DC9

The 2017 FA Thread - OP Updated with Signings (Sundberg, Galette, VD, Hood re-signed) *** Terrell McClain, Stacy McGee, DJ Swearinger, Terrelle Pryor, Chris Carter, Brian Quick, ZACH BROWN(!!)***

9,012 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

 

Physical on the offensive side of the ball? Sure as far as having a big physical oline, Im all for that. I think our line is fine and will only get better. We're not gonna draft someone in the first 2 rounds. 

 

Who said anything about drafting a physical player for the OL? And, our OL is not very physical.

 

24 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

 

Today's NFL is about explosive plays and players. I love Pryor and think he will be a stud but Dallas has Dez and Giants have Odell. I love Crowder and think he could be a top 5 slot wideout. Reed is a top 3 TE when healthy but defenses slowed him down a bit last year keying in on him. 

 

If all things fall right we could have an explosive team with what we have. What's wrong with adding another "skilled" but not necessarily a "physical" player on offense especially if no one is worth it on defense at 17?

 

Because that isn't our particular problem. Our issue is how soft we are, and how badly we get beat up by physical teams.

 

24 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

 

What bugs me are "old timers" who wants the game to be what it was when Gibbs was winning his first superbowl. 

 

hate.thumb.jpg.e7b147b10340714abaa68dcb37e2c09e.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tough physical smash-mouth line and RB can still win in this league, don't fool yourselves. They have certainly changed the rules to make passing easier, but they didn't make running the ball any harder. As defenses become faster and more athletic to defend against explosive plays, they become more susceptible to being exploded upon by a tough running game.  McCaffrey doesn't bring that. Keep the option of letting our D rest, either by adding meat to our front 7, or by wearing out the opponent with a little ball control.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redskins re-signed RB Chris Thompson to a one-year, $2.746 million contract.

Friday was the deadline for players to sign their restricted free agent tenders. Thompson totaled five touchdowns (three rushing, two receiving) for the Redskins last year while finishing 12th among running backs with 49 catches. He'll continue to serve as Washington's primary passing-down back.
 
So... if today is the deadline to sign the RFA tender, what happens with Will Compton if he doesn't sign his?
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Redskins re-signed RB Chris Thompson to a one-year, $2.746 million contract.

Friday was the deadline for players to sign their restricted free agent tenders. Thompson totaled five touchdowns (three rushing, two receiving) for the Redskins last year while finishing 12th among running backs with 49 catches. He'll continue to serve as Washington's primary passing-down back.
 
So... if today is the deadline to sign the RFA tender, what happens with Will Compton if he doesn't sign his?

 

We win.

:rofl89:

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would assume he can't sign with someone else unless we grant his release? What round tender did they put on him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Butters20 said:

 I would assume he can't sign with someone else unless we grant his release? What round tender did they put on him?

The put him back where they found him. UDFA tender. Lowest possible. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

The put him back where they found him. UDFA tender. Lowest possible. 

So does that mean then that he can't sign with anyone unless we release him? What are the repercussions to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Butters20 said:

So does that mean then that he can't sign with anyone unless we release him? What are the repercussions to him?

FA I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Who said anything about drafting a physical player for the OL? And, our OL is not very physical.

 

 

Because that isn't our particular problem. Our issue is how soft we are, and how badly we get beat up by physical teams.

 

 

hate.thumb.jpg.e7b147b10340714abaa68dcb37e2c09e.jpg

 

Tell me how physical would you say the Pats, Falcons, and Broncos are/were especially offensively. Your argument is based on some archaic thoughts about what the NFL is today. 

 

Mr Genius..who are these unbelievable physical teams you speak of? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Redskins re-signed RB Chris Thompson to a one-year, $2.746 million contract.

Friday was the deadline for players to sign their restricted free agent tenders. Thompson totaled five touchdowns (three rushing, two receiving) for the Redskins last year while finishing 12th among running backs with 49 catches. He'll continue to serve as Washington's primary passing-down back.
 
So... if today is the deadline to sign the RFA tender, what happens with Will Compton if he doesn't sign his?

 

actually it's the deadline  for RFA's to sign offer sheets with other teams.  This offer stays on the table for the Skins till June 15 when it can be replaced with the June 15 tender which is lower.  It's like 110% of his salary last year

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

 

Tell me how physical would you say the Pats, Falcons, and Broncos are/were especially offensively. Your argument is based on some archaic thoughts about what the NFL is today. 

 

Mr Genius..who are these unbelievable physical teams you speak of? 

Dont quote pictures or insult other board members. The rules are genius, mister.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skinsfan93 said:

 

Tell me how physical would you say the Pats, Falcons, and Broncos are/were especially offensively. Your argument is based on some archaic thoughts about what the NFL is today. 

 

Mr Genius..who are these unbelievable physical teams you speak of? 

 

The Giants, Panthers, Broncos, Steelers, Texans, Seahawks, Ravens, Chiefs and Pats all have very physical defenses. The Cowboys, Panthers, Steelers, Seahawks, Titans, Vikings have very physical offenses.

 

This is what you don't get. When the weather gets colder and nastier, and the field conditions get worse and worse, throwing the ball 50 times a game becomes more and more difficult.

 

Now it might seem boring to you, but when you can just line up and knock people off the ball in a 20 degree day with snow, you're going to win. :)

 

No, I'm not a genuis, but my IQ is just north of 140. Not quite MENZA level. But I'll just have to do the best I can with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skinsfan93 said:

 

Tell me how physical would you say the Pats, Falcons, and Broncos are/were especially offensively. Your argument is based on some archaic thoughts about what the NFL is today. 

