Are We Finally Turning A Corner With Player Acquisitions?

[jgbkab1]

I co-sign this and back it 100%. It's good to leave veterans who we've been hanging onto and keeping them. Cooley and Moss aren't Joey Galloways or Larry Johnson's to the Redskins. Cooley and Moss are very much a foundation of this franchise still. Yes, their plays on the field are replaceable but you can't replace their locker room presence which I believe a lot of us are overlooking.

If this was a year where we were making a SB run, I would agree. Since this is year 20 of a 22 year rebuild, I think these young guys can manage.Plus two of these young receivers have been to Championship games, one to the SB and played with arguably the best QB ever. But again, I don't know their true contributions and this is my opinion.

[SkinFaninOKC]

If this was a year where we were making a SB run, I would agree. Since this is year 20 of a 22 year rebuild, I think these young guys can manage.Plus two of these young receivers have been to Championship games, one to the SB and played with arguably the best QB ever. But again, I don't know their true contributions and this is my opinion.

Cooley & Moss are still vital to the locker room and can keep people in check until RG III becomes the leader.

[B&G]

We turned the corner when Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen were hired.

[The Rook]

Yes, but Cooley is a tight end playing in an offense that uses him as a #2 wide out. Of course the numbers would be skewed in his favor. According to Football Outsiders, Davis had more value as a tight end than Cooley in 2010. Moss is our #1 receiver that was never a true #1 receiver. I love Moss and Cooley but I don't think either one will be in a starting role this season barring injury. And if the coaches decide to move either one or both down the depth charts, would you then be willing to lose that unsentimental value and consider trading them...if you were the GM of course?

Wow ... I am tired of these Cooley and Moss should go threads.


BTW - good stuff Califan.







The Rook

[roanoker]

We appear to be building the team the right way, through the draft.

As far as turning the corner, the proof is in the pudding. We haven't won anything yet but another offseason in the RG3 trade. Lets see it translate to W's on the field, then we can say we turned the corner.

Agreed. When everything is said and done, the real proof will be the record.

[paloosa]

I understand what the OP intended to convey but Cooley's drop in production was due to poor QB play and injury where Moss was due to poor QB play. If you watch the same games I did then you would see Moss wide open and the QB (Grossman, Beck or even Campbell) would throw it way over his head. So is that his fault, poor QB, or both. I think it is poor QB play. I think that Moss is on the bubble but I think he is going to make the team because he is still our most productive receiver. I think the starters will be Hankerson and Garcon with Moss in the slot. Josh Morgan is young but hasn't proven he can be anything more than a secondary receiver and his production shows that. Everyone of our receivers except Garcon and Moss have never broken the 1,000 yard mark in a year. If they do release Moss then I believe they know more than I do. But the question I want to know is why did they release Gaffney and not Moss? Is it out of loyalty? Gaffney was more productive but is he better than Moss? Who will unseat Moss from the roster? Armstrong? Robinson? Austin? Banks? Are any of these guys better than Moss? Yeah they are younger but that doesn't mean they are better. This is Armstrongs 3rd year and he can't stay healthy just like other WR's we kept because they had potential. Kelly and Thomas who we drafted in the 2nd round but never lived up to their potential. So who is going to unseat Moss? No one. The same with Cooley. Cooley and Davis will be very productive and will present matchup nightmares because they are both almost uncoverable by linebackers and safeties. So they will make the team.

[jgbkab1]

I understand what the OP intended to convey but Cooley's drop in production was due to poor QB play and injury where Moss was due to poor QB play. If you watch the same games I did then you would see Moss wide open and the QB (Grossman, Beck or even Campbell) would throw it way over his head. So is that his fault, poor QB, or both. I think it is poor QB play. I think that Moss is on the bubble but I think he is going to make the team because he is still our most productive receiver.

I wasn't actually singling out Moss or Cooley with this, but it has turned that way. My original point is that this seems to be a trend with this organization is to ride someone until the wheels fall off. When Samuels went down, it was a living nightmare for any QB in the pocket. Landry got injured, we got burned like a sailor on liberty. No decent back up at any position sans running back. Hell, most of the time we didn't have a decent starter. The only potential Hall of Famer on this team (that actually made a name for themselves on this team) since 2000 was Sean Taylor and it sucks that he probably won't make it because of his short career.

Every Super Bowl team in that time frame had at least one HOFer on their roster and/or on the coaching staff. Scrub teams don't make it to the big dance ever. We rarely have a player in the top 20 of their respective position in the league but we want to hold onto ours like some Redskins voodoo dolls. I was guilty of the same with Jason. Not really knowing what good is, we sometimes hold onto bad just hoping it doesn't get worse.

