is important.

Prowl33 wrote:

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:I sure hope you two are right... itd be wonderful if he plays anywhere near as good his price tag this year... which imo is too much. If we could trade him for oline help and nab Crabs id feel like wed win. We lack length:) that wideout threat in the redzone- and I think Crabtree would bolster it.

So sorry if you disagree w my opinion. I feel like we are paying for a younger Andre Johnson (#1), but dont even have a Beckham (#1) talent in Garçon.

Im with you. Garcon is a good #2 I think but we are paying him likeba good #1. Also in regards to the height... we need a receiver with height because we dont have one, versatility in our wr corps is important.

Thank you!

Thats ALLS IM SAYIN BRO!! I dont hate Pierre (or Spinfire pizza that he pits a LOT of time into), he jus let me down last year- and is getting a kings ransom this year. Football is what have you done for me lately- and anyway you slice it last year wasn't impressive.
D Jax is faster, now we need a big strong wr to compliment him. Djax also showed better hands IMO, being more like a #1 in that you toss it up and he went up and came down with it.

Garcon needs to stay. He's one of the only experienced, productive WRs on the roster that has chemistry with the current QBs. He's not that old, at least 6ft and physical. Who do you replace him with that's as valuable for the same price or cheaper?

Hooligan wrote:Garcon needs to stay. He's one of the only experienced, productive WRs on the roster that has chemistry with the current QBs. He's not that old, at least 6ft and physical. Who do you replace him with that's as valuable for the same price or cheaper?

Deep wr draft this year... if Scot is going BPA we will likely draft a WR sometime early in the draft.

WR & QB are not positions that we're using top picks on in this draft

we have a lot of positions we need to 'upgrade' before we need to worry about who is going to pass or catch the ball in 2017

SkinsJock wrote:WR & QB are not positions that we're using top picks on in this draft

we have a lot of positions we need to 'upgrade' before we need to worry about who is going to pass or catch the ball in 2017

SJ youve been one preaching Scots BPA approach. He has stated we may pick players that seems like we dont need. Especially in his first draft where he is starting to fill in talent, and in a draft very deep in WR talent, its very possible he takes a wr in the first 4 rounds.

Prowl33 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:WR & QB are not positions that we're using top picks on in this draft

we have a lot of positions we need to 'upgrade' before we need to worry about who is going to pass or catch the ball in 2017

SJ youve been one preaching Scots BPA approach. He has stated we may pick players that seems like we dont need. Especially in his first draft where he is starting to fill in talent, and in a draft very deep in WR talent, its very possible he takes a wr in the first 4 rounds.

Yeah I totally agree. I don't personally think we'll take a WR or QB at #5, because I think there will be better players available at those positions if we pick that early. From discussions we've had in the past, I think SJ would agree with that.

Well yeah definitely not #5 but I think its possible after that especially rounds 3 and 4

Prowl33 wrote:Well yeah definitely not #5 but I think its possible after that especially rounds 3 and 4

Like you wrote, its supposedly a deep WR draft this year. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Kind of surprised!

A free agent quarterback with starting experience is staying put.

Colt McCoy will re-sign with Washington, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported Tuesday.

McCoy, 28, connected on 91-of-128 passes for 1,057 yards with four touchdowns and three interceptions last season for Washington. He saw significant playing time in two of the club’s four wins, including its upset of Dallas. A mid-December neck injury ended his season.

Washington coach Jay Gruden has named Robert Griffin III the starting quarterback entering 2015, which leaves McCoy and Kirk Cousins as the club’s top reserve options.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ashington/

riggofan wrote:Kind of surprised!

A free agent quarterback with starting experience is staying put.

Colt McCoy will re-sign with Washington, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported Tuesday.

McCoy, 28, connected on 91-of-128 passes for 1,057 yards with four touchdowns and three interceptions last season for Washington. He saw significant playing time in two of the club’s four wins, including its upset of Dallas. A mid-December neck injury ended his season.

Washington coach Jay Gruden has named Robert Griffin III the starting quarterback entering 2015, which leaves McCoy and Kirk Cousins as the club’s top reserve options.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ashington/

At this point I dont care who out of the 3 of them starts, I just want there to be 1 and only starter all season. I cant do the drama again...

I liked Colt. He's not exactly a Pro Bowler, but while we rebuild I wouldn't mind seeing him play.

it's so easy to get to some of you guys ...

IMO, 'early in the draft' is a top 100 player - with our needs, I don't see them using one of those picks on a WR or a QB, we'll see

I do like how things are going and they could take a WR or a QB 'early' - I just don't think they'll do it

Irn-Bru wrote:I liked Colt. He's not exactly a Pro Bowler, but while we rebuild I wouldn't mind seeing him play.

I think what surprises me about this move isn't that we were willing to bring him back, but that he was willing to come back. I would have thought from his play last season that he showed enough to land a legit backup #2 QB gig somewhere. Anybody else agree/disagree?

It kind of surprises me if that was the case and he was willing to come back here to be the #3 again. There's no guarantee that a team will even carry three QBs on the final roster anymore.

