Grade the Redskins Moves So Far

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think if it was a 4, 5 year 20+ million dollar deal i might agree, but his contract is really no risk. 2 year deal where we get to find out if he can become a stronger player. Shanny reallllly wanted this guy and there was a lot of interest from other teams. I think he could be an asset.

Even so..we're paying for Morgan to put up numbers he's never produced. Never pay for potential in free agency. I would've signed Garcon and left it alone after that.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Even so..we're paying for Morgan to put up numbers he's never produced. Never pay for potential in free agency. I would've signed Garcon and left it alone after that.

What do you pay for in free agency?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What do you pay for in free agency?

pie

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What do you pay for in free agency?

I would pay for past production, not potential. Potential is for the draft.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I would pay for past production, not potential. Potential is for the draft.

Why pay for production given to another team? Shouldn't we pay for production given to OUR team? And if so, isn't said production, at the time of signing, potential?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I would pay for past production, not potential. Potential is for the draft.

it needs to be a balanced, planned approached with both production and potential in mind.

I think if your hung up on a 2 year contract with a young WR who has shown flashes in a fairly poor offensive scheme before last year, you really shouldnt be. Seasons with 40+ and 50+ catches is not nothing and the contract is pays him not to be a no. one, but a underneath possesion scheme compliment who could become more. Tripp stated the guy who I see, is a younger Gaffney. I dont have a problem with that.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

it needs to be a balanced, planned approached with both production and potential in mind.

I think if your hung up on a 2 year contract with a young WR who has shown flashes in a fairly poor offensive scheme before last year, you really shouldnt be. Seasons with 40+ and 50+ catches is not nothing and the contract is pays him not to be a no. one, but a underneath possesion scheme compliment who could become more. Tripp stated the guy who I see, is a younger Gaffney. I dont have a problem with that.

Not hung up on it. It's just not a smart signing. We should be able to get that same production from someone that's currently on the team.... Hankerson or Paul to go along with Gaffney and Moss....then take the money that was given to Morgan and sign an o-linemen.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Even so..we're paying for Morgan to put up numbers he's never produced. Never pay for potential in free agency. I would've signed Garcon and left it alone after that.

Right, because paying for past production has worked out so well for us in the past.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by mooby

Right, because paying for past production has worked out so well for us in the past.

Well who are you talking about?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Well who are you talking about?

Pretty much all our big name signings since Snyder arrived? Some have actually panned out (like Fletch) but for the most part they haven't. And most of them were signed because the name they made for themselves in other places.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by mooby

Pretty much all our big name signings since Snyder arrived? Some have actually panned out (like Fletch) but for the most part they haven't. And most of them were signed because the name they made for themselves in other places.

Well as people know around here I'm not a fan of free agency at all and you just said the reason why. Most of the time it doesn't work. Garcon I can somewhat understand. Morgan I just don't.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Even so..we're paying for Morgan to put up numbers he's never produced. Never pay for potential in free agency. I would've signed Garcon and left it alone after that.

Maybe a better way to say it is don't overpay for potential in free-agency. We (knowingly) used much of our cap space to sign an inconsistent performer in Garcon. IMO that qualifies as overpaying pretty much no matter what. The Morgan signing is even more perplexing given he was cut by a SB contender team that needs more production from WRs. So SanFran doesn't see him as a starter, and he's coming off injury. Back to Garcon, it's significant P Manning didn't lobby Garcon to wait in FA and sign the same place. Obviously if Manning said to Garcon "you're coming w/ me" and said to Denver "he's coming w/ me" it would have happened that way.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Maybe a better way to say it is don't overpay for potential in free-agency. We (knowingly) used much of our cap space to sign an inconsistent performer in Garcon. IMO that qualifies as overpaying pretty much no matter what. The Morgan signing is even more perplexing given he was cut by a SB contender team that needs more production from WRs. So SanFran doesn't see him as a starter, and he's coming off injury. Back to Garcon, it's significant P Manning didn't lobby Garcon to wait in FA and sign the same place. Obviously if Manning said to Garcon "you're coming w/ me" and said to Denver "he's coming w/ me" it would have happened that way.

Unless Garcon said,"I'd prefer to blaze my own trail." In which case he would be free to blaze his own trail. You don't think RG3/Luck factored into Garcon's decision? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Morgan a free agent? If that's the case that would hardly qualify as being cut.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by mooby

Unless Garcon said,"I'd prefer to blaze my own trail." In which case he would be free to blaze his own trail. You don't think RG3/Luck factored into Garcon's decision? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Morgan a free agent? If that's the case that would hardly qualify as being cut.

Thanks for the correction on Morgan...he wasn't retained by his former team. Definitely think RGIII factored into the decision and even remember reading it somewhere. Also read a Garcon quote that made it plain Manning didn't extend an invite or anything of the sort. Maybe I'm reading to much into it...but knowing how important chemistry between QB/WR is I tend to think Manning would have liked continuity in his supporting cast.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Maybe a better way to say it is don't overpay for potential in free-agency. We (knowingly) used much of our cap space to sign an inconsistent performer in Garcon. IMO that qualifies as overpaying pretty much no matter what. The Morgan signing is even more perplexing given he was cut by a SB contender team that needs more production from WRs. So SanFran doesn't see him as a starter, and he's coming off injury. Back to Garcon, it's significant P Manning didn't lobby Garcon to wait in FA and sign the same place. Obviously if Manning said to Garcon "you're coming w/ me" and said to Denver "he's coming w/ me" it would have happened that way.

Exactly.