Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

DC9

By DC9
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, markmills67 said:

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 

Yep.  It’s tough to see a guy like that - a perfect fit for us - come for a visit and leave (let alone if he signs elsewhere), but we don’t really know, and probably never will, what it would have taken to sign him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stefanskins

Stefanskins

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, sjinhan said:

 

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!!

yep...the Ravens should pay the difference between the two contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rumplestilskin

rumplestilskin

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

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 

If you you signed him for 10 million per year which one, Brandon or Preston would you  be ok with not signed to an extension ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thinking Skins

Thinking Skins

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

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 

 

I think its also a question of where he wants to play, and where's he's best. Did he play NT in Indy? We've seen other guys like Haynesworth and Baker say they won't play NT. I know he played in a 4-3 in NY so its not like he's got a long resume of being a Phil Taylor or whoever else you want to talk about as a good NT. And him coming here as a DE just creates more of a logjam at that position, given he'd probably be our best or second best DE, if he's not willing to play NT he's not going to solve our NT problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, markmills67 said:

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 

I'm all for paying good money for good, young players.  And I really don't think you can ever have enough good players on the DL.

 

That said, the 'Skins have Allen, Ioannidis (or however you spell it) and Lanier already, all of whom are promising, and are in position to pick one of the top DL in the draft.  So, you could say that with, for example, VV in the draft, we'd be in pretty good shape, and there's not a reason to throw a lot more money at that position.

 

The counter argument is that if you added Hankins to VV + what we have, we take a front seven from "eh at best" to definite strength.  And that might be worth 3 to 4 more wins.  

 

One of my absolute largest criticisms of Jay Gruden as an "in game" manager is that he can't seem to project that his defense is going to let him down in end of half and end of game sitautions, so he makes decisions based on the defense getting a stop. So far, in the last 3 years, they haven't been able to do that.   That's stupid on his part because at this point, he should know his team well enough to try and win on offense. But whatever.  

 

There are 2 ways to fix Jay's problem.  One of which is for him to get a clue.  I don't think that's going to happen.  He's too damn stubborn and loyal, so no matter how many times his defense lets him down in critical situations, he's just not going to change, and he'll keep doing the same things expecting different results.  Definition of insanity.  

 

The second is to fix the defense so when he puts it out there in a tough spot, they don't fold like a cheap suit.  Given option #1 isn't really an option, I'd go with loading up on defense.

 

So, I think that fixing the defense is paramount because our HC is going to continue to put games on them to win, and we're going to continue to lose games unless the defense can actually get stops in critical positions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WelshSkinsFan

WelshSkinsFan

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I think its also a question of where he wants to play, and where's he's best. Did he play NT in Indy? We've seen other guys like Haynesworth and Baker say they won't play NT. I know he played in a 4-3 in NY so its not like he's got a long resume of being a Phil Taylor or whoever else you want to talk about as a good NT. And him coming here as a DE just creates more of a logjam at that position, given he'd probably be our best or second best DE, if he's not willing to play NT he's not going to solve our NT problems. 

 

He played end in Indy.  Can play nose but if that is why we want him then that could be why he does not want to sign.  For those screaming Bruce just sign him you need to remember Hankins can choose to say no and if his objection is to how we want to use him then we are much better off looking elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

As much as I'd love Hankins, I'm fairly encouraged by us bringing Williams in. I think I'd take him on a deal that is basically 50% of what Hankins money would be. 

 

Still studying up on Williams so maybe my mind will change.  For the moment, he seems like just a guy at NT.  Having said that Ziggy is arguably worst than just a guy at NT.   I wouldn't be excited about the signing, wouldn't hate it.  Main thing I'd like about it is it opens things up perhaps at other positions in the draft.  I don't like having "must" positions to address in the draft.

 

 

  1. Redskin Country Retweeted John Keim

    In other words - Bruce dropped it. Again.

    Redskin Country added,

    John KeimVerified account @john_keim
    As you could imagine, $$ the big hangup with Hankins. Word was last year he asked for quite a bit; didn't get it; unsigned until April 13; essentially 1 year deal. Be curious to see where this goes with him and how long it takes
    Show this thread
     
  2.  

    trust me i get the sentiment. Wouldn't go there yet on this one. U don't just way overpay to appease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HigSkin

HigSkin

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

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

 

 

Doesn't appear by this article that Detroit has interest....

 

https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2018/3/20/17142168/nfl-free-agency-2018-johnathan-hankins-leaves-washington-no-contract

 

The good news is that the team that got the first shot at meeting with Hankins (Washington) did not close the deal with him on Monday, and his visit appears to be over.

The bad news is that there are still no indications that the Lions have serious interest in Hankins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsTillIDie

SkinsTillIDie

Posted
Posted

2017 snap counts:

 

Matthew Ioannidis - 584
Ziggy Hood - 539
Stacy McGee - 432
Anthony Lanier - 339
Terrell McClain - 328
AJ Francis - 164
Jonathan Allen - 159
Arthur Jones - 23
Brandon Banks - 12

 

That's 2,580 snaps.

