Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

Lets face it.....James Thrash is getting old and his salary is increasing
reasons to drop James Thrash
1) Redskins have better offensive weapons than Thrash :
Our Redskin recievers (Moss, Lloyd, and Randel El) and Tight End (Chris Cooley) are all extremely talented players. James Thrash is not very talented
2) He could be considered as a good Special Teams Player......but lets get down to earth now, we HAVE RANDEL EL for Special Teams. Thrash is no longer needed. And if you go back and watch thrash's kick and escpecially punt returning he was pretty bad.
3) If we get rid of Thrash we can use his salary to bring better players to the Redskins team
4) Thrash is injury prone
5) Redskins have plenty of depth on the offensive end

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

I can appreciate your point, and sometimes I feel the same way, but he's not costing us much, and like it or not, Gibbs looks at him as classic "veteran leadership" material.

His strength on special teams isn't necessarily his return ability, but it's his speed down the sidelines that gets him to the return man quickly, drawing double teams, and downing the ball inside the 5 yard line.

He's non-existant as a receiving threat on offense -- not many will try to argue with you on that. But I'd still say his chances are pretty good at being the fifth wideout behind Patten this year.

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

Thats true, he does bring veteran leadership and does have good speed on special teams, but after everything is weighed out, i think that his time has passes.

BUT.....you also said that he isn't costing us much, and i don't really know how much he is making, so if you or anyone knows how much he is making, post it here...

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

Thrash is the prototype Gibbs player. Hard worker, high motor, a top teams guy. Not the WR he once was, but he can still contribute.

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

[quote=DCsports]Lets face it.....James Thrash is getting old and his salary is increasing
reasons to drop James Thrash
1) Redskins have better offensive weapons than Thrash :
Our Redskin recievers (Moss, Lloyd, and Randel El) and Tight End (Chris Cooley) are all extremely talented players. James Thrash is not very talented
2) He could be considered as a good Special Teams Player......but lets get down to earth now, we HAVE RANDEL EL for Special Teams. Thrash is no longer needed. And if you go back and watch thrash's kick and escpecially punt returning he was pretty bad.
3) If we get rid of Thrash we can use his salary to bring better players to the Redskins team
4) Thrash is injury prone
5) Redskins have plenty of depth on the offensive end[/quote]I don't think Randle El will play any special teams if not a return man. I also think he will end up returning punts only, and not kicks. His impact will be on offense. Thrash is a cheap, veteran presence among the receivers. He's been the go to guy before so he can be the 4th WR if we don't keep Patten. And hes one of the best special teams players, maybe in the league.

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

[quote=DCsports]Thats true, he does bring veteran leadership and does have good speed on special teams, but after everything is weighed out, i think that his time has passes.

BUT.....you also said that he isn't costing us much, and i don't really know how much he is making, so if you or anyone knows how much he is making, post it here...[/quote]
His base salary for 2006 (how much we would save by releasing him) is 1.13 mil

Patten by comparision is making 1.85 mil

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

we will see this season how he does...

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

you beat me to it GTripp.
no way randle el plays on st. other than as a returner. but to answer the topic, thrash stays and hauls in more rec. than patten this year

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

i think patten and thrash are gonna stay, but jacobs in my opinion is finished

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Thrash is the prototype Gibbs player. Hard worker, high motor, a top teams guy. Not the WR he once was, but he can still contribute.[/QUOTE]
Two other things about Thrash:
1) He comes back to the QB when he's in trouble.
2) He knows where the first-down marker is.

Except for his (ahem) false-start penalty against Green Bay 2 years ago, he doesn't make mistakes.

(Yes, this is my first post.)

HOW ABOUT FRED SMOOT AS THE FACE OF THE REDSKINS? ;-)

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

thrash is one of the best gunners in the game, and our young WR's around him will see his work ethic everyday... well worth the money

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

[quote=DCsports]Lets face it.....James Thrash is getting old and his salary is increasing
reasons to drop James Thrash
1) Redskins have better offensive weapons than Thrash :
Our Redskin recievers (Moss, Lloyd, and Randel El) and Tight End (Chris Cooley) are all extremely talented players. James Thrash is not very talented
2) He could be considered as a good Special Teams Player......but lets get down to earth now, we HAVE RANDEL EL for Special Teams. Thrash is no longer needed. And if you go back and watch thrash's kick and escpecially punt returning he was pretty bad.
3) If we get rid of Thrash we can use his salary to bring better players to the Redskins team
4) Thrash is injury prone
5) Redskins have plenty of depth on the offensive end[/quote]

2) he's a monster as a gunner on coverage, where he always draws a double team and as a blocker that won't miss his assignments. he can FC, but that's not why he's good on special teams.

3) oh yeah, who? who is going to improve our team right now for 875k? who's even available? why should our #5 WR be farris or jacobs when thrash can actually catch balls every now and then?

4) that's a lie. in the previous six years he's missed a grand total of 1 game. he missed 4 last year... how the **** is that being injury prone? (in the 2 years before that he wasn't even an every game player, but missing games due to talent issues does NOT constitute being injury prone).

5) so you rather keep jacobs over thrash cause the depth is "good enough"? come on. there's no reason or need to dump a player that'd lower overall team talent if he wants to be here and his salary can't be used to get someone better. therefore there's absolutely no good reason to release him.

how many teams only carry 4 WRs into the season? we did last year, but gibbs himself said it was a really oddity to do that right at the start (of the season), and it bit us down the stretch when jacobs and farris were forced into starting roles.

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

[quote=DCsports]Lets face it.....James Thrash is getting old and his salary is increasing
reasons to drop James Thrash
1) Redskins have better offensive weapons than Thrash :
Our Redskin recievers (Moss, Lloyd, and Randel El) and Tight End (Chris Cooley) are all extremely talented players. James Thrash is not very talented
2) He could be considered as a good Special Teams Player......but lets get down to earth now, we HAVE RANDEL EL for Special Teams. Thrash is no longer needed. And if you go back and watch thrash's kick and escpecially punt returning he was pretty bad.
3) If we get rid of Thrash we can use his salary to bring better players to the Redskins team
4) Thrash is injury prone
5) Redskins have plenty of depth on the offensive end[/quote]

James Trash as he may be deserves to put a ring on his finger for endouring the drought. He has heart and Better keep making takles on special teams

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

Thrash's our best gunner on ST and in third down situation he does the little things to get himself open. Simply put, he ain't getting cut!

Re: Is James Thrash more Buck for the Bang?!?
 

We should have never let Thrash go in the first place. He was a true Redskin from the start.