Redskins Free Agents Signings Thread

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I think you'll be very happy with Roberts when we sign or draft a true #2 receiver. I'm betting that we added him as a "rich man's no. 3". But I could be wrong about that.

That's what I believe too, but I think it's going to take the entire 2014 season to sort through it. You have a regression year from Garcon coming and Hankerson in a contract year, and those situations will sort themselves out.

A year from now, I'll bet Roberts will have a very defined role, and we'll have a good idea of his value going forward.

[GTripp0012]

4/$16 for Roberts with $8 mil guaranteed after 3/$13 for Riley. Guess we're paying the losers tax this year.

[GTripp0012]

Andre Roberts' similarity score based on his best season is Pierre Garcon with the Colts:

Most Similar Players for 2012
Rank Player Year Sim
1 Pierre Garcon 2010 937

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

How can I convince you guys that you would hate Sanders in B&G? He is a choke artist, I tell you! Sanders is as likely to drop a TD or 3rd down pass as he is to catch it. He would be the new 50/50.

Besides, he would be too expensive. He's going to be overpaid by some unfortunate team with a misguided FO.

You convinced me (you had me at 50/50)

[KI Skins Fan]

Four Hours Until Kickoff!

I'd better rest up, now. See you all at 4PM!

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

At the moment, 1) Garcon 2) Hankerson 3) Roberts 4) Aldrick. But there's not a whole lot of difference between 1/2/3.

dang tripp, you think garcon is almost interchangeable w Hank or roberts?

usually when i disagree with your opinion, i give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know more than I do but this opinion (if i stated it right) is hard for me to understand.

i thought garcon was a beast when it came to catching the ball in close quarters with pretty steady hands .. i cant speak to his ability to get open or run the route tree bc i just cant follow the NFL like i used to (and im a dummy) but the old eyeball test told me garcon was the best receiver we have had since Coles in terms of making tough catches in traffic, production etc... basically being a gamer.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Four Hours Until Kickoff!

I'd better rest up, now. See you all at 4PM!

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by talisin

Just announced Perry Riley has agreed to a deal...









Btw I'm new here. Can't wait to get acquainted.

Welcome to the WP

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

At the moment, 1) Garcon 2) Hankerson 3) Roberts 4) Aldrick. But there's not a whole lot of difference between 1/2/3.

??????????

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by punch it in

??????????

the garcon discussion and gtripps rationale has been discussed in the other thread in depth.

welcome aboard talisin

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

dang tripp, you think garcon is almost interchangeable w Hank or roberts?

usually when i disagree with your opinion, i give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know more than I do but this opinion (if i stated it right) is hard for me to understand.

i thought garcon was a beast when it came to catching the ball in close quarters with pretty steady hands .. i cant speak to his ability to get open or run the route tree bc i just cant follow the NFL like i used to (and im a dummy) but the old eyeball test told me garcon was the best receiver we have had since Coles in terms of making tough catches in traffic, production etc... basically being a gamer.

You might be right, but the other Redskins receivers in recent memory are a pretty awful comparison group. When you go outside the organization and start making comparisons, it just keeps getting tougher and tougher to think of Garcon as a great player.

I understand and am comfortable with the idea that people like him more than I do, and am really not interested in trying to change minds or change ways that people view the receiver position. The only thing I'll throw out as food for thought here is: if you can get the coaches' tape off NFL rewind, go through a whole game from Griffin's perspective as the quarterback and see how many times Garcon is where he needs to be when he needs to be in order to make the play work for Griffin. I think you might be shocked at what you find.

We played just four above average defenses last year: SF, KC, and NYG twice, and Garcon was a non-factor against those teams. It's not a coincidence, it is who he is.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We played just four above average defenses last year: SF, KC, and NYG twice, and Garcon was a non-factor against those teams. It's not a coincidence, it is who he is.

Ever think our below-average offensive line and non-existent defense had anything to do with Griffin's and therefore Garcon's effectiveness?

Of course not, you're on a witch hunt.

In those game you listed, Garcon's #s:


SF - 8 catches/48 yards
NJ (game 1) - 9/61
KC - 5/37...throw out that game for everyone, there was a foot of snow!
NJ (game 2) - 6/56

Since you said "above average", you'd have to count any team in the top half of the ranks, right?

You selectively left out the SD Chargers' 11th-ranked defense, where Garcon caught 7 balls for 172 yards, and the 15th-ranked Lions where he had 8 catches for 73.

For a team with as many holes as we had in 2013, having a WR that averages 7 catches a game, even against most good defenses is not a stat to disregard. He led the NFL in catches and was 10th in yards. For a free agent that came into town being someone else's #2 WR, he's developed into a true #1 WR with us and a young QB who is still learning. He's only going to become more effective from here out. The numbers may decrease as we add help around him with Reed, Roberts and hopefully more, but I don't see how you can argue that Garcon isn't a foundational piece of this team going forward.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Ever think our below-average offensive line and non-existent defense had anything to do with Griffin's and therefore Garcon's effectiveness?

Of course not, you're on a witch hunt.

The defense was the reason that Garcon didn't play well against top ranked opponents?

...you're not very good at this, are you?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The defense was the reason that Garcon didn't play well against top ranked opponents?

...you're not very good at this, are you?

You didn't watch any of our games, did you?

In a lot of games, the offense did not see much time of possession and therefore could not get in a rhythm until well into the 2nd, sometimes 3rd quarter. This defense severely hampered the offensive game plan by not being able to get themselves off the field and really, putting the offense into a hole before they even have an opportunity.

You're the one who wants Garcon out of town and you say "
...you're not very good at this, are you?" to me?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The defense was the reason that Garcon didn't play well against top ranked opponents?

...you're not very good at this, are you?

top rank opponents are able to take away things you do well, its not hard to take away a one WR. Its not Garcon's fault he was the only receiver on the field most of the time.