Skip to content

Coles Traded: It must be the toe

Mar 5, 2005, 11:35 PM EST

The on again, off again Laveranues Coles for Santana Moss trade finally happened on Saturday as the Jets ceded to Coles demand for a contract extension. From the Washington Post:

The intermittently on-and-off trade between the New York Jets and Washington Redskins has been finally completed, shipping unhappy wide receiver Laveranues Coles to his old team, the Jets, for wideout Santana Moss, sources familiar with the development said today.

The main obstacle had been Coles’s request for a contract extension from the Jets, partly because he believed that he initially had an agreement with Washington to be released, making him a free agent. But after fruitless talks over the past several days, the Jets and Coles’s agent, Roosevelt Barnes, apparently made enough headway.

According to broadcast reports the Redskins will not get any salary cap relief from Coles in this transaction. By not making this deal until after last Tuesday, it was already determined that the Redskins would take a 2005 salary cap hit of nearly $6 million if they traded or released Coles before June 1. Had Coles agreed to forgo part or all of $5 million payment on his original $13 signing bonus, they could have had that credited to their 2006 cap number. However, if the reports are correct–and that seems to be the way the deal has been heading in recent days–that won’t happen.

So on April 1, the Redskins will have to cut a $5 million check and forward it to the Jets’ facility. Ouch.

The question being asked is, of course, why? Why take such a big hit to trade a guy that the Skins just gave up a first-round pick and a ton of money for just two years ago? And why for Moss, who hasn’t done much of anything special for the Jets?

To address the second part first, Moss doesn’t suffer horribly in comparison to Coles. A first-round pick (16th overall) by the Jets, Moss has less tha half as many career catches as Coles (342-151), but has scored just one fewer touchdown (20-19) and has averaged 16 yards a catch for his career. Coles hasn’t averaged that much for as much as a full season (save his rookie year when he had 22 catches). And Moss is two year younger than Coles is.

Still, even if you concede that Moss and Coles are roughly equal as players the fact is that this wasn’t just a player for player trade from the Redskins’ standpoint. There is the little matter of the cap hit and the wasted first rounder.

Coles’ reported unhappiness with Joe Gibbs’ offense was certainly the team evern considered the trade in the first place. But even is someone is desperately unhappy, you don’t toss a first-rounder and five million bucks in the trash because of it. Nobody in the world, probably not even Coles, would have blamed the Redskins if they had told the receiver that they gave him big, big money so shut up and play. Coles, being the professional he is, probably would have.

Based on the facts we know, there is really only one reason that the Redskins would make this deal; they must think that Coles is damaged goods. His injured toe, the one on which he refuses to have surgery, has cost him much of the speed and explosiveness that led to the Redskins dangling the $13 million to lure him from the Jets in the first place. Rehabilitation without surgery didn’t nearly do the trick to heal the toe last offseason. It was admirable that Coles gutted it out this past year, but it’s safe to say that Gibbs’ scheme wasn’t the only factor at play in his 10.6 yards per catch average. The toe must have been a big issue as well.

Faced with diminishing returns, it appears that the Skins decided to cut their losses, get what they could for Coles, swallowed the bitter pill of the money and the first, and move on.

This is all speculation, mind you. But so was the notion that David Patten would be a good target for the Skins and, well, we know how that turned out.

  1. Marquez12 - Mar 5, 2005 at 9:26 PM

    Rich, Do You Have Do Stroke Yourself

    On every blog, you seem to need to point out how great a predicter you are. Chill out, Rich, I show up everday and read your stuff. Great players don’t need to tell people they are great.

  2. Marquez12 - Mar 5, 2005 at 9:26 PM

    Rich, Do You Have Do Stroke Yourself

    On every blog, you seem to need to point out how great a predicter you are. Chill out, Rich, I show up everday and read your stuff. Great players don’t need to tell people they are great.

  3. Marquez12 - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:26 AM

    Rich, Do You Have Do Stroke Yourself

    On every blog, you seem to need to point out how great a predicter you are. Chill out, Rich, I show up everday and read your stuff. Great players don’t need to tell people they are great.

  4. Marquez12 - Mar 5, 2005 at 9:28 PM

    By the way….

    I think your theory about the toe is a good one.

  5. Marquez12 - Mar 5, 2005 at 9:28 PM

    By the way….

    I think your theory about the toe is a good one.

  6. Marquez12 - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:28 AM

    By the way….

    I think your theory about the toe is a good one.

  7. Rich Tandler - Mar 5, 2005 at 9:36 PM

    New readers here every day, marquez, gotta establish that I know what I’m talking about.

    But maybe you’re right. I should be more like Riggo after he scored a TD and act like I’ve been there before.

    Thanks for checking in.

  8. Rich Tandler - Mar 5, 2005 at 9:36 PM

    New readers here every day, marquez, gotta establish that I know what I’m talking about.

    But maybe you’re right. I should be more like Riggo after he scored a TD and act like I’ve been there before.

    Thanks for checking in.

  9. Rich Tandler - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:36 AM

    New readers here every day, marquez, gotta establish that I know what I’m talking about.

