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(!!)***

[markmills67]

If we were to add another DL in the 1st round of the draft. What positions would McClain and McGee play in a 4-3 considering we play the 4-3 about 70% of the time?

 

HTTR 

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, markmills67 said:

If we were to add another DL in the 1st round of the draft. What positions would McClain and McGee play in a 4-3 considering we play the 4-3 about 70% of the time?

 

HTTR 

I'd imagine interior and Murphy and Kerrigan come up to ends. If it's nickle, Compton and cravens are your backers and if it's a 43(u) galette foster Compton are your backers.

[carex]

I want to address something, as I've been called a homer recently as a negative thing.  Well, I am a homer and I make sure to post as that because I feel there's a lot of negativity around here.  Like people would theoretically like the Redskins to win, but more important is that they're on record with their displeasure with the Skins.  Any player who had some success leaves, they get an immediate upgrade in talent.  Same for other personnel. 

[wilco_holland]

18 minutes ago, carex said:

I want to address something, as I've been called a homer recently as a negative thing.  Well, I am a homer and I make sure to post as that because I feel there's a lot of negativity around here.  Like people would theoretically like the Redskins to win, but more important is that they're on record with their displeasure with the Skins.  Any player who had some success leaves, they get an immediate upgrade in talent.  Same for other personnel. 

 

I didn't know what a Homer was...it's not just the name of that Simpsons guys. So searched it, found this great line:

 

Pull a Homer: to succeed despite idiocy

 

That line describes our organisation perfectly!

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

54 minutes ago, carex said:

I want to address something, as I've been called a homer recently as a negative thing.  Well, I am a homer and I make sure to post as that because I feel there's a lot of negativity around here.  Like people would theoretically like the Redskins to win, but more important is that they're on record with their displeasure with the Skins.  Any player who had some success leaves, they get an immediate upgrade in talent.  Same for other personnel. 

As someone whose career is in no way attached to professional football, it makes not an ounce of difference to me whether I end up right or wrong in my assessments of the organization.  I think most all of us that are displeased with the offseason would prefer to be wrong.  But I will not and can not defy logic and 'get behind' this front office just for the sake of doing so.  We've went from what appeared to be a competent front office structure building a team on the rise only to find out the structure was a façade filled with meaningless titles.  Going into the offseason our only key items were to lock up Kirk and invest heavily on defense.  Thus far, Kirk is still not locked up and we lost some key players and picked up some relatively unknowns on the cheap to replace them.  As for your comment about saying players who leave here get an immediate upgrade in talent - the exact same thing can be said for the homers who immediately discredit the players success when they leave.

 

 

 

 

[bobandweave]

4 hours ago, markmills67 said:

If we were to add another DL in the 1st round of the draft....

 

Yea we won't do that. Can't see this happening. Just voicing an opinion. We already signed two guys there already this year and will watch to see what falls out of the sky as for more sub 27 year old defensive linemen so we can gobble up another one cheap to go along with the team building slash coaching teachers concept we have going but I will not be surprised at all to see us not go there in the 1st. 2nd/3rd whatever round sure I can see a warm body being drafted at the position but the NFL draft works with these professionals in tiers and what won't work in tiers at 17 is a DL/DE/NT type of guy.

 

People don't understand the thinking that the real guys who actually draft work in. Fans get wrapped around the edges of Best Player available vs Need. You can hear Bruce say they will draft solely on player grade but what he's not saying is that it's player grade depending on the tiers the players are in. The more you listen to the guys who are pulling the triggers during a draft the more you understand how they think. Every year teams take these prospects and they put them in tiers, tier one two three etc, per the position. Then they draft according to that. Doesn't matter a position like QB this year isn't good, bet your ass there will be a QB drafted very high yet again. That's because of the tiers concept.

 

When teams are up to draft they look at the tiers and they say "hmmm this guy is a tier one guy lets take him" and say things after wards like "Highest grade on the board" and won't say the truth like "The guy had a 2nd round grade on him but we drafted him anyway because he was the only one at the top tier left to get" or ever say "we had a gapping hole at this position but ignored it anyway because of the tiers that they fell into". Its why you see guys going earlier and later then expected and this thing is so unpredictable. It's neither BPA or Need alone, fans not yourself included don't understand this because we aren't professionals drafting these guys but this is how it works. 