[Darth Tater]

I wasn't actually singling out Moss or Cooley with this, but it has turned that way. My original point is that this seems to be a trend with this organization is to ride someone until the wheels fall off. When Samuels went down, it was a living nightmare for any QB in the pocket. Landry got injured, we got burned like a sailor on liberty. No decent back up at any position sans running back. Hell, most of the time we didn't have a decent starter. The only potential Hall of Famer on this team (that actually made a name for themselves on this team) since 2000 was Sean Taylor and it sucks that he probably won't make it because of his short career.

Every Super Bowl team in that time frame had at least one HOFer on their roster and/or on the coaching staff. Scrub teams don't make it to the big dance ever. We rarely have a player in the top 20 of their respective position in the league but we want to hold onto ours like some Redskins voodoo dolls. I was guilty of the same with Jason. Not really knowing what good is, we sometimes hold onto bad just hoping it doesn't get worse.

But your examples of Cooley and Moss would show the same old think. In the past, Cooley would already be gone because we'd need the cap space and moving him would maximize cap space recovery. We can now debate merits of restructure, cut or keep for performance reasons and not for cap reasons. Same with discussions earlier about Hall. In the past, it would have caused enough cap space damage to move a guy as opposed to keeping him. With Moss, old think would not cause loyalty to save him, it would be that we had no better option. It is because we may have better options that we can even debate letting him go. Cap impact and clearing cap space to sign the next great hope was what drove decisions, not loyalty (in fact, that old think made us operate with disloyalty all too often). The guys who you think we "rode till their wheels fell off" had cap figures that made it nearly impossible to move them or find talent to replace them.

[jgbkab1]

But your examples of Cooley and Moss would show the same old think. In the past, Cooley would already be gone because we'd need the cap space and moving him would maximize cap space recovery. We can now debate merits of restructure, cut or keep for performance reasons and not for cap reasons. Same with discussions earlier about Hall. In the past, it would have caused enough cap space damage to move a guy as opposed to keeping him. With Moss, old think would not cause loyalty to save him, it would be that we had no better option. It is because we may have better options that we can even debate letting him go. Cap impact and clearing cap space to sign the next great hope was what drove decisions, not loyalty (in fact, that old think made us operate with disloyalty all too often). The guys who you think we "rode till their wheels fell off" had cap figures that made it nearly impossible to move them or find talent to replace them.

Okay,let's use Fletch. Contract year, no replacement. Not that they haven't been looking but this was the fault of the previous FOs. Not saying that Fletch is past his prime, but this is most likely his last contract. These are the types of players that need to have replacements already with the team. I don't think this will be an issue in the future but there are spots on the roster that they maybe can't find a suitable replacement.

[Hitman21ST]

Okay,let's use Fletch. Contract year, no replacement. Not that they haven't been looking but this was the fault of the previous FOs. Not saying that Fletch is past his prime, but this is most likely his last contract. These are the types of players that need to have replacements already with the team. I don't think this will be an issue in the future but there are spots on the roster that they maybe can't find a suitable replacement.

What do you call Keenan Robinson?

[SkinFaninOKC]

What do you call Keenan Robinson?

Or Perry Riley. LB will be the big need in 2013. Moss or Cooley will be gone next year.

[HeluCopter29]

I'll be honest. I have no idea how this relates to anything that has not already been discussed in another thread.

[tiger187126]

title was promising, OP failed to live up to expectations.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

What do you call Keenan Robinson?

At 242 and a 4.79 forty that would catch me before I'd even started, WHATEVER he wants to be called.

Hail.

[wit33]

But your examples of Cooley and Moss would show the same old think. In the past, Cooley would already be gone because we'd need the cap space and moving him would maximize cap space recovery. We can now debate merits of restructure, cut or keep for performance reasons and not for cap reasons. Same with discussions earlier about Hall. In the past, it would have caused enough cap space damage to move a guy as opposed to keeping him. With Moss, old think would not cause loyalty to save him, it would be that we had no better option. It is because we may have better options that we can even debate letting him go. Cap impact and clearing cap space to sign the next great hope was what drove decisions, not loyalty (in fact, that old think made us operate with disloyalty all too often). The guys who you think we "rode till their wheels fell off" had cap figures that made it nearly impossible to move them or find talent to replace them.

Great post!

I have never really thought about things the way you posted it here. We do most certainly have much more flexibility with player movement now. We no longer have to cut guys who may still have some productivity left in them.