The Pot Roast might be free soon, reunion?

[HanburgerBum]

55 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Well, I'm not sure that you can compare anyone to fat albert.  But if that's where you're mind is with Knighton have at it lol.

He's a two down player.  That's it.  And we don't win the division without him last year.  Simple as that.

EDIT:  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he is a MUST sign, but he'll help and if I'm Scot and it's the right price, I'm signing him.  I don't know why this fan base is so militant about players and look at everything in a vacuum. 

I was not against Knighton.  In fact, I was excited when SM signed him last year.  But, I thought he was at best "so-so" last season.  When SM made no serious attempt to keep him here this off season, that told me Pot Roast is not part of the solution to our Dline problems.  Moreover, the Redskins are still a ways from being a complete team.  They are essentially still in the rebuilding mode.  So, looking for older players to plug a hole temporarily should not be the preferred strategy.

[bowhunter]

1) We could not stop the run last year.

2) This is a talent rich roster atm, with some VERY tough cuts to make. I would hate to think that we had to release a valuable asset to make room for a player who will play (so-so) on 20% of the defensive snaps.

3) I say the above while actually liking the guy

[DC9]

15 minutes ago, HanburgerBum said:

I was not against Knighton.  In fact, I was excited when SM signed him last year.  But, I thought he was at best "so-so" last season.  When SM made no serious attempt to keep him here this off season, that told me Pot Roast is not part of the solution to our Dline problems.  Moreover, the Redskins are still a ways from being a complete team.  They are essentially still in the rebuilding mode.  So, looking for older players to plug a hole temporarily should not be the preferred strategy.

 

We're pretty strong in the secondary and decent off the edge.  Our interior line is not good.  You sign a dude like Knighton for a year and you can stop gap that.  Would I take him at nose over Golston?  Yeah, I would.  Is Powe going to make the team?  I don't know.

We don't line up in the 3-4 that much, I think that's the genesis of why we weren't out to get him as hard as you'd think, coupled with his asking price.  I'm not saying he's a savior, but I think that he helps that run defense.

We're talking about two different things though.  You're talking about building a team, and I'd agree Knighton probably isn't the best since we already have Knighton.  I'm talking about which is the superior player and it's hands down Knighton.  I've said for years that we will know the day this defense has arrived, and it will be because Golston is no longer on the roster.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

7 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

I'd take Knighton over Golston any day....I don't understand why Golston has been on the roster for 11 years....reminds me of Reed Doughty...great guy..leader, etc...but he lacks talent and should not be on the field.

No he doesn't lack talent. He's a solid player.

[Koolblue13]

We've got a bunch of DTs, DEs and ILBs.

We are short on NTs and OLBs.

I don't think we're even going to see the true 34 looks at all this year, except passing downs and it'll be a 33 hybrid.

Knighton isn't good enough to make our roster.

[Vanguard]

3 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

Knighton isn't good enough to make our roster.

 

Yea I wasn't that impressed with him while he was here.

[DC9]

54 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No he doesn't lack talent. He's a solid player.

 

He's a C+ player on a good day.  He's not solid.  Let's not pump up one cause we dislike the other.

36 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I don't think we're even going to see the true 34 looks at all this year, except passing downs and it'll be a 33 hybrid.

 

That I do agree with.  It was very "mums the word" with the media but a few let it slip that we were experimenting with a different kind of defense.

Hopefully it's more of a 4-3 under like Seattle runs.  If that were the case then no, there'd be no point in bringing in Knighton.

[SkinsGuy]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No he doesn't lack talent. He's a solid player.

He is talented, but he seems lazy and lacks motivation.

And let's face it. If the Redskins and the Patriots can't get him motivated with a $4 million in one year, how is he going to be motivated for much less money?

[Koolblue13]

Just now, DC9 said:

 

He's a C+ player on a good day.  He's not solid.  Let's not pump up one cause we dislike the other.

 

That I do agree with.  It was very "mums the word" with the media but a few let it slip that we were experimenting with a different kind of defense.