 

For this year at 17th pick to go DL your getting in the weeds of 4th or later best on the board guys. Seriously how high could that tier go? Not that high it's not that deep of a draft. Where as if we go WR or RB your looking at maybe the 2nd best player taken, or LB or G maybe the 1st best taken, much better chance we do this then if we just go and say "hey we need a DL/NT lets go get one right away" that won't happen so don't worry

[CTskin]

1 hour ago, carex said:

I want to address something, as I've been called a homer recently as a negative thing.  Well, I am a homer and I make sure to post as that because I feel there's a lot of negativity around here.  Like people would theoretically like the Redskins to win, but more important is that they're on record with their displeasure with the Skins.  Any player who had some success leaves, they get an immediate upgrade in talent.  Same for other personnel. 

Being a homer means you're seeing things thru B&G-colored glasses and not seeing them clearly. It's wrong to fault others for taking a step back and analyzing the situation realistically. No one faults your dedication and fandom, but it's frustrating to see the blind optimism and it reflects poorly on the fanbase; flashbackas to the Cerrato-winning off-seasons have jaded me. But in the present, every year with Bruce we've done the same dance; overpay some below avg players, extrapulate some stat to give us optimism and then end up thoroughly disappointed.

 

Kirk's tagged again, Pryor only signed for a year, our DL wasn't "upgraded," the only guy in our FO who knew anything about football is no longer with the team... Going into FA, we had a bunch of cap space to work with. Every one of us had our stud FA wish list and you have to be lying to yourself if you aren't disappointed with how the cap was spent.

 

All that said, I wholeheartedly hope that you're right and I'm wrong.

[Fight for ole DC]

A roster issue that is not discussed very often should be taken into consideration during free agency. As a "homer" I do have faith and believe there is a plan in place that includes things common fans don't know. For example, salary cap allocation by position groups with a short-, medium-, and long-term considerations (i.e. How much cap is allocated to the WR position vs. the DL, etc.).  Each team may allocate more cap space to position groups they feel are "critical" while other teams my see other position groups as more "critical".

 

I don't know nor do I have the time to research the Redskins allocation by position group but I have to believe this factor is taken into consideration when the team makes it's plans for free agency. We (some of us) criticize acquisitions (and failure to acquire certain players/positions) from a narrow perspective without considering how much is allocated by position group. Free agency is an expensive way to acquire talent and can load up certain position groups with cap space whereas "building a roster through the draft" based on the current CBA is more financially manageable for keeping position group cap allocation in place.

 

The days of Redskins 1 flying around the country to pick up top-line free agents was certainly fun during the off-season but clearly mismanagement of the salary cap.

 

Perhaps, the Redskins have allocated a certain amount of cap space this year and in coming years to specific position groups (DL ILBs) and plan to address the groups in both free agency and the draft (and post-draft free agency) to keep cap space within the team's plans for cap space allocation over the coming years. Maybe there is a genuine, intelligent master plan in place that we don't know about and the team is keeping to the plan. I have faith.

 

Thoughts? And, please be gentle on me. I lurk often on the site and seldom post.

 

Thanks!

[bobandweave]

2 hours ago, carex said:

I want to address something, as I've been called a homer recently as a negative thing.  Well, I am a homer and I make sure to post as that because I feel there's a lot of negativity around here.  Like people would theoretically like the Redskins to win, but more important is that they're on record with their displeasure with the Skins.  Any player who had some success leaves, they get an immediate upgrade in talent.  Same for other personnel. 

 

Being a homer is a negative thing. It's not a positive. It's an insult. To be a homer means that you can't be objectionable about your team, it means that no matter what happens to it you will still buy the merch and whatever they say. The problem with being a homer is that this thinking smacks those with objectionable points of view in the face. It's like a Raiders homer today saying he can't wait for the season to start and how excited he is about the season and ignoring the news that they are going to play two lame duck seasons in Oakland and then move to Vegas.