    But maybe you’re right. I should be more like Riggo after he scored a TD and act like I’ve been there before.

    Thanks for checking in.

  10. Anonymous - Mar 5, 2005 at 11:57 PM

    Unless Coles’ toe falls off next seaoson, we got absolutely raped on this deal. And I’m terrified that we’re going to overpay Moss and overpay big.

  11. Anonymous - Mar 5, 2005 at 11:57 PM

    Unless Coles’ toe falls off next seaoson, we got absolutely raped on this deal. And I’m terrified that we’re going to overpay Moss and overpay big.

  12. Anonymous - Mar 6, 2005 at 3:57 AM

    Unless Coles’ toe falls off next seaoson, we got absolutely raped on this deal. And I’m terrified that we’re going to overpay Moss and overpay big.

  13. FredSoewito - Mar 6, 2005 at 12:58 AM

    Let’s hope the Redskins’ management learns another expensive lesson. We still have a couple more expensive lessons to be learned in the roster (Brunell comes to mind).

    Randy Thomas said it right. Cole’s does not want to be a Redskins. Let him go. The Patriots has already shown that you dont need a group of superstars to win the SuperBowl.

  14. FredSoewito - Mar 6, 2005 at 12:58 AM

    Let’s hope the Redskins’ management learns another expensive lesson. We still have a couple more expensive lessons to be learned in the roster (Brunell comes to mind).

    Randy Thomas said it right. Cole’s does not want to be a Redskins. Let him go. The Patriots has already shown that you dont need a group of superstars to win the SuperBowl.

  15. FredSoewito - Mar 6, 2005 at 4:58 AM

    Let’s hope the Redskins’ management learns another expensive lesson. We still have a couple more expensive lessons to be learned in the roster (Brunell comes to mind).

    Randy Thomas said it right. Cole’s does not want to be a Redskins. Let him go. The Patriots has already shown that you dont need a group of superstars to win the SuperBowl.

  16. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:17 PM

    Goodbye, and good riddance.

    Hey, I was a major fan of Coles – I even bought his jersey and wore it proudly. (On a side note, anyone want a good deal on a nice Coles jersey? I will even wash it!)

    I do think he played hard – he made some amazing catches and was remarkably tough. I remember his dislocated finger against Dallas on MNF last year – he dislocated it, popped it back in, and kept playing. And we all remember the hit he took from Ray Lewis this past year.

    But if the attitude is a problem, and it clearly is, then goodbye and good riddance. I don’t want anyone on the field who doesn’t bleed burgandy and gold.

    In the final analysis, the toe must be the key. Not to parrot Rich here, but the Skins must know something. Let’s hope the Jets get stuck with a big deal and a bum receiver.

    Guess it’s not the shoes. Must be the toe.

  17. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:17 PM

    Goodbye, and good riddance.

    Hey, I was a major fan of Coles – I even bought his jersey and wore it proudly. (On a side note, anyone want a good deal on a nice Coles jersey? I will even wash it!)

    I do think he played hard – he made some amazing catches and was remarkably tough. I remember his dislocated finger against Dallas on MNF last year – he dislocated it, popped it back in, and kept playing. And we all remember the hit he took from Ray Lewis this past year.

    But if the attitude is a problem, and it clearly is, then goodbye and good riddance. I don’t want anyone on the field who doesn’t bleed burgandy and gold.

    In the final analysis, the toe must be the key. Not to parrot Rich here, but the Skins must know something. Let’s hope the Jets get stuck with a big deal and a bum receiver.

    Guess it’s not the shoes. Must be the toe.

  18. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 5:17 PM

    Goodbye, and good riddance.

    Hey, I was a major fan of Coles – I even bought his jersey and wore it proudly. (On a side note, anyone want a good deal on a nice Coles jersey? I will even wash it!)

    I do think he played hard – he made some amazing catches and was remarkably tough. I remember his dislocated finger against Dallas on MNF last year – he dislocated it, popped it back in, and kept playing. And we all remember the hit he took from Ray Lewis this past year.

    But if the attitude is a problem, and it clearly is, then goodbye and good riddance. I don’t want anyone on the field who doesn’t bleed burgandy and gold.

    In the final analysis, the toe must be the key. Not to parrot Rich here, but the Skins must know something. Let’s hope the Jets get stuck with a big deal and a bum receiver.

    Guess it’s not the shoes. Must be the toe.

  19. Andrew - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:26 PM

    I ,for one, am sorry to see him go. I just hope Gibbs knows what he’s doing.

  20. Andrew - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:26 PM

    I ,for one, am sorry to see him go. I just hope Gibbs knows what he’s doing.

  21. Andrew - Mar 6, 2005 at 5:26 PM

    I ,for one, am sorry to see him go. I just hope Gibbs knows what he’s doing.

  22. Doug - Mar 6, 2005 at 3:18 PM

    I can’t be sorry to see anyone go who doesn’t want to be here.

    This trade would not have happened if Coles hadn’t wanted it.

    And, really, does anyone here believe Joe Gibbs doesn’t know what he is doing?

