Moss WANTS to be a Redskin

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Your gonna have to explain this one.
Why do think the above, especially the bolded portion?

How can we lose Moss production without also losing his impact that creates favorable opportunities for other receivers?

Your basically saying that we can lose Moss without missing a beat.

But, you also didn't respond to my other main point.
Adding the young WRs to a group that already includes Moss is how you build a possibly dynamic receiving corps.
Removing Moss is creates a receiving corps that you hope can match the production from last year.

I would rather shoot for a dynamic receiving then corps then aim to match last years production.

I would rather the young receivers replace Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams then the young receivers to attempt to replace Moss.

I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive. It's difficult, in my estimation, and look at Moss after Brunell lost the job here and see a guy who has been productive more times than not.

Moss' productivity has been consistent over the last four years or so, in that a target of Santana Moss has produced between 7 and 8 yards each and every season. Since 2010, Moss was targeted an average of 133 times, catching an average of 81 passes and an average of 7.6 yards per target. That's almost perfectly average. 15 of those passes went to the end zone (3.7%), about a standard deviation below average. Moss fumbles about once every 40-42 touches, which is poor for a wide receiver (though not nearly as bad as once in 28-30 for Chris Cooley). His yards per catch is trending downwards mostly because of age, but also because of role change.

If Moss is average (amongst NFL starting WRs) at getting yards, but falls short of standards in TDs, Fumbles, and is trending away from his most effective years, then the sliver of room between playable and unplayable can't be overstated. It's the same mistake the Redskins made with McNabb, which is that he was playable in 2009 the last time we saw his tape, but he was trending in the wrong direction and had little margin for decline. Moss is almost identical. "Effective against no. 2 CBs" is a tough sell for a player in his early thirties, especially when it comes contract time. Moss is already unplayable against top competition, which is to say, there are some games every year where you're already better off not bringing him on the plane if the goal is to win. And there were some games last year where Logan Paulsen and Mike Sellers combined to make more of a difference than Moss.

Now, over a full season, Moss is still going to produce some big days, and he's going to score some TDs, and help an offense overall. He was useful like that in 2010. Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance, can you give a good reason that having Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs? Of course, there are reasons to doubt Kelly, but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to. Moss is somewhere in that "replacement plus" realm, and he could be there for a while.

And I think it's a granted that Roydell Williams/Joey Galloway's targets will go elsewhere. I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive.

Moss is a top 10 WR, I'm not sure how you define highly productive but I would argue that Moss is far closer to highly productive then replacement level.

There's alot you said that I disagree with but in short I don't think "effective against No.2 CBs" is an accurate description of Moss. Nor do agree that he is unplayable against top comp.
He simply cannot produce at the level he did if those statements were true, especially when he only had 1 other decent complementary WR in AA.

He was No.4 in yards, No.10 in receptions.

Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)

Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance,

In your opinion Moss isn't capable of being a major player in a dynamic WR corps.
But, his production suggests otherwise.

can you give a good reason that having Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs?

Moss didn't/doesn't produce like a 3rd WR, Moss had top 10 production.

but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to.

This is where we disagree, and this is where I believe you discount not only Moss's talent/production but discount the difference in talent between top NFL WRs and the rest of NFL WRs.
You seem to believe its simply a matter of next man up.
But, that's not the case.
Every WR that becomes the main cog in their team's passing game doesn't have top 10 production.

Paraphrasing Mike Irvin: "You cannot anoit someone a number 1 WR, you become a No.1 WR"

I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.

A more radical turnover doesn't equal more production from the WRs.

Again, I think its far more likely to have a dynamic WR corps with Moss then without Moss.

And having Moss around creates favorable match-up for Hankerson et al this year and allows them to progress into being the focal point of the passing game rather then being thrust into that role.

Those are the 2 main reason why it makes sense for Moss to come back.
Granted I'm assuming that Mike Shanahan actually has a plan for the QB position like he said he does, and I'm also assuming that QB will be viable.

If there isn't a viable QB under center then re-signing Moss is kinda superfluous.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Moss is a top 10 WR, I'm not sure how you define highly productive but I would argue that Moss is far closer to highly productive then replacement level.

There's alot you said that I disagree with but in short I don't think "effective against No.2 CBs" is an accurate description of Moss. Nor do agree that he is unplayable against top comp.
He simply cannot produce at the level he did if those statements were true, especially when he only had 1 other decent complementary WR in AA.

He was No.4 in yards, No.10 in receptions.

Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)

In your opinion Moss isn't capable of being a major player in a dynamic WR corps.
But, his production suggests otherwise.

Moss didn't/doesn't produce like a 3rd WR, Moss had top 10 production.

