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(!!)***

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

I thought Shanny had full personnel control as part of the terms of him taking the job as HC? But I see what you mean. In hindsight the RG3 trade was terrible even if the Rams didnt do much with the picks, it doesnt mean we couldnt have. But at the time RG3 was very highly touted so its hard to really fault them for making the move if they thought he was franchise-caliber.

 

And I liked adding a RB, thought it was one of our needs that needed to be addressed, just not in the first round unless it was Fournette.

 

And I'm not against bringing in Dan Williams, I just think we see what we have in house first before kicking the tires on him. If hes still out of shape, hard pass. Don't think it looks very good that hes still available either.

 

I think Phil Taylor is just as good at this stage in their careers if healthy and much younger to boot.

 

 

 

Shanny supposedly had that power but he claimed later that both trade ideas were pushed to him hard, especially the McNabb -- he seem to imply Dan was doing the pushing and not sure if Bruce was in that mix.  I'm with you on the running back drill but I think time will tell if we are right on that. 

 

As for Phil Taylor and Dan Williams, I think there is no way for us to know.  We don't know what shape either one of them is in.  In their prime, both players were very good nose tackles.   I agree if they really like Taylor then there is no need for Williams.  But if they are unsure, and they want to kick the tires on Williams, my thought is why not?

 

As for Sherman I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another.  But with Danny at the helm without the appearance at least of a strong GM to keep things in check -- I'd gather trading picks for a big name player would be in play -- that type of move is practically a hallmark of Danny's regime.  I am doubting it happens though -- that would be a lot of money dedicated to corner.  

[Hail2theSkins24]

The money part about Sherman is what scares me and what many have brought up- that's a lot of $$ locked up in secondary. Unless it's a great deal, let's sit tight and see what we got with the young guns

[Morneblade]

7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Why not? Money? Mouth? Circus? Age? (Don't say "yes")

 

 

Well, age and money are 2 of the reasons you mentioned. The 3rd, one you didn't is the "why are they trying to unload him" thought. They might see a decline and want to get rid of him before it becomes real obvious and they can't get a ham sammich for him. So, he's a 29 year old CB that is going to want way more money than we have to spend and is probably declining. I'll add this. We had the 26th ranked pass defense in 2015. We added Josh Norman, and had the 26th ranked pass defense in 2016. IMO, you wanna fix the pass defense, get a better DL and LBs that make the QB make faster decisions and get more sacks and more INT's because the QB is rushed.

2 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

And I'm not against bringing in Dan Williams, I just think we see what we have in house first before kicking the tires on him. If hes still out of shape, hard pass. Don't think it looks very good that hes still available either.

 

I think Phil Taylor is just as good at this stage in their careers if healthy and much younger to boot.

 

 

 

If Phil Taylor is healthy (and this is a big if) he's a very good NT and we would be in excellent shape there, better than Dan Williams. Let's hope he is.

[bedlamVR]

31 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Shanny supposedly had that power but he claimed later that both trade ideas were pushed to him hard, especially the McNabb -- he seem to imply Dan was doing the pushing and not sure if Bruce was in that mix.  I'm with you on the running back drill but I think time will tell if we are right on that. 

 

Yes but people in the know and independent an without an axe to grind essentially have said Mike Shannahan had absolute control if he did not want either player then deals would NOT have happened

 

Shanahan was a snake in Denver 

Shanahan was a snake in Washington 

 

What was worse was he gave up on this team and fan base in 2013 mid season in a FIRE ME stand off with the Ownership because he was so principled he would not have walked from money on the table guaranteed in his contract 

 

And yet people believe  everything was Dan Snyder and the latest pantomime villain fault : Everyone else is up for sainthood

  

[Morneblade]

8 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Actually no, Justin Ellis didnt get penciled in as the starter until this offseason. Dan Williams reported to camp overweight and lost playing time during the year to Mcgee. The ESPN article posted a few pages back specifically said Dan Williams got beat out by Mcgee as well.

