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

[HTTRDynasty]

...

 

[Skinsinparadise]

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

But this is where I keep disagreeing with you. That's your opinion. It may not be Bruce's, but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

I don't know why you lately like to make this point.  We all have our opinions. None of us state that our opinions are facts.

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

The Draft, THE DRAFT and they were successful doing that. I wish we could win 2 SBs in the next 25 years with a similar philosophy.

 

I don't think there is a single person on the board who doesn't believe in the draft. So you can put the word draft in capital letters but I don't know who you are arguing against where they are on the other side of the draft's importance?  Heck my 10 year old son gets that the draft is important.  Everybody on the board.  Speaking of the draft, decisions for example that the Eagles make and the Redskins make as for trading or obtaining draft capital actually has a profound impact on building a team in the draft.  One team has been very sharp with it, one team not so much.  It's not only about the players landed with the picks. 

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

And its not that Bruce isn't active, its that (1) according to some he's not active enough and (2) when he is active, he's active on the wrong guys. 

 

I've made this point plenty.  He spends to the cap but takes the lower risk approach of loading up on multiple guys versus 2 big names, etc.  You were the one if I recall who posted the article about Bruce's 19% success ratio in FA.  I am not sure how that all helps him -- signing FAs isn't something we are good at so why bother?  Actually sarcasm aside, Cooley actually made that exact point -- they might not trust their pro personnel people to pick the right guys but do trust their college guys -- that sounds a bit odd to me but who knows?

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

We've seen already how wrong this board was when everybody was asking for us to get another FA safety last year, calling DJ a SS who couldn't play free and they said that Nicholson was gonna be a bust. Even the scouts across the league said he was nothing, couldn't hit and didn't have the instincts and that we picked him too early.

 

I recall most including myself (not all) liking the Swearinger signing.   Off topic a little, Cooley I recall was giddy about the signing.   As for Nicholson, yeah many (but not all because I recall listening to a couple of draft geeks who liked him) weren't sold on the pick because he wasn't a hyped guy.  Bruce did good on that one likely reading off of Scot's list just like he did on Swearinger.  Breer said he actually saw Scot's FA list and Swearinger was on it.  Paulsen said Scot told him he wants Zach Brown weeks before Scot was canned.

 

But lets run with these were all Bruce.  I know people in my profession who don't have a hot rep but get somethings right that others were wrong about.  It doesn't mean anything IMO.  That's life.  It's about the totality of all your decisions.  

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

You say you're tired of the same story, but that's how life works. You try, try and try again. You're trying to buy a house, you put in an offer. If its not accepted, you try again. You could just put in an offer way over your budget that beats out the competition, but you could also say, "well, we'll have to find another dream house" and get your bearings together for another offer the next year. And eventually you'll either find the right one or you keep trying.

 

 All true if you have a FO structure with people with reputations you trust.   But you don't keep banging a nail with a screw driver just for consistency sake.  You hire a guy whether its a head coach and GM and give them the rope to do their job and be patient with it.  If Bruce was some rock star personnel guy that we luckily pilfered from Tampa than your point IMO would be spot on.

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

And as a parent, I've got to deal with this. I see my son making mistakes and I want to do the work for him because he's making the same mistakes. I can't fire my son. I'm going to try to be patient and understand what he's doing wrong and try to help him find resources to improve.

 

 

I have two young kids so I get the parent drill, too.  There is nothing to me that I can relate to letting Bruce do his thing and raising my kids.  So maybe I am missing where you are trying to go with this point.

 

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

And saying Bruce is not like Wolf for things done before 2014 is ignoring my argument. My statement is that since 2014 we've seen an entirely different scouting department. That's when he first started working with Scot. I think that's when we hired AJ Smith as a consultant (March of 2013). So the McNabb and RG3 moves are pre this philosophy. If you want to argue that Alex Smith isn't this philosophy then I'd say you have an argument.

 

I honestly don't have a strong feel for how good or not good the people below Bruce are.  I've seen enough of Scot Campbell to think he's just average.  Not terrible.  Not great.  Kyle Smith has some local hype -- it hasn't expanded to the degree where I am seeing him nationally mentioned yet among the power weights in the game.  But will see.  I like Kyle's background.  And I'd like someone with his type of background in charge of the WHOLE team versus just a corner of it.

