GIF Breakdown: Vernon Davis' Run Blocking Key for Redskins

[kingarthur65]

Davis will be competing with Niles for the number 2 TE spot.  Reed is definitely our number one, but he misses too many games.  There is a major drop off in production when Reed is not in the lineup.  Paul could win the spot but he would have to show improvement.  Paul is talented and athletic but he is the worst route runner on our team.  He won't get on the field if Kirk doesn't trust him to run his route correctly.  

[PeterMP]

Sorry, but point 1 you made is intellectually dishonest. 

 

Some of those TEs are on their rookie contracts, so of course they are going to be paid less than Davis will be.  That is unavoidable.

 

Also, it's not just about the cap hit this year.  It's about the financial commitment to the player throughout the life of the contract.  The veteran TEs you mentioned are all being paid a higher APY figure than Davis is on his contract.  If you look at the guaranteed money (which is what really matters) on the contracts, only Jared Cook is getting less guaranteed money than Davis. 

 

This is a signing that is very low risk.  The only way Callahan's run scheme can reach it's full potential is if we have TEs that can block.  Trying to reach in the draft for a TE who can't block makes no sense.  At least we know what we have in Davis when it comes to his blocking. This signing was a step in the right direction.

 

The problem though is how many years is Davis going to do it.

 

Realistically, you've signed a guy that you have to think about replacing pretty much immediately.  Why not just skip this step and find the long(er) term person to do the job now?

 

The person he is going to take snaps away from is the person you'd be looking at doing the job in the 2017 or 18 season.

 

It is Knighton repeated.

[Chants]

My read on this Vernon Davis signing is that he is here to #1:  Play football, and, a close #2:  Mentor Jordan Reed.

 

A good investment, a good signing.

 

BTW, OP  thehbrwhammer, that is some very good content you've created on your site.  Love it!

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

The problem though is how many years is Davis going to do it.

 

Realistically, you've signed a guy that you have to think about replacing pretty much immediately.  Why not just skip this step and find the long(er) term person to do the job now?

 

The person he is going to take snaps away from is the person you'd be looking at doing the job in the 2017 or 18 season.

 

It is Knighton repeated.

 

So, are you saying the Skins should not have any players on one year contracts?  Every player on the roster should be on a multi-year contract and be the answer at their position for the foreseeable future...otherwise, why have them right? 

[Master Blaster]

 

Great breakdown but he's something that's left off this breakdown. I remember reading articles like this last season

 

Vernon Davis vanishes in Denver Broncos' offense

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000624900/article/vernon-davis-vanishes-in-denver-broncos-offense

 

And wondering what happened to this guy? After moving to Denver last season in a trade he had a total of 20 receptions 201 receiving yards and 0 TDs and I recall that fan base being excited about him going there too. Reminds me too much of deva vu here,

 

I get that he's a blocking TE now and we need help there but would we be talking about this signing if not for what he's done in the past in the receiving game? I don't think so.

 

Topics like this also need to take into account how a signing like this likely pushes snaps out for a young guy like Niles Paul who while I understand isn't a fan favorite among many fans of this team has shined when given the primary receiving role on this team when Reed missed games and takes away the likeliness we draft a TE this year and significantly makes this team older. Not a lot to like here with this one but they can't all make sense right? 

 

 

 

Leave it to Redskins' fans to complain for years about a lack of depth, then complain when depth starts to be accumulated about not having enough snaps to go around . 

[PeterMP]

So, are you saying the Skins should not have any players on one year contracts?  Every player on the roster should be on a multi-year contract and be the answer at their position for the foreseeable future...otherwise, why have them right? 

 

No that's not what I've said.

 

Every player on the roster is not equivalent to a veteran player that is looking for a big contract and didn't get one so is willing to sign a one year contract or a veteran player that most people readily admit is on the back end of his career.

 

I have a pretty good track record of calling out contracts when I don't like them, and that isn't every 1 year contract.

[MartinC]

The problem though is how many years is Davis going to do it.

 

Realistically, you've signed a guy that you have to think about replacing pretty much immediately.  Why not just skip this step and find the long(er) term person to do the job now?

 

Lets define the role as blocking TE who is going to be a big upgrade to help the run game and who will get 2 or 3 targets a game and depth behind Reed as the receiving TE. Who in free agency would you have targeted to fill this role on a longish term basis? 

[Koolblue13]

The problem though is how many years is Davis going to do it.