 

Being a fan is not a bad thing, we are all fanatics and if anyone reading this doesn't agree your being silly. Why else would you waste your time on a message forum dedicated to the Redskins if you weren't fanatical? Surely you have better things to do with your time then this. We are all fanatics, we are not all homers. It's not a mystery that the main character on the Simpsons is named Homer. It's cool to see things how they really are, and not to drink the hater aide or the kewl aide. Be in the middle. A fan who knows when the teams blowing smoke up your butt and when it's time to believe in them again. I am a fanatic but no one would ever call me a homer, I'm not. Just because someone is a homer doesn't make them a better fan then someone who isn't. Its a weakness.

[carex]

17 minutes ago, CTskin said:

Being a homer means you're seeing things thru B&G-colored glasses and not seeing them clearly. It's wrong to fault others for taking a step back and analyzing the situation realistically. No one faults your dedication and fandom, but it's frustrating to see the blind optimism and it reflects poorly on the fanbase; flashbackas to the Cerrato-winning off-seasons have jaded me. But in the present, every year with Bruce we've done the same dance; overpay some below avg players, extrapulate some stat to give us optimism and then end up thoroughly disappointed.

 

Kirk's tagged again, Pryor only signed for a year, our DL wasn't "upgraded," the only guy in our FO who knew anything about football is no longer with the team... Going into FA, we had a bunch of cap space to work with. Every one of us had our stud FA wish list and you have to be lying to yourself if you aren't disappointed with how the cap was spent.

 

All that said, I wholeheartedly hope that you're right and I'm wrong.

 

Looking at the contracts signed, I have to say the idea we had a lot of cap space has been shown to be wrong.  We had a lot of cap space for other years.  Turns out to not be the case for this year

 

As for the one year signings, a lot of people are doing that this year, so it's hard to blame the Skins for it

 

And personally, I am getting sick of GMSM, I feel he improved our depth, but not much more

2 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Being a homer is a negative thing. It's not a positive. It's an insult. To be a homer means that you can't be objectionable about your team, it means that no matter what happens to it you will still buy the merch and whatever they say. The problem with being a homer is that this thinking smacks those with objectionable points of view in the face. It's like a Raiders homer today saying he can't wait for the season to start and ignoring that they are going to play two lame duck seasons in Oakland and then move to Vegas. Sure being a fan is not a bad thing, we are all fanatics and if anyone reading this doesn't agree your being silly. Why else would you waste your time on a message forum dedicated to the Redskins if you weren't fanatical? Surely you have better things to do with your time then this. We are all fanatics, we are not all homers. It's not a mystery that the main character on the Simpsons is named Homer. It's cool to see things how they really are, and not to drink the hater aide or the kewl aide. Be in the middle. A fan who knows when the teams blowing smoke up your butt and when it's time to believe in them again. I am a fanatic but no one would ever call me a homer, I'm not. Just because someone is a homer doesn't make them a better fan then someone who isn't. Its a weakness.

 

well, I don't think you're being objective.  I believe you're being unreasonably critical

[markmills67]

In my opinion if we can lock up cousins on a LTD it will be a successful off-season so far. 

 

HTTR 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

1 minute ago, markmills67 said:

In my opinion if we can lock up cousins on a LTD it will be a successful off-season so far. 

 

HTTR 

Yeah, this is where I am, more or less. New bodies on the DL ... young guys with upside ... paid as such. Love the Pryor signing.

If we can revamp the defense in the draft, and can re-sign Kirk, I'd be happy despite all the chaos around McCloughan.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

11 minutes ago, carex said:

And personally, I am getting sick of GMSM, I feel he improved our depth, but not much more

 

 

For someone that holds the opinion that Bruce is doing the right thing by being frugal and not spending big money on top tier players, I'd like to hope you understand just how important it is to have depth.  The depth Scott helped to improve is desperately needed.  Unfortunately, we have a defense that needs a lot more than depth, yet that's all we have at best.

 

I also have a hard time believing that you would feel this way about him if he was still here.  Your opinions appear to be based more on a player/GM's status as a Redskin than it does their actual performance.

 

 

[carex]

15 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

For someone that holds the opinion that Bruce is doing the right thing by being frugal and not spending big money on top tier players, I'd like to hope you understand just how important it is to have depth.  The depth Scott helped to improve is desperately needed.  Unfortunately, we have a defense that needs a lot more than depth, yet that's all we have at best.

 

I also have a hard time believing that you would feel this way about him if he was still here.  Your opinions appear to be based more on a player/GM's status as a Redskin than it does their actual performance.

