Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
Redskins Getting Ruined By Media Today (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter LHUCKS
- Start date
Jason Wood
Zoo York
It's that 2006 1st rounder which make this such a lose-lose deal. Unless they win big in 2005 (which by most estimates is unlikely), they're probably giving up 10+ draft slots in the first round on top of the other picks they handed Denver.
jurb26
Footballguy
As bad as Wash was last year, wasn't this still a team that was only 2 games out of the playoffs and really just 1 game down the stretch? The way the NFC is looking, I'm not so sure that a "win now" approach is all that bad of an idea. I also think it will be a bit surprising to see this team be nearly as bad in Gibb's 2nd year.
Klecko HOF
Footballguy
It might be win now, but are the Skins really that close to winning, even in a weak NFC?Are they as good as Philly, Minny, Atlanta? No
The teams in their division have improved as well, and Carolina, Tampa, St. Louis and Seattle should all rebound after making good off season moves. Solid drafts by any of these clubs will only help.
The Lions and Bears are also sleeper teams and have terrific young talent.
Imho, Washington still has a serious hole at qb, and their wideouts leave much to be desired. The Skins are lights out defensively, but are a ways from contending.
The Redskins have a top 5 defense and imo the #1 defense when you consider what terrible field position their offense left them in last year.They have a top 5 RB.
They have a top 10 o-line if Jansen is back healthy.
To assume that the can't shore up 2 areas(QB and WR) is very foolish imo. In today's NFL, every team is one or two bounces of the ball away from the playoffs.
dcgangstas
Footballguy
Personally, I don't buy the rumors that they traded to get the 1.25 pick to select Jason Campbell at all. Yeah, they worked him out, yeah, they liked him, but I don't buy it. If history holds true for ol' Danny Boy, it's that the Little Dictator's always been about the BIG move. That means offering Cleveland the 1.09 and 1.25 picks to get the 3rd pick for Braylon Edwards.
jurb26
Footballguy
Thats pretty much the way I look at it too. Though I side on them being 3 positions away now rahter than 2. QB, WR, and CB. Lets not forget that this team was dismantled by injuries to the Oline last year AND played w/o its suposedly best player in Arrington. It will be interesting to see how Moss fits into the O on top of what Ramsey can do given a real shot.I think this is a much bettter team than what most are giving them credit for.
Klecko HOF
Footballguy
That's just it. It's not just two positions. Their D took a hit by losing Fred Smoot, and Arrington and Barrow are big question marks at this time. Losing Antonio Pierce to NY was also a hit.The Skins played great D last year, despite not having premier pass rushers. Having two of their linebackers as a big question mark, and losing a third to their rival makes for a step down.
Realistically, do the Skins have the cap room and draft picks available to replace these players? No #1 next year, no #2, or 3 this year. Santana Moss will definetly help in the return game, but the Skins will need to replace Gardner with a better receiver.
Overall, the Skins need an upgrade at QB, WR, CB and have to hope that Arrington and Barrow return to health. The offensive playcalling also needs to improve. Do you think Ramsey has the tools and the pieces to work with to win?
Do I think the Skins have talent? Yes. Do I think they can win a championship within the next two years? No.
jurb26
Footballguy
I don't see any reason as to why Arrington and Barrow will not return to health. Injries can kill any team in the league outside on NE (or so it would seem). If you sit there and say so in so team needs player X to remain healthy, then you will soon run your list of teams very short IMO. I do like Ramsey so long as the Oline can regroup and well... stay healthy. Lets not forget this guy has yet to play behind even an average Oline thanks to the injuries last year. I also do think this team has the talent to compete and really just needs to adapt and gel under Gibbs.
Realistically, I see Wash as 2 players away with another needing to make some serious strides. If they can address CB and WR in the 1st round, which I think is likely and add some Oline depth, I like their chances. Of course having to share a division with Philly makes things tough though.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Is this where we bash the Skins? Or should I report to the Portis leadership thread? 
Seriously, stranger things have happened in today's parity-laced NFL than the 2005 Skins making the playoffs. But their biggest talents are the guys sounding the least interested in getting on the field and making it happen. If I were a Washington fan ( 
at the thought), I'd be at least a little worried.
Seriously, stranger things have happened in today's parity-laced NFL than the 2005 Skins making the playoffs. But their biggest talents are the guys sounding the least interested in getting on the field and making it happen. If I were a Washington fan ( at the thought), I'd be at least a little worried.Klecko HOF
Footballguy
Again, it is possible. If you are a Redksins fan, you have a reason to be hopeful. The problem is, imho, your depth has been hurt by trading away draft picks. There are always if, ands, or buts, and injuries are always an issue, but those are credible concerns. As a Jets fan, I can tell you that Santana Moss is a sparkplug, a dynamic player when healthy, but he shies away from contact. It has affected his return ability. Moss is not the type of man to cross the middle of the field and strecth out, like say, Steve Smith. He has had several nagging injuries that have kept him out of games. TWO receivers will have to be brought in this year, one to replace Gardner and one as insurance for Moss.
I think the Arrington stuff has become bad. That and the bonus issues. Barrow is also old and maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that his knee wasn't progressing well.
Anyway, enough of my rant. I wish you guys luck(nah, no I don't
). Enjoy the season.
jurb26
Footballguy
I can't say I'm a Skins fan outside of the fact that they are a team that I see as having potential. I think adding a big play WR to go opposite Moss could make this a very good team. They do need to address CB, but this draft seems to be deep enough at that postion for them to easily do so.Again, it is possible. If you are a Redksins fan, you have a reason to be hopeful. The problem is, imho, your depth has been hurt by trading away draft picks. There are always if, ands, or buts, and injuries are always an issue, but those are credible concerns.
As a Jets fan, I can tell you that Santana Moss is a sparkplug, a dynamic player when healthy, but he shies away from contact. It has affected his return ability. Moss is not the type of man to cross the middle of the field and strecth out, like say, Steve Smith. He has had several nagging injuries that have kept him out of games. TWO receivers will have to be brought in this year, one to replace Gardner and one as insurance for Moss.
I think the Arrington stuff has become bad. That and the bonus issues. Barrow is also old and maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that his knee wasn't progressing well.
