Inigo Montoya Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Joe has made a habit of crossing us up the last couple of years, First of all, he came back! We thought that he would have leaned towards Winslow then he opted for Taylor, of course the Portis trade, then just recently the Saunders hire, one of the biggest curveballs for me coming from Joe Jackson was his willingness to stand by Brunell who, all of you can agree, hurt or not hurt, had a horrible 2004. I was thinking, Joe brought in Brunell, he believed in him to be the starting QB, and he stood by him, through thick and thin even after he had the worst QB rating in the NFL. He never gave up on him. Who is to say he does the same with David Patten and completely forgoes the idea of getting a #2 receiver. I know, it sounds crazy, but it is not like we didn't have a player at the position, we did, he just got hurt. Joe wanted this guy, Joe went out and got this guy, and we all know, that Joe sticks by his guys. The more I think about it, the more it seems plausible to me. We have alot of other issues that might be brewing, Ryan Clark could leave, Taylor could do time, Springs is getting old, we could upgrade at Tight End, we need a DE, and punter. Its just a matter of time before Joe crosses up again, maybe it will be by sticking with Patten??? thoughts? Well put, I completely agree and by listening to coach at the end of the season he never said anything about "upgrading" the wide receiver corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I think it is going to be the same as any other position on this team. They are always on the search to improve the talent level of the various positions. Where they see an opportunity that makes sense team-wise and financial-wise, they will do it. I agree that I don't think they will be specifically shop for a #2 receiver, but they will probably try to add talent, and let that work itself out. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ33 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 If he does stay with the team, I think he'll have to except the #3 role in which I think he could be affective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I can guarantee David Patten is a Redskin next year. It's a cap issue. He signed a rather large deal wit ha decent signing bonus, and cutting him this year would put too large a hit on the cap. Cutting him after June 1 would put too large a hit on the cap in 2007. So yes he will be a Redskin. And as long as he comes back from his knee injury at 100% he will be a #2 WR in this offense. The question is will the QB be able to read the whole field and get the ball to more than two receivers (Moss and Cooley)? As far as Moss not getting as many yards. If he remains the only viable threat he will definitely have a similar season next year. The Chiefs spread the ball because they HAD to. The Rams have/had two receivers gain 1,000+ receiving yards. Torry Holt had 1600 yards in 2000 when Saunders was on that staff. Isaac Bruce had 1400 yards that same year. Kennison had 1100 yards last year. IF Kennison can get 1100 yards I don't see any reason for MOss to not get at least 1200 if not more... I heard someone mention Martin Nance. He will not be a #2 WR for ANY team in the NFL next year. He's a big slow possession receiver that needs some coaching. Also, he will NOT be a Redskin next year. If you look at all the WRs the Chiefs brought in under Vermeil, the WRs they had in St. Louis, and the two WRs Gibbs has brought in for his offense, what about ANY of them tells you the Redskins will be going in the direction of big slow possession receivers like Martin Nance or Jason Avant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I hope, and expect, Patten to remain. He's a solid #3 which I where I fgure he'll play, but I still woudln't be totally shocked to see him utilized as the #2 with a taller guy being the #3. I'll be most surpisred if he's not on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I hope, and expect, Patten to remain. He's a solid #3 which I where I fgure he'll play, but I still woudln't be totally shocked to see him utilized as the #2 with a taller guy being the #3. I'll be most surpisred if he's not on the team. Patten will be on the team, as right now he's still better than Thrash, Jacobs or any other WR that we have on the roster. We still need a #2 WR on this team. Gibbs made a mistake bringing Patten in thinking he could be a #2 when he's ALWAYS been a #3 WR on every team and his stats last year reflect that. week 1 3 rec 19 yards versus Chicago week 2 1 rec 12 yards versus Dallas bye week week 4 3 rec 15 yards versus sea (OT even) week 5 7 rec 63 yards versus Den week 6 2 rec 22 yards versus KC week 7 2 rec 56 yards versus SF Week 8 1 rec 6 yards versus NYG week 9 0 rec 0 yards versus Phi Week 10 3 rec 24 yards versus TB Thats a whopping 22 rec for 217 yards and 0 TDs 9.9 YPAC and 2.45 receptions per game but then again looking at his history http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playe...s?playerId=1393 he averages only 2.1 receptions per game and 14.5 yards per reception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I see patten being surpassed by a low round draft pick that is a little bit hungrier... Patten has an ego problem he needs to check at the door... Gibbs aint going for that ****.Gibbs