Not sure what it means or if it means anything at all. Just seems like kind of a head scratcher to me.

riggofan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I liked Colt. He's not exactly a Pro Bowler, but while we rebuild I wouldn't mind seeing him play.

I think what surprises me about this move isn't that we were willing to bring him back, but that he was willing to come back. I would have thought from his play last season that he showed enough to land a legit backup #2 QB gig somewhere. Anybody else agree/disagree?

It kind of surprises me if that was the case and he was willing to come back here to be the #3 again.

What makes you so certain he will be the #3?

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I liked Colt. He's not exactly a Pro Bowler, but while we rebuild I wouldn't mind seeing him play.

I think what surprises me about this move isn't that we were willing to bring him back, but that he was willing to come back. I would have thought from his play last season that he showed enough to land a legit backup #2 QB gig somewhere. Anybody else agree/disagree?

It kind of surprises me if that was the case and he was willing to come back here to be the #3 again.

What makes you so certain he will be the #3?

I'm not certain of that at all which is kind of what I was getting at. But if he signed with the expectation of being the #2, do you think that means Cousins will be the #3 or that they are planning to move one of the other QBs still?

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:What makes you so certain he will be the #3?

I'm not certain of that at all which is kind of what I was getting at. But if he signed with the expectation of being the #2, do you think that means Cousins will be the #3 or that they are planning to move one of the other QBs still?

I don't know that he had any expectations or not. He was ahead of Cousins on the depth chart for the second half of last season, and since the reason they gave as Bob being the starter is that's how he finished the year, I could see where he might feel like he should be the #2 going into this season. Of course, had he not gotten injured, he might have finished the year as the starter himself, so...

riggofan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I liked Colt. He's not exactly a Pro Bowler, but while we rebuild I wouldn't mind seeing him play.

I think what surprises me about this move isn't that we were willing to bring him back, but that he was willing to come back. I would have thought from his play last season that he showed enough to land a legit backup #2 QB gig somewhere. Anybody else agree/disagree?

It kind of surprises me if that was the case and he was willing to come back here to be the #3 again. There's no guarantee that a team will even carry three QBs on the final roster anymore.

Not sure what it means or if it means anything at all. Just seems like kind of a head scratcher to me.

Unsurprisingly, our assessment of the back up back up QB's play, and in turn the demand for him, somehow differs from every football mind in the league. I am not surprised Colt had no other options, even as a number 2, with the rest of the NFL.

riggofan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I liked Colt. He's not exactly a Pro Bowler, but while we rebuild I wouldn't mind seeing him play.

I think what surprises me about this move isn't that we were willing to bring him back, but that he was willing to come back. I would have thought from his play last season that he showed enough to land a legit backup #2 QB gig somewhere. Anybody else agree/disagree?

It kind of surprises me if that was the case and he was willing to come back here to be the #3 again.

I personally don't see it that way, and I doubt Colt does either.

If I were Colt, I would have been VERY open to re-signing with us. He went from the #3 to starter this past year..... how many other #3s became starters this year absent injuries to BOTH QBs (i.e., both QBs were benched at some point and they went with #3). And right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Colt were #2 on the depth chart (although the QB depth chart is basically irrelevant).

You have to look at his competition to be STARTER. RGIII has been one of the 3 worst starting NFL QBs over the past 2 seasons. He is on thin ice with the HC and has come to the end of his "2012-benefit-of-the-doubt" leash. A couple bad games (which are inevitable based on his prior play) and he's benched..... and that is if he actually starts. We also have a new GM that has a say in who plays. Scot doesn't appear as infatuated with RGIII as Danny boy. That means if RGIII has a couple bad games, he's out. Then Colt is competing with Cousins to start when that happens. If Colt feels he can outplay Cousins, he's our starter (potentially) by week 4.

I don't think Colt wants to sign elsewhere when he can stay in DC and have a VALID chance to start. Colt is a compeitive dude. He considers himself a starter quality QB. And he isn't an idiot. He sees an opportunity here to be QB1. If he gets the chance and plays well, he could be looking at a big $$$ Matt Flynn FA situation....

The other thing that crossed my mind is YES, Colt did play well enough to be considered a #2 elsewhere, but he stayed here. This action alone makes me think the confidence of our HC/FO in either RGIII, Cousins, or both isn't high AND the QB depth chart is still not set in stone.

Do we know the terms of the deal? Is it only one season? Vet minimum?

emoses14 wrote:Unsurprisingly, our assessment of the back up back up QB's play, and in turn the demand for him, somehow differs from every football mind in the league. I am not surprised Colt had no other options, even as a number 2, with the rest of the NFL.

Yeah that's entirely possible man and probably the best explanation.

Deadskins wrote:Do we know the terms of the deal? Is it only one season? Vet minimum?

One year $1.5m. Only $150K guaranteed.

Definitely a bump up from $800K last year.

Over the last few days I haven't heard of any Free Agents scheduled for a Redskin visit, wonder if this means Scot is done until the draft?