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

[Morneblade]

9 minutes ago, carex said:

 

we were still seven spots better at running  in 2016 than 2017 and  two of our backs will be different, from 2016

 

We still sucked in 2016, and and we're not going to be good this year. Being 21st in the league at something just means you're not very good at it.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

the thing is in football where there's groups, one player doing bad can bring down everyone. Say we were a team that used a two back set and the RB was supposed to follow the FB into the hole, but our FB constantly missed him blocks.  That'd negatively affect our RB.

 

There is a synergy in any play I agree.  We rarely play with a FB so lets start with that.  It's typically a one back set.  So yeah your RB on their own at least in theory should have at least as much impact versus making the argument the losing one D lineman will torpedo the whole line (3 to 4 man starting line) from being really good to really bad.  And if people want to make that case then it doesn't say much about the team's depth at said position.

[carex]

 

37 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

We still sucked in 2016, and and we're not going to be good this year. Being 21st in the league at something just means you're not very good at it.

 

in a league with 32 teams there's still a lot worse

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 minutes ago, carex said:

 

 

in a league with 32 teams there's still a lot worse

That's true.

 

@Morneblade If you only knew that they aren't the worst, just in the bottom third of the league.

[Morneblade]

14 minutes ago, carex said:

 

 

in a league with 32 teams there's still a lot worse

 

We were 32nd in yards and 29th in average last year. How much worse were we last year over 2 years ago, when we were 21st in yards and 9th in average (that's right, we averaged 4.5 ypc, because of guys like Jones and Brown)? I'd say it was not a huge difference, we were still bad, and it showed. But there is a big difference in us and say, being in the top 10 in yards and average. So, while splitting hairs sounds good, being in the bottom 3rd of the league, regardless whether it's the top half of that third or the bottom half, isn't going to really help you.

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That's true.

 

@Morneblade If you only knew that they aren't the worst, just in the bottom third of the league.

 

If only.

[Est.1974]

We drafted Guice because our running backs group sucks. 

 

Get off our arses and get another one in via trade please.

 

[MassSkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

Not really. It means they should better than terrible, but so far there is nothing to say they will be good. And, 3 or our 5 OL are not that good in the run blocking game. Going to what Carax said, if you have one, or a majority in this case, that don't do a good job, the whole group suffers. When you have a OL group that doesn't block well in the run game, and a substandard set of RB's don't expect a good rushing attack. It's just not going to happen.

 

I'm curious to know who you think isn't a good run blocker and why you believe that. I grant you Lauvao but have seen good run blocks by the other guys I expect to start (TW, Roullier, The Scherff, Moses). Personally I have spent time watching TW, Roullier and The Scherff. All look good in the run game. I'm not sure about Moses though. Thoughts?

 

I was interested to know why what I saw doesn't line up with statistics for last season so I ran a few stats.

 

I looked at which OL unit started (or played the majority of the game) and YPC. There were basically two OLs last year - the "real" one and the "other" one. The real one had TW, Lauvao, Long or Roullier, The Scherff and Moses as starters and as guys who played >90% of snaps in a game. There were 8 games with the real OL: Philly (twice), Rams, Raiders, KC, SF, Vikings and Saints. The "other" OL included Moses (he started all 16), Roullier, Nsekhe, Catalina, Clemmings, Bergstrom and Kujo as starters. They played Dallas (twice), Seattle, Giants (twice), Chargers, Cardinals and Denver.

 

Looking only at YPC, which is a decent way to thumbnail OL effectiveness (unless you have a great RB), our overall team YPC was 3.6 which put us tied for 29th with the Bungles. If you look at the "real" OL, they averaged 4.1 YPC - good enough to lift the team from 29th to 14-19th. Looking at the "other" OL they had 3.0 YPC which would put them dead last in the NFL (lowest was 3.4).

 

Of course this doesn't prove they are better than you give them credit for, but it does help answer my question about why they look better than they performed last year - the starters (well, 4 of them) played decently in the run game while the 2nd string and PS guys didn't.

