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

[Momma There Goes That Man]

As long as we save enough money to give Pryor a long term deal..

 

seeiously, fantasy sleeper for 2018 if ever there were one

 

Get on on the train now, seats are...well, there are still plenty available 

[Rufus T Firefly]

These lists make me think there are going to be a lot of disappointed little boys and girls this Christmas.

[bobandweave]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree, its clear as crystal.  So since we are closer to 12 wins -- why bother with a weird rebuild out of nowhere?  They won the division in 2015, came one game from making the playoffs in 2016. 

 

Winning the division in 2015 with a team record of 9-7 isn’t something likely to repeat anytime soon. In the past two seasons we’ve seen all the other division teams beat that record at least one time. The following year we might have been a game away from the playoffs but we were a .500 team with a record of 8-7-1. It’s highly unusual to have playoff teams with so low a number of wins that aren’t division winners. That record won’t get the playoffs this year.

 

I disagree with what I’ve seen all season that this team is anywhere close to a 12 win season anytime soon. It’s nice to see a fan say we are close to that in a season where we’ve already lost 8 games and I’m not a negative Nancy. 

 

The rebuild is going to happen if Kirk isn’t signed to a long term deal. It’s certainly not out of nowhere to consider what I’m saying about what needs to be done here. 

 

Im not saying to cut everyone and do some fire sale with our assets. Players 30 or older are not assets they are on the backside of their careers and over the hill. Im not saying 30 for everyone is like that.  if we can not sign Kirk to a LTD and the way Bruce put the dirty laundry in the public about the most recent negotiations in such an unprofessional manner I don’t believe it will happen then what does that mean for the guys I said to get rid of? 

 

Norman can opt out and go on his own accord. Kirk can force them to franchise tag him again refusing to sign here crippling what cap space they actually have to replace all of the one year contracts they have now. And why wouldn’t he do that? He’s held them over a barrel the past two seasons why not a third time? Vernon Davis is 34 in January and not someone that can be relied upon long term. And Reed hasn’t shaken the injury bug and then choosing to spend 10 million a year on a guy who can’t get off the medic table doesn’t make the team better in any way.

 

These are the players I suggested moving on from. They all have problems and all make sense to move on from this offseason. Why pay a guy one hit to the head from retiring that much money? Why bank on a 34 year old TE? Why even argue about a 30 year old corner who holds all the leverage and talks like he’s out anyway? Or even the QB who just wants one year deals from this team?

 

Your right Bruce and Dan make all the decisions unless they don’t in the case of Norman. And the operating procedures show us that they continue to believe that every year they are just one or two pieces away from being relevant. So I don’t think that rebuilding is anything they understand or even want and don’t expect it to happen but it’s not an idea out of nowhere with so many holes in this team even with these men still on the team. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get your rebuilding point.  But to me that point pertained to what Shanny inherited in 2010 or maybe Jay in 2014.  The idea IMO belongs back in that time machine -- its not pertinent to now.

 

 

 

It most certianly is pertinent now unless you believe that they will sign the QB. The best time to clean house and rebuild is when your QB situation changes. If they lose Kirk the domino with Norman will also fall. Now your full blown into a rebuild like it or not. So tearing off the bandaid quickly and decisively would show direction for the brand and not look like they don’t know what they are doing. 

 

Now you can say that all that’s needed is for some players to get heathy but that’s easier said then done. Some players like Reed never get healthy. The last time he played a 16 game season in the NFL was never. Some guys just stay hurt and miss games. 

 

About the injuries i really wonder if there is something wrong with the training staff. Recently heard that the issue with Sua was that his issue was with the trainers who misdiagnosed his condition and I’ve heard similar stories from other players. I think that having so many injuries is a real problem with the trainers and they should all be replaced. Football is a sport where everyone is going to get injured. So we can’t simply look at the rash of injuries and just blame bad luck. There is a problem here

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

Winning the division in 2015 with a team record of 9-7 isn’t something likely to repeat anytime soon. In the past two seasons we’ve seen all the other division teams beat that record at least one time. The following year we might have been a game away from the playoffs but we were a .500 team with a record of 8-7-1. It’s highly unusual to have playoff teams with so low a number of wins that aren’t division winners. That record won’t get the playoffs this year.

 

 

This IMO is a better team than the 2015 version.  It won't be every season where they have the toughest schedule in the NFL and injuries galore especially at the worst place for any team to have them which is the O line.  It was the perfect bad luck storm. Ironic, we got the third place finishers from the NFC North and South and both teams ended up being the best teams in their divisions.  You let go of your two best receivers and their key replacements get hurt.  One barely plays all season.  The other guy plays some of the season and arguably almost single handily cost them key games -- responsible for 6 turnovers in the worst spots.

 

On and on and on.  Healthy -- they beat the Rams in LA and came a hair from beating the hottest team in the NFL.  I can't pretend that I didn't notice any of it.

 

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

About the injuries i really wonder if there is something wrong with the training staff.

 

So do I.  But this was the worst year by far on that front. I can deal with lets say the 2016 or 2015 version of this.  2017 was epic bad.

 

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

 if we can not sign Kirk to a LTD and the way Bruce put the dirty laundry in the public about the most recent negotiations in such an unprofessional manner I don’t believe it will happen then what does that mean for the guys I said to get rid of? 