 

 

 

yes, having good depth is very important, it was one of the big failings of the team for years.  But improving depth at positions where your starters are pretty good and not improving starters that need it is not enough

[I Love The Skins]

There is nothing wrong in  being objective but I have seen some fans in other forums and on Twitter, that are OTT negative and always look for something  to complain about.

[alwaysaskin]

Looking back on the off-season, the moves that I hate are the D-Line signings, no where have I seen it indicated that McClain and McGee can handle the percentage of snaps that they'll see this year and that's with ignoring the health situations of both guys. I just don't see how the D-Line has improved at all

[Morneblade]

11 minutes ago, I Love The Skins said:

There is nothing wrong in  being objective but I have seen some fans in other forums and on Twitter, that are OTT negative and always look for something  to complain about.

 

 

To be fair, there has been a lot to complain about. It's not like we're run like the Pats or Steelers.

 

It's more like the Browns and the Jags. Even Dallas looks better run than us right now, and Jerruh is still kicking.

 

So, maybe it's not just "looking" for something, just pointing out what is there. Tust me, I sure most of us would be very content to go back to the JKC, Gibbs, Beathard type of FO, be in the hunt for the Division every year, and win a few SB's.

[Butters20]

I look at our off-season as acquiring new depth. We got questionable DL players, each had a niche as to what they're good at but would not be starters across the board.  With such a glaring need, I take this to mean they will invest heavily in the draft there. They COULd have locked it up with big free agents, but didn't. Clearly the logical thing would be to address it in the draft. 

 

I also personally feel they will make a surprise TE pick fairly high    

 

The cousins situation needs to be resolved soon, otherwise I say invest the entire draft in the defense. 

[bobandweave]

3 hours ago, carex said:

well, I don't think you're being objective.  I believe you're being unreasonably critical

 

In what way? I've not said one thing that's overly critical or unreasonable. Or is this just your way of dealing with something you don't like? Just shout down a different opinion because you can. I know many many people are out there that believe this is how you communicate with others because it leads the conversation no where and is a personal attack on someone for the sake of replying,  just wondering if you have something substantial to that to fortify that belief or was it said because you don't like my thoughts on "homerism"

 

 

2 hours ago, markmills67 said:

In my opinion if we can lock up cousins on a LTD it will be a successful off-season so far. 

 

HTTR 

 

Completely agree, the entire success of this offseason rests at the feet of what we do with him

[bedlamVR]

14 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

To be fair, there has been a lot to complain about. It's not like we're run like the Pats or Steelers.

 

It's more like the Browns and the Jags. Even Dallas looks better run than us right now, and Jerruh is still kicking.

 

So, maybe it's not just "looking" for something, just pointing out what is there. Tust me, I sure most of us would be very content to go back to the JKC, Gibbs, Beathard type of FO, be in the hunt for the Division every year, and win a few SB's.

1

 

 

Seriously - You would rather us go back to a time - and dont get me wrong the 80s were a golden time for Skins fans, but you want to go back to the time when the owner was in and out of court fighting paternity cases and divorce proceedings from ex- gun/drug running partners, the GM and HC were for big chunks of time in flat out war with each other - we routinely traded 1st/2nd/3rd round picks (i think we actually drafted in the first round  3 times in the 80s). 

 

And seriously could you imagine what would happen on these boards if Bruce Allen picked a guy like Tony Zendejas - a kicker - who we picked in the 1984 suplemental draft - in the 1st round,  a round before we selected Gary Clark to replace Mark Mosley - who then went on never to  play a down for the Skins..

 

People are too critical of things on these boards - It is rare that anyone has an open mind but posts but it seems we have lots of people who can see the future with asbolute clarity. Which is awesome    

[bobandweave]

3 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

 

 

Seriously - You would rather us go back to a time - and dont get me wrong the 80s were a golden time for Skins fans, but you want to go back to the time when the owner was in and out of court fighting paternity cases and divorce proceedings from ex- gun/drug running partners, the GM and HC were for big chunks of time in flat out war with each other - we routinely traded 1st/2nd/3rd round picks (i think we actually drafted in the first round  3 times in the 80s). 

 

And seriously could you imagine what would happen on these boards if Bruce Allen picked a guy like Tony Zendejas - a kicker - who we picked in the 1984 suplemental draft - in the 1st round,  a round before we selected Gary Clark to replace Mark Mosley - who then went on never to  play a down for the Skins..

