Browns are screwed

[Sharkinva]

I'll let the team answer that for you. Notice one other name omitted from this letter as core players.

Redskins letter to fans doesn't list RGIII as core player - NFL ...

NFL.com - Page Not Foundredskins-letter-to-fans-doesnt-l...

That letter answers nothing as far as Garcon is concerned. Or is it your assertion that any one not named in that letter is fair game to be cut or traded?? They left off Griffin, you think they are going to trade him and swallow $6.7 million in basically dead money?? And hell we might even have a shot at getting a late first rounder for him. They also left off K. Robinson and Trent Murphy. Again dude, in this matter you have not given even one slightly convincing reason to cut or trade him. We trade him and we have to replace him, net loss. We cut him and we have to replace him and dont even get a measly 3rd rounder for the trouble.. again net loss.

 

[Stymietee]

he doesnt see that . he just wants garcon gone shark for whatever reason

there is only one reason and one reason only to release garcon and that is if he is the dry snitcher

but to tell me that we can have grant and roberts combine for 30-35 catches and we will be fine is simply foolish bantor

you role coverage to DJAX and shut him down and make grant beat you . then you will be calling jackson overpaid and will want him gone next

garcon has averaged 59 catches a year for 7 seasons even after being stuck behind wayne and harrison . garcon has one of the better set of hands in the NFL , blocks well and gets good YAC

You are completely wrong, He'll be gone because his contract and age won't fit into the rebuild. If he stays it will ONLY be because of injury or no willing partner in trade.

No one said that "we will be fine" with Grant and Roberts getting 30-35 catches, I just responded to your 70 catches remark. In fact, I believe that with or without him 3-13 is a real possibility, why prolong the agony? (I'll create a thread to gage how our posters feel about this)


You wrote this: "garcon has averaged 59 catches a year for 7 seasons even after being stuck behind wayne and harrison . garcon has one of the better set of hands in the NFL , blocks well and gets good YAC"
I'll answer in this manner: 29....30...31......his age in the next 3 seasons.

 

[Sharkinva]

You guys are totally forgetting one thing when you state that you cannot get value for the pick that Garcon brings, and that is Garcon himself, who was a 6th round pick. So basically no faith in Scot McGloughin.

Well hell by this logic, lets trade every one for a bunch of 3rd or later round picks. Scott Mc can field us a Super Bowl contender.

Truth is, its not a lack of faith in our new GM, its a simple matter of saying there is no need to make things more difficult for the man. Right now we can go into this off season saying we dont NEED to draft a WR or sign one in FA thats capable of starting for us day one. It is in fact the ONLY position group on the roster where we can reasonably say we dont HAVE to have some one just to get through the first few weeks of the season. It is the only position on the roster where we can even fake at having some sort of depth and relative youth..... And you ant to fark that up for a 3rd round draft pick??

 

[Stymietee]

That letter answers nothing as far as Garcon is concerned. Or is it your assertion that any one not named in that letter is fair game to be cut or traded?? They left off Griffin, you think they are going to trade him and swallow $6.7 million in basically dead money?? And hell we might even have a shot at getting a late first rounder for him. They also left off K. Robinson and Trent Murphy. Again dude, in this matter you have not given even one slightly convincing reason to cut or trade him. We trade him and we have to replace him, net loss. We cut him and we have to replace him and dont even get a measly 3rd rounder for the trouble.. again net loss.

Then you're either ignoring or not reading my responses. How easy is it for me to then say to you that by your logic keep the team as is. One other thing that you're forgetting is the the HC is not pleased with the size of our receivers and has said so. He wants bigger guys....remember?

 

[Sharkinva]

Then you're either ignoring or not reading my responses. How easy is it for me to then say to you that by your logic keep the team as is. One other thing that you're forgetting is the the HC is not pleased with the size of our receivers and has said so. He wants bigger guys....remember?

No one is saying keep the team as is. We are saying dont create more holes. Sure we want bigger WRs. But that does not preclude keeping the productive WRs we have. IN this your logic is flawed dude. We trade him, its a net wash because simply put to replace his production and impact will cost more in cash and or draft picks than we will get for getting rid of him. Even in a total rebuild as you suggest, you are going to be bound by the cap and by available resources to keep some guys around. But I will ask again, name me the starting quality WR you think we can get for less than 3 million or for a 3rd round or later pick. Not a maybe, but a guy you know we can plug in day one?? And also having found that, who is the stud player we will get for the $2 million left over that will be worth the over all drop in production and depth to our WR corps??