 

Norman can opt out and go on his own accord. Kirk can force them to franchise tag him again refusing to sign here crippling what cap space they actually have to replace all of the one year contracts they have now. And why wouldn’t he do that? 

 

This point confuses me from your prospective considering in the Kirk thread you are espousing that Kirk isn't that hot of a QB and it would be good to let him go.  Here its if he goes we might as well start all over again.   

 

As for Kirk forcing them to tag him again.  My guess on that considering what some beat reporters have said -- that only happens if Kirk wants out.  Then you got to rent him.  Is that possible?  Sure.  If Kirk wants in and Bruce abandons his hard nose negotiation approach especially on the guaranteed money front, then they should be able to get a LTD.

 

But yeah overall, I do agree with the notion that the team likely stinks if they let Kirk go.  And if they go in the draft to fish for Plan B it is starting over.

[SemperFi Skins]

12 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

As long as we save enough money to give Pryor a long term deal..

 

seeiously, fantasy sleeper for 2018 if ever there were one

 

Get on on the train now, seats are...well, there are still plenty available 

 

I don't know that he'd be a priority.... he's got like a 50% catch rate and he's technically been sleeping all season... before his injury

[DC9]

13 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I get what you’re saying and I agree.

 

With that said, a lot of NFL teams could say similar.

 

 

 

They could.  We've actually done a decent job of "doing it right," or trying to.  I think a lot of that came to fruition this year (when we were healthy, of course) where we splashed some in FA and actually hit on some good players.  You could tell the difference with the defense when the spine was healthy... Allen/The Greek, Brown, Swearinger.  Add to that spine and this defense is going to be just vicious.

 

We aren't far away, we really aren't.  Hit on it this off season and luck into some health and we're competitive.

 

If we don't, I have no problem going elsewhere.  I'm a big Jay fan, too.

On 12/19/2017 at 8:51 AM, KDawg said:

For us, we should re-sign:

 

Foster, Brown, Cousins, Grant, Callahan, Breeland.

 

Guys we could cut: 

 

Norman (not because of his play but rather his cap hit in conjunction with the depth and ability at CB)

 

Free Agent Signings:

 

Right now I’m not too sure. We need a lot of help. But if the rumors are true about Sherman, Chancellor and Thomas not being brought back in Seattle, I’d target one of the two safeties to pair with Swearinger. 

 

Could you imagine getting a safety from Seattle and drafting Raekwon McMillan from UGA and getting just a little more depth at DT/NG?

 

Oh my God...

8 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

These lists make me think there are going to be a lot of disappointed little boys and girls this Christmas.

 

I'm with you.  I honestly don't think there's going to be a ton of new signings. 

 

I think we'll grab a safety and maybe a starting caliber WR and DL and that's about it.  Maybe a veteran pass rusher.  We're going to be re-signing a ton of cats, though.

 

We'll have to hit in the draft.  Which we've done alright at.

[skinny21]

Ignoring the positions we’re set at (tackle, #1 corner, slot corner, slot receiver, etc.), we have some positions that have possible answers already on the roster:

FS - Nicholson, Smithson

RB - Perine

DE - McGee, Lanier, Francis (and maybe a long shot in McClain)

ILB - Vigil/Spaight

C - Roullier

#2 Corner - Dunbar, Moreau

Blocking TE - Sprinkle

Swing tackle - Catalina

#2 receiver - Doctson

Backup OLB - Anderson

 

We don’t have any viable candidates for NT, #1 receiver, and LG.  We’re also lacking a complete TE.  

 

Considering that, I’d try to bring back Everett, Brown (and maybe Foster), Nsheke, Murphy or Galette, Long and Taylor.  

 

At that point, I’d feel (at least a bit) better about safety, ILB, swing tackle, OLB, C and NT.  

 

From there, I’d target a guard and a receiver in FA.  

 

Use the draft to find guys that can compete for those spots we only have possible answers for, and to bolster the depth (or even find a starter) in the trenches.  #1 priority would be a well rounded TE and receiver.  

 

This all presumes we retain Cousins, which is kind of a big presumption.  

 

 

[Fat Stupid Loser]

17 hours ago, bobandweave said:

Everyone wants to continue the band aide way of rebuilding when it’s never worked and really buIld this the right way. The goal is continued success. Like above any sort of short cut thinking needs to be banned.

 

Bandaid fixes never ever work for us and the thought process needs to be avoided at all costs.

 

I would 

 

Dump Kirk, Reed, Davis, Norman either for picks or out right release. Clearing them off the books would be a massive step in the right direction. I would throw the cap room at retaining our own guys and would avoid any outside the organization players unless extremely cheap until after the draft and then get some more cheap one year rentals.

 

As for our own guys I’m bringing back Brown, Breeland, for sure. I’d go ahead and front load some second contracts this year to get them off the books early and manage the cap space for future seasons.

 

Doing this should result in at least two maybe three separate third round compensatory picks this year. 

 

In the draft I would deploy the 2012 strategy and with our first pick choose the best available QB and then with one of the later picks double down on another QB selection.

 

 

2-14 for the foreseeable future.

