Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Tandler's - Need to Know: Should the Redskins trade WR Pierre Garçon?


Larry

Recommended Posts

Link

 

Been browsing Breaking News, and I'm seeing a lot of articles on the theme of "Should the Redskins retain <Player X>" 

 

And they looked like topics that might make for some interesting discussions. 

 

I mean, we're months from the draft or training camp.  But our personnel department likely has some decisions to make, long before we get to those times. 

 

(For example, I assume it's pretty much decided that Orakpo is gone, and that we may have to tag Kerrigan.) 

 

And, unlike discussing draft choices, I figure that a lot of people on this board have opinions about our existing players.  (Lord knows I at least know more about them than I do about some prospect from Oregon or wherever.) 

 

I think it kinda highlights the fact that the first thing our new Talent Evaluator needs to do, is to evaluate the people we've already got. 

 

And I figured this might be the most interesting of the "Should we keep <Player X>?" questions.  If people like discussing the topic, then maybe I, or somebody else, will bring over some of the other players to debate. 

 

I don't want to quote the whole article.  (It being illegal, and all.)  But he goes into Garcon's contract numbers.  (He has two years left, cap hits of around $10M each year, but if we trade him, we only save $5M, this year.)  And what he thinks we could get for him.  (He says a third rounder.) 

 

His conclusion: 

 

I think there are good cases to be made both for keeping Garçon and trading him. The Redskins aren’t going to be competing for Super Bowls or even division titles over the next two years. The $15 million in cap space they would save by trading Garçon could carry over and go towards resigning the likes of Ryan Kerrigan and Trent Williams. Why not deal Garçon to a team that believes it is close to contending for a Super Bowl and get money and a draft pick to build your future? 

 

On the other hand, the Redskins also will need a quarterback if they are going to make annual playoff runs. It just might be worth the investment to keep Garçon on board to help with the development of Robert Griffin III (or whoever is taking snaps) and to perhaps make the team more watchable while the rebuilding is going on. 

 

If forced to choose, I’d go with keeping Garçon but I’d find it hard to rip the team if they get reasonable return in a trade for him.

 

 

Opinions? 

 

My thought is that, if we do this, then we're basically announcing that we're giving up on the next season or two.  (In which case, maybe we should be looking at getting rid of another couple of players who only have a year or two left, too.) 

 

And my normal, Redskin-homer-bipolar feeling would be that "well, we've just announced that we intend to suck for another two years". 

 

Although, maybe that's what's necessary, too.  And I think Tandler made some good points about hoe money and a draft pick might be really useful to have, too.  I like the idea of "If it lets us keep Kerrigan and Trent, . . . " 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is, what do we really have behind Garcon? Moss is probably going to get cut/retire, Andre Roberts was kind of a bust, and the rook, Grant, looked good in preseason but didn't distinguish himself during the regular season. You trade Garcon, and then you have DJax, and really nothing else.

 

If we could trade Garcon, grab a pick, and save some money while finding another guy to be a good #2, I'd be all for it. Otherwise, he takes a lot of attention of DeSean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree that losing Garçon would be a huge blow. I love having Desean Jackson on our team, but I think we can more afford to lose him than Garçon. Losing Jackson would cost us several big plays and TDs per season; I'm not trying to understate his value. But Garçon is a go-to, every-down, work-horse receiver that we need. I know the point of the article is cap savings, and I know we're investing a lot at WR, but if I had to lose one it'd be Jackson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Garçon is one of the most valuable players on the team. Andre can not play #2. Grant isn't ready to move up yet.

If we are trying to develop a QB than we should surround him with peices to work with. Garçon and DJax are what you want a struggling QB to have. One speed demon who will let you learn big plays, and one work horse who will let you learn other routes (short posts, etc.).

Plus Garçon takes some of the attention off of DJax which helps him get open.

Get more focused on fixing the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, one of the questions that's popping into my head is: 

 

Who is (are) the "possession receivers" for the Skins? 

 

Garcon? 

 

Reed?  (When he's on the field?) 

 

And I thought Tandler made a good point,  If you're trying to develop a QB, one of the things you really need is a possession receiver.  Somebody who will give your fragile-ego'd Prima Donna a lot of "completions for a First Down". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is what we're getting in return worth giving up Garçon for? If somebody blows you away with an offer of an second round pick than sure but other than that the answer is no.

 

Tandler was assuming that what we'd get, for trading him, was: 

 

Cap savings of $5M, this year.

Cap savings of $10M, next year.

And a 3rd round draft pick, this year. 

 

(If I'm reading him correctly, he's saying that Garcon's production might make him look worth more than a 3rd, but he also comes with a rather large contract.) 

