Would you trade Fred Davis to Patriots for a 3rd or 4th round pick?

[Bang]

I am reminded of the time people wanted to trade Chris Cooley... and they were absolutely right. We may not have a Fred Davis prospect (Reed is not the prospect Davis was.) waiting in the winds, but Davis is coming back from an injury that sees few athletes back to their former glory. That, on top of the drug and contract issues that have been talked about, would make it seem foolish to not entertain serious offers should they present themselves.

That's fine. I'm not opposed to serious offers. Nobody is. But Cooley was much older when we were having that conversation.

 

What do you honestly think Davis value for a draft pick is right now and is it worth having the hole on our offense?

given the lack of interest in free agency, I'd say his realistic value that would ever be offered is a 4th or 5th.

He's definitely worth more than that to us even if for only one year.

 

~Bang

[Bang]

No. 

 

I'd listen for a 1st or multiple mid-round picks involving at least one 2nd rounder.

 

But check it out Execution56... Our window is open.  We are competing for a championship now.  Sure a pick would be great for next year and Fred may or may not be on the team next year, but he is this year and we are a much more dynamic team with him.

 

So an offer we can't refuse aside (which we won't get from the Pats) the answer is absolutely not.

This is such an important point, I don't think it can be emphasized enough.  This isn't a rebuilding team like years past.  We're finally in a position where any year could be our year, and thus it would be foolish to decrease our chances in any given season for anything less than a major haul in future years.

 

The teams who remain contenders don't have the same view of the "window".

As far as I can see, so long as RG3 is our QB and he's healthy, our window is there.

You can keep that window open a long time if you're smart about how you manage the people around him.

And one way those teams that have stayed on top do so is by not being too attached to the supporting players.

 

since the Pats are the topic, look at them..  they keep Brady. they kept their OL intact for as long as they can.

Everyone else revolved through the door.  They have traded players in their prime for the proper offers, and get value in return. Nobody works it like they do.

And what they do is they do not stick to any one thing, except Brady and that OL..  Brady has won with offenses built on power runners and short passing, he won on using an offense built on smaller receivers underneath the coverage. He's won with field stretching receivers who helped them go undefeated until the Super Bowl. Then they changed back to smaller receivers and won some more.. , and most recently they took a look at what Antonio Gates could do, and they revolutionized the TE position and built an offense around that.

the key is that they stick with the FEW indispensable players, and they never stop and say "This is the team that will win it. Our window is open."

They keep their window open by constantly building, constantly replacing weapons for Brady to use.

We have a Brady now. Our franchise is here.  But if we think that we must win now with what we're doing, know that what we did last year is currently being dissected by every defensive coach in the NFL, and we better roll with that by staying one step ahead with variations, new attacks, new weapons.

We can win now, and we can also look to the future at the same time.

Like the Pats do.

 

 

~Bang

[KCClybun]

Weirdly enough, I think the fact that they do have such a revolving door of talent is part of the reason they haven't won another Super Bowl. You're right that Brady is the only constant, and basically the team has been on his shoulders since 2010. 

 

 

You also have to remind yourself that their depth sucks primarily because they cut bait with players at the drop of a hat. Their receiving core is such a joke largely because they won't pay veterans like Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Which would be fine and dandy, if they weren't so developing receivers they draft. They put all their money in Gronk and Hernandez, and while you can never tell the future that's typically a bad way of doing business.

 

They had Brandon Meriweather making Pro Bowls for them at strong safety, only to move him to free safety to put Patrick Chung in at SS, only to cut Meriweather and move Patrick Chung to FS. Patrick Chung kept getting hurt, then they wound up getting themselves in trouble because their depth at safety was so bad they had to start using wide receivers as DB's. Then they moved their best corner to safety and drafted a safety most people thought was a 5-7th round guy, and have to trade to get another corner.

 

They drafted Ras-I Dowling in the second despite his injury history, and he has only started in 2 games, and played in 8 in two seasons. They drafted Alfonzo Dennard in the 7th which was a "genius" move until he got sent to prison for 30 days. 

 

 

They refuse to pay veterans and flip them for draft picks, and then trade down, getting "value" and passing up elite prospects that could actually happen. And everytime they DO spend a first round pick, they end up getting really good players, but every year the Patriots do this thing where they trade out of the first round for more draft picks because of...reasons. They're called geniuses when they take chances on guys like Chad Ochocinco and Alfred Haynesworth and Tim Tebow and then get zero criticism when those moves bomb.