[DC9]

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Ignoring the positions we’re set at (tackle, #1 corner, slot corner, slot receiver, etc.), we have some positions that have possible answers already on the roster:

FS - Nicholson, Smithson

 

 

I really like Nicholson.  The defense looks totally different when he's in there.  I just hope he's not an oft-injured type of dude and that this was just a bad year.

[DC9]

19 hours ago, bobandweave said:

Everyone wants to continue the band aide way of rebuilding when it’s never worked and really buIld this the right way. The goal is continued success. Like above any sort of short cut thinking needs to be banned.

 

Bandaid fixes never ever work for us and the thought process needs to be avoided at all costs.

 

I would 

 

Dump Kirk, Reed, Davis, Norman either for picks or out right release. Clearing them off the books would be a massive step in the right direction. I would throw the cap room at retaining our own guys and would avoid any outside the organization players unless extremely cheap until after the draft and then get some more cheap one year rentals.

 

As for our own guys I’m bringing back Brown, Breeland, for sure. I’d go ahead and front load some second contracts this year to get them off the books early and manage the cap space for future seasons.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're serious or not here.

 

You don't like the "one year deal-stay sort of competitive while we're drafting our own guys" approach?

 

Then you want to cut dudes that we've drafted and hit on in order to keep our own guys?  THEN you want to sign Zach Brown to a LTD when he's a product of the very thing you want to get out of (one year deals to stay competitive). 

 

I'm trying to be nice this year.  Could you please explain yourself a little better.

 

I think I understand what you're saying in terms of Reed since he's an injury prone dude, but we actually have him for a decent bargain given what he gives us when he is healthy.  I think this year was tough on him because he wasn't healthy and there were no weapons at all on offense.  Davis is had for pretty cheap and he's legit.  I don't think you find a replacement for that kind of dude.  I'm also not sure going younger for the sake of going younger is something we need to do.  If there is a better player than Davis, sure, sign him instead.

 

I get Norman.  I get Cousins.  Easy arguments can be made for both sides and we've heard them all.

 

Breeland is the definition of a JAG DB for me.  I don't think we HAVE to have him at all.  Certainly not for getting rid of guys like you mentioned above.  You'd front load contracts for them when we don't have a QB or more than one NFL-caliber WR on the roster for next year?  We also don't have a starting LG at the moment either?

 

3 hours ago, SemperFi Skins said:

 

I don't know that he'd be a priority.... he's got like a 50% catch rate and he's technically been sleeping all season... before his injury

 

I can't fault the front office for that move.  I really thought he was going to ball out.  I think a lot of folks did.  Swing in a miss, but it was a good swing and I'll give them credit for that.

[bobandweave]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This IMO is a better team than the 2015 version.  It won't be every season where they have the toughest schedule in the NFL and injuries galore especially at the worst place for any team to have them which is the O line.  It was the perfect bad luck storm. Ironic, we got the third place finishers from the NFC North and South and both teams ended up being the best teams in their divisions.  You let go of your two best receivers and their key replacements get hurt.  One barely plays all season.  The other guy plays some of the season and arguably almost single handily cost them key games -- responsible for 6 turnovers in the worst spots.

 

On and on and on.  Healthy -- they beat the Rams in LA and came a hair from beating the hottest team in the NFL.  I can't pretend that I didn't notice any of it.

 

The problem I see is that we fans and it seems the brass always looks at individual games like those and allows them to put a false sense on the reality of the team. Its the lipstick on the pig. Seasons have to be taken as a whole. Not as individual games. If not you get a false positive sense of where the team exists. These guys have 1 win with 4 losses in the division this year. The single win came against a Giants team that's completely mailed in the season. In the sweeping series losses to the Cowboys and Eagles they were outscored 135 to 74 and every game allowed the other guys 30+ points a game. If they can't take care of business in the division they can't win it. We are the 3rd best team in the division now and the other teams are just getting better. 

 

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This point confuses me from your prospective considering in the Kirk thread you are espousing that Kirk isn't that hot of a QB and it would be good to let him go.  Here its if he goes we might as well start all over again.   

 

As for Kirk forcing them to tag him again.  My guess on that considering what some beat reporters have said -- that only happens if Kirk wants out.  Then you got to rent him.  Is that possible?  Sure.  If Kirk wants in and Bruce abandons his hard nose negotiation approach especially on the guaranteed money front, then they should be able to get a LTD.

 

But yeah overall, I do agree with the notion that the team likely stinks if they let Kirk go.  And if they go in the draft to fish for Plan B it is starting over.

 

Kirk isn't that hot of a QB, to me he's lacking several intangibles that the great QB's don't miss on so I have mixed feelings believing he can elevate the team around him. I do place him in the upper half of the leagues QBs but not by much (somewhere between 16 and 13) in terms of rankings. Problem with Kirk is he's not shown to bring that many victory's to the team based on what they are paying him and what he is demanding and I don't think that changes with a contract. He's been paid like a top 5 QB the past two seasons and the results are lacking. Last week was one of the rare times that Kirk's not thrown for at least 200 passing yards and seems to be regressing. If he is that just goes along with my mistrust that when the lights are brightest he has the moxy to rise above it. If he is just destined to be good and never great like it seems then can't we do better for less money?