 

The guy who is in charge sets the overall direction.  They have a lot of power.  Kyle and Santos makes recommendations but Bruce decides how to bring everything together.  

48 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But this philosophy has brought us from winning 7 games in 2 seasons to averaging 8 wins across the last 3. I know its not where we want to be, but its growth. And I think this same growth that brought us to an 8 win average will bring us to a double digit average over the next 3 or so seasons as these players grow together and learn to depend on one another more.

 

I think he deserves credit for the Jay hire. So I agree with that part of it.  But the special teams, defense, running game stink IMO.  It's a team that has rode the backs of Kirk and Jay IMO versus shrewd personnel decisions. 

 

I am not saying they can't elevate above this.  I really have no strong feeling one way or another as to them building up this roster this off season.  I need to see it play out and in turn the season turn out well.  I am just saying for me they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt on this point.  Though I'd agree that its possible for them to pull it off.  I am not optimistic or pessimistic. I am agnostic on that point.  I think I'll likely move off that fence one way or another after the draft. 

[RabidFan]

10 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

...

 

I annoyed with it as well not only the fact that i thought we were done with this after letting Gallette go, but that his slang and vernacular is totes annoying.

 

Naw mean?

 

[Thinking Skins]

SIP, you're talking about your philosophy for building a team:

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I disagree unless you are just amazing at one thing like the Steelers in the draft or GB for finding insanely good QBs and receivers. And the new regime in GB has abandoned the draft or bust approach. Aaron Rodgers has been openly imploring them to be more aggressive for years.  They are more aggressive now in FA than we are. 

 

And I keep coming back to the fact that thats just your philosophy. You keep harping on the fact that Bruce seems to disagree with you. Bruce didn't say the quote on multiple engines humming, that's you. But you're grading him on that scale. So it becomes less about "did we address our needs" and more about "did we address our needs the right way - your way". We can easily come away with Payne, Vea, Settle, Phillips, etc and sure up that position. Or we can see further growth from Ioannidis or Allen or Francis or somebody else. Heck, there could be a training camp cut that we bring in for a minimum deal that sures up the position. But it seems like you're giving us an F if we don't make a big move. That seems like a premature evaluation.

 

Nicholson was the same way last year when people thought that because of the Johnson and Ihenacho and whoever that other guy was who failed that we couldn't find safeties. We brought in DJ and while people loved him, most thought he was a SS and didn't have the range to play FS and so they still were looking for us to sign a FS in free agency and many were calling the FO a failure for not doing so, though admittedly things calmed down some when we signed Pryor, DJ and Brown.

 

My main point is that there are still many levels left in this offseason and if our draft continues to be well, we can sure up another position in the draft. I also had a post earlier that the front offices probably have a more thorough view of the current contracts and who has key dates in there coming up, who may be cut soon, who may be cut post draft, who may be available for trades soon, etc.The big signing is the thing that gets the attention in April and May, but these later moves are the types that get looked at in February when the media wonders, "how did this team that was predicted to win 5 games wind up winning the division". 

[Darth Tater]

There really is no right way to build a team.  It is not an insert tab a into slot b process that can be taught but about getting the right people together at the right time.  The bulk of the Eagles from last year were made from second tier FAs, guys left over from the previous regime and fresh meat from the draft/UDFA market. The Steelers who have been a good to great team for most of the last 40-something years, have usually relied on the draft with some very limited use of FAs/trades.  The Patriots are mostly about keeping a handful of core guys and continually building around that with mediocre but very coach-able talent in a system that requires them to only have to do what they are good at along with a few playmakers that are on the verge of career years.

[bakedtater1]

1 hour ago, RabidFan said:

I annoyed with it as well not only the fact that i thought we were done with this after letting Gallette go, but that his slang and vernacular is totes annoying.

 

Naw mean?

 

Like tote bags full of annoyance?

