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

[carex]

3 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Better than nothing.  

 

exactly, it's a sixth rounder we didn't have.  Now we hope Pryor gets a good contract

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't have a strong opinion on him one way or another.  On the surface I like the fact that he seems an upgrade over Hood.  But he doesn't come off as anything special as a nose either.  I'd take him over nothing.  But if that's who they sign, I am back to wanting Vea.

 

Well, I've been preaching this for years, you build a team through the lines first.  Sure, if a QB falls in your lap in the draft, then snag them.  But the problem with this team is we never should have switched to a 3-4 base to begin with.  And we never addressed the NT position with a true NT (either drafting first round or stud in FA).  The RGIII trade crippled us from acquiring two first round picks that should have been used on the O-line or D-line.  

 

Yes, I know we had to pull the trigger and make that trade at the time, but it still set us way back.  Then, it looks like we were going in the right direction under Scot and he wastes a pick (yes it was a wasted pick, imo) on Doctson instead of snagging a starting caliber NT that was available (Kenny Clark - Packers).  Think about how that d-line would have looked with Allen-DE   Clark-NT   Hood or Ioannidis-DE.

 

 

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

https://player.fm/series/series-1511344/ep-32018-hour-1-jay-gruden

 

Hey, this is a link to the Jay Gruden interview with Grant and Craig Hoffman today.

[CTskin]

2 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

And there you go for all you comp pick guys, that contract, as of now, would net a 6th rounder.

 

Party time!

At the end of the 5th round next year, there's going to be someone still on the board who I'll find a way to be bitter about...

[bobandweave]

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

If they are making decisions on guys based on compensatory picks then they are total idiots. That may be the case but I am virtually certain this is just a narrative developed by fans. 

 

How do you view Scot M who used to GM this team? Reason I ask is he always cared about comp picks. Comp picks are easily tracked, and part of the role of GM is to make moves that benefit the team. Part of the role of a GM is to draft good players who in turn leave you (can't sign everyone) so you get comp picks when they go.

 

I asked a question earlier today. I will ask it again

 

You have two players, both aged 25, both good players. One guys cut and released the other is a free agent. Picking up the free agent hurts a team getting comp picks for the guys they lost to other teams. Picking the cut released guy doesn't hurt the comp pick the team could get for losing its players to other teams.

 

Knowing this, do you not see how comp pick could be a deciding factor on which of the two guys you want the team to sign? I know Scot M cared about this. It's not some made up garbage fans came up with. This is something that is a bonus when we lose our free agent players to other teams.

 

 

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

And the team did not get "raided". The made decisions to release guys - of which two of the major signings fell through and are still unsigned (the teams they were going to sign with screwed them over - especially Grant. That **** was cold.).

 

Who was "released"? You don't seem to get the differences between designations of the guys we lost and how that plays a very important part in all of this.

[Audible_Red40]

@bobandweave

 

I think I'll call you compandweave from now on. 

 

[NickyJ]

7 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Better than nothing.  Our 6th round 2017 is now our starting OC. 

We drafted an offensive coordinator?

[bobandweave]

10 minutes ago, RWJ said:

NFLTradeRumors.co‏ @nfltrade_rumors 1m1 minute ago

More

Ryan Grant Gets One-Year, $5M Deal From #Colts http://bit.ly/2HOL5mC

 

Absolutely horrible what happened to Grant. The Ravens cost him nearly 25 million dollars and they cost us a 4th round pick. Disgusting. **** them

[TheBlueIndian]

13 minutes ago, CutPryorNow said:

Ziggy was #121. Hankins was #21. This ranking includes all DL; Hankins was one of the best NTs and Ziggy was THE worst. Two years running now... 

 

It is my understanding that Hankins played DE for Indy, yes?

[WelshSkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, TheBlueIndian said:

 

It is my understanding that Hankins played DE for Indy, yes?

 

That is one of the things that is making me laugh about all of this drama, he can certainly play NT but it is not his preferred role and he has typically played as an end in a 3-4 and yet reading some of the comments here you would think he is the greatest NT in the history of the game.

[bobandweave]

13 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

And there you go for all you comp pick guys, that contract, as of now, would net a 6th rounder.

 

Party time!

 

You got something against free draft picks?

 

We are really extreme here

9 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

@bobandweave

 

I think I'll call you compandweave from now on. 

