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

Hey look at the new guy, Ralph Brown, getting burned by my boy D-Mac!

McCants' agent: Ravens are interested
By Aaron Wilson
Date: Mar 18, 2004

OWINGS MILLS – The agent for Washington Redskins wide receiver Darnerien McCants said the Baltimore Ravens have expressed an interest in the restricted free agent.

http://story.theinsiders.com/a.z?s=118& ... 43827.html

What does this have to do with the Ravens wanting D.McCants?

Whoops, clicked the submit button too quickly.

Jake,
What type of compensation would the Redskins get if they were to lose McCants to Baltimore?

5th round pick if they sign him from an offer sheet. Snyder won't let him go for a 5th rounder, if D-Mac leaves it will be in a trade for at least a 3rd round pick I would imagine. Thats the minimum offer I'd accept.

I'd rather trade away Rod Gardner.

Do the Ravens have the ability to push the Skins close enough to the cap that they are unable to match the offer? I imagine there is some point at which the Skins would be forced to accept the sub-par compensation. With a draft pick and some d lineman left to sign, the Ravens may not have to make a ridiculous offer. I'd rather not lose McCants.

OH MY GOD !!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOO>>>>>Not the Buzzards !!!!!!! We need to keep Darnerien !

Fios wrote:Do the Ravens have the ability to push the Skins close enough to the cap that they are unable to match the offer? .

No, The skins are 4 mil under the cap now...plus Larry Moore frees up another 1.3 million.

There is no way Darnerian would count 4 million plus in 2004.

this is interesting though.

I think this happened since the Ravens got the "free 5th round pick" from the TO incident.
But Darnerian could be traded for more IF the Redskins matched the offer....and they said they would.
The Ravens could give up their 2nd rounder since they offered it up for TO already....wishfull thinking.

"I'd rather trade away Rod Gardner"--I agree. Mccants could be an all-star and we could get someone good for gardner

I thought so..http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27917&highlight=#27917

I believe the original plan was to give McCants a mid-level offer, which would have gotten us a 1st rounder if he left. We cheaped out and gave him the low-level deal and now we'll probably have to pay him more than the mid-level if we want to keep him.

Probably - but it depends on the full offer that the Ravens give him

A couple of you would rather trade away Rod Gardner because you think McCants has more potential to be an all star??? Whoa there buddy. Gardner has much more potential, McCants just has more desire.

Gardner is overrated. McCant's hasn't even had a chance to unleash his potential but you're right...he DOES have the desire which will make him work harder and that's been proven already.

Redskins4Life wrote:A couple of you would rather trade away Rod Gardner because you think McCants has more potential to be an all star??? Whoa there buddy. Gardner has much more potential, McCants just has more desire.

Potential and Desire , first of all everyone who is drafted into the NFL has potential, it is those with the desire and who persevere that succeed. Does Gardner have desire? How about D-Mac? You bet they do! As for who has more, we'll let that be decided at camp. Both of them will thrive off from one another as will Coles in Gibbs' offense. No desire and No Burgundy and Gold, thats how it works under Gibbs. Let him decide, and we'll support him like we always had, have, and will.

I don't see either one of them going anywhere. If one "had" to go for other reasons than desire, more than likely Gardner would be trade bait for a draft pick IMO.

I think McCant's was shown way better hands and seems to make bigger plays than Gardner. I say sign him to a long term now so next year when Gardner leaves we can get something for him and still have someone waiting in the wings.

cjpck - while I agree McCants had more TDs last year, he wasn't close to Gardner on the number of catches or yards. He did have some drops himself. Gardner had a miserable year, but the year before had a very good year.

I still wonder if he got tweaked cause he got moved from #1 to #2 WR. He didn't say anything publicly but he sure got alligator arms.

You cant judge a three year player on whether they suck or not especially when they've only had ONE bad season which still was better than all the Eagles, Ravens, etc. #1 recievers and most every teams #2 recievers. If Gardner didn't explode for 71 catches, 1000+ yards in 2002, then you guys wouldnt be talking right now about how Rod had a "bad" season in 2003. 60 catches is by no means a bad season!!! And McCants fans, you have to realize that Gardner is faster, more agile, stronger and pretty much better than McCants in every physical attribute a WR is supposed to have. You can teach someone how to catch a ball and to want to win; but you can't teach someone how to become a better athlete. Realize that. Oh, and Joe Gibbs is known for bringing the best out of his players which is gonna lead to a career year for Gardner.