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

And I keep coming back to the fact that thats just your philosophy. You keep harping on the fact that Bruce seems to disagree with you. Bruce didn't say the quote on multiple engines humming, that's you. But you're grading him on that scale.

 

Whose scale should I be grading him on, yours, someone else?  I presume not so I am not getting your point.  When I am judging a player on the draft thread, am I using my opinion or I am supposed to use name the random poster's take on that player as my guide.

 

You subjectively think Bruce is doing a good job.  I subjectively think he screams mediocrity with questionable character.  Other people's opinions can and likely does influence our takes but ultimately it comes down to each of us digesting the data via their own perspective and landing on an opinion.

 

My opinion on Bruce goes deeper than that.  And this part isn't directed at him but Dan.  It's about what type of person with what type of experience do I want running personnel.  As Cooley likes to say, people expect Bruce to remove himself from power and why would he do that --- would you?  He has a point, if I am put in a position of power I am not just giving it up voluntarily.  So I don't blame him for holding on.  That's on Dan.

 

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Nicholson was the same way last year when people thought that because of the Johnson and Ihenacho and whoever that other guy was who failed that we couldn't find safeties. We brought in DJ and while people loved him, most thought he was a SS and didn't have the range to play FS and so they still were looking for us to sign a FS in free agency and many were calling the FO a failure for not doing so, though admittedly things calmed down some when we signed Pryor, DJ and Brown.

 

 

I guess I got to go back and read those threads again but I am skeptical -- I was all over that thread that year.  The beef seem to be centered on McGee and McClain. So I don't see where there can be bravado today about last year's FA where its like hey see-- Bruce made you look like fools.  The angst was by a mile about the D line and nose tackle.  That angst was borne out.

 

From what I recall Swearinger was a pretty popular choice -- the SS, FS was something that some but not most from what I recall were bogged down by.  Zach Brown was popular. T. Pryor was popular -- Pryor had some critics (I don't recall who they were but they ended up vindicated).  No one likes every signing where you get 100% approval but Swearinger I recall distinctly many loved -- me included and I was fine with the FS drill. Ironically, I've been watching back some games via the coach tape and Swearinger typically played SS when Nicholson was in the game. 

 

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

My main point is that there are still many levels left in this offseason and if our draft continues to be well, we can sure up another position in the draft. 

 

Cool.  That point doesn't really relate at all to me since I've probably said as much as anyone let the full off season play out to judge.   But I am not just reflexively giving them the benefit of the doubt, I need to see it play out to pat them on the back. 

[Darth Tater]

16 hours ago, oraphus said:

 Something has got to be up with Hankins... maybe he is locker room cancer. Colts got rid of him after just one year and no-one else is giving him a contract either. Maybe he lacked motivation after he got paid. Only reason i can think of for why skins would only want him for one year.

I suspect that when you would be on your 3rd team in as many years, the Postons are your agents and you want a multiple year deal (that allows you to get more cash for less cap), teams tend to be wary and probably tend to view Hankins in the most negative light possible.

[Malapropismic Depository]

17 hours ago, oraphus said:

 Something has got to be up with Hankins... maybe he is locker room cancer. Colts got rid of him after just one year and no-one else is giving him a contract either. Maybe he lacked motivation after he got paid. Only reason i can think of for why skins would only want him for one year.

 

He's had several offers, none of which he's accepted, hasn't he ?

Maybe it's just a matter of money, and not a matter of teams concerned with personal issues ?

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Boswell column that just kills the Redskins off season so far.  I think he's way premature but I got no problem with the skepticism for the time being.  Like I've said I think the FO deserves to have the off season FULLY unfold to judge (I said the same thing last year when people were crying foul around the same point) but at the same time I don't think the FO has earned the benefit of the doubt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2018/04/10/boswell-redskins-get-a-c-or-d-so-far-this-offseason/?utm_term=.23db92e552ca

[carex]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Whose scale should I be grading him on, yours, someone else?  I presume not so I am not getting your point.  When I am judging a player on the draft thread, am I using my opinion or I am supposed to use name the random poster's take on that player as my guide.

