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

[NoCalMike]

With Junior Galette a big factor is his speed and burst to get to the QB.  He seemed to get it back towards the back end of the season.  All of the sudden he seemed to be constantly in the backfield with near-sacks, QB pressure(s) and more.  That could have been due to the nature of his previous injuries. You don't return from those kinds of surgeries with the same ability just because you are healthy enough to get on the field.  

 

I saw something in his play over the last 5 or so games that didn't seem to be there beforehand.  I am not too keen on overpaying the guy, but I'd also hate to be the franchise that nursed him back to health and when he is finally ready to do some damage, he's doing it for another team.

[PerryMason]

53 minutes ago, Unbias said:

Eric Reid appears to be getting black balled by the league. He'd be completely worth a flyer. IMO he's better than anything we got and if we can get him cheap that's worth it. 

 

Apparently he's had multiple offers per Cooley this morning....and like Cooley & Kevin said....you're not being blackballed for your protesting if you're getting offers and you just don't like them....means people are willing to take you despite it.  Not to mention there are TONS of other players who have taken a knee who people are willing to sign.  Playing the victim is a loser's game.

 

EDIT: That being said, I'm all for signing him...he's a great player and just entered his prime.

[Skinsinparadise]

Nothing has changed since Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie visited Tuesday: The Redskins still want to sign him. They also have been clear on not paying big money for older players and Rodgers-Cromartie is 31. But the interest remains. With LB Junior Galette, there are other teams interested besides the Redskins. Galette and the Redskins are still apart in the money as of now. There is still interest from both sides in a reunion.

John Keim, ESPN Staff Writer

[pray4surf]

18 minutes ago, CTskin said:

DRC would be signed to play the slot, I assume. Eric Reid is a S... Not that we're stacked there, but with Swearinger, Nicholson, Everett and Cravens, I don't think the FO is even thinking about safeties.

You're right but Reid is a young proven player that we can probably get on the cheap.  I would dump Cravens for whatever we can get and let Reid and the other safeties fight it out.  

[dyst]

So Sheldon to the Vikings? I'm not at all ****ing sure how these other teams, sign big time free agents, have a ton of cap and win all at the same time. 

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I appreciate a good contrarian viewpoint more then most, hell I'm full of those. But this I can't get behind

 

 

If they don't shore up this obvious issue then it will stunt the teams growth again like it did last season. Is all of this only because they don't have a NT? I doubt its all because of that one position. We do need a NT no doubt about it but this obviously gross issue doesn't stop there to me and seems to be bigger then just one guy. 

 

 

 

 

Continuing my contrariness, the tale of the Redskins D is a tale of two halves. We were actually a good run defending team and an above average defense for the first 6-8 games. What happened after that is not that we lost one guy, Allen, but that we lost essentially the entire middle of the defense to injury. We lost Allen, Foster, Brown, Matt Ionadis, and Nicholson. The entire middle of the D became manned by second and often third stringers.

 

Now, we have to decide what is the true story. One hypothesis is that without all the injuries, we're a pretty good D. The other hypothesis is that Manusky ran out of smoke and mirrors, and the offenses figured out our roster weaknesses and exploited them. A third hypothesis is that the first 6-8 games were the mirage and as offenses grew sharper we would have fell apart no matter what.

 

I think the answer is a bit of hypothesis one combined with hypothesis 2.

[CTskin]

2 minutes ago, dyst said:

So Sheldon to the Vikings? I'm not at all ****ing sure how these other teams, sign big time free agents, have a ton of cap and win all at the same time. 

Great drafting (players still on rookie deals) / QB still on rookie deal / Great coaching. At least 2 of the 3.

[Skinsinparadise]

 TheInsideBlitz liked

Richard Knapp‏ @ImRKnapp 1h1 hour ago

More

Former #Seahawks DE Sheldon Richardson has agreed to a 3 year deal with the #Vikings im told.

 

More

Ian Rapoport Retweeted Tom Pelissero

This is some wining and dining. Sounds like the #Vikings are making a serious effort to lock down not 1 but 2 of the top free agents.

Ian Rapoport added,

Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero

Sheldon Richardson remains in Minnesota and is getting the stadium tour, etc., today, sources tell @RapSheet and me. Picked up by GM in jet, had lunch with Kirk Cousins and others in owners’ suite yesterday ... #Vikings would like to close him, if the price is right.

0 replies0 retweets0 likes

Reply

 

 

Retweet

 

 

 

Like

 

[Bonez3]

I'd really feel more comfortable getting a proven commodity at NT/DT with Logan or Richardson or Suh.