Anyway, enough of my rant. I wish you guys luck(nah, no I don't
Footballfan7
Footballguy
This is interesting. Supposedly the skins made a bad move by making the trade with Denver. I say supposedly since we have no idea who they will pick or if they will trade. We have no idea of anything right now. Even after the draft we won't know whether the skins(or any other team for that matter) did the right or wrong thing. This takes years to judge. Of course the people on message boards like this one and others will be talking about who did well and who didn't but they won't be going back years from now to confirm who actually came out ahead in the draft. So, did the skins make a good move? Anybody who says yes or no should be ignored. We'll see who they take and how those picks pan out and measure it againt what they could have done. Then we'll do the same thing with Denver. At least this is what the intelligent football analysts will be doing. The reactionaries will hit the boards and run off at the mouth immediately. This will take years(at least one or two). So far, they and Denver are trading question marks.
buster c
Footballguy
Dan Devine is dead. no help there.A Redskin One plane crash with Danny & Vinnie aboard remains the unspoken fantasy of all Skin fans.
Vinnie was interviewed by Eisen not too long ago. that dear-in-the-headlights look of his should have not gotten him a 2nd interview, but I guess he lets Danny win when they play hand ball.
hold off on burying this team before the draft. sure, they overpay on everything, but with a killer D, all they need is a pedestrian O to be playoff contenders.
Footballfan7
Footballguy
But their biggest talents are the guys sounding the least interested in getting on the field and making it happen.Who are these "talents"? Arrington? No. Portis? No. Jansen? No. samuels? No.Nope it's none of the best talent. It's a second year safety and an average wr. Funny how people are making a big deal out of players missing volunrary workouts. The lack of anything substantial to talk about leads people to talk about who is and who is not in camp for voluntary workouts.
fatness
Footballguy
The Redskins front office deserves a bashing in the press today for all their defensive and contradictory press releases, interviews, and press conference, and for going out of their way to badmouth the Washington Post. More and more they're being covered honestly by the Post and other local media, not with a slanted homer view, and the front office doesn't like it. As far as the trade, I don't think all the steps are done yet, so I'll wait until they are and I see who the players are before I have an opinion.
Footballfan7
Footballguy
I couldn't care less if the press beats up on the skins. But to say that they deserve it because they didn't give them accurate information is ridiculous. It's draft time. Nobody is going to tip their hand to the press. As is often the case with the press, they are serving as useful idiots for teams around the league. If they don't like it, they need to stop playing the fool.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
If only it were that simple. The Redkins were 31st in points scored and 30th in offensive yards. To put a finer point on it:31st in total points (240)
30th in offensive yards (4,639)
29th in passing yards (2,874)
31st in yards per attempt (5.59)
29th in yards per rush (3.75)
32nd in rushing TDs (6)They weren't bad, they were among the most inept in the league. Yes they return Jansen, but do you honestly think that's the missing link? They also still have either a) Brunell, b) Ramsey or c) a rookie at the helm. They also somehow managed to DOWNGRADE at WR heading into the draft (Moss + Patten < Coles + Gardner). No QB, subpar WRs, no TE and as good as that defense was a year ago, they couldn't afford to lose Pierce and Smoot given their lack of depth. Best of luck, if Gibbs managed 8 wins this year he's going to be in the hunt for Coach of the Year.
Footballfan7
Footballguy
moss and patten didn't drop half the passes that coles and gardner did. And since we're still in the offseason and the draft hasn't happened, far too early to tell if they will improve, decline or remain the same at the wr position. We won;t know that until september. After the draft and after camp. The te was cooley. A great draft pick. I imagine they will get a blocking te in the draft or in the next round of free agency. Pierce was good but he was an unknown commodity going into last(he was the backup) season. They are solid at LB.Lots of depth there. Smoot was okay. I see them upgrading that position in the draft(all fo the top prosepcts at corner are better than smoot). If gibbs doesnt win more than 8 games, he didnt do his job. He's got the talent to win. He had it last year. He made the wrong calls on o across the board.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
Moss drops as many passes as Coles, is smaller, has a much more worrisome injury history and isn't close to the route runner. So why is this trade a good thing for the Skins offense again?
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
Footballfan7
Footballguy
No rain on this parade. You can overanalyze the stats all you like. Coles and gardner couldn't make big plays and they couldn't hang onto the ball. Coles has ALWAYS been over rated and gardner is mediocre(Mccants is as good). And then there's the fact that they haven't drafted yet. coles and Gardner dropped more passes. Easy ones. Ones that should have been caught. Id venture to say that if you look at the drops by Moss and Patten they were on longer plays. Not the dump offs that those other two bums were dropping. There's a reason why gibbs wasn't passing as much as he would have liked and it wasn't just the poor play of the qb.I'd also point out that coles has never been a scoring threat. Neither has gardner in his years with the skins. This is a wash. The difference is that they added speed(overall) at the position. Add a quality rookie, and another year of experience for ramsey and the improved line(Jansen and the Rabach) and you have a net gain.Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
I take it you think stats are the end all to be all and that what actually transpires on the field to affect those stats means nothing. It's the only reason you'd even waste time examining such meaningless stats as number of drops per attempt while ignoring the nature of the drops. Until you facto that it, your stats are nothing more than meaningless numbers.
Atomic Punk
Footballguy
When rating this trade people tend to forget that future year picks are not as valuable. Denver's #25 2005 slot is worth about 700 according to the draft chart. The #76 they get in return is worth about 200. I don't have the chart that includes future year picks, but IIRC the amount was only about 70% of the value. If Washington believes they are in the top third of the league, their 2006 1st and 4th are worth between 500 and 600. So from that perspective it is a wash.Looking at from a team need perspective, again it appears to be a wash. Denver obviously wasn't enamored with anyone near their spot and may feel they are a year away from making a run. Washington on the other hand has two major weaknesses at WR and CB, both of which they will be able to obtain starters with their 1st round picks.So why the bashing??
Footballfan7
Footballguy
Why the bashing? Because people who don't like the team love to bash em.It's what they get off on. They will bash the team for spending too much cash and then bash em again when they show fiscal restraint. They bash em for keeping players and bash em for letting players go. It's the way it goes here. Rarely, if ever, do you see anything original. Take a look at ESPN and listen to their criticisms and then take a look here. You'll fiind the same arguments rehashed here that you heard there.
The honest response to "who got the better end of the trade" is: now way we can know that until we see what transpires. This will take at least 2 years. We'll have to see who the skins draft. Who they could have drafted and then do the same for Denver. It's a long process. such an honest analysis can only be done by those who are patient. What you get here is the bashers who are little more than reactionaries who are repeating what other like minded non thinkers say on tv and on the radio. Take it with a grain of salt and wait the 2 or 3 years.