 

 

Nah I have to bob my way around the haters on the forum too much to be called that but I like it

[Wyvern]

@B&W:  Not a bad rebuttal post.  You kind of cherry-picked from my argument, but not terribly.  I actually consider you to be a solid contributor to the boards, even though I often disagree with you.

 

I'll toss out a few comments in reaction to yours, and then let you rebut.  But after that, let's move on.  I hate flame wars, and, frankly many of the issues/questions on which we debate are things that get usually resolved in time, regardless of our opinion.

 

Here are my comments:

 

1.  I'll grant that the details of the Scandrick signing have not yet been fully released.  One million, and maybe I'm okay. Still,  why not use that one million to hire Hall as a special coach, and save the cap space?

 

2.  I never regarded the Cowboys secondary as being all that good.  It was usually regarded as their defense's weakness.  So just how much of a quality contribution should we expect from Scandrick, who --when healthy -- was part of that less-than-stellar defense?

 

3.  I simply noted that Bruce is scrambling to repair a hole he created because he didn't want to sign Cousins, and had to toss in Fuller to get Smith as his next Skins QB.  You spent a lot of time justifying Bruce's decision.  We can argue about that decision later, but the real issue is that there's hole created by Allen, and now he's scrambling in FA to fill it.  My concern is that he's trying to fill it by spending funds he needs for a nose tackle of quality. We'll find out more when the contract details are released.  Bottom line -- still no decent NT.

 

4.  Name recognition -- As a veteran, Scandrick has a marketable resume.  Especially to Skins fans who watch their team play the Cowgirls twice a season.  He and DRC have some NFL name recognition, maybe even marketable enough for Allen's spin doctors.

 

5.  Lastly, that last bit in point #4, the part about "Cowgirls", it is is not what I normally do.   (Question is did you react?) But when you talk about living in Dallas area, and then you referred to Dallas as "the boys" -- ? -- I felt you kind of open yourself up to that kind of banter. And so, I couldn't resist sticking in that pin.  I have no doubt that you're a solid Skins fan, but please do realize I need to consider if this might provide context to my debating with you on the wisdom of signing ex-Cowboys.

 

That aside, I do continue to find your posts very well-drafted and thought-prevoking.  Also, I can see how much you really are a football fan -- you're really diving deep into all the elements, both in-season and off season.  And I'm glad to have you on this ES board, even though it's occasionally challenging for my blood pressure.

[Rocky52Mc]

15 hours ago, joeken24 said:

Oh no doubt he sucks. His fake interview just brings more to the argument for me to get him the **** outta here.

 

What is your honest problem? I just watched the interview and nothing slipped in which he indicated what you're suggesting. Is he a boring interview? Yes. Doesn't help that Larry asked bad questions.

 

People are going to be up Scandrick's ass when he makes solid physical plays at the CB position.

[goskins10]

20 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

How do you view Scot M who used to GM this team? Reason I ask is he always cared about comp picks. Comp picks are easily tracked, and part of the role of GM is to make moves that benefit the team. Part of the role of a GM is to draft good players who in turn leave you (can't sign everyone) so you get comp picks when they go.

 

I asked a question earlier today. I will ask it again

 

No one drafts someone with the PLAN to get comp - picks. That's secondary which is my entire point. You draft players to win ball games. If you draft well enough then of course you cannot sign them all and you get comp picks. But you are putting a focus on the comp picks which are nice but again the primary focus is to draft and develop players that win games. 

 

20 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

You have two players, both aged 25, both good players. One guys cut and released the other is a free agent. Picking up the free agent hurts a team getting comp picks for the guys they lost to other teams. Picking the cut released guy doesn't hurt the comp pick the team could get for losing its players to other teams.

 

Knowing this, do you not see how comp pick could be a deciding factor on which of the two guys you want the team to sign? I know Scot M cared about this. It's not some made up garbage fans came up with. This is something that is a bonus when we lose our free agent players to other teams.

 

 

I believe I said exactly this that if all things were the same then it could maker a difference. Not sure why are you asking me something that I stated to begin with?? Again though, they are secondary not the primary driver. 

 

20 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Who was "released"? You don't seem to get the differences between designations of the guys we lost and how that plays a very important part in all of this.