Actually, before you take anyone to task, I was defending Rod to a degree, basically agreeing that he was a better receiver than he showed last year.

I was basically arguing against the theory that McCants was that much better or that desire could close the talent gap if Gardner had a 2002 year rather than a 2003 year.

Last year Rod had a CRAPPY year. He only caught 50% of the balls thrown to him which is NOT good for a #2 wideout. Not to mention he had a 400 yard drop off in production in a mainly passing offense. Go back and look at your game tapes and see how many 5+ drop games the man had - especially when PRam needed him the most.

Lord, tell me we don't have another fan who worships just one of 53 people...

You want a good WR in comparison to Gardner - look at the pic in your avatar - that is talent and heart. Someone who isn't nicknamed 50/50 by his OWN teammate cause he only catches half of what is thrown to him...

You do realize that the man had less catches by far in 2001 and yet had more ypc?

Lemme see why I judge his year as being bad for ROD in comparison:

2001 (under plain Schotty too)

46 rec 741 yds 16.1 ypc 85 longest 4 TD

2002

71 rec 1006 yds 14.2 ypc 43 longest 8 TD

2003

59 rec 600 yds 10.2 ypc 35 longest 5 TD

So - he had 12 less catches, 406 less yards, 4.0 ypc less and 3 TD less... yep - down in ALL categories. That would be considered a bad year.

IF he can get back to 2001 or 2002 form, great. If he doesn't, then don't hang on to him. When he has 120 opportunities to catch the ball and he drops half of them, there is an obvious problem, and rose colored glasses don't help.

Realize that.

it makes it hard when the only pass you can get off w/out being sacked is a slip screen to coles. give the man some credit, i thought he sold out every game. never hear him moan or gripe. he could have cried all day when the skins went out and got coles, instead you never heard a peep from him. the man goes out there and plays better, and in a year in which his numbers were down, i thought he improved as a player. keep in mind that he was not the #1 receiver as he was the previous year, and coles couldn't have had the year he had w/out gardner. gardner will draw respect in coverage from other teams and help take the load off of LC, there is no way he's going anywhere. i love mccants, but he is expendable. gardner is not. this is the dumbest argument i've ever heard

Why is any argument - which is the expression of opinions - dumb?

Ignorance is not looking at the whole statement being made by a person before retorting with blabbering.

1. In no way did I advocate trading or letting go of Gardner.

2. I pointed out that McCants did NOT have the numbers that Gardner had.

3. I pointed out that while Gardner had a bad year last year (in comparison to his own 2002 numbers) he had a great 2002 season.

4. I also pointed out in my reply that Gardner had worse numbers in 2003 than 2002 - true statements backed up by factual evidence.

5. It is also factual that Gardner had the most balls thrown to him, more by far than Coles, and in fact, had more drops than anyone else, Coles included. If I need to go link to the place where the stats are included to show that I will be more than happy to do so in order for you to recognize the stats aren't just being made up.

6. I did NOT state that Gardner is expendable.

I do think that DM is good, I think Gardner, when he plays all out is better. Did RG get open a lot? Yep. Did he drop a lot? Yep. Can he do better and make us all be thankful that we have him? Yep. Do I think we need to trade him? Not unless he makes it clear to the coaches that he has a problem with being the #2 WR, which I am NOT saying he has said.

One of the rules on here Superman is that we debate ideas and don't use insults to do it. The reason I stated what I did in reply to Redskins4Life was that he misread what I said and made some statements I judged were in error - IN MY OPINION. The clipped "Realize that." statement hit me wrong, because it sounded like he was getting short with opinions he didn't agree with.

For Gardner to gripe as a possession style of WR about a team getting a speedy #1 type of WR is silly because a possession style WR is always a #2 or #3 WR due to the lack of speed that someone like Coles brings to the field. Gardner might be faster, stronger and all that more than DM, but Coles is faster, catches better, plays harder and brings more to the team IMO.

I still don't think that Gardner should be traded. I just think that he was not as good last year as the year before and that he could do better. If he doesn't - we don't - AS A TEAM - need the man on the roster.