Family Matters
Footballguy
Het Footballfan7-Welome aboard! I've read twice now that you've mentioned that we should ignore stats and that they're meaningless. I didn't say anything in the last thread but now I feel compelled to let you know that we regurgetate stats all the time around here. I realize you're new to the board but telling a bunch of FF geeks to ignore stats is like telling a RB "don't worry about the line blocking, just run". Obviously there's more to it than just running. The stats tell us the what & why of production. In fact, in most leagues, scoring is based on stats. (sorry for the sarcasm) So stats are going to be used a lot around here and suggesting we ignore them will likely cause a few of us to question what you're trying to do.No rain on this parade. You can overanalyze the stats all you like. Coles and gardner couldn't make big plays and they couldn't hang onto the ball. Coles has ALWAYS been over rated and gardner is mediocre(Mccants is as good). And then there's the fact that they haven't drafted yet. coles and Gardner dropped more passes. Easy ones. Ones that should have been caught. Id venture to say that if you look at the drops by Moss and Patten they were on longer plays. Not the dump offs that those other two bums were dropping. There's a reason why gibbs wasn't passing as much as he would have liked and it wasn't just the poor play of the qb.I'd also point out that coles has never been a scoring threat. Neither has gardner in his years with the skins. This is a wash. The difference is that they added speed(overall) at the position. Add a quality rookie, and another year of experience for ramsey and the improved line(Jansen and the Rabach) and you have a net gain.Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
I take it you think stats are the end all to be all and that what actually transpires on the field to affect those stats means nothing. It's the only reason you'd even waste time examining such meaningless stats as number of drops per attempt while ignoring the nature of the drops. Until you facto that it, your stats are nothing more than meaningless numbers.
Atomic Punk
Footballguy
I'm not a Skins fan, but just trying to get a sense of the reason behind the negativity. A few other thoughts to some of the points here regarding their losses this year ...- Smoot was one of the most badly beaten receivers last year and with Bailey leaving one would think he wouldn't get picked on as much. Springs was easily their best CB last year.- Pierce was solid, but he is relatively unproven and there is no way they could have matched the offer the Giants gave him. As others have stated, they are still pretty deep at LB, albeit they are getting old.- Gardner is still on the team, but the analysis above keep refering to him in the past tense (Gardner and Coles > Moss and Patten). Where does that comes from? Gardner will either still be on the team (Coles and Gardner < Moss, Gardner and Patten) or they will get a 3rd and be able to draft a decent player.
Family Matters
Footballguy
Not sure about the negativity but the reason Gardner is referred to as gone is that Gibbs has been trying to trade him. If a trade isn't reached they "might" release him.
Footballfan7
Footballguy
Thanks! A pleasure to be here. I've got no problem with stats. I have a big problem with how they are misused. When talking about FF, they might be useful but when it comes to the real game(and that's what we're really talking about here) there are factors to consider that can't be measured by looking at stats. Sometimes it requires going to the games. A look at the film. I suggest that t he person who is measuring drops per attempts and using that as the end all to be all is not being intellectually honest. I watched the skins play all season and the wr play was terrible. Some of it was the qb but not all. Gibbs obviously had a problem with it. So, let me say again. I'm not saying to inore the stats. Sometimes it might be a good idea to not try to build an entire case around them. I've been playing this game for 15 years and the people in my league who have been the most successful(yours truly included) would NEVER go by stats alone. In fact, in some cases they are to be ignored altogether(I did this with portis last year. Passed on him because he was on a new team and the o line was looking weak in preseason. Had i gone by the numbers, he was the man to take).Het Footballfan7-Welome aboard! I've read twice now that you've mentioned that we should ignore stats and that they're meaningless. I didn't say anything in the last thread but now I feel compelled to let you know that we regurgetate stats all the time around here. I realize you're new to the board but telling a bunch of FF geeks to ignore stats is like telling a RB "don't worry about the line blocking, just run". Obviously there's more to it than just running. The stats tell us the what & why of production. In fact, in most leagues, scoring is based on stats. (sorry for the sarcasm) So stats are going to be used a lot around here and suggesting we ignore them will likely cause a few of us to question what you're trying to do.No rain on this parade. You can overanalyze the stats all you like. Coles and gardner couldn't make big plays and they couldn't hang onto the ball. Coles has ALWAYS been over rated and gardner is mediocre(Mccants is as good). And then there's the fact that they haven't drafted yet. coles and Gardner dropped more passes. Easy ones. Ones that should have been caught. Id venture to say that if you look at the drops by Moss and Patten they were on longer plays. Not the dump offs that those other two bums were dropping. There's a reason why gibbs wasn't passing as much as he would have liked and it wasn't just the poor play of the qb.I'd also point out that coles has never been a scoring threat. Neither has gardner in his years with the skins. This is a wash. The difference is that they added speed(overall) at the position. Add a quality rookie, and another year of experience for ramsey and the improved line(Jansen and the Rabach) and you have a net gain.Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
I take it you think stats are the end all to be all and that what actually transpires on the field to affect those stats means nothing. It's the only reason you'd even waste time examining such meaningless stats as number of drops per attempt while ignoring the nature of the drops. Until you facto that it, your stats are nothing more than meaningless numbers.