[OVCChairman]

5 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

I'm curious to know who you think isn't a good run blocker and why you believe that. I grant you Lauvao but have seen good run blocks by the other guys I expect to start (TW, Roullier, The Scherff, Moses). Personally I have spent time watching TW, Roullier and The Scherff. All look good in the run game. I'm not sure about Moses though. Thoughts?

 

I was interested to know why what I saw doesn't line up with statistics for last season so I ran a few stats.

 

I looked at which OL unit started (or played the majority of the game) and YPC. There were basically two OLs last year - the "real" one and the "other" one. The real one had TW, Lauvao, Long or Roullier, The Scherff and Moses as starters and as guys who played >90% of snaps in a game. There were 8 games with the real OL: Philly (twice), Rams, Raiders, KC, SF, Vikings and Saints. The "other" OL included Moses (he started all 16), Roullier, Nsekhe, Catalina, Clemmings, Bergstrom and Kujo as starters. They played Dallas (twice), Seattle, Giants (twice), Chargers, Cardinals and Denver.

 

Looking only at YPC, which is a decent way to thumbnail OL effectiveness (unless you have a great RB), our overall team YPC was 3.6 which put us tied for 29th with the Bungles. If you look at the "real" OL, they averaged 4.1 YPC - good enough to lift the team from 29th to 14-19th. Looking at the "other" OL they had 3.0 YPC which would put them dead last in the NFL (lowest was 3.4).

 

Of course this doesn't prove they are better than you give them credit for, but it does help answer my question about why they look better than they performed last year - the starters (well, 4 of them) played decently in the run game while the 2nd string and PS guys didn't.

 

Moses also played a good portion of the season with 2 bad wheels.  Kind of hard to push forward in run blocking when your ankles arent 100%.  

[Master Blaster]

20 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

The disparity of talent between 

 

Zeke

Ajayi

Barkley

 

Compared to Robert Kelley is massive and a huge disadvantage for the Redskins.

 

 

 

 

 

Could you tell me the last team to lead the league in rushing that won the Super Bowl?

[ExoDus84]

On a side note, what happened to Johnathan Hankins? I remember Skins fans wanting him (myself included), but he hasn't latched on with any team. Last I heard, the Browns were maybe giving him a look.

 

There must be some major red flags with that guy if he's still unsigned and garnering zero interest.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

18 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

 

 

Could you tell me the last team to lead the league in rushing that won the Super Bowl?

 

9 of the top 10 rushing teams last year made the playoffs. The Cowboys were the only team that didnt. Philly was 3rd in rushing.

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

 

For whatever that is worth.

 

But I dont think you need stud running back to have a top 10 run game either. 

[OVCChairman]

16 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

On a side note, what happened to Johnathan Hankins? I remember Skins fans wanting him (myself included), but he hasn't latched on with any team. Last I heard, the Browns were maybe giving him a look.

 

There must be some major red flags with that guy if he's still unsigned and garnering zero interest.

 

 

Looks like Cleveland signed a different DT and let Hankins walk.  They opted to sign an undrafted rookie FA who "spent some time in 49ers camp."  

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/15/browns-add-some-defensive-tackle-depth/

 

[HardcoreZorn]

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If you are going to use phrases like "you can't be serious: and you are "dumbfounded" by my position. It's not worth having a debate on it.  If my position is that outrageous what's the point in debating?  Hence my comment about I must be naive...

This is a forum to discuss and debate the team we all love. Or at least I was under the impression it was. Dumbfounded was simply a way to articulate that I am genuinely surprised that one player, on a 53 man roster, with an offense, defense, and ST's tipped the scales so much that we are now the 4th most talented team in the division. You seem to take things personally instead of engaging in said debates and sarcastically say things like you must be naive. That's cool.

 

 

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Doug said we need to improve run defense and our run game in the worst way -- not because he was a fool.  But because IMO he saw what was obvious.  They stunk at both last year.  Going back to the same crew that Doug said they were desperate to improve on -- as if its nothing dramatic -- I'd disagree as if its no big deal. I shared Doug's dramatic feeling about improving the RB position from last years crew.  Yeah sorry going back to that well is borderline depressing for me.  If it doesn't bother you -- more power to you -- why be bothered by what I think then?  I've stated my position.  I've looked at the running backs we've had last year quite a bit on coaches film, I posted plenty of clips.  You aren't going to change my mind on it. 