  23. Doug - Mar 6, 2005 at 3:18 PM

    I can’t be sorry to see anyone go who doesn’t want to be here.

    This trade would not have happened if Coles hadn’t wanted it.

    And, really, does anyone here believe Joe Gibbs doesn’t know what he is doing?

  24. Doug - Mar 6, 2005 at 7:18 PM

    I can’t be sorry to see anyone go who doesn’t want to be here.

    This trade would not have happened if Coles hadn’t wanted it.

    And, really, does anyone here believe Joe Gibbs doesn’t know what he is doing?

  25. Anonymous - Mar 6, 2005 at 7:18 PM

    Rich,

    Coles played Snyder and the Skins like a violin. Do the words “I’d like to see how they spin this one” mean anything. Coles has 10 ypc because there is no quarterback playing for the Skins. Whats the guys name anyway? Gibbs doesn’t want that guy throwing the ball anywhere ‘unsafe’ on the filed.

    Coles felt burnt after the promises of excellent offense by Spurrier/Snyder and voiced his opinion. He held up his end of the bargin and he’s calling out the guy he made a deal with(Snyder). So the best answer Snyder can come up with is to lose more money and pretend that his monmental failed deals (in this case 2002, see chad morton, spurrier, and R. thomas as well) dont exist.

    Well lets see how Danny Boy spins this one. However, dont bring up the toe in less you want to speak about my ass.

    Regards,

    the guy who didn’t have time to register for the blog

  26. Anonymous - Mar 6, 2005 at 7:18 PM

    Rich,

    Coles played Snyder and the Skins like a violin. Do the words “I’d like to see how they spin this one” mean anything. Coles has 10 ypc because there is no quarterback playing for the Skins. Whats the guys name anyway? Gibbs doesn’t want that guy throwing the ball anywhere ‘unsafe’ on the filed.

    Coles felt burnt after the promises of excellent offense by Spurrier/Snyder and voiced his opinion. He held up his end of the bargin and he’s calling out the guy he made a deal with(Snyder). So the best answer Snyder can come up with is to lose more money and pretend that his monmental failed deals (in this case 2002, see chad morton, spurrier, and R. thomas as well) dont exist.

    Well lets see how Danny Boy spins this one. However, dont bring up the toe in less you want to speak about my ass.

    Regards,

    the guy who didn’t have time to register for the blog

  27. Anonymous - Mar 6, 2005 at 11:18 PM

    Rich,

    Coles played Snyder and the Skins like a violin. Do the words “I’d like to see how they spin this one” mean anything. Coles has 10 ypc because there is no quarterback playing for the Skins. Whats the guys name anyway? Gibbs doesn’t want that guy throwing the ball anywhere ‘unsafe’ on the filed.

    Coles felt burnt after the promises of excellent offense by Spurrier/Snyder and voiced his opinion. He held up his end of the bargin and he’s calling out the guy he made a deal with(Snyder). So the best answer Snyder can come up with is to lose more money and pretend that his monmental failed deals (in this case 2002, see chad morton, spurrier, and R. thomas as well) dont exist.

    Well lets see how Danny Boy spins this one. However, dont bring up the toe in less you want to speak about my ass.

    Regards,

    the guy who didn’t have time to register for the blog

  28. Rich Tandler - Mar 6, 2005 at 7:50 PM

    Yeah, anon, the Skins really pulled the rug out from under old LC, didn’t they? They took away a college coach who may have been able to design an decent NFL offense if he didn’t have to make a 5 O’clock tee time twice a week. And in his place–how silly of Danny–they put in a Hall of Fame coach whose offense got one receiver to be an annual HOF finalist, another in Clark just out of Hall status and number of other productive receivers like Sanders and Brown.

    And LC is willing to give him just one year to get things fixed? Wow, that’s some kind of professional there. Way to take the money and run.

    He held up his end of the bargain? You don’t think that there is some element of “shut up and play” when you’re cut a $13 million check?

    Not sure what you mean by the toe and the ass thing, but the picture is disturbing.

    Thanks for your comments.

  29. Rich Tandler - Mar 6, 2005 at 7:50 PM

    Yeah, anon, the Skins really pulled the rug out from under old LC, didn’t they? They took away a college coach who may have been able to design an decent NFL offense if he didn’t have to make a 5 O’clock tee time twice a week. And in his place–how silly of Danny–they put in a Hall of Fame coach whose offense got one receiver to be an annual HOF finalist, another in Clark just out of Hall status and number of other productive receivers like Sanders and Brown.

    And LC is willing to give him just one year to get things fixed? Wow, that’s some kind of professional there. Way to take the money and run.

    He held up his end of the bargain? You don’t think that there is some element of “shut up and play” when you’re cut a $13 million check?

    Not sure what you mean by the toe and the ass thing, but the picture is disturbing.

    Thanks for your comments.

  30. Rich Tandler - Mar 6, 2005 at 11:50 PM

    Yeah, anon, the Skins really pulled the rug out from under old LC, didn’t they? They took away a college coach who may have been able to design an decent NFL offense if he didn’t have to make a 5 O’clock tee time twice a week. And in his place–how silly of Danny–they put in a Hall of Fame coach whose offense got one receiver to be an annual HOF finalist, another in Clark just out of Hall status and number of other productive receivers like Sanders and Brown.

