Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2005, 09:23 PM   #16
The Starter
 
GoSkins!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorktown, Va
Age: 45
Posts: 1,587
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

I'm not sure why we even need a WR. Thrash was a #1 in Philly. I know that he wasn't the best number 1, but certainly could be a good #2 or #3. Jacobs needs a shot at becoming a #2. The emergance of Cooley is going to help in shoring up the passing game. Put the pressure on Gardner in the last year of his contract. Move him to #3, make him block more, and let Coles and Jacobs fly. Face it, there is not a T.O. caliber receiver out there on the market this year.
We don't have a ton of cash, we could really do more good spending on the o-line.
Coles, Thrash, Cooley, Jacobs, Portis. I think we have a few receiving threats we can put out there already.
Look for a good deal. Don't overspend.
__________________
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. A. Einstien
GoSkins! is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 02-16-2005, 10:36 PM   #17
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,331
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSkins!
I'm not sure why we even need a WR. Thrash was a #1 in Philly. I know that he wasn't the best number 1, but certainly could be a good #2 or #3. Jacobs needs a shot at becoming a #2. The emergance of Cooley is going to help in shoring up the passing game. Put the pressure on Gardner in the last year of his contract. Move him to #3, make him block more, and let Coles and Jacobs fly. Face it, there is not a T.O. caliber receiver out there on the market this year.
We don't have a ton of cash, we could really do more good spending on the o-line.
Coles, Thrash, Cooley, Jacobs, Portis. I think we have a few receiving threats we can put out there already.
Look for a good deal. Don't overspend.
I too have some confidence in Taylor Jacobs. What little time he played last year seemed productive, and he came up with a clutch catch on a number of occasions. In a year when the Redskins seemed to be all about the 7-yard pass, Jacobs had several 15 yarders, which would certainly qualify for the "chunks" of yardage Gibbs is always talking about. Thrash is O.K., as a number one he's miserable. I think he'd make a pretty average #2, but he's good in the #3 role. I'd like to see someone brought in, in the David Patten or David Givens salary range, who will work hard and compete with Jacobs for the 2nd WR spot. There's something to be said for getting a couple guys of similar abilities and letting them fight it out for the spot. A couple things could happen in that situation: a fire could get lit under Taylor Jacobs to really develop into a prominent receiver in his 3rd year (the magic year for WRs), or a guy like Patten might want to prove that he was brought in for a reason and that reason isn't to sit behind Taylor Jacobs. It seems like if you haven't got the cash to go for a stud, make roster competition and players' pride work in your favor and let them fight it out. Somebody's bound to emerge.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 11:20 PM   #18
Special Teams
 
shallyshal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 336
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

i think we can forget about guys like porter, muhammed and burress... they are all looking for break the bank contracts..

i think because of the tennessee connection, derrick mason might be the first option-- if he is released. he has been tremendously productive for a few years.

other guys who would be solid fits would be:

houshmanzadeh-- very clutch and productive. might want to much money

givens-- tough and very clutch. but is a RFA so he would cost a pick even if thepats do not match.

patten-- small and getting on in age. very quick and can still get deep. should be cheap.

johnson- productive in past but has some injury concerns, is a bit of a clubhouse problem (so was corey dillon...) and might be looking for a big payday.

taylor- was given chance to emerge in baltimore, but never could. high risk at this point and may be no better than what we already have.

streets- big and still fast. not a number 1 receiver when asked to be.

there will be other guys out there. the skins need to decide what it is they want...
shallyshal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 11:29 PM   #19
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,737
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

from what I remember isn't corey bradford pretty decent in the speed category? and he'd come pretty cheap too. also, anyone know what type of compensation is required to sign Givens? and isn't Charles Lee the guy in Tampa that should some pretty decent flashes of talent this year and the end of last year when he replaced Meshawn?
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 01:50 AM   #20
Special Teams
 
heybigstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Age: 30
Posts: 374
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

Remember, when it comes to free agents, the skins are trying to build...
its about more than next season... we want to continue to get better each season,
a draft pick could grow with the team....
__________________
Hail to the Redskins.
heybigstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 02:59 AM   #21
Special Teams
 
bedlamVR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 389
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

I thought Givens was a 7th round ick but I may be wrong on thins . I don't know if the Pats have tendered though.
bedlamVR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 07:45 AM   #22
Impact Rookie
 
ST21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 519
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

Kevin Johnson, Travis Taylor, or you guys serious, in this league, you need at least one big physical player who can out jump and out muscle a DB, I say pass on all the guy under 6-1, get Mark Brunnel to restructure his contract, instead of stealing, and get Burress, young and athletic, ass in here and lets get, the Deep Ball going, so everyone can see how great C. Portis really is......Kevin Johnson, Travis Taylor, I would never watch the Skins play if they picked up these losers......
ST21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 09:19 AM   #23
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,020
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

If Burress and Muhammad are out of the picture, which it seems like they are, that obviously makes the draft that much more important, along with the development of Jacobs. Jacobs is the wild card in all of this.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 12:41 PM   #24
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,848
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

I would be interested in Joe Crisp's take on the Jacobs situation.