 

You subjectively think Bruce is doing a good job.  I subjectively think he screams mediocrity with questionable character.  Other people's opinions can and likely does influence our takes but ultimately it comes down to each of us digesting the data via their own perspective and landing on an opinion.

 

My opinion on Bruce goes deeper than that.  And this part isn't directed at him but Dan.  It's about what type of person with what type of experience do I want running personnel.  As Cooley likes to say, people expect Bruce to remove himself from power and why would he do that --- would you?  He has a point, if I am put in a position of power I am not just giving it up voluntarily.  So I don't blame him for holding on.  That's on Dan.

 

 

Allen has spent much of his tenure here giving up that power.  He gave it up to Shanny for four, he gave it up to GMSM for two

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, carex said:

 

Allen has spent much of his tenure here giving up that power.  He gave it up to Shanny for four, he gave it up to GMSM for two

 

 

 

The story at the time was Bruce and Shanny were a package team -- Bruce came first but Shanny was already spoken too.  Bruce would do money.  Shanny personnel.  Shanny was the more exciting get perception wise back then not Bruce.   Shanny had personnel control in Denver, his condition to take a new job would also include personnel control. 

 

As for Scot, according to Russell it was Dan who asked Bruce to go get a football guy as opposed to it being Bruce's idea.  According to Russell Bruce had no choice.  Regardless, sounds like Bruce kept his power with Scot in the fold -- he had final say.

 

[Jericho]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Boswell column that just kills the Redskins off season so far.  I think he's way premature but I got no problem with the skepticism for the time being.  Like I've said I think the FO deserves to have the off season FULLY unfold to judge (I said the same thing last year when people were crying foul around the same point) but at the same time I don't think the FO has earned the benefit of the doubt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2018/04/10/boswell-redskins-get-a-c-or-d-so-far-this-offseason/?utm_term=.23db92e552ca

 

I'm certainly not privy to insider information, but the article seems way off. It implies no one wants to sign here because of the Redskins reputation around the league. But I've seen no evidence the team is rally throwing big money around. For one, the team doesn't have a ton of cap space. It's okay for this year, but it's pretty limited in 2019. Moreover, I've seen nothing to suggest the team has really gone after bigger names. It seems to be consistently taking the cheap/frugal approach in free agency.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe the Redskins offered big money to tons of players who turned them down based on "reputation". But I suspect the team is doing more or less what it wants to do. It's just a question of whether what it wants to do will work out in any way.

[Conn]

4 hours ago, carex said:

 

Allen has spent much of his tenure here giving up that power.  He gave it up to Shanny for four, he gave it up to GMSM for two

 

 

 

That's not really an accurate recollection of events. Allen was hand-picked by Shanahan to come here. He was technically hired before Shanahan, but only because Dan was already given the green light to get him. But Allen did not at any point actually hire or hold any power over Shanahan. Shanahan was always going to have the power here, he was the prize Snyder was after. Allen didn't "give up" anything.

[wilco_holland]

A couple of weeks ago I read about Shaffer, the cap guy, that he has this team balance idea. You need x amount of players on rookie contracts to be able to pay x amount of "star players". 

 

I think what we see this year is that we want to restock on the rookie contract guys. Preston and Brandon will be need to get a new contract. Breeland and Murphy signed with different team after rookie deal expired. We traded away Sua and Fuller, who where on rookie deals. So I feel the balance lacks some rookie deal guys. 

 

We went easy in FA to save money for Brandon and Preston, save roster spots for rookie deal players and be able to gain a lot of compensation picks. I think we hope to trade down this year, get more picks and have two big (in numbers) draft classes in 2018 and 2019. Restock roster with guys on rookie deals (big classes gives you better odds of finding at least decent players), so we can create cap space for big deals. 

 

To me it really seems like a move from the accountant. The guy in the FO who has probably the best relation with Dan. Long lasting employee. 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

I'm certainly not privy to insider information, but the article seems way off. It implies no one wants to sign here because of the Redskins reputation around the league. But I've seen no evidence the team is rally throwing big money around. For one, the team doesn't have a ton of cap space. It's okay for this year, but it's pretty limited in 2019. Moreover, I've seen nothing to suggest the team has really gone after bigger names. It seems to be consistently taking the cheap/frugal approach in free agency.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe the Redskins offered big money to tons of players who turned them down based on "reputation". But I suspect the team is doing more or less what it wants to do. It's just a question of whether what it wants to do will work out in any way.

