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

[SemperFi Skins]

Detroit also working on signing former 49ers/Redskins/Patriots DT RIcky Jean-Francois.... deal expected to be done today, though I would think he's more of a depth signing as opposed to Hankins.

[actorguy1]

Lions have a few million less in cap space than Redskins do. See if it makes a difference 

[HigSkin]

1 minute ago, actorguy1 said:

Lions have a few million less in cap space than Redskins do. See if it makes a difference 

 

We'll definitely see if Hankin's gives a hometown (literally) discount since he was born and grew up there!

[OVCChairman]

12 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Well if we miss out on a NT, the issue is we came into FA with 5 positions we really needed to upgrade.  RB, WR, OG, NT, and CB.  We will have upgraded 1 of them, with a scrub signed for 1 more.  That leaves a lot to do in the draft, we have to be near perfect with our first 2 picks to not have a few massive holes this season even before injuries. As of right now this season is predicated on Receiver play improving, whatever LG we draft being starter quality year one, whatever DT we draft being starter quality year one, Moreau improving his play, one of Scandrick or Dunbar playing better than last year, either one of last years RBs playing much better or a drafted RB being starter quality year one.  Basically we are counting on a lot of people who have yet to play well enough to all do so to avoid having a poor season. The HC and personnel people better know what they are doing.

If we're looking at this realistically... they may want to truly address these positions in the draft over 2 seasons.  There has been a lot of talk about the inflated contracts being thrown around, so part of me is happy we're not signing to a deal for the sake of signing.  All of these positions, outside of OG, are serviceable right now... all are very capable of an upgrade, and in order to be more competitive all NEED an upgrade, but because we need it, I don't want to see a front office overpay for someone.  We didn't shell out an inflated contract at Brown, despite the need at the position.  That ended up serving us well it would appear.  I'm hoping now the long term understanding has started to take shape.  Kirk Cousins aside, we've been making some very good moves in the front office...  and even refusing to overpay there, despite it being our fault that we got there was a positive move itself.   We can't upgrade a whole team in 1 offseason or 1 draft unless we're in the positions the Browns were in.  Lots of money, LOTS of picks, and a new front office.  

[skinsfan212689]

Maybe we don't sign a true NT and we move back to 4-3 base.... wishful thinking. 

 

Hail...

[HigSkin]

 

[OVCChairman]

Just now, skinsfan212689 said:

Maybe we don't sign a true NT and we move back t9 4-3 base.... wishful thinking. 

 

Hail...

we ran a 4-3 more than we did a 3-4 if i'm not mistaken... the 3-4 base is just a window dressing, on Sunday we appear to have a different philosophy.  

[fordranger76]

Can someone explain the logic of passing on an expensive NT but have no problem using the number 13 pick on one? Clearly the position is over valued money wise to some so if we do not use the formation often enough to value the compensation why draft one so early? I guess I just don't get it. The draft is a gamble and that first rounder should be used on someone that's going to see the field more often yes? So why not just pay for a proven commodity in Hankins rather than waste the first rounder and overdraft someone.

[carex]

15 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

we ran a 4-3 more than we did a 3-4 if i'm not mistaken... the 3-4 base is just a window dressing, on Sunday we appear to have a different philosophy.  

 

no we ran the nickel more than the 3-4

4 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Can someone explain the logic of passing on an expensive NT but have no problem using the number 13 pick on one? Clearly the position is over valued money wise to some so if we do not use the formation often enough to value the compensation why draft one so early? I guess I just don't get it. The draft is a gamble and that first rounder should be used on someone that's going to see the field more often yes? So why not just pay for a proven commodity in Hankins rather than waste the first rounder and overdraft someone.

 

because the draft is cheaper than a free agent and at least one of the two NT people are talking about could play DE or DT on some plays

[skinny21]

30 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

The bothersome aspect of this is he "rotational" Ryan Anderson. He was a highly touted 2nd round pick, yet we don't have a spot for him. Not penciled in for ILB or OLB. Just seems to be lost in the mix after Kerrigan, Smith, Gallette/McPhee, Foster, and Brown. Fully aware that Anderson didn't make a lot of noise last year, but I'd like to see what plans Manusky has for him.

Yep to all of that.  

25 minutes ago, bedlamVR said:

Its not emblematic of the FO - It is kind of emblematic of the schitzophrenic nature of our fan base. 

 

we’re letting Garçon and Jackson walk?”   - Did either do anything of note last year? Jackson was reportedly on the bubble - Players age and at some point you need to move on, and you need to have some faith in the guys they bring along - develop your own talent .... 