Realistically, you've signed a guy that you have to think about replacing pretty much immediately. Why not just skip this step and find the long(er) term person to do the job now?

The person he is going to take snaps away from is the person you'd be looking at doing the job in the 2017 or 18 season.

It is Knighton repeated.

Hamm would have lost snaps last year.

Jk, he had 4 people in front of him go down and still didn't excel.

Davis taking snaps from a mystery player we don't have, doesn't make it a bad signing.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

No that's not what I've said.

 

Every player on the roster is not equivalent to a veteran player that is looking for a big contract and didn't get one so is willing to sign a one year contract or a veteran player that most people readily admit is on the back end of his career.

 

I have a pretty good track record of calling out contracts when I don't like them, and that isn't every 1 year contract.

 

I think you need to read what you wrote again.  

 

Realistically, you've signed a guy that you have to think about replacing pretty much immediately.  Why not just skip this step and find the long(er) term person to do the job now? 

 

That would be every player signed to a one year deal correct?

[huck09]

I think Davis can grab 40+ passes this year. We have to many weapons.

[PeterMP]

I think you need to read what you wrote again.  

 

Realistically, you've signed a guy that you have to think about replacing pretty much immediately.  Why not just skip this step and find the long(er) term person to do the job now? 

 

That would be every player signed to a one year deal correct?

 

I know what I wrote, but there is a difference between a 23 year old a one year contract, a veteran on your team that you have a history with and are hoping to resign longer term, and a veteran that is coming from somewhere else that you have no history with and is either looking for a place to make a bigger market for himself the next year or is just to the point in time in his career where nobody is going to give a reasonable 2 year deal.

 

Realistically, I don't think there are many cases where a 1 year contract makes much sense for the team, but there are always exceptions.  I've said here that if you had to franchise Cousins, then that's what you do (essentially a 1 year contract).

 

If you can't see the differences and can't see that I also pointed to a specific example in that post too, then I don't know what to tell you.

[PeterMP]

Lets define the role as blocking TE who is going to be a big upgrade to help the run game and who will get 2 or 3 targets a game and depth behind Reed as the receiving TE. Who in free agency would you have targeted to fill this role on a longish term basis? 

 

Which ever one of the 25 and under TEs that have bounced around their first few years that will latch on and have a career in the NFL as blocking TE with limited pass catching abilities.

 

And no, I can't tell you who that is, but I'm not paid to be a football scout.

[nemocystem]

Outside of the few expensive youngsters you seem to be intimating, there was pretty much nobody out there worth having us spend money on at the position that wasn't either a ) duplication, b ) completely inept at run blocking, or c ) someone SM trusts as a football player...or at least as much as their value would indicate.

Is it a mind blowing signing? No. Is a $1.2mil base salary too much for a 32 y/o veteran who works/plays hard, is a threat in all aspects on offense, & isn't a detriment to the development of Reed? Doubtful.

It's funny to me though because when you see the snaps he did play on, you can clearly see where he hasn't degenerated all that much, if at all, as an athlete. The main concerns seem to stem from his lack of snaps/looks over the last 2 seasons. 2 seasons riddled by structural upheaval for a seasoned professional. The way i look at it is that we just got a guy who at the least can back up Reed/Paul, is the best run blocking TE on our roster, provides some matchup problems on occasion, but most importantly...his lack of usage will mean he should be relatively fresh, no? At least fresher than if his usage rate was as it had been the short-term prior to the last 2 seasons.

I dunno...i'd be more upset at resigning Hatcher, were that to happen. Not because it would actually upset me...but because i'm that NOT upset with the VD signing.

Really though, my main thing would be that Davis was simply the best value get out of the remaining market, & anyone better, or with better potential, would only serve to stifle our current developments. This was a good value get at a position where we're pretty much set at starter for the foreseeable future.

[Rudechain]

I know what I wrote, but there is a difference between a 23 year old a one year contract, a veteran on your team that you have a history with and are hoping to resign longer term, and a veteran that is coming from somewhere else that you have no history with and is either looking for a place to make a bigger market for himself the next year or is just to the point in time in his career where nobody is going to give a reasonable 2 year deal.

 

Realistically, I don't think there are many cases where a 1 year contract makes much sense for the team, but there are always exceptions.  I've said here that if you had to franchise Cousins, then that's what you do (essentially a 1 year contract).

