Re: Hackett to decide today 3/17
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;432564]If this turns out to be accurate, the folks in Seattle & Zorn must not be very impressed, even though he put up some good numbers when healthy. Or there's a lot more to the recurring ankle injury.[/QUOTE]
This has to be the case. Two teams with direct experience with the guy can't pony up more than 3.5 over 2 years? That makes you wonder really.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

In the year of Darrell Green's induction, I'm officially on the "pick a CB in the first round" bandwagon... :)

Seriously though, while I think it will probably be a CB or WR in the first round I'm leaning toward a DT or DE. I'm just glad it's not something I really have to worry about. I can see why we like trading our picks. This is stressful stuff.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

I'm not sure how I feel about this....we can draft a WR, but a rookie wideout is not going to contribute right away, and we're not rebuilding. I really hope this doesn't mean we're going to trade for a WR, b/c we need our picks to add depth to other areas of need. WR was really the only area we needed to address with FA. I guess now we'll see if crowd-favorite Anthony Mix lives up to the hype. I'm also counting on the fact that maybe Zorn will not be as conservative as Gibbs, and give him the same freedom Gibbs gave to Collins on the offense.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;432617]For those saying 1st round WR's are risky or take too long to develop (of whom I have been one - on both counts), a reminder of something I just recalled:

"With the 18th Selection in the 1980 Draft, the Redskins select Art Monk."

While risky, if the pick is good, it can be a real payoff - most of the truly top flight WR's have been chosen in the first round ([url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?position=Wide+Receivers&type=position]NFL Draft History: Full Draft - by Position[/url]).

True some top tier WR's are chosen in later rounds (S. Smith, C. Johnson, T.J. Who'syour mama, T. Owens, A. Boldin). A significant number (I would suggest, substantial majority) of true top flight WR's are 1st Round choices (R. Moss, M. Harrison, R. Wayne, Braylon Edwards, L. Fitzgerald, P. Burress, I could go on...).

As with most things in the draft, WR is a crap shoot. In the year of Monk's induction, I am officially switching to the "pick a WR in round one" band wagon in hopes that the good karma train is rolling our way.

As for Hackett, more power to him. I vote "good call" by the FO.[/QUOTE]


I wonder if this is because so many picks have been used on WRs in the first round more than anything. I definitely would say though that the fact that most good WR were first rounders is irrelevant to the point that a high percentage of first round WRs have been busts. Of course that can be said about just about any position.

One thing to note though is that in general even the really good or great WRs weren't great right away. Even guys like CJ, Burress, and TO spent a couple yaers just being OK. They all took off after a couple years.

I'd much rather we sign FAs at the WR spot where we knw what we are getting and pick linemen that are generally safer picks.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;432622]Seriously though, while I think it will probably be a CB or WR in the first round I'm leaning toward a DT or DE. I'm just glad it's not something I really have to worry about. I can see why we like trading our picks. This is stressful stuff.[/QUOTE]

Assuming we o get the xtra third we end up with 4 "old school" first day picks and done correctly we should get 4 starters out of that. I think one each of dline, oline, cb and wr is what we are potentially looking at.

It may be tough to find a starting level cb or dline in the second round though. As for WR and Oline we should definteily be able to find those come round 3. I think I'd go Dline, CB, WR, Oline but of course it really all depends on so many variables not the least of which is what players are avaiable when we pick.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;432626]I wonder if this is because so many picks have been used on WRs in the first round more than anything. I definitely would say though that the fact that most good WR were first rounders is irrelevant to the point that a high percentage of first round WRs have been busts. Of course that can be said about just about any position.

[B]One thing to note though is that in general even the really good or great WRs weren't great right away. Even guys like CJ, Burress, and TO spent a couple yaers just being OK. They all took off after a couple years. [/B]

I'd much rather we sign FAs at the WR spot where we knw what we are getting and pick linemen that are generally safer picks.[/QUOTE]

Generally, I agree with your sentiments. Recognizing that even the good WR's don't make an immediate impact, to me, actually strengthens the need for us to address it sooner rather than later. The idea that UFA WR's give us something "we know what we are getting" does not strike me as necessarily true e.g. Lloyd and ARE (Is ARE a solid number 2? I would argue that we are entering the third year of his deal and the jury is still out on that).