You seem to be implying they wouldn’t have done anything of note with us either.  Could be true, or it could be that they’d have made a difference at (what turned out to be) our weakest position.  We were left with a slot receiver (who was off much of the year) and a bunch of youngsters that we couldn’t rely on.  We also lacked a deep threat and a reliable chain mover.  

 

 

Quote

 

Speaking of - Fuller was - let me remind everyone -  in the fans mind - a bum at the end of 2016 - people were excited about Hosley because he might beat out Fuller and Fuller might be cut - Fast forward 12 months - and Fuller was the pivotal chip in acquiring a good QB because (and please lets not go back over this - did not want or was not comming back) ... The team did not want to trade Fuller -  but would anybody be crying if this was the 2016 version of him ? Also I cannot see the KC logic in trading for a very good slot corner and then stick him out on the edge - to team with - errrr who exactly? 

I don’t really see the logic in saying if we traded Fuller after year 1 no one would be upset.  Makes zero sense.  

We also need to factor in that Fuller was recovering from his injury.  I know many of us expected a jump in play for him (though not to the level we saw) as he got healthy.  We didn’t bring in Holsey to replace Fuller, just to compete with him (if he didn’t improve) and provide depth.  Seemed the case to me anyway.  

 

Fuller might need time to adjust to the outside, but I have no doubt he can do it.  He’s got all the physical tools, the instincts and football smarts.  Can’t speak for the Chiefs reasoning overall though.  

Quote

 

Yeeeaaah ,,, i cannot defend the approach to the DL - We have some emerging talent - but then too much meh ... I think Hood could be a decent end - but injuries and lack of planning keep forcing him into that nose role .. 

 

But all teams make headscratching decisions all the time ... Now for the love of god sign Hankins 

I’d be ok with Hood at end - he was miscast as a NT.  Don’t blame them for trying on Taylor (and losing the gamble), but they should have had 1) a better backup plan, and 2) honest competition for him.  

 

 

Anyway, I understand you taking exception to the specifics I mentioned, but I am surprised you seem to disagree with the overall point.  Of course every FO makes mistakes, but ours is chock full of highs and lows.  Cheering the highs and booing the lows doesn’t make us schizophrenic fans, IMO.  Now, we are too extreme sometimes, but it’s most often a very vocal minority.  The angst, the criticism, the anger, the touchiness, etc. have increased over the last year or so, but the FO has largely brought that on themselves, mostly due to Allen’s handling of the qb position.  

 

This FO has had a hand in improving units, and weakening units.  The FOs that make more good moves than bad typically wind up with better records and more frequent playoff appearances, and the converse is also true.  We’re stuck somewhere in the middle.  Not because we trend toward solid moves, but because the highs and lows balance out.  Cut down on the lows, and we’ll be consistent contenders as opposed to only consistently competitive.  

Our highs have been mostly through the draft (which is great), but we’ve had far more lows in FA outside of Norman and Jackson (not great), and that’s in large part due to paying good money for just ok guys. These have mostly been guys that are very replaceable, to the point that starting a rookie/UDFA in their place probably wouldn’t cause much of a drop off - Reyes, Paea, Lauvao, McClain, Bruton, Scandrick, Madieu, etc., etc.  

 

I don’t like Allen because he seems too often driven by personal decisions, seems to make enemies, comes across as petty and vindictive, and sometimes seems too worried about making mistakes in FA.  I’ve said before that I like a lot this FO has done - how they’ve used the draft, extended guys, not gone nuts in FA, hired coaches (to some extent), etc. - so it’s not as though I’m vilifying them.  I just want to see Allen replaced, a touch more willingness to spend smartly in FA, and we could take that next step.  Heck, if Allen lands Hankins (even for big money), I’d applaud that because it would be against the grain for him, and it would move the meter in terms of my desire to replace him, especially if he continues to let the guys under him do the work needed and he maneuvers off that.  Alter the FA approach a bit and I could maybe live with his shadiness.  

[OVCChairman]

7 minutes ago, carex said:

 

no we ran the nickel more than the 3-4

 

Right, but still the 3-4 was not what we were in with any real frequency. 

[skinsfan212689]

Ryan Anderson would be an ideal SLB ala Marcus Washington...

[fordranger76]

5 minutes ago, carex said:

because the draft is cheaper than a free agent and at least one of the two NT people are talking about could play DE or DT on some plays

Ok I can understand that. Is it worth passing on an RB, G, Edge Rusher, Insider Backer, Safety, or Cornerback? I guess that is why I am so upset watching this all unfold. We are going to lose a chance at an impact player and get someone who is hardly on the field if we chose that in the first. A contract can be set up to get out of quickly. A high draft pick miss is much more harmful. 