 

If you can't see the differences and can't see that I also pointed to a specific example in that post too, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

The problem lies then in who do you go with?   Last season we suffered injuries to the TE position and it cost us.  We had to use an OT and defenses knew he was not a threat in the passing game.  There is also limited cap space this season and the need to re-sign guys whose contracts expire next year.   The TE position in the draft this year is not anything to write home about.

 

Davis will have to compete for playing time.  Will Paul be ready for camp?  This move should help with the running game as Davis is pretty good blocking which should only help Jones.   

 

A position decimated by injuries last season has the potential to be a position of strength this season.  Davis could also help getting our other tight ends in blocking techniques.   

 

And I don't think Gruden will play Davis over someone if he has not earned it.  He's shown that propensity last season so why would he change up now?

[MartinC]

Which ever one of the 25 and under TEs that have bounced around their first few years that will latch on and have a career in the NFL as blocking TE with limited pass catching abilities.

And no, I can't tell you who that is, but I'm not paid to be a football scout.

The very strong possibility exists that there is/was no one available in the category you cite above that our front office felt would come in and give the upgrade to the blocking at the position we need. They may be wrong, they may be right. The odds are they are right because there are not many TEs who excel as blockers in the NFL period.

If you exclude street free agents who were not under contract at the end of last season there were only 2 TEs 25 and under who hit free agency this year. Green who signed for 4 years $20M including a $4M signing bonus with the Steelers and a guy called Rob Blanchflower who was released by the Steelers. That's it.

If we go a bit older there is one name that jumps out. Rhett Ellison who is 27 and an excellent blocker who was a big part of the Vikes run game. But he's coming off serious knee surgery. He signed with the Vikes again on a modest contract that's lower than the one we signed Davis to. He might have been worth a punt but he's not certain to be healthy.

The guy your looking for likely did not exist in free agency. The draft and undrafted free agents right after the draft is where we might find that guy - and he's not going to come in and start. That's where Davis comes in. He is a known commodity. Not without his issues and red flags - but a certain upgrade in blocking on anyone we had on the roster at TE last year.

[PeterMP]

The very strong possibility exists that there is/was no one available in the category you cite above that our front office felt would come in and give the upgrade to the blocking at the position we need. They may be wrong, they may be right. The odds are they are right because there are not many TEs who excel as blockers in the NFL period.

If you exclude street free agents who were not under contract at the end of last season there were only 2 TEs 25 and under who hit free agency this year. Green who signed for 4 years $20M including a $4M signing bonus with the Steelers and a guy called Rob Blanchflower who was released by the Steelers. That's it.

If we go a bit older there is one name that jumps out. Rhett Ellison who is 27 and an excellent blocker who was a big part of the Vikes run game. But he's coming off serious knee surgery. He signed with the Vikes again on a modest contract that's lower than the one we signed Davis to. He might have been worth a punt but he's not certain to be healthy.

The guy your looking for likely did not exist in free agency. The draft and undrafted free agents right after the draft is where we might find that guy - and he's not going to come in and start. That's where Davis comes in. He is a known commodity. Not without his issues and red flags - but a certain upgrade in blocking on anyone we had on the roster at TE last year.

 

I'll make you a bet.

 

1.  There will be a TE that is currently under 25 and is, was, or will be a FA before the start of the 2016 season that in 2018 is playing on a good team as an important blocker in their run game.

 

2.  Davis might be on an NFL roster, but it won't be on a good Redskins team (if he's on the Redskins, we won't be a good team).

 

If I'm wrong on either one, you win.  I'm essentially telling you I'll be right on two things, and you only have to right on one.

 

**EDIT**

And let me be clear, I'm sort of harping on the Davis contract, but it is really the combination of the Davis and Paulsen contracts.

 

What you are saying is that the 29 year old run blocking TE that they just signed to a 1 year contract isn't good enough so they had to go sign a 32 year old run blocking TE to a 1 year contract.

 

From a larger roster construction stand point, that doesn't make sense.  One of those 2 guys should not be on this team with 1 year contracts.

 

If your football people don't think enough of either one of them to sign them to a multi-year contract, then one of them needs to not be here.  I could live one of them.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Realistically, I don't think there are many cases where a 1 year contract makes much sense for the team, but there are always exceptions.  I've said here that if you had to franchise Cousins, then that's what you do (essentially a 1 year contract).