 

This goes back to team identity. If the teams identity is to have a dominate offense that can mask the deficiencies of a below average defense then the results have to be there. Currently they are 18th in scoring offense this season per game and averaging 21.3 points. That's not going to get it done. So why would we sign anyone with this resume to a franchise deal that pays him top 5 money who has so much control over the outcome week to week? You can't do that and really expect him to do better then he already has. So if we get the same results as we've seen why is that acceptable long term? Just because that's better then Colt McCoy doesn't cut it. Over the past three games our offense is scoring the 26th least amount of points per game. Any QB asking for top money has to do better then that, 

[DC9]

6 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

The problem I see is that we fans and it seems the brass always looks at individual games like those and allows them to put a false sense on the reality of the team. Its the lipstick on the pig. Seasons have to be taken as a whole. Not as individual games. If not you get a false positive sense of where the team exists. These guys have 1 win with 4 losses in the division this year. The single win came against a Giants team that's completely mailed in the season. In the sweeping series losses to the Cowboys and Eagles they were outscored 135 to 74 and every game allowed the other guys 30+ points a game. If they can't take care of business in the division they can't win it. We are the 3rd best team in the division now and the other teams are just getting better.

 

Well, to be fair, all four of those games were winable and we beat ourselves.  Both Cowboys games were ridiculous in terms of the turnovers and bounces this year.  The blocked field goal, the fumbles on teams and on offenses.  The bounces were ridiculous.

 

The Eagles games, Wentz was just fantastic.  If we don't let him out of some of those sacks where he threw three TDs over the two games we win.  I don't think that's anything to get upset at, that's just football sometimes.  And finishing.  Wentz is clearly an MVP caliber QB.  We just need to get better in certain areas but again we aren't a million miles away where we need to blow the team up.

 

That's just ****ing silly.

[bobandweave]

3 hours ago, DC9 said:

I'm with you.  I honestly don't think there's going to be a ton of new signings. 

 

 

Completely depends on the QB and CB. I'm a believer that the team is not going to be able to sign him long term. Heard this morning that people are predicting Kirk goes to Denver since rumblings are they are going to be coming after him hard. So if Kirk splits (I think he should and he wants to leave anyway) then that will open up a lot of cap space. In addition I think Norman is going to opt out and leave next season which will open up more space. Now personally one of the first things I suggest them doing is getting the one hit away from retirement Reed off the books which would eat some cap space but when those two guys leave they will have to spend money so shiny new overpriced toys will be coming here like they always do

 

3 hours ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

2-14 for the foreseeable future.

 
So on one hand you have lots of posters talking up the defense and I suggest losing the QB and the CB and that means to you they would be 2-14 for years? I don't get that. Norman is not worth that many wins, and Kirks not winning a lot of games. I don't believe that at all

[Fat Stupid Loser]

5 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

 
So on one hand you have lots of posters talking up the defense and I suggest losing the QB and the CB and that means to you they would be 2-14 for years? I don't get that. Norman is not worth that many wins, and Kirks not winning a lot of games. I don't believe that at all

Kirk is the ONLY reason this team isn't 2-14. Giving up a quality, franchise QB just isn't done. That's for a reason. Huge, franchise crushing error. But we'll do it, cause we're the Redskins. Then we can go get one of these turds coming out in the draft. They are a bunch of Joey Harrisons.

[DC9]

11 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Completely depends on the QB and CB. I'm a believer that the team is going to be able to sign him long term. Heard this morning that people are predicting Kirk goes to Denver since rumblings are they are going to be coming after him hard. So if Kirk splits (I think he should and he wants to leave anyway) then that will open up a lot of cap space. In addition I think Norman is going to opt out and leave next season which will open up more space. Now personally one of the first things I suggest them doing is getting the one hit away from retirement Reed off the books which would eat some cap space but when those two guys leave they will have to spend money so shiny new overpriced toys will be coming here like they always do

 

Well, if we do make a QB change then you want as strong a defense as possible.  Look at the "successful," young QBs and what the have in common.

 

Wilson - Seahawks Defense

Wentz - Eagles Defense

Keenum - Vikings Defense

Heck... even folks are saying Bortles is a baller now but JAX probably has the best defense since the early Ravens defenses with Ray.

 

So cutting or trading a dude like Norman is not the best idea there.  Especially when he and Swearinger along with Brown bring a nasty disposition to the secondary.

14 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

So on one hand you have lots of posters talking up the defense and I suggest losing the QB and the CB and that means to you they would be 2-14 for years? I don't get that. Norman is not worth that many wins, and Kirks not winning a lot of games. I don't believe that at all

 

I agree that we'll be bad.  Maybe not 2-14 bad, but we'll be bad.  Let's divide the team and the fan base again on two different QBs.  I can't wait.

[DC9]

Matter of fact, I wish I still had the graphic, but Cousins is the ONLY QB in the top 5-10 of most statistical categories without a top 15 defense.

 

You don't want to have a young QB going into that same predicament.  If we go that way, soup the defense up and give him a RB and another legit weapon at WR.

 

The salary cap forces you to pick one side of the ball to be excellent and the other to be competent.  We are still trying to make both competent.  I think we're closer on defense if everyone is healthy.  We have an excellent line on offense when healthy, so finish off the defense and see what happens on O.  We'll be fine.

[bobandweave]

26 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

I'm not sure if you're serious or not here.

