Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Washington Redskins Morning Clips: 4/15


Recommended Posts

Yeah, not much happening this time of year. I'd rather not see the "reacher-stories" where the writers try too hard to dig up stuff we don't even care about just to produce a "story" but i wouldn't mind seeing who's posting the best run times or reps, even if they aren't going all out yet.

erad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"-- With all the additional help added at the receiver position this offseason, will Santana Moss be able to make the roster in 2014?"

 

Absolutely. No doubt about it. He was 3rd on the team in receptions & yards last season. Are we really to think that Andre Roberts or Leonard Hankerson or Aldrick Robinson or David Gettis or Nick Williams are better than Santana Moss? If you think they are then I question your football knowledge.

 

HTTR!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"-- With all the additional help added at the receiver position this offseason, will Santana Moss be able to make the roster in 2014?"

 

Absolutely. No doubt about it. He was 3rd on the team in receptions & yards last season. Are we really to think that Andre Roberts or Leonard Hankerson or Aldrick Robinson or David Gettis or Nick Williams are better than Santana Moss? If you think they are then I question your football knowledge.

 

HTTR!!!

 

This question mystifies me. How did Gettis, Willaims, Robinson, Hankerson, or anyone else vault ahead of Moss? None of them could carry his jock right now. Yes, he had more drops last year than normal. Also, he is no longer a #1. But he can still get seperation.

 

Also, if one of the top 3 go down, who would you want to count on? Last but not least, he will be a great influence in the clubhouse.

 

So, I totally agree with you canada, there is no way he does not make the team unless something crazy happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not about who is best now. Moss is 35 and most likely in his last year but you have a stable of young guys that although they aren't as capable now, the staff may look down the road to keep a couple of the young guys for the future. Can't see Gruden keeping an old guy just on the strength of him being a locker room stabilizer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with you MC IF some of those young guys didn't look so lost on the field but when I watch film on Hankerson or Robinson I see one guy that gets stuffed at the line and can't recover and another that seems to either run a clean route OR get separation but rarely can do both. They are both talented and fast guys but to play at this level, they need to make themselves open targets and that's where Moss, no matter his age is still able to do. I think that's what Gos and CFL are talking about.

erad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no coach or will ever be any sort of coach. However I would think that any coach will keep a guy around who puts up decent #'s. Any coach I would think will keep a guy around who's reliable & consistent. & IMO you can't put a price on a guy who's a "locker room stabilizer."

 

HTTR!!!

I like Tana, don't get me wrong, if he makes the team then I'm all in! We shall see how it turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Santana had an unlike Santana year in 2013 & one could argue that Hankerson had some better overall numbers (Doesn't mean I am being an advocate of lining up Hankerson in the slot), Moss did generate a lot of production in December - when Reed was coming on more taking away some of the coverage on him. So more targets for the QB means he'll be open more often. 

 

And his contract is a qualifying one year minimum type - hits the cap at the 2 year man rate; about 635K.

 

Pretty simple math. Unless you are a cowBoy. Then it would take me too long to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, help me out with a few things here guys. It's slow right now as we get ready for the draft, so we need something to do.

 

Help me understand why after 3 very unproductive yrs, people think Hankerson is the answer to all things WR and the furture of the team yet after 1 rookie yr behind a horrible set of Ss on a very bad overall D, people have decided Amerson has a ceiling of being a #2 CB at best and we better start looking for a replacement for him???

 

This truly baffles me. Hankerson in 3 yrs has just over 1000 yds, just over 80 catches and exactly 6 TDs!!!   Is it the 2 rushes for 5 yds that gets people excited????  On top of very mediocre performance, he can't stay on the field. Two of the 3 seasons he has finished on the sideline. This yr he is coming back from the same type injury RGIII had. We expect him to be productive this year? People have him as our #4!!!!!!!!  Has anyone else noticed the only good games he has are with Cousins? He has made a few plays here and there with RGIII, but his best games are with Cousins. And no, I am not starting a Cousins over RGIII discussion because A) That's ludicrious, and B) That's really ludicrious. My point is the Cousins is unlikely to see the field but unless he does Hankerson even perfectly healthy has been vitually invisiable!  I like the guy. I was glad when we drafted him. Great size, nice hands out of college, ran good routes, very physical type guy. But he is not panning out! Some guys just cannot make the transition.  No one would be happier if he a breakout year but after 3 yrs don't we know what we have at this point??

 

Now let's talk Amerson. He has played 1 yr, just 1 yr and behind a horrible D in front of him, especially the Ss. When Reed Doughty is your best S then you have problems. Reed is a great back-up and STs player, but a starter he is not! We know the middle of our D was weak as London had his worst year as a professional. Also, he was sharing time with Josh Wilson. In limited minutes he had 48 tackles, 10 passes defended - 2 ints, 1 FF an 1 fumble recovery! DHalls line? 78 tackles, 13 passes Def, 4 int (2 for TD), and 3 FF. Definitely better, but he played just about every minute of every game. And many believe he had his best season as a pro. I know it's not all numbers, but Amerson projects at least that good if playing as the full time CB. But because he is not a human highlight reel people are like well he is just OK!!  I am not saying he is the next Darrel Green, but let's at least see another year before throwing this guy out. He still has a great deal of potential. He should get his chance this year.  

