Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut
Your gonna have to explain this one.
Why do think the above, especially the bolded portion?
How can we lose Moss production without also losing his impact that creates favorable opportunities for other receivers?
Your basically saying that we can lose Moss without missing a beat.
But, you also didn't respond to my other main point.
Adding the young WRs to a group that already includes Moss is how you build a possibly dynamic receiving corps.
Removing Moss is creates a receiving corps that you hope can match the production from last year.
I would rather shoot for a dynamic receiving then corps then aim to match last years production.
I would rather the young receivers replace Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams then the young receivers to attempt to replace Moss.
|
I think the fundamental difference between what you believe re: Moss and what I do has to do with the idea that Moss is still highly productive. It's difficult, in my estimation, and look at Moss after Brunell lost the job here and see a guy who has been productive more times than not.
Moss' productivity has been consistent over the last four years or so, in that a target of Santana Moss has produced between 7 and 8 yards each and every season. Since 2010, Moss was targeted an average of 133 times, catching an average of 81 passes and an average of 7.6 yards per target. That's almost perfectly average. 15 of those passes went to the end zone (3.7%), about a standard deviation below average. Moss fumbles about once every 40-42 touches, which is poor for a wide receiver (though not nearly as bad as once in 28-30 for Chris Cooley). His yards per catch is trending downwards mostly because of age, but also because of role change.
If Moss is average (amongst NFL starting WRs) at getting yards, but falls short of standards in TDs, Fumbles, and is trending away from his most effective years, then the sliver of room between playable and unplayable can't be overstated. It's the same mistake the Redskins made with McNabb, which is that he was playable in 2009 the last time we saw his tape, but he was trending in the wrong direction and had little margin for decline. Moss is almost identical. "Effective against no. 2 CBs" is a tough sell for a player in his early thirties, especially when it comes contract time. Moss is already unplayable against top competition, which is to say, there are some games every year where you're already better off not bringing him on the plane if the goal is to win. And there were some games last year where Logan Paulsen and Mike Sellers combined to make more of a difference than Moss.
Now, over a full season, Moss is still going to produce some big days, and he's going to score some TDs, and help an offense overall. He was useful like that in 2010. Still, I think your argument that an aging Moss can be part of a dominant WR corps is not so much something I disagree with as much as its pointing out that since Moss isn't capable of being a major player in that dominance, can you give a good reason that having Moss coming out of the slot producing like a third receiver is better than having 24 year old Malcolm Kelly causing the same match-up problems for smaller DBs? Of course, there are reasons to doubt Kelly, but I don't think the "next guy up" philosophy is going to have too much of an issue replacing Moss if and when it needs to. Moss is somewhere in that "replacement plus" realm, and he could be there for a while.
And I think it's a granted that Roydell Williams/Joey Galloway's targets will go elsewhere. I'm just not looking at Hankerson as a no. 3 receiver with no one else ever seeing the field except in case of injury. I want more radical turnover within the receiving corps than just letting unproductive third targets walk.