I don't see us getting a game changer by trade or UFA. Plus, a 1st round WR would be the 3rd time since Monk and, of course, the 3rd time's a charm (Westbrook, Gardner) (D. Howard doesn't count he was KR - Yeah! that's the ticket!).

Again, generally, I agree with your sentiment. But, I think it's time to take another shot. If we do our homework, get a little lucky, we could be set for a long time. If not, if it gives us something to bitch about.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;432642]Generally, I agree with your sentiments. Recognizing that even the good WR's don't make an immediate impact, to me, actually strengthens the need for us to address it sooner rather than later. The idea that UFA WR's give us something "we know what we are getting" does not strike me as necessarily true e.g. Lloyd and ARE (Is ARE a solid number 2? I would argue that we are entering the third year of his deal and the jury is still out on that).

I don't see us getting a game changer by trade or UFA. Plus, a 1st round WR would be the 3rd time since Monk and, of course, the 3rd time's a charm (Westbrook, Gardner) (D. Howard doesn't count he was KR - Yeah! that's the ticket!).

Again, generally, I agree with your sentiment. But, I think it's time to take another shot. If we do our homework, get a little lucky, we could be set for a long time. If not, if it gives us something to bitch about.[/QUOTE]


I'm tired of having things to btich about, I want to be able to tell a cowboy fan, giants fan, patriots fan, and colts fan that they suck, cus we won the superbowl. That's all i want.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=Dirtyskin21;432643]I'm tired of having things to btich about, I want to be able to tell a cowboy fan, giants fan, patriots fan, and colts fan that they suck, cus we won the superbowl. That's all i want.[/QUOTE]

As do we all, as do we all...

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

Guess we better start rubbing our hands and preparing for the draft. Cause we're not getting squat during FA.

Has anyone besides Brunell actually left the team, btw?

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

Im really upset with us not signing him. I feel that he is more talented than all of our recievers. In his last season, he was on pace to have 1024 yards and 8 td's if he played every game, while moss was on pace to get 923 and 3 tds and randle el was on pace to get 777 yds and only 1 td. Randle El and Moss both are getting 5 mil a year with 10 mil signing bonuses. Hacket got a deal where he is getting 2.25 mil a year. We also cleared a bunch of space to sign a free agent this year, we should have commited to signing one because otherwise we shot ourselves in the foot by pushing all that money back and having a bunch of empty cap space. Once Lloyd is cut, we will have 10.2 mil in space to get 3 players signed (including the 2 players from the rule of 51). We could have and should have bought Hackett because he would cost less than our receivers, and has better numbers. Not to mention we made the cap space for it.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;432662]Im really upset with us not signing him. I feel that he is more talented than all of our recievers. In his last season, he was on pace to have 1024 yards and 8 td's if he played every game, while moss was on pace to get 923 and 3 tds and randle el was on pace to get 777 yds and only 1 td. Randle El and Moss both are getting 5 mil a year with 10 mil signing bonuses. Hacket got a deal where he is getting 2.25 mil a year. We also cleared a bunch of space to sign a free agent this year, we should have commited to signing one because otherwise we shot ourselves in the foot by pushing all that money back and having a bunch of empty cap space. Once Lloyd is cut, we will have 10.2 mil in space to get 3 players signed (including the 2 players from the rule of 51). We could have and should have bought Hackett because he would cost less than our receivers, and has better numbers. Not to mention we made the cap space for it.[/quote]


On pace is a term that is thrown around to often, if he had played in those games whose to say that he would have gotten yards or TDs. Whos to say that Moss wasnt going to blow up in a game that he didnt play in? The term "on pace" should be stricked from the english language.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;432663]On pace is a term that is thrown around to often, if he had played in those games whose to say that he would have gotten yards or TDs. Whos to say that Moss wasnt going to blow up in a game that he didnt play in? The term "on pace" should be stricked from the english language.[/quote]