 

If you can't see the differences and can't see that I also pointed to a specific example in that post too, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

You don't have to tell me anymore...the first line I quoted tells me all I need.  We will just not agree on this issue...and that's fine.  As long as we are both cheering the Skins come fall, that's all that really matters.

[MartinC]

I'll make you a bet.

1. There will be a TE that is currently under 25 and is, was, or will be a FA before the start of the 2016 season that in 2018 is playing on a good team as an important blocker in their run game.

2. Davis might be on an NFL roster, but it won't be on a good Redskins team (if he's on the Redskins, we won't be a good team).

If I'm wrong on either one, you win. I'm essentially telling you I'll be right on two things, and you only have to right on one. .

Your first point above changes the premise we've been discussing - your point I thought was we should have signed a young TE already instead of Davis. Are you arguing we should not have signed Davis in the hope we find a younger alternative later?

There might be young TEs who might be released later in preseason who might develop into a good player on a good team at some point. Which is a lot of mights. But there was not one available in free agency to this point from what I can see. Whose to say we might not sign another TE later during the final cuts who is that guy, or draft a guy late or sign him as an undrafted free agent. The process is not yet finished.

If the front office identified blocking at the TE position as a major weakness they needed to address (it was) were they supposed to wait in the hope this hypothetical player emerges?

Your second point is a ridiculous statement IMO. Your saying that the act of signing a veteran TE (whose actually a pretty good player still) guarantees the Redskins will be a bad team. They might end up being a bad team - but it's highly unlikely to be because they signed Davis. It will because Cousins does not sustain his level of performance (or gets hurt) or the defence does not improve.

On Paulsen he signed a vet minimum deal with a $35K signing bonus. He has an uphill task to make the team this year - partly for the reasons you cite, partly depending on who we draft or sign later in the offseason.

[Riggo'sRangers]

I would say that it's partially because Virgil Green is a very good blocking TE, and VD probably disappointed them in the passing game

What passing game?   Hail

[PeterMP]

Your first point above changes the premise we've been discussing - your point I thought was we should have signed a young TE already instead of Davis. Are you arguing we should not have signed Davis in the hope we find a younger alternative later?

There might be young TEs who might be released later in preseason who might develop into a good player on a good team at some point. Which is a lot of mights. But there was not one available in free agency to this point from what I can see. Whose to say we might not sign another TE later during the final cuts who is that guy, or draft a guy late or sign him as an undrafted free agent. The process is not yet finished.

If the front office identified blocking at the TE position as a major weakness they needed to address (it was) were they supposed to wait in the hope this hypothetical player emerges?

Your second point is a ridiculous statement IMO. Your saying that the act of signing a veteran TE (whose actually a pretty good player still) guarantees the Redskins will be a bad team. They might end up being a bad team - but it's highly unlikely to be because they signed Davis. It will because Cousins does not sustain his level of performance (or gets hurt) or the defence does not improve.

On Paulsen he signed a vet minimum deal with a $35K signing bonus. He has an uphill task to make the team this year - partly for the reasons you cite, partly depending on who we draft or sign later in the offseason.

 

Well, it has been the premise I've been discussing the whole time.  I said from the start:

 

"The problem though is how many years is Davis going to do it."

 

"The person he is going to take snaps away from is the person you'd be looking at doing the job in the 2017 or 18 season."

 

I don't care WHEN we find the guy.  If we found him before or after Davis is irrelevant.

 

It isn't a ridiculous statement.  IF Davis turns out to be a quality player, he'll likely be somewhere else next year.  If he stays, its because he's not very good, Reed/Paul are flawed players (e.g. can't stay healthy), and we can't find anybody better.

 

In which case, we probably won't be a very good team.

 

In the current modern NFL, a blocking TE can't be enough of a priority that devote two roster spots to it on veterans whose best days are almost certainly behind them on 1 year contracts.

 

If you think, given today's NFL, that's a good use of resources, then you don't understand resource management.

 

If you think I'm wrong, take the bet.

[MartinC]

If you think I'm wrong, take the bet.

Dear heavens your serious.

Your a scientist right?

So how do we define what a good team is? Over .500, made the playoffs?

How do we determine if this hypothetical player was an important part of their run blocking? Who is doing the play by play grading?

On the Redskins how do you propose we determine to what extent the signing of Davis contributed to them being a bad team versus other factors like QB play, offensive line play and defense?

I'm done with this. Your entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled to mine. Both our opinions together with $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. But drop the passive aggressive bet nonsense.

