Josh Morgan To Redskins

[Bemular]

It means we would throw in his direction in the first, and then again in the 4th. It means he was rarely our primary target, even when he should have been earlier this year.

We've had this discussion before, and I'm not really interested in rehashing it. We do see how management values Morgan, though. Clearly not as a starting WR.

You and I have never discussed this, and you clearly do not know how primary targets are determined. As I alluded in my original post, Morgan was the primary as often as one would might expect given the circumstances and who can say what would have happened if he hadn't got injured. That was a much bigger loss than I'm sure many thought at the time.

Stating that our FO did not value Morgan as a starter seems to be stating the obvious since he wasn't a starter - but okay.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You and I have never discussed this, and you clearly do not know how primary targets are determined. As I alluded in my original post, Morgan was the primary as often as one would might expect given the circumstances and who can say what would have happened if he hadn't got injured. That was a much bigger loss than I'm sure many thought at the time.

Stating that our FO did not value Morgan as a starter seems to be stating the obvious since he wasn't a starter - but okay.

Sorry, your good friend MW49ers5 and I have discussed this before. I mix you two up sometimes. Go figure.

So enlighten me on "primary targets." I count a target as every ball a QB throws to a particular receiver. Under my definition, there are no "primary" or "secondary" targets. I am distinguishing targets from, say, the primary or secondary receiver on a particular play. If you have a different definition, please share it.

I expected Morgan would see more targets in the first game when Crabtree left at half. He saw only two, the same as Crabtree in one half. I expected Morgan would see more targets in Crabtree's first game back. He saw four to Crabtree's six. It's possible Morgan was the primary target and didn't get open, but for whatever reason, we threw more to Crabtree in those games even though I expected Morgan to see more.

So I would disagree that, "Morgan was the primary as often as one would might expect given the circumstances...." I, for one, thought he should be targeted more. MW, for instance, believed he was better than Crabtree. So wouldn't he have expected Morgan to see more targets?

 

[Bemular]

Sorry, your good friend MW49ers5 and I have discussed this before. I mix you two up sometimes. Go figure.

So enlighten me on "primary targets." I count a target as every ball a QB throws to a particular receiver. Under my definition, there are no "primary" or "secondary" targets. I am distinguishing targets from, say, the primary or secondary receiver on a particular play. If you have a different definition, please share it.

I expected Morgan would see more targets in the first game when Crabtree left at half. He saw only two, the same as Crabtree in one half. I expected Morgan would see more targets in Crabtree's first game back. He saw four to Crabtree's six. It's possible Morgan was the primary target and didn't get open, but for whatever reason, we threw more to Crabtree in those games even though I expected Morgan to see more.

So I would disagree that, "Morgan was the primary as often as one would might expect given the circumstances...." I, for one, thought he should be targeted more. MW, for instance, believed he was better than Crabtree. So wouldn't he have expected Morgan to see more targets?

Like yourself I see primary targets & primary receivers as synonymous, however, the term "primary" carries with it a very specific strategic definition. The phrases "was targeted" and "was the primary target" can mean either the exact same thing or the exact opposite thing. Furthermore, the interpretation of "primary receiver" is clear however the interpretation of "was the most targeted receiver" can be meaningless.

As for the Seattle game, I'm not sure why would you expect our #4/#3 receiver (Edwards, Davis, (Crabtree) then Morgan) to have more than two targets? I seriously doubt Roman & Harbaugh had game planned to come out in our opener and attack vertically.

The 6 vs. 4 in the Bengals game is fine as well. I am getting the sense that you are seeing some voodoo hidden meaning behind these target #'s and there just isn't any - sorry.

I think the disconnect here is our understanding of the game from a strategic perspective. Looking at where Morgan was on the receiving depth chart, and considering all other circumstances, his target percentage was fine.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Like yourself I see primary targets & primary receivers as synonymous, however, the term "primary" carries with it a very specific strategic definition. The phrases "was targeted" and "was the primary target" can mean either the exact same thing or the exact opposite thing. Furthermore, the interpretation of "primary receiver" is clear however the interpretation of "was the most targeted receiver" can be meaningless.

As for the Seattle game, I'm not sure why would you expect our #4/#3 receiver (Edwards, Davis, (Crabtree) then Morgan) to have more than two targets? I seriously doubt Roman & Harbaugh had game planned to come out in our opener and attack vertically.

The 6 vs. 4 in the Bengals game is fine as well. I am getting the sense that you are seeing some voodoo hidden meaning behind these target #'s and there just isn't any - sorry.

