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(!!)***

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I want the white RB. Fits my vision for how I'd like to reshape the team.

 

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I want the white RB. Fits my vision for how I'd like to reshape the team.

I do not want the white kid at 17. Seems to me he is just a third down pass catching back and we already have one who is not bad. Seems we have more important needs. Is it pos that we can get that kid from Fla State in the second round or will he go in the 1st rd?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

 

I do not want the white kid at 17. Seems to me he is just a third down pass catching back and we already have one who is not bad. Seems we have more important needs. Is it pos that we can get that kid from Fla State in the second round or will he go in the 1st rd?

 

I think he's much, MUCH more than that...I wouldn't shed any tears over grabbing him at 17. I also wouldn't be upset if we didn't, though lol.

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

I think he's much, MUCH more than that...I wouldn't shed any tears over grabbing him at 17. I also wouldn't be upset if we didn't, though lol.

O.K. but would you rather have the Cook kid?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just now, 50yrSKINSfan said:

O.K. but would you rather have the Cook kid?

 

Man, that's what I've been asking myself...I probably would, he'd solidify our rushing attack more imo. 

[skinny21]

3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Don't for get that Thompson is 5'8 and McCaffery is 5'11. Thompson has more muscle on him.

Good point.  He's got the bloodlines (Ed used to get the snot knocked out of him and then run back to the huddle), but not a lot of room for weight gain.  

Quote

 

How healthy has Charles been?

Edit: Charles also ran a 4.38 40

Yep, as I said, McCaffrey's size is a concern.  A good, pass happy OC would have a blast with him though I bet (part of why I could see Gruden pushing for him).  

Quote

 

Probably pretty close.

 

 

Kelley was 4.5 before he hurt his knee. The big issue with the line is when it needs to be physical. They are really bad at it. Kelley got a lot of positive yardage that should have been negative. I think part of it is because we didn't run that much last year, and defenses sat on the pass more.

Good point about the knee.  Still a bit surprised Jones averaged better.  I agree about short yardage... although I'm not entirely sure what the issue was - likely the combo of Long and Lauvao, but I wonder about the scheme, playcalling, TE blocking and the talent lvl of our backs.  RZ offense in general just seemed so strange to me last year.  

Quote

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, CTskin said:

Exactly. And how many new knees does Charles have now? CT has been injured a bit, not anywhere near the same extent, but he touches the ball six times a game. Sub-200lbers just can't hold up as 3-down backs, literally zero have. And I don't want a gadget back at #17.

He can absolutely play 3 downs, but yes, you'd not be smart to send him up the gut most of the game.  You'd have to balance how you use him.  So, not your traditional 3 down back, but he can be useful all 3 downs.  Charles was awesome when healthy, but they used him a bit too much as their workhorse.  Also think McCaffrey offers much more of a mismatch in terms of dictating coverages and such - motioning him wide, into the slot or whatever.  With Crowder and a decent combo of backs, I'd rather look elsewhere at 17 though.  

  

I'm not sure how many coordinators would get the most out of McCaffrey, but he can be so much more than a gadget back.  Kinda goes against tradition though to draft someone like him so high.  

 

FYI, it was (super?) rare, but we did use two back sets (Kelley scored on a pass lined up as the FB).

[elkabong82]

McCaffrey just doesn't strike me as an every down back.... as a running back. As a receiving back he can be an every down back in the right system. But you'd want a big RB back up to get the tough yards. McCaffrey is very shifty, but that won't work on a fully congested goalline or 3rd and 1. 

 

If we didn't have Thompson I'd be much more in favor of McCaffrey because of what he brings to the pass game. Thompson is also a good runner as a back-up. What we need is a string lead back and Cook would be better over McCaffrey in that regard. I like Kelley, but he's a JAG. Kelley does the one cut stuff McCaffrey does, and it only worked in a couple of games. McCaffrey is better at it, but still. 

 

I don't expect Fournette to fall to us, but I do think he's the best back in the draft. I think Cook will fall to us and that he's the 2nd best RB in the draft. I do not expect McCaffrey to be there at 17 because I expect a team ahead of us to go with the hype and get him, he is a piece a lot of teams don't have for the pass game and he can rotate which many teams are doing at the RB position these days anyway. In Gruden's system I'm not sure what McCaffrey would bring merits a 1st rounder, but I can see that merit in other schemes and with team's needs. I could see Panthers, I can see Bengals moving on from Gio for this kid, I can see Eagles, I can even see Browns going for him. 

 

Really though, eventhough QB draft class isn;t strong, I still see the top 3 guys going in the 1st round because teams will always chase that position, and if that happens then a good defender worthy of the pick should fall to us. If not, Cook or trade back. If we take McCaffrey it's because Jay has big plans for him and I trust Jay on offense.