    And LC is willing to give him just one year to get things fixed? Wow, that’s some kind of professional there. Way to take the money and run.

    He held up his end of the bargain? You don’t think that there is some element of “shut up and play” when you’re cut a $13 million check?

    Not sure what you mean by the toe and the ass thing, but the picture is disturbing.

    Thanks for your comments.

  31. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 8:37 PM

    Clearly, the Anonymous poster is a Dallas Cowgirls fan…

  32. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 8:37 PM

    Clearly, the Anonymous poster is a Dallas Cowgirls fan…

  33. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:37 AM

    Clearly, the Anonymous poster is a Dallas Cowgirls fan…

  34. Anonymous - Mar 6, 2005 at 9:05 PM

    I will address the ass comment first. In common American venacular, objection to theories, ideas or excuses stated in conversation can be met by the retort “my ass”. In essence I was trying to allude to you saying LC’s foot (as an excuse), my ass (as a response).

    That being said Gibbs is a great pick up and probably the second best (career)coach working today. How long will it take for him to get things turned around? we dont know. Does current management of this organization have a track record of fixing problems? Snyder sold Coles and the Skins fans on a quick fix… instant gratification solution to the organizations woes. It failed miserabley, again. LC did not make a deal with Joe Gibbs, he made a Deal with Dan Snyder on a quick fix basis. Now Gibbs comes into the picture and actually wants to do it right. LC objects he has just spent 15% of his career in what has been one of the biggest fiascos in NFL history and doesnt want to waste any more time with this organization.

    Long and short if you want to play the roster game with giant instant gratification signing bonus dollars, promise excellence and deliver crap, don’t be suprised if the sword has two edges to it. When making a deal there is no such thing as shutting your mouth and rolling over for more abuse. If your promised something and you dont get it, be a pro and get what the bastard who let you down offered you. No Mercy, thats a pros do. Shut up and take is for the weak.

  35. Anonymous - Mar 6, 2005 at 9:05 PM

    I will address the ass comment first. In common American venacular, objection to theories, ideas or excuses stated in conversation can be met by the retort “my ass”. In essence I was trying to allude to you saying LC’s foot (as an excuse), my ass (as a response).

    That being said Gibbs is a great pick up and probably the second best (career)coach working today. How long will it take for him to get things turned around? we dont know. Does current management of this organization have a track record of fixing problems? Snyder sold Coles and the Skins fans on a quick fix… instant gratification solution to the organizations woes. It failed miserabley, again. LC did not make a deal with Joe Gibbs, he made a Deal with Dan Snyder on a quick fix basis. Now Gibbs comes into the picture and actually wants to do it right. LC objects he has just spent 15% of his career in what has been one of the biggest fiascos in NFL history and doesnt want to waste any more time with this organization.

    Long and short if you want to play the roster game with giant instant gratification signing bonus dollars, promise excellence and deliver crap, don’t be suprised if the sword has two edges to it. When making a deal there is no such thing as shutting your mouth and rolling over for more abuse. If your promised something and you dont get it, be a pro and get what the bastard who let you down offered you. No Mercy, thats a pros do. Shut up and take is for the weak.

  36. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:05 AM

    I will address the ass comment first. In common American venacular, objection to theories, ideas or excuses stated in conversation can be met by the retort “my ass”. In essence I was trying to allude to you saying LC’s foot (as an excuse), my ass (as a response).

    That being said Gibbs is a great pick up and probably the second best (career)coach working today. How long will it take for him to get things turned around? we dont know. Does current management of this organization have a track record of fixing problems? Snyder sold Coles and the Skins fans on a quick fix… instant gratification solution to the organizations woes. It failed miserabley, again. LC did not make a deal with Joe Gibbs, he made a Deal with Dan Snyder on a quick fix basis. Now Gibbs comes into the picture and actually wants to do it right. LC objects he has just spent 15% of his career in what has been one of the biggest fiascos in NFL history and doesnt want to waste any more time with this organization.

    Long and short if you want to play the roster game with giant instant gratification signing bonus dollars, promise excellence and deliver crap, don’t be suprised if the sword has two edges to it. When making a deal there is no such thing as shutting your mouth and rolling over for more abuse. If your promised something and you dont get it, be a pro and get what the bastard who let you down offered you. No Mercy, thats a pros do. Shut up and take is for the weak.

  37. Rich Tandler - Mar 6, 2005 at 9:48 PM

    I don’t recall Gibbs or Snyder or anyone else saying that bringing on Gibbs was a “quick fix”. I suppose you have such a quote handy?

    If you had any idea what you were talking about, anon, I might go on.

  38. Rich Tandler - Mar 6, 2005 at 9:48 PM

    I don’t recall Gibbs or Snyder or anyone else saying that bringing on Gibbs was a “quick fix”. I suppose you have such a quote handy?

    If you had any idea what you were talking about, anon, I might go on.