Hopefully it's more of a 4-3 under like Seattle runs.  If that were the case then no, there'd be no point in bringing in Knighton.

That's where I'm at. Say Baker , RJF, Kerrigan and Smith touching dirt, with Smith coming from who knows where. 

Then Cravens, Compton and foster/Riley in your front 7 , you're basically ready for anything, fast as **** and can deal with anything.

[chow184]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2016/03/31/terrance-knighton-chooses-patriots-over-redskins/

 

I feel like a lot of the people here posting forget that we made a late push to re-sign him, and he picked the pats over us. So it's it's not like the FO didnt value him at all. 

 

All I'm saying is regardless the down and distance, I think he's a better player than Kedric Golston or Matt Ionidas. He'd also be the best run stuffing interior lineman on the roster if signed. He's a 2 down role player that's for sure, but if he can be had in the 1-3 mil range for a year, why not? 

[Renegade7]

If he wants to come back, we should make room for him. 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

He's a C+ player on a good day.  He's not solid.  Let's not pump up one cause we dislike the other.

 

That I do agree with.  It was very "mums the word" with the media but a few let it slip that we were experimenting with a different kind of defense.

Hopefully it's more of a 4-3 under like Seattle runs.  If that were the case then no, there'd be no point in bringing in Knighton.

 

I don't think we've seen a traditional base 3-4 this entire preseason. I'm not kidding. 

It depends on how you look at it, but we've essentially lined up with 4 down linemen the entire time, with two DEs on the inside (Baker and Reyes starting) and two OLBs on the outside (Smith and Kerrigan) . 

So it's a 2-2-2 front, lol. That 7th guy is likely to be Cravens, who we've seen just last night get snaps with the first team defense. I wouldn't be surprised if Garvin takes on a similar role as well, he was a safety in college and is ideal for passing situations (talked to him about it in the interview last night). 

My (admittedly weak and lacking in evidence) theory right now is that the defense is going to be somewhat similar to last year's, in that we give up yards, especially in the run game (since we're smallish inside and are one-gapping), but we're going to increase explosive plays (sacks, tackles for loss, and turnovers) since our team speed is through the roof. 

I'm slightly concerned about teams running it down our throat, but I'm more excited about the potentially explosive and opportunistic defense Joe Barry is forming here. If the only way teams can score on us with any consistency is via the run, I'll take it as long as it's mitigated with the aforementioned explosiveness. 

 

And, be quiet DC9, Golston IS a solid player... in Barry's defense.

[DC9]

23 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I don't think we've seen a traditional base 3-4 this entire preseason. I'm not kidding. 

It depends on how you look at it, but we've essentially lined up with 4 down linemen the entire time, with two DEs on the inside (Baker and Reyes starting) and two OLBs on the outside (Smith and Kerrigan) . 

So it's a 2-2-2 front, lol. That 7th guy is likely to be Cravens, who we've seen just last night get snaps with the first team defense. I wouldn't be surprised if Garvin takes on a similar role as well, he was a safety in college and is ideal for passing situations (talked to him about it in the interview last night).

 

We did against Atlanta the first series and a few times throughout the game.  The second game as well.  But Buffalo RARELY had the personnel group out there for us to line up in Okie, if ever.  I think Buffalo didn't gain more than 40 total yards in the second half on anything but a release route by the TE or the RB.  But anywho, lol... that's another reason why he wasn't a "must sign" for Scot, in my opinion.  And it's not like we have to have him now, either, I think we'll be what we're going to be regardless.  And some of the new blood is really showing well, especially the Reyes kid.

And we'll disagree on solid.  I'd like for a solid player to not get pushed off the ball, but I'm sure I'll get a chance to show you that throughout the season, lol.  He's smart.  He's got heart.  He works hard.  He is a great man in the community and is charitable off the field, the likes of which we haven't seen on this team in a long time.  But he gets his ass knocked off the ball more often than he doesn't.  That is exactly the definition of a player who is not solid.

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

If he wants to come back, we should make room for him. 