 

 

I used the wrong word - no they were not released they chose not to resign them. Better? . And please, I fully understand exactly how it works. You re fixated a single part of this like it's some magic bullet and trying to make it a bigger part of the decision process than it really is. 

 

The primary goal is to draft the best players and have them win a championship - not drafting them with the hope of turning them around later. If you do it well enoguh you will get comp picks. But that's not what should be driving your decision process. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Listened to Finlay right now, he said the McClain restructure likely makes him a long shot to make the roster.  He goes you typically don't restructure your contract to take away the guaranteed element unless you were told they'd release you otherwise.  In other words, he has a shot to make the roster but they just made it easy to cut him.

  

[Rocky52Mc]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Listened to Finlay right now, he said the McClain restructure likely makes him a long shot to make the roster.  He goes you typically don't restructure your contract to take away the guaranteed element unless you were told they'd release you otherwise.  In other words, he has a shot to make the roster but they just made it easy to cut him.

  

 

I think he knows that he's getting paid above his performance grade right now. He's most likely a post-june 1st cut.

[skinny21]

And then McClain texts Hankins and says, “nah, you don’t wanna play here”, lol.  

 

Can Williams serve as a DT fill-in?  

 

That’s something I really like about Hankins (along with productivity/age), and it pertains to others as well (Logan, for example) - we can use them in our nickel package as well.  If a player can address 2 spots like that, the added value makes the money aspect easier to swallow, IMO.  

 

To those of you that doubt the comp pick angle is a real thing (potential issue) for this FO... do you think Allen has an ego?  

 

Makes perfect sense to me that Allen wants to be able to point to the (3rd round) comp pick as something gained from ‘losing’ Cousins.  Not saying that’s the case for sure, and that’s part of the beauty of the situation  - it makes sense to retain that pick.  If the FO didn’t want to sign Hankins for 9 or 10 because of that pick, well, that may be a problem.  

 

To take that a step further, if the FO is in win now mode, but refuses to sign a difference maker because of a future pick, they’re hamstringing their efforts to win now. All speculation of course, but the theory seems quite reasonable to me.  

 

I will say (believe I’ve said it before), the FO is in a bind.  They have (and had) quite a few weaknesses to address with limited resources.  They reduced their resources, added weaknesses, and have important extensions looming.  It’s a fine line to walk - wanting to win now (in large part so as to keep their jobs), but not wanting to screw things up for the future (making their jobs more difficult if they keep them).  By ‘they’, I mostly mean Allen, though Doug, Jay, etc. factor in as well.  

[CommDownMan]

It's amazing how many people hate on comp picks.  Especially saying Bruce will just mess them all up.  While he was supposedly working with Scot's board, most thought it went well.  

 

Not to mention if they got 4, he'd have 11 chances over 7.  That will always help with options/competition.

 

With guys like Hankins that many would prefer over Logan, how many FA do people really want to sign?  Or do you just want to sign guys to check the box?

[Rocky52Mc]

Just now, jsharrin55 said:

It's amazing how many people hate on comp picks.  Especially saying Bruce will just mess them all up.  While he was supposedly working with Scot's board, most thought it went well.  

 

Not to mention if they got 4, he'd have 11 chances over 7.  That will always help with options/competition.

 

With guys like Hankins that many would prefer over Logan, how many FA do people really want to sign?  Or do you just want to sign guys to check the box?

 

Hankins was released so doesn't count against the comp picks. He was also a beast. So win for everybody?

[bobandweave]

37 minutes ago, Wyvern said:

@B&W:  Not a bad rebuttal post.  You kind of cherry-picked from my argument, but not terribly.  I actually consider you to be a solid contributor to the boards, even though I often disagree with you.

 

I'll toss out a few comments in reaction to yours, and then let you rebut.  But after that, let's move on.  I hate flame wars, and, frankly many of the issues/questions on which we debate are things that get usually resolved in time, regardless of our opinion.

 

Thanks for the kind post. I also feel the same about you. We are all fans, with different experiences sharing our passion about this team and league and sharing opinions. I am not into flame wars either.

 

Quote

 

Here are my comments:

 

1.  I'll grant that the details of the Scandrick signing have not yet been fully released.  One million, and maybe I'm okay. Still,  why not use that one million to hire Hall as a special coach, and save the cap space?