I remember he gave glowing accounts of him in training camp, yet once the season rolled around Jacobs couldn't seem to crack the starting line up. Given Gardner's inconsistency, I was surprised by this. I am wondering why Gibbs would start Gardner over Jacobs if Jacobs was the more impressive practice player.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 12:42 PM   #25
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,848
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

wohoo, finally made first round pick status - and with a legitimate post yet.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 02:57 PM   #26
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

wewhite3:

You said to get Brunell to restructure his contract instead of stealing the money. Just a guess here, but I don't think that kind of approach is going to motivate him to do anything helpful. He might tell Danny Boy or Vinny or whomever brought him that message to go take a crap in a flat hat...

Now let's try to be rational for just a moment. Crazy Canuck gan get the numbers exactly right here but I recall that Brunell signed a six year deal with an $8M signing bonus. Let's assume I got that close enough for an estimate. If you release or trade Brunell, five-sixths of that signing bonus goes onto the cap now. That would be $6.7M on the cap in dead money if you release him. So the Skins are not going to cut him or trade him and he probably knows that.

So, what are you going to say to him to make it worth Mark Brunell's time to consider your request - not your demand! - that he restructure? Remember, if he says he won't do it, your only "punishment" is to cut him and eat the dead money. So, pretend you're Vinny or Danny Boy for a moment and tell me what you're going to do...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 04:05 PM   #27
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Re: No go Plaxico, or Muhammad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
I would be interested in Joe Crisp's take on the Jacobs situation.

I remember he gave glowing accounts of him in training camp, yet once the season rolled around Jacobs couldn't seem to crack the starting line up. Given Gardner's inconsistency, I was surprised by this. I am wondering why Gibbs would start Gardner over Jacobs if Jacobs was the more impressive practice player.
Jacobs certainly is an impressive practice player, catching virtually anything that's thrown in his general direction. He moves with excellent agility and acceleration, and runs very crisp routes. To put it simply, he looks great in practice. Based on his performance in the offseason camps, I would've started him over Gardner. But I'd say the same thing about James Thrash. Both Jacobs and Thrash are excellent practice players. They give 100% on every snap, they make very few mistakes, and you hardly ever see them drop or even bobble a pass.

The thing about Gardner, and the reason why I believe he continued as the starter in 2004, is he really did put forth a lot of effort to improve his game all year. He spent a lot of extra time before and after practice working on his hands, catching ball after ball after ball out of that football pitching machine. I think he responded very well to the competition between himself, Thrash and Jacobs for the #2 spot, and did everything he could to hold onto his role as the incumbent starter. You can say all you want about his off-the-field behavior, but when he was at Redskins Park, Rod Gardner was all business. I think the coaches recognized that, took into account his experience as a starter, his potential as a former first round draft pick, not to mention his formidable size and athleticism, and figured, "hey, we've got to give this guy every opportunity to make plays for us."

When you see him have games like the first game against Dallas, when he made some big plays that nearly won the game for the Skins, you say, "well, maybe Rod's finally coming around; maybe this is his year." Of course, you wind up spending the rest of the season waiting for another spectacular outburst like that one, and it never happens. But I think the Redskins' coaches felt like they had to give Rod a full season as a starter in their system to find out if he's the guy they want to move forward with.

I think with Thrash, they saw a guy that had his opportunity as a starter in this league and it didn't pan out, so they used him as a situational player and a primarily as a special teamer.

With Jacobs, they see a kid that has all the tools, and is on the cusp of becoming a solid NFL receiver. But they know they have time to work with him, and with Gardner and Coles as incumbent starters, there was no reason to thrust him out there and put the pressure on him to perform as a starter in a new system that was clearly going to suffer a difficult adjustment period anyway.

With Gardner moving on, I fully expect that Gibbs and the offensive coaches are going to give Jacobs ample opportunities to prove himself next year. It may not be as a starter-- what they do in free agency and the draft could alter that-- but he will certainly be used more frequently than he was this past season. If they get priced out of the free agent race for one of the top 3 wideouts-- which is looking very likely-- then I expect Jacobs has a very good shot at starting next season, regardless of who they pick up in the draft.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.29024 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25