 

Mr Genius..who are these unbelievable physical teams you speak of? 

All teams we could beat with any kind of running game. You need a OL to run the ball.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

No, I'm not a genuis, but my IQ is just north of 140. Not quite MENZA level. But I'll just have to do the best I can with it.

 

MENSAs requirement is 132 for an IQ test. But you already knew that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Butters20 said:

 

MENSAs requirement is 132 for an IQ test. But you already knew that right?

Thought it was 160.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@skinsfan93, @Morneblade

After thinking about y'all's conversation some more... I think I agree with both of your stances, in a sense.  

 

Even excluding Doctson, this offense is plenty dynamic, and our physicality needs to be improved - in particular short yardage and RZ running/blocking.  

 

I do have to question our longer term plans though.  Pryor and Thompson are on one year deals, Reed is an injury concern, Davis is aging, and Doctson is a bit of a question mark.  Crowder - man, I'm glad we have him signed past next year.  Kelley is a decent back, and brings some of that physicality.  He lacks the explosive plays, running or catching, but he brings an element our other guys lack (which helps our dynamism).  

I wouldn't be mad if we wound up with McCaffrey - he gives us another weapon, he can back up Crowder, spell Kelley, mitigate the impact of possibily losing Reed (or Thompson) to injury, etc. - but it sure would be nice to address the defense in the 1st.  Following a selection of McCaffrey with a solid edge rusher/ILB, and Dlineman (or 2), a corner and a physical interior olineman would leave me pretty happy... and we'd be addressing both of your concerns. :)

 

 

Think I'm leaning toward Reddick and maybe Foster at the moment... assuming Allen doesn't drop.  I'd like the idea of a trade back for Davis/Cunningham/Wormley.  

Edited by skinny21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know where to post this but I've been watching Breeland's twitter for months now and dude seems like he's lost his mind in a serious way.  No one that is working hard towards their craft or has a strong support system of friends/family would be venting/obsessing over social media the way he does at all hours of the day.  Seems lost, unhappy, reckless, and at times belligerent with his messaging.

 

Like many of you, I've had moments where I felt we had one of the youngest/toughest/most underrated corners in league.  I love Breeland the football player and want to see him reach his potential- but I'm getting the feeling he may be gone before the season starts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

The Giants, Panthers, Broncos, Steelers, Texans, Seahawks, Ravens, Chiefs and Pats all have very physical defenses. The Cowboys, Panthers, Steelers, Seahawks, Titans, Vikings have very physical offenses.

 

This is what you don't get. When the weather gets colder and nastier, and the field conditions get worse and worse, throwing the ball 50 times a game becomes more and more difficult.

 

Now it might seem boring to you, but when you can just line up and knock people off the ball in a 20 degree day with snow, you're going to win. :)

 

No, I'm not a genuis, but my IQ is just north of 140. Not quite MENZA level. But I'll just have to do the best I can with it.

 

Agreed.   Lining up and knocking people off the ball is, and always will be, a thing of beauty.  There is nothing boring about that.

 

What is this "MENZA" you speak of? :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

The Giants, Panthers, Broncos, Steelers, Texans, Seahawks, Ravens, Chiefs and Pats all have very physical defenses. The Cowboys, Panthers, Steelers, Seahawks, Titans, Vikings have very physical offenses.

 

This is what you don't get. When the weather gets colder and nastier, and the field conditions get worse and worse, throwing the ball 50 times a game becomes more and more difficult.

 

Now it might seem boring to you, but when you can just line up and knock people off the ball in a 20 degree day with snow, you're going to win. :)

 

No, I'm not a genuis, but my IQ is just north of 140. Not quite MENZA level. But I'll just have to do the best I can with it.

Menza ? You trying to be funny right

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Thought it was 160.

There are different types of tests that score differently and therefore have different requirements. By far the most common is the test where 132 is the threshold 

And there's my insignificant contribution for the day

 

 

Edited by Butters20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Morneblade said:

Now it might seem boring to you, but when you can just line up and knock people off the ball in a 20 degree day with snow, you're going to win. :)

 

Not to mention on a sunny day in the 70's....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butters20 said:

There are different types of tests that score differently and therefore have different requirements. By far the most common is the test where 132 is the threshold 

And there's my insignificant contribution for the day

 

 

 

I prefer the Stanford-Binet. Keeps me grounded. Ok,lets get back to football, not about how dumb I are! ;)

 

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale Fifth Edition

The current fifth edition of the Stanford–Binet scales (SB5) was developed by Gale H. Roid and published in 2003 by Riverside Publishing.[26] Unlike scoring on previous versions of the Stanford–Binet test, SB5 IQ scoring is deviation scoring in which each standard deviation up or down from the norming sample median score is 15 points from the median score, IQ 100, just like the standard scoring on the Wechsler tests.

Stanford–Binet Fifth Edition (SB5) classification[33][38]
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
145–160 Very gifted or highly advanced
130–144 Gifted or very advanced
120–129 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline impaired or delayed
55–69 Mildly impaired or delayed
40–54

Moderately impaired or delayed

3 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Strongest offseason performer so far: Morneblade

 

@Skinsinparadise owns me, and I can think of at lest a few others that do as well. :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.