Footballfan7
Footballguy
One more thing. When we talk about drops, the stats don't always add up to what we see on the field. Much of it is a judgement call(like hits vs errors in baseball. You never know how they will rule it, especially on the road, but you know an error when you see one). I know that Coles and Gardner didn't catch a number of catchable balls. Thats' not going to show up in the stats for dropped passes but it amounts to the same thing.Het Footballfan7-Welome aboard! I've read twice now that you've mentioned that we should ignore stats and that they're meaningless. I didn't say anything in the last thread but now I feel compelled to let you know that we regurgetate stats all the time around here. I realize you're new to the board but telling a bunch of FF geeks to ignore stats is like telling a RB "don't worry about the line blocking, just run". Obviously there's more to it than just running. The stats tell us the what & why of production. In fact, in most leagues, scoring is based on stats. (sorry for the sarcasm) So stats are going to be used a lot around here and suggesting we ignore them will likely cause a few of us to question what you're trying to do.No rain on this parade. You can overanalyze the stats all you like. Coles and gardner couldn't make big plays and they couldn't hang onto the ball. Coles has ALWAYS been over rated and gardner is mediocre(Mccants is as good). And then there's the fact that they haven't drafted yet. coles and Gardner dropped more passes. Easy ones. Ones that should have been caught. Id venture to say that if you look at the drops by Moss and Patten they were on longer plays. Not the dump offs that those other two bums were dropping. There's a reason why gibbs wasn't passing as much as he would have liked and it wasn't just the poor play of the qb.I'd also point out that coles has never been a scoring threat. Neither has gardner in his years with the skins. This is a wash. The difference is that they added speed(overall) at the position. Add a quality rookie, and another year of experience for ramsey and the improved line(Jansen and the Rabach) and you have a net gain.Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
I take it you think stats are the end all to be all and that what actually transpires on the field to affect those stats means nothing. It's the only reason you'd even waste time examining such meaningless stats as number of drops per attempt while ignoring the nature of the drops. Until you facto that it, your stats are nothing more than meaningless numbers.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Hey Footballfan7,I'll take your spirited disregard for the aforementioned stats in stride as you're new around here. First of all, I love and welcome any and all debate about why I may or may not be wrong here. And while, yes, I find the use of stats (particularly when dispelling oft-quoted myths about players) because they are, by definition, FACTUAL, there's no question that CONTEXT is critical to all evaluations.Thanks! A pleasure to be here. I've got no problem with stats. I have a big problem with how they are misused. When talking about FF, they might be useful but when it comes to the real game(and that's what we're really talking about here) there are factors to consider that can't be measured by looking at stats. Sometimes it requires going to the games. A look at the film. I suggest that t he person who is measuring drops per attempts and using that as the end all to be all is not being intellectually honest. I watched the skins play all season and the wr play was terrible. Some of it was the qb but not all. Gibbs obviously had a problem with it. So, let me say again. I'm not saying to inore the stats. Sometimes it might be a good idea to not try to build an entire case around them. I've been playing this game for 15 years and the people in my league who have been the most successful(yours truly included) would NEVER go by stats alone. In fact, in some cases they are to be ignored altogether(I did this with portis last year. Passed on him because he was on a new team and the o line was looking weak in preseason. Had i gone by the numbers, he was the man to take).Het Footballfan7-Welome aboard! I've read twice now that you've mentioned that we should ignore stats and that they're meaningless. I didn't say anything in the last thread but now I feel compelled to let you know that we regurgetate stats all the time around here. I realize you're new to the board but telling a bunch of FF geeks to ignore stats is like telling a RB "don't worry about the line blocking, just run". Obviously there's more to it than just running. The stats tell us the what & why of production. In fact, in most leagues, scoring is based on stats. (sorry for the sarcasm) So stats are going to be used a lot around here and suggesting we ignore them will likely cause a few of us to question what you're trying to do.No rain on this parade. You can overanalyze the stats all you like. Coles and gardner couldn't make big plays and they couldn't hang onto the ball. Coles has ALWAYS been over rated and gardner is mediocre(Mccants is as good). And then there's the fact that they haven't drafted yet. coles and Gardner dropped more passes. Easy ones. Ones that should have been caught. Id venture to say that if you look at the drops by Moss and Patten they were on longer plays. Not the dump offs that those other two bums were dropping. There's a reason why gibbs wasn't passing as much as he would have liked and it wasn't just the poor play of the qb.I'd also point out that coles has never been a scoring threat. Neither has gardner in his years with the skins. This is a wash. The difference is that they added speed(overall) at the position. Add a quality rookie, and another year of experience for ramsey and the improved line(Jansen and the Rabach) and you have a net gain.Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
I take it you think stats are the end all to be all and that what actually transpires on the field to affect those stats means nothing. It's the only reason you'd even waste time examining such meaningless stats as number of drops per attempt while ignoring the nature of the drops. Until you facto that it, your stats are nothing more than meaningless numbers.
So in that regard, I would suggest that you are the one being intellectually dishonest if you can look at the career marks of Laveranues Coles and Rod Gardner compared to Santana Moss and David Patten and say the Skins upgrade.
You do realize, since we're looking at the players and not their numbers, that Patten has been in the league for a long time, right? Yes, he had a solid year for New England, but this is a guy who is entering his 9th season, playing for his 4th team. He's also 5'10", 190 lbs...and, save for last year, has never come close to being a lead WR for any of his teams. This isn't a guy who has finally grown into a WR1, this was a guy who, had himself an uncharacteristic career year in 2004.
And Moss and Coles are directly comparable, having both played for the Jets. Coles isn't big (5'11", 193 lbs.), but he's bigger than Moss (5'9", 185 lbs.) and was the more accomplished player when playing with Chad Pennington by any measure. The ONLY way Moss = upgrade over Coles is if Coles' turf toe remains a persistent issue (entirely possible, but we can't know that right now).
Getting back to the stats for a second (I know, they're evil!)...Patten's 18.2 YPC may lead you to think he's adding speed to the mix, but in fact over the other 7 seasons in his career, Patten was much more consistently in the 13.5 to 14.0 YPC mark...solid, but hardly much different than Gardner (13.2) or Coles (13.6).
Two more thoughts on Drops...
Point 1) Prolific receivers drop passes. It's an opportunity cost of making a lot of catches. You discount my use of drop percentage, yet that is, frankly, a much more appropriate way to evaluate these players hands. Personally, I find Drop stats relatively useless. Why? Because the very best receivers drop a fair amount of passes. Don't believe me?
Chad Johnson -- 14 drops
Darrell Jackson -- 11 drops
Jimmy Smith -- 10 drops
Isaac Bruce -- 8 drops
Terrell Owens -- 7 drops
Joe Horn -- 7 drops
Roy Williams -- 7 drops
Drew Bennett -- 7 drops
Eric Moulds -- 7 drops
Muhsin Muhammad -- 6 drops
Antonio Gates -- 6 dropsCan you honestly say we should discount these players because they drop balls?
Point 2)
I'm still not sure I understand your statement of "Coles and Gardner drop more passes" (those are your words)
Yet,
Santana Moss -- 7 drops (78 chances)
David Patten -- 8 drops (95 chances)
Total -- 15 drops (173 chances)
Laveranues Coles -- 7 drops (168 chances)
Rod Gardner -- 9 drops (106 chances)
Total -- 16 drops (273 chances)Coles and Gardner combined for ONE MORE DROP in 100 MORE CHANCES...how can you possibly contend they have worse hands? And then consider that Coles/Gardner had 16 drops with Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey throwing to them, while Moss (Pennington) and Patten (Brady) had two of the league's most accurate passers throwing their way.
The facts are...