 

I agree that part seems wildly off.  Part of the premise of the article is silly which is Boswell thinks no way the team would be this laid back in FA so it must be that they are being turned down. That part of the article is ridiculous. I get his point about Scot and Kirk might not make this an attractive destination but while I think both incidents were ugly and didn't make the team look good -- in FA money talks so I doubt either factor play into it even a little.

 

FA is typically simple.  Team offers the most money = team gets that player with a rare exception or two. 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

 

We went easy in FA to save money for Brandon and Preston,

 

I'll bet money Preston isn't back. Judging by how they operated this year -- I don't see how they are paying mega money for a pass rusher when they have his replacement at least in theory in house.  Strikes me very similar to the Moreau-Breeland drill.

 

5 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

 

To me it really seems like a move from the accountant. The guy in the FO who has probably the best relation with Dan. Long lasting employee. 

 

It Schaffer is the real mover of all of this -- it might be a win win for him.  IMO if they go into this season with a major hole in either DT or RB (post draft and FA) and Bruce's job is truly on the line -- then I doubt they make the playoffs.  Then at least according to Russell's narrative, Schaffer will be in charge with extra cap room and the compensation picks. 

[wilco_holland]

39 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'll bet money Preston isn't back. Judging by how they operated this year -- I don't see how they are paying mega money for a pass rusher when they have his replacement at least in theory in house.  Strikes me very similar to the Moreau-Breeland drill.

 

 

It Schaffer is the real mover of all of this -- it might be a win win for him.  IMO if they go into this season with a major hole in either DT or RB (post draft and FA) and Bruce's job is truly on the line -- then I doubt they make the playoffs.  Then at least according to Russell's narrative, Schaffer will be in charge with extra cap room and the compensation picks. 

 

If you are talking about Ryan Anderson...

 

I'm not sure about that. I feel like Anderson can be good against the run but against the pass? He really needs to show this year that he can rush the passer if we want to let Preston walk. Personally I think we let this season just play out. If Preston keeps developing, I think he does, then he should be a double digit sack guy. Be a consistent terror for the other QB. If he keeps beeing inconsistent and finishes with 5 to 8 sacks, then I would agree to let him walk. 

 

I don't see any upside in making Schaffer the head/president/GM/or whatever unless you are going to overhaul the lower levels. Schaffer needs to be combined with football guys and scouts. If we keep Doug, Campbell, Santos, Smith etc we will get almost same results.  

 

But it would be very Redskins like to make Schaffer the headman and Kyle Smith his football guy. Just changing name places on office doors, nothing really changes...the same ol' Redskins. Even when we brought in Scot McC, we kept most of the other guys. They ''tried'' (did they fail or did they not try really well, see Browns current FO) to hire some Scot McC guys, but at the end of the day...it was just a group of people that worked with each other a long time + Scot. Most of the time our changes are just window dressing. 

 

Look at this, most of our FO guys are Redskins veterans. 

 

Alex Santos -Director of Pro Personel -> 12 years with Redskins, 4 in current role

Scott Campbell - Senior Personell Executive -> 17 years with Redkins, 1 in current role.

Doug Williams Vice President of Player Personell -> 4 years with Redskins, 1 in current role

Bruce Allen - President -> 9 years with Redskins -> 9 year in current role

Kyle Smith - Director of College Scouting - 8 years with Redskins -> 1 in current role. 

[Thinking Skins]

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Whose scale should I be grading him on, yours, someone else?  I presume not so I am not getting your point.  When I am judging a player on the draft thread, am I using my opinion or I am supposed to use name the random poster's take on that player as my guide.

