Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Status

[The Goat]

I'll leave it this way: if the defense hadn't dramatically improved in the 2nd half of the season, our win/loss improvement would NOT have happened either, period. Focusing on Garcon instead as the reason for improvement is asinine. He "added" appx on point per game, while the defense held opponents to several points less in the 2nd half of the season compared to the 1st half.

The man-crushing on this guy is beyond me. The offense scored nearly as many points without him. Was it a different looking offense? Sure. Maybe. I don't really care. Points win games the last time I checked.

If anything London should be the focus here. He allegedly took a much larger role in scheming through the 2nd half of the season, and he played extremely well as the foot/ankle injury healed.

And again, the notion Garcon has shown anything to be an elite WR up to this point, deserving of his contract, is just absurd. He scored 4 touchdowns and was quiet for long stretches in the games he played. You sorcerers who put all the offensive improvement on him (that 1 point per game lol) are deep into the magic on this one.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'll leave it this way: if the defense hadn't dramatically improved in the 2nd half of the season, our win/loss improvement would NOT have happened either, period. Focusing on Garcon instead as the reason for improvement is asinine. He "added" appx on point per game, while the defense held opponents to several points less in the 2nd half of the season compared to the 1st half.

The man-crushing on this guy is beyond me. The offense scored nearly as many points without him. Was it a different looking offense? Sure. Maybe. I don't really care. Points win games the last time I checked.

If anything London should be the focus here. He allegedly took a much larger role in scheming through the 2nd half of the season, and he played extremely well as the foot/ankle injury healed.

And again, the notion Garcon has shown anything to be an elite WR up to this point, deserving of his contract, is just absurd. He scored 4 touchdowns and was quiet for long stretches in the games he played. You sorcerers who put all the offensive improvement on him (that 1 point per game lol) are deep into the magic on this one.

If you arguing that Garcon is not an elite receiver and not deserving of an elite receiver's contract, you have a point and I somewhat agree with you. However if you are arguing that Garcon is not a difference maker, I completely disagree with you and you can see it in how defenses adjust to Garcon allowing the other receivers more space.

Garcon is not elite, but neither is Mike Wallace and he received an elite receivers pay. Garcon is a difference maker at receiver.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'll leave it this way: if the defense hadn't dramatically improved in the 2nd half of the season, our win/loss improvement would NOT have happened either, period. Focusing on Garcon instead as the reason for improvement is asinine. He "added" appx on point per game, [No ... as to the offense, there was a 4+ point differential. Apparently, the term "Reading is Fundamental" was not something emphasized in your schooling.] while the defense held opponents to several points less in the 2nd half of the season compared to the 1st half.

The man-crushing on this guy is beyond me. The offense scored nearly as many points without him. [WRONG - See above, "the offense" scored 20% less when he wasn't in the game. Geez, you know, there are only so many times I can post the Dr. Cox video]. Was it a different looking offense? Sure. Maybe. I don't really care. Points win games the last time I checked.

If anything London should be the focus here. He allegedly took a much larger role in scheming through the 2nd half of the season, and he played extremely well as the foot/ankle injury healed.

And again, the notion Garcon has shown anything to be an elite WR up to this point, deserving of his contract, is just absurd. He scored 4 touchdowns and was quiet for long stretches in the games he played. You sorcerers who put all the offensive improvement on him (that 1 point per game lol) are deep into the magic on this one.

And I'll leave it this way:

You can move your rhetorical target around as much as you want (Garcon has an inflated cap impact, no real impact on offensive production, his TD production was less than other receivers); the bottom line is this - Mr. "Points win games" - the offense produced an additional 4+ points/game when Garcon played. Thus, the offense produced 20% more points when Garcon played than when he didn't. Period.

Without that point differential, and conceeding the defense's vastly improved play, the Skins lose the NYG game (a one point victory) and the Baltimore game (a three point victory)(By the way, the margin of victory in BOTH those games was provided, in part, thanks to a Garcon TD). Without those wins, the Skins don't win the NFC East championship. Thus, even with the improved defensive play, no Garcon, no championship. Double exclamation point.

As much as you want to say others are putting "all the offensive improvement on him", you are blatantly, obtusely, idiotically, irrationally, stupidly ignorantly, foolishly, baselessly and moronically denying (1) the existence of any difference in the team's offensive production when Garcon played as opposed to when he didn't; and (2) the significant role Garcon played in the Championship run.