 

I think the more I think about it, the less I want HIM back and the more I want Golston off the team.  So I'm indifferent.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

He is talented, but he seems lazy and lacks motivation.

And let's face it. If the Redskins and the Patriots can't get him motivated with a $4 million in one year, how is he going to be motivated for much less money?

I was talking about Kedric Golston, not Pot Roast.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, DC9 said:

He's a C+ player on a good day.  He's not solid.  Let's not pump up one cause we dislike the other.

C+ is fair. He's a solid C+ player 

And I wasn't saying that because of Pot Roast. I've just always kind of liked Golston. Dude has been a serviceable player for us for years. When people talk about how horrible he is and how he has no business being on the team, it bugs me. These are the fans who think "flashy" and "good at football" are synonymous. Golston has no flash so therefore, they think he sucks.

[DC9]

4 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

C+ is fair. He's a solid C+ player 

And I wasn't saying that because of Pot Roast. I've just always kind of liked Golston. Dude has been a serviceable player for us for years. When people talk about how horrible he is and how he has no business being on the team, it bugs me. These are the fans who think "flashy" and "good at football" are synonymous. Golston has no flash so therefore, they think he sucks.

 

Yeah, and I got a "Solid D" in Geometry in high school and it was my only non-A and I was proud as **** of it.

I'm not trying to sound like an ass here cause I respect your opinion, but they probably think he sucks for the same reasons I've listed in this thread.  And the same reasons I've listed on this board each year since I joined.

I don't want to bash the dude.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

13 minutes ago, DC9 said:

I'm not trying to sound like an ass here cause I respect your opinion, but they probably think he sucks for the same reasons I've listed in this thread.  And the same reasons I've listed on this board each year since I joined.

Let's just agree that four different NFL head coaches have thought enough of him to keep him on the roster for 11 seasons.

[Yeen80]

Pot Roast is done. Great name. But no thanks at this point

[SkinsPassion4Life]

I'd rather have Knighton over Golston...but I don't want either.

[DC9]

48 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Let's just agree that four different NFL head coaches have thought enough of him to keep him on the roster for 11 seasons.

 

He and Danny Smith both, right?  Well... almost

[Renegade7]

6 hours ago, DC9 said:

I think the more I think about it, the less I want HIM back and the more I want Golston off the team.  So I'm indifferent.

 

I can understand that.  Whoever compared Golston to Reed Doughty was spot on, as Pot Roast's potential is way higher, but his consistency just isn't there.  Like it or not, you know what you get with Golston everyday.  For me, considering so many of our Dlinemen are bordeline indistinguishable, even a situational Pot Roast is better then Golston, that ceiling is just too high to ignore, imo. I know I'm not the only one that can barely tell we're playing 3-4 anymore, and if we go into this season without Pot Roast, we're basically saying we don't need a traditional 3-4 NT.

[goskins10]

36 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I can understand that.  Whoever compared Golston to Reed Doughty was spot on, as Pot Roast's potential is way higher, but his consistency just isn't there.  Like it or not, you know what you get with Golston everyday.  For me, considering so many of our Dlinemen are bordeline indistinguishable, even a situational Pot Roast is better then Golston, that ceiling is just too high to ignore, imo. I know I'm not the only one that can barely tell we're playing 3-4 anymore, and if we go into this season without Pot Roast, we're basically saying we don't need a traditional 3-4 NT.

 

How is Knighton's ceiling higher? He already has shown to 3 teams now he is not interested in doing the work. He is a last fat tub of goo. Even when he plays well he is one dimensional - or are you forgetting that once he got on the field against GB Rogers wore is ass out? It became 11 on 10.

Golston on the other hand comes to work ever day and works his ass off. He is never going to be a starter. But he is versatile and can give you minutes to spell guys. You have to have these very average but very versatile guys on your team. Why move on from him right now? This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

For the record I felt the same way about Reed. People want to get rid of guys not understanding their value to the team.

