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

[Peregrine]

No matter what his talent potential, I would be upset with the FO giving a multi year 5 mill per deal to a guy who has played sparingly in a handful of games in 3 years.  Giving that kind of a deal to a guy who missed 2 of the 3 years with major leg injuries is just asking to flush money down the toilette until he can prove its in the past.

[Est.1974]

1 hour ago, seantaylor=god said:

If we cut McClain by COB today we save a few million. Need to sign Hankins and cut that JAG ASAP. He was a complete waste last year.

 

Norman's 2018 salary guarantees today also, over 13mil.

 

convert 9 to bonus, pushes 6mil back and creates that space in 2018.

 

Sign Hankins.

[Bonez3]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I will, decent player, injury past so risky, don't think a one year deal fits our cap situation or structure now. Mewhort similar, knackered knees, worth a risk, maybe but must be less expensive than 6/7mil py per your earlier post...

Joeckel's injury mild last year, what lineman doesn't have knackered knees. At 26 he's got age on his side to compensate for injury hinderance. I would maybe do a multi-year on a guy with pedigree of Outland trophy winner, top 2 overall talent and no real knocks in his general play.

 

2-3 year deal that could spread a low guarantee out over that period

[CommDownMan]

11 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

I am not feeling as judgmental as some with the JG comments.  I can understand after he finally proved he was fit he might be surprised to see a guy who didn't play last year get a big deal. I think we all were surprised Trent did as well as he did in FA.  IF he is asking for something in the $5 million range per year he is not being crazy but I can understand the Skins reluctance and we are usually willing to stand our ground and see what the market values a guy at.  I would still like him back here and hopefully if nobody gets desperate he will stick here on a team friendly deal, I think realistic incentives might be the key to getting it done.

 

I'd agree if he wasn't talking about slave wages.  Frustration is allowed, because he does have some serious upside.  Another year removed from surgery, I'd think this year should be even better.  But the dude needs some perspective as well.

 

Also, I was wrong abut Hankins.  It's listed as a 14.5mill guaranteed contract, but 4.5mill was due today.  That's why they cut him yesterday.  Seems weird it's considered guaranteed, even if the player isn't guaranteed to see it.  

[volsmet]

43 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

Nobody cares to discuss the possibility of Luke Joeckel as a 1 year experiment at LG, which is where he played last couple years. Starting to think at very least he will be depth at positions that were decimated last year with injuries.

 

What if our best line includes Ty at OT & Trent at guard? It would seem a shame to pay Luke with superior solutions on the roster. I fear we may waste some of Callahan’s best work with Ty on the pine.

 

[Bonez3]

4 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

What if our best line includes Ty at OT & Trent at guard? It would seem a shame to pay Luke with superior solutions on the roster. I fear we may waste some of Callahan’s best work with Ty on the pine.

 

15 years and 3 posts, so I guess I'll definitely respect thought

 

I've seen others knock this because LT still remains one of the most important positions in all the sport, so to take an all-pro out of this postition is debatable. But, I might smell a Ty sighting at G this spring

[RabidFan]

Ty can't pull like Trent can.  We need Trent's athleticism on the end. 

[Redskin21502]

3 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

What if our best line includes Ty at OT & Trent at guard? It would seem a shame to pay Luke with superior solutions on the roster. I fear we may waste some of Callahan’s best work with Ty on the pine.

 

 

that post reminded me of Trent lining up at LG last year for that big screen play on 3rd and 19 in the 3rd qtr against the Raiders. Ty was at LT.

[Mannix]

They shouldn’t let Hankins leave without a contract.  I think he fills a big need and is a good player.  Seems like a case where he didn’t fit a scheme not just an overpriced big name.

[volsmet]

4 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

15 years and 3 posts, so I guess I'll definitely respect thought

 

I've seen others knock this because LT still remains one of the most important positions in all the sport, so to take an all-pro out of this postition is debatable. But, I might smell a Ty sighting at G this spring

 

Thank you. 

