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

I guess what I dont get is how some of you think it would be such a horrible idea to bring in KM

IF he got brought in and IF he made the roster he most certainly wouldnt push Thrash out the door for those of you thinking that

also he would be good for the youth .. because he is an experienced route runner who could help teach the young guys the the tricks of the trade.. Lloyd is not a good route runner he could certainly use the help and the same can be said for ARE

as for the the issue with Espy possibly being cut or not making the roster if hes brought in.. Obivously the coaching staff knows alittle bit more about whats going on there than any of us.. clearly they feel the need for a veteran presence in the WR corps other than Moss

I for one know that I would much rather have KM out there running a route CORRECTLY which only will aid Campbell rather than have Espy going out there messing up his route and costing us a pick ..Having players on the field who know what there doing will only help to bring along Campbell

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Fios wrote:So, if I have this correctly, the team has legitimate positions of need so long as those adhere to your beliefs but if that same group of coaches feel an additional wideout like McCardell can help, that's symbolic of putting flash before substance?

No, you do not have it correctly. The logic is different:

WHATEVER the FO and the coaches are purported in the media as -thinking- is right and will win us a Superbowl.

Conversely:

WHATEVER the FO and the coaches are -not- purported in the media as -thinking- is wrong and will keep us down as the laughinstock of the NFL.

Um ... OK

Ok, I get it... a seasoned vet with years of experience has nothing valuable to offer to a group of young players. I see. Leadership, experience and tangible insight aren't worth squat these days. Yeah, that's brilliant.

SkinsFreak wrote::roll: Ok, I get it... a seasoned vet with years of experience has nothing valuable to offer to a group of young players. I see. Leadership, experience and tangible insight aren't worth squat these days. Yeah, that's brilliant.

One question: Have you actually met B. Lloyd, for example? Have you met James Thrash? Have you?
I ask because if you had, you would know that these are the kind of guys you just go to battle with. They are confident, experienced and proud players. Where is the leaderless group of WRs that needs to be led or spoon-fed?

Have you? I mean, seriuously, Have you actually met in person -any- of our WRs?

Redskin in Canada wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote::roll: Ok, I get it... a seasoned vet with years of experience has nothing valuable to offer to a group of young players. I see. Leadership, experience and tangible insight aren't worth squat these days. Yeah, that's brilliant.

One question: Have you actually met B. Lloyd, for example? Have you met James Thrash? Have you?
I ask because if you had, you would know that these are the kind of guys you just go to battle with. They are confident, experienced and proud players. Where is the leaderless group of WRs that needs to be led or spoon-fed?

Have you? I mean, seriuously, Have you actually met in person -any- of our WRs?

The coaches have and I'd wager they know that group as well as anyone

everydayAskinsday wrote:I for one know that I would much rather have KM out there running a route CORRECTLY which only will aid Campbell rather than have Espy going out there messing up his route and costing us a pick ..Having players on the field who know what there doing will only help to bring along Campbell

Ah the beauty of logic. Let's see how we can re-arrange the substance while preserving the form:

"I for one know that I would much rather have (name your player of choice) out there running a route CORRECTLY which only will aid Campbell rather than have KM going out there messing up his route and costing us a pick ..Having players on the field who know what there doing will only help to bring along Campbell"

What makes you think automatically that the introduction of KM in his -first- year in this system and offense will be seamless? What makes you think automatically that guys -already- with a season or two behind their backs in this system and a few games with Campbell will not work well?

KM is not the fastest runner. Timing would be an issue. It always is when you are going into your 40th birthday, particularly as a WR.

This thread only goes to show that several fans have serious doubts about the competence of their current receiver corps. I also have doubts about some areas of the team but the WR corps is -not- one of them. These guys will outperform other teams with a good and young but more seasoned QB.

IF and it is a big -IF- based on the purported story in the media, this is true and he is signed, I would only understand it as fire under the seat of our WRs over the offseason.

Fios wrote:The coaches have and I'd wager they know that group as well as anyone

To be precise: The coaches have not said a WORD about this story. The whole thread is based on a -purported- story about a -possible- signig. If this were to happen, it will be very interesting to listen to what Joe has to say about it at a press conference.

But if the logic always is: WHATEVER the ...

Never mind.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Fios wrote:The coaches have and I'd wager they know that group as well as anyone

To be precise: The coaches have not said a WORD about this story. The whole thread is based on a -purported- story about a -possible- signig. If this were to happen, it will be very interesting to listen to what Joe has to say about it at a press conference.

I'm not disputing the nature of the story though the team has not denied talking to him.

Redskin in Canada wrote:But if the logic always is: WHATEVER the ...