 

[Stymietee]

Gentlemen/ ladies, when you rebuild a team it is not just a matter of replacing players, it is also restructuring your salary outlay. Right now this team is spending at minimum 24 million on receivers, that can't stand. Reviewing the play of the Redskins' wide receivers - The ...

www.washingtonpost.com/.../2015/.../reviewing-the-p...


I know that you guys don't want to hear it, but it is what it is.

 

[Sharkinva]

Gentlemen/ ladies, when you rebuild a team it is not just a matter of replacing players, it is also restructuring your salary outlay. Right now this team is spending at minimum 24 million on receivers, that can't stand. Reviewing the play of the Redskins' wide receivers - The ...

www.washingtonpost.com/.../2015/.../reviewing-the-p...


I know that you guys don't want to hear it, but it is what it is.

So again, show me where we would spend LESS and get equal or greater production?? You do realize that right now our #3 WR is slated to count a shade under $4 million against the cap. Quality costs boss. So unless you think we should spend one of our first two picks on a WR, again I say your logic is skewed. Roberts is not a starter, nor is Grant. We deal Garcon and its a wash because we either spend the $5 million we "saved" on another WR, or we spend less and end up with less in all likelihood.

 

[Stymietee]

No one is saying keep the team as is. We are saying dont create more holes. Sure we want bigger WRs. But that does not preclude keeping the productive WRs we have. IN this your logic is flawed dude. We trade him, its a net wash because simply put to replace his production and impact will cost more in cash and or draft picks than we will get for getting rid of him. Even in a total rebuild as you suggest, you are going to be bound by the cap and by available resources to keep some guys around. But I will ask again, name me the starting quality WR you think we can get for less than 3 million or for a 3rd round or later pick. Not a maybe, but a guy you know we can plug in day one?? And also having found that, who is the stud player we will get for the $2 million left over that will be worth the over all drop in production and depth to our WR corps??

......And I'm not saying to scrap the whole roster either! Where you guys seem to see a "new hole" being created, I see the team reorganizing its' salary structure in a manner that doesn't spend too much money at one position, especially on a player who is productive but not (in my view and others) the game changing stud that his salary or play dictates/commands. I've said it a million times if I've said it once. Pierre Garcon is a pretty good player, I just don't see him as the stud that others do. To be fair we are all entitled to our positions. That said it must also be said that despite this disagreement any position concerning moving him or not must be viewed on that basis. I respect others assertions that he is a stud and should not be moved, the whole length of this thread happens because some disagree with my view of him. Time will prove one side or the other correct. So far his history says that he is still just a pretty good player not the 29 year old 9.8 million dollar stud you all seem to see him to be.

 

[Sharkinva]

......And I'm not saying to scrap the whole roster either! Where you guys seem to see a "new hole" being created, I see the team reorganizing its' salary structure in a manner that doesn't spend too much money at one position, especially on a player who is productive but not (in my view and others) the game changing stud that his salary or play dictates/commands. I've said it a million times if I've said it once. Pierre Garcon is a pretty good player, I just don't see him as the stud that others do. To be fair we are all entitled to our positions. That said it must also be said that despite this disagreement any position concerning moving him or not must be viewed on that basis. I respect others assertions that he is a stud and should not be moved, the whole length of this thread happens because some disagree with my view of him. Time will prove one side or the other correct. So far his history says that he is still just a pretty good player not the 29 year old 9.8 million dollar stud you all seem to see him to be.

I cant speak for others, but my position is rather straight forward and logical, especially in a cap sense. If he is here, he will cost us $9.8 million. If he is traded, his replacement will still cost us in the range of $8.8 million. Because we will take roughly $4.8 million in dead money and his replacement will cost no less than $4 million to be able to replace his production. And Im being kind at saying we could replace him for $4 million. So unless you think we are going to draft a WR at #5, (Which by the way would still cost around $3.5 million against the cap), the logic does not pan out. Is he worth $9.8 million?? probably not, is he worth $4.8 million to us to be playing for some one else??

