Redskins OTAs

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I've thought/said all along Tana would start. The more interesting scenario would have been Gaffney also in camp fighting for a battle. Would he have taken Moss' spot? That would have been a better competition for Moss since Gaffney is healthy and knows the system/playbook vs the recovering Hankerson and recovering/new to the system Morgan.

Even more interesting would be a true competition between Gaffney and Garcon, but there's no way Mike would let it happen. I'd still give Gaffney the clear edge for knowing the system, general experience and having better overall hands. Given Mike's ego, Garcon is the safest WR on the roster even though he's proved nothing...a big reason I hate it when we give an unproven player a huge contract.

And what exactly did Gaffney prove over his 10 year career?

[los panda]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

And what exactly did Gaffney prove over his 10 year career?

not prone to injury (played in 155 of 160 games)
rarely fumbles (4 fumbles)
can produce (over 50 rec and 700 yards in each of last 3 seasons) *hasn't faded w age - catches and yards have increased in each of those seasons
68 rec, 5 td, and nearly 1,000 yards last season on the wrong side of 30

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by los panda

not prone to injury (played in 155 of 160 games)
rarely fumbles (4 fumbles)
can produce (over 50 rec and 700 yards in each of last 3 seasons) *hasn't faded w age - catches and yards have increased in each of those seasons
68 rec, 5 td, and nearly 1,000 yards last season on the wrong side of 30

11 years in the league, never had a 1,000 yard season, didn't break the 700 yard mark until 2009, never had more than 5 TDs in a season. In fact over 11 years he only had more than 2 TDs twice. Only got close to 1000 yards this season because of the suspension of Fred Davis and Santana's injury. Didn't break 60 receptions until 2010. Redskins fans have really gotta get outta this lovefest for the mediocre. That is what Gaffney is, a mediocre journeyman receiver.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Redskins fans have really gotta get outta this lovefest for the mediocre.

no lovefest, just directly answering your question

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by los panda

no lovefest, just directly answering your question

Not directed at you, just the people who continue to say that Gaffney should have been kept at all costs as if he were some kind of game changing receiver.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Not directed at you, just the people who continue to say that Gaffney should have been kept at all costs as if he were some kind of game changing receiver.

ah, it seemed like it was in my direction since you quoted my entire post in your post.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by los panda

ah, it seemed like it was in my direction since you quoted my entire post in your post.

I quoted Goat first, you answered. You haven't shown a man crush on Gaffney like some here have.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

11 years in the league, never had a 1,000 yard season, didn't break the 700 yard mark until 2009, never had more than 5 TDs in a season. In fact over 11 years he only had more than 2 TDs twice. Only got close to 1000 yards this season because of the suspension of Fred Davis and Santana's injury. Didn't break 60 receptions until 2010. Redskins fans have really gotta get outta this lovefest for the mediocre. That is what Gaffney is, a mediocre journeyman receiver.

All true, but by all probability Garcon is just another mediocre journeyman WR, albeit younger than Gaffney. Why commit to more of the same when 2013 will almost certainly offer a superior WR?

Again, it's the opportunity cost of Garcon's contract that's key. The opportunity cost of upgrading another position this year, say right tacke, AND the opportunity cost of truly upgrading WR next year.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by The Goat

All true, but by all probability Garcon is just another mediocre journeyman WR, albeit younger than Gaffney. Why commit to more of the same when 2013 will almost certainly offer a superior WR?

Again, it's the opportunity cost of Garcon's contract that's key. The opportunity cost of upgrading another position this year, say right tacke, AND the opportunity cost of truly upgrading WR next year.

All Garcon has done is gotten better since joining the league. Gaffney on the other hand needed injuries and a suspension to even get close to 1000 yards.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

All Garcon has done is gotten better since joining the league. Gaffney on the other hand needed injuries and a suspension to even get close to 1000 yards.

If you keep talking about (Average Wideout On Tail End Of Career), you will just keep perpetuating the cycle. Only way to quell all discussion is to completely ignore anyone who willingly keeps mentioning his name.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by mooby

If you keep talking about (Average Wideout On Tail End Of Career), you will just keep perpetuating the cycle. Only way to quell all discussion is to completely ignore anyone who willingly keeps mentioning his name.

Kneel before the walking Warpath God.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

And what exactly did Gaffney prove over his 10 year career?

He proved he could be productive within our system/playbook even with an inferior QB. Garcon to his credit proved he could be productive within the Colts system/playbook with an inferior QB. But the odds are Gaffney would have a better 2012 w/ RGIII than Garcon because Garcon is brand new to the system/playbook.

But most important is the near certainty that a superior WR, to Gaffney and Garcon, would be available by the 2013 season. So why bind yourself to Garcon, an unproven quantity, for one year (2012)? Gaffney would have been cheaper and more productive by all probability.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by The Goat

He proved he could be productive within our system/playbook even with an inferior QB. Garcon to his credit proved he could be productive within the Colts system/playbook with an inferior QB. But the odds are Gaffney would have a better 2012 w/ RGIII than Garcon because Garcon is brand new to the system/playbook.

But most important is the near certainty that a superior WR, to Gaffney and Garcon, would be available by the 2013 season. So why bind yourself to Garcon, an unproven quantity, for one year (2012)? Gaffney would have been cheaper and more productive by all probability.

There is no probability that Gaffney would be more productive at all.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by The Goat

He proved he could be productive within our system/playbook even with an inferior QB. Garcon to his credit proved he could be productive within the Colts system/playbook with an inferior QB. But the odds are Gaffney would have a better 2012 w/ RGIII than Garcon because Garcon is brand new to the system/playbook.

But most important is the near certainty that a superior WR, to Gaffney and Garcon, would be available by the 2013 season. So why bind yourself to Garcon, an unproven quantity, for one year (2012)? Gaffney would have been cheaper and more productive by all probability.

Who? Who, by signing Garcon, are we unlikely to sign in 2013?