 

Its easy to understand why many would be against it, but I’d venture to guess most of them have said, “you put your best unit out there”, or something similar, a time or two.

 

Callahan appears to have done something special with Ty, I believe it would be unfortunate to leave him on the bench because OT is the more glorified position & Trent is the leader of the offense. If Ty can play like he did in 2016, I find it very hard to believe our best line is not with Trent at guard. I think he’s be quite something at G & we’d be making the most of Callahan’s work & the talent at Redskins park. 

 

If Ty could play guard, I believe we’d have seen it. We know Trent can, and he may be the best in the NFL if he wants to be. In the interest of making Washington the most competitive team possible next year, I think Dallas would prefer to see us with Trent at OT & Luke at G than Ty at OT & Trent at guard. Trent & Brandon could do a lot for young Chase as well. 

 

Im not afraid to get hammered by the ES experts, unleash on me with gusto, I’m pro-discussion & welcome the enthusiasm of the ES cast of characters. I’ve been reading this board for many years. 

 

I mentioned in my first post, I think trading Trent is our best option. If the only thing that matters is winning a title, I’m not going the Joe Thomas route, I’m taking advantage of the leagues desperation for OTs (Solder & Pugh contracts are absurd) & I’m sending Trent to get his SB in exchange for picks in the 2019 & 2020 drafts. 

 

I was in favor of trading Cousins, firing Jay to keep McVay, & trading up for D Watson. I’m no stranger to unpopular positions, I’ve shared them elsewhere but this board is the place to be. Unleash the fury.

 

Again, thank you for the welcome. Few things are more heartwarming than a well placed emoticon. I won’t soon forget the gesture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[justice98]

1 hour ago, cakmoney61 said:

With all due respect, Gillette has no leverage whatsoever.  Excellent play on the field gives these players leverage.  You have to go back 4 years to find consistently excellent play from Gillette.

 

This is the same board though that is enamored with PFF saying Preston Smith and Gallette were two of the top 3-5 pass rushers in the league by metrics.  If the metrics suggest he was better in getting pressure than I think he was, an edge rusher with his ability will be in demand. Him staying healthy would count for a lot.

[Bonez3]

@volsmet I think I saw TK write they are throwing the idea of That LG around the park. Never to old to learn a new trick. He was hurt a lot last year, so maybe that's why we haven't seen it yet. Again, if I had to guess, Ty will be seeing reps at LG this spring.

 

Interesting idea on trading Trent. A team like NE would be ideal for both sides. I could see 3 picks for LT, a first and 2 seconds for sure.

[actorguy1]

Fake! Grrrr!

[markmills67]

1 minute ago, actorguy1 said:

 

Yeeeeeeeesssssss

 

HTTR 

[HigSkin]

9 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

Fake news....LOL

[Bonez3]

Yessir... Now the draft window opens even further.

 

Good job guys

[Skinsinparadise]

Just listened to a Tander-Finlay podcast.

 

Their point is Hankins will likely fetch 9 million a year and that's not how the Redskins roll.  Tandler goes 30% chance they land Hankins for that reason.  Finlay goes 30% is optimistic.

 

I hope they are wrong.  Yeah typically Bruce doesn't like to fish in the higher end of the food chain of free agency especially at D line.  But as its been said on thread, there have been a couple of exceptions with D. Jax and Norman.  Hopefully this is another example of it.  IMO you spend on the D line.  If there is a place to break the bank its for the trenches on both sides of the ball IMO.

[NickyJ]

2 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

 

 

[goskins10]

8 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

Thank you. 

 

Its easy to understand why many would be against it, but I’d venture to guess most of them have said, “you put your best unit out there”, or something similar, a time or two.

 

Callahan appears to have done something special with Ty, I believe it would be unfortunate to leave him on the bench because OT is the more glorified position & Trent is the leader of the offense. If Ty can play like he did in 2016, I find it very hard to believe our best line is not with Trent at guard. I think he’s be quite something at G & we’d be making the most of Callahan’s work & the talent at Redskins park. 