 

Well, I'd hope that you're grading the team on wins and improvements, not "did we sign a big name". I understand this is the FA thread, there is a draft thread and a Bruce thread, but they do overlap in the offseason. And if we came into the offseason with needs in 4 or 5 areas, we can use a combination of all these resources to address them. But if they're addressed, why does it matter to you if we didn't sign Hankins or whoever the big name at guard is, or whatever.

 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You subjectively think Bruce is doing a good job.  I subjectively think he screams mediocrity with questionable character.  Other people's opinions can and likely does influence our takes but ultimately it comes down to each of us digesting the data via their own perspective and landing on an opinion.

 

There are tons and tons of opinions, but the great thing about sports is that there's a gameday, a regular season, winners and losers, and an opportunity to analyze things in hindsight. So this has very little to do with my opinion of Bruce. I don't know the guy, never met him, probably never will. I don't really have an opinion of the guy one way or another. But what I do like is that we've just finished the best 3 year span since the days of Norv Turner. And that's not saying much, but given how miserable this place was in the years before that (Jason Reid had a show on ESPN 980 where he openly mocked Redskins fans for having hope that in 2015 we could make the playoffs), I do like the direction of this team.

 

People seem so quick to get caught up in, and committed to, their arguments on why the team won't be good that it becomes hard to take a step back and see how good this team really is.

 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My opinion on Bruce goes deeper than that.  And this part isn't directed at him but Dan.  It's about what type of person with what type of experience do I want running personnel.  As Cooley likes to say, people expect Bruce to remove himself from power and why would he do that --- would you?  He has a point, if I am put in a position of power I am not just giving it up voluntarily.  So I don't blame him for holding on.  That's on Dan.

 

Again, this is non-football stuff. Your judgement on the team and the front office is based so little on results and so much on perception. We could literally do the same things, but have Ron Wolf as out GM and you'd love it because his name is Ron Wolf. How come Eric can get better at scouting but not Bruce? How come other GMs can listen to scouts but not Bruce? I'm not trying to defend Bruce or act like he's the greatest GM, but your addiction to a scouting person running the front office seems to make you more critical of any move we make because Bruce is at the head of the front office. I don't know Kyle Smith's background or a lot of the other scouts, but I realize that so much of this is a crapshoot. Who would have expected that Cousins would roll up on Thompson's knee and cause him to miss the rest of the season, and the impact that would have on our season? If that play doesn't happen we may be looking back at a playoff team. What we're doing is investing in the draft, developing our players and being competitive every week. But I guess since Bruce is in a position of power, you wouldn't be satisfied with that either.

[Skinsinparadise]

52 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

 

If you are talking about Ryan Anderson...

 

I'm not sure about that. I feel like Anderson can be good against the run but against the pass? He really needs to show this year that he can rush the passer if we want to let Preston walk. Personally I think we let this season just play out. If Preston keeps developing, I think he does, then he should be a double digit sack guy. Be a consistent terror for the other QB. If he keeps beeing inconsistent and finishes with 5 to 8 sacks, then I would agree to let him walk. 

 

 

Sure, don't get me wrong, I am not advocating Ryan over Preston.  Ryan needs to prove himself, indeed.  But judging by how they operated this year -- lets say Preston has another 8 sacks type of year...he's a pass rusher though so he will likely get big money on the market.  Are we going to pay it though?  It doesn't seem to be their thing judging by this off season or at the very least I think we can pause and wonder. 

 

I am reading a lot in different posts from people about how they are saving cap room to keep their guys.  The thing is what's telegraphed this off season is somewhat the opposite of that approach.  They seem to be willing to let their guys go -- get their cap picks and keep plugging with replacements.  The kicker is Bruce pretty much flat out said they aren't sitting on their money but waiting for the next round of cuts.  Will see.

 

52 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

 

I don't see any upside in making Schaffer the head/president/GM/or whatever unless you are going to overhaul the lower levels. Schaffer needs to be combined with football guys and scouts. If we keep Doug, Campbell, Santos, Smith etc we will get almost same results.  

 

But it would be very Redskins like to make Schaffer the headman and Kyle Smith his football guy. Just changing name places on office doors, nothing really changes...the same ol' Redskins. Even when we brought in Scot McC, we kept most of the other guys. They ''tried'' (did they fail or did they not try really well, see Browns current FO) to hire some Scot McC guys, but at the end of the day...it was just a group of people that worked with each other a long time + Scot. Most of the time our changes are just window dressing. 