I think the disconnect here is our understanding of the game from a strategic perspective. Looking at where Morgan was on the receiving depth chart, and considering all other circumstances, his target percentage was fine.

I explicitly said I would distinguish those two phrases.

Distinguish: v. to perceive a difference in.

They are not the same thing. A target is when a QB throws the ball to a player. Otherwise, we are talking about the QB's reads. That's much more difficult to call on a given play, and shouldn't be used as a measure unless we're going to involve the coaching staff in the discussion.

In the Cincy game, Morgan should have been our primary WR. At worst, he should have been second in terms of targets. He was fourth. I think that's fewer than he should have, unless the coaching staff believes Crabtree, even perhaps a little gimpy, is the better player.

Anyway, as said, it's clear now how the coaching staff views Morgan. Their opinion of Crabtree is still somewhat unclear.

 

[Bemular]

I explicitly said I would distinguish those two phrases.

Distinguish: v. to perceive a difference in.

They are not the same thing. A target is when a QB throws the ball to a player. Otherwise, we are talking about the QB's reads. That's much more difficult to call on a given play, and shouldn't be used as a measure unless we're going to involve the coaching staff in the discussion.

In the Cincy game, Morgan should have been our primary WR. At worst, he should have been second in terms of targets. He was fourth. I think that's fewer than he should have, unless the coaching staff believes Crabtree, even perhaps a little gimpy, is the better player.

Anyway, as said, it's clear now how the coaching staff views Morgan. Their opinion of Crabtree is still somewhat unclear.

Calm down there chief, I read your post and just wanted to clarify what the "perceived" differences were. Unfortunately, judging from your post you are still confused.

Morgan went into Cin as our #2 WR and was targeted as our #2 WR. To say that "at worst he should have been second in terms of targets" simply reaffirms your confusion.

Who gets targeted is up the game plan, the defense, the receiver and the QB. For all you know 12 plays were called in which Crabtree was the primary receiver vs. Cin while Morgan's # was called only 6 times. Maybe Crabtree dropped two passes and could only get open enough to get 6 of those 12 targets.

Meanwhile, Morgan was able to fulfill 4 of his 6 targets with no drops. So, even though Morgan had two fewer targets in the box score, who had the better day and is thus perhaps the better receiver? I may be stretching the point to make a point but hopefully you will get it this time.

As for knowing what the coaches think of Morgan I believe they think very highly of Joshua Morgan, however the FO thought he wasn't worth what Washington felt he was worth.

Regarding Crabtree, judging from how aggressive we are being to acquire at least two more WR's both at or above the level of Crabtree I think we can make a reasonable deduction as to what our FO thinks of Crabtree. My guess is that if it were Crabtree becoming a FA and Morgan still under contract - bye bye Crabtree.

 

[Southern9er]

Overall?

I really don't like the way this is going with the WRs. "In Harbaugh/Baalke we trust"...the deal with Moss may be good business, but bringing in the other "home wrecker" seems riskier on the potential damage side, especially with Alex still in reclamation mode...Someone else on this board said it first, but it was "I don't want Moss' poor attitude to rub off on Crabtree's work ethic" ...something like that...

Very sad to see Morgan go, I felt that he would've really shined this year had he stayed healthy, been a great compliment to Davis.

So we've got Crabs...Moss...Ginn...Williams...if that isn't a motley crew...this is looking like the "Land of Misfit Toys"

Williams is the only guy that gives me some confidence...after those mistakes I know he will never do that again, other than Moss (when motivated) Williams has the best hands on the team.

 

[Bemular]

Overall?

I really don't like the way this is going with the WRs. "In Harbaugh/Baalke we trust"...the deal with Moss may be good business, but bringing in the other "home wrecker" seems riskier on the potential damage side, especially with Alex still in reclamation mode...Someone else on this board said it first, but it was "I don't want Moss' poor attitude to rub off on Crabtree's work ethic" ...something like that...

Very sad to see Morgan go, I felt that he would've really shined this year had he stayed healthy, been a great compliment to Davis.

So we've got Crabs...Moss...Ginn...Williams...if that isn't a motley crew...this is looking like the "Land of Misfit Toys"

Williams is the only guy that gives me some confidence...after those mistakes I know he will never do that again, other than Moss (when motivated) Williams has the best hands on the team.

I hear ya. I, as well, cannot ignore the character issues we seem willing to invest in this off-season. And I admit my hope & faith that these players will perform both on & off the field the way B&H expect them to perform is tinted.