 

If Ty could play guard, I believe we’d have seen it. We know Trent can, and he may be the best in the NFL if he wants to be. In the interest of making Washington the most competitive team possible next year, I think Dallas would prefer to see us with Trent at OT & Luke at G than Ty at OT & Trent at guard. Trent & Brandon could do a lot for young Chase as well. 

 

Im not afraid to get hammered by the ES experts, unleash on me with gusto, I’m pro-discussion & welcome the enthusiasm of the ES cast of characters. I’ve been reading this board for many years. 

 

I mentioned in my first post, I think trading Trent is our best option. If the only thing that matters is winning a title, I’m not going the Joe Thomas route, I’m taking advantage of the leagues desperation for OTs (Solder & Pugh contracts are absurd) & I’m sending Trent to get his SB in exchange for picks in the 2019 & 2020 drafts. 

 

I was in favor of trading Cousins, firing Jay to keep McVay, & trading up for D Watson. I’m no stranger to unpopular positions, I’ve shared them elsewhere but this board is the place to be. Unleash the fury.

 

Again, thank you for the welcome. Few things are more heartwarming than a well placed emoticon. I won’t soon forget the gesture.

 

 

Hard to say welcome to someone lurking for 5 yrs - so how about glad you decided to finally contribute.  

 

In order:

 

Rumor has it that they are looking at Ty at G - so just because he has not been there yet does not mean he can't be put there. The one thing I totally agree with is putting your best on the field. Ty is a nice back-up but if is good enough to start then get him o nth field - and yes if that means moving Trent to LG I would like that.

 

No to trading Trent. Not smart to trade literally the heart and soul of your team. He is the main team leader. Can't underestimate his importance. Move him to LG? Sure. Trade him not in a million years.

 

Trading Cousins - you may have wanted it then but for the wrong reasons I am sure. The bigger point is the team should have done something. They are paid to make these decisions and they came up seriously empty. No problem losing Cousins but for nothing? Inexcusable.

 

Firing Jay and Keeping McVay - not realistic at all, not to mention Jay is very under-rated. Let's see how the Rams look in year two. The sophomore year has a habit of not going nearly as well.

 

Trading up for Watson - didn't we learn anything from Robert? A total disaster writing to happen. Watson is not a long term solution. He may have some abilities but he is also a head case. They will have problems with him.  And did I already ask did we learn nothing from the Robert trade? I can't believe anyone is ready to take that ride again.

 

As for asking for the "fury" in terms of a response - be careful for what you ask for...  you may just get it -

[Andre The Giant]

Not really Ian.  Says “@RapSheiet”

[NickyJ]

Just now, Andre The Giant said:

Not really Ian.  Says “@RapSheiet”

 

[Bonez3]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Just listened to a Tander-Finlay podcast.

 

Their point is Hankins will likely fetch 9 million a year and that's not how the Redskins roll.  Tandler goes 30% chance they land Hankins for that reason.  Finlay goes 30% is optimistic.

 

I hope they are wrong.  Yeah typically Bruce doesn't like to fish in the higher end of the food chain of free agency especially at D line.  But as its been said on thread, there have been a couple of exceptions with D. Jax and Norman.  Hopefully this is another example of it.  IMO you spend on the D line.  If there is a place to break the bank its for the trenches on both sides of the ball IMO.

I posted today that the 9-10 mil range isn't what I was seeing based on current deals. I felt 7-8 mil/year was target. Damn good job IMO

[redrobert]

Noticed that, don’t celebrate too soon..

[Conn]

If you don't spend less than $10M/year on Hankins than you aren't serious at the end of every season when you say our run defense needs to improve. Period

[Bonez3]

5 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

If you don't spend less than $10M/year on Hankins than you aren't serious at the end of every season when you say our run defense needs to improve. Period

I agree, I don't think we have any choice here, ala free agency. We have to overpay a little.