 

[Stymietee]

So again, show me where we would spend LESS and get equal or greater production?? You do realize that right now our #3 WR is slated to count a shade under $4 million against the cap. Quality costs boss. So unless you think we should spend one of our first two picks on a WR, again I say your logic is skewed. Roberts is not a starter, nor is Grant. We deal Garcon and its a wash because we either spend the $5 million we "saved" on another WR, or we spend less and end up with less in all likelihood.

If Roberts nor Grant are starters or starter worthy why have them? Roberts was bought here specifically to become the number two. Grant was drafted because of his potential, which was impressive in early camp but not nearly explored to its' greater length. If Garcon was paid 4-5 million this topic would never have come up, but the guy is clearly over paid for what he brings. OK,That happens on bad teams.

I'm willing to bet that in this up-coming draft the team will get either a TE or WR, maybe both and not as you think with our top two picks. Hell, Pierre Garcon was a 6th round pick himself. If Indy can find a guy like that there is no reason to believe that Washington can not do the same thing. Right now, Scot McGloughin is noted for finding gems in the middle and late rounds, unless the curse of being here in DC strikes him as has happened to others, there is no reason to think that he'll get good players in those rounds for this team.

There are going to be tough decisions made going forward, no doubt about that, none will be tougher than those surrounding aging overpriced (structurally) players.

 

[Stymietee]

I cant speak for others, but my position is rather straight forward and logical, especially in a cap sense. If he is here, he will cost us $9.8 million. If he is traded, his replacement will still cost us in the range of $8.8 million. Because we will take roughly $4.8 million in dead money and his replacement will cost no less than $4 million to be able to replace his production. And Im being kind at saying we could replace him for $4 million. So unless you think we are going to draft a WR at #5, (Which by the way would still cost around $3.5 million against the cap), the logic does not pan out. Is he worth $9.8 million?? probably not, is he worth $4.8 million to us to be playing for some one else??

.......but....but...but...... what about drafting the next Pierre Garcon? 6th round pick, great work ethic, etc. etc. etc. It is patently absurd to believe that somewhere in the world there is a guy who is not hungry enough to prove himself at the highest level of play. Additionally he might be bigger, faster, stronger and this is important.....younger and cheaper.

 

[Sharkinva]

.......but....but...but...... what about drafting the next Pierre Garcon? 6th round pick, great work ethic, etc. etc. etc. It is patently absurd to believe that somewhere in the world there is a guy who is not hungry enough to prove himself at the highest level of play. Additionally he might be bigger, faster, stronger and this is important.....younger and cheaper.

We could STILL draft the next Garcon. Its actually absurd to make a move that FORCES you to try and find him though.Bottom line, with Garcon it would be NICE to find a late round WR with some size that surprises us and pushes Garcon or Roberst down the depth chart.

Without Garcon, we are forced to look for that guy who can be a starter, even as a #2 WR. Again dude, the secret at this point is to NOT create more holes. If Garcon were not performing at all, you might have a leg to stand on, but right now you are just fishing.

 

[skinsdad62]

You guys are totally forgetting one thing when you state that you cannot get value for the pick that Garcon brings, and that is Garcon himself, who was a 6th round pick. So basically no faith in Scot McGloughin.

it isnt a lack of faith in scotty , sty , it just plain foolish to expect a 6th rounder will come in day one and replace garcon's production

also we will have garcon in his prime for the next 2 seasons , not 3 29 and 30 , not 31 and sanatana moss was productive till 32/33

but the fact is we are on the hook for garcon for only 2 more years

and as it stands now we are replacing 2 wrs already and now you want to replace 3? and mind you grant couldnt beat out moss or roberts for ANY significant time last season

and as far as the cap goes we arent in any trouble with that . we have dead weight we can get rid of that will garner almost 30 mil in cap space if we need too

yeah garcon cost a lot . that is what happens when you have a circus called dan snyder and washington DC

but again you find me a legit trade partner and a wr who has garcon's production for cheaper and i am all ears . we still take a cap hit if he us traded and that will leave 3-4 mil . you get a roberts type at best