 

Extremely serious

 

26 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

You don't like the "one year deal-stay sort of competitive while we're drafting our own guys" approach?

 

At times it makes sense. With what we've done at QB it makes no sense and shows a lack of direction from the front office. No other team out there would have done with Kirk what we did and still may do with him. It's bad business. Now if your talking about the small money deal Brown got then that's fine, MLB is easily replaced and cheap. This approach of stop gap band aides comes down to what it costs per position. Some positions are cheap and this approach is fine, some are expensive and not wise to do. 

 

26 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Then you want to cut dudes that we've drafted and hit on in order to keep our own guys?  THEN you want to sign Zach Brown to a LTD when he's a product of the very thing you want to get out of (one year deals to stay competitive). 

 

I suggested 4 names.

 

Kirk Cousins. isn't a bad player but he's not great nor is he worth top 5 QB money. The issue with keeping him is to pay him what he demands is overpaying big time at the most expensive position on the entire team with too many unknowns. Can he be clutch when the tape says he can't? Can he elevate anyone around him when Doctson still looks too raw and the tape says no? Will this contract turn into an anchor and Kirk turns into a coach killer? Say Kirk continues to choke in big games, and never gets over the hump to be great. Eventually Snyder knowing him will want to fire someone and Jay gets the ax. Now they are stuck with a QB that may or may not be desirable to the next head coach with a mismanaged salary cap, and that's not a good recipe.

 

That's besides the fact that we don't know really if Kirk wants to be here, and the organization has been horrendous the way they have treated him (Namely Bruce Allen's presser about negotiations when the window closed) its a hot mess. One more season on a one year contract won't work to build this into a championship level team. There are too many holes here to do that so we won't be the Flordia Marlins of the NFL next season. So you either say the hell with it and pay him a kings ransom just to keep him or you let him go this year. I let him walk and end this relationship for the betterment of the team. I think they can go into the draft and pull off a 2011 Bengals move and get a QB and a WR1 if they draft correctly. Now you have cheap contracts for two positions for at least the next four years. And if they don't go nuts in free agency they could get some free draft picks in the process as well. 

 

Josh Norman. Josh Norman I predict opts out this year. His comments about in the off season we will all hear more about his frustration all but seals that to me. He's got leverage, wants to win a championship and probably is gone. He meets neither of the criteria (We hit on him. He was drafted) you spoke about. I also don't think the teams got any say in this

 

Jordan Reed. Jordan Reed is a draft pick and when he plays which is rare is great. The problem with him are obvious. He's due 9-10 million per season over the next four years. His contract makes him the 3rd highest paid TE in the league today. He's never played a full NFL season and is always hurt. Your belief he is a "bargain" when he's paid elite money doesn't make sense. His injury history with concussions are so bad it's predicted that one more and he's going to have to retire. I love his ability when he's on the field but he's way overpaid, and untrustworthy. So I think letting him go makes the most sense rather to pay him to sit the bench or pray he gets up when he does play anymore.

 

Vernon Davis. His issue is he is 34 years old. He's unable to block and won't lay out to catch the football. He's not going to lead this team to a championship and his skills are diminishing. Why is cutting him a bad idea?

 

Now as for Zach Brown. Zach Brown just turned 28 years old. He's on the right side of the age realm. He's also someone who was tested and passed the test with flying colors. Signing him to a 4 year deal is a no brainer. He won't break the bank and fits a need. 

 

I am not against one year deals if they are CHEAP. Key word, cheap deals. One year deals that are expensive are stupid. Make the players earn the money. Keep them hungry and they will play better, 

 

Can't post this below the quote for some reason. Anyway Breeland is 25 years old. We can not afford to lose him and Norman this off season. If I'm right in my guess and Norman leaves then do you want us to lose both starting corners? Again Norman's comments lead me to believe its only a matter of time before he bounces which is the reason I believe keeping Bree is the right thing to do. 

 

26 minutes ago, DC9 said:

Breeland is the definition of a JAG DB for me.  I don't think we HAVE to have him at all.  Certainly not for getting rid of guys like you mentioned above. 

 

[bobandweave]

40 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Well, to be fair, all four of those games were winable and we beat ourselves.  Both Cowboys games were ridiculous in terms of the turnovers and bounces this year.  The blocked field goal, the fumbles on teams and on offenses.  The bounces were ridiculous.

 

The Eagles games, Wentz was just fantastic.  If we don't let him out of some of those sacks where he threw three TDs over the two games we win.  I don't think that's anything to get upset at, that's just football sometimes.  And finishing.  Wentz is clearly an MVP caliber QB.  We just need to get better in certain areas but again we aren't a million miles away where we need to blow the team up.

 

That's just ****ing silly.

 

So the entire team to you is 4 guys? No where did I say blow the thing up, I'm not suggesting a fire sale approach which your reading. I suggested removing 4 players, and its for the better of the team. I do not want to lose Norman but I think he's going to leave regardless. The football team is 53 men plus the practice squad. Not sure where you get I'm saying blow anything up. I'm saying make shrewd cap moves, moving on from a situation that seems immanent and not overpaying someone who hasn't showed to be worth the money, and letting go of a bad contract. That's not demolishing the team in any sort of way

[bobandweave]

32 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

Kirk is the ONLY reason this team isn't 2-14. Giving up a quality, franchise QB just isn't done. That's for a reason. Huge, franchise crushing error. But we'll do it, cause we're the Redskins. Then we can go get one of these turds coming out in the draft. They are a bunch of Joey Harrisons.