 

I looked at the 2016 depth chart for the raiders and they had McGee at DT behind Jihad Ward, not Dan Williams in their 4-3. Actually at NT (and they did have that as a position on the depth chart), Dan Williams was behind Justin Ellis. So this is false.

http://justblogbaby.com/2016/08/08/oakland-raiders-release-first-depth-chart-of-2016/

 

8 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

And its not that I think Mcgee will be the savior. I specifically said that if the other more prototypical nose candidates dont pan out, I think that Mcgee is a much better candidate to play the nose than Ziggy Hood was. 

 

Well, that's not saying much, and I agree. He should be better, but not to say he is good.

 

8 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

We simply differ in opinion that I think play will be improved at nose this year between one of our options, and the overall defense isnt destined to suck if we dont end up having a prototypical nose at the spot. Because unless one of the big boys really impress I think roster spots are too valuable and the team would rather a lineman that can play multiple spots. I think its the reason Matt Ioannidis became the project NT, he can play all over the line. Same reason we havent spent major resources on a player that plays minimal snaps on defense and would rather a versatile player that plays more than 2 downs and 20% of snaps overall. 

 

It's more like over 30%, but whatever. I'll just say that if you don't want to invest in the NT, don't run a 3-4. Run a 4-3 and get the right people from the front 7.

 

8 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

 

 

Oh no! Say it aint so! Hes a bum! He was a DE only for the raiders! 

 

I'm not sure how much stock I would put in that list. according to it, David Bruton was better than Bennie Logan last year. I'll also add Raiders fans didn't seem to care that he left. But you said he would be "damn good" at NT, so I guess you know something I don't

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

And yet people believe  everything was Dan Snyder and the latest pantomime villain fault : Everyone else is up for sainthood

  

 

I am not interested in derailing this thread to be about Danny.  You've defended the status quo plenty on the GM thread.  We can debate that further there if you like.   As for here, i am purely saying Danny has been more than willing to trade draft picks for established players.  If you disagree and think that's not what Danny does and he has been unfairly mischaracterized by regime after regime on that front and it was others who wanted to make those trades, he simply let them happen -- cool. I put on the GM thread an article about how Danny prods trades without insisting on them but in effect you got to do them for ultimate job security because if you don't follow through on them -- you better be right. (with the reporter citing 3 coaches on it)  Clearly, though nothing in the series of articles and interviews on this subject, moves you.  To each their own.   I am not debating this here. 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

26 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am not interested in derailing this thread to be about Danny.  You've defended the status quo plenty on the GM thread.  We can debate that further there if you like.   As for here, i am purely saying Danny has been more than willing to trade draft picks for established players.  If you disagree and think that's not what Danny does and he has been unfairly mischaracterized by regime after regime on that front and it was others who wanted to make those trades, he simply let them happen -- cool. I put on the GM thread an article about how Danny prods trades without insisting on them but in effect you got to do them for ultimate job security because if you don't follow through on them -- you better be right.  Clearly, though nothing in the series of articles and interviews on this subject, moves you.  To each their own.   I am not debating this here. 

 

When was the last time we traded for a veteran?     Are you going to insist that Snyder ordered GMSM to trade for Carrier?

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

When was the last time we traded for a veteran?     Are you going to insist that Snyder ordered GMSM to trade for Carrier?

 

 

 

Lets stick to the point at hand.  My point is Danny has shown he's willing to trade draft picks for veterans.  Scot is gone.  If you believe otherwise, the point would be you don't think Danny is the type who would be willing to make a Richard Sherman type trade.  I am saying its in his DNA.  If you think otherwise, your point would be that's not really in Danny's DNA, not his style or he's done a 180 on it. 

 

This global conversation about defending Dan, nailing Scot or whatever which you are also a part of in the GM thread belong more in that thread IMO, not so much here.  The point I made was it would flow with Danny's style to make a deal like that and I even said its unlikely though.   I don't mind debating with you the other stuff, I've done it plenty already  but I don't want to turn the FA thread into that discussion.  

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Lets stick to the point at hand.  My point is Danny has shown he's willing to trade draft picks for veterans.  Scot is gone.  If you believe otherwise, the point would be you don't think Danny is the type who would be willing to make a Richard Sherman type trade.  I am saying its in his DNA.  If you think otherwise, your point would be that's not really in Danny's DNA, not his style or he's done a 180 on it. 