 

 

I really find that "the Patriots way" is one of the more overrated ways to run a team. The only thing that keeps that team afloat every year is Tom Brady. He's one of the all time greats, if only because his "genius" head coach keeps giving him chicken **** and he turns it into chicken salad. His "genius" head coach keeps a defense that's bottom of the league, his genius head coach keeps giving away his weapons.In a traditional "team building" sense, the Pats have done a pretty bad job at taking some of the burden OFF Brady. They have Brady and that o-line...and well, that's it.

 

 

I think that's a bad way to build a football team. Changing and adjusting and getting value when necessary is fine, but I think continuity means awhole lot. As awesome as Robert is, I never want the team's mentality to be "We have RG3, we can do anything and still win with him."

[Bang]

Continuity is in the front office. They cut bait because they have guys coming up to fill in.

Since 2010 the team may be on Brady's shoulders, but he won his first Super Bowl in 2001. 9 years of evolution saw a lot of different parts built around him in a bunch of different schemes, and while they may have lost a few Super Bowls, they keep showing up at the end. They've been to five Super Bowls in 12 years. That is a dynasty.

 

One thing that can create a dynasty now is having that ONE special player,, a Brady, or for us, RG3. Paying superstars that stick around him is not feasible in the era of the cap. your team gets broken up, ala the Ravens.
So they pay the main guy and they pay his protection, and everyone else begs to play for them.

Their cap stays in order because they don't continually try to pay every player who contributes. They stockpile draft picks and replace them 2 years ahead of time. 
In the era of the cap, it's systemically impossible to pay everyone you think you need or that you like. The key is to get the same production out of cheaper players, ie: draft choices in their first contract. And the way you identify and target draft picks who will fit those roles is continuity in the front office. They know what they want to do, and they know they'll be there so long as Brady is. (Once he's done, so are they, i bet. Bellichek will retire, and it's a slow roll back down the hill.)
It allows them to scout and target players well in advance. By the time it comes to pick them, they know what they're getting for what they want done. They've separated the chaff. They have very few "flyer' picks. Low risk, high return is what they get more often than not.
And, their success also means veteran players will take less to play for them than to go somewhere and lose for more. (Ie: Corey Dillon ) Most players like money, but love winning. They want that ring. Show them you know how to get it, and they'll never stop knocking on the door.
 

 

RG3 is a running threat now, and that kicks our offense into high gear, but that won't last forever simply because of the nature of football. eventually he will settle into a more conventional quarterback role, and the great thing is he's got the arm and accuracy to do it. (not all "running QBs" do.. vick has not, for example.)

In Windowspeak, we have an opening now due to the explosiveness he brings the offense. But RG3's versatility bodes well for the future when he inevitably slows down. So the potential really exists that we can see some long term success so long as we can continue to evolve the offense to suit the talents he can best utilize at each stage of his career. Our window does not have to be a 2 or 3 yr thing.

 

~Bang

[CGSKINS]

No, I think freddy D is going to be key player in our Offense this year. Dude can play and he was getting his mind right too before he got hurt.

[DogofWar1]

At the end of the day the main thing I think about is "what does Fred bring to the table?" and how much value for us is there in that. Fred is a first down machine, and a mismatch for linebackers. Whether it's Davis or another guy, we need someone like that on the team. The offense certainly could evolve in such a way that we could have that without Davis, but we can't do that this year, and probably not even next year, though Reed may soften the blow.

[MumboSauce]

They don't have anything i want.... I wouldnt even trade Fred Davis for Dez Bryant.... I still hold hope for Fred Davis!

 

for Dez? I would. Sorry. No matter my Cowboy hate, Dez is and will be a monster. Only player Dallas has I really fear. along with Ware.

[Burgold]

My concern with Davis is that he is still more about potential than production.  On top of that, he's got this injury that he's not all the way back from.  Did the offense realy lose much when he left?  In either year? 

 

I remember thinking we were completely doomed when Davis and Williams fell at the same time in 2011, but the offensive hit its stride after that.  We were much, much better.  In 2013, even though he's much less athletic and doesn't get much YAC, Paulson did a pretty good job getting open and catching the ball.  He moved the chain.  Davis is more dynamic, but he does have his drops and long stretches of "where is he?"