Never mind.

Ah yes, that old gag. I agree with this part of that statement:

Fios wrote:Ah yes, that old gag. I agree with this part of that statement:

Not true. You also stole a portion of my avatar to go onto yours. Thief!

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Fios wrote:Ah yes, that old gag. I agree with this part of that statement:

Not true. You also stole a portion of my avatar to go onto yours. Thief!

I have excellent taste

I though that was a picture of RiC. . .you know, he's always talking about how he's got that UN, secret agent, master-of-disguise thing going on.

Redskin in Canada wrote:1) You are missing the point that a MLB was an area of need for a player knowledgeable about the defensive scheme.

2) You are missing the point that CB was an area of need for a player knowledgeable about the defensive scheme.

Not true. I absolutely acknowledge that these are areas of need. I just found it curious that adding a cheap veteran wideout re-defined the offseason for you.

Redskin in Canada wrote:3) You are missing the point that WR is not an area of need as much as the DL and a guard at the OL.

Also not true. What you are missing is that adding a cheap veteran wide receiver doesn't prevent us from improving other positions. It's not one or the other.

Redskin in Canada wrote:4) You are missing the point that our current roster of WRs did not perform well and no real opportunity to do so last season mainly due to instability at the QB position and dismal defensive play.

I understand that the quarterback position was less than ideal - although that was true of many teams in the NFL, yet only the Buccaneers and Giants got less production out of their second wide receiver.

I don't understand how a bad defense would hurt the wide receiver. If anything, it would seem like a bad defense would allow more points, therefore requiring the offense to score more points to compensate, therefore leading to a more pass-heavy offense.

Redskin in Canada wrote:5) You are missing the point that we have a solid group of WRs and I would rather keep James Thrash than KM.

Again, false. Signing McCardell wouldn't mean losing Thrash - they could both be on the roster (and I would expect as much). Furthermore, signing McCardell doesn't mean we lose anyone - even Espy - until McCardell earns a roster spot in training camp.

Redskin in Canada wrote:6) You are missing the point that with very few exceptions, the Skins have not given a true opportunity to young talent to develop. Antonio Pierce is a perfect example of a success and the short-sightedness of the FO. We know how that one went.

No. Signing McCardell does not mean letting one of your talents go. I see McCardell as an insurance policy, not a replacement. Lloyd and Randle El should be given every opportunity to succeed. He's just another guy.

Redskin in Canada wrote:7) You are missing the point that bringing a veteran in the downhill part of his career, even just for competition, sends the wrong message to your receiver corps and even a worse signal to your young players and members of the practice squad.

What is that message? That you are always required to earn your spot, regardless of your age, talent level or size of contract? That professional football is a business, not elementary school where we don't keep score so everyone can be a winner?

Note that I'm not arguing that we should bring in McCardell to be a mentor or father-figure. We pay a wide receivers coach to do that. But just as we shouldn't bring in McCardell to help the young guys emotionally, we also shouldn't not bring him in to help the young guys emotionally. These players are adults, and we should give them enough credit to handle things like competition in a professional sport.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Conversely, -I- am missing one point:

It is absolutely astonishing to witness how the Danny Snyder culture to bring finished past stars at the expense of young talent has permeated the "mentality" of some sectors of the Redskin fan nation.

What you are missing is that their is a distinct difference between bringing in the Bruce Smiths and Deion Sanders of the world and bringing in a guy like Keenan McCardell. And if you can't see the distinct and fundamental difference between investing heavily long-term in a deteriorating yet previously reliable asset and investing modestly short-term in a deteriorating yet previously reliable asset, then this debate isn't worth having.

Last season, the Colts added Ricky Proehl, even though they already had a deep wide receiver corp. As it turned out, their players performed and stayed healthy, so they didn't need to use him. But I guarantee their coaching staff was glad that they had a reliable veteran ready to go should something happend to one of their top guys.

Believe me when I say that I wouldn't look for McCardell to take playing time from Lloyd or Randle El. But what happens if these guys get hurt, or continue to under perform even if the quarterback stabilizes and the defense improves?

He's just another option. He's just another option.

Fios wrote:I have excellent taste

That you do, my friend.
Even if it is just a replica of a piece of Art.

Irn-Bru wrote:I though that was a picture of RiC. . .you know, he's always talking about how he's got that UN, secret agent, master-of-disguise thing going on.

Really?
That statement contains as much truth as the original story the led to this over-hyped thread.