 

This global conversation about defending Dan, nailing Scot or whatever which you are also a part of in the GM thread belong more in that thread IMO, not so much here.  The point I made was it would flow with Danny's style to make a deal like that and I even said its unlikely though.   I don't mind debating with you the other stuff, I've done it plenty already  but I don't want to turn the FA thread into that discussion.  

 

I'm not sure what your point is?    Are you suggesting that having that DNA is a bad thing?     Belichik has probably traded for more players in one year than Snyder has traded for his entire 17 year tenure.

 

I want my owner to have all options on the table in his DNA...trades, free agents, draft....Snyder is my kind of owner.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

I'm not sure what your point is?    Are you suggesting that having that DNA is a bad thing?     Belichik has probably traded for more players in one year than Snyder has traded for his entire 17 year tenure.

 

I want my owner to have all options on the table in his DNA...trades, free agents, draft....Snyder is my kind of owner.

 

 

 

I told you what my point was.  I was responding to a post relating to making a Sherman trade where in the post it was suggested that people here would do it versus implying the current FO would not.  My response was don't be so sure.

 

As for Danny-Bruce are great, leave them alone and let them do their magic -- Scot's mediocre stuff -- from the GM thread.  That's fine there.  It's extraneous to this debate.  

[Peregrine]

18 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Kind of ironic that you say this about the Seahawks who, in the midst of a SB window, traded TWO cheap 1st round picks for the overrated, injury-prone, and expensive vet players Percy Harvin and Jimmy Graham. 

 

Some will say that being "in their window" with their franchise QB makes these trades of premium picks for playmakers more understandable, but when you consider that their entire model of success depends on what you describe, drafting superstars on cheap rookie contracts, dealing multiple 1st rounders for receiving talent their QB hadn't proven to need looks even dumber.

 

They've had some great drafts but they are hardly a model to follow in terms of trades for vets, on either end. They did absolutely nail the 4th rounder for Marshawn Lynch trade, though.

It is most definitely not ironic because you may have failed to read my post at all.  I was very specific in talking about the Seahawks D.  Jimmy Graham, and Percy Harvin do not play defense.  Neither does Marshawn Lynch.  If you pay attention to the Seahawks you will notice they draft their back 7 on defense, they do draft linemen but they get FA Dlinemen, they draft their OLine on offense but then they get their skill players on offense in FA.  Its been their MO for some time.  What they do with their offense has no bearing on how they treat defense, what they are really great at.

[Peregrine]

15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

My point, you've got to get lucky in the draft.  We've actually had a lot of draft picks the last 3-4 drafts, and even got lucky with Cousins.  

 

But that doesn't preclude FA, or trades to being in other players.

 

My point about GB and the Steelers is if they didn't get a little lucky with their draft picks, they would be 8-8. Even with their commitment to the draft.  Also, going way back, don't forget the Packers traded for favre. 

 

Drafting a lot of players and drafting well is always the goal.  But you can add players in other ways and be successful.

Who says they got lucky?  Because they got really good players, they got lucky?  That seems to be a wild assumption based on a pre-conceived notion that if the player is good, it must have been a lucky pick.  

 

In essence then, you dont believe in good drafting, because you have circular-reasoned yourself out of it.   You prove your own "The draft is luck", with "The best teams picks were lucky", with "We know this because the draft is luck".

[Conn]

3 hours ago, Peregrine said:

It is most definitely not ironic because you may have failed to read my post at all.  I was very specific in talking about the Seahawks D.  Jimmy Graham, and Percy Harvin do not play defense.  Neither does Marshawn Lynch.  If you pay attention to the Seahawks you will notice they draft their back 7 on defense, they do draft linemen but they get FA Dlinemen, they draft their OLine on offense but then they get their skill players on offense in FA.  Its been their MO for some time.  What they do with their offense has no bearing on how they treat defense, what they are really great at.

 

What aging defensive vets have the Seahawks suckered other teams into trading for? I think the Patriots should have been your example if that's the point you were trying to make. You specifically said "we should probably follow what the Seahawks do, and draft great players and then trade them to desperate teams when they start to get too old.  We should not be the team getting fleeced by the Seahawks". When have they done this? Their SB defense is still together, they haven't swindled anyone in trades for defensive vets in order to stay on top. 

