[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Why'd you choose Antonio Bryant for comparison?

I was thinking about the Bucs model, and how they let their top target go and ended up better for it. Bryant and Moss are dissimilar in the way that Bryant is probably done as a pro starter after the injury and that stint with the Bengals, and I think Moss has a (small?) number of good years left. But they're similar in their contributions to their offenses up until the point of the expiring contract.

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Ugh, I hate the term number one receiver sometimes...

A lot of what you're saying is, essentially, that it'd be worth it to have guys struggle if the young guys get time on the field. But having a super young receiving core and an inexperienced/less-than-ideal quarterback doesn't always work the way it did for Josh Freeman.

I mean, if Moss wants to be here, and he's willing to sign a fair deal to stay here and retire as a Redskin, I don't see the harm. You can still position Leonard Hankerson as the number one receiver of the future (if he develops into that), but you don't put the pressure on him to bear the brunt of the offensive load on day one. And who knows when the lockout really ends. He might have the playbook but Hank still doesn't have the coaching and hasn't seen live action. What if Hank gets hurt in training camp?

I think in a situation like the Redskins are in, even in rebuild mode, they need to have a veteran guy who can be counted on every game at most positions, so the rookies don't feel as though the world is always on their shoulders.

If he comes cheap and wants to be here I don't see the problem.

I try not to focus too much on the outcome when suggesting a plan of action for the Redskins to get better. I know that sounds silly, but I pretty much agree with you that 90% of the time, the plan that the Bucs used isn't going to work as quickly as it did for them and requires patience at best, and might fail no matter what at worst. But I also think that the similarities to the Bucs shouldn't be understated. We did just draft a trio of very promising receivers. I mean, there's no doubt based on what I've been able to put together from their respective college careers that the three guys we took in this draft are ALL better coming out of college than Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly were.

As for Moss coming cheap and wanting to be here, let's go back to the Bryant analogy. Lets say Bryant instead of testing the market signed a very team friendly deal for a high % of guaranteed money, but a deal that would not meaningfully impact the direction of the Bucs in any way. One year later, are the Bucs better off, equal to, or worse off in the passing attack than they currently are? Keep in mind that they would have been congratulated on a good contract when it was signed. But the goal is to have a better team. And I'm not convinced that team X re-signing previously productive veteran Y is particularly important (at best) to the rebuilding process.

Keep in mind though that prior to the draft, I felt the Redskins should bring Portis back. I don't now see a roster spot for him with Helu/Royster in the fold, but I didn't feel like Portis blocking Torain impacted the Redskins rebuilding in any way because I think Torain is an insignificant member of the rebuilding process. So this isn't GTripp just being all anti-veteran. It's about being anti- blocking players who are going to help us win in the future from playing. Like Hankerson, Armstrong, Robinson, Paul, and perhaps Kelly and Austin. None of those players (well, except Armstrong) are older than 24.

Originally Posted by 30gut

The re-signing Moss discussion or the wether to start a rookie WR/young WRs question is kinda similar to the wether or not start a rookie QB.

And I understand your point about the young receivers needing playing time i.e targets.

But with Moss as the focal point of the passing game, where Kyle moves him around a lot: flanker, slot and some split end it creates a good environment for a WR to break in.
Moss is still a respected player that draws attention from opposing defenses.
And there are still available targets (Joey's and Roydell's) that would give the young receivers a chance to get on the field in favorable situations where they have a better opportunity for success because Moss is on the field.

It may only be a limited role (at first) but their production, however limited, would be a boon to the passing game that could develop into a bigger part if they're up to the task.

Damn,we need a QB.

Santana Moss is a good example of the Nnamdi Asomugha effect. This basically means that Moss is good enough to command the other team's best defensive coverage asset on a game to game basis (Moss gets like seventy percent of his season production playing teams that don't have a quality defender in the secondary...which is why he's shredded the Cowboys forever while going AWOL against the Giants and Eagles). That's identical to what happens with Nnamdi (and probably soon, Revis). Those guys are so good at covering receivers that what ends up happening is that you're effectively playing 10 on 10 football.

That's the benefit of having Santana Moss. You put him on the field, and while he gets taken away by the other team's best defensive player, that creates better matchups elsewhere. But the Redskins have never been able to win those matchups because they can't protect the passer and beat the coverage elsewhere.

One way or another, the Redskins need a target good enough to be covered by the other team's best defender and still be a meaningful factor in the football game. Once the Redskins have that, I think it would be good to have Moss still on the team, because his usefulness would go up. But unless we're going with all of our eggs in the Hankerson basket, the only way to find the receiver on our team that can be better than Moss is by letting everyone play and throwing them the football. And with Moss commanding 130 (mostly ineffective) targets a year, developing someone else has proven impossible for this time.

Moving on would not hurt in the short term against most opponents because we'd simply go back from playing 10 v 10 to 11 v 11. Sure, it would get a bit harder to beat Dallas without Moss, but who knows, maybe Hankerson will be a stud by midseason. Santana who?