Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Meh. Lloyd is also incredibly one dimensional. He's a deep threat capable of making the circus catch, but there is not much else to like about him. I don't think he's much better than Randle El.
Both.
His production will have to decline about 20% from last year to drop out of the top 10. I don't see it dropping that much this year. Gary Clark was top 10 five times in a six-year stretch under Gibbs I. Saunders worked with Holt and Bruce in StL. I think they'll find a way to make him the focal point of the passing game.
I think it hurts his receptions but I think it helps his YPC and I think his TD's stay the same.....So he will have less catches but more yards per catch. I still think his yards drop from last year but not as much as one would think with a 20% or so drop in receptions....
Agreed. The Redskins will consider it money will spent even if the only thing Lloyd and Randle El do is make life a little easier for Moss and Brunell.
I really hope you are right. I acquired S. Moss after week 1 last year as a throw in. He ended up being one of my most valuable players. My gut reaction is that the new additions will result in more passing yards and more passing TDs for the Redskins as a team. I liked the comparison to Gary Clark by an earlier poster. If you go back and look at the stats from Gibbs' first go around you see plenty of seasons with great numbers from the #1, #2, and #3 WRs. My initial breakdown has the Skins throwing for about 3800 yards and 27 TDs. Of that I give Moss 80 catches for 1280 yards and 8 TDs. Good enough to be a #1 but maybe available as your #2.
No? You don't think after paying a guy $11 million upfront, they might want him to get the ball a few times and make plays? I guarantee both guys will be on the field quite a bit, and they're going to get some targets. Why would you spend a ton of money on receivers and then not design any plays to get them the ball?
Very valid concern, but I think you shouldn't lose too much sleep over it. Cooley will still be a major red zone target, which is the most important thing. He's not a blocking specialist, so he will be used to strech the field by making them honor the middle. Much of Colloey's production came from dink & dunk passes that he turned into bigger plays. I think that will still happen, but the occasional pass to the slot (Randel El) could hurt a bit.Honestly, I see Moss getting his down the field opportunities still like last year, but his over 5 rec games might be a thing of the past. Another thing to think about, Gibbs plays it safe once he gets the lead by pounding it out w/ the run. If Al Saunders bring consistency to the offense, they could find themselves ahead earlier in games and not having to throw as much in the second half of games as last year too. I guess I'm saying it's more complex than just the addition of the two new WR's.
I think this does affect Cooley. As you mention, Cooley was the #2 option. Now he will be the 3rd or 4th look when Moss is covered. I do not see Cooley getting 70 catches. 50-60 is likely the high side. I can see him with 50 because they do design some plays for him and will line him up in multiple formations on the outside, slot and out of the backfield. Plus the new coord liked Gonzo in KC so I can see some plays going his way. But don't let that sway too much. They never had much of a #2 at WR in KC so Gonzo was also needed in that role. Things are not that way in Wash now.
Of course they want him to. But, if he doesn't show he should be in that position, he won't be.Gibbs: Randle El, you won't be starting today.
Their ability to make plays as compared to the next guy on the roster decides this, not their contract. He's been paid a certain amount of money already regardless of his performance. Therefore, money plays no role in his playing time.
Did the current regime give LaVar that contract, or did he sign prior to Gibbs' return? Before you start acting like a condescending know-it-all... why don't you tell me what you think the breakdown of targets among the WRs is going to be, percentage-wise?I guess that means that Lavar played the most snaps last year as the highest paid Redskin, right?Don't be a bozo.
Playing time is not the issue. Those guys are good enough to be on the field. The issue at hand is whether the Skins will design plays to utilize the talent that they paid for. If you're not going to mix your offense up a little bit and spread the ball around, why would you spend $45 million (or whatever the aggregate is) on complementary recievers, when they had guys who were capable of drawing defenders away from Moss as it was?Of course they want him to. But, if he doesn't show he should be in that position, he won't be.Gibbs: Randle El, you won't be starting today.
ARE: But coach, I make a lot of money.
Gibbs: Oh, okay, you're in.
Their ability to make plays as compared to the next guy on the roster decides this, not their contract. He's been paid a certain amount of money already regardless of his performance. Therefore, money plays no role in his playing time.