 

Look at the wins this year

 

Win against the Raiders was got because the Defense held Cooper, Lynch, and Crabtree to a combined 27 yards. 

Win against the Seahawks was because the Defense held them to only 14 points
Win against the Cardinals was because the Defense held them to only FG's

 

The team is much more then a single player. 

33 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Well, if we do make a QB change then you want as strong a defense as possible.  Look at the "successful," young QBs and what the have in common.

 

Wilson - Seahawks Defense

Wentz - Eagles Defense

Keenum - Vikings Defense

Heck... even folks are saying Bortles is a baller now but JAX probably has the best defense since the early Ravens defenses with Ray.

 

So cutting or trading a dude like Norman is not the best idea there.  Especially when he and Swearinger along with Brown bring a nasty disposition to the secondary.

 

I agree with you here and believe that is the path for this team to be good again. Great examples you came up with. Thing about Norman is he controls if he stays or goes. I wouldn't trade or cut him. I think he's going to opt out on this team. If he does then he does. 

 

[DC9]

24 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Extremely serious

 

 

At times it makes sense. With what we've done at QB it makes no sense and shows a lack of direction from the front office. No other team out there would have done with Kirk what we did and still may do with him. It's bad business. Now if your talking about the small money deal Brown got then that's fine, MLB is easily replaced and cheap. This approach of stop gap band aides comes down to what it costs per position. Some positions are cheap and this approach is fine, some are expensive and not wise to do.

 

I definitely agree no one would do Cousins like that, hence why we're the first ones to do it... But you're talking about "band aid" rebuilds.  EVERY team has done one year deals like this.  Good, bad, mediocre.  There have been more one year deals this year than any other year in league history, same was true last year.

 

We're on the front end of that trend.  Thank goodness.  That prevents you from giving big money to dudes like Stephen Bowen and the like (who I did like, but holy **** that was a bad deal).

 

24 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I suggested 4 names.

 

Kirk Cousins. isn't a bad player but he's not great nor is he worth top 5 QB money. The issue with keeping him is to pay him what he demands is overpaying big time at the most expensive position on the entire team with too many unknowns. Can he be clutch when the tape says he can't? Can he elevate anyone around him when Doctson still looks too raw and the tape says no? Will this contract turn into an anchor and Kirk turns into a coach killer? Say Kirk continues to choke in big games, and never gets over the hump to be great. Eventually Snyder knowing him will want to fire someone and Jay gets the ax. Now they are stuck with a QB that may or may not be desirable to the next head coach with a mismanaged salary cap, and that's not a good recipe.

 

That's besides the fact that we don't know really if Kirk wants to be here, and the organization has been horrendous the way they have treated him (Namely Bruce Allen's presser about negotiations when the window closed) its a hot mess. One more season on a one year contract won't work to build this into a championship level team. There are too many holes here to do that so we won't be the Flordia Marlins of the NFL next season. So you either say the hell with it and pay him a kings ransom just to keep him or you let him go this year. I let him walk and end this relationship for the betterment of the team. I think they can go into the draft and pull off a 2011 Bengals move and get a QB and a WR1 if they draft correctly. Now you have cheap contracts for two positions for at least the next four years. And if they don't go nuts in free agency they could get some free draft picks in the process as well. 

 

Josh Norman. Josh Norman I predict opts out this year. His comments about in the off season we will all hear more about his frustration all but seals that to me. He's got leverage, wants to win a championship and probably is gone. He meets neither of the criteria (We hit on him. He was drafted) you spoke about. I also don't think the teams got any say in this

 

Jordan Reed. Jordan Reed is a draft pick and when he plays which is rare is great. The problem with him are obvious. He's due 9-10 million per season over the next four years. His contract makes him the 3rd highest paid TE in the league today. He's never played a full NFL season and is always hurt. Your belief he is a "bargain" when he's paid elite money doesn't make sense. His injury history with concussions are so bad it's predicted that one more and he's going to have to retire. I love his ability when he's on the field but he's way overpaid, and untrustworthy. So I think letting him go makes the most sense rather to pay him to sit the bench or pray he gets up when he does play anymore.

 

I'm not going to turn this into a Kirk thread.  There are enough of them.  I'll disagree with your assessment of him while agreeing the deal needs to be suitable for both parties and encourage you to watch the tape again.

 

24 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Josh Norman. Josh Norman I predict opts out this year. His comments about in the off season we will all hear more about his frustration all but seals that to me. He's got leverage, wants to win a championship and probably is gone. He meets neither of the criteria (We hit on him. He was drafted) you spoke about. I also don't think the teams got any say in this

 

Jordan Reed. Jordan Reed is a draft pick and when he plays which is rare is great. The problem with him are obvious. He's due 9-10 million per season over the next four years. His contract makes him the 3rd highest paid TE in the league today. He's never played a full NFL season and is always hurt. Your belief he is a "bargain" when he's paid elite money doesn't make sense. His injury history with concussions are so bad it's predicted that one more and he's going to have to retire. I love his ability when he's on the field but he's way overpaid, and untrustworthy. So I think letting him go makes the most sense rather to pay him to sit the bench or pray he gets up when he does play anymore.