 

Again, next year one of the Mc's are getting cut, so cost will be mitigated. Further, these are safer than draft prospects (as good as they seem). We have a nice core with Allen, Ionidis and Lanier. Add that middle piece and free's up draft for that DB/RB combo in 1-2 round. 

[dyst]

4 minutes ago, CTskin said:

Great drafting (players still on rookie deals) / QB still on rookie deal / Great coaching. At least 2 of the 3.

It seems so easy for so many teams but like a damn distant dream for us.

[redskin301]

Per:PFT Drc doesn’t plan to sign a deal until April 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Well, 3 of my 4 DL targets are gone. That is disappointing. it will all go away once Logan is inked to a deal here. But if that's not in the cards, we basically have to go DL in the 1st or 2nd round, which is disappointing.

 

I guess to the earlier point that our OL is fine and we wont draft an OG in the 1st or 2nd, We can still go DL-RB and be in good shape.

 

DRC and/or Tyrann Mathieu to shore-up the secondary would be nice though.

[Bonez3]

5 minutes ago, dyst said:

It seems so easy for so many teams but like a damn distant dream for us.

Listen, we're not that far away. 

 

Week 1 vs Philly, Vegas has us a slight favorite to pick 'em. Meaning (and I understand how Vegas sets lines, save it), after all home field adjustments and betting preferences set, we really aren't that far off the eventual SB champs. And I agree, still aren't that far away from Philly, I think their secondary sucks. 

 

So, still with a proven competent NFL QB, a lot of offensive weapons, solid O line and a D on the build... Keep hope alive

[bobandweave]

17 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Continuing my contrariness, the tale of the Redskins D is a tale of two halves. We were actually a good run defending team and an above average defense for the first 6-8 games. What happened after that is not that we lost one guy, Allen, but that we lost essentially the entire middle of the defense to injury. We lost Allen, Foster, Brown, Matt Ionadis, and Nicholson. The entire middle of the D became manned by second and often third stringers.

 

Now, we have to decide what is the true story. One hypothesis is that without all the injuries, we're a pretty good D. The other hypothesis is that Manusky ran out of smoke and mirrors, and the offenses figured out our roster weaknesses and exploited them. A third hypothesis is that the first 6-8 games were the mirage and as offenses grew sharper we would have fell apart no matter what.

 

I think the answer is a bit of hypothesis one combined with hypothesis 2.

 

Okay so the numbers say

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2017.htm

 

Games 1-8 the Defense gave up 884 Rushing yards in the first 8 games. Included in that is four 100 yard games given up, with another one 3 yards shy of that mark. 

 

Games 9-16 the Defense gave up 1262 Rushing yards in the second 8 games. Included in that is seven 100 yard games given up

 

The worst game of the season giving up rushing yards came in the final game of the season when they gave up 260 yards to the Giants. Don't get me started on how I think the Browns effed us yesterday when they added Hyde and how I see Barkley going #2 to the Giants which will make this worse if they don't do something about this quick. 

 

Anyway staying on target, you are backed up by saying the second half was worse then the first half in the numbers and the results. 

 

The average given up to the opposing rusher first half of the season was 110 rushing yards a game

The average given up to the opposing rusher first half of the season was 157 rushing yards a game

 

Huge difference. But even at 110 yards per game it wasn't good. That's around the middle of the pack for the entire season. The issue to me is game 4 they gave up 168 yards to the opposing team, week 7 they gave up 169 yards to the opposing team. That was the 4th and 5th worst games of the season. 

 

If they had a NT they would have been better, just don't think it can end there to repair this. 

 

 

One more thing. The Defense in the first half of the season didn't give up a single game of 300 passing yards to the opposing passer. In the second half the defense gave up 3 games where the opposing QB had 300 or more passing yards. On the reverse of that in the first half of the season this Defense gave up 200 or less passing yards 2 times. In the second half of the season the Defense kept the opposing passer to 200 or less passing yards 5 times and closed out the season not letting an opposing passer throw for more then 200 passing yards on them 5 of its final 6 played games. That ending on a very strong note means something.  

 

I think that says to me that opposing offensive coordinators knew the way to beat the Redskins Defense was to run the ball down their throats the second half of the season. The final record in those last 6 games was 3-3.
 