 

[Stymietee]

it isnt a lack of faith in scotty , sty , it just plain foolish to expect a 6th rounder will come in day one and replace garcon's production

also we will have garcon in his prime for the next 2 seasons , not 3 29 and 30 , not 31 and sanatana moss was productive till 32/33

but the fact is we are on the hook for garcon for only 2 more years

and as it stands now we are replacing 2 wrs already and now you want to replace 3? and mind you grant couldnt beat out moss or roberts for ANY significant time last season

and as far as the cap goes we arent in any trouble with that . we have dead weight we can get rid of that will garner almost 30 mil in cap space if we need too

yeah garcon cost a lot . that is what happens when you have a circus called dan snyder and washington DC

but again you find me a legit trade partner and a wr who has garcon's production for cheaper and i am all ears . we still take a cap hit if he us traded and that will leave 3-4 mil . you get a roberts type at best

Just for the record, this team will be drafting players unlike those of previous years, who will come in pushing for starting time. Those that need to be "developed" you'll find will have a much shorter learning curve. I believe that Scot McGloughin will be very aggressive in scouting players and not settle for guys that require 2 to 3 seasons to develop if at all. In short we'll finally be getting football players*, guys who can play the game now.

*football players.....guys who make plays regardless. no more just being in the assigned place type guys but ones who can make correct adjustments on the fly.

 

[Lonewate44]

Just for the record, this team will be drafting players unlike those of previous years, who will come in pushing for starting time. Those that need to be "developed" you'll find will have a much shorter learning curve. I believe that Scot McGloughin will be very aggressive in scouting players and not settle for guys that require 2 to 3 seasons to develop if at all. In short we'll finally be getting football players*, guys who can play the game now.

*football players.....guys who make plays regardless. no more just being in the assigned place type guys but ones who can make correct adjustments on the fly.

I certainly hope your right that every player Scot gets is football ready...pushing the starters ready now...Hell with our team, it may not be too hard.......however.....you have been called out alot about the dead money we will pay garcon and adding to the salary of his replacement....we are pretty much at the same cap # with Garcon, then without him.... yet.......I have not really sean you discuss that.....
so...
you will have blind faith that roberts, grant, or a late round rookie, will be able to match garcons production.....yet...when it comes to having faith that Dan will keep his nose out of stuff you wont buy it......so......you wont have it for Dan who has his track record.....but will blindly trust that suddenly Grant or roberts or this Gem in the 6th will do it.....How can you do that???? based on the history of wrs in the NFL and in particular...in DC..

 

[skinsdad62]

Just for the record, this team will be drafting players unlike those of previous years, who will come in pushing for starting time. Those that need to be "developed" you'll find will have a much shorter learning curve. I believe that Scot McGloughin will be very aggressive in scouting players and not settle for guys that require 2 to 3 seasons to develop if at all. In short we'll finally be getting football players*, guys who can play the game now.

*football players.....guys who make plays regardless. no more just being in the assigned place type guys but ones who can make correct adjustments on the fly.

scotty in his past wasnt too much better at digging out late round guys then we have and he missed on picks as well .

i dont expect 6th rounders to be much more then special teamers for a couple of years . yes there are exceptions to the rule , but i dont EXPECT it . big difference . so when some one says dump garcon and the 6th rounder will make up the difference well that is flawed thinking in my opinion .

because in the end keeping garcon doesnt hurt us . in 2 years we gain the cap space but selling me that we are better off with needing 3 wrs isnt happening

 

[Lonewate44]

scotty in his past wasnt too much better at digging out late round guys then we have and he missed on picks as well .

i dont expect 6th rounders to be much more then special teamers for a couple of years . yes there are exceptions to the rule , but i dont EXPECT it . big difference . so when some one says dump garcon and the 6th rounder will make up the difference well that is flawed thinking in my opinion .

because in the end keeping garcon doesnt hurt us . in 2 years we gain the cap space but selling me that we are better off with needing 3 wrs isnt happening

 

[Stymietee]

I certainly hope your right that every player Scot gets is football ready...pushing the starters ready now...Hell with our team, it may not be too hard.......however.....you have been called out alot about the dead money we will pay garcon and adding to the salary of his replacement....we are pretty much at the same cap # with Garcon, then without him.... yet.......I have not really sean you discuss that.....
so...
you will have blind faith that roberts, grant, or a late round rookie, will be able to match garcons production.....yet...when it comes to having faith that Dan will keep his nose out of stuff you wont buy it......so......you wont have it for Dan who has his track record.....but will blindly trust that suddenly Grant or roberts or this Gem in the 6th will do it.....How can you do that???? based on the history of wrs in the NFL and in particular...in DC..