All right, then ignore the on pace thing. Hackett had 4 TD's in 7 games played (including the playoff game) which is more than our leading wide reciever and in under half the amount of games played (Moss had 3 in 15 games played including the playoff game)

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

I called it... go me

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;432669]All right, then ignore the on pace thing. Hackett had 4 TD's in 7 games played (including the playoff game) which is more than our leading wide reciever and in under half the amount of games played (Moss had 3 in 15 games played including the playoff game)[/quote]


Wasn't there a season where Keyshawn had 102 catches but only 1 TD? Just because he had some touchdowns doesnt mean he would come in here and just beasting on everyone.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;432586]According to Hacketts agent and ESPN, he chose Carolina over Seattle, Washington and Tampa Bay and that Hackett recieved only a "minimum salary offer from the Redskins."

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3298035"]ESPN - Panthers agree to two-year deal with WR Hackett - NFL[/URL][/quote]

They better be prepared to bring in a stellar draft class.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;432674]Wasn't there a season where Keyshawn had 102 catches but only 1 TD? Just because he had some touchdowns doesnt mean he would come in here and just beasting on everyone.[/quote]

First of all, TD's is the most important recieving stat, I don't care how many field goals a reciever sets up, a TD is more important. Second of all, TD's isnt his only stat where he is good. Over 7 games played (including the playoff game) he had 38 receptions (that's 5.5 receptions per game which is under 1 reception per game less than Keyshawns 102 catches) he also had 485 yards over 7 games played. That is averaging 70 yards per game. Santana Moss had 67 receptions over 15 games played (including the playoff game). That is 4.5 receptions per game, which is a larger difference from Hackett than Hackett was from Johnson. Moss had 876 yards over 15 games played which is 58 yards per game. That is 12 yards less than Hackett.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;432642]Generally, I agree with your sentiments. Recognizing that even the good WR's don't make an immediate impact, to me, actually strengthens the need for us to address it sooner rather than later. The idea that UFA WR's give us something "we know what we are getting" does not strike me as necessarily true e.g. Lloyd and ARE (Is ARE a solid number 2? I would argue that we are entering the third year of his deal and the jury is still out on that).

I don't see us getting a game changer by trade or UFA. Plus, a 1st round WR would be the 3rd time since Monk and, of course, the 3rd time's a charm (Westbrook, Gardner) (D. Howard doesn't count he was KR - Yeah! that's the ticket!).

Again, generally, I agree with your sentiment. But, I think it's time to take another shot. If we do our homework, get a little lucky, we could be set for a long time. If not, if it gives us something to bitch about.[/quote]

great post Joe. I think what really bolsters your argument is that Hackett is no sure thing due to his injury history. I think carolina got him for near a song, but I also think maybe the Danny & Vinny used this to send a message to the rest of the league; don't look for the big deals in DC anymore!

I agree w/you totally about drafting a reciever now, so he's ready to make big plays next year & after. IF the guy is good, he can catch 30 balls as a rook then take off after that. 30 catches is good for a #4 wr. I'm not saying we need to draft a wr w/our #1, but if they feel the best player of need is a wr then go ahead. It appears to be a deep class.

I'd just be really happy to see a guy start his career here & become a star, had enough of the trades & fa signings.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;432642]Generally, I agree with your sentiments. Recognizing that even the good WR's don't make an immediate impact, to me, actually strengthens the need for us to address it sooner rather than later. The idea that UFA WR's give us something "we know what we are getting" does not strike me as necessarily true e.g. Lloyd and ARE (Is ARE a solid number 2? I would argue that we are entering the third year of his deal and the jury is still out on that).

I don't see us getting a game changer by trade or UFA. Plus, a 1st round WR would be the 3rd time since Monk and, of course, the 3rd time's a charm (Westbrook, Gardner) (D. Howard doesn't count he was KR - Yeah! that's the ticket!).