  39. Rich Tandler - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:48 AM

    I don’t recall Gibbs or Snyder or anyone else saying that bringing on Gibbs was a “quick fix”. I suppose you have such a quote handy?

    If you had any idea what you were talking about, anon, I might go on.

  40. mbarnes202 - Mar 6, 2005 at 9:57 PM

    Rich,
    I’m not sure I follow some of the threads here, but I will add my 2-cents on why we let Coles go. As you know from my previous rants, I think this is a horrible move– it may work out in the end, but the odds are against it. A good season from Moss is playing in all 16 games … and for us to give up a guy we paid $13 MM and a 1st rounder to get, factoring in Moss is under contract for only 1 more year, is just, well, I can’t understand it.
    Here’s my 2-cents. Vinny and Danny talk shop all the time; Danny often talks poorly of Schottenheimer, and now talks poorly of everything the man did, including drafting Gardner instead of Moss. He covets Moss. Vinny, who has no strong opinion, has never really countered Danny on this … “yeah, you’re right” kind of thing. Well, now ff to 2005, and the Jets dangle Moss for Coles. Danny, who never really has understood the salary cap perfectly well, sees a guy with a toe issue for a guy he’s always coveted — a no brainer. He views the $13MM SB as a sunk cost, it’s not included in his mental calculus at this point. Vinny, who has never before poured cold water on Danny by saying something like, “well, Moss is one good hit from Brian Dawkins or Roy Williams from a broken collarbone,” at this point can’t raise a fuss, so he signs off on the deal.
    Gibbs maybe realizes something is not right here in this deal, and can’t imagine Moss is all we can get, nevertheless defers to the front office on current NFL players … so he also agrees.
    What a horrible deal, but I sure would be happy to be proven wrong. What’s next, Chris Samuels in 2 years will complain he’s not on the field enough (too many 3-and-outs) and will demand his outright release– so he can play for the Eagles. They’ll offer up Shawn Andrews, with one year left on his deal, and the front office will say “Andrews is a Road Grader- *perfect* for our offense.” We’ll eat the remainder of Samuels’ contract, Andrews will bolt for FA after one year, and the cycle will continue.
    Ugh.

  41. mbarnes202 - Mar 6, 2005 at 9:57 PM

    Rich,
    I’m not sure I follow some of the threads here, but I will add my 2-cents on why we let Coles go. As you know from my previous rants, I think this is a horrible move– it may work out in the end, but the odds are against it. A good season from Moss is playing in all 16 games … and for us to give up a guy we paid $13 MM and a 1st rounder to get, factoring in Moss is under contract for only 1 more year, is just, well, I can’t understand it.
    Here’s my 2-cents. Vinny and Danny talk shop all the time; Danny often talks poorly of Schottenheimer, and now talks poorly of everything the man did, including drafting Gardner instead of Moss. He covets Moss. Vinny, who has no strong opinion, has never really countered Danny on this … “yeah, you’re right” kind of thing. Well, now ff to 2005, and the Jets dangle Moss for Coles. Danny, who never really has understood the salary cap perfectly well, sees a guy with a toe issue for a guy he’s always coveted — a no brainer. He views the $13MM SB as a sunk cost, it’s not included in his mental calculus at this point. Vinny, who has never before poured cold water on Danny by saying something like, “well, Moss is one good hit from Brian Dawkins or Roy Williams from a broken collarbone,” at this point can’t raise a fuss, so he signs off on the deal.
    Gibbs maybe realizes something is not right here in this deal, and can’t imagine Moss is all we can get, nevertheless defers to the front office on current NFL players … so he also agrees.
    What a horrible deal, but I sure would be happy to be proven wrong. What’s next, Chris Samuels in 2 years will complain he’s not on the field enough (too many 3-and-outs) and will demand his outright release– so he can play for the Eagles. They’ll offer up Shawn Andrews, with one year left on his deal, and the front office will say “Andrews is a Road Grader- *perfect* for our offense.” We’ll eat the remainder of Samuels’ contract, Andrews will bolt for FA after one year, and the cycle will continue.
    Ugh.

  42. mbarnes202 - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:57 AM

    Rich,
    I’m not sure I follow some of the threads here, but I will add my 2-cents on why we let Coles go. As you know from my previous rants, I think this is a horrible move– it may work out in the end, but the odds are against it. A good season from Moss is playing in all 16 games … and for us to give up a guy we paid $13 MM and a 1st rounder to get, factoring in Moss is under contract for only 1 more year, is just, well, I can’t understand it.
    Here’s my 2-cents. Vinny and Danny talk shop all the time; Danny often talks poorly of Schottenheimer, and now talks poorly of everything the man did, including drafting Gardner instead of Moss. He covets Moss. Vinny, who has no strong opinion, has never really countered Danny on this … “yeah, you’re right” kind of thing. Well, now ff to 2005, and the Jets dangle Moss for Coles. Danny, who never really has understood the salary cap perfectly well, sees a guy with a toe issue for a guy he’s always coveted — a no brainer. He views the $13MM SB as a sunk cost, it’s not included in his mental calculus at this point. Vinny, who has never before poured cold water on Danny by saying something like, “well, Moss is one good hit from Brian Dawkins or Roy Williams from a broken collarbone,” at this point can’t raise a fuss, so he signs off on the deal.
    Gibbs maybe realizes something is not right here in this deal, and can’t imagine Moss is all we can get, nevertheless defers to the front office on current NFL players … so he also agrees.
    What a horrible deal, but I sure would be happy to be proven wrong. What’s next, Chris Samuels in 2 years will complain he’s not on the field enough (too many 3-and-outs) and will demand his outright release– so he can play for the Eagles. They’ll offer up Shawn Andrews, with one year left on his deal, and the front office will say “Andrews is a Road Grader- *perfect* for our offense.” We’ll eat the remainder of Samuels’ contract, Andrews will bolt for FA after one year, and the cycle will continue.
    Ugh.