However knowing all of this now that they have lost two of the three starting corners from last year if they don't shore up the rushing defense the opposing offensive coordinators will be able to run the ball down their throats except now they will be able to pass on them at will. If nothing happens we know we have some guys in the wings ready to show what they can do against the QB but if they don't address the rushing Defense it won't matter. Teams will just run the ball on them. We can't have that. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

But why?

 

These type of deals happen every year and to every other team, especially the successful teams. I despised Vinny because he never took these chances and so the guys who had the potential would never get a shot at starting unless it was due to injury, then we'd always lose them for a flashier, more expensive player.

 

 

Because I've seen this movie before.  And I don't want Jay Gruden to be fired after the season.  

 

I am feeling old because I recall these same debates year after year.  Some of us over the years tended to think in a more inflated way about our slightly above average D lineman like Baker mixed in with our average to below average d lineman.  And the next D line jag will hold the fort at NT starting way back with Shanny signed that guy, can't pronounce his name but it starts with an N. 

 

This isn't a new fresh debate.  It's an old rerun.  Maybe the 10th time is the charm.  And I don't mean it sarcastically -- of course its possible but I wouldn't bet on it if they stay the course.  But I doubt they stay the course.

 

I recall pushing for L. Joseph among others pushing him with me -- years back.  The Vikings grabbed him.  Now we got Jay talking about how the Vikings are tough to run against because that Joseph guy is a monster.  We hear the same thing now with the Giants with D. Harrison.  People were going on about Hankins last year and he played well with the Colts.  Poe was good.  Calais Campbell was the defensive player of the year.  

 

The big men-big rep guys tend to pan out at DT or at least the one hyped on our threads do. Maybe not always for Vinny.  But for many it does work out well.  Heck when we've delved in the deep end of the pool with C. Griffin, B. Cofield it worked out well.    If you go through the FA threads over the years.... a lot of us were right about a lot of players.  Granted its easier to be right about the bigger names.  And the FO Plan B crop at least for stopping the run has failed again and again and again and again and again. 

 

So the idea of hey let the Eagles double down on the D line.  Let the Vikings add the monster to their already stacked position.  Maybe they are wrong.  And maybe the Redskins are right.  Well, maybe so.  But this isn't a new conversation and so far the Redskins FO has been wrong on the position of D line a lot -- or at least on the topic of let the other teams sign the big names at the position.   So no I am not looking forward to any bargain bin thoughts from them about the position.  I don't trust it.  They aren't always wrong on that position or any position for that matter.  Some good moves in the mix.  But building a strong D line on the aggregate hasn't been their niche.   Maybe the tide is turning, will see.  And they can do it via the draft if not FA.

 

Having said all of that, if you quote any of these points please quote this paragraph, too.  Because just like our debate for WR where I said I think the FO gets it and wants to improve.  I feel the same way about DT.  So if they skip FA, I'd bet they have strong designs on Payne or Vea.  I think they are cool if they double up on the DT position if they take one high in the draft.  So my condemnation is that of the past -- I really do think they are going to fix it this year.  So my debate with you isn't about the FO failing us this year.  That story has yet to be told one way or another.  I am just debating the bargain fishing thought of heck maybe its not a top name in FA but heck maybe they find a diamond in the rough like Chris Baker and ride with that and feel good about everything. 

 

Maybe the simplest way for me to put my position is I don't think the Redskins are one McGee away from being really good.  I think they need another Jonathan Allen. i think what gets lost in the weeds is the average D lineman doesn't play the same number of snaps as most other positions.  Really your top 4 guys are in effect starters on the D line.

 

[RWJ]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Because I've seen this movie before.  And I don't want Jay Gruden to be fired after the season.  

 

I am feeling old because I recall these same debates year after year.  Some of us over the years tended to think in a more inflated way about our slightly above average D lineman like Baker mixed in with our average to below average d lineman.  And the next D line jag will hold the fort at NT starting way back with Shanny signed that guy, can't pronounce his name but it starts with an N. 

 

This isn't a new fresh debate.  It's an old rerun.  Maybe the 10th time is the charm.  And I don't mean it sarcastically -- of course its possible but I wouldn't bet on it if they stay the course.  But I doubt they stay the course.

 

I recall pushing for L. Joseph among others pushing him with me -- years back.  The Vikings grabbed him.  Now we got Jay talking about how the Vikings are tough to run against because that Joseph guy is a monster.  We hear the same thing now with the Giants with D. Harrison.  People were going on about Hankins last year and he played well with the Colts.  Poe was good.  Calais Campbell was the defensive player of the year.  

