Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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(!!)***

DC9

By DC9
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

HTTRDynasty

HTTRDynasty

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I wonder what's going on with Hankins.  I haven't seen his name linked with any team.  Really hoping the Giants aren't able to bring him back on a cheap prove-it 1-year deal.  He does basically the same thing Logan does, with a little more pass rushing ability, and 2 years younger.

 

Answered my own question:

 

Quote

I’m told that the NFC East-rival Philadelphia Eagles have been showing Hankins “lots of love” in the event they lose their own free-agent defensive tackle, Bennie Logan. The Arizona Cardinals, Denver Broncos and Cleveland Browns are also said to have interest in Hankins, with a couple of other teams lurking.

 

I'd be annoyed if the Eagles are able to replace Logan with Hankins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Est.1974

Est.1974

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

I'd be annoyed if the Eagles are able to replace Logan with Hankins.

 

You've probably got half a dozen teams sniffing around Logan, Hankins and to a lesser extent Poe. 

 

Soon as one bits on a deal, the others will fall quickly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, carex said:

 

well, at this time last year we were pretty sure we were going draft a DL to help replace Knighton and we didn't talk much about Hood except maybe hoping he was going to be better depth.  Remember, he was a futures signing before actual free agency

 

Doesn't matter in my book, I am just talking about where we landed at D line.  I've talked about this months ago in other threads and that is while Hatcher wasn't great here, he might have been the best D lineman or close enough to Baker so his loss loomed larger than many expected -- me included. 

 

If we are just doing this bottom line.  Where are we now versus before FA -- IMO the D line hasn't improved and won't until a Logan type player is signed.  As for the draft, I don't like boxing in the FO to draft by position so I am not big on the we will address such and such in the draft.  I prefer the draft to be more free flowing than that.   D line in this draft by most accounts isn't as strong as other positions -- IMO its a great draft for corners, safeties, running backs, tight ends, edge rushers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boston skins fan

boston skins fan

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, mrcaniac said:

 

 

Redskins can put the Franchise Tag on him again next season, but, IIRC, that number would be something like $32M guaranteed for the season.

 

 

 

 

Yes. He negotiates a contract, then the Redskins get the opportunity to match the contract.

 

Sometimes, the new team will put in a "poison pill" clause that the old team cannot match, so they let the player go.

 

 

whats an example of a poison pill.  ive seen it in the nba but not in the nfl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, boston skins fan said:

whats an example of a poison pill.  ive seen it in the nba but not in the nfl.

 

Google Steve Hutchinson poison pill.  Basically it's where a team/player negotiate a contract that their current team cannot match.  In Hutchinsons case, it was worded where if the Seahawks matched his contract offer from the Vikings they would have to guarantee something like 49 million while it was only going to be 18 million guaranteed for the Vikings.

 

Doest matter though, it's no longer legal as it was removed in the 2012 CBA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carex

carex

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Google Steve Hutchinson poison pill.  Basically it's where a team/player negotiate a contract that their current team cannot match.  In Hutchinsons case, it was worded where if the Seahawks matched his contract offer from the Vikings they would have to guarantee something like 49 million while it was only going to be 18 million guaranteed for the Vikings.

 

Doest matter though, it's no longer legal as it was removed in the 2012 CBA.  

 

I thought it was ruled illegal in that contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Est.1974

Est.1974

Posted
Posted

Worth considering the Pryor contact was 3m SB, 3m salary, 2m incentives not likely to be earned. Interesting story in BBN explains it in more detail, but the upshot being we have used the contract incentives route to push 2m back into the 2018 cap year. Not uncommon, happens all the time. 

 

The optimist in me is thinking we've done that to keep enough free in the 2017 cap year for a couple more signings this weekend, without needing to cut or restructure elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWJ

RWJ

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, SlkyCaramel said:

 

 

Wishing Jax the best in TB but I am glad he didn't resign here.  I don't think he plays a full season the rest of his career.  Just think his body will not hold up entire season as he is at that point in his career with his size as a WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jericho

Jericho

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I thought it was ruled illegal in that contract

 

Not at the time. The exact provision was that Hutchinson's entire contract would become guaranteed if he was not the highest-paid lineman on the team.Which he was on Minnesota (who signed him). But he would not have been on Seattle (who was paying Walter Jones more). Seattle retaliated by doing the same thing with receiver Nate Burleson before the NFL disallowed the tactic during the next CBA

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I thought it was ruled illegal in that contract

 

It wasn't, the Seahawks filed a grievance but an arbitrator ruled in favor of the Vikings and they declined to match (obviously) and he headed out to Minnesota.  The Seahawks then did the same thing to the Vikings with Nate Burleson, offered the exact same total money (49 million) and years and put in two poison pills.  

 

One was the entire contract was fully guaranteed if Nate played 5 or more games in the state of Minnesota during any season of the contract.  And the second one was something to do with his salary being higher than all the running backs on the roster (something like that).

 

With Hutch, it was only if he wasn't the highest paid lineman on the team it was fully guaranteed (49 million) and since they knew another lineman made more on the Seahawks and none of the Vikings o-line would make more once he signed, there was no way Seattle would match the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morneblade

Morneblade

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Art said:

 

I'm here a lot.   I just usually can only post around this time and just before season.   Kids and life are brutal :).

 

 

True that. I just have not seen a post from you in years. You and Om are two of the "old guard" around here whos posts I really miss, and I'm pretty sure Om has moved on. So it's really nice to see you still here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PortisBetts

PortisBetts

Posted
Posted

As much turmoil as we have been hearing about in the front office... They are doing an outstanding job in free agency, which seems to have quieted the back and forth Cousins news. Still hoping he signs here long term, especially when considering the weapons on that offense. I love the Pryor move. If we sign Cousins, this will be the best offseason in a long time. The size of the receiving options is unbelievable. Remember when we had no one over 6 feet tall? 

 

If they get Logan too, that would be huge. Then we can hopefully find a linebacker in the draft and maybe not have a laughingstock of a defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMUSkins

JMUSkins

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, MEANDWARF said:

If we sign Logan, don't see us getting anyone else. Or am I wrong.

Think it depends on what we do with current players. DHall's contract for example. Could restructure some or even end up cutting some players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...