  43. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:10 AM

    Wow, what a lot of nonsense! The Coles/Moss deal is just fine for the Redskins. Coles was unhappy here and said so. Gibbs was willing to let him go, but, gee whiz, wanted something in return. He could have just released him, in which case Coles was willing to let us slide on the $5M he was due April 1. But, obviously, there were no other free agent WR’s the Redskins were interested in. So, they trade for Moss, who only caught 45 balls at 18 yards per catch last year. Oh, the poor Redskins, to have to get a guy who wants to be here with such a yards-per-catch rate, instead of a disgruntled dude with a bad toe who, hopefully will pass his physical tomorrow so the Jets can have him.

    And the junk from Anon, it’s just that. I agree, he must be a Dallas Cowgirls fan.

  44. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:10 AM

    Wow, what a lot of nonsense! The Coles/Moss deal is just fine for the Redskins. Coles was unhappy here and said so. Gibbs was willing to let him go, but, gee whiz, wanted something in return. He could have just released him, in which case Coles was willing to let us slide on the $5M he was due April 1. But, obviously, there were no other free agent WR’s the Redskins were interested in. So, they trade for Moss, who only caught 45 balls at 18 yards per catch last year. Oh, the poor Redskins, to have to get a guy who wants to be here with such a yards-per-catch rate, instead of a disgruntled dude with a bad toe who, hopefully will pass his physical tomorrow so the Jets can have him.

    And the junk from Anon, it’s just that. I agree, he must be a Dallas Cowgirls fan.

  45. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:10 PM

    Wow, what a lot of nonsense! The Coles/Moss deal is just fine for the Redskins. Coles was unhappy here and said so. Gibbs was willing to let him go, but, gee whiz, wanted something in return. He could have just released him, in which case Coles was willing to let us slide on the $5M he was due April 1. But, obviously, there were no other free agent WR’s the Redskins were interested in. So, they trade for Moss, who only caught 45 balls at 18 yards per catch last year. Oh, the poor Redskins, to have to get a guy who wants to be here with such a yards-per-catch rate, instead of a disgruntled dude with a bad toe who, hopefully will pass his physical tomorrow so the Jets can have him.

    And the junk from Anon, it’s just that. I agree, he must be a Dallas Cowgirls fan.

  46. mbarnes202 - Mar 7, 2005 at 10:43 AM

    Doug,
    I clearly need to write more succinctly. How’s this: I don’t think we got “good value” for Coles.
    Many media outlets reported that other teams were also interested in Coles; is Moss with 1 year left on his contract a better value than, say, the ‘Vikes 2nd pick in the first round? How about Baltimore’s first round pick?

  47. mbarnes202 - Mar 7, 2005 at 10:43 AM

    Doug,
    I clearly need to write more succinctly. How’s this: I don’t think we got “good value” for Coles.
    Many media outlets reported that other teams were also interested in Coles; is Moss with 1 year left on his contract a better value than, say, the ‘Vikes 2nd pick in the first round? How about Baltimore’s first round pick?

  48. mbarnes202 - Mar 7, 2005 at 2:43 PM

    Doug,
    I clearly need to write more succinctly. How’s this: I don’t think we got “good value” for Coles.
    Many media outlets reported that other teams were also interested in Coles; is Moss with 1 year left on his contract a better value than, say, the ‘Vikes 2nd pick in the first round? How about Baltimore’s first round pick?

  49. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:18 PM

    Only time will tell how bad this deal turns out to be. But, looking at next year, I would say we have more speed at WR than we have had in a very very long time. Not that speed is the only important thing for a WR(e.g. Calvin Muhammed, Ron Brown), but when you look at last year’s offense, the single most significant problem, was the inability to get the ball deep which resulted in ALL opposing defenses playing their safeties up, resulting in a less effective Clinton Portis. When we did try to go deep it was not very often that someone was open. Assuming that our current receivers have the right attitude, and work hard, and get the right coaching, it is POSSIBLE that we may see less safeties in the box, which could be very very good news for Mr. Clinton Portis. A stretched field would be a very nice thing to see for once. Just a possibility. May never happen, and I’m not necessarily betting on it, but its all I got.