Coles, if healthy, is by far the most accomplished of the quartet
Coles and Gardner dropped 5.9% of passes from Pat Ramsey and Mark Brunell
Moss and Patten dropped 8.7% of passes from Chad Pennington and Tom Brady
Coles and Gardner are 5'11" and 6'2", respectively
Moss and Patten are 5'9" and 5'10", respectively
# of 1,000 yard receiving seasons (Coles/Gardner) = Three (3) in 9 seasons
# of 1,000 yard receiving seasons (Moss/Patten) = One (1) in 12 seasons
# of TDs (Coles/Gardner) = 42 in 141 games
# of TDs (Moss/Patten) = 39 in 163 games
# of 50 catch seasons (Coles/Gardner) = Seven (7) in 9 seasons
# of 50 catch seasons (Moss/Patten) = Three (3) in 12 seasons
# of 20+ yard receptions (Coles/Gardner) = 105 in 9 seasons
# of 20+ yard receptions (Moss/Patten) = 92 in 12 seasons
# of 40+ yard receptions (Coles/Gardner) = 18 in 9 seasons
# of 40+ yard receptions (Moss/Patten) = 20 in 12 seasonsSo how are Moss and Patten better receivers than Coles and Gardner again? Honestly, unless you're convinced Coles' injury from a year ago is systemic, this is a no brainer by virtually any way you look at the situation. Coles and Gardner have been more productive, score more, are bigger, are surer handed, and make more plays downfield.
One final point, OF COURSE the situation will be re-assessment if the Redskins add another WR to the mix in the draft. But we're talking about what Washington has done to date, and under those parameters, they've made a horrific passing offense worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Footballfan7
Footballguy
I'm not "disregarding"the stats. I've made that perfectly clear. Building a straw man to try to make your point isn't going to work. There are too many factors involved to start pretending that stats are the end all to be all when we're talking about real football(which is what we're talking about here and now). Coles and gardner have made very few playes downfield for the Redskins. Your stats aren't a substitute for having watched the games. Sorry. Your final point is ridiculous. While burying your head in what are now meaningless stats(these really are laughable) you ignore the fact that A.Coles didn't want to play with the skins. Keeping him wasn't an option.b. The decisions they have made are based on the long term, not your short term thinking. C. You're ignoring the line play of last year and the fact that Jansen alone makes it much better. This in turn means that the running game will improve. Which in turn will help the passing game regardless of whether or not they draft a high priced rookie.Hey Footballfan7,I'll take your spirited disregard for the aforementioned stats in stride as you're new around here. First of all, I love and welcome any and all debate about why I may or may not be wrong here. And while, yes, I find the use of stats (particularly when dispelling oft-quoted myths about players) because they are, by definition, FACTUAL, there's no question that CONTEXT is critical to all evaluations.Thanks! A pleasure to be here. I've got no problem with stats. I have a big problem with how they are misused. When talking about FF, they might be useful but when it comes to the real game(and that's what we're really talking about here) there are factors to consider that can't be measured by looking at stats. Sometimes it requires going to the games. A look at the film. I suggest that t he person who is measuring drops per attempts and using that as the end all to be all is not being intellectually honest. I watched the skins play all season and the wr play was terrible. Some of it was the qb but not all. Gibbs obviously had a problem with it. So, let me say again. I'm not saying to inore the stats. Sometimes it might be a good idea to not try to build an entire case around them. I've been playing this game for 15 years and the people in my league who have been the most successful(yours truly included) would NEVER go by stats alone. In fact, in some cases they are to be ignored altogether(I did this with portis last year. Passed on him because he was on a new team and the o line was looking weak in preseason. Had i gone by the numbers, he was the man to take).Het Footballfan7-Welome aboard! I've read twice now that you've mentioned that we should ignore stats and that they're meaningless. I didn't say anything in the last thread but now I feel compelled to let you know that we regurgetate stats all the time around here. I realize you're new to the board but telling a bunch of FF geeks to ignore stats is like telling a RB "don't worry about the line blocking, just run". Obviously there's more to it than just running. The stats tell us the what & why of production. In fact, in most leagues, scoring is based on stats. (sorry for the sarcasm) So stats are going to be used a lot around here and suggesting we ignore them will likely cause a few of us to question what you're trying to do.No rain on this parade. You can overanalyze the stats all you like. Coles and gardner couldn't make big plays and they couldn't hang onto the ball. Coles has ALWAYS been over rated and gardner is mediocre(Mccants is as good). And then there's the fact that they haven't drafted yet. coles and Gardner dropped more passes. Easy ones. Ones that should have been caught. Id venture to say that if you look at the drops by Moss and Patten they were on longer plays. Not the dump offs that those other two bums were dropping. There's a reason why gibbs wasn't passing as much as he would have liked and it wasn't just the poor play of the qb.I'd also point out that coles has never been a scoring threat. Neither has gardner in his years with the skins. This is a wash. The difference is that they added speed(overall) at the position. Add a quality rookie, and another year of experience for ramsey and the improved line(Jansen and the Rabach) and you have a net gain.Hate to rain on your parade but Patten and Moss in fact drop considerably MORE passes than Coles and Gardner. I've quoted a post from an earlier thread on the matter above.Hey Banghaha,I'm confused here, seems like your main issue with Coles is his propensity to drop passes? Fair enough but then why are you excited about swapping Coles for Santana Moss?
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Laveranues Coles - 18 drops in 326 attempts = 5.52%
Santana Moss - 11 drops in 195 attempts = 5.64%
And if you want to bring David Patten and Rod Gardner into the equation:
Dropped Passes, 2003-2004 Seasons
Rod Gardner - 17 drops in 221 attempts = 7.69%
David Patten - 10 drops in 117 attempts = 8.55%
I take it you think stats are the end all to be all and that what actually transpires on the field to affect those stats means nothing. It's the only reason you'd even waste time examining such meaningless stats as number of drops per attempt while ignoring the nature of the drops. Until you facto that it, your stats are nothing more than meaningless numbers.
So in that regard, I would suggest that you are the one being intellectually dishonest if you can look at the career marks of Laveranues Coles and Rod Gardner compared to Santana Moss and David Patten and say the Skins upgrade.
You do realize, since we're looking at the players and not their numbers, that Patten has been in the league for a long time, right? Yes, he had a solid year for New England, but this is a guy who is entering his 9th season, playing for his 4th team. He's also 5'10", 190 lbs...and, save for last year, has never come close to being a lead WR for any of his teams. This isn't a guy who has finally grown into a WR1, this was a guy who, had himself an uncharacteristic career year in 2004.