Santana Moss dynasty owner
I'm more than happy to give you a % breakdown, and I'm already on record as saying Moss' numbers will decline. But none of that has anything to do with contract status or cap numbers.Did the current regime give LaVar that contract, or did he sign prior to Gibbs' return? Before you start acting like a condescending know-it-all... why don't you tell me what you think the breakdown of targets among the WRs is going to be, percentage-wise?I guess that means that Lavar played the most snaps last year as the highest paid Redskin, right?
Speaking of condecension, don't you think it's a bit condescending to think you know more about how the offense will be run than guys who follow the team avidly just because you took a quick glance at contract numbers? 
#1 - I never said his numbers would fall off due to cap numbers. RIF, man. I said the Skins wouldn't have revamped their whole receiving corps if they didn't plan to spread the ball around a little more. I don't think Moss is going to get almost 60% of the WR targets with both El and Lloyd in the mix. It's not because those guys make x amount of dollars, it's because the Redskins wouldn't have paid them that amount to stand around. They're going to want to get the ball to these guys, that's why they paid them - not the other way around.#2 - It's now condescending to have an opinion? I never purported what I said as fact, and I certainly didn't insult you for having opinions of your own. I looked at the situation as a football fan and drew certain conclusions. I'm sure you're the end all-be all of Redskins knowledge, so obviously your opinions carry far more weight. But I'll tell you what, when I start calling you a bozo or postingI'm more than happy to give you a % breakdown, and I'm already on record as saying Moss' numbers will decline. But none of that has anything to do with contract status or cap numbers.Did the current regime give LaVar that contract, or did he sign prior to Gibbs' return? Before you start acting like a condescending know-it-all... why don't you tell me what you think the breakdown of targets among the WRs is going to be, percentage-wise?I guess that means that Lavar played the most snaps last year as the highest paid Redskin, right?
icons unsolicited on your comments, then you can call me condescending. Until then, don't act like a jackass and try to turn it around on me.
I just explained all that above. Are you this dense? My point was, why pay the guy that much money and then not throw him the ball? I'm assuming by the salary he got, their regard for him is high enough to garner a # of targets. Same with Lloyd, or they wouldn't have traded two draft picks to get him. Moss can still get 40-45% of the targets and be in the range I indicated.RI indeed F.
There are two ways to interpret your comments:1) you were reiterating the tired theme of Redskins overspending on FA's by trying to work it into a discussion about WR's (one of whom was signed away BTW from your favorite team after being the Super Bowl hero) where it didn't belong; orI just explained all that above. Are you this dense? My point was, why pay the guy that much money and then not throw him the ball? I'm assuming by the salary he got, their regard for him is high enough to garner a # of targets. Same with Lloyd, or they wouldn't have traded two draft picks to get him. Moss can still get 40-45% of the targets and be in the range I indicated.RI indeed F.
It had nothing to do with overpayment. I'm a Steelers fan, I know what El can do. I also was a Lloyd owner so I watched a lot of him, too. These guys are talented receivers who were paid well to come in and help open up the offense, so they wouldn't have to throw it to Moss 60% of the time. That's my only assertion. As a result of this upgrade, Moss will see less targets. They wouldn't bring El in, for example, at $11 million up front, to be a decoy and catch 30 balls, IMO. It's bound to taper Moss' target numbers. If this is so "blatantly obvious", then get after the guy who started the thread asking the question, not me for providing an answer.There's also a less hostile way to disagree with people. Name-calling and laughing at people's assertions for making an innocuous statment leads me to believe you're just a touch oversensitive when it comes to discussions about Washington's free agent spending.There are two ways to interpret your comments:1) you were reiterating the tired theme of Redskins overspending on FA's by trying to work it into a discussion about WR's (one of whom was signed away BTW from your favorite team after being the Super Bowl hero) where it didn't belong; orI just explained all that above. Are you this dense? My point was, why pay the guy that much money and then not throw him the ball? I'm assuming by the salary he got, their regard for him is high enough to garner a # of targets. Same with Lloyd, or they wouldn't have traded two draft picks to get him. Moss can still get 40-45% of the targets and be in the range I indicated.RI indeed F.
