Grade the Redskins Moves So Far

[GTripp0012]

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.

I think this is an incorrect characterization of Morgan's contract. It's short-term, big-money (so unlike Garcon, theres' no upside on the backend if the player becomes an integral part of the offense), and we've deferred some of the signing bonus to 2014 when we'll have more cap dollars.

I went back and watched every snap Morgan played last year and came away a bit disappointed because he had fantastic numbers and I expected to see an explosive downfield threat who could run away from corners. What I saw was a scheme that asked him to run routes underneath the corner. I saw a precise route runner who could separate from all but the top corner on the other team (Leon Hall, for example). Morgan has a nice, wide catching radius that gives the quarterback a lot of space to get the ball in, and he has a little bit of straight-line speed to run away from linebackers and safeties after the catch. You can send him over the middle, and he's comfortable there as he is on the edge. His best routes were the deep comeback and the slant. You can run a 'Z option' with him.

He had an obscenely high catch rate, so it's hard to argue that SF was using him improperly. He's probably a small upgrade over Gaffney, which means a 1,000 yard first season here is hardly out of the question (but it's unlikely because he'll be splitting snaps with Hankerson, who might even be better).

Morgan is essentially who Malcolm Kelly would have been if he could have gotten on the field. Outside of this ankle fracture he suffered, Morgan has been pretty healthy, I believe. I saw a better player on tape than the Redskins played with last year. What I did not see was a guy who offers something the Redskins haven't had in years. If he had played here in 2010, Morgan would have been perhaps the 2nd or 3rd receiver, splitting reps with the more versatile (but less reliable, IMO) Moss.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by skinster

My problem with your assertion that we need to take care of the O-line is it is very hard for us fans to evaluate O-linemen who are not either top or bottom talent. We tried, but did not have the money to get the top talent due to the cap restrictions, and who are we to say that the middle guys are truly enough of an upgrade over what we have to mess with the O-line chemistry?

The Fletcher thing you are saying is ridiculous. I don't even have to look when I say I'm positive Torrence got the league minimum. Fletcher is going to want money that we do not have to give him. We want Fletcher back, but unless he is willing to settle for less, we just don't have the space. Also even if he were to take a paycut to lets say 2 million (not going to happen), I still would take Merriweather or Morgan over him. Those guys have potential to be on the team for some time while Fletcher has 1-2 years of mediocrity left.

We did have the money to address the RT position in FA. We chose to go after other needs, which isn't wrong. My point is, we know we have struggled at RT the last couple of years, and there were several options there.

As i stated regarding Torrence, it wasn't much money. Not electing to resign our QB of the defense would be a huge mistake. He wants to finish here in DC, he WAS the heart and sole of the D last year and has been for the last 5 years. To say its ridiculous is a bit harsh in my opinion. I would imagine we have a # in mind for him, and it will get done. If it doesn't it would be a shame. Regardless of his age, he led the NFL in tackles, is a true leader of that defense, and a positive presence in the locker room. I would hope we take care of that deal and bring him back.

[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.

[44ever]

C - Very Ordinary.
The fact that we are going after a franchise QB is great but not unexpected. I agree with the moves to get in the #2 overall to finally bring life to the QB position.

As far as Fletcher is concerned, I love him but, he's old and expensive, thats not a good combo when working under the current cap. With that said, he does bring more than great play on the field, his leadership/character was/is greatly needed in the locker room.

Garcon, great move IMO.
Morgan, bottom feeding but makes sense given the risk.

[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?

[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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What do you pay for in free agency?

pie

[MTK]

Production and potential are both factors when evaluating free agents. Teams pay for both.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.