NFL.com, Cooley: Burress could go from prison to Redskins' roster

[Oldfan]

I have to disagree with this portion of your post. I think having a productive, veteran receiver (Santana, not Plax) on the team is not bad for the long-term. We have a lot of rookie receivers trying to earn spots on the team this year. For those rookies that do make it on the team (or the practice squad), I think having a veteran receiver like Moss is beneficial to our rookie receivers--he can show these rookies how to practice, nuances to our scheme, etc.

Keenan McCardell is paid to coach the receivers.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Keenan McCardell is paid to coach the receivers.

You seem to hold Belichik in high regard and he always has a few old fogeys on his roster, just like Parcells always had.

Fact: If Bill Parcells took a head coaching job tomorrow, he would immediately sign Jumbo Elliot, Brian Cox, and Dave Meggett.

[Hitman21ST]

Keenan McCardell is paid to coach the receivers.

So are you trying to say it wouldn't be beneficial to have a vet bring along the young'uns? I'd love to hear your reasoning on this?

McCardell is the coach. He's not on the field anymore. Moss also has caught live balls from our quarterbacks, in actual games, against defenses trying to stop him at full speed. There are things that a coach can't teach, but another receiver can while they're on the field.

[pimpumd]

Keenan McCardell is paid to coach the receivers.

That was just one positive aspect of having a veteran like Moss on the team. If that's all you have a problem with, I think you're argument is pretty weak.

[Oldfan]

So are you trying to say it wouldn't be beneficial to have a vet bring along the young'uns? I'd love to hear your reasoning on this?

McCardell is the coach. He's not on the field anymore. Moss also has caught live balls from our quarterbacks, in actual games, against defenses trying to stop him at full speed. There are things that a coach can't teach, but another receiver can while they're on the field.

This same BS argument is heard whenever someone wants to sign or keep an over-the-hill vet on the team. Every vet is a "leader" and a "mentor." We heard that crap when we argued that trading for McNabb had no long-term value.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Fact: If Bill Parcells took a head coaching job tomorrow' date=' he would immediately sign Jumbo Elliot, Brian Cox, and Dave Meggett.[/quote']

So true.

[s0crates]

I do not know about mentoring young players. I care more about productivity. Regarding that:

Santana Moss has not missed a game in 3 seasons, and he has only missed 4 games during his 6-year tenure in Washington. Last season, Moss had a career-high 93 receptions. He seems like a valuable player to me.

Burress, by contrast, has not played a game in two years. In 2008, his last season, Burress did not even break the 500 yard mark in 10 games. Signing Burress would be a huge risk, in my opinion.

Following this line of thought, re-signing Moss makes sense, and signing Burress does not.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I do not know about mentoring young players. I care more about productivity. Regarding that:

Santana Moss has not missed a game in 3 seasons, and he has only missed 4 games during his 6-year tenure in Washington. Last season, Moss had a career-high 93 receptions. He seems like a valuable player to me.

Burress, by contrast, has not played a game in two years. In 2008, his last season, Burress did not even break the 500 yard mark in 10 games. Signing Burress would be a huge risk, in my opinion.

Following this line of thought, re-signing Moss makes sense, and signing Burress does not.

A couple things...

We don't have someone on the roster who does what Burress does (at least not that we know of). We have guys who can do what Moss does. Also, you could probably sign Burress to a 2-year contract (that's my opinion, I could be wrong), but I think you'd have to give Moss 4 years and more money. To me, that makes him a bigger risk. Of course, for the same number years and price, I'd sign Moss.

[Oldfan]

You seem to hold Belichik in high regard and he always has a few old fogeys on his roster' date=' just like Parcells always had.[/quote'] Why do you assume that he kept them to help him coach the team? Maybe he kept them to help him win that season.

[pimpumd]

This same BS argument is heard whenever someone wants to sign or keep an over-the-hill vet on the team. Every vet is a "leader" and a "mentor." We heard that crap when we argued that trading for McNabb had no long-term value.

You say it's a "BS argument" because it does not agree with your position. Nobody said the only reason to resign Moss was because of his value as a "leader" or "mentor." You singled out that one positive aspect and focused in on that as your sole reason to exclude the resigning of a veteran like Moss.