 

That, along with the injuries and drug suspensions, is why he's going on his third year without a new long term deal.  He reminds me of many of Cerratos acquisitions.  They look great on paper, but they just don't get you there.

 

If someone talks trade... he'd be a risk to lose, but I'd definitely listen.

[Taylor 36]

 

"Brady will have a rough year:"

really,, lets view this through the scope of reality.

Namely, The Pats have transformed how the tight end is used in just 2 short years.

if suddenly they were deprived of the two they've had, they'll still make it work.

I promise you, Rob Gronkowski didn't just come along to be great. he wasn't going to do anything like he's done if he got drafted by the Raiders or the Eagles or anyone else.

Anyone really doubt that?

IF they did call.. we'd be foolish to not listen. IF they made a solid offer, we'd be foolish to not consider it.

~Bang

Thank you, Bang for bringing some reality to this thread. Some people act as if Davis is a top notch TE with no history of red flags and that is a key part to our offense that we can't win without. Sometimes, it is okay to take off the B&G glasses before typing.

 

 

So Bill Belichick, who's going through issues with one party boy tight end on his fifth surgery, and another tight end that could wind up being a suspect in a murder, is going to give up value to take a chance on an injured tight end who certain posters constantly remind everyone else is one suspension away from being out of football for a year and represented himself in a court case against an alleged madam whom he threw a drink in the face of?

 

 

And people that like Fred are the delusional ones?

 

 

Sense, this does not make.

I never said that the Pats would come calling in a million years, but neither did the OP, though people keep giving him/her crap for saying something he/she did not.  The question was if they did, not that they would.  It was a total hypothetical, and, yes, hypothetically speaking, if the Pats did call to make an offer for Fred, our FO would be idiots if they "just hung up the phone" and didn't seriously listen to what they had to say.

 

*Edit* - I see that Bang already beat me to my point.

[Gamebreaker]

As people have stated earlier in this thread, the Pats would never make this deal. They may inquire about his services if they get into TC and realize that Gronk is still unhealthy and with Hernandez's legal issues, none of the other 5 TEs are stepping up. Even then, I doubt they would offer more than a 4th rounder for a guy who will forever be one bad drug test away from his career ending( a year long suspension is essentially a death sentence to a player).

Regardless, we need as many weapons around Griffin as possible. The more the merrier. The better managed teams trade away their surplus, aging big name players for draft picks. Like how the Pats traded Seymour to the Raiders. We have no one on the roster who fits that bill.

[Bang]

well, obviously,, it's June, and there's nothing to do but make up scenarios and talk about them.

(There's actually a current thread wondering if we could be the first three-peat Super bowl winner.  )

 

My money says: Tim Tebow moves to TE for the Pats this year.

AND... is reasonably successful.

 

~Bang

[KCClybun]

My concern with Davis is that he is still more about potential than production.  On top of that, he's got this injury that he's not all the way back from.  Did the offense realy lose much when he left?  In either year? 

 

I remember thinking we were completely doomed when Davis and Williams fell at the same time in 2011, but the offensive hit its stride after that.  We were much, much better.  In 2013, even though he's much less athletic and doesn't get much YAC, Paulson did a pretty good job getting open and catching the ball.  He moved the chain.  Davis is more dynamic, but he does have his drops and long stretches of "where is he?"

 

That, along with the injuries and drug suspensions, is why he's going on his third year without a new long term deal.  He reminds me of many of Cerratos acquisitions.  They look great on paper, but they just don't get you there.

 

If someone talks trade... he'd be a risk to lose, but I'd definitely listen.

 

I wouldn't say we were "much, much better" after Fred got suspended. I think Kyle got a lot more creative after that and they played above their talent level. We basically got zero production out of the tight end position at that point, and Kyle was able to scheme guys open. It also helped that Royster and Helu got going around that time. And I'd say that forward momentum pretty much stalled by the last game versus Philly.

 

I think for the better part of that particular season, Fred was the only consistent offensive weapon we had, and had he not ****ed up and gotten suspended I think he would've been a Pro Bowl tight end and people would've taken notice of him. He was right up there with Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski in most statistical categories.

 

 

This is sort of the double edged sword with having an offensive coordinator that scheme around missing his best players, and now having a franchise quarterback that's bordering on elite (is it premature to say that?) to elevate the play of others.

