2018 Free Agency Database - (Signed: WILLIAMS - McPhee - Scandrick - P-Rich) - (Lauvao, Bergstrom, Nsehke, Taylor, Z. Brown and Quick re-signed)

[dyst]

Please no to Pryor, Phil Taylor and a bunch of other guys on that list. This team needs help in major ways. We have way to many guys that are slow, not playing the right position or often injured. Clean house please. Keep the true talents but get rid of the rest, trade if you can.

[zoony]

7 hours ago, HigSkin said:

 

14. Phil Taylor, NT – Out of football since 2014, Taylor won the nose tackle job last summer before suffering a season-ending quad injury late in the preseason. Sure, the big man could surprise again this summer, but the Redskins cannot sit back and assume Taylor is the answer.

13. Dustin Hopkins, K – Rather steady during his three seasons with Washington, Hopkins ranked only 21st in field goal percentage last season, missed his two attempts of at least 50 yards — he isn’t the longest off the tee. One would think he will face competition this summer even if he ultimately keeps the gig.

12. Will Compton, ILB – A locker-room leader who lost his starting job and barely took the field on defense before injuries struck elsewhere. He could be a fallback if Zach Brown and Mason Foster do not return.

11. Shawn Lauvao, G – Pro Football Focus ranked the try-hard Lauvao 74th among 82 guards last season. He has missed 22 games over the last three seasons with injuries. The Redskins have needed a left guard upgrade. Time to get one.

10. Chris Carter, LB – The special teams stalwart suffered a fractured fibula in December. One would think the Redskins want him back.

9. Niles Paul, TE – The kind of leader Washington should keep; the vocal Paul spent his entire seven-year career with Washington. How much the team will spend for a blocking tight end behind Jordan Reed and Vernon Davis is unclear.

8. Mason Foster, ILB – The run defense cratered after losing rookie lineman Jonathan Allen in Week 5 and then took another dip when Washington placed Foster (shoulder) on IR after Week 7. Foster tweeted displeasure over the decision, but eventually recanted. How deep the true hurt for Foster and what else the Redskins accomplish at ILB during the offseason are major factors here.

7. Junior Galette, OLB – It’s kind of amazing Galette wasn’t among the many injured players after missing the previous two seasons with Achilles injuries. The toughest blocks he faced all season were from teammates Ryan Kerrigan and Preston Smith playing ahead of him. The pass rusher finished with three sacks. He publicly expressed a desire for more playing time late in the season and could bounce accordingly.

6. Ryan Grant, WR – The Redskins need a physical and steady target opposite Josh Doctson. Grant, a Gruden favorite, is that guy. He just might not be that guy for starter money. A final stat line of 45-573-4 made him top-three in all categories. If the Redskins pass on spending big for a headliner option in free agency, they could stay with their in-house option.

5. Bashaud Breeland, CB – There is no questioning the talent. Breeland can play. No. 1 cornerback, no, but he has the game to battle elite receivers. The Redskins do not realistically have the cap space to pay big bucks for another corner unless they release Josh Norman. They also have built up ample CB depth over the past two seasons.

4. Trent Murphy, LB – A one-year prove-it contract makes sense for both sides following a lost 2017. Murphy gets a chance to rehab his image following a league suspension and show what he has following knee surgery. Washington gets a look at a player who collected nine sacks in 2016.

3. Spencer Long, C – Keep the 2014 third-round pick, but move him back to guard, his original position, while Chase Roullier takes over at center. That’s an option – an option that depends on whether Long wants to remain at center. This is a major question in the middle of the line if Long bolts.

2. Zach Brown, ILB – The speed threat arrived last year with a one-year deal, played through a painful Achilles injury, and led the NFL in tackles before sitting out the final two games. Though limited in pass defense, Brown upgraded the middle of Washington’s defense.

1. Kirk Cousins, QB – You need a viable quarterback for a chance at success. Cousins is viable and sometimes much more. There is no clear fallback option. Based on the neverending contract situation, there is a clear divide on his value. It also remains unclear if Camp Cousins truly desires a long-term deal here — or just how much the Redskins believe he’s the man. Either way, the year-to-year saga must end this year, certainly from the team’s perspective.