Hey, I am just a gandfather just waiting for the last couple of years of his long and uneventful work life pushing paper and looking forward to his retirement and safe pension plan without any other ambition (perhaps with the sole exceptiuon of one more Superbowl for the Redskins) before the end of his very unexciting life. My job is to design the application forms that people have to fill-in when they apply for a job in the Canadian government. So, here it is, I finally confessed.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote::roll: Ok, I get it... a seasoned vet with years of experience has nothing valuable to offer to a group of young players. I see. Leadership, experience and tangible insight aren't worth squat these days. Yeah, that's brilliant.

One question: Have you actually met B. Lloyd, for example? Have you met James Thrash? Have you?
I ask because if you had, you would know that these are the kind of guys you just go to battle with. They are confident, experienced and proud players. Where is the leaderless group of WRs that needs to be led or spoon-fed?

Have you? I mean, seriuously, Have you actually met in person -any- of our WRs?

You're missing the point.

Have you been to college? Great.

So does that mean that no further education or knowledge is ever needed? You've learned everything there is to know? Nothing else could ever be taught or learned?

I see. Good luck with that.

Seems to me that any and all experience would be insightful, helpful and welcomed. Nobody knows everything about everything and nobody has been in every situation or has seen it all. Therefore, the more insight and knowledge you can get, the better. But I can understand how the arrogance of some would cause them to fail to recognize that, though, and they always lose in the end.

No, I haven't met any of those guys. Have you? Regardless, I think the character of guys like Thrash would welcome the valuable knowledge from some one like Keenen. I know I'm pretty solid in my profession, but I ALWAYS welcome insight and continue to learn from other's experiences.

And have you missed the articles that said he was offered the vet min and was not guaranteed a roster spot? Evidently, you must have.

Always the same old song and dance.

SkinsFreak wrote: No, I haven't met any of those guys.

I thought so.

SkinsFreak wrote:]Have you?

Yes, I have met those two that I mentioned above. I have pretty good grasp about their personality profiles. They are very -different- persons and players. Lloyd is burning with desire to show the NFL and the Redskins fans in particular what he can produce. He is a -very- passionate and emotional guy. He has tons of self-confidence and shows it in every aspect of his demeanor. He is more frustrated about the last season than you and I are, and that should tell you A LOT. If you have doubts about him, just ask JansenFan and BossHog who have spoken to him way over many more times than I have. Or better yet, listen to the THN podcasts and judge for yourself.

James Thrash is very different guy. He is a blue-collar worker with no stardom ambitions on or off the field but with the highest work-ethic to perform the best job his physical and mental capabilities allow him to play. He is a high character guy who needs no lessons from KM or anybody else at this stage of his career. He performs the experienced veteran role that many of you seem to crave for in KM.

Regardless, I think the character of guys like Thrash would welcome the valuable knowledge from some one like Keenen.

James Thrash would do that indeed. He is a class act. But he would also know that there are limited spots in the roster and his job would be in peril, regardless of what some of you guys say. We have REAL needs in other areas that need to be filled and a bonanza of insurance in WRs is no cure for those other holes.

I know I'm pretty solid in my profession, but I ALWAYS welcome insight and continue to learn from other's experiences.

We should have one more aging receiver instead of an offensive coach staff.

And have you missed the articles that said he was offered the vet min and was not guaranteed a roster spot? Evidently, you must have.

Thankfully, I have. This means that the Texans will outbid us, thankfully. A player in his position is not looking to make a name for himself. He is in the job of collecting the money that his name can attract to backup that hopefully safe retirement plan. Considering our past history, I am not surprised at all that he came knocking on our door. Are you? I also understand his interest in Houston based on his personal life-style.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:What you are missing is that their is a distinct difference between bringing in the Bruce Smiths and Deion Sanders of the world and bringing in a guy like Keenan McCardell. And if you can't see the distinct and fundamental difference between investing heavily long-term in a deteriorating yet previously reliable asset and investing modestly short-term in a deteriorating yet previously reliable asset, then this debate isn't worth having.

1) There several million differences between bringing those two old "deteriorating yet previously reliable asst(s)" and this "investing modestly short-term in a deteriorating yet previously reliable asset". I can count them all in green. Other than that, I see nothing but an undesirable turn-around in players wasting a roster spot.

2) There is already insurance in the WRs.

Believe me when I say that I wouldn't look for McCardell to take playing time from Lloyd or Randle El. But what happens if these guys get hurt, or continue to under perform even if the quarterback stabilizes and the defense improves?

There are -already- some guys behind them. It is a matter of -priorities- not a matter of over-building one area at the expense of another.

He's just another option. He's just another option.