Again, generally, I agree with your sentiment. But, I think it's time to take another shot. If we do our homework, get a little lucky, we could be set for a long time. If not, if it gives us something to bitch about.[/quote]Well, the antithesis to this would be the case of the 2007 Kansas City Chiefs. They took a receiver in the 1st round, and absolutely hit on him, taking the guy (Dwayne Bowe) who I said would be the best receiver in the 2007 draft class the week before the draft.

But they were an aging team with massive needs elsewhere, and their offensive line fell apart, and when it did, there was no one waiting in the wings to take advantage of the mess they had created.

So now, the Chiefs have to temper their expectations with Bowe playing on an offense with no QB, no OL, and a RB with serious questions to answer about his future (if he's the next Bettis/Martin, or if he's another Shaun Alexander).

While this is an area that the team (Redskins) will have to address a year or two down the road, we haven't made enough selections over the past few years to warrant being able to spend a high pick on a WR. We still need DL, OL, and a CB as soon as possible.

Additionally, this draft really doesn't have anything by way of can't miss prospect at WR.

But I do think you make a great point, and that's if you want to have a great player at any given position in 2009 or 2010, the most cost effective way is to draft him right now in 2008. I couldn't agree more with that point. Draft the guy a few years before you have to count on him.

Fortunately for us, I see 2011 as the first year that we would need to count on another receiver, and we have a lot of time before then to address other needs for '09 and '10

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

I also don't see the team taking a WR in the first when we just extended both Moss and ARE this offseason. Not in the first, but potentially later in the draft, I could see them going there.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=BeastsoftheNFCeast;432686]First of all, TD's is the most important recieving stat, I don't care how many field goals a reciever sets up, a TD is more important. Second of all, TD's isnt his only stat where he is good. Over 7 games played (including the playoff game) he had 38 receptions (that's 5.5 receptions per game which is under 1 reception per game less than Keyshawns 102 catches) he also had 485 yards over 7 games played. That is averaging 70 yards per game. Santana Moss had 67 receptions over 15 games played (including the playoff game). That is 4.5 receptions per game, which is a larger difference from Hackett than Hackett was from Johnson. Moss had 876 yards over 15 games played which is 58 yards per game. That is 12 yards less than Hackett.[/QUOTE]

It was 106 catches btw, and i don't care how much yardage or how many catches per game he had, because those stats don't mean anything, if he had played 16 games who knows how good or bad he would have been, and are you saying that DJ Hackett is better than Santana, because it sure looks like you were, there is no comparison, Santana is better and always will be better than DJ Hackett.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

MANNINGHAM MANNINGHAM MANNIGHAM! I think it was meant to be that the skins land a hall of famer.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=Campbell17;432709]MANNINGHAM MANNINGHAM MANNIGHAM! I think it was meant to be that the skins land a hall of famer.[/QUOTE]

I dunno about Manningham he's 6'0, but maybe another Monk.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;432686]First of all, TD's is the most important recieving stat, I don't care how many field goals a reciever sets up, a TD is more important. Second of all, TD's isnt his only stat where he is good. Over 7 games played (including the playoff game) he had 38 receptions (that's 5.5 receptions per game which is under 1 reception per game less than Keyshawns 102 catches) he also had 485 yards over 7 games played. That is averaging 70 yards per game. Santana Moss had 67 receptions over 15 games played (including the playoff game). That is 4.5 receptions per game, which is a larger difference from Hackett than Hackett was from Johnson. Moss had 876 yards over 15 games played which is 58 yards per game. That is 12 yards less than Hackett.[/quote]


Seeing that Seattle was a pass first team this season and with all the injuries to their recieving core I am not suprised he got those yards at all.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=GTripp0012;432703]I also don't see the team taking a WR in the first when we just extended both Moss and ARE this offseason. Not in the first, but potentially later in the draft, I could see them going there.[/quote]