-

I think i would sign phil taylor but only for incentive laden deal.  

 

I would definitely pursue Brown, and i agree Long should be a guard.  Obviously Cousins.  Thats it though, sayonara everyone else.

 

Now with that said, if we dont sign cousins, no point in signing any of those names at all.  Bring in 20 youngsters and see if you can groom a starter or two.  Wont matter, teams gonna suck anyway

[carex]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Then defining it as a “speedy” receiver is a misnomer. I think the term people are looking for is “flanker” or “Z”.

 

”Speedy” is general and applies to any fast receiver. We have a fast receiver. We also have a guy who could pan out as a Z in Doctson. Year 3 for a receiver is the prove it year.

 

We’re missing an X/Split End.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple.  After all Art Monk and Ricky Sanders technically played the same position when th Skins weren't in three wide but Sanders was still the Skins speed guy

[skinny21]

It's quick vs fast for me, and yeah, I think speedy is probably a bit of a misnomer.  

 

I'm still of the mind that if we draft a well rounded TE, he can help the run game (and pass game, to an extent), while we keep Reed flexed out as a receiver.  That takes away the need for Reed to block linemen and backers and adds that (talented) chain mover (no offense Grant) we need.  So that would leave us with Harris/Grant as the secondary "move the chains" type and leaves us needing a guy that can challenge defenses deep.  Doctson showed flashes, but we could use another one.  

 

A guy that can do it all would be ideal, but then you're likely looking at another early pick at receiver, and we have other areas to address.  This is part of the reason I'm so intrigued by Robert Davis, but man, we've seen nothing to think he can fill that role (I realize it's early).  I do think we need to find a guy that, if he's a polished enough route runner and has some burst, can separate enough to challenge safeties.  Crowder is really close to matching those criteria, but not quite IMO (except occasionally).  He lacks (obviously) that ball tracking Jackson (and Moss before that) showcased for us, as well as that next gear of course.  

 

I think I'd rather focus on the run game and defense, and on letting Kirk audible when facing stacked boxes.  Here, again, is where I think a more well rounded TE can help.  I think the draft is going to shake out to where we can get a talented defender in the 1st, an upgrade at running back in the 2nd, and the TE I'm talking about in the 3rd or 4th.  

 

As has been pointed out to me, next year should be a much better draft for receivers and hopefully we'll find ourselves with fewer holes (and a better balanced team), as well as the possibility of moving Reed to free up cap space (to re-sign Scherff?).  Kirk showed us that he can perform without ideal weapons, and drafting a better back, getting Reed and Thompson healthy, and seeing progress from our younger guys should be enough to take a step forward (after taking two steps back with the loss of Garçon/Jackson).  

 

Or not.  

 

 

[RandyHolt]

I want 2 hands backs next year, and perhaps roll with one less TE.  CT getting injured seemed to kill our offense, when the countless other injuries we had didn't seem to as much.  Expecting CT to carry the load singlehandedly next year will be a mistake IMO, not to mention coming off a major injury. Hands backs seem all the rage, yet tend to be on the small side and think most need managed snaps.  When in doubt, look at what NE does. They have 2 and share the duties effectively. I am sure it keeps DCs guessing.

 

The big athletic stud TEs all seem to be injury prone. Instead of lining up hands TEs out wide, you can move the hands back out wide instead. The blocking TEs should be able to be replaced by backup OL.

 

Plus, with no Kirk next year, we will be dumping off an awful lot - and mind as well have options there.

[KDawg]

@RandyHolt

 

don’t discount Bibbs there. I like him as a compliment to Thompson. He’s NOT Thompson by any means. But he’s a viable piece. 

[RandyHolt]

15 minutes ago, KDawg said:

@RandyHolt

 

don’t discount Bibbs there. I like him as a compliment to Thompson. He’s NOT Thompson by any means. But he’s a viable piece. 