 

The big men-big rep guys tend to pan out. Maybe not always for Vinny.  But for many it does work out well.  Heck when we've delved in the deep end of the pool with C. Griffin, B. Cofield it worked out well.    If you go through the FA threads over the years.... a lot of us were right about a lot of players.  Granted its easier to be right about the bigger names.  And the FO Plan B crop at least for stopping the run has failed again and again and again and again and again. 

 

So the idea of hey let the Eagles double down on the D line.  Let the Vikings add the monster to their already stacked position.  Maybe they are wrong.  And maybe the Redskins are right.  Well, maybe so.  But this isn't a new conversation and so far the Redskins FO has been wrong on the position of D line a lot -- or at least on the topic of let the other teams sign the big names at the position.   So no I am not looking forward to any bargain bin thoughts from them about the position.  I don't trust it.  They aren't always wrong on that position or anyone for that matter.  But building an strong D line hasn't been their niche.   Maybe the tide is turning, will see.  And they can do it via the draft if not FA.

 

Having said all of that, if you quote any of these points please quote this paragraph, too.  Because just like our debate for WR where I said I think the FO gets it and wants to improve.  I feel the same way about DT.  So if they skip FA, I'd bet they have strong designs on Payne or Vea.  I think they are cool if they double up on the DT position if they take one high in the draft.  So my condemnation is that of the past -- I really do think they are going to fix it this year.  So my debate with you isn't about the FO failing us this year.  That story has yet to be told one way or another.  I am just debating the bargain fishing thought of heck maybe its not a top name in FA but heck maybe they find a diamond in the rough like Chris Baker and ride with that and feel good about everything. 

 

Maybe the simplest way for me to put my position is I don't the Redskins are one McGee away from being really good.  I think they need another Jonathan Allen. i think what gets lost in the weeds in the average D lineman doesn't play the same number of snaps as most other positions.  Really your top 4 guys are in effect starters on the D line.

 

 

 

 

Agreed, SIP.  The only one left is Logan.  It's being reported and should be out soon that Richarson is signing a 3 year deal with the Vikes.  We need to grab up Logan on a 3 year deal.  He's a proven run stopper.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

46 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I appreciate a good contrarian viewpoint more then most, hell I'm full of those. But this I can't get behind

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

 

Ranked 29th worst DVOA against the RB. 

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/fantasy-points-against-RB.htm

 

Ranked 3rd worst at giving up fantasy points to the opposing RB

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/position/defense

 

Gave up the most running back yards as a Defense in the league to RBs

Gave up the 4th worst yards per carry average to the opposing RB last year with a 4.5 yard average

Gave up the most rushing yards per game to the opposing RB last year with an average of 134.1 yards per game

 

The issue with this team stopping the opposing RB is bigger then just needing a NT. This is the worst in the league. It takes more then one guy and some guys to get healthy to fix this. If they don't shore this up then it will stunt the teams growth again like it did last season. We don't talk about how terrible of a unit this really is to me enough imo. Bennie Logan would be a great start but it can't end there. 

 

 

 

 

We all know the defense stunk for the season...so these numbers don't really show us anything.

 

What was the breakdown for the first 5 games?  I think part of his point was that during the first 5 games, before the injuries to Allen/Matt I, the defense was doing pretty well. 

 

EDIT: Thanks @bobandweave for doing the breakdown. 

[Master Blaster]

What's Phil Taylor's status?

[RWJ]

1 minute ago, Master Blaster said:

What's Phil Taylor's status?

Retirement or it should be.

[fordranger76]

@Skinsinparadise I could not have said it better. I am actually sitting here astonished that we have not signed a d-lineman yet. I get the scenarios that have played out but goodness gracious can we offer someone more than a steak dinner this year? I have seen this story year after year. You know my feelings on the draft and the big names and if they look that way fine but this was the time to get someone that is at least not a question mark without wasting number 13. I know Logan is still out there and I am hoping and praying that they go and get him. Even with that said I am still just shaking my head that here we are again not addressing D-line in a meaningful way when guys were on the market to do it.

[Thinking Skins]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Because I've seen this movie before.  And I don't want Jay Gruden to be fired after the season.  

 

I am feeling old because I recall these same debates year after year.  Some of us over the years tended to think in a more inflated way about our slightly above average D lineman like Baker mixed in with our average to below average d lineman.  And the next D line jag will hold the fort at NT starting way back with Shanny signed that guy, can't pronounce his name but it starts with an N. 