[Conn]

It's a poorly structured, dumb bet. No offense. But you're basically trying to force MartinC to back a guy he's only lukewarm on in the face of your negativity while you get to take the field. As if there isn't a huge chance that even if someone who DOES meet your criteria emerges in the next two years, they may not have ended up here anyways. Never mind the vagueness of the particulars of the bet.

The bet you're trying to make, even if you set aside it's lack of merit on its own, doesn't even align with the argument MartinC is making.

[PeterMP]

Dear heavens your serious.

Your a scientist right?

So how do we define what a good team is? Over .500, made the playoffs?

How do we determine if this hypothetical player was an important part of their run blocking? Who is doing the play by play grading?

On the Redskins how do you propose we determine to what extent the signing of Davis contributed to them being a bad team versus other factors like QB play, offensive line play and defense?

I'm done with this. Your entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled to mine. Both our opinions together with $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. But drop the passive aggressive bet nonsense.

 

Pick something reasonable, and I'm game.  I'm fine with at least .500, over 0.500, a play off team, predicted to be a playoff team by some predetermined % of some predetermined national prognosticators, pro football references SRS, etc.

 

Your position seems to be that Davis is an important pick up because he'll contribute with his blocking.

 

I think letting the decisions that the coaches make as our indicator would be fine.  Your argument is essentially we need Davis because he's good a run blocker.  If Davis is important, he should play a lot of snaps then.  The flip is true for the other player.  I'd be happy to make it number of snaps played.

 

I don't actually think that Davis is going to make it through the season healthy if he's the primary run blocking TE so I'll even push it more towards your favor and do an either/or with Paulsen's or Davis' numbers of snaps, which ever is larger.

 

The player will play as many offensive snaps as Paulsen or Davis (whoever plays more) and not have a larger ratio of receptions/snap, which will help ensure he's not playing for his pass catching.

 

If you know a neutral source that does grading of TE blocking, I'll take that as well.  You set the "score" based on their evaluation, and we'll do it either Paulsen or Davis again to set what is "important".

 

For the last part, no need to evaluate what role Davis played.  If he's on the team, the team won't be good.  We'll use the same measure of good as above.

It's a poorly structured, dumb bet. No offense. But you're basically trying to force MartinC to back a guy he's only lukewarm on in the face of your negativity while you get to take the field. As if there isn't a huge chance that even if someone who DOES meet your criteria emerges in the next two years, they may not have ended up here anyways. Never mind the vagueness of the particulars of the bet.

The bet you're trying to make, even if you set aside it's lack of merit on its own, doesn't even align with the argument MartinC is making.

 

You are right, but as part of it, I'm also requiring 2 things to be true for me to win, and I'll let him set a lot of the details  as long as they are reasonable.

 

In addition, with respect to the Redskins and Paulsen and Davis being on the roster, you can't find the guy if you don't give him a chance, and having 4 veteran TEs on the roster is going to discourage any such players from coming here if they have much of a choice and limits the number of people that you can give a chance to (i.e. there is some young blocking TE out there we can't bring to camp because we have Davis and Paulsen).

[skinny21]

Wouldn't a young guy (or his agent) look at our roster, see that we have 2 guys on 1 year deals and our starter is a FA next year and think he's got a serious shot to make the PS (and make the 53 the following year) if not win the job outright from Paulsen? That's not factoring in ST play, the fact that Paul still has to get healthy, or that Reed has injury issues of his own.

In terms of Davis, it's a matter of having a serviceable inline TE (and capable insurance for Reed/Paul). In Paulsen's case, it's a matter of filling out the roster so they don't go into the draft with an obvious hole on the roster (and he was our only inline option prior to Davis signing).

I just don't get the big deal... it's like you're arguing against stop gap players when they are a natural part of the process to get and develop younger players. There's a reason they're also referred to as 'bridge players'. Is there a big difference in your mind between this situation and Pierre Thomas being on the team when we could have just grabbed a young FA off the street?

With all of that said, yes, everyone would prefer a cheap rookie that 1) shows promise and 2) can be a difference-maker as a blocking TE... but you don't force the issue by leaving a hole on your team in the hopes you're able to fill it before the season starts.

Sorry if that all comes across as antagonistic... it's more borne out of confusion than anything.

[huck09]

Vernon scores a couple TDs and makes some big plays people will forget about this thread. No worries... It's up to Vernon he controls the narrative not us.