 

 

 

I also think the reasons that people bring up as reasons why we should listen to trade offers for Fred, while legitimate in their own right for the most part, are the same reason why a team like the Patriots isn't likely to trade for them. Again, the Pats have 5 tight ends on the roster besides Gronk and Hernandez. They sort of poached Michael Hoomanawanui from us last season,Jake Ballard is coming off a big knee injury but he's there, Daniel Fells is a veteran who has been productive in the league.

 

So the Pats are sort of in a bad way, but they aren't completely lost. Hell, veterans like Dallas Clark, Kevin Boss, VIsanthe Shiancoe, and Leonard Pope are still out there who will be pretty cheap and won't cost them any draft picks.

 

 

If they call, you do have to listen. I think my thing is that, even thought we did win without Fred, we're still a better team with him than without him, and the Pats aren't so desperate that they're going to be willing to part with the kind of value that would make trading Fred Davis worth it.

well, obviously,, it's June, and there's nothing to do but make up scenarios and talk about them.

(There's actually a current thread wondering if we could be the first three-peat Super bowl winner.  )

 

My money says: Tim Tebow moves to TE for the Pats this year.

AND... is reasonably successful.

 

~Bang

 

I think Tebow is much better as an H-Back. I would mark out seeing Tebow come through the hole and flattening a linebacker for a running back. It'd be more awesome than almost any pass he threw. 

[Burgold]

but I think it is fair to ask does the team suffer per his absence.  Does the void hurt us?  In 2011, clearly not and last year, I'd argue that it was hard to tell how much his absence actually hurt the team's ability to challenge a defense, move the ball, and score.

[KCClybun]

but I think it is fair to ask does the team suffer per his absence.  Does the void hurt us?  In 2011, clearly not and last year, I'd argue that it was hard to tell how much his absence actually hurt the team's ability to challenge a defense, move the ball, and score.

 

I'd say the distance from 2011 sort of colors the opinion of how effective Dafvis was in that season, especially compared to everyone else.

 

 

In 2012, the two games we played in the immediate wake of Fred's injuries were the two worst games of the season, though drops played a role in the Pittsburgh game. He was a big part of our offense and got a lot of targets and was leading the team in receptions when he got hurt.

 

 

Like I said, this is the double edged sword of having a franchise quarterback and an offensive coordinator that can scheme just about anyone open. Kyle damn near turned Jabar Gaffney into a 1,000 yard receiver, after all. I do think that we are a better football team and better, more dynamic offense with Fred Davis on the field than we are without him.

 

Just from a formation standpoint, we ran a lot more close formations instead of spreading defenses out. I think LavarLeap has an article coming out on the site soon to that effect talking about how the 49ers used Colin Kaepernick in the pistol, and how they really spread defenses out and how that allowed them to take advantage of teams like the Packers.

 

 

Going forward we want to force more teams to play nickel defense against us because it opens up the zone-read and spread teams out more. Everyone says "well we still moved the ball and scored without him", and I'm not disputing that point. I think the point is that when he's healthy, he makes our offense more dynamic and allows us to open things up even more and allows things to be more potent. We were the 21st pass offense last season, mostly by design. I expect that ranking to go up next season, and I'd expect Robert to be part of that.

 

The goal is to never be satisfied with just being okay. Or at least I think that's Shanny's goal.

[Cutter7]

FYI for all of y'all who must have forgot Check out FD83 stats before the injury. He was straight up balling. Him Reed, LP great trio. Bye Bye Paul

I don't think he's that good. He doesn't block all that well (even Niles Paul is a better blocker), he's not that fast (we have two TEs that are faster already) and he doesn't have much wiggle/elusiveness. He also has no ST value. I'd rather use Reed and either Paul/Logan. If they offer a 2nd rounder I'd do it without any hesitation. I'd probably take much less. For a single pick I don't see me going below a 3rd. But I'd sure consider a package of lower picks.

This is just laughable NP a better blocker BUHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!! Do you have any film to support your argument?

Check those stats again with Robert Griffin III throwing him the ball again. He was pretty much a non-factor... even before the injury.

 

Do I have any film? Honestly, no. But you don't either.  Coaches, teammates and reports rave about Niles Paul's blocking and also say Davis isn't so good at it. There's a reason they moved Paul to TE.