 

 

I agree with the philosophy behind your point.  However, I want Bruce reassigned out of personnel in a big way -- I question his competence and character and I feel miles better on both counts about Schaffer.  While I agree the staff below them is critical -- I do think the orchestrator of it all, the guy in charge, is still by far the key person.  In my opinion, I'd take Schaffer by a mile over Bruce.  

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Well, I'd hope that you're grading the team on wins and improvements, not "did we sign a big name".

 

You've read enough of my posts to know what I am purporting isn't that simplistic. I've elaborated plenty on what I'd like to see happen.  And yeah you know I am not judging FA on just some random sign a big name Bruce drill and you've done a good job or bad job drill.

 

As for the record, I've actually summed up the FO exactly by their record.  Not on a curve like some want to do with hey what if this happened and that happened but on their record.

 

33 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

There are tons and tons of opinions, but the great thing about sports is that there's a gameday, a regular season, winners and losers, and an opportunity to analyze things in hindsight. So this has very little to do with my opinion of Bruce. I don't know the guy, never met him, probably never will. I don't really have an opinion of the guy one way or another. But what I do like is that we've just finished the best 3 year span since the days of Norv Turner. And that's not saying much, but given how miserable this place was in the years before that

 

If this is your anchor point on Bruce where the last three years are plenty satisfactory and you can live with this being the new Redskins normal, I agree with you.  Mediocrity is progress from stinking. I think they can stay on this specific track.

 

I've met him.  That doesn't mean I know him.  But I've heard enough to paint a picture at least in my head.   But yeah as I've said many times, they have this 8-8, 7-9, 9-7 thing figured out.  I get it's more intricate than this but the cliff notes model now IMO comes off like we need a good QB and we got a good play caller.  Lets ride it and maybe we catch some breaks.  I say though that they have telegraphed at least they are leaking to make major moves on stopping the run and running the ball via Doug.  So I am in a wait and see for this off season.  I like the rheotric, I just got to see what happens.

 

33 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Again, this is non-football stuff. Your judgement on the team and the front office is based so little on results and so much on perception. 

 

I think I have said probably at least 50 times in these debates -- their record PERFECTLY reflects what I think of the FO.  So its actually ALL result driven.  The perception stuff is just my explanation of where I think they are limited.  And specific to Bruce I think as head of personnel he is below average but I think he has enough good people working below him including Jay to prop the FO to average.

 

33 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

but your addiction to a scouting person running the front office seems to make you more critical of any move we make because Bruce is at the head of the front office. 

 

Both of these points are mega straw man.  And with due respect it makes me wonder if you are reading my responses to you that closely.

 

How is it when I am arguing 

A.  I'd like Schaffer to replace Bruce

B. I've mentioned many times what I do like that Bruce has done

 

Add up to what you are saying?

 

33 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

guess since Bruce is in a position of power, you wouldn't be satisfied with that either.

 

With all of our debates about Bruce, I'll be direct the thing that confounds me the most about your position is you shrugging off all we hear about his personality and shrug it off to perception.  Yeah a lot of people can be making things up but wouldn't that be odd?   When I hear things over and over again from different fronts, I tend to ultimately buy into it.  I met Scot and spent 2 hours with him, great guy, but If I am hearing multiple times from multiple people that he was a problem -- I'll digest it and buy into it. I am not locked into my perception of him just because just because.  I don't think multiple beat guys are just making things up.

 

Conversely as to Bruce, am I supposed to believe that secretly he's just a great guy but multiple beat guys just have some odd vendetta against him for no reason?  I am not saying Bruce is a bad guy but I've heard enough to get a picture painted that he's not Mr. Congeniality to say the least.  Eric Schaffer on that other hand is always painted as a great guy.  Is that just some weird perverse perception game that doesn't fit reality?  As Loverro liked to say Bruce was called the Prince of Darkness in Tampa for a reason. 