And Moss and Coles are directly comparable, having both played for the Jets. Coles isn't big (5'11", 193 lbs.), but he's bigger than Moss (5'9", 185 lbs.) and was the more accomplished player when playing with Chad Pennington by any measure. The ONLY way Moss = upgrade over Coles is if Coles' turf toe remains a persistent issue (entirely possible, but we can't know that right now).
Getting back to the stats for a second (I know, they're evil!)...Patten's 18.2 YPC may lead you to think he's adding speed to the mix, but in fact over the other 7 seasons in his career, Patten was much more consistently in the 13.5 to 14.0 YPC mark...solid, but hardly much different than Gardner (13.2) or Coles (13.6).
Two more thoughts on Drops...
Point 1) Prolific receivers drop passes. It's an opportunity cost of making a lot of catches. You discount my use of drop percentage, yet that is, frankly, a much more appropriate way to evaluate these players hands. Personally, I find Drop stats relatively useless. Why? Because the very best receivers drop a fair amount of passes. Don't believe me?
Chad Johnson -- 14 drops
Darrell Jackson -- 11 drops
Jimmy Smith -- 10 drops
Isaac Bruce -- 8 drops
Terrell Owens -- 7 drops
Joe Horn -- 7 drops
Roy Williams -- 7 drops
Drew Bennett -- 7 drops
Eric Moulds -- 7 drops
Muhsin Muhammad -- 6 drops
Antonio Gates -- 6 dropsCan you honestly say we should discount these players because they drop balls?
Point 2)
I'm still not sure I understand your statement of "Coles and Gardner drop more passes" (those are your words)
Yet,
Santana Moss -- 7 drops (78 chances)
David Patten -- 8 drops (95 chances)
Total -- 15 drops (173 chances)
Laveranues Coles -- 7 drops (168 chances)
Rod Gardner -- 9 drops (106 chances)
Total -- 16 drops (273 chances)Coles and Gardner combined for ONE MORE DROP in 100 MORE CHANCES...how can you possibly contend they have worse hands? And then consider that Coles/Gardner had 16 drops with Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey throwing to them, while Moss (Pennington) and Patten (Brady) had two of the league's most accurate passers throwing their way.
The facts are...
Coles, if healthy, is by far the most accomplished of the quartet
Coles and Gardner dropped 5.9% of passes from Pat Ramsey and Mark Brunell
Moss and Patten dropped 8.7% of passes from Chad Pennington and Tom Brady
Coles and Gardner are 5'11" and 6'2", respectively
Moss and Patten are 5'9" and 5'10", respectively
# of 1,000 yard receiving seasons (Coles/Gardner) = Three (3) in 9 seasons
# of 1,000 yard receiving seasons (Moss/Patten) = One (1) in 12 seasons
# of TDs (Coles/Gardner) = 42 in 141 games
# of TDs (Moss/Patten) = 39 in 163 games
# of 50 catch seasons (Coles/Gardner) = Seven (7) in 9 seasons
# of 50 catch seasons (Moss/Patten) = Three (3) in 12 seasons
# of 20+ yard receptions (Coles/Gardner) = 105 in 9 seasons
# of 20+ yard receptions (Moss/Patten) = 92 in 12 seasons
# of 40+ yard receptions (Coles/Gardner) = 18 in 9 seasons
# of 40+ yard receptions (Moss/Patten) = 20 in 12 seasonsSo how are Moss and Patten better receivers than Coles and Gardner again? Honestly, unless you're convinced Coles' injury from a year ago is systemic, this is a no brainer by virtually any way you look at the situation. Coles and Gardner have been more productive, score more, are bigger, are surer handed, and make more plays downfield.
One final point, OF COURSE the situation will be re-assessment if the Redskins add another WR to the mix in the draft. But we're talking about what Washington has done to date, and under those parameters, they've made a horrific passing offense worse.
You are talking about what they have done to date while ignoring that it's all a process. That's you. I look at the big picture. Obviously they are going to bring in more wr's.But if they don't, what they have is not going to be any worse than what they had when it comes to wins and losses or when it comes to the passing game overall.
jurb26
Footballguy
There is a lot tht is wrong with this post:For one they don't just add a healthy Jensen, they have also added a serious UPGRADE at C.
They are not going to have: Brunell/Ramsey/Rookie. There QB is going to be Ramsey. Even if they were to draft someone, he is going to be the starter. This guy has yet to play in a system or on a team that has been able to keep his jersey clean for more than 3 plays. Lets at least give the guy a serious shot before we write him off. You know a healthy line and maybe some WRs who can get open and make plays.
"Moss + Patten < Coles + Gardner" and you know this how? From the stats? Coles and Gardner have been liabilities in the Wash passing game, not playmakers. What exactly has given you an otherwise impression. Opposing teams were laghing in the face of these WRs (and the Wash passing game in general) last year. They stacked the line for Portis and dared these guys to get open and make them pay, which never happend with exception to Gardners one huge game. In case you didn't know, The combo of Moss/Patten combined for 1635/12 last year while Coles/Gardner combined for 1600/6. I don't know of any places in the world where the Coles/Gardner numbers can be considered better.
