Kelly Washington: Ready for the Big time?

[fumbrunner]

I posted this on another thread, but thought I would start one on this topic.

Were any of you as impressed by this guy's work ethic on STs this year? Almost every ST highlight worth mentioning had Kelly all over it.

What are the chances that he is the next starting outside WR on this team, assuming Stallworth is done, of course. Gaffney is great in multiple WR sets, but I really think we need a tall deep threat receiver to stop teams doubling up on Moss.

Thoughts?

 

[Rob0729]

I think the Pats are hoping Chad Jackson and not Kelly Washington is starting outside at least in 3 WR sets (assuming Welker and Moss are the starters in 2 WR sets). The fact that Washington didn't take any snaps on offense during the regular season or at least next to no snaps tells me that Washington may not have a future with the Pats unless he seriously redoes his deal. Even if he redoes his deal, I am guessing he will still see limited time on offense.

If we was good enough to compete for a starting job, he would have gotten some offensive reps this season. Logan Mankins caught more passes from Brady this year than Washington. I don't see him fighting for a starting job. At best, he might see the field as a fourth or fifth WR next year.

 

[pheenix11]

I like this guy, he was great on Special Teams.

I hope they keep him and Gaffney who has turned into Troy Brown II for me.

 

[fumbrunner]

I think the Pats are hoping Chad Jackson and not Kelly Washington is starting outside at least in 3 WR sets (assuming Welker and Moss are the starters in 2 WR sets).

I'm sure the Pats are still hoping for Chad Jackson to emerge. I'm not so sure he will.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I'm sure the Pats are still hoping for Chad Jackson to emerge. I'm not so sure he will.

I agree with your premise about Kelly Washington, he was great on ST all year and certainly deserves the chance to get some snaps on offense.

That said, the only way for us to know what we have in Chad Jackson is for him to get the chance to be a featured part of this offense. I really would hate to look back and think that we wasted a second round pick on the guy. I still think he's got all the talent in the world, and if Stallworth is gone I want to see CJ get the first crack.

 

[mgteich]

Ventrone and Andrews certainly had highlights also, even Mitchell.

The issue is Washington's contract. I do agree with you, expecially with Andrews in substance abuse trouble. I belive we need to make a decision on Washington before free agency opens, and therefore before Moss and Gaffney are re-signed.

Moss, Gafney, Welker, Jackson and Washington.

I posted this on another thread, but thought I would start one on this topic.

Were any of you as impressed by this guy's work ethic on STs this year? Almost every ST highlight worth mentioning had Kelly all over it.

What are the chances that he is the next starting outside WR on this team, assuming Stallworth is done, of course. Gaffney is great in multiple WR sets, but I really think we need a tall deep threat receiver to stop teams doubling up on Moss.

Thoughts?

 

[satz]

BB in a few interviews did mention kelly washington is good WR but due to the presence of stallworth ,wes and moss could not get a chance.

if he works out he can replace gaffney / st role and at 4 million is cheap.

 

[ayjackson]

I don't think Washington will play under his current contract. He will restructure or be cut. It's not an expensive contract when compared to Donte's, but we could still save some valuable $$$ by reworking it. That said, if the team intends to bring back Moss and Gaffney, I'm not sure they'll bring back Washington. It all depends on how much money he wants to be a ST player and #4-5 receiver.

At this point, I think Moss, Gaffney, Welker, Jackson and Childress/Brown/Draftee will be the way we go.

 

[marty]

I think Washington did a great job on ST and hopefully will earn some snaps next year. From all reports, he's got the right attitude and work ethic.

 

[mgteich]

You would go into free agency with Welker and Jackson as our receivers signed to contracts?? IMHO, that sir is nuts! If you want to price Washington as a #4/#5 and Ster, we can, after we cut him and he shops around. BTW, Gaffney would be foolish not to shop around. Ditto for Stallworth, if we don't exercise his option. The point of options is as payment for NOT shopping around. The choice is 100% in the patriot's court on both Stallworth and Washington. I would sign Washington and cut Stallworth.

I don't think Washington will play under his current contract. He will restructure or be cut. It's not an expensive contract when compared to Donte's, but we could still save some valuable $$$ by reworking it. That said, if the team intends to bring back Moss and Gaffney, I'm not sure they'll bring back Washington. It all depends on how much money he wants to be a ST player and #4-5 receiver.

At this point, I think Moss, Gaffney, Welker, Jackson and Childress/Brown/Draftee will be the way we go.

 

[pheenix11]

Yeah I'd sign Washington and cut Stallworth too UNLESS I thought we couldn't resign Moss, then I might keep Stallworth as my speedster.

 

[ayjackson]

You would go into free agency with Welker and Jackson as our receivers signed to contracts?? IMHO, that sir is nuts! If you want to price Washington as a #4/#5 and Ster, we can, after we cut him and he shops around. BTW, Gaffney would be foolish not to shop around. Ditto for Stallworth, if we don't exercise his option. The point of options is as payment for NOT shopping around. The choice is 100% in the patriot's court on both Stallworth and Washington. I would sign Washington and cut Stallworth.

So you'd go into FA with Welker, Jackson and Washington? Is that so much different than going into FA with just Welker and Jackson?? I don't think so. And for what it's worth, I said we would likely restructure Washinton's contract to reduce the cap hit somewhat. And I said I'd like to have Gaffney resigned too. So my suggestion was to go into FA with Welker, Jackson, Washington and Gaffney signed - and perhaps with a verbal agreement with Moss. It wouldn't be unheard of for Gaffney to not test the market. Other free agents have signed with us before because they thought the offer was fair enough, while not necessarily being the richest available.

 

[mgteich]

You are asking how its better to go into free agency with three receivers rather than two? Yes, believe that Washington and Gaffney will sign without testing the free agency markets? Why would they do such a thing?\

But sure, I'd also would like to go into the free agency period "with Welker, Jackson, Washington and Gaffney signed - and perhaps with a verbal agreement with Moss."

So you'd go into FA with Welker, Jackson and Washington? Is that so much different than going into FA with just Welker and Jackson?? I don't think so. And for what it's worth, I said we would likely restructure Washinton's contract to reduce the cap hit somewhat. And I said I'd like to have Gaffney resigned too. So my suggestion was to go into FA with Welker, Jackson, Washington and Gaffney signed - and perhaps with a verbal agreement with Moss. It wouldn't be unheard of for Gaffney to not test the market. Other free agents have signed with us before because they thought the offer was fair enough, while not necessarily being the richest available.

 

[ayjackson]

You are asking how its better to go into free agency with three receivers rather than two? Yes, believe that Washington and Gaffney will sign without testing the free agency markets? Why would they do such a thing?\

But sure, I'd also would like to go into the free agency period "with Welker, Jackson, Washington and Gaffney signed - and perhaps with a verbal agreement with Moss."

Better - I agree, but you labelled it "foolish" to go into FA without Washington in addition to Jackson and Welker. I just don't think that Washington is the difference between foolish and acceptable. That aside, my post was vague with reference to my preference. My main point was I think they will restructure Washington, or cut him, before they accept the original contract. Having said that, I'd like to have another look at that contract.