  50. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:18 PM

    Only time will tell how bad this deal turns out to be. But, looking at next year, I would say we have more speed at WR than we have had in a very very long time. Not that speed is the only important thing for a WR(e.g. Calvin Muhammed, Ron Brown), but when you look at last year’s offense, the single most significant problem, was the inability to get the ball deep which resulted in ALL opposing defenses playing their safeties up, resulting in a less effective Clinton Portis. When we did try to go deep it was not very often that someone was open. Assuming that our current receivers have the right attitude, and work hard, and get the right coaching, it is POSSIBLE that we may see less safeties in the box, which could be very very good news for Mr. Clinton Portis. A stretched field would be a very nice thing to see for once. Just a possibility. May never happen, and I’m not necessarily betting on it, but its all I got.

  51. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 5:18 PM

    Only time will tell how bad this deal turns out to be. But, looking at next year, I would say we have more speed at WR than we have had in a very very long time. Not that speed is the only important thing for a WR(e.g. Calvin Muhammed, Ron Brown), but when you look at last year’s offense, the single most significant problem, was the inability to get the ball deep which resulted in ALL opposing defenses playing their safeties up, resulting in a less effective Clinton Portis. When we did try to go deep it was not very often that someone was open. Assuming that our current receivers have the right attitude, and work hard, and get the right coaching, it is POSSIBLE that we may see less safeties in the box, which could be very very good news for Mr. Clinton Portis. A stretched field would be a very nice thing to see for once. Just a possibility. May never happen, and I’m not necessarily betting on it, but its all I got.

  52. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:42 PM

    Mbarnes, I don’t know the answer to your question. However, the Redskins now have 2 speedy wide receivers (Patten and Moss) and two solid possession receivers (Thrash and Jacobs). I don’t know where McCants will fit in, if at all, but I am very pleased with the current state of the Redskins. I don’t see a serious deficiency anywhere on the roster.

    Gibbs has done exactly what he said he wanted to do: Attend to the team’s needs in free agency, and go into the draft able to take the best football player available.

    I may be able to answer your question about midway through next season. Until then, I believe the Redskins did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. And if you want to say they dealt it to themselves, that’s fine.

  53. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:42 PM

    Mbarnes, I don’t know the answer to your question. However, the Redskins now have 2 speedy wide receivers (Patten and Moss) and two solid possession receivers (Thrash and Jacobs). I don’t know where McCants will fit in, if at all, but I am very pleased with the current state of the Redskins. I don’t see a serious deficiency anywhere on the roster.

    Gibbs has done exactly what he said he wanted to do: Attend to the team’s needs in free agency, and go into the draft able to take the best football player available.

    I may be able to answer your question about midway through next season. Until then, I believe the Redskins did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. And if you want to say they dealt it to themselves, that’s fine.

  54. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 5:42 PM

    Mbarnes, I don’t know the answer to your question. However, the Redskins now have 2 speedy wide receivers (Patten and Moss) and two solid possession receivers (Thrash and Jacobs). I don’t know where McCants will fit in, if at all, but I am very pleased with the current state of the Redskins. I don’t see a serious deficiency anywhere on the roster.

    Gibbs has done exactly what he said he wanted to do: Attend to the team’s needs in free agency, and go into the draft able to take the best football player available.

    I may be able to answer your question about midway through next season. Until then, I believe the Redskins did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. And if you want to say they dealt it to themselves, that’s fine.

  55. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 2:06 PM

    Here are some comments about the Redkins moves thus far this off-season:

    http://www.hailredskins.com/VisionQuest.htm

  56. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 2:06 PM

    Here are some comments about the Redkins moves thus far this off-season:

    http://www.hailredskins.com/VisionQuest.htm

  57. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 6:06 PM

    Here are some comments about the Redkins moves thus far this off-season:

    http://www.hailredskins.com/VisionQuest.htm

  58. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:19 PM

    We would have been better off as a team had we simply cut Coles and gotten the five mil back. Here’s why:

    We could have signed Smoot and Pierce if we wanted to, still signed Patten, and either drafted a receiver or signed Plaxico Burress to a contract smaller than the contract we have to give to any receiver we draft at nine and most likely smaller than we’re going to give the far less productive Santana Moss. On a side not, why are we supposedly going to give Moss a big deal again?

    Now, if we lose Smoot, I think we should just sign Plaxico and draft a corner at nine. That’s a whole lot smarter than drafting Mike Williams, paying him more than we would have to pay Plaxico, and relying on Harris and Wilds at corner.

    But it will never happen. We will lose Smoot and the Giants are going to sign Plaxico. Everybody else in the NFC East is getting tougher and we are getting worse. On paper at least.

    How anyone can possibly argue that we don’t need a GM is beyond me.

  59. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:19 PM

    We would have been better off as a team had we simply cut Coles and gotten the five mil back. Here’s why:

    We could have signed Smoot and Pierce if we wanted to, still signed Patten, and either drafted a receiver or signed Plaxico Burress to a contract smaller than the contract we have to give to any receiver we draft at nine and most likely smaller than we’re going to give the far less productive Santana Moss. On a side not, why are we supposedly going to give Moss a big deal again?