This is where we disagree, and this is where I believe you discount not only Moss's talent/production but discount the difference in talent between top NFL WRs and the rest of NFL WRs.
You seem to believe its simply a matter of next man up.
But, that's not the case.
Every WR that becomes the main cog in their team's passing game doesn't have top 10 production.

Paraphrasing Mike Irvin: "You cannot anoit someone a number 1 WR, you become a No.1 WR"

A more radical turnover doesn't equal more production from the WRs.

Again, I think its far more likely to have a dynamic WR corps with Moss then without Moss.

And having Moss around creates favorable match-up for Hankerson et al this year and allows them to progress into being the focal point of the passing game rather then being thrust into that role.

Those are the 2 main reason why it makes sense for Moss to come back.
Granted I'm assuming that Mike Shanahan actually has a plan for the QB position like he said he does, and I'm also assuming that QB will be viable.

If there isn't a viable QB under center then re-signing Moss is kinda superfluous.

I have quoted 30 gut here, but I am also responding to NLC1054, because I think they agree and their points are complementary.

I do think it's a gross misuse of stats to say that Moss was a top ten receiver because he was top four in receptions and top ten in yards. Yards are *incredibly* dependent on receptions. Top four in receptions but top ten in yards = not good. Not a good supporting argument of being a top ten player at a position, at least in the context of how I am defining "top ten" player.

I am defining it by you asserting there are nine or fewer receivers in football you would deem more valuable than Santana Moss. This may not be what you're saying at all, but this is what I'm reading. Disproving such an assertion is almost too easy for me to do if the only basis is how often one is thrown to.

Here are some WRs with similar yds/target:
Roddy White 179 targets/1389 yards=7.76
Moss 146/1115=7.64
Reggie Wayne 173/1355=7.83
Colston 133/1023=7.70
*Larry Fitz=6.54 (but he had a horrible group of QB limit his production)

My focus is here. As I write this very sentence, I have not done the exercise I am about to do. I have a hunch that held just to 2010 standards, that Moss shakes up a lot better vs if we expand the sample. My *idea* is that the players above are cherry picked, but who knows, I could be attacking the wrong thing.

I do know where Moss ranks because I am not uninformed re: Moss' past. And while I know where the baselines for performance are and where Moss stacks up against those baselines, I still find value in knowing where similar players rank.

2009
Roddy White 165 targets/1153 yards=6.99
Moss 146/1115=7.55
Reggie Wayne 149/1264=8.48
Colston 107/1074=10.04
Larry Fitz 153/1092=7.14

2008
Roddy White 148 targets/1383 yards=9.34
Moss 138/1044=7.57
Reggie Wayne 130/1128=8.67
Colston 88/760=8.64
Larry Fitz 154/1431=9.29

2007
Roddy White 137 targets/1204 yards=8.79
Moss 115/808=7.03
Reggie Wayne 156/1515=9.71
Colston 144/1202=8.35
Larry Fitz 167/1412=8.46

Obviously, the comparison gets less valuable the further we go back. However, it's quite clear that your 2010 comparison doesn't do anything to show Moss favorably, but rather shows an overall downward trend in how efficient Roddy White and Larry Fitzgerald have been in recent years. White, though, has seen a touchdown spike that mitigates the meaningful impact of getting fewer yards per target.

Would now seeing, clearly, that Moss has been pretty much the same mediocre player for the last four years change your other dependent assertions? Because, IMO, any proposition that requires the belief that Moss has been an above average starting NFL receiver at any point in the last four years to stand can be knocked down by a rather stiff breeze.

I think teams still have to, and do, respect Santana Moss because it wouldn't make sense to force the Redskins to go deep to him and gamble that they can't. But defenses know that it's not that difficult to actually take him away as long as they come prepared to do so. And there are defensive coordinators who lost their jobs two or three years ago who had no trouble limiting Moss' impact on a game. The numbers are quite clear on that. Moss just isn't valuable if he's going underneath the sticks every play because the Redskins can't spring him deep.

As a quick, but direct response to NLC's argument: I don't see how you could say Moss "excelled" last year with meaningful statistical ranks such as "32" and "39", and 38th in YPT. Maybe you didn't know Moss is not a top 30 receiver in any meaningful statistical category? Sure, he's doing okay in heavily use-dependent numbers, perhaps something with the name "Total" in the category, but I'll open the floor up to you to find something that ranks receivers by usefulness and thinks Moss is in the top 20 of anything.

He was 18th in Success Rate this year among-st NFL receivers (Advanced NFL Stats), so I suppose that that could be the high-water mark for where he ranks. Anything higher than that just isn't based in anything that happened in reality. In practicality, he's probably somewhere between the 35th and 40th best receiver in the NFL, and trending downward.