 

No discouting here, but wonder why he didn't get his shot as soon as CT went down. Maybe he needed to firm up his playbook/passpro before getting into games. We went with Byron Marshall instead, which was perhaps a little bit of payback for Sudfeld (who I think we will see play this weekend).

 

Also no discounting of Marshall. Either one. Backs seem a dime a dozen more than ever before.

[carex]

5 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

 

No discouting here, but wonder why he didn't get his shot as soon as CT went down. Maybe he needed to firm up his playbook/passpro before getting into games. We went with Byron Marshall instead, which was perhaps a little bit of payback for Sudfeld (who I think we will see play this weekend).

 

Also no discounting of Marshall. Either one. Backs seem a dime a dozen more than ever before.

 

Cause Marshall was signed to the Skins on Nov 14th and Bibbs wasn't signed to the PS till the 24th

[skinny21]

I’m worried about the FO’s perceptions of our players.  Do they look at Perine/Kelley/Thompson/Bibbs/the Marshalls and say - we really like our backs, let’s not draft one.  Ditto the TEs.  Do they look at Paul and Hood’s versatility and think we’re fine there?

[markmills67]

12 hours ago, zoony said:

-

I think i would sign phil taylor but only for incentive laden deal.  

 

I would definitely pursue Brown, and i agree Long should be a guard.  Obviously Cousins.  Thats it though, sayonara everyone else.

 

Now with that said, if we dont sign cousins, no point in signing any of those names at all.  Bring in 20 youngsters and see if you can groom a starter or two.  Wont matter, teams gonna suck anyway

Agree with everything in this post apart from Long switching to LG, I'm sure Gruden said the reason we moved Long to C was because he struggled at LG.

 

HTTR 

Also does anybody else on here think we should look into the possibility of trying to trade Reed?.

 

HTTR 

[skinny21]

50 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

Agree with everything in this post apart from Long switching to LG, I'm sure Gruden said the reason we moved Long to C was because he struggled at LG.

 

HTTR 

Also does anybody else on here think we should look into the possibility of trying to trade Reed?.

 

HTTR 

It’s been talked about, but that contract (we’d have to pay out the remaining guaranteed money this year) makes it virtually impossible I believe.  Not sure any team is willing to take on his salary with his health concerns either.  Of course, if we have to pay out the guaranteed portion up front and they don’t... who knows.  I think we’re actually better off cutting him as a June 1 cut, but I don’t really know.  This is why I keep saying - retain him this year, play him as a receiver to get his production up (assuming he plays more next year than this year), and then try to trade him.  

 

Edit:  Actually, looking at it again, I think we’d have to pay out 5.4 and we’d shed 8.25.  The team trading for him would have to pay 8.25, 7.6, 8.25, 8,75 each year (if they kept him and didn’t restructure.  Might actually be worth it if we got a reasonable pick - probably conditional - though we’d be giving up a serious receiving threat and only get 2.75 in space... if I have my numbers right.  Of course, that 2.75 might be enough to re-sign Foster, or Long, or Murphy.  

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

I’m worried about the FO’s perceptions of our players.  Do they look at Perine/Kelley/Thompson/Bibbs/the Marshalls and say - we really like our backs, let’s not draft one.  Ditto the TEs.  Do they look at Paul and Hood’s versatility and think we’re fine there?

 

I’m worried about that as well.

 

Id be fine with Thompson/Perine/Bibbs going into next season as three of our backs. But we need a bell cow that can carry the load on a consistent basis as well. To me, the odd man out is Kelly. He doesn’t add anything Perine doesn’t, and I believe Perine has more upside.

 

Now, that doesn’t mean you don’t bring in Kelley to compete and take a job. But I think we need a back that can carry the load. 

 

Im okay with Bibbs/Perine/Thompson/Marshall/K. Marshall/Kelley coming into camp. But we need a guy who is a starter type of player that can carry the load to be in the group. 

 

Then take the best of the rest, accounting for backups to Thompson and the workhorse.

[skinny21]

@KDawgTotally agree, I like our 2-4.  Heck, maybe we could even luck into trading Kelley (or Perine) for a late round pick in the preseason.  But yeah, it’s a concern.  