    Now, if we lose Smoot, I think we should just sign Plaxico and draft a corner at nine. That’s a whole lot smarter than drafting Mike Williams, paying him more than we would have to pay Plaxico, and relying on Harris and Wilds at corner.

    But it will never happen. We will lose Smoot and the Giants are going to sign Plaxico. Everybody else in the NFC East is getting tougher and we are getting worse. On paper at least.

    How anyone can possibly argue that we don’t need a GM is beyond me.

  60. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 7:19 PM

    We would have been better off as a team had we simply cut Coles and gotten the five mil back. Here’s why:

    We could have signed Smoot and Pierce if we wanted to, still signed Patten, and either drafted a receiver or signed Plaxico Burress to a contract smaller than the contract we have to give to any receiver we draft at nine and most likely smaller than we’re going to give the far less productive Santana Moss. On a side not, why are we supposedly going to give Moss a big deal again?

    Now, if we lose Smoot, I think we should just sign Plaxico and draft a corner at nine. That’s a whole lot smarter than drafting Mike Williams, paying him more than we would have to pay Plaxico, and relying on Harris and Wilds at corner.

    But it will never happen. We will lose Smoot and the Giants are going to sign Plaxico. Everybody else in the NFC East is getting tougher and we are getting worse. On paper at least.

    How anyone can possibly argue that we don’t need a GM is beyond me.

  61. oneampoet - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:35 PM

    I definitely agree Anon is a Cowgirl

    He also has some of the worst use of grammar I have ever seen. How can one use the phrase “American vernacular” and then butcher the language so atrociously.

    For my 1 cent (anyone notice that the cent key is no longer on the computer), I think you really have to judge this from the perspective of what they could do given their situation now, and that was 1) Drop Coles and get nothing in return, which would be dumb 2) Get a speed receiver for him, take the cap hit now and move on or 3) Keep an unhappy player around for one more year just to face the same problem next season. Of those choices I think they did the best they could.

    As a skins fan since birth I have no illusions that we are going to contend for the Super Bowl next year…but it would be nice to have a chance at .500. I personally like the feel of this free agency a lot better than any year I can remember since Danny took over.

    If we can possibly sign Smoot, and just get through the draft without a Heath, Michael, or Desmond I would be feeling good for the future.

  62. oneampoet - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:35 PM

    I definitely agree Anon is a Cowgirl

    He also has some of the worst use of grammar I have ever seen. How can one use the phrase “American vernacular” and then butcher the language so atrociously.

    For my 1 cent (anyone notice that the cent key is no longer on the computer), I think you really have to judge this from the perspective of what they could do given their situation now, and that was 1) Drop Coles and get nothing in return, which would be dumb 2) Get a speed receiver for him, take the cap hit now and move on or 3) Keep an unhappy player around for one more year just to face the same problem next season. Of those choices I think they did the best they could.

    As a skins fan since birth I have no illusions that we are going to contend for the Super Bowl next year…but it would be nice to have a chance at .500. I personally like the feel of this free agency a lot better than any year I can remember since Danny took over.

    If we can possibly sign Smoot, and just get through the draft without a Heath, Michael, or Desmond I would be feeling good for the future.

  63. oneampoet - Mar 7, 2005 at 7:35 PM

    I definitely agree Anon is a Cowgirl

    He also has some of the worst use of grammar I have ever seen. How can one use the phrase “American vernacular” and then butcher the language so atrociously.

    For my 1 cent (anyone notice that the cent key is no longer on the computer), I think you really have to judge this from the perspective of what they could do given their situation now, and that was 1) Drop Coles and get nothing in return, which would be dumb 2) Get a speed receiver for him, take the cap hit now and move on or 3) Keep an unhappy player around for one more year just to face the same problem next season. Of those choices I think they did the best they could.

    As a skins fan since birth I have no illusions that we are going to contend for the Super Bowl next year…but it would be nice to have a chance at .500. I personally like the feel of this free agency a lot better than any year I can remember since Danny took over.

    If we can possibly sign Smoot, and just get through the draft without a Heath, Michael, or Desmond I would be feeling good for the future.

  64. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 11:50 PM

    Cutting Coles would not have solved any problems, because, from what I’ve read and heard on the radio, Coles was not going to give back any part of the bonus. Coles was bargaining from a position of strength, knowing that the Redskins didn’t want his bad toe and bad attitude. All that had to happen to make the deal was for Coles to work out a new contract with the Jets.

  65. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 11:50 PM

    Cutting Coles would not have solved any problems, because, from what I’ve read and heard on the radio, Coles was not going to give back any part of the bonus. Coles was bargaining from a position of strength, knowing that the Redskins didn’t want his bad toe and bad attitude. All that had to happen to make the deal was for Coles to work out a new contract with the Jets.

  66. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:50 AM

    Cutting Coles would not have solved any problems, because, from what I’ve read and heard on the radio, Coles was not going to give back any part of the bonus. Coles was bargaining from a position of strength, knowing that the Redskins didn’t want his bad toe and bad attitude. All that had to happen to make the deal was for Coles to work out a new contract with the Jets.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter