Report: Hackett Agrees to Terms with Panthers

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

So what is your point?

There were a couple of people that were under the impression that the Skins were worried about him being injury prone when actually they were not.

[EXoffender]

Originally Posted by angryssg

When I was listening to Redskins Radio at 1200, it seemed as if the injuries were not a concern for us. In fact the phrase used was something like " Zorn and the Redskins didn't even work Hackett out because they were not worried about injuries and they already knew what they would be getting". That is not the actual quote I am paraphrasing what Larry Michael said on the show.

I think the reason we didn't throw a ton of cash at him is because he was sought as kind of a 'fall back' option anyway.

[sandtrapjack]

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."

ESPN - Panthers agree to two-year deal with WR Hackett - NFL

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

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."

ESPN - Panthers agree to two-year deal with WR Hackett - NFL

I'm not sure what promises other teams made to him, but I believe the Redskins made it pretty clear to him he wasn't going to be brought in here to be the main guy. Not even necessarily #2 either.

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm not sure what promises other teams made to him, but I believe the Redskins made it pretty clear to him he wasn't going to be brought in here to be the main guy. Not even necessarily #2 either.

I'm sure that is a factor...they couldn't say he'd be #2 because they'd have to pay him more than Randel El...who makes like 4 mil a year.

He was probably looking for a #2 opportunity.
I think he has that in Carolina...with Muhammed being 35 and all.

But that kind of money is pretty cheap...offering even less than 1.75/yr....he may have been insulted and said BUH-BYE.

Its not like the Skins didn't have the cap room to make a decent offer.
Same with Tampa....something must be wrong with him other than injury that the Skins and Tampa and Seattle didn't like. I am truly suprised at the low ball offer considering he was our only FA target....I'd think most here who wanted him would have been elated at a 2 mil/yr deal

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

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."

ESPN - Panthers agree to two-year deal with WR Hackett - NFL

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

[Paintrain]

Disappointing, but if Zorn didn't make a SERIOUS push to bring him in it could signal there's something more to him than we're seeing..

[JoeRedskin]

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 (NFL Draft History: Full Draft - by Position).

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 (NFL Draft History: Full Draft - by Position).

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

[Dirtyskin21]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtyskin21

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.

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

[BeastsoftheNFCeast]

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.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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