 

And you being mistaken about that was ironic to me, because they've even gone so far as to do the exact opposite of what you describe, with little success, on the offensive side of the ball. Hopefully that explained my point better. 

[HTTRDynasty]

• Team president Bruce Allen said, “Yes,” when asked by CSN Mid-Atlantic if he was willing to tag QB Kirk Cousins for a third consecutive year. A third tag would mean Cousins would earn $34 million in 2018; right now, Indianapolis’ Andrew Luck is slated to be the highest-paid NFL quarterback in 2018, with a cap hit of $24.4 million.
•  

• Cousins has improved his play in each of the past three years, and in 2016, he cracked the top-10 in highest QB grades, at 85.9, ranking eighth out of 34 eligible QBs.
•  

• Cousins has been one of the most accurate QBs in the league over the past two seasons, ranking second in 2015 with an adjusted-accuracy-percentage of 78.5 percent, and eighth in 2016 at 76.3 percent.
•  

• His accuracy translated on deep passes, ranking eighth in adjusted accuracy percentage on throws 20-plus yards downfield (50.0 percent), and also when under pressure (67.1 percent).

 

Kirk-Cousins-Starter-BW.png

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-redskins-president-says-cousins-could-play-under-third-straight-franchise-tag/

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

• Team president Bruce Allen said, “Yes,” when asked by CSN Mid-Atlantic if he was willing to tag QB Kirk Cousins for a third consecutive year. A third tag would mean Cousins would earn $34 million in 2018; right now, Indianapolis’ Andrew Luck is slated to be the highest-paid NFL quarterback in 2018, with a cap hit of $24.4 million.
•  

• Cousins has improved his play in each of the past three years, and in 2016, he cracked the top-10 in highest QB grades, at 85.9, ranking eighth out of 34 eligible QBs.
•  

• edit

 

Kirk-Cousins-Starter-BW.png

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-redskins-president-says-cousins-could-play-under-third-straight-franchise-tag/

 

Not going to help the negotiations if he takes that off the table now. For me, anything said by both camps is for the media and likely has little bearing to anything actually going on. Deadlines drive deals - always have always will. We go past July 15th and there is no deal, then we know he really is that stupid.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

45 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not going to help the negotiations if he takes that off the table now. For me, anything said by both camps is for the media and likely has little bearing to anything actually going on. Deadlines drive deals - always have always will. We go past July 15th and there is no deal, then we know he really is that stupid.

 

 

 

You got me what Bruce is really thinking or what's really going on.  If you buy into what multiple reporters are saying they are suggesting that Bruce and company aren't dumb but they have a lot of ego invested in the Kirk deal.  Depending on which version/which reporter -- they don't love Kirk's agent and don't want to give in to him and or they don't want to look that they blew it in 2016 by not getting it done, then.  

 

Then you kick in Scot getting his side of the story out about him urging Bruce to get it done in 2015 and he didn't want to do it.  Maybe all of it is untrue.  I hope its all untrue.  I'll give Bruce this if this is him bluffing -- he's really good at bluffing considering every beat reporter and radio personality (aside from Galdi and JP from the Junkies) believe its no bluff and its a long shot that a deal happens.  

 

I am sticking to this deal gets done.  But I admit that's with me ignoring people saying their sources are suggesting otherwise.  I am sticking with logic and the power of self preservation as the pervading points.  I don't see how it behooves the Redskins or Bruce personally for this not to get done.

 

 

[Conn]

If they're that concerned with ego at this point in the process, after years of being proven wrong, then yes, they are in fact dumb.

[Peregrine]

3 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

If they're that concerned with ego at this point in the process, after years of being proven wrong, then yes, they are in fact dumb.

Agreed, ego makes people do really stupid things.  And I do get how things hurt your ego, but grown adults who are smart enough get over their ego, its pretty stupid to let it literally send you to ruin.

[Peregrine]

9 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

What aging defensive vets have the Seahawks suckered other teams into trading for? I think the Patriots should have been your example if that's the point you were trying to make. You specifically said "we should probably follow what the Seahawks do, and draft great players and then trade them to desperate teams when they start to get too old.  We should not be the team getting fleeced by the Seahawks". When have they done this? Their SB defense is still together, they haven't swindled anyone in trades for defensive vets in order to stay on top. 