[TSO]

22 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

The only guys I see in this draft with the potential to be that sort of player are Myles Garrett and Malik McDowell.  We have no shot at Garrett...

 

Agree with everything you said, but I'd remind you here that what we see or what is general consensus about prospects doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things regarding the draft. 

 

Couple guys you mentioned in Watt and Donald weren't even top ten picks and they're arguably the best linemen in the game. Never know who ends up being a great one, and often enough it's not a guy that everyone views as a surefire stud. 

 

I do think, however, that you have the highest chance of landing a stud interior Dlineman in the first round and those chances fall much more significantly outside of that than they do with most other positions (outside of QB). Interior guys who can rush, play the run, and often win one on one are extremely rare, suffice to say. 

 

If we don't get one in the first, then it likely means we're settling for more of a one-dimensional or, more accurately, "specific/narrow strengths" type of guy wherever we draft him. 

 

It's too bad that's where we're at because, like you said, just one stud there can really elevate the defense. More than any other spot, really, because everyone else around them automatically gains immensely, be it DBs having to cover for less time, edge guys having their angle to the QB made easier since he can't step up consistently, and ILBers getting freed up to make more plays with Olinemen unable to consistently block them. 

 

And without one (or preferably more) the opposite site is true. DBs cover longer, edge guys are easily avoided by stepping up in the pocket, and ILBers are washed out of too many plays by Olinemen.  :/ 

 

Still, have to follow the board. Can't reach. Positional significance (not the same as need) should already be weighted into the board and Dline/Edge/Oline guys (QB if you don't have one) should always be prioritized. At least if you truly believe in "building from the inside out" or "it starts in the trenches". So if a guy at another position still ends up ranked higher, well that means he earned it, and should absolutely be picked if he's at the top of our board when it's time. 

[bowhunter]

Matt Jones and Dalvin Cook have the EXACT same collegiate fumble rates, averaging once every 63 carries. Can anyone remindl me why Jones is riding the bench?

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

1 hour ago, bowhunter said:

Matt Jones and Dalvin Cook have the EXACT same collegiate fumble rates, averaging once every 63 carries. Can anyone remindl me why Jones is riding the bench?

 

As a Redskins fan who watches the games I would hope you know it has more to do with just his fumbling issues.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Are we sure Fournette isn't really 32yrs old? He makes me nervous as hell. 

 

 

 

[Koolblue13]

7 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I want the white RB. Fits my vision for how I'd like to reshape the team.

Make the Redskins great again. 

[Morneblade]

8 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I want the white RB. Fits my vision for how I'd like to reshape the team.

 

 

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Are we sure Fournette isn't really 32yrs old? He makes me nervous as hell. 

 

 

[Koolblue13]

3 hours ago, bowhunter said:

Matt Jones and Dalvin Cook have the EXACT same collegiate fumble rates, averaging once every 63 carries. Can anyone remindl me why Jones is riding the bench?

Sure. Remember when he fumbled multiple times in consecutive games? Remember when he fumbled his helmet? Remember when he was worse at blocking than Reed? Remember when he was tackled by a hand grazing him? Remember him being talked by almost being touched? Remember him falling backwards because he liked to dance instead of lowering a shoulder?

 

I seriously can not think of a worse running we've had and seeing a 235 pound 6'3"  man run that freaking soft and scared, with a 4.35 40 and insane potential was one of the most frustrating and disappointing moments for me towards one player.

 

If you need reminding why Jones was on the bench, you must not have seen him play.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Morons

 

What? 

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

What? 

 

Tongue in cheek. kinda like the pic I used for the quote above it.

 

Because, you're really not worried about Fournette being 32 years old.

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

13 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

McCaffrey just doesn't strike me as an every down back.... as a running back. As a receiving back he can be an every down back in the right system. But you'd want a big RB back up to get the tough yards. McCaffrey is very shifty, but that won't work on a fully congested goalline or 3rd and 1. 

 

If we didn't have Thompson I'd be much more in favor of McCaffrey because of what he brings to the pass game. Thompson is also a good runner as a back-up. What we need is a string lead back and Cook would be better over McCaffrey in that regard. I like Kelley, but he's a JAG. Kelley does the one cut stuff McCaffrey does, and it only worked in a couple of games. McCaffrey is better at it, but still. 

 

I don't expect Fournette to fall to us, but I do think he's the best back in the draft. I think Cook will fall to us and that he's the 2nd best RB in the draft. I do not expect McCaffrey to be there at 17 because I expect a team ahead of us to go with the hype and get him, he is a piece a lot of teams don't have for the pass game and he can rotate which many teams are doing at the RB position these days anyway. In Gruden's system I'm not sure what McCaffrey would bring merits a 1st rounder, but I can see that merit in other schemes and with team's needs. I could see Panthers, I can see Bengals moving on from Gio for this kid, I can see Eagles, I can even see Browns going for him. 

