• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
  • Location
    TX (via Cabin John, MD)
  • Zip Code

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
  1. I posted a few pages back a breakdown of positional priority, so I won’t rehash that. So say we need to fill the holes you mention as well as OLB... we’ve addressed 2 of 7 so far. Not great. Still time to improve that, but we have limited resources. Even if we address 2 more (say, Cromartie and Galette), we’re going into the draft with needs at 3 positions. Not great, especially if from a BPA perspective. With all of that said, we could always get lucky with a current players stepping up - Holsey, Anderson, Kalis, etc., but there’s ample risk there. Yep. I’ve been talking about Logan for a while now. He might not be the stud we want, but he’s far better a NT than we have (or have ever had), and can probably rotate in for our DTs a bit. The FO could really redeem themselves with a solid DL signing, though they’re going down to the wire in terms of who is available. They could sign Logan and not mess up the 3rd round comp pick, but I do believe that is a big reason they haven’t been quite as aggressive as they could/should be on that front. Of course, adding Logan could also affect an ability to extend our guys and/or bring in Cromartie and Galette.
  2. Love they brought Brown back, really like that they added Richardson and the re-signs of Nsheke and Everett, and I like that they’re staying patient with Cromartie and Galette. Of course we upped the deal to Cromartie supposedly, which was a bit of a tip off to our desperation there. If we suppose that DL, ILB, slot corner and WR were our top needs, followed by OLB depth, back, and G... this FA ain’t looking great at the moment. I’m a little bothered by the idea that losing Cousins and the Smith trade is dictating what the FO is doing. What I mean is that 1) they had to get another proven, deep threat receiver for Smith, 2) they have to find a slot corner to replace Fuller, and 3) they don’t want to spend big on DL because they’ll lose the comp pick for Cousins. Those aren’t necessarily bad things on the surface, but they could come back to bite us - the DL issue especially. Normally, I wouldn’t assume those things, but it completely fits with Allen’s ego, and a desire to come out ok for losing Kirk and to keep his job. Add to this the mention that they pay attention to mock drafts, and the idea they might pay attention to social media, I could see them bypassing BPA and forcing a pick on Vea at 13 and rb in the 2nd (at the tail end of a run on backs). Hate the fact I’m even thinking these things. With th all of that said, they are/we’re in a tough spot this offseason - plenty of needs, not a lot of cap, losing starters and depth to FA, and lacking a bit of draft resources. Of course, they also brought some of it on themselves with their win-now mentality, losing Cousins, the (relative) lack of success, poor FO structure, and some other questionable desicions. Wow, that turned into a rant. I’m usually a bit of an optimist too.
  3. 2018 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

    Right there with you, and yes, having 3 picks in the first 3 rounds to address the spots you mention is a big part of it. Waiting till rd 4 for a G, DL or back is risky. 13 also isn’t a great spot for G or RB, and likely leaves us choosing between Vea and Payne - neither of which is a no brainer at that point. Taking Guice (if he lasts) in the 20s may lead to a run on backs, which could push other talent (DL/oline) down to #44. Could also have the added benefit of denying the Giants a top back (not that we should focus on that). Three picks (for 3 potential starters) would also somewhat alleviate a fairly lackluster free agency. There’s a bit of a nightmare scenario of staying pat at 13 causing us to miss on one of the top 5-6 backs, then we force a rb pick at 44, and our lack of a 3rd causes us to miss on help for the trenches. On the bright side, we’ve addressed the receiver spot (added speed), and if we get Vea/Payne, we’re likely much improved (especially in our base D) vs the run. Take a good G in the 2nd and we’ve at least seriously addressed our 3 biggest weaknesses. Means we miss out on a top back (again), and that would seriously suck, but I’d at least be a bit optimistic that our ground game could still improve significantly with better blocking. Puts the onus on Perine/Kelley/Bibbs, but we haven’t seen those guys play with good run blocking.
  4. Maybe just because it’s late, but I can’t for the life of me figure out ‘bra vthong’. Arr... mine too matey.
  5. Is this the same Sullivan we signed off the street a while back? That’s a lot of dough.
  6. Redskins receiving corp is beginning to shape up