I see this as an UPGRADE again for Wash. Coles was never a good fit into this O and has a lingering foot problem. Gardner has had 1 good year out of 4 and has been nothing but inconsistent for Wash. Its not a question of what they have done in their careers, but a question of what they were able to do for Wash IMO. Coles and Garder were simply one of the most INEFFECIVE set of WRs in the league last year. Coles is without a doubt the best WR of this group over all of the guys careers, but that is irrelevant IMO. He was not good in Wash and they were wise to move him. Plus they most likely will add a WR via the draft this Sat.No TE? Are you kidding me? Have we forgoten Cooley that fast? As a rookie, the guy scored 6 TDs on a team that could only muster a whopping 17 passing scores. Saying they have no TE is boarderline
The loss of Pierce will hurt for sure, he was a great player last year. They do however have their Franchise player coming back in Arrington though. So I fail to see how this is the catistrophic hit. Smoot was a nice player last year, not great, nice. Wasn't I just reading a thread on this board about how he was one of the most "toasted" CBs in the league. He is certainly not the player that everyone around here is trying to make him out to be. I think Wash is more than fine going with Springs (who was their best CB last year) and Harris. Yes they would be smart to add some youth to this position, but for the short term, they seem to be fine IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Footballfan7
Footballguy
A couple of more things. I'm not "excited" about any of the wr's the skins had last year OR the ones they have this year so far. I'm only saying that I'm not seeing much difference and that there's nobody on last years offense(skill players) who is a "must have" player. Portis is the closest thing to it. he's an elite back.When you're talking about the wr's, none of the guys involved in this discussion and none of the wr's currently on the skins roster is an elite wr.Also, my point about reading too much into the stats (or not reading them with an eye on what actally happened on the field) is best illustrated by Hall of Famer John riggins.If you didn't see him play for the skins and you only look at the stats, you MIGHT wonder how he got into the hall. His position on the all time rushing leaderboard is dropping. His career average is 3.9. His best seasons were 83 and 84. A ton of carries but the average isn't there(3.7 for the two years). Those who saw him play remember how he was used, especially in the 4th quarter. They ran him right up the gut, over and over again. They would have the lead and it was time for the "Riggo drill". Great for ball control. Great for winning the game. Not so great for Riggos stats. Once again, as a ff player I love the stat game. Always have. When it comes time to draft, I give them the proper weight(they still aren't the end all to be all in ff. Still other factors but they are certainly the top priority) but when judging a team's play in the NFL or and individual's play, I've gotta look at much more than that. We tend to forget that when talking about FF 24/7/365. GM's aren't playing Fantasy ball. They can't afford to go by stats alone. For them it's a job. The REAL difference between Patton/Moss and Coles/Gardner on the field on game day when all things are considered is too insignificant to even talk about. And when you consider that the skins aren't planning on having Moss and Patten as their 1 and 2, it becomes even less of an issue. Coles and Gardner WERE the one and two. Making the comparison now is pointless until you know who will be the 1 and 2 for the skins. We still have the draft and another round of fee agency. Lots can happen.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
You keep saying that ON THE FIELD Moss and Patten are better players...how so?Are they better blockers?
Have more size?
Have more speed?
Better red zone threats?
Better downfield threats?
Run crisper routes?
Have better hands?
Score more touchdowns?
Been more productive?
Made more Pro Bowls?
I point out that the Skins were one of the three worst offenses a year ago, also show you in every imagineable way that tandem you're getting haven't done as much as the tandem you're losing...and you're saying I don't get it?
You're entitled to your opinion, but you should recognize that you need to bring more than "because I say so" to this forum. Maybe at other message boards that kind of schtick worked, but around here it won't be received well.
Footballfan7
Footballguy
You're absolutely correct. Coles and Gardner WERE a liability in the passing game. Coles caught 93 balls last year. Looks pretty good on paper but those of us who watched the games(i watched most of them twice) know that they were,for the most part, terrible. I would add that it's debatable whether coles is actually the best of the bunch. If he is, it's not by much. Moss gives them special teams help which allows them to dump another liability the skins picked up from the Jets a couple of years ago. As for Ramsey, I agree. He's not one of my favorite qbs but I'm a patient guy when it comes to qbs. If they keep him upright, he'll be just fine. He's still better right now than 2 of the 3 qbs in the NFC east and he might end up being the best. he'll never run like Mcnabb can(but doesn't for some odd reason) but he could end up the better passer and the better overall qb. COULD. he's got the arm for it. Time will tell. Even if he's not, the skins have had plenty of success without having the best qb in the division. All of Gibb's super bowl wins came with qbs who were not the best in the division.There is a lot tht is wrong with this post:For one they don't just add a healthy Jensen, they have also added a serious UPGRADE at C.
They are not going to have: Brunell/Ramsey/Rookie. There QB is going to be Ramsey. Even if they were to draft someone, he is going to be the starter. This guy has yet to play in a system or on a team that has been able to keep his jersey clean for more than 3 plays. Lets at least give the guy a serious shot before we write him off. You know a healthy line and maybe some WRs who can get open and make plays.
"Moss + Patten < Coles + Gardner" and you know this how? From the stats? Coles and Gardner have been liabilities in the Wash passing game, not playmakers. What exactly has given you an otherwise impression. Opposing teams were laghing in the face of these WRs (and the Wash passing game in general) last year. They stacked the line for Portis and dared these guys to get open and make them pay, which never happend with exception to Gardners one huge game. In case you didn't know, The combo of Moss/Patten combined for 1635/12 last year while Coles/Gardner combined for 1600/6. I don't know of any places in the world where the Coles/Gardner numbers can be considered better.
No TE? Are you kidding me? Have we forgoten Cooley that fast? As a rookie, the guy scored 6 TDs on a team that could only muster a whopping 17 passing scores. Saying they have no TE is boarderline
The loss of Pierce will hurt for sure, he was a great player last year. They do however have their Franchise player coming back in Arrington though. So I fail to see how this is the catistrophic hit. Smoot was a nice player last year, not great, nice. Wasn't I just reading a thread on this board about how he was one of the most "toasted" CBs in the league. He is certainly not the player that everyone around here is trying to make him out to be. I think Wash is more than fine going with Springs (who was their best CB last year) and Harris. Yes they would be smart to add some youth to this position, but for the short term, they seem to be fine IMO.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Again, this all hinges on Coles' toe. If he's healthy, last year was an anomaly (his back-to-back 1200+ yard seasons for 2 different teams being more representative) and he's unquestionably the best of the quartet. But if his toe isn't healed, than it is absolutely possible that Moss/Patten could be more productive. But let's not act as though Moss is more likely to stay healthy over a full season.
vinwinephans
Footballguy
I'm not going to get into who's better or worse, but I will say Jason is right on this one, imo.What I find interesting in your arguement against stats, is that you use them, indirectly, to make you arguement AND THAT IS EXACTLY HOW STATS SHOULD BE USED.
They can also be used to unearth trend, but you need to do follow up research like you said.
You make the arguement that Riggins stats do not reflect his hall of fame status, but then use them to make your arguement. Stats are not just raw numbers. Stats are raw numbers put into context. You put his rushing numbers into context, by removing the forth quarter from his averages. You did not post the numbers, but based on your arguement, his average would have been indicative of a hall of famer if you had provided the numbers. That was a arguement supported by stats - raw stats put into the context of how riggins was used.
Jason thinks Gardner and Coles are better WR's than Moss and Patten. I happen to agree. I think the raw stats that Woods put into context were perfect for supporting his claim. You make the assumption Jason looked at raw stats and came up with an arguement. But he did not. He took raw stats and put them in perspective by netting drops against oppurtunity and the QB's throwing them the football. Besides, I think anyone who follows football can see that Coles (when healthy) and Gardner (when utilized properly) are more consistent WR threats than Patten and Moss. Situtation is the key, as you said and stats must be adjusted to reflect situation - thats were research, analysis and debate come in.
