Jabar Gaffney Told to Seek A Trade

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

lol I still love you Quake. And Moss.

Thanks, I needed that. On draft night I will drink a beer in your honor.

[diehardskin2982]

I wonder if we could trade Gafney and 4th round pick for C.J, Spiller

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

I wonder if we could trade Gafney and 4th round pick for C.J, Spiller

Or we could just use a 4th or 5th round pick on Chris Rainey and still have Gaffney to move for another late round selection.

[CultBrennan59]

^ No, why would we or the bills want to do that.


I do expect JG to be traded on draft weekend.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

^ We would do that but the Bills would be stupid to.

[tc2deuce]

Why would we want to trade our most productive WR in 2011 -----------WHO KNOWS THE &*#$ing OFFENSE!!!!!!!!?????????!?????!? STOOOOOOOOOOOPID!!!!

[GTripp0012]

There's a pretty significant lesson in this Gaffney deal to take away, which is that the Shanahan's feel that getting rid of last year's leading receiver is no big deal because his production was entirely a function of the offensive system.

To an extent, I think they're right: I didn't love the Jabar Gaffney acquisition, though I felt it was a trade they could very easily win (and remember how they couldn't figure out where to put Jeremy Jarmon in the 3-4 even given a season). Gaffney did exactly what was needed of him here last year.

It is hardly shocking given the stopgap nature of the acquisition that the Redskins are willing to give him away after a season, even considering how well he played. But what's shocking here is the utter lack of respect for his contributions. It's pretty jarring when a team moves it's top returning receiver and laughs it off as no big deal. With the Redskins, I'm not sure where they've earned the benefit of the doubt on personnel moves like this one.

With that said, this has nothing to do with his Tweet-fest. He was pretty clearly the odd man out of the rotation, as he got dropped from first to third string by the offensive acquisitions. This was calculated the entire offseason: the anticipation being they could trade him on draft day. I think the Twitter rant was just ill-timed re: his trade value. Gaffney has been on the block all along. Now the Redskins are just willing to take less.

******

This post in short: Gaffney was leading receiver, now odd man out. Reflective of Redskins as an organization. Whether good or bad is entirely dependent on perspective.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There's a pretty significant lesson in this Gaffney deal to take away, which is that the Shanahan's feel that getting rid of last year's leading receiver is no big deal because his production was entirely a function of the offensive system.

To an extent, I think they're right: I didn't love the Jabar Gaffney acquisition, though I felt it was a trade they could very easily win (and remember how they couldn't figure out where to put Jeremy Jarmon in the 3-4 even given a season). Gaffney did exactly what was needed of him here last year.

It is hardly shocking given the stopgap nature of the acquisition that the Redskins are willing to give him away after a season, even considering how well he played. But what's shocking here is the utter lack of respect for his contributions. It's pretty jarring when a team moves it's top returning receiver and laughs it off as no big deal. With the Redskins, I'm not sure where they've earned the benefit of the doubt on personnel moves like this one.

With that said, this has nothing to do with his Tweet-fest. He was pretty clearly the odd man out of the rotation, as he got dropped from first to third string by the offensive acquisitions. This was calculated the entire offseason: the anticipation being they could trade him on draft day. I think the Twitter rant was just ill-timed re: his trade value. Gaffney has been on the block all along. Now the Redskins are just willing to take less.

******

This post in short: Gaffney was leading receiver, now odd man out. Reflective of Redskins as an organization. Whether good or bad is entirely dependent on perspective.

Hmmm mmmm.

For the Gaffney trade/cut to prove justifiable Garcon must (significantly) outperform himself up to this point in his career. He must break 1000+ yds, score 8+ TDs and contribute consistently. If he does not we have yet another major personnel gaffe by this FO.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Hmmm mmmm.

For the Gaffney trade/cut to prove justifiable Garcon must (significantly) outperform himself up to this point in his career. He must break 1000+ yds, score 8+ TDs and contribute consistently. If he does not we have yet another major personnel gaffe by this FO.

Idk about that, I'm not setting these high benchmarks for Garcon like you are. If Garcon's production matches or exceeds Gaffney's production, I think that makes it a win for us. What if Garcon put up the exact same stats as Gaffney last year, yet all of our other receivers/TE's put up better stats as a result of our new qb acquisition. Would you still call Garcon a failure then?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by mooby

Idk about that, I'm not setting these high benchmarks for Garcon like you are. If Garcon's production matches or exceeds Gaffney's production, I think that makes it a win for us. What if Garcon put up the exact same stats as Gaffney last year, yet all of our other receivers/TE's put up better stats as a result of our new qb acquisition. Would you still call Garcon a failure then?

I would be very happy if Garcon's numbers matched Gaffney's from last year. Would mean that we have a 27 year old reciever (in 2013) who led us (or was second) in receiving yards the prior season.

I would be even happier if that player was instead Hankerson.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by mooby

Idk about that, I'm not setting these high benchmarks for Garcon like you are. If Garcon's production matches or exceeds Gaffney's production, I think that makes it a win for us. What if Garcon put up the exact same stats as Gaffney last year, yet all of our other receivers/TE's put up better stats as a result of our new qb acquisition. Would you still call Garcon a failure then?

Indeed.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Hmmm mmmm.

For the Gaffney trade/cut to prove justifiable Garcon must (significantly) outperform himself up to this point in his career. He must break 1000+ yds, score 8+ TDs and contribute consistently. If he does not we have yet another major personnel gaffe by this FO.

Why 1000 and 8 TDs?

I don't think his yards and TDs alone will determine whether he was a good move or not. We'll have to look a little deeper than that.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Why 1000 and 8 TDs?

I don't think his yards and TDs alone will determine whether he was a good move or not. We'll have to look a little deeper than that.

The opportunity cost of Garcon's contract is substantial such that he must outperform what we already have (Gaffney or a healthy Hankerson) to justify the signing.

Look at it this way: we could have passed on Garcon and done all the following

- Kept Moss, Gaffney, Hankerson and added Morgan
- And had dollars to further bolster the oline to protect Griffin
- Added another vet WR after cuts for a fraction of the Garcon contract or even waited till next season to draft/sign another

The opportunity cost of Garcon's contract is oline and edging out a solid vet starter who already knows the system. If Garcon doesn't outperform himself, and therefore Gaffney, over last season the signing isn't a win for the franchise.

If the oline struggles, especially at RT and/or LG because the FO didn't bolster it the Garcon signing is yet another needless, head-scratching gaffe.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

The opportunity cost of Garcon's contract is substantial such that he must outperform what we already have (Gaffney or a healthy Hankerson) to justify the signing.

Look at it this way: we could have passed on Garcon and done all the following

- Kept Moss, Gaffney, Hankerson and added Morgan
- And had dollars to further bolster the oline to protect Griffin
- Added another vet WR after cuts for a fraction of the Garcon contract or even waited till next season to draft/sign another

The opportunity cost of Garcon's contract is oline and edging out a solid vet starter who already knows the system. If Garcon doesn't outperform himself, and therefore Gaffney, over last season the signing isn't a win for the franchise.

If the oline struggles, especially at RT and/or LG because the FO didn't bolster it the Garcon signing is yet another needless, head-scratching gaffe.

I essentially agree with the bolded part and pretty much the entire post.

Garcon has more than just one season to match Gaffney's numbers though. The signing won't be graded on just his 2012 production, except in a case where he is so lost in 2012 that he loses his starting job.

[MonkFan4Life]

Pretty soon we'll have the old "I hope he stays in the division so he can show the Skins up" lines coming out.