 

As in Deangelo Hall? Well for one coaches don't count against a salary cap. Two, we tried the Hall experiment and it didn't work.  

 

Quote

 

2.  I never regarded the Cowboys secondary as being all that good.  It was usually regarded as their defense's weakness.  So just how much of a quality contribution should we expect from Scandrick, who --when healthy -- was part of that less-than-stellar defense?

 

I think if you look at the boys Defense with Scandrick before the 2017 season you would see a different opinion then what he was last year. Part of the reason is that the boys lost most of its defensive starters in free agency last season and was completely rebooting. When they were going through the rebooting before he got injured the general discussion was that they were okay since they still had him. Before last season he was considered a good NFL player. I can't say how much he will contribute without seeing how the snaps are split up but as a slot inside DB he is good.

 

Quote

 

3.  I simply noted that Bruce is scrambling to repair a hole he created because he didn't want to sign Cousins, and had to toss in Fuller to get Smith as his next Skins QB.  You spent a lot of time justifying Bruce's decision.  We can argue about that decision later, but the real issue is that there's hole created by Allen, and now he's scrambling in FA to fill it.  My concern is that he's trying to fill it by spending funds he needs for a nose tackle of quality. We'll find out more when the contract details are released.  Bottom line -- still no decent NT.

 

Well I don't see how anyone can say they "didn't want to sign Kirk". They tagged him twice and offered him multiple long term deals. If you listen to the presser Kirk gave that I posted in the Kirk thread in the Around the NFL post he clearly says that leaving DC was his plan the past two and a half seasons. Kirk left because Kirk wanted to leave. And this week his Dad is trashing the front office and owner which surprisingly as much crap that was said about Griffins Dad doing that to me everyone is ignoring this and we have ourselves a nasty double standard. Not that I think Griffins Dad didn't deserve the heat he got, I don't get why people are ignoring Kirk's Dad and not giving him the same heat. Anyway about Kirk, he was leaving and baring another tag costing 34.5 million for one season there wasn't anything they could have done to stop that. Kirk choose this the Redskins I believe would have choose different.

 

You know how I feel about them having to move Fuller to do the Smith trade. They were offered the Browns second round pick, round higher then what we gave, for Smith and turned the Browns down. They were offered a second round pick and Aqib Talib by the Broncos and turned them down as well. The only way they could do the trade to get Smith was to include Fuller. And yes your correct that opened up a hole on the defense that they needed to fix.

 

The problem is how much did this signing effect if at all the signing of Hankins? I seriously doubt it had anything to do with it. Why I feel that way is because NFL contracts can be extended to free up money. A deal could be made with another player to get them cap money at anytime. If they don't sign Hankins I don't think its because they didn't have to cap room, rather they choose not to.

 

Which when you study what Bruce Allen has done with the NT position for years fits his, not my, modus operandi. Sign cheap contracts and Frankenstein a quality starter there. My issue with this approach is that 1) It relies on the team thinking they know more then the players last team does about a guy, 2) It relies on a player improving his ability over what he's shown in the past, and 3) history shows this doesn't work. We may well be in the middle of Bruce doing what he always does and if so I see it as a refusal to adapt and admit defeat and that's not a quality I see for running an NFL team.

 

 

Quote

 

4.  Name recognition -- As a veteran, Scandrick has a marketable resume.  Especially to Skins fans who watch their team play the Cowgirls twice a season.  He and DRC have some NFL name recognition, maybe even marketable enough for Allen's spin doctors.

 

Not sure how to quantify that in terms of meaning but he is well known. Most boys are known just due to team popularity.

 

 

Quote

 

5.  Lastly, that last bit in point #4, the part about "Cowgirls", it is is not what I normally do.   (Question is did you react?) But when you talk about living in Dallas area, and then you referred to Dallas as "the boys" -- ? -- I felt you kind of open yourself up to that kind of banter. And so, I couldn't resist sticking in that pin.  I have no doubt that you're a solid Skins fan, but please do realize I need to consider if this might provide context to my debating with you on the wisdom of signing ex-Cowboys.