As previously mentioned, your highly regarded Belichik utilizes veterans on the almighty Patriots, yet somehow the Skins shouldn't do the same. Santana Moss had one of his most productive seasons last year. He still has plenty of value. If Moss were to be placed in the slot due to the emergence of Hankerson or Kelly in Moss' traditional spot, the only young receiver that would have to compete with Moss would be Robinson. Robinson was a late-round pick and we have no idea if he will be able to perform at the next level. I see no harm in resigning Moss.

[ressecup1987]

I'm happy I'm not the one who has to make this decision. This Plaxico thing could go either good or bad. It is really a toss up. I don't want us to add a "big time" receiver though that will hinder the growth of our receivers we drafted. Malcolm Kelly has a lot to prove and I think that will motivate him to do something this year. Also, Hankerson looks like he will be decent for us.

I personally prefer us keeping Santana Moss. He knows our system and we know what to expect from him. He is very consistent also and isn't really a gamble sign.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You say it's a "BS argument" because it does not agree with your position. Nobody said the only reason to resign Moss was because of his value as a "leader" or "mentor." You singled out that one positive aspect and focused in on that as your sole reason to exclude the resigning of a veteran like Moss.

As previously mentioned, your highly regarded Belichik utilizes veterans on the almighty Patriots, yet somehow the Skins shouldn't do the same. Santana Moss had one of his most productive seasons last year. He still has plenty of value. If Moss were to be placed in the slot due to the emergence of Hankerson or Kelly in Moss' traditional spot, the only young receiver that would have to compete with Moss would be Robinson. Robinson was a late-round pick and we have no idea if he will be able to perform at the next level. I see no harm in resigning Moss.

Overall I agree that there is no "harm" in signing Moss. I don't believe it should be a priority, but it's not like he's extremely old or something.

However, he would be taking snaps away from more than just Robinson. I'm assuming in your scenario of Moss in the slot that Armstrong and Hankerson would be your starters? If so, isn't Moss taking time away from Austin, Banks (if you consider him a potential contributor), and Aldrick? I'd rather give that position to a youngster and make Armstrong fight for his playing time opposite Hankerson (if he pans out). That way, you have Hankerson, Austin (for argument's sake), and a veteran. Overall, it's a younger corps since your two oldest players are competing with one another.

---------- Post added June-22nd-2011 at 04:29 PM ----------

This Plaxico thing could go either good or bad.

Another fun thing to write, but is that true? I see this Plaxico thing as the TO-to-Buffalo or TO-to-Cincy thing. Low risk. It probably won't go good or bad.

If he's a disaster, cut him. No one will sign him to a contract that would prevent that.

[Champskins]

Can't we do Kelly (outside) Moss (slot) Hankerson (outside) and add Armstrong on 4WR sets? Austin on 5WR. Paul could be KR/PR. Robinson on PS. Essentially keeping 6 on the 53-man. Banks is odd man out. PS would have Robinson, Maurice Price. Taurus Johnson and Roydell Williams cut.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why do you assume that he kept them to help him coach the team? Maybe he kept them to help him win that season.

I don't. I didn't make that argument. I just think it's silly to have nothing about rookies and second-year guys on the squad. You need some players who actually know how to play in the NFL, not so much for "leadership" but just because it's good to have a few guys who can be counted on, even if you are going to go 5-11.

The NFL doesn't seem to function like the NBA or MLB. In those sports, it seems like you can watch a team of young players take their lumps and then mature into something good. In the NFL, losing seems to become habitual. Maybe because you are actually getting physically beaten up while losing.

---------- Post added June-22nd-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------

Another fun thing to write, but is that true? I see this Plaxico thing as the TO-to-Buffalo or TO-to-Cincy thing. Low risk. It probably won't go good or bad.

If he's a disaster, cut him. No one will sign him to a contract that would prevent that.

I kind of like the idea of TO to DC under the same scenario. I just feel like a ton of receivers do what Moss does and some can probably do it better. I'm not a size queen. I don't think you need giant receivers to win. However, if the QB is going to be Beck or Grossman, I would like a really big window to throw the ball into, because...yikes.

[pimpumd]

Overall I agree that there is no "harm" in signing Moss. I don't believe it should be a priority, but it's not like he's extremely old or something.

However, he would be taking snaps away from more than just Robinson. I'm assuming in your scenario of Moss in the slot that Armstrong and Hankerson would be your starters? If so, isn't Moss taking time away from Austin, Banks (if you consider him a potential contributor), and Aldrick? I'd rather give that position to a youngster and make Armstrong fight for his playing time opposite Hankerson (if he pans out). That way, you have Hankerson, Austin (for argument's sake), and a veteran. Overall, it's a younger corps since your two oldest players are competing with one another.

