Jabar Gaffney Told to Seek A Trade

[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?

[SBXVII]

I don't know why you all are worried... we will have Jared Green.

[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.

[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.

[Chico23231]

I think the big thing with Gaffney's game is this: did he have a memorable/significant catch or in general, just a beast game last year? Im not talking about just a big catch for a first down...he is consistent which is still a need for a team, but he doesnt bring a highlight

[Bubba305-ST21-]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think the big thing with Gaffney's game is this: did he have a memorable/significant catch or in general, just a beast game last year? Im not talking about just a big catch for a first down...he is consistent which is still a need for a team, but he doesnt bring a highlight

aka zero YAC

[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.

[REDSKINS4ever]

I just hope Shananan knows what he's doing by letting Gaffney go. I've never heard of a WR starting for 16 games and leading your team in receptions, reception yards, and then becoming trade bait.

[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.

[RGIII]

I think the team needed a "playmaking" WR. Who's a more cap-friendly WR signing that would be as good as Garcon? You'll never know. Gaffney or his agent may have questioned his role after Morgan and Garcon were signed. Gaffney may still end up with the Skins. IMO there were no better options as far as giving a rookie QB (which the team had to trade much for) WRs to compliment his talents.

In regards to the OL, the current guys will have to step it up regardless of who else is brought in or not. That's not far-fetched.

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

I just hope Shananan knows what he's doing by letting Gaffney go. I've never heard of a WR starting for 16 games and leading your team in receptions, reception yards, and then becoming trade bait.

How about guys like Randy Moss or Terrell Owens who both went from hero to goat overnight, with multiple teams no less. Or even Coles when he was here, led the team in receiving in 2003 and 2004, traded in 2005.

Gaffney's "accomplishments" should be looked at with a grain of salt, considering his numbers would have been much different if Davis wasn't suspended. And is 68-947-5 really anything to get excited about?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

I thought about this too. My counter-argument is WR talent could be more readily available next year, either through FA or draft. In fact, there will likely be a WR superior to Garcon within our grasp next season, who would replace/compete with Gaffney for 2013. It still holds true the total grade of the Garcon signing goes beyond this season, but 2012 is the main criterion.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Gaffney's "accomplishments" should be looked at with a grain of salt, considering his numbers would have been much different if Davis wasn't suspended. And is 68-947-5 really anything to get excited about?

At his age, probably not. But it would have suggested that he would have provided good value (i.e. a similar season next year) if he played out his contract.

I don't think the point was that we couldn't get that production somewhere else ever again (though I'm skeptical re: Garcon), I think it was that the Redskins looked at the opportunities the Z receiver got last year, saw 68-947-5, and thought "that has to be better if we're going to be a winning team."

They might be right on that. I'm certainly not willing to go on record saying that their wrong. But I will say that we've seen no aptitude to correct the biggest problems of this team in the past two years (RB + QB selection, pass defense, offensive line) UNTIL they traded more to get RG3 than any player in the draft before.

So when the Redskins look at Gaffney's numbers (68-947-5) and see a position that's underachieving (on a 5-11 team, mind you), what I'm I supposed to see first: that the Shanahan's are way ahead of the curve, addressing an issue before it becomes obvious and painful? Or that this is the Redskins just chasing ghosts after misidentifying the problem?

Both are possible, and it's a matter of perspective. I just tend to lean away from the idea that the Shanahans can see and fix issues, otherwise, I think they would have won more than 11 games in two seasons.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I thought about this too. My counter-argument is WR talent could be more readily available next year, either through FA or draft. In fact, there will likely be a WR superior to Garcon within our grasp next season, who would replace/compete with Gaffney for 2013. It still holds true the total grade of the Garcon signing goes beyond this season, but 2012 is the main criterion.

I agree with you. I also think this is going to be a pretty defense-heavy draft after RG3. And that the Garcon signing was really the team's attempt to grab one of those draft picks they traded for Griffin back.

What I don't think people are accounting for is that the bust rate for Garcon with the Redskins is about what a first round receiver (like Rueben Randle or Stephen Hill) would be if they had a late first round pick to spend on one. But the cost of failure here is a lot worse because of the guaranteed money.

That there would have been a WR superior Garcon available in next year's draft (or this years draft) is a point of agreement. I just think that after the RG3 trade, the Redskins made the conscious decision not to wait for him.