[clskinsfan]

59 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

we ran a 4-3 more than we did a 3-4 if i'm not mistaken... the 3-4 base is just a window dressing, on Sunday we appear to have a different philosophy.  

Agreed. And after what Rodgers did to us when we ran our base 3-4 in the playoff game it makes sense. Knighton was EXPOSED badly.  That is the reason why I dont get all of the people freaking out and wanting us to spend big on a FA NT. None of the ones available can pass rush worth a damn. It would be a complete waste of money or a draft pick to to get one.

34 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Ok I can understand that. Is it worth passing on an RB, G, Edge Rusher, Insider Backer, Safety, or Cornerback? I guess that is why I am so upset watching this all unfold. We are going to lose a chance at an impact player and get someone who is hardly on the field if we chose that in the first. A contract can be set up to get out of quickly. A high draft pick miss is much more harmful. 

No. Its not worth it to pass on those positions for a NT.

[OVCChairman]

Just now, fordranger76 said:

Ok I can understand that. Is it worth passing on an RB, G, Edge Rusher, Insider Backer, Safety, or Cornerback? I guess that is why I am so upset watching this all unfold. We are going to lose a chance at an impact player and get someone who is hardly on the field if we chose that in the first. A contract can be set up to get out of quickly. A high draft pick miss is much more harmful. 

How is a guy like Payne or Vea not an impact player?  

[carex]

8 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Ok I can understand that. Is it worth passing on an RB, G, Edge Rusher, Insider Backer, Safety, or Cornerback? I guess that is why I am so upset watching this all unfold. We are going to lose a chance at an impact player and get someone who is hardly on the field if we chose that in the first. A contract can be set up to get out of quickly. A high draft pick miss is much more harmful. 

 

RB is rarely a first round slot these days, we can't afford another first round G unless he's some guy we can swing outside in a few years, we're three deep at the edge and frankly we've had extremely low round picks or UDFA have success there, inside backer Brown and Foster are a good team and Spaight and Vigil are decent depth, at safety Swearinger played well and Nicholson has potential, at CB I want the young guys we have to develop

 

your first two  choices are the only place I agree with you on need, and I don't want a first rounder used on them

[Thinking Skins]

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Fuller struggle a bit in the slot and going out and drafting competition there, but I’m not sure I can ever forgive them for trading away Fuller after what he showed.  

I'll say this as somebody who likes what Bruce has done in terms of getting the roster younger, when we drafted Fuller i liked it and compared it to the Breeland pick. When we played him after the other guy struggled, I applauded Gruden for playing youth. But he struggled after that Minnesota game as a rookie. So much so that Breeland was playing slot at the end of that year. 

 

We drafted Hosley, and this guy was a 7th rounder who (like Davis at WR) got a lot of praise after a good training camp. That's not saying much, but for a low round draft pick its better than nothing. 

 

I say all this because looking at the Smith trade, which I still don't like, I'll say that maybe they're confident that Hosley can replace Fuller based on what they've seen, so in their mind they're not losing as much. 

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, fordranger76 said:

Can someone explain the logic of passing on an expensive NT but have no problem using the number 13 pick on one? Clearly the position is over valued money wise to some so if we do not use the formation often enough to value the compensation why draft one so early? I guess I just don't get it. The draft is a gamble and that first rounder should be used on someone that's going to see the field more often yes? So why not just pay for a proven commodity in Hankins rather than waste the first rounder and overdraft someone.

 

Agree.   If I recall the defense ranked dead last on YPA on first down (that's when we typically are in the 3-4) and 4th worst overall.

 

If your opponents are averaging about 5 yards per carry on every obvious running down.  That's not good.  Even if its just 33% of the plays.   We are one of the rare 3-4 teams without much of a nose tackle.  Same story every season.  I guess Cofield was good for a season or two.  At some point something has to give -- there can't always be an excuse every year for why they can't stop the run.

 

 

 

 Mr ViA Retweeted

Craig Hoffman‏Verified account @CraigHoffman 11m11 minutes ago

More

Just spent 10 mins talking to Orlando Scandrick. He’s so supremely intelligent. You guys are gonna love him. He’s got a fire that’s super unique, too. Interview can be heard in parts all day on @1067theFan. Online soon, too. Full radio air on Sunday.

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Would you have rather retained Fuller and signed a guy like Sam Bradford?  Use the 14 pick, which is a critical pick for a losing team, on the 5th or 6th best QB in an iffy QB draft?  Roll with Colt?   How would you have retained Fuller and fielded a competitive team given the other QB options?