 

Not even a little. For the record **** the Cowboys. I've lived here in Texas so long I call them the boys because that's local speech. One of my favorite past times every year is being at Texas Stadium when the Skins come to town and fighting with boys fans and playing fantasy football against 11 boys fans and beating their asses every year. You can talk all the smack against the boys you want, doesn't bother me even a little. I bleed Redskins and always will 

 

 

Quote

 

That aside, I do continue to find your posts very well-drafted and thought-prevoking.  Also, I can see how much you really are a football fan -- you're really diving deep into all the elements, both in-season and off season.  And I'm glad to have you on this ES board, even though it's occasionally challenging for my blood pressure.

 

Thank you Sir

 

So you know I like to lurk on the forum mostly. I tend to interject only when I want to be adding a different opinion to the discussion, hence why I tend to come off with some contrarian points of view. Its those moments when I'm being contrarian that at times causes me the most heat. There are always two points of view but only room for one favorite football team in my eyes. Maybe I'm different in my thinking because I don't get to listen to local Redskins talk unless its a podcast I queue up where I live.

 

 

 

 

 

[markmills67]

As Hankins got anymore visits lined up?. Any chance at all he signs for the Skins?. 

 

HTTR 

[bobandweave]

40 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

No one drafts someone with the PLAN to get comp - picks. That's secondary which is my entire point. You draft players to win ball games. If you draft well enough then of course you cannot sign them all and you get comp picks. But you are putting a focus on the comp picks which are nice but again the primary focus is to draft and develop players that win games. 

 

I am just looking at the glass half full.

 

Did I want to re-sign Kirk? Yes until such time that he proved to me that this wasn't possible and then I quickly moved on. I never would have committed that much money that he got

 

Did I want to re-sign Trent? I said it made sense only if the contract was cheap because of his PED issue. What he got paid I never would have given him

 

Did I want to re-sign Grant? Not at all honestly and wouldn't have paid him 5 million for a season

 

Did I want to re-sign Niles Paul? Yes only due to his special teams ability and only if cheap. I would have matched this contract

 

Did I want to re-sign Long? Yes but wouldn't have paid him what he got

 

I look at these guys and think I wouldn't have matched 4/5 of the deals they signed. And I know they contributed this year and will have to be replaced. Since they left we get comp picks. Good for the team.

 

I have never been in on comp picks the way I am this season. Last year I was awoken to them when we lost two 10+ million dollar players and got nothing for losing them. That still pisses me off. Instead of having another 3rd and 4th round pick this draft we got four scrubs, a good player and a guy for one year we had to resign. Given the choice I would have rather they signed  DJ and not signed the other guys so that they gt comp picks this season. Getting burned by the comp picks this year turned me onto them.

 

 

Quote

 

I used the wrong word - no they were not released they chose not to resign them. Better? . And please, I fully understand exactly how it works. You re fixated a single part of this like it's some magic bullet and trying to make it a bigger part of the decision process than it really is. 

 

The primary goal is to draft the best players and have them win a championship - not drafting them with the hope of turning them around later. If you do it well enoguh you will get comp picks. But that's not what should be driving your decision process. 

 

Its better as long as you understand that I saw all of these guys leaving and that I would rather get picks then sign the contracts they ended up signing then we are good.

[skinny21]

4 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

As Hankins got anymore visits lined up?. Any chance at all he signs for the Skins?. 

 

HTTR 

If Detroit is serious, then pretty much no is my guess.  

 

@bobandweave I’ve disagreed with you on how militant the FO should be regarding comp picks, but I definitely agree with that last post.  Only had interest in re-signing those guys if they came cheap.  They didn’t, so now we get a bonus for fiscal responsibility.  Kudos to the FO on that front.  

[markmills67]

4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

If Detroit is serious, then pretty much no is my guess.  

I'm trying to stay calm to see if he signs for another team and what the contract is like, I would have paid up to $10m per year for Hankins. It is a glaring hole that we needed to fill and it would give us more flexibility in the draft, I would have signed Hankins and not signed Scandrick and gone with our younger CB.

 

HTTR 

[sjinhan]

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

Absolutely horrible what happened to Grant. The Ravens cost him nearly 25 million dollars and they cost us a 4th round pick. Disgusting. **** them

 

NFLPA need to file a grievance on Grant’s behalf...  I mean Ravens fails him on a physical and voids the contract as soon as Crabtree becomes available then Grant has no problem passing physicals for other teams within days...

 

its clear that Ravens has Buyers remorse and costed Grant of any leverage to get a decent deal from other teams!!