 

Vernon Davis. His issue is he is 34 years old. He's unable to block and won't lay out to catch the football. He's not going to lead this team to a championship and his skills are diminishing. Why is cutting him a bad idea?

 

Now as for Zach Brown. Zach Brown just turned 28 years old. He's on the right side of the age realm. He's also someone who was tested and passed the test with flying colors. Signing him to a 4 year deal is a no brainer. He won't break the bank and fits a need. 

 

I am not against one year deals if they are CHEAP. Key word, cheap deals. One year deals that are expensive are stupid. Make the players earn the money. Keep them hungry and they will play better, 

 

Can't post this below the quote for some reason. Anyway Breeland is 25 years old. We can not afford to lose him and Norman this off season. If I'm right in my guess and Norman leaves then do you want us to lose both starting corners? Again Norman's comments lead me to believe its only a matter of time before he bounces which is the reason I believe keeping Bree is the right thing to do. 

 

 

Reed is elite when he plays.  He's basically a WR making TE money.  I'm not against trading him, but we won't get a replacement that is as quality as he is.  Do you think an average player being there for 16 games is worth what Reed will give you in 10?  Why don't the Pats cut Gronkowski?  They're the model NFL franchise when it comes to personnel decisions right?  Probably for the same reason we shouldn't get rid of Reed.  He's making more than Reed and has missed more time.

 

I'm 50/50 on VD.  If we find a replacement for him then get rid of him.  If we don't, then sign him up again.  I don't think you're fully grasping the "what are they worth/what do they produce," aspect.  Cause though Reed wasn't great this year, we never replaced his production when he went down.  VD stepped up for a few games and had some clutch catches.  I missed the Chargers game but I'm not sure what else you're talking about in terms of him not laying out for catches?  He's had a fumble or two for sure. 

 

In terms of CHEAP one year deals... Gallette has been trash.  Three years, two of which he wasn't even on the field.  He was cheap.  Brown wasn't "cheap," as much as he was a smart business decision.  We waited him out.  If you're CHEAP then players don't come.  You have to be smart. 

 

How about you turn your critical thinking cap that you used with these other players on with Breeland.  He's been either awful or really good.  Very little in between.  Just a guy.  I don't care if he's 25. 

19 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

So the entire team to you is 4 guys? No where did I say blow the thing up, I'm not suggesting a fire sale approach which your reading. I suggested removing 4 players, and its for the better of the team. I do not want to lose Norman but I think he's going to leave regardless. The football team is 53 men plus the practice squad. Not sure where you get I'm saying blow anything up. I'm saying make shrewd cap moves, moving on from a situation that seems immanent and not overpaying someone who hasn't showed to be worth the money, and letting go of a bad contract. That's not demolishing the team in any sort of way

 

You're talking about getting rid of your best CB, your best TE/Offensive weapon, your franchise record holding QB, and your TE2/TE1 for most of the season.

 

Yes, that's blowing the team up.

 

Why?  Cause in all likelihood, you're completely changing the style with which we play.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's blowing up the team.

[50yrSKINSfan]

I see the Seahawks and Ravens that had good teams a few years ago when their starting QB's were not making big money as they had the money to pay other players. Then they signed their QB's to big money contracts and look what happened. The Hawks can't even pay a O line to protect.  I do not see us as a super bowl team with KC and even farther away at 30mil a year with him. This guy is holding us up big time. I say let him test the market as I do not see any teams knocking each other over to drop 150mil for 5 years and 75mil guaranteed on a guy who was a 4th rd pick and has not won a playoff game yet, and if there is one I say good riddance.  There will be QB's available in the draft and I see the teams that need one going by the draft instead of paying KC. What happened last draft? QB'S went high so I see this happening again. Call his bluff. Let him walk to Cleveland or some other scrub team. Over paying a great QB is OK as that guy can get you a championship but KC? Are you kidding? Overpaying him would just piss off everybody else. Get that Allen kid from Wyoming and use KC's 30 mil and the draft  to build a D, a great O line, and a  running game and maybe then you can hang with the Cowboys instead of watching them push us all over the field. Giving KC what he wants will not change anything except it will just be more expensive to have what we had this year.

[DC9]

31 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

I see the Seahawks and Ravens that had good teams a few years ago when their starting QB's were not making big money as they had the money to pay other players. Then they signed their QB's to big money contracts and look what happened. The Hawks can't even pay a O line to protect.  I do not see us as a super bowl team with KC and even farther away at 30mil a year with him. This guy is holding us up big time. I say let him test the market as I do not see any teams knocking each other over to drop 150mil for 5 years and 75mil guaranteed on a guy who was a 4th rd pick and has not won a playoff game yet, and if there is one I say good riddance.  There will be QB's available in the draft and I see the teams that need one going by the draft instead of paying KC. What happened last draft? QB'S went high so I see this happening again. Call his bluff. Let him walk to Cleveland or some other scrub team. Over paying a great QB is OK as that guy can get you a championship but KC? Are you kidding? Overpaying him would just piss off everybody else. Get that Allen kid from Wyoming and use KC's 30 mil and the draft  to build a D, a great O line, and a  running game and maybe then you can hang with the Cowboys instead of watching them push us all over the field. Giving KC what he wants will not change anything except it will just be more expensive to have what we had this year.