As I see it, now that we are a SB contender, FA is going to play a more prominent role for filling-in the critical holes while the draft becomes a resource more for short term starters and adding depth. And, as fate would have it, our biggest need this year is at a position where the pool of players with questionable ethics is the deepest.

Therefore, it seems some risk has to be expected if we are to get impact players to take our offense to the next level. My hope with Moss is that whatever work he put into being prepared to comeback this year will carryover and pay dividends both on the field and in the locker room. As for Cox, I believe in second chances and hopefully he does as well and takes full advantage of his.

As for Lloyd, I guess he comes in tomorrow? If we do sign him then hopefully coming to a bonafide SB contender for the first time in his career will be enough to keep him focused on the team rather than himself. I suppose we'll cross that bridge with our thoughts and concerns when and if we have to.

Overall:

With Morgan and Edwards gone we are depleted to misfits as you say.

Crabtree can't carry the offense and can't even be considered an honest threat outside the #'s.

Williams has speed, quickness and hands and showed some skills last year but how much will his size handicap him as a wide-out.

Bogan didn't even get off the ground last season and is thus a complete unknown.

Swain is likely gone.

Ginn is likely gone as well (although I am holding out some hope he returns (pun intended))

Finally, Hastings will be lucky to find himself back on the PS in '12.

So, risks, here we come - hopefully the rewards will be bountiful.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Calm down there chief, I read your post and just wanted to clarify what the "perceived" differences were. Unfortunately, judging from your post you are still confused.

Morgan went into Cin as our #2 WR and was targeted as our #2 WR. To say that "at worst he should have been second in terms of targets" simply reaffirms your confusion.

Who gets targeted is up the game plan, the defense, the receiver and the QB. For all you know 12 plays were called in which Crabtree was the primary receiver vs. Cin while Morgan's # was called only 6 times. Maybe Crabtree dropped two passes and could only get open enough to get 6 of those 12 targets.

Meanwhile, Morgan was able to fulfill 4 of his 6 targets with no drops. So, even though Morgan had two fewer targets in the box score, who had the better day and is thus perhaps the better receiver? I may be stretching the point to make a point but hopefully you will get it this time.

As for knowing what the coaches think of Morgan I believe they think very highly of Joshua Morgan, however the FO thought he wasn't worth what Washington felt he was worth.

Regarding Crabtree, judging from how aggressive we are being to acquire at least two more WR's both at or above the level of Crabtree I think we can make a reasonable deduction as to what our FO thinks of Crabtree. My guess is that if it were Crabtree becoming a FA and Morgan still under contract - bye bye Crabtree.

I guess I'm just wondering why Morgan was the #2 receiver against Cincy. Crabtree was just getting back from injury. Edwards wasn't playing. Why wasn't Morgan our #1 guy?

As for Crabtree, there's no reason to make a reasonable deduction. MW's last reasonable deduction about Crabtree vs. Morgan (that Morgan would outlast Crabtree) was wrong. We might as well wait and see what happens in a few months.

 

[Bemular]

I guess I'm just wondering why Morgan was the #2 receiver against Cincy. Crabtree was just getting back from injury. Edwards wasn't playing. Why wasn't Morgan our #1 guy?

As for Crabtree, there's no reason to make a reasonable deduction. MW's last reasonable deduction about Crabtree vs. Morgan (that Morgan would outlast Crabtree) was wrong. We might as well wait and see what happens in a few months.

Crabtree wasn't injured when he came back in Cin; he was fully healed per his presser either before or after the game I don't remember. So, he played vs. Cin as our #1 WR.

Yes, I agree we might as well wait to see what happens with Crabtree but if we do bring in Lloyd along with Moss I would expect at least a reduced role for him.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crabtree wasn't injured when he came back in Cin; he was fully healed per his presser either before or after the game I don't remember. So, he played vs. Cin as our #1 WR.

Yes, I agree we might as well wait to see what happens with Crabtree but if we do bring in Lloyd along with Moss I would expect at least a reduced role for him.

Reduced from being our only WR? That seems like a fair prediction.

 

[Bemular]

Reduced from being our only WR? That seems like a fair prediction.

Exactly!

 

[deep9er]

its sorta like last year's free agency period, a lot of you were panicking, biotching, complaining...................we WILL add another WR ok, and don't forget the draft.

did we expect five All Pro receivers signed and sealed by today?

 

[Dodub]

I'm gonna miss Josh Morgan, I wish him nothing but the best. I really hope him and RG3 ake an amazing combination and he sees some pro bowls in his career.