 

On the bright side, maybe the qb debacle means they want a splashy player for PR reasons and think RB might be that spot.  Sad that that plays into my perception of the FO (really just Bruce.. and maybe Snyder).  

 

While I’m at it, what do you think of Reed essentially playing as a full time receiver for us?  Does that satisfy (to an extent) your feeling that we need a chain mover on the outside?

[KDawg]

3 hours ago, skinny21 said:

 

 

While I’m at it, what do you think of Reed essentially playing as a full time receiver for us?  Does that satisfy (to an extent) your feeling that we need a chain mover on the outside?

 

Nope. I’d like to move Reed due to health and his salary vs. play time and total production. Moving him outside doesn’t necessarily make him more durable.

[Rufus T Firefly]

7 hours ago, markmills67 said:

Also does anybody else on here think we should look into the possibility of trying to trade Reed?.

Yes, I've been on that train for a while now. I actually wanted to deal him before we gave him the big contract, but that's neither here nor there at this point.

[Thinking Skins]

15 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

I’m worried about that as well.

 

Id be fine with Thompson/Perine/Bibbs going into next season as three of our backs. But we need a bell cow that can carry the load on a consistent basis as well. To me, the odd man out is Kelly. He doesn’t add anything Perine doesn’t, and I believe Perine has more upside.

 

Now, that doesn’t mean you don’t bring in Kelley to compete and take a job. But I think we need a back that can carry the load. 

 

Im okay with Bibbs/Perine/Thompson/Marshall/K. Marshall/Kelley coming into camp. But we need a guy who is a starter type of player that can carry the load to be in the group. 

 

Then take the best of the rest, accounting for backups to Thompson and the workhorse.

I agree with this, but I'd say that we need to bring in a different type of back - closer to the Chris Thompson/B. Marshall/Briggs, and less like the Perine/Kelley backs. The former GM of the Eagles was on Al Galdi's show this week talking about it and how its a matchup nightmare for teams and how the Eagles and NE had it mastered but few teams copied it. That's what we have in Thompson. I think Perine is better at it than Kelley (which is why I'd be in favor of him keeping that spot), but if Thompson isn't seen as a guy who can play 40 snaps a game, then I'd want somebody like him that can. That's what makes Gruden's offense work. I like Bibbs but I don't want to settle on the position and be satisfied. I think we got a real view of how dangerous a back like Thompson can be in this offense and how it can be shut down when he's hurt. So we need to bring in more of him and less Kelley's/Morris's/Perine's. 

 

I'd also add that while it may be due to injuries and who went down ( especially after Thompson went down), but we brought in two pass catching backs to replace him instead of the pounders like Kelley and Perine. Remember that Kelley went down before Thompson but was replaced with dissimilar backs. Hopefully that's a change in philosophy.

[mojo]

I’d love to trade Reed at this point.  I can’t Imagjne we would have too many suitors though.  Although one intriguing prospect might be the Patriots.  They might load up for another Super Bowl run next year and might be willing to cough up a pick for Reed.  Could you imagine a healthy Reed w Gronk?  

[bowhunter]

I can't think of any legitimate reason not to be resigning Brown right now. Whether KC is in the plans or not, this needs to happen. I hope Bruce isn't head gaming or bargain shopping Zach.

[OVCChairman]

54 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

I can't think of any legitimate reason not to be resigning Brown right now. Whether KC is in the plans or not, this needs to happen. I hope Bruce isn't head gaming or bargain shopping Zach.

We can't sign him because we don't have the cap room in the 2017 year to absorb his signing bonus.  When a player signs a contract, the signing bonus is applied to the league year they are currently in.  We burned through our cushion picking up all these replacement players to fill in for injuries, so there currently is not enough room to give him more than $1 mil or so at signing.  My best guess would be that we're in negotiations, and there may even be a deal in place, but it can't be put into place until after the start of the new league year.

 

or at least that's the way I understood it.  