2) you were stating something so blatantly obvious (i.e. the Redskins actually plan to use the FA WR's who they signed in their offense) that it didn't need to be stated to begin with.
Neither of these is an attractive explanation. I'd point out that as for the second one (the one you're arguing for), no mention of "overpayment" or the value of their contracts needed to be made.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
I may not have articulated my viewpoint well initially, and it seems redman is oversensitive to questions on the Redskins allocation of free agent $$, which is understandable. If everyone had the same viewpoint here, it would be awfully boring, it's the diversity of opinion that engenders thoughtful debate in this forum. However, while I have come to expect a certain degree of cynicism, ribbing, what have you, in the FFA - I tend to think of the Shark Pool as a place where people can have a spirited debate without resorting to name-calling or laughing at the opinions of others. This is what I took issue with, not his assertions, which are completely valid.I still contend that Washington would not have shelled out money and draft picks to acquire El and Lloyd if they did not intend to spread the ball around a bit more. This, by definition, would decrease Moss' targets somewhat, as they have Portis and aren't going to suddenly start throwing the ball 70% of the time. This observation has been deemed "so blatantly obvious...that it didn't need to be stated to begin with" but the question was asked. I agree with the posters who think Moss' TD and yardage numbers will remain high, although I think that the assistance provided to him by seeing fewer double teams will be more than offset by a decrease in targets. Thus, I believe he'll struggle to reach last year's lofty numbers, but I still wouldn't hesitate to draft him in round 3 or later as my WR1 or a VERY strong WR2.Can't we all get along?
I think the choice of words used made it more confrontational. I think the things said by both the RED and EVIL are right...just didn't use the right words/tone to bring across originally, so you guys have been dancing....uhhhh, in circles.
Actually...you will be surprised to know that Moss only received 29% of the Redskins passing targets last year.I just finished manually calculating the Redskin passing targets for the '05 season and here are the final results.
He received 56% of the WR targets, that's what I was referring to.
Sorry but I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. A friend of mine is a huge Lloyd fan and made me watch a highlight reel of the guy, he doesn't just make circus catches, he has great hands. Also, it seem that everyone isn't looking at the numbers he put up last season on the worst team in the NFL in my opinion, the worst offense at least.
Fair enough . . . you jerk!I may not have articulated my viewpoint well initially, and it seems redman is oversensitive to questions on the Redskins allocation of free agent $$, which is understandable. If everyone had the same viewpoint here, it would be awfully boring, it's the diversity of opinion that engenders thoughtful debate in this forum. However, while I have come to expect a certain degree of cynicism, ribbing, what have you, in the FFA - I tend to think of the Shark Pool as a place where people can have a spirited debate without resorting to name-calling or laughing at the opinions of others. This is what I took issue with, not his assertions, which are completely valid.I still contend that Washington would not have shelled out money and draft picks to acquire El and Lloyd if they did not intend to spread the ball around a bit more. This, by definition, would decrease Moss' targets somewhat, as they have Portis and aren't going to suddenly start throwing the ball 70% of the time. This observation has been deemed "so blatantly obvious...that it didn't need to be stated to begin with" but the question was asked. I agree with the posters who think Moss' TD and yardage numbers will remain high, although I think that the assistance provided to him by seeing fewer double teams will be more than offset by a decrease in targets. Thus, I believe he'll struggle to reach last year's lofty numbers, but I still wouldn't hesitate to draft him in round 3 or later as my WR1 or a VERY strong WR2.Can't we all get along?
I think the choice of words used made it more confrontational. I think the things said by both the RED and EVIL are right...just didn't use the right words/tone to bring across originally, so you guys have been dancing....uhhhh, in circles.
Moss will still be the #1 WR in Washington, but he'll not have elite fantasy WR numbers. I'm figuring something along the lines of 75 catches, 1200 yards and 8 TD's or so. Solid to be sure but not elite.
The overall receiver targets will go up in this offense because ARE and Lloyd should enable it to be opened up more. These numbers last year came from the need to throw more short and medium passses to RB's and TE's/H-backs because Moss was the only WR option to throw to, and he drew more and more coverage as the year went on.
But I'm sure it's going to hurt them in FA next year, right? It's got to . . . 