Lol, extensions only mean so much these days. I remember Mike Schula got an extension the week before he was fired. There were also two other guys that got fired soon after they're contract was extended. However with that said I don't see us unloading those guys anytime soon.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;432720]Seeing that Seattle was a pass first team this season and with all the injuries to their recieving core I am not suprised he got those yards at all.[/quote]

That's a very good point. Seattle was a pass first offense, with a veteran quarterback that spread the ball around. So stats were there to be had. That doesn't necessarily mean that D.J. Hackett was all that good. If Jason Campbell can adjust to the new offense, I see Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle-EL's numbers increasing. Resigning Reche Caldwell might be the best option. He is a very capable receiver and would be a good third option. I'm also hoping Mix steps up and becomes a viable option.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by BeastsoftheNFCeast
First of all, TD's is the most important recieving stat, I don't care how many field goals a reciever sets up, a TD is more important. Second of all, TD's isnt his only stat where he is good. Over 7 games played (including the playoff game) he had 38 receptions (that's 5.5 receptions per game which is under 1 reception per game less than Keyshawns 102 catches) he also had 485 yards over 7 games played. That is averaging 70 yards per game. Santana Moss had 67 receptions over 15 games played (including the playoff game). That is 4.5 receptions per game, which is a larger difference from Hackett than Hackett was from Johnson. Moss had 876 yards over 15 games played which is 58 yards per game. That is 12 yards less than Hackett.[/QUOTE]



Moss played 15 games so of course his numbers are gonna be lower than hacketts.. His average is gonna change everytime he touches the ball. thats like saying Cartwright is a better RB than portis because he had a 7.0 ypc average as a RB.

But he only ran the ball once, for 7.0 yards, sio of cours his average is gonna be larger than portis's.

I dont agree with your arguement at all

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=Dirtyskin21;432947]Moss played 15 games so of course his numbers are gonna be lower than hacketts.. His average is gonna change everytime he touches the ball. thats like saying Cartwright is a better RB than portis because he had a 7.0 ypc average as a RB.

But he only ran the ball once, for 7.0 yards, sio of cours his average is gonna be larger than portis's.

I dont agree with your arguement at all[/QUOTE]

Thank you! It's like saying Mattyk started 81 games and hit 35 homeruns, but DirtySkin had 1 homerun in 1 game played so clearly he would have hit 81 in 81 games.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[QUOTE=Dirtyskin21;432947]Moss played 15 games so of course his numbers are gonna be lower than hacketts.. His average is gonna change everytime he touches the ball. thats like saying Cartwright is a better RB than portis because he had a 7.0 ypc average as a RB.

But he only ran the ball once, for 7.0 yards, sio of cours his average is gonna be larger than portis's.

I dont agree with your arguement at all[/QUOTE]

Absolutely agree with you! Good arguement.

ps- Moss played in 14 games (just an FYI)

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;432721]Lol, extensions only mean so much these days. I remember Mike Schula got an extension the week before he was fired. There were also two other guys that got fired soon after they're contract was extended. However with that said I don't see us unloading those guys anytime soon.[/quote]Among one of the things it does mean is known as "guarenteed money" or "guarenteed salary cap space" or basically, the inability to get away from those players as your starters.

Basically, it means we aren't drafting a receiver in the first round.

Re: Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers
 

[quote=hail_2_da_skins;432906]That's a very good point. Seattle was a pass first offense, with a veteran quarterback that spread the ball around. So stats were there to be had. That doesn't necessarily mean that D.J. Hackett was all that good. If Jason Campbell can adjust to the new offense, I see Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle-EL's numbers increasing. Resigning Reche Caldwell might be the best option. He is a very capable receiver and would be a good third option. I'm also hoping Mix steps up and becomes a viable option.[/quote]It definately doesn't automatically mean that Hackett got those yards because he was good (certainly it could have been because of circumstance), but in Hackett's case, he had performed well not only last year, but also in '05 and '06. He's a very safe pickup for Carolina.

Plus he won the MNF Fish Catching contest in 2005. Of course he's going to be good ;).