 

Thoughts?? 

 

Edit: You would think I could type better by now, but no! Fixed typos like Kankerson for Hankerson - No disrespect meant for the kid. Just a fat finger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail GoSkins!

 

'Help me understand why after 3 very unproductive yrs, people think Hankerson is the answer to all things WR and the furture of the team yet after 1 rookie yr behind a horrible set of Ss on a very bad overall D, people have decided Amerson has a ceiling of being a #2 CB at best and we better start looking for a replacement for him???'

 

I don't know that people are really down on Amerson. I thought he played quite improved over the last part of the season. I guess some folks only look at a negative and refuse to look at the positives. He missed tackles - but he is a young guy and that's something on the learning curve. Pros play so much faster than college. Live with it. But 10 PD's & 2 Int's are pretty good.Hall had 13/4 and was a fairly highly rated CB last year in comparison.However, they do need some guys to start coming in soon. Hall & Porter aren't going to be here in 5 years. 

 

113 catches/ 11.9 average/ 5 TDs

45 catches/ 11.1 ave/ 3 TDs

30 catches/ 12.5 ave/ 3TDs

 

So if Hankerson (#3 on the list) had half the receptions that Garcon did, he would have led the team in TDs. None of their receivers were getting to the end zone that well last year. Reed is #2 on the list but he was the 2nd most productive pass catcher in 2013. Hankerson has room for improvement but also has shown improvement.  I guess some folks only look at a negative and refuse to look at the positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Amerson - I get the need for CBs and agree. DHall and Porter are short term. I guess my issue is that Amerson is being relegated to never being better than a servicable #2 after just one year. I think he has some real upside and could be a very good corner for us. Not everyone is going to be Darrell Green. Need to understand you can be really great and still not be that good.

 

As for Hankerson, I guess I am one of those looking at the negatives. They are just too many fro me. I get the TD thing. You make a good point. He is a nice red Zone target. But he can't score if he is not in the game and so far he has not been able to stay healthy. Also, he dissapears from games he is in. To me this would have to be the make it or break it year for him, but coming back from injury that's probably not fair. But do we keep dead wood on the roster hoping that in yr 5 of his career he finally stays healthy and becomes productive?  

 

Oh well, good discussion. Hope to see some others weight in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAIL JOHNS BASS!

 

You said..."While Santana had an unlike Santana year in 2013 & one could argue that Hankerson had some better overall numbers"

 

You also said..."So if Hankerson (#3 on the list)"

 

1st off a person can "argue that Hankerson had some better overall numbers". How do you figure? Moss had 42 catches compared to Hankerson's 30. Moss had 432 receiving yards compared to Hankerson's 375. Moss had 2 TD's while Hank had 3. Moss averaged 11.1 y/c & Hank averaged 12.5. Moss's Long was 28 & Hank's was 29. Forgiver me but in my eyes Mosses #'s are better, granted not by much but better nonetheless. & BTW those #'s make Moss #3 on the team.

 

HTTR!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAIL JOHNS BASS!

 

You said..."While Santana had an unlike Santana year in 2013 & one could argue that Hankerson had some better overall numbers"

 

You also said..."So if Hankerson (#3 on the list)"

 

1st off a person can "argue that Hankerson had some better overall numbers". How do you figure? Moss had 42 catches compared to Hankerson's 30. Moss had 432 receiving yards compared to Hankerson's 375. Moss had 2 TD's while Hank had 3. Moss averaged 11.1 y/c & Hank averaged 12.5. Moss's Long was 28 & Hank's was 29. Forgiver me but in my eyes Mosses #'s are better, granted not by much but better nonetheless. & BTW those #'s make Moss #3 on the team.

 

HTTR!!!

 

Moss had 2 fumbles -very un-Moss like. He just doesn't lose the ball. Hankerson had 0. So Moss had more catches and yards but fewer TD's and more fumbles. A higher yard average per catch for Hankerson with a better TD to reception ratio. That's why I said one could argue he had Some better overall numbers - he had more TDs - right? He had fewer fumbles - right? He had a higher average per catch - right? He averaged more yards per game - right? That's how I figure some better overall numbers. I didn't say it made him better or anything of the like. 

 

BTW - I never said that was the order on the team. I said he was #3 on the list I was showing. 

 

Main point is that (unless the only thing you care about are catches and yards) none of the receivers really showed up that well last year. Whether it was coaching, QB's, scheme, blah, blah, blah. Or maybe it was all of the pass catchers. Or maybe it was just Hankerson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAIL JOHNS BASS!

 

You said..."(unless the only thing you care about are catches and yards)"

 

Well....yeah. Catches & yards are what a WR is judged on. Do you think we would've signed D. Jackson if he didn't have 83 receptions for over 1,300 yards last year? Or for his career average 60 receptions for 1,012 yards?

 

HTTR!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...