Not here to change your mind lol, I'm here to talk Redskins pigskin and when I see something I disagree with I attempt to debate and discuss it. This is a roster that entered the draft with what I would call 3 glaring weaknesses. RB, LG, NT. Of course Doug talked about it, as he should have. It certainly hasn't been a position of strength for years, probably going back to prime Portis. But again, I'd venture to guess if the majority of our roster didn't end up on IR last season we were a 10-11 win type team. Heck, we were inches away from 9 wins WITH all of the injuries. It's not exactly a crazy leap on my part. And guess what, there was no Guice last year. And it certainly isn't inconceivable that if the Oline stays healthier than it did last year, our running game will take a step forward. @MassSkinsFan pulled some excellent data comparing a relatively in-tact OLine vs the dismantled one that was out there half the year.

 

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I answered your questions very specifically.  In some cases yes, some cases no especially Ionnaidis.   Mostly positive actually on all the examples you gave.  My take on Perine is based on what the coaching staff supposedly thinks about him (I posted what that was in other threads I don't feel like repeating it here) not me.  What Jay thinks about Perine obviously is more important than what I think of him.  But to your point more specifically the chances that I think Perine is another Guice or even close in his year two is zero.  I watched both players plenty to feel confident in that opinion.  If you feel otherwise about Perine, cool.  I am not ruling out Perine out.  But yeah I feel pretty confident he's not a game changer at that position.   Will he improve?  Probably.  Hopefully.

How in the heck are you gathering I think Perine is another Guice?

 

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I see wildcards all over the place.  I don't see a great front 7 but a good one.  I see Alex likely as a downgrade from Kirk -- but frankly I got really no feel for it one way or another.  I could argue for Alex, I could argue against him.  Just don't know. But I lean downgrade.   Offense weapons to me have question marks -- things have to develop -- people need to stay healthy.  I think Keim defined this team well -- its one of the most pronounced what if teams in the NFL -- if this and that happens then great but you can see it go the other way, too.  To me its a wildcard type of team -- my optimism on the upside is down 2 games post the Guice injury coupled with the Thompson comment that he was told he won't be 100% until Nov.

I'm not alone on an island with the idea that this Front 7 is potentially more than just "good." Plenty of statistics and opinions out there that feel this could be an upper-echelon front 7 in the league. But to each their own. I have never disagreed or stated there aren't question marks. Nothing is definitive and I could be wildly off in my assumption that we are a playoff caliber team this year. I just don't know if you appreciate how many teams around the league have giant question marks just like us. Including the Giants and Cowboys who we no longer boast the same talent level as.

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 Me the guy trashing the signing as a meh one that won't work out.  And the guy I wanted to sign DRC was supposedly approached by the team recently.   So I got that one wrong?   

I had stated that Scandrick was a JAG and brought in merely for competition purposes just in case Moreau/Dunbar (the guys they were actually high on) didn't look up to handle the task. You attempted to tell me that the beat guys, who usually have a good pulse on the players, were saying he was running opposite Norman and playing the slot. Which indicated on your part that they signed him to be much more than a camp body/depth. So yes, you were wrong there. Should DRC want to come in at a reasonable 3-4 M year, sure why not? Can't have enough good corners. If he's going to eat up a significant amount of rollover cap that can be allocated to other FA's or extensions for next year, then pass for me. I venture the FO feels the same way judging by their approach.

 

[Master Blaster]

7 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

9 of the top 10 rushing teams last year made the playoffs. The Cowboys were the only team that didnt. Philly was 3rd in rushing.

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

 

For whatever that is worth.

 

But I dont think you need stud running back to have a top 10 run game either. 

 

 

Right that wasn't my question though.  I'll answer the question.  It was 32 years ago.  The Chicago Bears.  And I think most would agree the Defense was the main reason they won.

 

The point being an amazing running game isn't needed in today's game.  Adequate will suffice.  As one poster pointed out the Redskin's YPC when healthy last year was middle of the pack. 

 

IF the offense can stay healthy this is  a 10-15 rated running game in the NFL.  That's good enough for the team to make noise.