 

Really though, eventhough QB draft class isn;t strong, I still see the top 3 guys going in the 1st round because teams will always chase that position, and if that happens then a good defender worthy of the pick should fall to us. If not, Cook or trade back. If we take McCaffrey it's because Jay has big plans for him and I trust Jay on offense.

 

This is how I see it.  McCaffrey could be a really good player, and clearly we haven't had a running back capable of breaking a run and taking it to the house in forever.  But at 17 I want an every down back who can also move the chains and the pile 25 times a game if necessary.

[justice98]

12 hours ago, bowhunter said:

Matt Jones and Dalvin Cook have the EXACT same collegiate fumble rates, averaging once every 63 carries. Can anyone remindl me why Jones is riding the bench?

 

Cuz Jones has confirmed that he was gonna get worse at ball security in the pros.  It's once every 30 carries or something like that now.  If Jones had kept that collegiate fumble rate, he might still be playing.  

52 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

This is how I see it.  McCaffrey could be a really good player, and clearly we haven't had a running back capable of breaking a run and taking it to the house in forever.  But at 17 I want an every down back who can also move the chains and the pile 25 times a game if necessary.

 

At 17, I want an impact player, don't really care what his role is.  If McCaffrey can take a few to the house and be an impact player rushing, receiving, and returning, I'd be perfectly fine with that.  A little thunder and lightning action in the backfield works for me.

[skinny21]

@justice98That's pretty much my response as well.  I think Gruden could have some fun with McCaffrey.  Personally though, I'd look elsewhere at 17 because 1) we have a good slot corner/returner and a pretty good 3rd down back, 2) we are still in serious need of defensive help and 3) I'd hope to trade back if possible to increase our chances at improvement in a deep draft.  

[Peregrine]

We dont care enough about the run to take a RB at 17.  Why draft a player that high who isnt going to play much? Chris Thompsons a good receiving back, and Kelley was 14th in the league in YPC among those with 150 or more carries.  Thats even with the drop off in the past few games.  The only 3 games he was given 20+ carries his YPC was very very good.  Im not saying hes lights out, but hes not a slouch either.  What kind of increase are we going to get for that #17 pick, an extra 75 receiving yards and an extra .5 ypc, equaling an extra 110 rushing yards?  Just doesnt seem worth it when we have several positions that we have nobody at.  If you get a real special running back, sure, but when you have to debate whether a guy is more than just a pass catching back you probably already know.

 

[skinsfan93]

Ideally I can understand why you would want a rb that can be an everydown back but there are only a few Eezekiel and David Johnsons in the world. Look at the Pats and Falcons. They switch rbs every down. Pats had a bruiser in Blount but Dion Lewis and James White who played the most in the superbowl took over. In Atlanta Coleman and Freeman played almost 50/50 last year. Last year there were many times all these rbs were on the field at the same time. 

 

It's about putting weapons on the field. Again I like fat Rob and love his attitude and how he gets an extra yard or two but he is not a true weapon. Giving him the ball 30 times a game is not gonna make our offense explosive and that's not today's nfl. Give me a McCaffrey and give him 10-12 touches and CT about the same. With our wideouts and Reed combined with weapons at rb, our offense could be dynamic. 

 

The more I think about it, we are going offense at 17. Cooks stock is declining (fumbling and character issues), Ross is interesting and I would be happy with him and if McCaffrey falls to us let's get him. Mocks have him as a top ten pick. 

[Morneblade]

6 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

Ideally I can understand why you would want a rb that can be an everydown back but there are only a few Eezekiel and David Johnsons in the world. Look at the Pats and Falcons. They switch rbs every down. Pats had a bruiser in Blount but Dion Lewis and James White who played the most in the superbowl took over. In Atlanta Coleman and Freeman played almost 50/50 last year. Last year there were many times all these rbs were on the field at the same time. 

 

It's about putting weapons on the field. Again I like fat Rob and love his attitude and how he gets an extra yard or two but he is not a true weapon. Giving him the ball 30 times a game is not gonna make our offense explosive and that's not today's nfl. Give me a McCaffrey and give him 10-12 touches and CT about the same. With our wideouts and Reed combined with weapons at rb, our offense could be dynamic. 

 

The more I think about it, we are going offense at 17. Cooks stock is declining (fumbling and character issues), Ross is interesting and I would be happy with him and if McCaffrey falls to us let's get him. Mocks have him as a top ten pick. 

 

Were any of these guys 1st round picks?

Answer: no

 

Sometimes it's not about being explosive, Sometimes it's about being able to get a yard or 2. And you're saying with the amount weapons we have on the outside we're not explosive? Oh, and the team that won the division last year, just how did they do it and just how "explosive" were they?

 

You're saying we don't have a dynamic offense now?

