Garcon won’t need surgery after taking time to rest foot

Getty Images

Redskins wide receiver Pierre Garcon wasn’t sure if he needed foot surgery, but apparently won’t need it after all.

John Keim of the Washington Examiner reports that all Garcon needs at this point is more rest, after a toe problem limited his effectiveness early in the season.

Barring a setback, he’s expected to be back to 100 percent this offseason, now that he’s had a chance to rest.

Garcon was effective when he was on the field, and having healthy receiving threats will be more important than ever for the Redskins, if self-preservation kicks in for quarterback Robert Griffin III.

22 responses to “Garcon won’t need surgery after taking time to rest foot

  1. Top 3 WR in this sport, I don’t care what anyone says. He has a skillset that is so insanely great. He was CLUTCH with an annoying injury all season and now that he’s healthy and playing alongside the best QB in his career and in professional football, expect Pierre to break records and win Super Bowl championships.

  2. Given how “effective” rest and/or rehab usually proves to be when there’s doubt as to whether to have surgery, look for this to be a problem again in 2013.

    I hope I’m wrong for the Redskins’ sake.

  3. Lets indulge the maroon and gold fanatic with the oh-so-ironic screen name.
    If we say that Calvin and AJ Green are the 2 most talented WR’s in the league today, then by “logical”voice’s reasoning, Garcon is better than (in no particular order):

    Larry Fitz
    Brandon Marshall
    Greg Jennings/Jordy Nelson
    Hakeem Nicks/Victor Cruz
    Andre Johnson
    Demarius Thomas
    Dez Bryant
    Reggie Wayne
    Vincent Jackson
    Wes Welker
    Michael Crabtree
    Roddy White/Julio Jones
    Marques Colston
    Steve Smith
    Mike Wallace/Antonio Brown
    Santonio Holmes
    Anquon Boldin/Torrey Smith

    Stevie Johnson
    Randall Cobb,
    Brandon Lloyd
    Lance Moore
    Sidney Rice
    Malcolm Floyd

    The line shows about where he would fit in until further notice of him actually accomplishing a track record.

    Far too many keystrokes wasted on a complete lunatic in “logical”voice now.
    buh bye now

  4. Garçon was great last year when healthy. Seriously, using clutch and Garcon in the same sentence is a stretch. Let’s not forget his huge drop at the end of the first half at the Super Bowl. That likely touchdown would have made the onside kick irrelevant for the Saints. I think Manning might be just a little better QB too…

  5. As a Skins fan, I only ask that you not lump us in with LV. I assure you that most of us are not that illogical.

  6. die hard redskins fan, but if a skins fan think garcon is good and worth the money and that rg3 is a franchise qb, we are just fooling ourselves, we are the most mediocre team in the nfl, hail…………….well the way we are set up, our slogan should be fail!!!

  7. Should have gotten the surgery. It doesn’t matter where he ranks amongst receivers. All that matters is that the Skins were 5th in offense total yards and 4th in scoring. That was even without Garcon for 8 games.

  8. Garcon was solid and overall our receiving corps looked better than recent years. maybe a healthy Fred Davis would be the cure all but at this point I still want a prototypical #1 wide out. 6’3″ 227lbs with hands like Jerry Rice…

  9. I remember when we signed him thinking thats an awful lot of money for him. Then I heard pat kirwin on the radio saying he thought same thing til he talked to guys around the league and they all told him that garcon is one of the top up and comers in the game.

  10. If you didn’t watch the Redskins play every week, you can’t know anything about the impact Garcon had on the games he played. Redskins were 8-1 in games with Garcon in the lineup for a reason, its just too bad this injury will linger throughout his contract.

    If he can stay on the field all season, he’ll end up 1st or 2nd team all-pro next season.

  11. Not a question if he is important to team. Its about him being top 3. You dont have to watch every snap of every game. He did play for Indy for years. Plus if you can’t stay healthy you can’t be All-Pro. Not his fault, I get it. Posts about RG3 being better now than Manning is nuts. He can be in 12 more productive seasons, but that’s a big what if. Garcon’s numbers in Washington also a huge product of offensive system. He is good. He is NFL, but look at list up further on page. Its well written on where Garcon falls.

  12. freepretzels says: Feb 19, 2013 3:01 PM

    Well, we know his hands are well rested. Every Skins game I saw, he was dropping easy passes.
    Are you sure you weren’t focused on your free pretzels instead of the game? (Not even making fun, free pretzels sound awesome right about now) Seriously though, Garcon had two drops on the entire year. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Granted, he only played 8 1/2 games but still, two drops is very impressive. This may well be the first time in NFL history that an overly generous paycheck actually improved a player’s performance, but Garcon was nothing but clutch for Washington this year.

  13. What difference does it makes where he ranks among the top receivers in the NFL? All that matters is how he helps the skins offense and the connection he has with his current QB RG3. It’s obvious the skins offense is different with him in the line up.

  14. thesmartestmanever says: Feb 20, 2013 2:21 AM

    1. Garcon was solid and overall our receiving corps looked better than recent years.
    2. I still want a prototypical #1 wide out. 6’3″ 227lbs with hands like Jerry Rice…
    1. Understatement of the year. Really? Garcon Morgan, Hankerson and in-shape Moss were better than Donte Stallworth, Jabar Gaffney, out-of-shape Moss, and Joey Galloway? Ya think?
    2. Right, and I think the Redskins need a 6’6, 340lb. right tackle who is also a great run blocker. Or maybe a 5’11, 240 lb. halfback who runs a 4.24 40.

  15. 1. yeah I was going back even further than that when I put an “s” behind years but, I appreciate your analysis….thank you!
    2. umm, again in regards to our receiving corps I think a 6’3″ 227lbs wide out would do better than a 6’6″ 340 tackle but, if you think it’ll work I’m on board.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!