moondog

Members
  • Content count

    5,017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About moondog

  • Rank
    The Playmaker
  • Birthday 02/10/1989

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since birth
  • Favorite Redskin
    Sean Taylor
  • Location
    Pensacola
  • Interests
    Winning
  • Occupation
    AF
  1. I'm sure I'm in the majority here - just wanted to reiterate that I would be irate if we didn't sign Hankins if that's all the Giants are offering. If we refused to sign him for legitimately the same or a slightly larger offer than the two average guys we signed, it would just be comical and another sign that we are trending toward losing legitimacy and respect again. If we fail to improve or even keep the status quo on our defensive line AND fail to sign Cousins to a long term deal, this will be a complete fail of an offseason and I firmly would expect a subpar season next year. No matter how good Cousins is we can't be better than .500 IF we can even achieve that if our defense is letting no name backs average 5 ypc.
  2. Cousins would/will get a ton of money in the event of a long term deal BUT in any case it will lower his cap hit this year from what it is under the tag. That's a given. I guess i just feel like your argument about us likely going linebacker of defensive back early in the draft only supports my argument. If the back end is likely to be strengthened early in the draft then all the more reason to focus on the line in free agency. I think ink a starting line of Logan, Hankins and Hood with rotational guys in Jackson, Lanier and Ioannidis is actually a top tier starting line with quality depth. It's also a great mix of youth and a couple vets. You also said you would expect another depth player or two from the draft which only strengthens the line. I get that Hankins is a two down player based on snaps last year but I think people wrongfully disregard his pass rush - he can certainly collapse the pocket and penetrate. Plus, I guarantee you manusky is looking to get smith, Kerrigan, gallette and Murphy all on the field at times on third down. Or three of them with Lanier in the middle. It all fits perfectly for what the vision has been for our defense for years. Stop the run and force turnovers in passing situations. But out I appreciate the conversation brother. I think we just agree to disagree.
  3. There have already been a couple articles posted where he averages $24M per year with a ton of guaranteed money that lowers his cap hit significantly.
  4. To clarify on the contracts, I'm definitely imagining Hankins on more than a one year deal - guy has been a stud for a couple years now and is the youngest of the bunch (25 I believe). I think he's asking for $10M a year which is absolutely ludicrous but I think that's merely a starting point. Additionally, I fully understand your issue with multiple one year deals but it's not as if you would be re-signing all of them next year. Perhaps one...or two at most. We have done an outstanding job at managing the cap the past several years and certainly have room. Also, the key here is building through the draft. As I mentioned, this year has been pegged as one that is deep along the defensive line. As for the safeties - you're right, DHall is a question mark, and Blackmon has played admirably but is certainly not getting younger. This is a question of prioritizing the front 7 vs the defensive backfield, which I think the majority of anyone would agree that stopping the run comes before stopping the pass. Not to mention that this team has been built for years with the intent to rush the passer and create turnovers. The key to that is to stop the run on early downs, force 2nd/3rd and longs and rush the passer. Kerrigan/Gallette/Smith/Murphy. Need I say more? Gallette, while certainly a question mark, is a luxury. We proved last year the other three can get after it and create plenty of pressure. Especially if afforded more obvious passing downs. I would say your concern for Cravens is a bit irrational - sure it's not an absolute guarantee he'll be a beast but his overall role from last year will not be significantly different - he was great for us in that role last year but even then it was near unanimous that he was playing out of position. I'd say it's fair to trust that he will be at a minimum an above average SS - a sure tackler that is not afraid to stick his nose in the run game and can also cover backs and tight ends. Breeland - he got absolutely abused in the first couple games. That's a fact. He played much better down the stretch and I think even last year when looking at the season as a whole was a solid starting corner. Fuller is only going to be better in the slot. I'm honestly not sure what it will look like behind that - is Toler still under contract? Bottom line, the ONLY player we have acquired on the back end is Swearinger. I think it's complete hyperbole that you talk about having Hankins/Logan stopping the run but now we get "gashed over the top." Stop the run, put them in obvious passing situations. I think you're trying to say that swapping Swearinger for Hall or Blackmon = us getting gashed over the top. I simply disagree. Swearinger is a thumper but you cannot convince me that he is a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over Hall in coverage or Blackmon if Hall gets hurt. And overall, the impact Logan/Hankins would have in stopping the run and putting our pass rushers in good position and therefore our DB's to get turnovers results in a much greater pass defense than the single acquisition of Swearinger, who has never been some stud against the pass, specifically speaking to his play as a FS over the top. You are not wrong about our inside linebackers. This is an area I feel we have quality depth in spaight, daniels and garvin as well as good special teamers. What we are lacking is a single high quality starter. I would, however, argue that once again we would all be impressed with how much better Compton/Foster would look playing behind two run stuffing/blocker eating studs like Logan/Hankins. They would be running free to the ball carrier as opposed to shedding guards. I'm not saying they'd look great, but that I would expect them to make more plays and contribute. Finally, I feel you are completely disregarding the draft. We have a full complement plus extra picks. Odds are we come away with a new starter either on the defensive line, linebacking corps (inside) or safety in this draft or the next. So say we grab a quality nose tackle then you let Logan walk next year. It's hypothetical because it has to be but you can't deny that we won't at least come away