[HardcoreZorn]

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If these guys are all like Fletcher Cox level good -- then hey that clarifies your position even more to me.   Again, I am not here to deflate your balloon about how wonderful this roster supposedly is.  If you want to bask in it all.  Cool.  Why try to argue with me?   I spend a lot of time in forming my opinions. 

Kerrigan, Scherff, and Trent are certainly comparable players to Fletcher Cox. Trent is certainly in the conversation for best at his position. What's so crazy about that? Aren't flashy enough? ESPN doesn't talk about them enough? The recognition will come if we can prove we are a contending team. Norman fell off a bit last year due to injury but before that was a top 5 CB and pro-bowler. Not exactly outlandish on my part. Brown is a stretch I will admit, he's not on Cox's level. But still a top ten ILB and a very good player.

 

And you've made it very apparent you don't like to engage in debate and that I've struck a nerve. Sorry about that.

 

12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My take on the roster isn't formed to annoy you.  It's genuinely what I think.  I like the roster I don't love it.  I don't think the current FO as its currently constructed can build a roster that can compete for the big dance -- I know you feel otherwise.  It's cool.  Lets agree to disagree.    We've done this dance many times as to the roster.  I get your position. 

Cool, agree to disagree. Cheers, and hope you have the ability to enjoy the team you love so much. Here's to hoping I'm right.

[ExoDus84]

48 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Looks like Cleveland signed a different DT and let Hankins walk.  They opted to sign an undrafted rookie FA who "spent some time in 49ers camp."  

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/15/browns-add-some-defensive-tackle-depth/

 

 

Oh, man. When the Browns snub you for an UDFA....

 

OOF.

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

I'm curious to know who you think isn't a good run blocker and why you believe that. I grant you Lauvao but have seen good run blocks by the other guys I expect to start (TW, Roullier, The Scherff, Moses). Personally I have spent time watching TW, Roullier and The Scherff. All look good in the run game. I'm not sure about Moses though. Thoughts?

 

I was interested to know why what I saw doesn't line up with statistics for last season so I ran a few stats.

 

I looked at which OL unit started (or played the majority of the game) and YPC. There were basically two OLs last year - the "real" one and the "other" one. The real one had TW, Lauvao, Long or Roullier, The Scherff and Moses as starters and as guys who played >90% of snaps in a game. There were 8 games with the real OL: Philly (twice), Rams, Raiders, KC, SF, Vikings and Saints. The "other" OL included Moses (he started all 16), Roullier, Nsekhe, Catalina, Clemmings, Bergstrom and Kujo as starters. They played Dallas (twice), Seattle, Giants (twice), Chargers, Cardinals and Denver.

 

Looking only at YPC, which is a decent way to thumbnail OL effectiveness (unless you have a great RB), our overall team YPC was 3.6 which put us tied for 29th with the Bungles. If you look at the "real" OL, they averaged 4.1 YPC - good enough to lift the team from 29th to 14-19th. Looking at the "other" OL they had 3.0 YPC which would put them dead last in the NFL (lowest was 3.4).

 

Of course this doesn't prove they are better than you give them credit for, but it does help answer my question about why they look better than they performed last year - the starters (well, 4 of them) played decently in the run game while the 2nd string and PS guys didn't.

 

My 3 guys there are Lauvao, Roullier and Morgan. I think that Roullier can get there. I think Lauvao is not physically able to anymore, and to be blunt, Morgan is soft. He's a big guy, but he doesn't play strong IMO. He's not going to move a guy off the LOS, and in short yardage, I find he gets moved out. I liked Roullier coming out, but I think he is not there yet, he still needs to add NFL strength. But I think he can get there. Lauvao due to injuries is on the backside of his career, so obviously we need to upgrade there.

[Morneblade]

57 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

9 of the top 10 rushing teams last year made the playoffs. The Cowboys were the only team that didnt. Philly was 3rd in rushing.

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

 

For whatever that is worth.

 

But I dont think you need stud running back to have a top 10 run game either. 

 

What it does show is that a strong running game is still very important. Having a really good RB does make it a lot easier. Or just 2 or 3 good ones, like Philly had.