Have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!

 

[Stymietee]

scotty in his past wasnt too much better at digging out late round guys then we have and he missed on picks as well .

i dont expect 6th rounders to be much more then special teamers for a couple of years . yes there are exceptions to the rule , but i dont EXPECT it . big difference . so when some one says dump garcon and the 6th rounder will make up the difference well that is flawed thinking in my opinion .

because in the end keeping garcon doesnt hurt us . in 2 years we gain the cap space but selling me that we are better off with needing 3 wrs isnt happening

Pie in the sky won't change facts Dad. You talk about the presence or absence of Garcon hurting us or not, when in fact with him the team has been 3-13 and 4-12 in the past two seasons. If you ever get the chance to see him please be sure to thank him from preventing the team from finishing 2-14 and 3-13 or worse the last two seasons. We can go back and forth on this from here out but let me ask this.........Early prediction.....how do you see the team finishing next year?

 

[skinsdad62]

Pie in the sky won't change facts Dad. You talk about the presence or absence of Garcon hurting us or not, when in fact with him the team has been 3-13 and 4-12 in the past two seasons. If you ever get the chance to see him please be sure to thank him from preventing the team from finishing 2-14 and 3-13 or worse the last two seasons. We can go back and forth on this from here out but let me ask this.........Early prediction.....how do you see the team finishing next year?

i sure will thank him for his contribution to a 10-6 playoff team and divison winner if you would like but again we werent 3-13 because he caught 113 passes or 4-12 because he led the team again in receptions

that is like saying lets blame jackson because he caught 67 passes for 1000 yds and 6tds and we were 4-12 because of it

pie in the sky ? are you serious ? you are telling me a 6th round pick WILL BE EXPECTED to replace garcon's production ? that Grant will do it even though he couldnt break into the to 4 wrs . that isnt "pie in the sky " , that is fact

here is my stance , garcon is overpaid for last years production . but why ? i see it as instability at qb as the main culprit .

i dont see how making another hole we have to fill as helping the team i dont see garcons salary as hurting us . we can cut enough dead weight to attempt to fill some holes . in fact cutting hall is a better move then cutting garcon

there is no evidence that garcon wont be a productive WR well into his 30's

in 2 years we will be off the hook from his contract and we will have had a competitive wr group in the process

i dont see this "great savings " we will get or the draft pick/players we will get . 80% of 3rd round picks never start. and its gets worse as the rounds go by whether its scotty drafting them or not

i dont see a club that will give us value for garcon and will take on his salary so trading him most likely is fools gold

why take 5 mil this year and 6 mil next year cap hit and not have him on the roster ?

we havent even got to how much we will need to pay to replace him and as it stands now we have 7 draft picks and we will have 3 wr positions to fill in addition to the other areas . i dont see UDRFA's as being an upgrade

your last question about what record do you think the skins will have next season ? i know when i answer this primitive attempt to stear me down ditching garcon lane with some foolish garbage about "we will be X number of wins with or without him so why not give him up " assault will give you ammo but you know what i will give you that lame ammo

i say 4-6 wins no matter how well we draft , coach , approach free agency because we simply dont have enough talent and depth .

you can say , "well lets dump garcon" and we can get more players . i say good teams dont depend on FA because more then half simply dont pan out do to injury scheme adjustments or a misunderstanding of their true value or even chemistry trouble

we have a stable and deep wr corp . we have a good stable of RBs we have cap space to deal with either side of the LOS or the DBS . we have a draft to build on a young corp and fill some of the same holes . and we can do it without dumping garcon

i would rather give a grant his 2 years more to make his way in the game rather then find out grant is in reality another pre season phenom regular season dud

i have seen the aldrick robinson story before