That is my opinion, and I would appreciate not being called dumb for having it or stating it. We can just simply agree to disagree and let it go. That is what we intend for this board - and why people are coming here - it is clean and you can express your opinion without being jumped on.

I agree with Superman. Roanoke, he wasn't trying to be disrespectful neither was I. But I got to say he made some good points. And when did Gardner get more passes thrown to him compared to Coles, and when did Gardner drop "50% of his balls". Whoever called RG 50-50 sucks himself 'cause I remember it was some no name D-Linemen we had like Upshaw or something. Gardner wasn't a 1st round pick for nothing, and hes outplayed all the recievers taken in that draft except maybe Chad Johnson whos only had 1 good season. Gardner can catch very very well and his 2002 numbers reflect that. Something happened with his game this year but he did not drop 50% of his balls, no way. He might have just been accepting the fact that he was no longer the go to guy and maybe he was kinda down in the dumps about it. But think about this Roanoke, what kinda stats did RG have before P.Ram went down? GOOD ONES. He wasn't too far behind Coles in any categories, but when Tim "cant throw a lick" Hasselbeck got in, I dont think Gardner caught more than 3 balls in a game since then. Realize That.

First - I don't care if you think you he made good points. That is your opinion, which you have a right to. Understand - I am not knocking that. I am knocking the delivery - ok?

Secondly - Arrington was one of the guys calling him 50/50. I think it might have been Bruce that coined it though.

I agree with you that Gardner is better than most people think, which is why I thought it was really strange you jumped on me when I essentially was arguing for him not to be gone because he showed his potential in 2002, but had a bad year in 2003 - go back and read what I put up there in my first post.

As far as the stats - go down to the current year- there is a neat stat here called "trgt" which is the number of times Gardner was targeted. 59 divided by 115 = 51.3%

Here is the URL:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/5462/

You might want to think that as a moderator and a writer on here I don't just pull numbers out of thin air - I usually have proof. If I screw up - I admit it - but in this case he was nearly 50/50.

I would expect Gardner to have better stats with a better QB, absolutely. I am not arguing that he didn't have good stats - what I said was that FOR HIM, IN COMPARISON TO 2002, it was a bad year.

However - in regard to your assertion that Gardner was not far behind Coles:

Coles - 59 rec - 880 yds - 4 TD - 14.91 ypc through game 11

Gardner - 45 rec - 467 yds - 4 TD - 10.37 ypc

He was behind him. I made a mistake regarding the number of balls thrown Coles, but not in the number thrown Gardner. Yes - they both had problems after Hasselbeck came in. (which is the perfect argument for the Brunell pickup).

If you want to see a great WR - look at Coles #'s from 2002 to 2003. Wanna talk having issues? He changed Teams, QBs, Offenses, had a broken foot for 12-13 games and still ended up either a mirror image of 2002 or slightly better.

My main problem is that you and Superman did two things - you didn't read before you jumped, because if you had you would have seen I was arguing FOR Gardner OVER McCants. Secondly, you made statements in a tone that was inappropriate. Everyone has a right to state their opinions on here. I don't care if you disagree, just be polite.

As a moderator, it is my job, and one I respect and do well, to enforce that people are not jumping on people rather than arguing points. I understand that you have good points, such as the Hasselbeck thing, but there are two ways to bring that up.

I hope you understand the difference.

skinsfaninroanoke, in a couple of different posts, wrote:Why is any argument - which is the expression of opinions - dumb?

Ignorance is not looking at the whole statement being made by a person before retorting with blabbering.

One of the rules on here Superman is that we debate ideas and don't use insults to do it. he was getting short with opinions he didn't agree with.


That is my opinion, and I would appreciate not being called dumb for having it or stating it. We can just simply agree to disagree and let it go. That is what we intend for this board - and why people are coming here - it is clean and you can express your opinion without being jumped on.

Secondly, you made statements in a tone that was inappropriate. Everyone has a right to state their opinions on here. I don't care if you disagree, just be polite.

As a moderator, it is my job, and one I respect and do well, to enforce that people are not jumping on people rather than arguing points. I understand that you have good points, such as the Hasselbeck thing, but there are two ways to bring that up.

I hope you understand the difference.