 

48 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

 

 

Right that wasn't my question though.  I'll answer the question.  It was 32 years ago.  The Chicago Bears.  And I think most would agree the Defense was the main reason they won.

 

The point being an amazing running game isn't needed in today's game.  Adequate will suffice.  As one poster pointed out the Redskin's YPC when healthy last year was middle of the pack. 

 

IF the offense can stay healthy this is  a 10-15 rated running game in the NFL.  That's good enough for the team to make noise.

 

See above. When 90% of the top rushing teams are the ones in the playoffs, it still really means something.

It's doubtful we'll have a rushing attack that is not in the bottom 3rd of the league, so to sit there and say we're going to have a rushing attack, with no major changes, that is better than the 2016 (healthy) one that produced a 21st place rushing attack, to jump up 6-11 places is kinda silly. No reason to think it will. 21st wont be good enough.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

1 hour ago, Master Blaster said:

 

 

Right that wasn't my question though.  I'll answer the question.  It was 32 years ago.  The Chicago Bears.  And I think most would agree the Defense was the main reason they won.

 

The point being an amazing running game isn't needed in today's game.  Adequate will suffice.  As one poster pointed out the Redskin's YPC when healthy last year was middle of the pack. 

 

IF the offense can stay healthy this is  a 10-15 rated running game in the NFL.  That's good enough for the team to make noise.

 

Agree - you dont need an amazing running game and adequate should sufice

 

Slightly Disagree - we most likely wont have a top 10-15 run game. If we stay 100% completely healthy on the O line, then yes maybe.  We have had about the same unit (OL and RBs) for the past few years. 28th last year = injuries but years before that we went 21 and 20th before that. 

 

Coming off a 28th ranking, our run game has to improve. Moving up 13-18 spots? Ehhh .. Id love to see it.

 

 

 

[MassSkinsFan]

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

My 3 guys there are Lauvao, Roullier and Morgan. I think that Roullier can get there. I think Lauvao is not physically able to anymore, and to be blunt, Morgan is soft. He's a big guy, but he doesn't play strong IMO. He's not going to move a guy off the LOS, and in short yardage, I find he gets moved out. I liked Roullier coming out, but I think he is not there yet, he still needs to add NFL strength. But I think he can get there. Lauvao due to injuries is on the backside of his career, so obviously we need to upgrade there.

 

100% on Lauvao.

 

Roullier has "it" - the spatial awareness and drive to go after people. He knows what he needs to do. I just think he's still a rookie who played half a season. I think he will be good.

I'm going to have to look at Morgan more. Thanks - another reason to watch old Redskins games. 

[Morneblade]

26 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

100% on Lauvao.

 

Roullier has "it" - the spatial awareness and drive to go after people. He knows what he needs to do. I just think he's still a rookie who played half a season. I think he will be good.

I'm going to have to look at Morgan more. Thanks - another reason to watch old Redskins games. 

 

I think Roullier might be a steal, I liked his nasty streak and his ability to move coming out. I didn't like that he got thrown in last year, because I think hes got growing to do, mentally as well as physically. But, that all should help this year. I really like Morgan in Pass pro, but I think he's underwhelming at best in run blocking. He is not nasty. I wish he would take a chapter out of the Brandon Scherff book on being nasty.

[TheShredder]

32 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

I think Roullier might be a steal, I liked his nasty streak and his ability to move coming out. I didn't like that he got thrown in last year, because I think hes got growing to do, mentally as well as physically. But, that all should help this year. I really like Morgan in Pass pro, but I think he's underwhelming at best in run blocking. He is not nasty. I wish he would take a chapter out of the Brandon Scherff book on being nasty.

 

I just posted this about Rollier about an hour ago:

 

Props to drafting a 6th round pick that holds down the Center position in his second year. Chase Rollier has got to be considered one of the best value picks the organization has had in years.  He's started 7 games in his rookie year and missed 3 games with minor injury.  

 

Redskins Starting Center

In this article it points out that Spencer Long signed a 27.4M Free Agent deal with the Jets.  Not much being said about this situation or any comparisons over the last week.  Profootbal Focus ranked Rollier #21 and Spencer Long #20...pretty good value on this kid.  