The way I imagined it in my head (which could very well be ridiculous), was that if Moss were put in the slot, Hankerson/Malcomb would battle for Moss' old position. Armstrong would play the same position he played last year. Aldrick would obviously be the back-up slot receiver behind Moss. While I do love Banks' explosiveness and what he does for us in the return game, I'm not sure I how I feel with him being the full-time slot receiver.

It does get tricky when you throw Austin in the mix as well. At this time, I just think Moss is a better receiver than Austin and we should keep him if we can. If Austin turns out to be someone that we absolutely cannot keep off the field, well then I guess we have a good problem on our hands. We also have Niles Paul to consider as well. I believe both Paul and Robinson have good kick-return abilities, so that makes me think the FO might consider Banks disposable. Who really knows? Maybe the strategy is if we acquire enough receivers who could potentially blossom, then it becomes a numbers game and we're bound to field a very respectable receiving core.

Bottom line, for me at least, is that Moss is a solid veteran, coming off one of his best years, who can help our team and our receiving core. To cast him out because we think our young guys will develop is a mistake, IMO. We all know our luck with receivers. We know Moss is solid, and since receivers typically take a few years to develop, I don't see the harm in keeping Moss while our young guys develop.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We could if everyone pans out...but that assumes that Kelly and Hankerson both work out and play at a starting level. Believe me, my ideal WR corps would be:

Kelly

Armstrong

Austin

our rookies

[Oldfan]

LKB ~ I don't. I didn't make that argument. I just think it's silly to have nothing about rookies and second-year guys on the squad. You need some players who actually know how to play in the NFL, not so much for "leadership" but just because it's good to have a few guys who can be counted on, even if you are going to go 5-11.

Your argument would make some sense if I had argued for cutting every player over 25. It doesn't make sense when we are talking about signing a player not currently under contract. We don't need an old guy at every position. We don't need 22 old guys to mentor the young guys.

---------- Post added June-22nd-2011 at 05:29 PM ----------

...Bottom line, for me at least, is that Moss is a solid veteran, coming off one of his best years, who can help our team and our receiving core. To cast him out because we think our young guys will develop is a mistake, IMO. We all know our luck with receivers. We know Moss is solid, and since receivers typically take a few years to develop, I don't see the harm in keeping Moss while our young guys develop.

If winning another game or two in the next couple of years is a high priority, re-signing Moss would be the best possible move.

However, let's not pretend there's no long-term risk. If Vinny had kept one more vet WR on the roster in 2009, Anthony Armstrong would have been bumped from the practice squad. Moreover, when Moss plays, a younger player can't be evaluated at that position.

[kubstix]

The chance of Plaxico playing for the Redskins is probably the same chance we have of winning the superbowl this year. A 34 year old WR isn't going to want to play for a team rebuilding when rest assured the Patriots/Eagles/Jets will reach out to him.

[pimpumd]

If winning another game or two in the next couple of years is a high priority, re-signing Moss would be the best possible move.

However, let's not pretend there's no long-term risk. If Vinny had kept one more vet WR on the roster in 2009, Anthony Armstrong would have been bumped from the practice squad. Moreover, when Moss plays, a younger player can't be evaluated at that position.

This talk about winning another game or two in the next couple years is nothing but your opinion of what Moss brings to the team.

You speak about the long-term detrimental effect to the team or the "long-term risk" that resigning Moss would bring. Why don't you tell us exactly how having Santana Moss on the Redskins for a few more years would be detrimental. I don't want anecdotes about Vinny keeping an extra vet in 2009. I'd like to hear what are the specific "long-term risks" or long-term downside to resigning Santana Moss in 2011.

You say younger players cannot be evaluated if Moss is resigned. If Moss plays in the slot, which players will the coaches not be able to evaluate? I recall Armstrong standing out in practices and in the preseason last year. As a result, the coaches gave him playing time and he produced. Are you saying that resigning Moss will prevent any of our young receivers from doing something similar to what Armstrong did last year? You talk about coaches being paid to teach players--why can't these coaches evaluate our young receivers and decide whether or not these receivers can start over Moss (should he be resigned)? This line of logic does not make sense.

[Oldfan]

pimpund ~ This talk about winning another game or two in the next couple years is nothing but your opinion of what Moss brings to the team.