 

People are too critical of things on these boards - It is rare that anyone has an open mind but posts but it seems we have lots of people who can see the future with asbolute clarity. Which is awesome    

 

I'd like to go back in time when every year it was hard to figure out who would win the Superbowl that year. Today feels like there are 7 teams who can get there and only 4 who could win it all this year. The NFL has become oversaturated with average teams, and teams that realistically have no chance to win it all. Do you think we can win it all this year? We all long to get back to being relevant, nothing wrong with that.

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, bedlamVR said:

 

 

Seriously - You would rather us go back to a time - and dont get me wrong the 80s were a golden time for Skins fans, but you want to go back to the time when the owner was in and out of court fighting paternity cases and divorce proceedings from ex- gun/drug running partners, the GM and HC were for big chunks of time in flat out war with each other - we routinely traded 1st/2nd/3rd round picks (i think we actually drafted in the first round  3 times in the 80s). 

 

Let's see. Same GM and HC, very competitive every year, 7 playoff appearances, 4 division titles, 4 Superbowl appearances with 3 wins?

 

Yes. Yes I would take that.

 

1 minute ago, bedlamVR said:

And seriously could you imagine what would happen on these boards if Bruce Allen picked a guy like Tony Zendejas - a kicker - who we picked in the 1984 suplemental draft - in the 1st round,  a round before we selected Gary Clark to replace Mark Mosley - who then went on never to  play a down for the Skins.

 

Does anyone really care about the suplemental draft? Really? This is your argument? Ok then.

We still got Gary Clark in the 2nd round. WIN!

 

1 minute ago, bedlamVR said:

 

People are too critical of things on these boards - It is rare that anyone has an open mind but posts but it seems we have lots of people who can see the future with asbolute clarity. Which is awesome    

 

[carex]

39 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

In what way? I've not said one thing that's overly critical or unreasonable. Or is this just your way of dealing with something you don't like? Just shout down a different opinion because you can. I know many many people are out there that believe this is how you communicate with others because it leads the conversation no where and is a personal attack on someone for the sake of replying,  just wondering if you have something substantial to that to fortify that belief or was it said because you don't like my thoughts on "homerism"

 

 

 

Completely agree, the entire success of this offseason rests at the feet of what we do with him

 

I'm refering to the board in general, and frankly I''m the one people are trying to shout down, I've got more people coming at my opinion than you do at yours

 

[carex]

14 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I'd like to go back in time when every year it was hard to figure out who would win the Superbowl that year. Today feels like there are 7 teams who can get there and only 4 who could win it all this year. The NFL has become oversaturated with average teams, and teams that realistically have no chance to win it all. Do you think we can win it all this year? We all long to get back to being relevant, nothing wrong with that.

 

I hate to tell you this but that era never happened, go back and look at super Bowl teams and the guys who made it in only once are pretty rare

[Voice_of_Reason]

21 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

Of course not. So we shouldn't even bother with asking the question right? RIGHT?

 

Unless it's to talk about where are RIGHT NOW. Since we still have the draft. And FA is still going on, just creeped to a stop.

 

So, as of right now, In my opinion, we are worse off from a talent prospective than we were. Cover enough of your bases for you?

Yeah, it's dominated about the last 100 pages of this thread.  I think we asked the question, everybody answered it, and it is what it is.  I think the signings were somewhat underwhelming.  But Baker wasn't all that great either, so I'm not entirely sure if they got better or worse.  There also could have been some internal reasons that they didn't even extend him a contract.

 

We have a new DC, a new scheme, and apparently according to the chalk-talk thread, Gruden admitted to flaws in the defensive philosiphy last year, so who knows, maybe there is addition by subtraction.

 

I think my point is that for this thread about FA, this topic seems to have run it's course.  I'm not trying to limit anybody from having a conversation in any way.  It just seems like the battle lines are drawn, there's no new information on the topic, and it's the same folks barking at each other over and over.

 

It's like a mini-version of the Cult of Colt fiasco.  FWIW, in that particular fiasco, I think it's been proven that the only people who were right were the ones who said that none of the QBs on the roster could play. I hope we don't end up with the same revelation in years to come.