 

 

I’m not going to respond about the trade itself and other qb options - this has been beaten to death and this isn’t the place for it.  The bottom line for me is that it seems to me we went into it all or nothing.  As soon as that’s your mentality, you’ve pretty much lost the negotiation.  

 

I will say that I’d value Fuller roughly as a 1st round pick.  1st rounders have a bust rate and Fuller actually proved himself.  He’s also cheaper, so in some sense, you could maybe value him even higher.  So we lost that value.  Now we’re paying a slot corner far more than Fuller made (though at least we aren’t paying out the nose for the guy), and we’re likely still much worse at the position.  

 

The FO thinks we’re close (our qb trade plays heavily into this), so now we just need to find a starting level DL, LG, back, slot corner, and good depth at OLB with our 6 draft picks and remaining cap space.  Of course, if they’re also thinking about the future, they need to figure out a way to extend/replace Scherff, Smith and probably Crowder.  

[SWFLSkins]

 

[SemperFi Skins]

Still wish we'd at least bring Suh in for a conversation, even if it proves to be worthless..... I'd love to know what he's asking for and maybe it'll workout on both sides... Offer him the same thing we'd offer Hankins..... He's 31, sure, but still the best DT on the market

[OVCChairman]

12 minutes ago, carex said:

 

RB is rarely a first round slot these days, we can't afford another first round G unless he's some guy we can swing outside in a few years, we're three deep at the edge and frankly we've had extremely low round picks or UDFA have success there, inside backer Brown and Foster are a good team and Spaight and Vigil are decent depth, at safety Swearinger played well and Nicholson has potential, at CB I want the young guys we have to develop

 

your first two  choices are the only place I agree with you on need, and I don't want a first rounder used on them

i sat here for 5 minutes trying to say it this well.... thank you.  

[fordranger76]

13 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

No. Its not.

Missing on the number 13 pick in the draft is not as harmful? To each their own I suppose. If you reach on a player at 13 that is how you get busts. Hell even Poe was drafted high and has still yet to reach that draft slot and he never will. 

 

9 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

How is a guy like Payne or Vea not an impact player?  

A guy that can only play the run and cannot generate a pass rush is no where near as impactful as all of the above positions I just listed. No way you should pick a guy that high that doesn't do more. Especially in this defense. Later in the draft sure but not at 13. Heck I don't think either one of those guys are even the top players at the position to be honest but are getting all the love for it.

 

2 minutes ago, carex said:

 

RB is rarely a first round slot these days, we can't afford another first round G unless he's some guy we can swing outside in a few years, we're three deep at the edge and frankly we've had extremely low round picks or UDFA have success there, inside backer Brown and Foster are a good team and Spaight and Vigil are decent depth, at safety Swearinger played well and Nicholson has potential, at CB I want the young guys we have to develop

 

your first two  choices are the only place I agree with you on need, and I don't want a first rounder used on them

All of the spots I listed would be more helpful at the number 13 slot than a NT. Vea and Payne are not going to line up on the edge in passing situations. They have a history of not getting pressure on QB's in college so why would that suddenly change now? We have a nice FA nose that can be picked up right now with a contract that they can get out of quickly with cap room to spare and they are being cheap. 

 

Also if Nelson at guard, Edmunds at edge, Smith at ILB, Fitzpatrick and James at safety, Ward or Jackson at corner are on that board and we pick up a NT then that is a hilariously stupid move. Vea nor Payne compare in talent to the guys I just listed. One of those guys will be there and if we used 13 for a two down player then I don't know what else to say here. It's not smart. Bottom line is we have had several chances at addressing NT this free agency period and are being cheap and I just hope beyond hope that we do not waste that pick on one.

[Skinsinparadise]

To me, I'd be impressed and mildly surprised if the Redskins duke it out with Lions and end up with the better of the two defensive tackles in Hankins. 

 

If it goes the other way, it would fall dead on in my criticism about how they address the D line position -- echoing last years FAs at that spot.   Average.   Unless, they have something else cooking or we get lucky with another release.   IMO average D line everything being equal average at best defense -- unless the offensive is explosive.

 

On our defense thus far we've lost so far more than we gained.  IMO they have to sign at least one major guy on that side of the ball.

 

[clskinsfan]

3 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Missing on the number 13 pick in the draft is not as harmful? To each their own I suppose. If you reach on a player at 13 that is how you get busts. Hell even Poe was drafted high and has still yet to reach that draft slot and he never will. 

 

 

 

No. I was saying it is not worth passing on any other position except NT. So I was agreeing with your post :). I do not want a high dollar FA or first round NT. There is simply no value in it with the way we scheme our defense.