    After we eat the guaranteed money, the risk is a bit less for a team trading for him. Still somewhat of a high risk, high reward scenario though. Two picks, 1 assured, 1 conditional might make sense. Similar to our deal for Carrier, though hopefully better picks. Personally, I’d definitely keep him this year (especially after hearing they treated the root of the leg injury problem), the hope being he performs better and stays healthier this year, which ups his trade value. Draft a TE this year and develop them to take over (along with Sprinkle).
  7. NT, Slot corner and G too. Overall order - 1) NT - currently have 1 guy that has proven an inability to make an impact (I’m not getting into it with PS or futures guys) 2) slot corner - one guy that is totally unproven and a guy we really want to stay on the outside 3) RB - good depth, mediocre starters 4) G - several meh options, though there is some potential 5) DT and OLB - solid starters, but no one trusted to rotate in or back them up 6) outside corner and receiver - reasonable starters, but just some ok or unproven depth (though with some potential) and could use an upgrade/addition I like Breeland (and Smith), but I believe we have more pressing needs. Guice though... you’re speaking my language there.
  8. @JamesMadisonSkins Agree with a lot of that. A bit risky to wait on NT till late, but I can see the argument. My take on the NT position - when Manusky/Tomsula spoke about the position last year, I think it makes sense to view those words through the lens of - the FO didn’t give them any serious resources at NT - basically Taylor, and some UDFAs, and then miscast NT options like Hood, McGee, Francis and even Ioannidas. Through that lens, those words were coach speak. The only NT they really praised was Taylor (the only true, talented NT). Looking at who they’ve reportedly been interested in - Poe, Vea, Payne, Logan - furthers the argument that they really want a NT. Add to all of that the report of players clamoring for a NT... I’d say it’s definitely a staple of this defense, they just haven’t found an answer yet.
  9. @DC9 ^^ @jsharrin55Yeah, this angle has been a little... odd to me. Sure, we want the pass rushing threat in addition to run stopping (and recognize the latter is more important), but then we say Logan isn’t worth a bunch of money, or we downgrade Vea (or whoever) because of the perceived lack of pass rush. Bottom line, we were 7th in the league at sacking the qb with Hood at NT, and we sucked at stopping the run. If we add a NT that isn’t a pass rusher, are they really going to be worse than Hood?
  10. My theory: 1) they don’t want to offer enough money to offset our 3rd rd compared pick 2) there are several options that will be available in rd 1 or 2 3) Bruce is cheap 4) they realize that a 3rd OLB is important and Galette came on really strong toward the end of the season 5) they need to address the slot corner position. If they struggle at this position, trading Fuller will look even worse, and... 6) In order to afford Cromartie (and maybe Galette too), they can’t sign Logan to (relatively) big money Regardless of whether Vea or Payne will be BPA when we pick, I can almost guarantee they draft one of them. Distant 2nd option - they trade back and draft a DL and back in the 1st three rounds. I kind of like this option because we could address DL, RB and G with those picks. It’s even possible Vea or Payne will still be available further down in the 1st, but there are some other options as well. Getting off topic, so I’ll stop there.
  11. Especially for a conditional pick. 7th if he doesn’t play, 4th or 5th if he plays well.
  12. 2018 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

    Like SIP, in general, I agree with you. If it’s going to come down to playing Brown or Smith though, that’s a poor use of resources, IMO. Now if they want to go with an OLB, for example, I could accept it, because they aren’t certain about Anderson, Kerrigan is getting older (and has a hefty salary), and Smith is a FA next year. It wouldn’t be ideal in terms of filling a void, but it makes sense from a BPA perspective. If Smith could replace Foster, well that’s a different story. Just my opinion of course.
  13. I kinda hope saying they want to bring Grant back is to help push the market for him, lol. Makes sense about Logan - they know he can help, but I really don’t think Allen wants to lose the Cousins comp pick. Ty to LG makes some sense, though I hope Kalis wins it. Not surprised on the Scherff front. His and Smith’s extensions have to make the FO worried about blowing through the rest of our cap... and make them want to extend sooner. They’re in a tough spot - wanting a DL and good G*, but needing to save a pick for RB, lacking a 3rd, and hesitant to use the cap space to land either in FA. * seeing as how we need a starter and insurance for if we can’t/don’t extend Scherff.
  14. Yeah, I want one of the big boys from the draft at RB. I want our starter to be a guy that’s a weapon out of the backfield... and a guy that can hit some home runs (ie. no to Morris). I actually think Perine can be a very serviceable back in terms of running/receiving, as long as the blocking improves and the pass game can take defenders out of the box. With that said, I’d much rather land a clear stud and have Perine as a very capable backup.
  15. Oh man, that is hilarious (and a little sad, lol)! Laughing emoji not a good enough response to how funny I found this.