If Washington actually does improve in all of the other areas that you say they are going to impove in, you say that makes Moss and Patten servicable at WR position. Then why not keep Gardner and Coles instead? They would be more than servicable at WR if an impoved O-Line is going to make the difference you say it could. Remember, just like Riggins, the situation was impacting their numbers.
The reason Washington made the change at WR is not because Gardner and Coles are no better than Patten and Moss, it's because those two players want nothing more to do with Washington and Washington will move both of them before the next season starts.
EDITTED TO ADD - maybe I did get into who's better or worse - it was so hard not to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Footballfan7
Footballguy
I used the stats to suppliment my argument. Not to make it. My point about Riggo would have been valid had I not mentioned the stats. I know from watching him and that team that his average was affected by their style of play late in games. He's not in the hall for his stats. And George Allen didn't trade away draft picks to get him because of the stats he put up with the jets. Allen hated rookies and liked the way Riggo played the game. Had he gone by stats, he probably would have made a deal for somebody else.As for Gardner and Coles, their play on the field doesn't prove that they are better.
Their stats only show that they are slightly better.
And I'd also mention that Gardner was not wanted by the skins, not the same situation as coles.Coles is the one who wanted out. Gibbs and the skins are probably looking at Gardner and thinking about whether he's the guy they want to give more money next year. Clearly they don't want to do that. Best you can say right now is that it's a wash. if they add a productive rookie, it's a net gain for the skins. If they don't, I still see the passing game improving with the guys they have.
I'd also add that the Gibbs system relies heavily on the run to set up the pass. it's run, run run, then take a shot deep. What they gave up in size with gardner they gain in speed with patten. Moss and Coles are both speed guys so that's a wash. Overall, they have more speed now than they did last year. I expect they will add a taller wr to go along with mccants(also a relatively tall guy).
Last edited by a moderator:
Footballfan7
Footballguy
ou make the assumption Jason looked at raw stats and came up with an arguement.Not an assumtion, btw. That's clearly what he did. Had he watched every skins game last year he wouldn't even have brought this topic up. As I said before, coles and gardner dropped many balls and they didn't catch many many more catchable balls. Their mistakes killed many a drive for the skins. Cooley had better hands than those guys. Coles was also injured and he's still got the injury. Another strike against keeping him. And then there's the fact that he's a cry baby. Didn't get enough catches and cried like a b*tch about it. Still not sure where you heard that Gardner didn't want to be here. Skins made that decision. Gardner had little choice in the matter regardless of what his desire might be.
GregR_2
Footballguy
I think you'll quickly find on this board that just belittling the other person's argument doesn't get you anywhere. We frequently and even vehemently disagree, but people here want more than just a bunch of talk.There is a reason that Wood went from message board poster to staff member on here. He's more interested in getting to the truth than he is in making a point. He looks at things objectively, and willingly admits when he's been wrong, or if someone points out why a stat he used isn't valid for the topic, or when someone points out a better way to do something.
In short, just ignoring the argument he's made and calling it a straw man argument and the stats as meaningless isn't going to carry much weight in anyone's eyes here. If there are reasons those are not appropriate stats for the discussion, then give it, don't just try to belittle his argument.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Hey Footballfan,Sounds like you're a diehard Skins fan. In any event, I've watched plenty of Skins games, and took two in last year in person (PHI and D.C.). As someone else pointed out, my stats merely back up my contention that Moss + Patten is a downgrade from Gardner + Coles; it's a shame you can't see that. But it also seems to me that if you watched every Skins game, you couldn't have seen Patten or Moss play too often, so how can you tell WITH YOUR EYES that they're upgrades?
I would also suggest that if you're going to be taken seriously around here, I wouldn't suggest Patrick Ramsey could be the best QB in the NFC East.
Could the Skins offense improve in 2005? OF COURSE! They could finish the year 28th in the league and it would be an improvement. But that was not the point of this discussion.
Putting aside stats, as I've already asked once, explain how Moss + Patten are better receivers...
Are they better blockers?
Better hands?
Faster?
Stronger?
Run better routes?
Score more touchdowns?
Better locker room guys?
More durable?
Better pedigrees?
Something? Anything?
I have no problem with someone taking the opposite side in a debate, and while you can discount stats all you want, I beg of you to explain how statements like:
"Neither Coles or Gardner are much of a scoring threat"
Coles and Gardner have scored more touchdowns (42) in less games (141) than Moss and Patten...that's not using stats to skew an argument, that's proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that what YOU spoke as truth was in fact an outright falsehood.Oh, and Patten is faster (4.37) than Gardner (4.43) by a whopping 0.06 of a second...and Patten's 40-time was taken 10 years ago.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
If Footballfan7 = LHUCKS alias... Extended Time Out!This guy is taking all of you on one hell of atrip.
JKbottom line, Moss has scored like 8 or 10 more TDs than Coles in their careers so far in the NFL. That bodes well for the Skins. But Coles has more catches, and is clearly a tougher WR. But Coles has NOT been the same since hurting that toe. And the Skins HAD to move Coles, as he was being a total ### about everything. Did the Skins get the best #1 WR out there in Moss? HECK NO. But getting Moss is better than nothing. As far as Patten vs Gardner....this is harder to me. Gardner has the 50/50 nickname for a reason. At times, he looks amazing. Big, strong, athletic. But i can't tell you how many times and entire games he just isn't there. Its frustrating as holy hell. Patten doesn't seem to have all the god given skills Gardner has. But he does seem more consistant, a good team guy. I wish i could combine those 2 WRs. If Gardner was more consistant, he'd he a heck of a WR.I think the Skins HAD to move these WRs, and got the best they could for them. Clearly, getting a new WR in the draft would help them. And i do think Jacobs could be a sleeper this year.But i'm as diehard a Skins fan as anyone and even I can admit this. If Ramsey doesn't play VERY well this year, we should cut our losses and grab a FA or first QB possible next year. I'm hoping he makes us all proud this year. I'm rooting for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Are we in the twilight zone today? How hard is it to look up these numbers on www.pro-football-reference.com or ESPN or Sportsline or Stats Inc or Yahoo! before posting?Santana Moss -- 19 Career Touchdowns
Laveranues Coles -- 20 Career Touchdowns
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Moss has 2 return TDs, Coles has none...so it's 21 to 20...still nowhere close to your "8 to 10 more TD" claim.
Similar threads