 

(Meanwhile, Jonathan Hankins in Indi -- 686)

 

It's egregious that Ziggy Hood played so many snaps. We should be demonstrably better from the jump if Jonathan Allen and Matt Ioannidis can each play a health 600 snaps, but that's not enough.

 

I've never been on the Jonathan Hankins bandwagon like some here, but he's such an obvious signing. We should be signing him *and* drafting Vea or Payne in the 1st round. Doing so would allow us to plan for Allen, Ioannidis, Hankins, and Vea/Payne to take ~600 snaps each -- essentially all the available defensive line snaps. Leaving McGee and Lanier the rest, given injuries.

 

In this hypothetical, with 3 of the 4 leading contributors on rookie contracts, we can overpay Hankins and still see significantly more value per dollar spent. Obviously Hood and McClain should be cut, and McGee cut next year.

 

It's pretty simple: with the NFL's institutional parity, in which every team gets essentially the same resources to spend, the teams that invest most heavily their cap dollars and top draft picks into the defensive and offensive lines will rise to the top. Aiming for top-5 offensive and defensive lines with top-10 quarterback play should be the grounding philosophy of this organization.

 

I've never bought into the "Bruce Allen is cheap" narrative, because he's going to spend all of our cap by the end of the day. And he's not going to put us in a position where we can't re-sign Scherff and Preston Smith and maybe Jamison Crowder. But Allen absolutely needs to do more to ensure we have lines that can challenge to be among the league's best. Everything else falls into place after that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, SkinsTillIDie said:

 

It's pretty simple: with the NFL's institutional parity, in which every team gets essentially the same resources to spend, the teams that invest most heavily their cap dollars and top draft picks into the defensive and offensive lines will rise to the top. Aiming for top-5 offensive and defensive lines with top-10 quarterback play should be the grounding philosophy of this organization.

 

I've never bought into the "Bruce Allen is cheap" narrative, because he's going to spend all of our cap by the end of the day. And he's not going to put us in a position where we can't re-sign Scherff and Preston Smith and maybe Jamison Crowder. But Allen absolutely needs to do more to ensure we have lines that can challenge to be among the league's best. Everything else falls into place after that.

 

 

For me perfectly said.  Pick your spots.  The trenches are the spots to pick.  We spend up to the cap typically.  Bruce spends -- he just prefers to buy more players who aren't per se elite types versus lets sign two big time players like the Vikings did. 

 

I got no doubt as it was mentioned here there is a method to the madness to how they approach FA.  They got their list and prices and keep working down until they find a guy who meets their value or close enough.

 

I got no problem with that on some positions.  But IMO you go top of the market on DT.  You go cheaper on other positions.   Ask Jacksonville?  Giants turned around their defense in one year in part by signing two D lineman.  Vikings.  Eagles.  You win on the D line.  I am not so interested in getting the best deal on D line.  I want a marquee player within reason.  But I don't see for example the Richardson signing by the Vikings as an overpay. So I doubt Hankins ends up with something outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Honestly, It's not a half full or half empty glass. It's talking plastic while I am talking aluminum. As I read through this, it occurs to me that you feel the need to defend the FO thinking i am trashing them when I say the comp picks are not that important. I am not - there are plenty of other reasons to trash them but I tend to be pretty data driven. I had no problems with who they let go. 

 

I do not mean this as ugly as it is probably going to sound - so I hope you do not take offense - you seeing them leaving or not has is just not pertinent to this conversation so in that vein it makes no difference to me what you saw. The conversation that is relevant to that was not what I was discussing is if the decisions on who not to resign were accurate. It's two completely different conversations. 

 

So if we have the other conversation about who the team should not resign - I put out a spread sheet at the beginning of this thread detailing who we should let go. I will post it below. You can find the original at the beginning of this thread so it's clear I am not making it up - if you care - which in return fairness I could totally understand if you do not. I have added the disposition of those I know about. 

 

I missed a few but was right no most of them. I felt then that Kirk was not coming back but was hoping they worked something out. In the end, as I have stated before my biggest concern with him is getting nothing in return. The contact MN signed was too high - esp all of it guaranteed. 

 

 

image.thumb.png.f253f42eba74b1202321f4757c38a271.png

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RabidFan

RabidFan

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I remember the last time we signed a 4 3 guy and wanted him to play nose, Haynesworth.

 

I wish we would stop signing players who excel in one position and want them to play another. 

 

Square peg in a round hole.

 

Just like every LG we’ve signed or drafted since Dockery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carex

carex

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I remember the last time we signed a 4 3 guy and wanted him to play nose, Haynesworth.

 

I wish we would stop signing players who excel in one position and want them to play another. 

 

Square peg in a round hole.

 

we didn't actually do that, despite what many people think.  We signed Haynesworth in 2009 and we were still a 4-3 team, Shanahan brought in the 3-4 the next year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...