For Life!!! Outside of the one media burp I imagine you're referring to (because it's the only known repoetd incident ever cited here) where Patten complained about not getting enough trys (horrors!) he has been frequently pariesed and openly appreciated by Gibbs for his work ehthic and his "veteran leadership." There's more, but honest, you couldn't be more wrong based on what known's so far. If Patten were to go, it will be because we can pick up not one but 2 or more recievers that promise to replace/ supplant him for the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Patten will be on the team, as right now he's still better than Thrash, Jacobs or any other WR that we have on the roster. We still need a #2 WR on this team. Gibbs made a mistake bringing Patten in thinking he could be a #2 when he's ALWAYS been a #3 WR on every team and his stats last year reflect that.week 1 3 rec 19 yards versus Chicago week 2 1 rec 12 yards versus Dallas bye week week 4 3 rec 15 yards versus sea (OT even) week 5 7 rec 63 yards versus Den week 6 2 rec 22 yards versus KC week 7 2 rec 56 yards versus SF Week 8 1 rec 6 yards versus NYG week 9 0 rec 0 yards versus Phi Week 10 3 rec 24 yards versus TB Thats a whopping 22 rec for 217 yards and 0 TDs 9.9 YPAC and 2.45 receptions per game but then again looking at his history http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playe...s?playerId=1393 he averages only 2.1 receptions per game and 14.5 yards per reception. Nice job, OS, and I've read his stats before, and I sure don't argue them. Or you, Oldskool. My only comment about the distant possibility of him still being a #2 is based on my tendency to be very open-mined as a rule, and not knowing what overall improvements another year, new players, and Saunders' addition, may bring to the offense's dynaimcs that might result in such a thing happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulyetloyal Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I hope to see him back competeing for the second slot, key word, competeing! I really hope we pick up a more talented/younger #2, let them scrap it out for the job, ultimately placing Patten in the #3 slot. If we can bring in a guy that really challenges Patten, I'll be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Course, I also look at these stats as well: 1ST QUARTER 10 rec 93 yds 2ND QUARTER 6 rec 81 yds 3RD QUARTER 3 rec 14 yds 4TH QUARTER 3 rec 29 yds Which means as the game goes on, he get's forgotten. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulyetloyal Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Joe has made a habit of crossing us up the last couple of years, First of all, he came back! We thought that he would have leaned towards Winslow then he opted for Taylor, of course the Portis trade, then just recently the Saunders hire, one of the biggest curveballs for me coming from Joe Jackson was his willingness to stand by Brunell who, all of you can agree, hurt or not hurt, had a horrible 2004. I was thinking, Joe brought in Brunell, he believed in him to be the starting QB, and he stood by him, through thick and thin even after he had the worst QB rating in the NFL. He never gave up on him. Who is to say he does the same with David Patten and completely forgoes the idea of getting a #2 receiver. I know, it sounds crazy, but it is not like we didn't have a player at the position, we did, he just got hurt. Joe wanted this guy, Joe went out and got this guy, and we all know, that Joe sticks by his guys. The more I think about it, the more it seems plausible to me. We have alot of other issues that might be brewing, Ryan Clark could leave, Taylor could do time, Springs is getting old, we could upgrade at Tight End, we need a DE, and punter. Its just a matter of time before Joe crosses up again, maybe it will be by sticking with Patten??? thoughts? Wow, very good point. I agree with just about everything you said, although I think our biggest concern, at this very moment, is offense. More specifically, I think we absolutely have to have a reliable #2 WR, whether its Patten or a free agent, we need somebody to compliment Santana. I really think R. Clark will resign with us but the thought of losing him scares me. ST, we'll just have to see how that pans out but hopefully he'll be proven innocent. If we lost both of those guys you can forget any hopes of a SB in '06. I also like the idea of a TE in the draft, there are a few really good ones coming out. As far as our defense though, I think depth at CB is something Greg Williams can improve on with some guys we've already got. A good DE would be nice in the draft, as both of ours are getting up there in age. And Id like a new punter but if we can be a top 10 offense with a top 5 defense, I can live with what we've got for now. But really good info. overall. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Course, I also look at these stats as well:1ST QUARTER 10 rec 93 yds 2ND QUARTER 6 rec 81 yds 3RD QUARTER 3 rec 14 yds 4TH QUARTER 3 rec 29 yds Which means as the game goes on, he get's forgotten. Jason Or he no longer has the stamina needed to gain seperation from defenders or the leg strength to run his routes and be where he needs to be when the play is supposed to go off. Just depends on how you look at it I guess. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.