Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

I agree the guy looks really good but, I question the durability.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

I was concerned when the Texans cut him, but before that, I thought going after him was a no-brainer. I'm glad everything's worked out the way it has, and he's finally back in a Skins uniform. I say bring him back for another year, but he may retire again after this season, right?

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

Few, if any, teams want a #4 wr who can't cover kicks or contribute in some way on special teams. It's the biggest reason why Jerry Rice couldn't keep playing until he was 57. Thrash's staying power has always been his ST ability. Early in is career he wasn't the 3 or 4 best wr on the team (though I think he is now) but his punt and KO coverage skills were extremely valuable. KM is no longer a true #1 or #2. IMO, as good as Thrash and Espy are on ST we can afford a #4 receiver who plays in specific packages and catches a few balls a game. He started his career with a SB ring w/ the Skins, let him finish it with another next year.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

[quote=WillH;380682]I was all for bringing him here, and am all for him staying. I dont mind our wr core next year to consist of:

1. Moss
2. Randel El
3. Thrash
4. Keenan McCardell

But I have to say I am still of the opinion that [B]we need a taller[/B], stronger WR to compliment the speedsters we have, and it might as well be a young guy, so I wouldn't mind grabbing one in the draft if we can find a gem in the later rounds.[/quote]
until someone can explain to me why the size matters, please stop with all the "redskins need a tall receiver" crap. the redskins need someone to get open, and then catch the ball receiver

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

16th season in the NFL, and at 37 (38 in January), he's definitely coming down from the apex of his career. While the Skins need a possession receiver to go along with speedsters Moss and ARE, I'm not sure McCardell is the answer beyond this year. While veterans like McCardell are nice to have, the team also needs to get younger and build towards the future. And while there are worse options than McCardell going forward, there is probably better ones as well.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

[quote=dmek25;380816]until someone can explain to me why the size matters, please stop with all the "redskins need a tall receiver" crap. the redskins need someone to get open, and then catch the ball receiver[/quote]

LOL we've been hearing this same stuff over and over since 2004.

We've had bigger WRs in the past like Gardner and McCants. How did they work out?

It's very simple, we need productive WRs.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

[quote=dmek25;380816]until someone can explain to me why the size matters, please stop with all the "redskins need a tall receiver" crap. the redskins need someone to get open, and then catch the ball receiver[/quote]

I can buy that to a degree. I mean I have much love for Santana and Randel El, but neither of them is gonna win a jump ball you know? At the end of the game last week the Cowboys put TO in on defense for the bomb, because he is taller and stronger then our guys. I am not saying that our guys arent able to contribute because of their size, obviously they will still be the big play makers getting open down field. But there are just some situations (especially near the goal line, or trying to get a first down, or a long bomb at the end of the game) where you need a guy that can go up and win the jump ball.

You may not agree, but I think that is explanation enough, so until you can explain to me what is wrong with this thought process, then please give me a break.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

im pretty that KM will retire after this or next year, he is good for now but we need youth.

he almost retired this year soo he is no spring chicken

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

[quote=WillH;380857]I can buy that to a degree. I mean I have much love for Santana and Randel El, but neither of them is gonna win a jump ball you know? At the end of the game last week the Cowboys put TO in on defense for the bomb, because he is taller and stronger then our guys. I am not saying that our guys arent able to contribute because of their size, obviously they will still be the big play makers getting open down field. But there are just some situations (especially near the goal line, or trying to get a first down, or a long bomb at the end of the game) where you need a guy that can go up and win the jump ball.

You may not agree, but I think that is explanation enough, so until you can explain to me what is wrong with this thought process, then please give me a break.[/quote]Good offenses don't throw jump balls?

I don't have a problem with the fade route, but any coach who tells his QB to throw it high and playable doesn't know what he's doing.

Look at Dallas. They had T.O. one on one on the goal line, and they ran a quick fade and threw it on his back shoulder. We can do that with Moss and ARE, and we did do that with McCardell already.

To me, taking a receiver in the draft only makes sense if we are ready to move Moss out of that No. 1 role. Giving him the 6 games down the stretch to prove he's still elite seems like the right course of action at this point.

Teams should never, ever, ever, ever draft a receiver on the first day who they don't feel can be their number one in the future. No. 2 and 3. and 4. receivers are just so very easy to find, I mean McCardell and Caldwell were on the scrap heap just 2 months ago.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;380876]Good offenses don't throw jump balls?

I don't have a problem with the fade route, but any coach who tells his QB to throw it high and playable doesn't know what he's doing.

[B]Look at Dallas. They had T.O. one on one on the goal line, and they ran a quick fade and threw it on his back shoulder. We can do that with Moss and ARE, and we did do that with McCardell already.[/B]

To me, taking a receiver in the draft only makes sense if we are ready to move Moss out of that No. 1 role. Giving him the 6 games down the stretch to prove he's still elite seems like the right course of action at this point.

Teams should never, ever, ever, ever draft a receiver on the first day who they don't feel can be their number one in the future. No. 2 and 3. and 4. receivers are just so very easy to find, I mean McCardell and Caldwell were on the scrap heap just 2 months ago.[/QUOTE]

I think the td to T.O. was a fade stop where it looks like they're going to throw the fade but the receiver turns early and catches it short. That only works when you have the threat of the fade route. That's why springs' back was turned, he thought it was going to be high pass. Instead, had he been looking, he could have definitely defended that pass, probably picked it.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

"I think Keenan is just what we all know he is--a veteran who's capable of making plays," head coach Joe Gibbs said. "We have a lot of confidence in him. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a lot of plays down the stretch for us.

"I think he has a lot left in the tank, too. He was telling me the other day that he wants to play another three years."

[url=http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=31575]At Age 37, McCardell Makes An Impact[/url]

Sounds like he WILL be here next year.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

He's like a Christmas present. We'd be nuts not to keep him.

Re: Why not Keenan McCardell?
 

[quote=dmek25;380816]until someone can explain to me why the size matters, [/quote]
Gotta say, suprised people let that one go by.