[SkinFaninOKC]

I like the idea of Davis and Reed in 2TE sets.  Plus the Pats wouldn't give us anything better than a 6th for him anyway because I think they are a bag of dicks.  They didn't sign Jake Ballard to sit on his butt.  He may not be Hernandez but if anything the Pats will find a way to make up for it. 

[Probos]

We gave a 3rd round pick for Reed so we should get a 1st for Davis or forget it.

RG3 has not had the luxury of having tight end depth and save getting hit by dumping ball off.

Brady will have a rough year it looks like unless we help him.

This kind of point of view never ceases to amaze me. 

 

News flash - not one team in their right mind would give a 1st round draft choice to a player like Fred Davis, even if they were desperate for a TE.  So far Fred has been a nice TE with flashes of greatness, but based on what he's done so far and the injury he's just not that valuable from a trade perspective.  Oh, and Brady and the Pats will be fine.  They always seem to get it done.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Skins attack will look like with the WR's we have and the combo of Davis and Reed.  It has the potential to be quite good.  With a healthy RG3 the offense could be better than last year.

[Thinking Skins]

It's the mindset of a loser. Or at least a fan base used to losing.

 

It's the idea "we always need to get better next year, we're not going to compete this year so we need to think about the future." We've got a franchise quarterback, a bunch of players coming back healthy, and all the ability in the world to make a legit run at a championship.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think the mindset of a winner like Baltimore, Philly, Pitt, etc is realizing when its time to let go of a player and doing so without blinking. We've already drafted Fred's replacement so if we're confident in our drafting abilities we shouldn't be afraid to let him go. And I'd go further and say that its more important to have more pics next year because (a) we already gave up a lot for RG3 so we have less pics ( you can never do an invest all in the current year. We need to have the resources available to continue to build this team in the instance that we (i) can't re-sign Orakpo (ii) don't get production from some of our players we expect (iii) Fletcher retires and Robinson doesn't live up to the hype (iv) the unknown.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Skins attack will look like with the WR's we have and the combo of Davis and Reed.  It has the potential to be quite good.  With a healthy RG3 the offense could be better than last year.

I had my hopes with Cooley and Davis. It never came into fruition though. With this duo, I have my doubts that they'll be used effectively. Maybe in a situation where teams have to prepare for both, or as a situation where one spells the other, but I don't think we'll see the double TE set we've been asking for since 2008.

[KCClybun]

Jordan Reed is not Fred's replacement, at least not until Fred plays himself out of a contract.

And those organizations tend to cut bait with veterans, not 27 year old players who theoretically entering their prime.

What a difference a few years makes. From "WE NEVER KEEP OUR HOMEGROWN TALENT AND THEN THEY GO PLAY WELL SOMEWHERE ELSE!" to "Meh, we can afford to let him go with no problem, he wasn't an important factor last year."

[Botched]

Drug history

Blown achilles

0 TDs in 7 games last year

Coming into his 6th year, and has never started a full season.

Redskins with Fred Davis last year: 3-4

Redskins without Fred Davis last year: 7-2

 

Davis is a good TE, but he is being seriously overrated on here. The way people are commenting, you'd think he was irreplaceable.

 

So hell yes I would trade him, but I'd do it for a player rather than a pick.

[ZRagone]

I am reminded of the time people wanted to trade Chris Cooley... and they were absolutely right. We may not have a Fred Davis prospect (Reed is not the prospect Davis was.) waiting in the winds, but Davis is coming back from an injury that sees few athletes back to their former glory. That, on top of the drug and contract issues that have been talked about, would make it seem foolish to not entertain serious offers should they present themselves.

That's fine. I'm not opposed to serious offers. Nobody is. But Cooley was much older when we were having that conversation.

 

What do you honestly think Davis value for a draft pick is right now and is it worth having the hole on our offense?

 

Really? Because those talks started  2010 in ernest, which would've made Chris Cooley roughly 27 years old.