 

Roullier is definitely a steal.  The LG is the weak link, however, TW said he's happy to play with Lauvao.  What else is he going to say, right?  But really, there will be injuries. So, it's the depth that is important.  There's going to be a large drop off at Center if Roullier gets hurt.  He is a tough guy.  Only missed 3 games after breaking his hand last year, coming back the 4th week to finish the season.  I'd feel better about the depth if there were better competition at LG.  

 

As far as the running game goes.  They only need to improve by 1 yard per carry avg.  That's one step.  Carry 5 more times per game on average and get one more step forward in the right direction and it's a top 10 rushing team.  Any of the RBs on the roster are capable of getting 4 steps forward on any given carry when there's a hole to run through.  Sufficient improvement is about the OL (#1 health) and Play Calling. $.02 

[Morneblade]

40 minutes ago, TheShredder said:

 

I just posted this about Rollier about an hour ago:

 

Props to drafting a 6th round pick that holds down the Center position in his second year. Chase Rollier has got to be considered one of the best value picks the organization has had in years.  He's started 7 games in his rookie year and missed 3 games with minor injury.  

 

Redskins Starting Center

In this article it points out that Spencer Long signed a 27.4M Free Agent deal with the Jets.  Not much being said about this situation or any comparisons over the last week.  Profootbal Focus ranked Rollier #21 and Spencer Long #20...pretty good value on this kid.  

 

Roullier is definitely a steal.  The LG is the weak link, however, TW said he's happy to play with Lauvao.  What else is he going to say, right?  But really, there will be injuries. So, it's the depth that is important.  There's going to be a large drop off at Center if Roullier gets hurt.  He is a tough guy.  Only missed 3 games after breaking his hand last year, coming back the 4th week to finish the season.  I'd feel better about the depth if there were better competition at LG.  

 

As far as the running game goes.  They only need to improve by 1 yard per carry avg.  That's one step.  Carry 5 more times per game on average and get one more step forward in the right direction and it's a top 10 rushing team.  Any of the RBs on the roster are capable of getting 4 steps forward on any given carry when there's a hole to run through.  Sufficient improvement is about the OL (#1 health) and Play Calling. $.02 

 

I saw it, and I agree with all of this about Roullier.

To the part in bold; do you know how hard that is to do? It's very difficult. It might not seem like a lot, but you usually have to make large changes, and have them all work out, for something like that to happen, even if you are the worst in the league. Hopefully we will be much healthier, but we're not better at RB with Guice going down for the year. I also don't think, even when healthy, we block all that well for the run. I don't think we come close to gaining a yard per carry.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

This is a forum to discuss and debate the team we all love. Or at least I was under the impression it was. Dumbfounded was simply a way to articulate that I am genuinely surprised that one player, on a 53 man roster, with an offense, defense, and ST's tipped the scales so much that we are now the 4th most talented team in the division. You seem to take things personally instead of engaging in said debates and sarcastically say things like you must be naive. That's cool.

 

 The you must be naive was playing off of your own condescending comments -- and I was saying the way YOU frame your points at me come off like i am some naive dolt.  So my point was why bother on your end discussing with someone that is supposedly that clueless -- in three different exchanges you are "dumfounded", "I can't be serious" and the latest one is suggesting my player evaluating is about just watching ESPN highlights.  If you got that little regard for where i am coming from than why for starters care about what I think let alone keep debating it.     Just move on. 

 

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

 

Not here to change your mind lol, I'm here to talk Redskins pigskin and when I see something I disagree with I attempt to debate and discuss it. This is a roster that entered the draft with what I would call 3 glaring weaknesses. RB, LG, NT. Of course Doug talked about it, as he should have. It certainly hasn't been a position of strength for years, probably going back to prime Portis. But again, I'd venture to guess if the majority of our roster didn't end up on IR last season we were a 10-11 win type team. Heck, we were inches away from 9 wins WITH all of the injuries. It's not exactly a crazy leap on my part.