 

Not a Cousins thread.

[Est.1974]

4 hours ago, DC9 said:

I'm with you.  I honestly don't think there's going to be a ton of new signings. 

 

 

Me neither, can't see more than one high end starter coming in via FA, I'd go DT ideally. I'd look to spend ~75% of our available space re-signing our own guys.

 

I think free agency will be very underwhelming and based on the looks of who is potentially available that's not a bad thing.

[bobandweave]

30 minutes ago, DC9 said:

You're talking about getting rid of your best CB, your best TE/Offensive weapon, your franchise record holding QB, and your TE2/TE1 for most of the season.

 

Yes, that's blowing the team up.

 

Why?  Cause in all likelihood, you're completely changing the style with which we play.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's blowing up the team.

 

Best CB - Regardless of if I'm saying he's gone or not gone I'm not advocating that he go anywhere. The word is out there that he is not happy, wants to win a championship, has some beef with the team he is going to air in the off season, and can opt out at his own choosing. Not sure why you blame me for speaking about this but that's the way it is

 

Best TE/Offensive Weapon - Reed is likely one hit to the head away from retirement, is owed 10 million next season if he's here making him the third highest paid TE in the league, has missed an entire seasons worth of games the past three seasons combined. Relying on Reed being available has been a foolish errand and your best paid skilled position player needs to be counted on. The difference between Gronk and Reed is as wide as the Grand Canyon. They are not the same player and Gronk's helped the Patriots win a Superbowl. There is no reason to continue to anchor ourselves to this unfortunate situation longer then we have to

 

Record Holding QB - Whether you or I want Cousins to stay here he holds all the leverage to do that. He's clearly shown unwilling to sign a long term deal with this franchise. This is the absolute last season where we can force him to stay and next off season is free to go elsewhere which is his desire. At the cost of 30+ million dollars its better to just move on from him now and accept he is never going to cut a home town discount to play here and admit that while he is good he is far from great and not worth top 5 money. Records are meant to be broken and do not represent the only important thing - Winning. The team forced him to prove he was worth such an expensive contract and he's failed to do that never leading them to a single playoff win or championship. The team found this player in the draft and before we fire the head coach we have no idea what he could do with another QB and he deserves the chance to show everyone if he can find someone to do that before we are stuck next off season in a position of being forced to move on like it or not. We could trade Cousins knowing he won't be resigned for something or risk losing him for nothing in a years time when even if he does stay one more season no one thinks will be competing for the Superbowl

 

TE2/TE1 - The man is old, 34 years old. The man plays one aspect of this dual aspect position. He is not a good blocker nor will he stretch out to make the tough catch. No position in the NFL besides QB and Kicker should any team look to build around players aged 30 and older. His skills are diminishing and will get worse as time goes on.

 

Yes I'm speaking about these four men and moving on from them. They are all in situations where the team likely finds themselves without those players in a years time whether or not we like that. Age keeps going, no ones beating father time. Opt outs are Opt outs. Concussions are a sad reality to playing in the NFL, and times run out on forcing people to play for the team that just don't want to anymore. If that's a blow up you can get behind blowing it up now or just wait until it happens but it's going to happen regardless. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 hours ago, DC9 said:

They could.  We've actually done a decent job of "doing it right," or trying to.  I think a lot of that came to fruition this year (when we were healthy, of course) where we splashed some in FA and actually hit on some good players.  You could tell the difference with the defense when the spine was healthy... Allen/The Greek, Brown, Swearinger.  Add to that spine and this defense is going to be just vicious.

 

We aren't far away, we really aren't.  Hit on it this off season and luck into some health and we're competitive.

 

If we don't, I have no problem going elsewhere.  I'm a big Jay fan, too.

I agree, the injuries on defense really crippled the unit.  Without pressure from the DL, you just CAN'T have a good DL.  Also, I think Norman and what he was doing early in the season is highly under-rated.  When he went out, the entire secondary changed.  

 

I like what they did last off-season on defense. 

 

I hate, hate, hate what they did on offense, which was essentially nothing but sign a guy as an insurance policy to Doctson.  Doctson was hurt early, and Pryor busted.  They needed to sign a #1 WR BADLY, and they didn't really even try.  The idea of rolling with Doctson (injury prone "rookie"), Pryor (just switched positions) playing the same position, Crowder in the slot, and Grant on the other side was just dumb.  Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.  And it was so obviously dumb that people were saying it was dumb in July.  Add to that trying to force Kelley as a legitimate back down our throats, also dumb.  And going with 2 starting TEs who can't/won't block, and one of which is never available for more than 10 games a season at best?  Dumb.  All of it was dumb.  The fact that it was on the offensive side of the ball is why I put a lot of the plan on Gruden, because he should have known better.  Ultimately, it's Bruce's responsibility not to allow this to play out.  

 

And while they were "ok" offensively early before the injuries to the OL. They weren't great, and they weren't explosive.  They were creative enough to get CT the ball in space and get big plays that way, but that's about it.  The injuries to the OL and then to CT essentially took it from "ok" to actively bad.  

 

They need to plug a few guys on defense, but really, in