Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=Lotus;1067294]If Aldrick could improve at kickoff returns, he could really help his stock and the team's.[/quote]

I think he needs to learn to hold on to the ball.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

what are you guys smoking? why would hank or robinson not make the team? are we only keeping 3 WRs this year? who else has been in here that's looked better than them for spots 4/5/6, cause i sure don't remember seeing them.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=That Guy;1067298]what are you guys smoking? why would hank or robinson not make the team? are we only keeping 3 WRs this year? who else has been in here that's looked better than them for spots 4/5/6, cause i sure don't remember seeing them.[/quote]

At least one late WR will be drafted, and neither Hank nor Robinson are big ST players, which WR's 4 and 5 should be. If either one improves at ST, then keep them, otherwise, our receivers are 1- Garcon, 2-DJax, 3-Roberts, 4-Moss, 5/6 new WR's not yet named that will be groomed.

My rationale (and I hope Gruden's):
Signing DJax and Roberts locks down spots 1-3 for 2 years barring injury.

Hankerson's ceiling is pretty much established. If he was going to do anything he would have done it by now. He certainly isn't going to suddenly become better than 1-3. He costs $660K against the cap. Even if he had a big year this year, he is in a contract year, and would want money we aren't going to give him. So the ONLY potential he has for us, would for him to break out this year, and be a UFA next year, a team take him, and we get a compensatory draft pick. There is absolutely no way, barring injury to 1-3, that Hankerson is on the team in 2015.

Robinson pretty much the same as Hankerson, except he only costs 570K against the cap.

From a team building viewpoint this is the time to bring in new diamond in the roughs, let them develop for 2 years behind 1-3, and see if we can actually develop a home grown receiver. Again, if anyone wants to argue that Hank and Robinson should be those guys, remember their contracts expire this year. We have 1-3 locked up for at least 2 years. It really seems like a no brainer to me.

Late round rookies or Undrafted FA's probably are about 430K against the cap, so it's not really a money decision in any way. Simply that we just signed 2 premium WR's to 2 year contracts, and both Hank and AR's contracts end in 1.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

I think AR will be our primary KR this season.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1067306]At least one late WR will be drafted, and neither Hank nor Robinson are big ST players, which WR's 4 and 5 should be. If either one improves at ST, then keep them, otherwise, our receivers are 1- Garcon, 2-DJax, 3-Roberts, 4-Moss, 5/6 new WR's not yet named that will be groomed.

My rationale (and I hope Gruden's):
Signing DJax and Roberts locks down spots 1-3 for 2 years barring injury.

Hankerson's ceiling is pretty much established. If he was going to do anything he would have done it by now. He certainly isn't going to suddenly become better than 1-3. He costs $660K against the cap. Even if he had a big year this year, he is in a contract year, and would want money we aren't going to give him. So the ONLY potential he has for us, would for him to break out this year, and be a UFA next year, a team take him, and we get a compensatory draft pick. There is absolutely no way, barring injury to 1-3, that Hankerson is on the team in 2015.

Robinson pretty much the same as Hankerson, except he only costs 570K against the cap.

From a team building viewpoint this is the time to bring in new diamond in the roughs, let them develop for 2 years behind 1-3, and see if we can actually develop a home grown receiver. Again, if anyone wants to argue that Hank and Robinson should be those guys, remember their contracts expire this year. We have 1-3 locked up for at least 2 years. It really seems like a no brainer to me.

Late round rookies or Undrafted FA's probably are about 430K against the cap, so it's not really a money decision in any way. Simply that we just signed 2 premium WR's to 2 year contracts, and both Hank and AR's contracts end in 1.[/quote]

diamonds in the rough like devin thomas, malcom kelly, desmon briscoe or the other ho-hums we've seen trotted through here? hankerson is/has been better than them, and he hasn't done anything to merit a big deal, so next year if we like him, guess what? vet min. moss is less likely to make the roster than he is, cause he's only getting worse.

AR would also go before him, cause he only knows one route, though he did show some improvement. again though, we probably keep 6 WRs, and until some no names shows they're worth a spot, the law of averages and past performance shows that the 3 we've got are more likely to stay over someone we haven't heard of. if they do draft a guy, it'd probably be moss, than AR that get the boot. but i'm not going to fall in love with WRs we don't even have on the roster or declare the ones actually there dead until i see some proof that someone else can get on the field and play first.

and if you think the skins will keep a crappier player to save 100k, that's just silly. we're not the titans.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

Neither Hankerson nor Aldrick is a lock to make the roster. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1067313]Neither Hankerson nor Aldrick is a lock to make the roster. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise[/quote]

Besides neither of them are the future. We'd do better by investing in a draft pick. Our current starters are young enough to cut bait on these guys and develop eventual replacements in the next couple of drafts.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

I think when you have solid starters is the time you bring in guys to see who wants to make it, you don't wait until the need is there (ie when Roberts DJax both are up for extensions in 2 to 3 years).

I said specifically that money isn't an issue either way, but the fact that you could have a guy under contract for 4 years with 1 to develop and 1 to challenge and then 2 more to play, makes a lot more sense than having a guy who hasn't developed enough in 3 years to prevent the team from bringing in a good FA (Roberts) to be the number 2 (until DJax was let go and signed).

Serious question for all those who think Hankerson especially ought to be on the roster, what more do you need to see from him for him to take Roberts place as number 3, or Garcon's place as number one? And when would he get the chance to prove it (please don't say preseason) before his contract expires next year and you need to decide what you want to do with him?

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=ICantGoAnother20yrsOfCrap;1067315]Besides neither of them are the future. We'd do better by investing in a draft pick. Our current starters are young enough to cut bait on these guys and develop eventual replacements in the next couple of drafts.[/quote]

Exactly

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;1067297]I think he needs to learn to hold on to the ball.[/quote]

Alligator Aldrick? No way. :)

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1067313]Neither Hankerson nor Aldrick is a lock to make the roster. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise[/quote]

You could add Moss to that as well, correct? Basically past Roberts the rest of the corp is up for grabs.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

I would like to see Williams and Gettis get a shot to make contributions.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

Great article. Seems like I have read something similar a million times.

[url=http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=10714660]NFL DeSean Jackson signing risky at best - ESPN[/url]

Just heard that Desean Jacksons pop warner team was the Redskins.

Re: Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson
 

how much do you think a WR we draft is going to develop when his cap here is as our #4? he'll be lucky to see 8 snaps a game. and our track record of developing WRs is also pretty terrible. I just don't see why so many people are cutting bait on the WRs we have that have actually caught balls in real games for guys they can't even name that aren't even on the roster.

maybe when they do something in (at least) a preseason game it'd be worth a discussion, but the odds are low and the difference they make over the next 3 years is probably very close to none.