 

And you being mistaken about that was ironic to me, because they've even gone so far as to do the exact opposite of what you describe, with little success, on the offensive side of the ball. Hopefully that explained my point better. 

Okay, I get where you see that, granted they havent traded anyone yet.  Sherman will be 1 for 1. I mostly assumed people would know I was referring to defense from my defensive mentions and the discussion about Sherman.  No team has ever gotten a good deal on trading for a Seahawks defensive player, hows that? The Seahawks actually rarely trade players. Ive studied the way they build their team for years and its systematic and very effective. the  Heck, they treat their front 4 very different from their back 7. And on offense its draft OLine and get FAs for skill positions outside of QB. This is actually very similar to the way NE does it as well.  The teams do not treat one strategy as the best for every facet of their team, if only it was that simple.  But both draft DBs.

[Koolblue13]

Haven't the Seahawks had Chancellor on the block for a couple years? That would make them 0 for 1 on trading vets.

[Skinsinparadise]

Doubtful it happens but noticed this today

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/sheldon-richardson-isn-shots-brandon-marshall-article-1.3189575

 

I’s frankly absurd that the Jets shopped Richardson before last year’s trade deadline and during the draft. Teams interested in Richardson balked at the idea of paying the fully guaranteed $8.1 million in the final year of his contract, according to sources. It obviously made no sense for Richardson to take a pay cut, so he remained with the team that drafted him.

 

The Jets, however, are still amenable to moving Richardson, which isn’t exactly sound logic given that they’d have to take pennies on the dollar for a talented player on a roster bereft of talent.

 

There have been concerns on One Jets Drive about Richardson’s tardiness/absences to weight-lifting sessions in the past, according to sources, but his skills are undeniable. He also happens to be the second-best talent on the roster behind Leonard Williams.

The organization evidently doesn’t believe that Richardson fits with the new locker room culture they’re hoping to create in the third year under Mike Maccagnan and Bowles. But it’d be unfair to paint the fifth-year defensive lineman as a rogue element.

 

“He’s a beast,” wide receiver Quincy Enunwa told the Daily News. “He’s an athletic freak. His work ethic on the field is crazy. You can just see every down he’s going hard. That’s why I respect his game.”

Yeah. Who needs that, right?

 

Richardson, of course, is no angel. His off-field transgressions that landed him two league-issued suspensions the past two seasons shouldn’t be discounted (he was suspended four games for violating the league’s substance abuse policy in 2015 and one after a 2016 arrest for a reckless driving and resisting arrest), but anyone who has spent time around him knows that his passion on gamedays is exactly what the Jets need.

There’s a feeling within the organization that perhaps a change of scenery might be best for both parties, but that’s a bunch of hooey. What is best for the Jets is to keep their options open along the defensive line during this rebuilding season.

 

If Richardson shines and Muhammad Wilkerson flops for a second consecutive season, then keep Richardson and bid Wilkerson adieu. If Wilkerson shines and Richardson flops, then gladly take your 2019 compensatory draft pick when Richardson leaves.

Richardson claimed that he didn’t pay much attention to the trade rumors during the draft, but he’s no dummy. He’s fully aware of the landscape. He said he’s happy to do “whatever I have to do to help this team win” this season.

 

“I got some trade value or I don’t,” Richardson said. “Either way, I’m a Jet. Until I’m not a Jet, I’m here. Playing. Full force.”

Get ready for a monster season.  

[Koolblue13]

$8.1 mil for a oyd for Richardson? I'd buy that.

[Butters20]

Exactly. One year deal, grab a comp pick when he signs elsewhere next year. 

[clskinsfan]

Dont really know where to put this. So I will put it here. Just heard on NFL network that Matt Jones will not be attending the teams off season program. It appears we are ready to cut ties with the fumbler. Another wasted pick.

[Morneblade]

4 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Dont really know where to put this. So I will put it here. Just heard on NFL network that Matt Jones will not be attending the teams off season program. It appears we are ready to cut ties with the fumbler. Another wasted pick.

 

Wow. I wonder who's decision that was, his or the Redskins?