with a handful of defensive players in the next draft or two. I would like to submit that in addition to Logan/Hankins, I probably would have gone after Tyson Jackson as well as a strong veteran rotational player. Give me Pryor/Logan/Hankins/Jackson as my FA haul, cut RJF as we did, redo Hall's contract for much less which we will, and sign Cousins to a long term deal. The latter three save us more than enough money to sign the former four players and still have room for the draft picks. You have turned a weakness into a strength (run defense) and in doing so have FINALLY set the defense up to actually accomplish what we've said we've built it to do - rush the passer and force turnovers. We have the pass rushers and an elite corner. Hall, if healthy, is another ball hawk in the secondary, albeit an old one that is certainly diminished but I think serviceable, as is Blackmon. Cravens has a nose for the ball. Breeland is and was still a solid starter last year and I'm not overly worried about him. This is what our defense is designed to do but to make it work stopping the run priority number one. Yet I have still not seen us commit to a defensive line that is even remotely capable of doing so. Have faith in McGee and McClain being an improvement over the debacle of the past several years, but don't be shocked when we give up damn near 5 ypc again.
  5. It's absolutely who would you rather. It's how do you allocate the funds. For McClain and McGee we could have had Logan. And it doesn't affect future contracts in any way on a one year deal which is what Logan signed. And we didn't freaking need swearinger either. The backend is pointless when we give up 4.5 ypc. Dont sign swearinger, McClain or McGee. Or this scrub carter - we already have garvin, spaight and Daniels. You sign Hankins AND Logan and Pryor in addition to the re-signed players we kept and sign Kirk long term, which saves cap this year. Call it a day in FA. We already have much of the depth we need on defense, we lack anyone that makes a significant impact on the run. NT: Logan (Ioannidis) DE: Hankins and Hood (Lanier and another rotational guy - likely a rookie or one of our future contract guys) ILB: Compton/Foster (Garvin/spaight/Daniels) OLB: Kerrigan/Gallette (Murphy/smith) CB: Norman/Breeland (Fuller/pick a guy - maybe toler) SS: Cravens (Everett) FS: Hall/Blackmon and none one of this includes rookies - we have ten picks to fill in depth and get an impact player or two in a deep defensive draft. Please tell me that we couldn't afford this and that it isn't drastically better than what we actually have done.
  6. My counterargument: Would you rather have these two average players, or one of Logan/Hankins? I can tell you my answer is the latter.
  7. As they should. Our defensive line is unarguably worse off now then it was at the end of last year. We continue to just throw **** at the wall and hope it not only sticks, but turns into a solid group. We've been one of the worst run defenses in the NFL for 2-3 years now and yet we continue the mind numbing process of just signing scrubs, drafting low round guys and then act shocked when our defense sucks ass because we let no name guys average 5 ypc against our defense. Our backend is decent enough but will continue to get burned when opposing offenses can run at will to set up the pass. Our offense will likely be on par (at best) with last year but likely will regress with the current crop and our defense has gotten worse. The draft will be key but right now I have trouble thinking we will match last year's record given how porous our defense looks right now.
  8. ****in lame that Swearinger bought ST's number from Cravens. Was wayyyyyy more happy to have a good kid like Cravens rocking that number. Not a fan of Swearinger. Seems like a complete ass...at least on the field.
  9. I would prioritize Hankins over Logan, younger and better imo. But we NEED to sign one of them. Then resign hood. Then kick the tires on Tyson Jackson. Former first round pick, still an effective veteran in the 3-4 and imo would be a starter here alongside Hankins/Logan.
  10. Lol thank you. Apologies for not being quicker on the uptake. Of course I left it out but the other money saving and brilliant move that should be assumed is we fricking sign the guy that is rewriting our QB franchise record books. Also, too late now but see above about how I would have spent the money that has so far been spent on our dline. Dline is the correct focus but I think we've already botched who it has been spent on.
  11. I'm completely fine with cutting RJF - money doesn't match production, talks a lot and apparently has an axe to grind with Manusky. But I'm totally on board with what you're saying about the other two. I'm not saying they won't be decent players, maybe they'll surprise me. But both of the defensive linemen and Swearinger absolutely wreak of the same stench we've been doing for the past 3 or so years in free agency. I will refer to it as a "Reyes signing." A guy that has pretty much been a below average player at best throughout his career. We absolutely suck against the run, so they bring in a couple free agents at the position of need but they are really not an upgrade then it seems like it's a complete mind **** to the front office when we still suck against the run. Swearinger is a dbag that's not that good. The other two seem to be good character (or at least an absence of being ****ty) but just more bodies. For the money we combined into those two guys we probably could have just signed Hankins and then still pursued Logan as well. Give me those two, cut RJF, resign Hood, roll with Lanier and Ioannidis and maybe sign another body or draft a guy or two. Problem solved and the line becomes a strength. Between McGee and McClain we wrapped up nearly $10M/yr. You cannot tell me that we didn't overpay. If we end up signing Logan, which I'm praying we do, you cannot tell me we wouldn't have been better off with Hankins and Logan for the same total investment then McClain, McGee and Logan.
  12. Rest of the offseason should include: 1 sign Hankins or Logan (in that order) 2 cut rjf 3 cut dhall or make him take a paycut 4 cut lauvao 5 sign donta Hightower...unlikely but we need linebacker help 6 draft a FS because we continue to bring in mediocre SS to play FS
  13. Looking to me (soooo early) like we will continue to let any and everyone run all over our defense and our offense has lost two very good players....
  14. This this exactly. Hated meriweather and have always hated swear infer. Still don't even think he's worth that contract he's a huge liability and an unnecessary roughness penalty waiting to happen.