 

(I certainly don't know enough to dispute his projection.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the mind that neither Garcon nor DJax will be here when this team truly hits its stride in 3-4 years (assuming that happens...).  Based upon that, us getting value from them beyond their contracts is beneficial.  The key question is, what are we getting back, and do the benefits of that outweigh the benefits of keeping them through the natural life of their contract (natural life being however long we would keep them with anticipated cuts for cap costs incorporated)?

 

So...it depends, but probably?  I guess that's my answer.

 

If we got a 3rd rounder, I'd probably say yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garcon should be retained as he is one of the few pure football players on this rosteon. Most of current Redskins players are limited position guys that make terrible decisions.

Young, Kerrigan and Paul are the only others that I recognize as "football players", the rest of them belong on the free agent roster in EAMadden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team is probably 3 years out, at best, talent wise.

I would start shaping the roster with guys who will be at their peak in 3-5 years. Not sure that would be the case with Garçon. I would probably trade him for a 2nd but who knows what he is worth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you trade him, are you also effectively giving up on developing one of our QBs? 

 

(Now, we could argue about whether we should do exactly that.  But I'd prefer that to be one done in of the numerous QB-bashing threads.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade for what?

 

I know we can get a ham sandwich, but what team is going to give us a draft pick in this upcoming draft?  And, if a team is found, what round do you think that team is willing to part with said draft pick?

 

Let's just dispense with a first and second round pick, because that aint going to happen (Please stop with the overvaluation)

 

I just don't see a third round pick either, so let's just eliminate that round as well. 

 

So, maybe a team parts with a fourth round pick in the upcoming draft, and that is a maybe as teams don't like to give up draft picks, especially if the draft is full of receivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head I can't think of teams who were in "rebuild mode" trading their best players, It just doesn't work that way.

 

...And for those who say roster is 3-5 years away are crazy, NFL doesn't work that way. Turn arounds happen at a much faster rate (free agency, draft and finding a QB [most important]) All front office staff will be gone if team is in same place record wise 3 years from now and rightfully so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once I'm confident that our GM will make the right move, so whether or not he gets traded I will trust Scot's judgment. I'm usually overly optimistic and always think we can contend every this season. However my expectations have been truly grounded from these past 2 seasons and realistically we aren't contenders for sure this year (probably next season as well).

 

That being said I don't think you trade Garcon unless you get a high quality draft pick(s) for him and a mid-level player of need (OL/SEC). DJax and Garcon can still be a deadly duo. They didn't have much of a chance this past season due to poor QB play. Like others have mentioned if you take away Garcon, then the #2 guy as of now would be Roberts. Granted we would target somebody in the draft or FA to replace Garcon, but chances of that player being a #2 quality receiver would be low.

 

I know DJax made a lot of big plays for us, but overall Garcon is a better all around player. We also could get more by trading DJax than Garcon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep Garcon. You still have to try and put the best product on the field while trying to rebuild. Plus there's too much of a drop off after Garçon and Jackson. You trade Garçon and put in Roberts? Yeah right. Roberts showed he's barely a #3. Hankerson has never reached his potential. Moss is almost getting social security. Grant didn't show anything.

Unless someone blows us away, which I doubt will happen, I want Garçon starting at WR next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you trade him, are you also effectively giving up on developing one of our QBs? 

 

(Now, we could argue about whether we should do exactly that.  But I'd prefer that to be one done in of the numerous QB-bashing threads.) 

This idea that you need multiple star receivers ti develop a QB is, to say the least, being very overstated here. Wilson has developed just fine with nothing to speak of at receiver. The Colts had just a quickly fading Wayne and let Luck develop with a bunch of non-first rounders from the same draft. Griffin had his big rookie year with Moss and Morgan as his go-to guys for most of the season. Brady, Roethlisberger and Flacco all started off with not much better than middle of the road receiving corps.

 

All of which is not to say we shouldn't try to put together quality pass-catchers. It's a very good year for Free Agent WRs, and another excellent year in the draft. We should be trying to get the picks and cap space to acquire young talent that will be here for the long-term and develop along with whoever our QB of the future will be. 

 

Building around youth means first and foremost airing young talent, not spending tons of resources on rent-a-players to help develop non-existent young talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have a lot of talent behind DJax or Garcon except maybe Grant. But Grant hasn't shown much either. We have Hankerson who is turning out to be another Taylor Jacobs and Malcom Kelly. All the talent in the world but can't get it together on the field or stay healthy. Hankerson has been here for 3 or 4 years and is always hurt. Getting rid of a productive player and keeping a hurt player makes no sense to me. Keep him and get rid of some of the other dead weight.

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...