 

And Fred Davis? Well he's 27

[pjfootballer]

What works for the Patriots (trading away players) may not work for us.  I don't want us doing things the Patriot way.  I want us to do what's best for the Redskins.  If it means trading a player, fine.  But I'm not sure we've built up enough depth to be able to trade away 27 year old players.  It depends on the player and the position on how old is too old.  It's funny how in football society 20 years ago, if you hit 35, you were old. Now, when you hit 30, you are too old.  There are alot of productive players out there without a team between the ages of 31-35 that don't have a contract right now.  But again, depends on the position.  Problem with Cooley was, he got old fast.  Once the legs go, you're done.  Players that have lasted in the league have kept their legs.  Fred deserves the 1 year "look at" contract that he's on.  If the team thinks he's back, then can sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal, but if they think he's done, let him go.  Also, the notion that you will always "GET SOMETHING" for every player that leaves your roster is stupid and basically the mentality of this generation the feel that you should always get something for nothing. You won't always be able to get something for every player.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I am reminded of the time people wanted to trade Chris Cooley... and they were absolutely right. We may not have a Fred Davis prospect (Reed is not the prospect Davis was.) waiting in the winds, but Davis is coming back from an injury that sees few athletes back to their former glory. That, on top of the drug and contract issues that have been talked about, would make it seem foolish to not entertain serious offers should they present themselves.

 

That being said, I would rather take a chance on Davis over a 3rd or 4th round pick.

 

On this topic, the discussion of trading Cooley is not at all close to the discussion of trading Davis. For one, we had a much better backup option behind Cooley than we do now. Davis was a much greater prospect at the time than Reed is now IMO and while I like Paulsen, he isn't setting the passing game on fire. Paul is an experiment. 

 

Another thing to consider is at the time of the Cooley talk, we had holes at a ton of positions. A draft pick could have really helped and we didn't have the luxury of having two good TEs like that when other glaring weaknesses needed to be addressed. This team doesn't have those problems at all so it doesn't makes sense to trade a known value and legitimate weapon of ours. We are a team that isn't filled with holes. The value that we could get is marginal at best and would have to be a fleece by the Redskins to negate the factor of losing such a weapon. Much better to take the known quantity, who is also a very good player and a big weapon for us and our young QB.

[Botched]

 

I am reminded of the time people wanted to trade Chris Cooley... and they were absolutely right. We may not have a Fred Davis prospect (Reed is not the prospect Davis was.) waiting in the winds, but Davis is coming back from an injury that sees few athletes back to their former glory. That, on top of the drug and contract issues that have been talked about, would make it seem foolish to not entertain serious offers should they present themselves.

That's fine. I'm not opposed to serious offers. Nobody is. But Cooley was much older when we were having that conversation.

 

What do you honestly think Davis value for a draft pick is right now and is it worth having the hole on our offense?

 

Really? Because those talks started  2010 in ernest, which would've made Chris Cooley roughly 27 years old.

 

And Fred Davis? Well he's 27

 

Of course by that time, Cooley was also a 2-time Pro Bowler with numerous full and productive seasons under his belt. We're still waiting to see Davis start a full season, and we're crossing our fingers that he stays clean.

[Bang]

I was one of the "trade Cooley" people. i won't say I was the first, but I got yelled at for it for a long time here on the board 

 

And the reason was the Pats model I wrote of on the last page..   you can get value for a guy like Chris if you strike at the right time, who as we saw, declined fairly rapidly.

 

In this era, you simply cannot be too attached to very many players,, and typically, a TE, fan favorite or not, great guy or not, great Redskin he is, is not a make-or-break position. If you dangle him at the right time, you can cash in and roll it into the future.

 

This is the mindset that consistent winners have in the modern era of football.

Think about how many times the Pats or Steelers or eagles let a guy walk or traded a guy and made you say "WTF?" Richard Seymour is a great player! Why trade him now in his prime?"

because they had his replacement, and while he wasn't AS good, he was sufficient, and they got a first round pick out of it.

The Steelers seem to have no problem replacing GREAT linebackers who go elsewhere and are not so great.

 

How many players on this roster are truly un-tradeable?

off the top of my head: RG3, obviously,, Ryan Kerrigan, Trent Williams, ....  and..  ?

Well, Fletcher, simply because we don't have anyone behind him to step in yet. No one will trade much for a player of his age anyway, so we lose nothing by remaining loyal.

Garcon, I think he's a gamebreaker. Santana,, again, age means no one is calling ,and he's earned the loyalty like Fletcher has.  (VIVA SANTANA. of all the veteran guys on our squad currently, he should be seriously considered for our Ring of Fame.. he deserves it.)

Morris is a nice surprise, but truly, we know Shanahan has the reputation of finding running backs,, there's no reason to believe he can't do it again, or hasn't done it already with the guys we picked up this offseason.

If the right offer came up, pretty much every other veteran should be considered.

 

~Bang