 

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

How is Knighton's ceiling higher? He already has shown to 3 teams now he is not interested in doing the work. He is a last fat tub of goo. Even when he plays well he is one dimensional - or are you forgetting that once he got on the field against GB Rogers wore is ass out? It became 11 on 10.

Golston on the other hand comes to work ever day and works his ass off. He is never going to be a starter. But he is versatile and can give you minutes to spell guys. You have to have these very average but very versatile guys on your team. Why move on from him right now? This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

For the record I felt the same way about Reed. People want to get rid of guys not understanding their value to the team. Is it just possible the coaches may just a little something about the job they are paid to do?

 

 

It's nothing against Golston, but we already have a couple Golston's on the team. BB hasn't called him lazy, just that he needs more from his space eating DTs then he's currently getting from Knighton.  Apparently for 1 year, 4.5 million prove it deal, he's not proving enough with the other depth they have, which is why we didn't match it.

 

http://www.patspulpit.com/2016/8/26/12668072/patriots-dt-terrance-knighton-doesn-t-know-if-he-has-a-future-with-the-team

 

I trust the coaching staff knows what they're doing, and haven't lost sight of the fact we did try to resign him before the he went to the Patriots instead, so its not like we truly gave up on him.  When I say situational, that means I totally saw him get gassed out as well last year and in the Green Bay game.  If you'd rather have Golston then Pot Roast in a goal line package or important run play, I'd just have to respectfully disagree with you.

[goskins10]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's nothing against Golston, but we already have a couple Golston's on the team. BB hasn't called him lazy, just that he needs more from his space eating DTs then he's currently getting from Knighton.

 

http://www.patspulpit.com/2016/8/26/12668072/patriots-dt-terrance-knighton-doesn-t-know-if-he-has-a-future-with-the-team

 

I trust the coaching staff knows what they're doing, and haven't lost sight of the fact we did try to resign him before the he went to the Patriots instead, so its not like we truly gave up on him.  When I say situational, that means I totally saw him get gassed out as well last year and in the Green Bay game.  If you'd rather have Golston then Pot Roast in a goal line package or important run play, I'd just have to respectfully disagree with you.

 

BB is not going to come right out and call him lazy, nor would Scot M. As fans we have that luxury :-)  But we all know that's what sent him packing in Denver and a big reason why the Redskins were not aggressive in resigning him. It would not have taken much to sign him and they still let him go. Now it looks like he will not make the Patriots.

It's interesting you bring up goal line situations as if I remember right, Golston was the very reason Tampa did not score from the 3 after Breeland made the game saving tackle and allowed us to still win the amazing comeback. Could Knighton make the same stop? Yes. But would he have? Or is that one of the plays he takes off?

So yea, for right now I would rather have Golston. I do agree with you that we could and should improve that position. I just don't think Knighton provides that improvement.

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

BB is not going to come right out and call him lazy, nor would Scot M. As fans we have that luxury :-)  But we all know that's what sent him packing in Denver and a big reason why the Redskins were not aggressive in resigning him. It would not have taken much to sign him and they still let him go. Now it looks like he will not make the Patriots.

It's interesting you bring up goal line situations as if I remember right, Golston was the very reason Tampa did not score from the 3 after Breeland made the game saving tackle and allowed us to still win the amazing comeback. Could Knighton make the same stop? Yes. But would he have? Or is that one of the plays he takes off?

So yea, for right now I would rather have Golston. I do agree with you that we could and should improve that position. I just don't think Knighton provides that improvement.

 

Trust me, I get where you're coming from, but I totally believe its him not addressing his weight and it affecting his conditioning versus him taking plays off.  I also believe Denver knew more about the cluster-headaches then anyone else at the time.  Golston, by a lot of accounts, is one of our best run stoppers.  At least we agree that that's not good enough, especially when interior run defense is likely our primary defensive weakness at this point.  I don't know that I'd go so far to say we should cut Golston for Knighton, but I wouldn't cuss out the coaching staff if they did.  This whole thread, he'd be a redskin right now if he didn't want $4.5 million dollars in one year.