 

My opinion on Bruce, Jay, Shanny, Scot even Dan has evolved over time with more information.  I am not saying my opinion is right, its just that I am not stuck on it.  You suggest I am stuck on it on Bruce. And to me that's how your opinion comes off on Bruce.  But if you follow my years of posting on Bruce, it changed and evolved the more I heard.  

[sjinhan]

7 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

A couple of weeks ago I read about Shaffer, the cap guy, that he has this team balance idea. You need x amount of players on rookie contracts to be able to pay x amount of "star players". 

 

I think what we see this year is that we want to restock on the rookie contract guys. Preston and Brandon will be need to get a new contract. Breeland and Murphy signed with different team after rookie deal expired. We traded away Sua and Fuller, who where on rookie deals. So I feel the balance lacks some rookie deal guys. 

 

We went easy in FA to save money for Brandon and Preston, save roster spots for rookie deal players and be able to gain a lot of compensation picks. I think we hope to trade down this year, get more picks and have two big (in numbers) draft classes in 2018 and 2019. Restock roster with guys on rookie deals (big classes gives you better odds of finding at least decent players), so we can create cap space for big deals. 

 

To me it really seems like a move from the accountant. The guy in the FO who has probably the best relation with Dan. Long lasting employee. 

 

 

If this is is the case then wouldn’t this led to chase some FA guys for 1 year contracts cheap especially if they coming off injury.  They will be cheap and if they recover some form then you could have high chance of getting comp pick for them...  

 

also trading a pick right right now for Howard from the bears would be great... give up a 4th for him... in 2 years let him go and you can probably recoup at least a 4th for him...

[Darth Tater]

Cousins was pretty much gone when we failed to deal with him in 2017 and arguably in 2016 so I'd say that the fall out there can't really be counted against this year.  Murphy was the only guy who left that I really would have liked to keep.  He's got to look out for number 1, and appropriately, he went for the bucks. it would not have been a sane move to try to keep him given what he got paid (esp. coming off sever injury and a PED issue, though that was in part on us). I also would have liked to keep Paul but his game should easily be replaced.  We did retain Brown, who was pretty much the only guy that hands down I wanted back. Given that Docston and Crowder are thought of as starter material, we really only needed 1 top tier WR, which we signed.  I keep wondering what all the fuss is about?

 

Personnel-wise, we were only out of it by a razor thin margin.  Maybe we can fuss that the FO has never helped Jay get a top quality DC (Bobby helped Joe keep Petibon) or should have kept one of Jackson or Garcon. We also may fuss that the current front office has not found top end guys in later rounds.  OK, we probably messed up the KC thing, but I don't think KC was ever going to carry the team on his back and signing him to an LTD probably puts us in a position were we had to hope he could or get lucky (something I don't want to rely on).  I do question why Bruce has survived Shanny's suck, out-played Scott and looks like he still has not put together an elite FO.

[Skinsinparadise]

Thinking Skins, the posts (mine too) are getting very FO centric versus FA so we should probably take the next round if there is one to the Bruce thread.  If you post there, I'll respond in that thread.

[SkinsGuy]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree that part seems wildly off.  Part of the premise of the article is silly which is Boswell thinks no way the team would be this laid back in FA so it must be that they are being turned down. That part of the article is ridiculous. I get his point about Scot and Kirk might not make this an attractive destination but while I think both incidents were ugly and didn't make the team look good -- in FA money talks so I doubt either factor play into it even a little.

 

FA is typically simple.  Team offers the most money = team gets that player with a rare exception or two. 

 

Boswell's article is garbage, IMO.

 

He throws absurd statements out there like nobody wants to play for the Redskins, no matter how  much money Snyder throws at them, yet he offers nothing to back that nonsense up.

 

Then he gives the team a C- or D because he feels they haven't done enough in this offseason to acquire free agents. Yet if the Redskins had gotten a bunch of free agents, Boswell would've STILL given them a C- or D claiming:

 

"There goes Snyder, back to his free-spending ways, grabbing up all the over-priced free agents, and trying to buy a Super Bowl"

 

Typical Washington (Com)Post article at its finest (lowest).