 

Look dude we've done variations of this dance on so many other threads. I get it I've heard it lots and lots of times from you.  This is a really, really, really, really good roster.  The FO has done a really, really, really, really good job.  Fine.  Your opinion is as valid as anyone including mine.  But we've been on this road so many times.  You've heard my opinion too many times.  What's new about this discussion?  I didn't mind debating at the time -- but I am burned out with the recycled discussion. 

 

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I'm not alone on an island with the idea that this Front 7 is potentially more than just "good." Plenty of statistics and opinions out there that feel this could be an upper-echelon front 7 in the league. But to each their own.

 

Again.  You have an opinion. I have mine.  That's all it is an opinion.  Your opinion that the front 7 will be great is just as valid as mine that it will be good.  There is no x=y equation here.  You are guessing.  i am guessing.  I've heard your rationale about the roster a gazillion times.  You've heard mine.  It's possible that you end up right.  It's possible I end up right.  But who cares after we've already made our points on it? 

 

We are all entitled to our guesses.  I never feel vested in them.  Personnel guys get at least 50% of their takes wrong.  So who am I to double down on anything that I am right on a guess.  Likewise, I don't have more respect for your guesses.  We do enough guessing here, you'd be wrong at least half of the time -- and so will I.  I've changed my positions on many things -- and it doesn't bother me to do so. 

 

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I had stated that Scandrick was a JAG and brought in merely for competition purposes just in case Moreau/Dunbar (the guys they were actually high on) didn't look up to handle the task. You attempted to tell me that the beat guys, who usually have a good pulse on the players, were saying he was running opposite Norman and playing the slot. Which indicated on your part that they signed him to be much more than a camp body/depth. So yes, you were wrong there. Should DRC want to come in at a reasonable 3-4 M year, sure why not? Can't have enough good corners. If he's going to eat up a significant amount of rollover cap that can be allocated to other FA's or extensions for next year, then pass for me. I venture the FO feels the same way judging by their approach.

 

 

I'll give you credit you can take on the dude who was trashing the signing and pushing the DRC signing -- as the dude who was wrong by wrapping your own explanation for the signing as if it has ANY relevance to the point I made about the Scandrick signing when it happened.  And it has zero relevance.  But again who cares?  

 

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Kerrigan, Scherff, and Trent are certainly comparable players to Fletcher Cox. Trent is certainly in the conversation for best at his position. What's so crazy about that?

 

Who cares what I think about the Redskins players you mention versus Fletcher Cox.   I noticed you tightened your list from your previous point.  But yes I'd rather have Cox over every player you mentioned with only Trent being close.  Heck I was the dude clamoring for Zach Brown on the FA thread a year ago but comparing him to Fletcher Cox?  To each their own.  But I don't share your opinion.  Sorry.  And again who cares after we already took our positions?  Lets see things plays out. 

 

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Aren't flashy enough? ESPN doesn't talk about them enough? T

 

More condescending comments -- look again if I am such a dolt about how am swayed like am 14 years old and just watch ESPN highlights -- stop debating with me.  Look on my end, I've debated you in so many different posts I can tell what you will say in advance especially about Bruce and your take on the FO and how they got it cooking.  I get it.  I am just bored with it.  i am surprised you aren't.   It's the same rehashed stuff that comes out in different forms.   

 

The underpinning of it is about 5 people here give and take in different forms believe in the management in this team with Bruce being the central plot line.  Some people (me included) have expressed with much emotion that we don't.  So questions about the FO's moves seems to have this underlying angst to the discussion -- and sorry I am burnt out at the moment from it.  I've been guilty of it, too.  

[bobandweave]

5 hours ago, Master Blaster said:

 

 

Could you tell me the last team to lead the league in rushing that won the Super Bowl?

 

I could but before I do take a look at this

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/rushing-yards-per-game

 

and tell me how many playoff teams were in the top 10 teams for rushing yards per game last year versus how many playoff teams were in the bottom ten on the list. Then I will answer your question because you don’t get to win the Super Bowl without first making it to the playoffs 

5 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

9 of the top 10 rushing teams last year made the playoffs. The Cowboys were the only team that didnt. Philly was 3rd in rushing.

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

 

For whatever that is worth.

 

But I dont think you need stud running back to have a top 10 run game either. 

 

You don’t need a “stud” but it helps