 

But every year it IS a different debate because there are new players involved. Its like a question of do you draft a QB in round 1. It depends on who's available and that changes from year to year. When we had Baker as out best lineman, it was a different argument being had (and I may or may not have been active in those discussions, probably so but I tend to take breaks from this place). I know I was arguing for him to get re-signed the first time he was a FA because he was young and with talent - right in the mix of what I was saying in my last post. But then there was no Allen on our team, Allen who has the potential to be the DPOY, he was mocked in JUST ABOUT EVERY MOCK DRAFT to go number 2 overall and called the best lineman in the nation. This is a different line than we had a few years ago.

 

We don't know what Matt I, Lanier, McGee will ultimately become. Maybe its just average players, but they've already shown they are better than lines we've had in the past. And its funny that you defend the Griffin and Cofield signings because those are more or less the type of signings I'm more in favor of (dont get me wrong I'm more in favor or just doing draft but I'd then prefer the mid-tier players than the big names).

 

The question is what Makes Poe or Suh or Haynesworth or Logan or Richardson etc and why can those teams seem to MAKE them and not us? What's the point of having the best DL coach if he can't develop players to become dominant players? If he needs top 5 guys to look good, then he's not that good. I think Tomsula is a really good DL coach and we can see what he did with some marginal players at NT in SF. Heck, we're seeing it this year with Matt I and Lanier.

 

But the DL is just one position. The key point is that we can't overspend everywhere. If we spend at DL it means we have less money to go to our LBs or our secondary or our QB etc. I'm not here to argue the importance of DL over other positions because I agree that its the most important. But we already have money tied up in the secondary and in the OL and in the QB.

 

So how much can we afford to put into the DL, and how much do we trust our scouts to find good talent and our coaches to develop that talent and make it into players that other teams want to overpay?

[dyst]

12 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

What's Phil Taylor's status?

No knock on you, but we can't make excuses for our team due to injuries if we keep bringing back injury prone players. 

[JSSkinz]

 

4 minutes ago, dyst said:

No knock on you, but we can't make excuses for our team due to injuries if we keep bringing back injury prone players. 

He's only 29, I would keep bringing him into camp, if he makes it to the regular season he will have an impact.

[bobandweave]

3 minutes ago, GhostofAlvinWalton said:

 

We all know the defense stunk for the season...so these numbers don't really show us anything.

 

What was the breakdown for the first 5 games?  I think part of his point was that during the first 5 games, before the injuries to Allen/Matt I, the defense was doing pretty well. 

 

 

It certainly shows us things, not sure how you can see how awful the rushing Defense was and not come away with anything from that. The Defense didn't stink last year, not the complete defense. No other team ended the season holding the opposing QB to less then 200 passing yards 5 of its final 6 games. And DVOA the guys at Football Outsiders ranked this defense 11th and in the better half of the league. With such a bad rushing Defense to be ranked at the 11th best overall defense it really shows how the passing defense was great and the issue stopping the opposing RB was the issue. 

 

I will break it down into 3 five game segments for you

 

Games 01-05 the Defense gave up 1140 passing yards, 440 rushing yards, and had 8 turnovers. 

 

Games 06-10 the Defense gave up 1350 passing yards, 706 rushing yards, and had 7 turnovers.  

 

Games 11-15  the Defense gave up 890 passing yards, 740 rushing yards, and had 7 turnovers. 

 

So to answer the rushing defense got worse after the first five games. Two games in that first five really sway those numbers. Game 1 the Eagles only rushed for 58 yards and in Game 3 against the Raiders they only rushed for 32 yards. The Eagles were just getting started and passed all over them to win that game 30-17, and the Raiders game was a fluky game where Oakland forgot to show up. 

 

Turnovers to me show that there wasn't a difference with the Defense even with different personnel.

 

What stands out is that middle stretch where they gave up a combined 2000 yards to the other team in just five games. They were playing the eventual Superbowl champions, the team that went against those champions in the NFC title game, and two other playoff teams in the Saints and Seahawks. Brutal schedule without question to me. Thing is after that they play 5 straight teams who didn't make the playoffs and had the same amount of rushing yards given up. The rushing Defense didn't get worse between the two segments by much (34 yards over 5 games). 

 

 

[Bonez3]

I don't get it. We need a NT, theres a proven commodity on FA and we're not signing him. We clearly have the cap space with room to burn even on the high end of his market value and still no Logan. 

 

I just don't understand. Still could sign him and draft rookie to fill in for the eventual Mc's cuts. I just don't understand

 

Doug and Jay both clearly said our run defense needs upgrading. WTF, just get it done