That he arguably is. And in a limitless roster, that might be fine. But I am concerned with the -stability- and -chemistry- of our WRs and the need to address other areas of greater concern than bringing in a guy with no future whatsoever to offer to the squad.

So, here you have it: IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. And money, a few but highly coveted bucks will make the difference in having this veteran seek a different team than ours, -if- anybody in the Texans organization is willing to put up more money that the minimum without guarantees media purported us offering. Great re-assurance.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Otherthan that, I see nothing but an undesirable turn-around in players wasting a roster spot.

Well, I guess this brings us to the always boring agree to disagree. Their can be a lot of value in a guy like McCardell, even if he is fourth on the depth chart. I think it's certainly worth the team's time to bring him in to training camp to see where he stacks up to guys like Mike Espy.

Redskin in Canada wrote:2) There is already insurance in the WRs.

Who, Thrash? How quickly we forget 2005, when teams finally realized if they focused on Moss and ey we would be out of passing options. Thrash wasn't a legitimate option then, and he certainly won't be one in 2007.

Thrash has a ton of value as a teams player and a backup wide receiver. But if we have to rely on him to carry a big load in a big game, we're going to be in trouble.

Here is the bottom line. You have to weigh the potential contribution McCardell will offer in 2007 versus the potential contribution of the man he replaces in 2007 and the future. I don't see how changing your fourth string receiver is going to really affect chemistry or any nonsense like that.

In the end, it's probably not going to be a big deal either way. But I can easily envision a situation in which McCardell could make a significant and positive impact this season. I'm having trouble picturing a world in which Mike Espy ever makes a real impact for the Washington Redskins. Either way, I would like our coaching staff to be able to make that decision for themselves after getting to look at both players in training camp. Frankly, that seems to be a key difference. You seem to feel the coaching staff needs to be saved from itself.

Another point - keeping really young fringe prospects like Mike Espy make less sense when your starting wide receivers project to be around for quite some time. Moss, Lloyd and Randle El are just 28, 26 and 28 respectively. When your top guys are that young, you aren't giving up very much by looking for immediate value in players like McCardell and Thrash.

Redskin in Canada wrote:If you have doubts about him, just ask JansenFan and BossHog who have spoken to him way over many more times than I have. Or better yet, listen to the THN podcasts and judge for

Yeah, please show me the endless posts where I've showed ANY concern about ANY of our receivers. That's the difference; you seem to think the jobs of the other WR's on the current roster are in jeoperdy, or that they would feel threatened by Keenen. That's simply not the case at all, and I'm sure ALL of them would welcome the competition and the chance to learn something from a seasoned vet. They'd simply be foolish not to. These aren't children, they're professionals.

And to suggest that you know how they might "feel" about this signing because you met them once is utterly ridicules and hilarious.

I concede that you will win every argument if you wish to put words in my mouth and continue to manipulate what has been said by others.

___________________________________________________________________________

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Here is the bottom line. You have to weigh the potential contribution McCardell will offer in 2007 versus the potential contribution of the man he replaces in 2007 and the future. I don't see how changing your fourth string receiver is going to really affect chemistry or any nonsense like that.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Either way, I would like our coaching staff to be able to make that decision for themselves after getting to look at both players in training camp. Frankly, that seems to be a key difference. You seem to feel the coaching staff needs to be saved from itself.

Boom! That's exactly right.

But are you planning to use logic and common sense in all your posts?

SkinsFreak wrote:[utterly ridicules

That spelling is ridiculous. I say lets start a fund for this man so he can upgrade to XP.

XP? Dude, I'm on Vista. Still doesn't have the spell check, though.

I never was any good at spelling, especially when I'm trying to type fast.
That's why I keep a secretary on the payroll.

To quote Fios - "spelling words correctly is for chumps".

Your all pore spellers

SkinsFreak wrote::lol:

XP? Dude, I'm on Vista. Still doesn't have the spell check, though.

I never was any good at spelling, especially when I'm trying to type fast.
That's why I keep a secretary on the payroll.

You don't get the red squiggly lines under misspelled words? I run Vista at home also but rarely use it.

LEOPARD HERE I COME!!!

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote::lol:

XP? Dude, I'm on Vista. Still doesn't have the spell check, though.

I never was any good at spelling, especially when I'm trying to type fast.
That's why I keep a secretary on the payroll.

You don't get the red squiggly lines under misspelled words? I run Vista at home also but rarely use it.

LEOPARD HERE I COME!!!

I think you can get the spell check thing as Firefox extension

Chris Luva Luva wrote: You don't get the red squiggly lines under misspelled words? I run Vista at home also but rarely use it.

Um... no. You mean that technology actually exists?

Damn, I knew I got ripped off!