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

We can't sign him because we don't have the cap room in the 2017 year to absorb his signing bonus.  When a player signs a contract, the signing bonus is applied to the league year they are currently in.  We burned through our cushion picking up all these replacement players to fill in for injuries, so there currently is not enough room to give him more than $1 mil or so at signing.  My best guess would be that we're in negotiations, and there may even be a deal in place, but it can't be put into place until after the start of the new league year. 

 

Im sure we could just make his bonus payable on the first day on the 2018 league year. 

[bowhunter]

6 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

We can't sign him because we don't have the cap room in the 2017 year to absorb his signing bonus.  When a player signs a contract, the signing bonus is applied to the league year they are currently in.  We burned through our cushion picking up all these replacement players to fill in for injuries, so there currently is not enough room to give him more than $1 mil or so at signing.  My best guess would be that we're in negotiations, and there may even be a deal in place, but it can't be put into place until after the start of the new league year.

 

or at least that's the way I understood it.  

Gotcha, but as UKSF kinda referenced, any meager cushions we had for 2017 are no longer needed. Hopefully this is getting done just awaiting 2018 league year for pen to paper. Thanks

[Est.1974]

58 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

I can't think of any legitimate reason not to be resigning Brown right now. Whether KC is in the plans or not, this needs to happen. I hope Bruce isn't head gaming or bargain shopping Zach.

 

Also on Brown, it was reported that his 2017 deal had over 2mil included as incentives. I dare say the way our FO operates there is some complication around those being payable or not. 

[OVCChairman]

Quote

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/heres-one-possible-reason-why-redskins-and-brown-havent-agreed-extension

 

Quote

One of the incentives that a pending free agent might get to persuade him to forego hitting the open market is some immediate cash in his bank account. For example, last week Eagles WR Alshon Jeffery got $6.25 million signing bonus as part of his four-year, $52 million extension. Like Brown, he signed a one-year free-agent deal earlier this year.

 

That signing bonus money is charged to the 2017 salary cap. The Redskins simply don’t have the cap space to pay Brown anything close to that.

 

Heres the article I read about it back in early December...  It doesn't give much of an explanation in depth, just says that money is charged to this cap year, and later mentions that the cap resets the day after the super bowl... so maybe it can still happen before he actually becomes a free agent. 

[ncr2h]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

We can't sign him because we don't have the cap room in the 2017 year to absorb his signing bonus.  When a player signs a contract, the signing bonus is applied to the league year they are currently in.  We burned through our cushion picking up all these replacement players to fill in for injuries, so there currently is not enough room to give him more than $1 mil or so at signing.  My best guess would be that we're in negotiations, and there may even be a deal in place, but it can't be put into place until after the start of the new league year.

 

or at least that's the way I understood it.  

 

Just to clarify - the signing bonus is paid in the year that the contract is signed, but is spread over the life of the contract for salary cap accounting purposes.  Despite our ability to spread a potential signing bonus for Brown, we are unable to offer him a market rate signing bonus because we are too close to the 2017 cap ceiling.  This is because we had so many injuries in 2017, and the new guys we brought in (even though they were on meager salaries) ate up all of the salary cap space we had at the beginning of the season.

 

I believe that's what you meant, but it was just presented a little bit ambiguously with the "the signing bonus is applied to the league year they are currently in".  This is true, but could be misinterpreted as the full amount of the signing bonus being applied to that year, rather than just a portion of the bonus being applied to that year.

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, ncr2h said:

 

Just to clarify - the signing bonus is paid in the year that the contract is signed, but is spread over the life of the contract for salary cap accounting purposes.  Despite our ability to spread a potential signing bonus for Brown, we are unable to offer him a market rate signing bonus because we are too close to the 2017 cap ceiling.  This is because we had so many injuries in 2017, and the new guys we brought in (even though they were on meager salaries) ate up all of the salary cap space we had at the beginning of the season.

 

I believe that's what you meant, but it was just presented a little bit ambiguously with the "the signing bonus is applied to the league year they are currently in".  This is true, but could be misinterpreted as the full amount of the signing bonus being applied to that year, rather than just a portion of the bonus being applied to that year.

Correct!  you put it a lot better than I did lol.