It's my idea of a realistic estimate of the difference Moss could make. Do you disagree? Do you think he could realistically make a much greater difference? If you'd like to debate the issue, give me your estimate and let's argue our positions. Obviously, neither of us has a crystal ball, but realistic estimates are possible.

You speak about the long-term detrimental effect to the team or the "long-term risk" that resigning Moss would bring. Why don't you tell us exactly how having Santana Moss on the Redskins for a few more years would be detrimental. I don't want anecdotes about Vinny keeping an extra vet in 2009. I'd like to hear what are the specific "long-term risks" or long-term downside to resigning Santana Moss in 2011.

You don't want to hear anecdotes? That anecdote was an example of how a valuable young player could be lost by adding another vet WR to the roster. You are unwilling to make such logical connections, but you want to debate this?

You say younger players cannot be evaluated if Moss is resigned. If Moss plays in the slot, which players will the coaches not be able to evaluate? I recall Armstrong standing out in practices and in the preseason last year. As a result, the coaches gave him playing time and he produced. Are you saying that resigning Moss will prevent any of our young receivers from doing something similar to what Armstrong did last year? You talk about coaches being paid to teach players--why can't these coaches evaluate our young receivers and decide whether or not these receivers can start over Moss (should he be resigned)? This line of logic does not make sense.

Two players can't play the same position at the same time. Therefore, if Moss plays, the coaching staff can't evaluate another player in the same position at the same time. That doesn't mean they can't evaluate ANY players. It means that their ability to evaluate players has been diminished by Moss's playing time. Logically, the diminished time for evaluations could very well hamper the building process at that position.

If we were only talking about the WR position, the negative effect on the team would be minimal. But, if the team signs several 30+ players as starters after free agency opens up, then we can forget about the rebuilding idea.

[Son of Gadsden]

He did nothing wrong despite it being illegal? And you don't think there is anything wrong with discharging a gun in a public place?

Different situation regarding S Taylor. It would not have been illegal for him to have a gun in his house for home protection.

I don't think there is anything wrong with accidentally shooting yourself in the leg with your own gun, other than you mishandling your gun, but im saying its also self-disciplinary . You act as if he was waving it around like a cap gun. He had it for self defense. The reason i bring Taylor in it is that it shows the players are targets by some maniacs because they are known to have wealth and fame. I can tell you right now i would have had a pistol on me were i in his situation. Am i saying its wrong he went to prison? No. He broke the law. I'm saying i think there's something wrong with the law, because im extremely pro gun, and think it is unconstitutional to not allow a means for conceal carry, but that's just me...and the United States Constitution. What i'm getting at is I PERSONALLY don't have a problem with what he did, and i have my doubts that it shows bad character. It is wrong to break the law, but i would feel differently if he pulled a micro vick and was waving it around in a mcdonalds. The guy had no intent to harm anyone unless they had intent on harming him, so its a victimless crime. I don't believe in crucifying him for that, and judging his worth on a team for it.

[Hitman21ST]

This same BS argument is heard whenever someone wants to sign or keep an over-the-hill vet on the team. Every vet is a "leader" and a "mentor." We heard that crap when we argued that trading for McNabb had no long-term value.

Fair enough, but in what world is Moss "over-the-hill"? He actually had his third-best season, statistically. Set a personal high in receptions, second highest yardage total, and third most TDs in a season that he's had. His best year would be 2005, with 84 receptions, 1483 yards, and 9 TDs. Second would be 2003, with 74 receptions, 1105 yards, and 10 TDs. Then comes last year, with 93 receptions, 1115 yards, and 6 TDs. So explain to everyone how he's "over-the-hill" again.

So, let's recap: you don't want the Skins to re-sign a high-production, high leadership value, high character player, who wants to come back to the Skins, because he would take PT away from a 6th round draft pick.

Instead of re-signing him, having another good year out of him, and have him help bring along the young guns.

But then again, you'll probably just call my points strawmen because you can't legitimately counter them

[RandyHolt]

its funny. Cooley is the source.

The blogger with the history he has. Playbook and tool. Impressive.

Always consider the source. But heh, it helps kill the long midsommar days.

[Crazy Levi]

I don't have a problem with re-signing Moss. He's one of "ours," and he probably still has a few good years left.

The idea of signing Burress is ridiculous and it will never happen, thank god.

[Commander PK]

Chris Cooley is the man, but this is a bad idea. Re-sign Moss, and let's go with the youth movement.