Redskins Sign DeSean Jackson

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

If there is a wr they are very high on available in the draft than maybe they pull the trigger. Dont forget injuries do happen. Again I think it would have to be a guy they are really high on. Also maybe he is a ST contributor.
That being said I cannot see us drafting a wr. Personally I want to keep Hank as the number four. Also i dont think it is our track record of developing wr's as much as it was just missing on them. If it was a case of untapped potential they would have flourished elsewhere.

[CRedskinsRule]

we have two years, where young guys can come in, learn behind top talent, and be evaluated by our staff. That reps they get come in the meaningless games. Those reps do nothing for Hankerson or Robinson, they are who they are. If you get two young guys or more in the undrafted ranks, in this a particularly deep WR draft (so everybody says), then they get two offseasons, 1 preseason, this year, with no pressure just focusing on learning and improving. Next year you bring another guy in, hopefully one of the two this year has something, if not then move on.

People harp on how we haven't developed WR's which is true. But that's because we draft them and throw them in thinking they have to be the guys. If you want to develop a skill player in the NFL, most of the time you have to let them cut their teeth in training camp and preseason then let them start pushing the older guys.

But no, let's keep Hankerson and Robinson, they will not be good enough next year to supplant 1-3, and so we will let them go because we aren't going to commit long term to them after 4 years of less then stellar results. The following year, when Garcon and DJax are looking at other offers, we will be stuck drafting out of need, and not for development.

Good plan.

[warriorzpath]

I'm torn a bit with the wide receivers, the draft, and who the Redskins should keep.

Like Aldrick Robinson. If you keep him and his speed, this may be a package that opposing defenses may fear and would need to account for: Robinson, DeSean Jackson, Garcon, and Jordan Reed on field at the same time. Which one do you double or bracket? At the very least Robinson should get behind the defense in this formation. If he can catch it consistently, this would be unstoppable.

[jdlea]

Heads up: Sportscenter is running an exclusive Stephen A. Smith - DeSean Jackson interview tonight at 6 pm.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Heads up: Sportscenter is running an exclusive Stephen A. Smith - DeSean Jackson interview tonight at 6 pm.

Cool thanks man

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

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

I keep hoping for Williams because he's a little speedy guy. But I'm not sure how much upside he actually has.

[Paintrain]

Barring injury you have to think that Garçon, Jackson, Roberts and probably a draft pick (4th or 5th rounder) are locks. Robinson and Hankerson are probably competing for one spot. Williams and Gettis will compete for likely a final roster spot.

Moss is a tough one. One argument is that his projected production is minimal at this point and unless he's the punt returner, he may not have a role on the field or team. So then do you bring him back in the 'Rex Grossman' role, on the 53 but mostly around for leadership and guidance? Probably inactive on game day but a valuable member of the team nonetheless.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Barring injury you have to think that Garçon, Jackson, Roberts and probably a draft pick (4th or 5th rounder) are locks. Robinson and Hankerson are probably competing for one spot. Williams and Gettis will compete for likely a final roster spot.

Moss is a tough one. One argument is that his projected production is minimal at this point and unless he's the punt returner, he may not have a role on the field or team. So then do you bring him back in the 'Rex Grossman' role, on the 53 but mostly around for leadership and guidance? Probably inactive on game day but a valuable member of the team nonetheless.

I'd give Moss the opportunity to find quality playing time elsewhere instead of making him a weekly inactive here.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

we have two years, where young guys can come in, learn behind top talent, and be evaluated by our staff. That reps they get come in the meaningless games. Those reps do nothing for Hankerson or Robinson, they are who they are. If you get two young guys or more in the undrafted ranks, in this a particularly deep WR draft (so everybody says), then they get two offseasons, 1 preseason, this year, with no pressure just focusing on learning and improving. Next year you bring another guy in, hopefully one of the two this year has something, if not then move on.

People harp on how we haven't developed WR's which is true. But that's because we draft them and throw them in thinking they have to be the guys. If you want to develop a skill player in the NFL, most of the time you have to let them cut their teeth in training camp and preseason then let them start pushing the older guys.

But no, let's keep Hankerson and Robinson, they will not be good enough next year to supplant 1-3, and so we will let them go because we aren't going to commit long term to them after 4 years of less then stellar results. The following year, when Garcon and DJax are looking at other offers, we will be stuck drafting out of need, and not for development.