 

I think what bugs me the most is that so many fans (mostly younger) don't realize the importance of being able to be physical, on both sides of the ball.

[Dark Acre]

12 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I seriously can not think of a worse running we've had and seeing a 235 pound 6'3"  man run that freaking soft and scared, with a 4.35 40 and insane potential was one of the most frustrating and disappointing moments for me towards one player.

The anti-Riggo.  Riggo in his prime was a joy to watch and the guy could move.  He wasn't just a battering ram.  Unfortunately, one of his best runs came on the (arguably) darkest day in Redskins history - December 16, 1979.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC3toDJJUKg go to 50:45)

 

[bowhunter]

12 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Sure. Remember when he fumbled multiple times in consecutive games? Remember when he fumbled his helmet?

 

If you need reminding why Jones was on the bench, you must not have seen him play.

Thanks, but sadly I don't need a lick of reminding. I was pointing out that Ball security is an important element to keep in mind. You can't run the clock out with a ball control offense without the missing element of actual ball control. We best choose wisely

[skinsfan93]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

 

I think what bugs me the most is that so many fans (mostly younger) don't realize the importance of being able to be physical, on both sides of the ball.

 

Physical on the offensive side of the ball? Sure as far as having a big physical oline, Im all for that. I think our line is fine and will only get better. We're not gonna draft someone in the first 2 rounds. 

 

Today's NFL is about explosive plays and players. I love Pryor and think he will be a stud but Dallas has Dez and Giants have Odell. I love Crowder and think he could be a top 5 slot wideout. Reed is a top 3 TE when healthy but defenses slowed him down a bit last year keying in on him. 

 

But Doctson is a question mark and far from being a AJ Green type. Reed could be out a few games a year due to his concussions. Harris has potential but is a 2nd year guy. Quick is a stopgap and nothing more but maybe he puts it together. Vernon is solid but far from explosive. Rob is also "solid" but not a guy who's gonna scare defenses. CT can run a draw here and there and is a good outlet on 3rd down but defenses limited his big plays last year. 

 

If all things fall right we could have an explosive team with what we have. What's wrong with adding another "skilled" but not necessarily a "physical" player on offense especially if no one is worth it on defense at 17?

 

What bugs me are "old timers" who wants the game to be what it was when Gibbs was winning his first superbowl. 

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Peregrine said:

We dont care enough about the run to take a RB at 17.  Why draft a player that high who isnt going to play much? Chris Thompsons a good receiving back, and Kelley was 14th in the league in YPC among those with 150 or more carries.  Thats even with the drop off in the past few games.  The only 3 games he was given 20+ carries his YPC was very very good.  Im not saying hes lights out, but hes not a slouch either.  What kind of increase are we going to get for that #17 pick, an extra 75 receiving yards and an extra .5 ypc, equaling an extra 110 rushing yards?  Just doesnt seem worth it when we have several positions that we have nobody at.  If you get a real special running back, sure, but when you have to debate whether a guy is more than just a pass catching back you probably already know.

 

Hopefully I've made it clear that I'm in the same boat here.  However, just to play Devil's Advocate...

 

Thompson is only signed through this year.  He's a solid 3rd down back, but he's more of the type to make people miss with speed than with vision, subtle cuts, etc.  His hands are solid, though not nearly as soft as someone like McCaffrey.

 

Kelley is a solid back, and given his penchant for limiting the TFLs, he seems to fit our line pretty well.  With that said, I wonder if a back with better vision and burst (particularly one that has the top speed to break the big ones) could 1) produce more for us, and 2) alter the way teams try to stop our offense (the passing attack especially).  Then there's the idea that our depth is questionable at best behind him.  

 

Crowder is great in the slot and a very good returner.  Of course, we don't have a viable option behind him (at wr or returner), and there is a distinct possibility that he gets played on the outside a lot more.  Another area McCaffrey could excel.

 

On paper, we have plenty of weapons on O - Pryor, Doctson, Crowder, Reed, plus 2 solid backs (though neither are really 3 down players) and even Davis.  Of course, Reed and Doctson have their injury concerns, and losing Reed hurts bad.  Doctson, were he injured, can be replaced by Crowder, but then you're short a slot receiver.  

 

Can't have too many weapons, particularly in a league so affected by injury and free agency.

 

 

 

Couple notes -

1.  I didn't go into this post thinking it would be about McCaffrey, but I realized that the argument for him is more compelling (over Cooks/Fournette/etc.) because he can be a weapon (and backup) in so many areas.

 

2.  I was looking at defensive stats the other day, and noticed that improving just .2 or .3 yards per carry would have vaulted our run D to somewhere around the middle of the pack.  Given how atrocious our run D is (and is viewed), this surprised me.  So, given that metric... how much value should we actually place on improving our own rb's ypc?