Good plan.

yeah, cause we're really getting rid of garcon, jackson, and roberts next year with the 3 year contracts they all have. and i really said that hankerson was going to be our #1. thanks for implying things that were never said and great argument, but next time, try using facts.

or at least seeing what was written. if someone comes in here and blows it up, great. but saying you KNOW they will and hank/robinson WILL be cut is silly. show me some results first. let's not make assumptions, that based on history, are very low probability.

[Schneed10]

Moss has value as a 4th WR in the slot in 4-WR sets. He also has the ability to replace Andre Roberts in the slot if Roberts gets hurt. You keep Moss active as your #4 on game days, and I probably make him my primary punt returner.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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?

His ceiling is nothing more than a good #2; he just doesn't have what it takes to be a Garcon, and certainly not an Andre Johnson.

Explosiveness and health are the biggest things I would like to see improve. He comes off the line too slow, and then relies on physicality/size to beat DBs. Sort of on that same note, he has a hard time making defenders miss in the open field. But health is the bigger issue; he's only played in 30 of a possible 48 games. If he had stayed healthy last year, he would've put up 48 catches for 600 yards and 5 TDs. That's a serviceable #2, great #3.

Right back at you: what do you see in his game that says that he can't be a good contributor to our WR corps? What makes you think that he can't put his great measurables together and become a star? You say, "Well, if he hasn't done it yet, he probably never will." But why not?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by That Guy

yeah, cause we're really getting rid of garcon, jackson, and roberts next year with the 3 year contracts they all have. and i really said that hankerson was going to be our #1. thanks for implying things that were never said and great argument, but next time, try using facts.



or at least seeing what was written. if someone comes in here and blows it up, great. but saying you KNOW they will and hank/robinson WILL be cut is silly. show me some results first. let's not make assumptions, that based on history, are very low probability.

Did C Redskins quote you? I thought he was just saying that we should change the way we handled young talent in the past?

[skinsfan69]

The Moss era needs to end. Cut the cord. Can't have an old guy as your 4th or 5th wr.

[mredskins]

Kind of off topic but with the signing of Djax it would easier to wash our hands of PG if he doesn't perform. Gtripp's bet is looking stronger by the day. =)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

His ceiling is nothing more than a good #2; he just doesn't have what it takes to be a Garcon, and certainly not an Andre Johnson.

Explosiveness and health are the biggest things I would like to see improve. He comes off the line too slow, and then relies on physicality/size to beat DBs. Sort of on that same note, he has a hard time making defenders miss in the open field. But health is the bigger issue; he's only played in 30 of a possible 48 games. If he had stayed healthy last year, he would've put up 48 catches for 600 yards and 5 TDs. That's a serviceable #2, great #3.

Right back at you: what do you see in his game that says that he can't be a good contributor to our WR corps? What makes you think that he can't put his great measurables together and become a star? You say, "Well, if he hasn't done it yet, he probably never will." But why not?

It's a fair question, and my best answer is this, over the past 3 years, name a WR on our team that you want to keep, and I can name at least a play or two that makes me go wow, and makes me think he's got something there:
for an example:
Garcon - he has multiple, but the Dallas game where he snagged a pass in the middle of the field and crossed all the way for a TD
Moss - obviously he has a ton
Robinson - the Dallas TD on Thanksgiving that sparked the team
Hankerson - nothin' maybe I just block it out, but I can't think of one play, where Hank made something out of nothing. What I mainly remember is a couple plays where he had the chance, and didn't make the play, or where with just a little more maybe he makes a game changing moment, but it never happened.

We have invested 3years of coaching and for Hank, not one play stands out to me as a "That's What I'm talking about moment". And this at a time when other than Garcon and Moss, the WR spot was there for the taking. Now, what motivates him, he's not going to overtake Garcon, or DJax, very unlikely to overtake Robinson. The best you can say is that it's his contract year so he's motivated for that, but isn't that the knock on most FA mistakes (I'm looking at you Albert) that teams make.

Get new guys in, give them a year of pure training, and special teams. 2015, let them get reps in the preseason games against the opponents starting defenses. and 2 years from now, when Roberts and Garcon and Djax all will at least be thinking about money, we have young guys who are ours for two more years, thinking about being our 1, 2, or 3.