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

[Robbob]

40 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

First of all, I think you always want a developmental TE.  Secondly, you’re saying these guys take a year or two to develop, so doesn’t it make sense to draft one now, let them develop this year and then reevaluate next year (regarding Davis and Reed)?  Can always cut both and sign a guy... and then we also have 2 developing guys behind that FA.  If I could avoid bringing in a FA TE that brings an 8mil or whatever cap hit, I try to do that by developing draftees.   

 

I thought we already have a tight end like this with Sprinkle.

[Skins199021]

Hard to Stomach that we got older and same production at best at the QB spot and older and worse production at the CB spot, and at the cost of a 3rd round pick.

 

 

Sign Hankins and make me think the team is going to get better, I don't care for them pocketing money

[tchrpe1]

Hankins is going to have to lower his asking price. Wanting the same deal he got last year with Indy is a pipe dream.  Look how well that turned out for him. On his third team in three years. The only visit he has had to my recollection is with us. He needs to quit listening to that agent of his and make a decision that isn’t solely monetary in nature.

[RWJ]

3 minutes ago, tchrpe1 said:

Hankins is going to have to lower his asking price. Wanting the same deal he got last year with Indy is a pipe dream.  Look how well that turned out for him. On his third team in three years. The only visit he has had to my recollection is with us. He needs to quit listening to that agent of his and make a decision that isn’t solely monetary in nature.

He visited Detroit too but they signed Sylvester Williams.

[dcdiscokid]

21 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Hard to Stomach that we got older and same production at best at the QB spot and older and worse production at the CB spot, and at the cost of a 3rd round pick.

 

 

Sign Hankins and make me think the team is going to get better, I don't care for them pocketing money

Whos says QB play the same, JG said we will be better, so... Obviously show on field, but they think they are better...

[markmills67]

14 minutes ago, tchrpe1 said:

Hankins is going to have to lower his asking price. Wanting the same deal he got last year with Indy is a pipe dream.  Look how well that turned out for him. On his third team in three years. The only visit he has had to my recollection is with us. He needs to quit listening to that agent of his and make a decision that isn’t solely monetary in nature.

The Colts have changed from a 3-4 defensive front to a 4-3, that's why they released Hankins. 4 years,  $30m with $14 guaranteed should do it.

 

HTTR 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 if you listen to his whole quote he flat out said the team president should be judged by his W-L record.  He started with the QB, then said everyone from the team equipment guy to the team president should be judged by the W-L record.  I don't know if that was him trying to recover from the QB comment but he actually put himself in the conversation too as to how he should be judged by their W-L record.  If so, on the aggregate its abysmal. 

 

 

He actually started off with the equipment manager:

 

"Wins and losses is the most important statistic when it comes to the equipment manager, team president, quarterback, running back, a guard..."

[MartinC]

3 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

The Colts have changed from a 3-4 defensive front to a 4-3, that's why they released Hankins. 4 years,  $30m with $14 guaranteed should do it.

 

HTTR 

 

You play with a 3 tech and 5 tech in a 4-3. In a 4-3 under front you can even have a 1 tech.

 

Hankins can play all those spots just as well in a 4-3 as he can in a 3-4.

 

Reports are what’s changed is the Colts want to switch from a 2 gap to more attacking ‘get up field’ 1 gap scheme.

 

We mainly play 1 gap. Certainly in sub and also quite a bit in base. Are we sure he’s such a good fit?

 

I think what’s also happened though is they didn’t want to pay 9M per for someone who was

not really a big factor against the pass. Nor apparently do we.

[chris_c_19960]

Has Coach Callahan resigned or been extended . I know  focus has been more on the players but what is the news about Callahan ? I would still hope that we offer contract to Hankins and cross my fingers he would choose us. 

[dcdiscokid]

So on a different topic, I swear if next year goes in the tank and everyone gets fired, can we please switch back to a 4-3... the fact you need special parts and convert people is ludicrous... Just run the big boy defense...

[MartinC]

15 minutes ago, dcdiscokid said:

So on a different topic, I swear if next year goes in the tank and everyone gets fired, can we please switch back to a 4-3... the fact you need special parts and convert people is ludicrous... Just run the big boy defense...

 

We are in 3-4 base around 10% of snaps. We are in nickel 60% of snaps and normally in a 4 man line. 

 

When we are in base it’s often a 3-4 under which is almost exactly the same defense as a 4-3 under - difference is one guy in a 2 point stance as opposed to having his hand in the dirt.

 

1 gap or 2 gap is a much bigger philosophical decision than odd or even front.

[dcdiscokid]

9 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

We are in 3-4 base around 10% of snaps. We are in nickel 60% of snaps and normally in a 4 man line. 

 

When we are in base it’s often a 3-4 under which is almost exactly the same defense as a 4-3 under - difference is one guy in a 2 point stance as opposed to having his hand in the dirt.

 

1 gap or 2 gap is a much bigger philosophical decision than odd or even front.

I get that, but this hybrid bs isnt working, rather switch back to a more traditional defense where your not asking guys to change, or need the rare entity that is a NT... And seems to be a trend actually as more teams switching back to 4-3 base with the new coach hires...

[MartinC]

21 minutes ago, dcdiscokid said:

I get that, but this hybrid bs isnt working, rather switch back to a more traditional defense where your not asking guys to change, or need the rare entity that is a NT... And seems to be a trend actually as more teams switching back to 4-3 base with the new coach hires...

 

Almost all the league are in hybrid fronts these days. 

 

But given we are in a 4 man line in sub I’m not sure why we persist with a 3-4 base when it’s only 10-15% of snaps anyway.

 

But again the 4/3 versus 3/4 is an overdone debate. 1 gap v 2 gap is far more impactful on the personnel you need and the scheme and play calling.

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Robbob said:

 

I thought we already have a tight end like this with Sprinkle.

Absolutely.  My point is that while you continue to develop him and hope he can earn the #3, #2 or #1 (unlikely as it is), you bring another young guy along.

 

Next year you lose/get rid of Reed, Davis or both, have your 2 younger TEs that now have some experience, and add a guy either through FA or the draft, depending on where the young guys stand (and if you hold onto Davis one more year*).  

 

* this sounds crazy, but who knows... the dude doesn’t seem to age, lol.  

 

@MartinCI know I’m one that gets caught up in the DT vs NT vs DE, as opposed to techniques.  Personally, I just want a stout Dline.  I think Allen and Ioannidas are good, balanced linemen; in terms of adding another guy to the rotation, I’d lean toward a run stuffer over a rusher (if we have to choose) because we have 1) Lanier to sub for them, and 2) good pass rushers at the other line positions.  I say Hankins because he fits that role, is young, and it opens up the draft for us.  He also commands doubles, and while he won’t win them consistently, his presence helps the others.  Without him, I’m concerned the FO is more likely to make a mistake in the draft, and there’s more of a chance that mistake snowballs.  

[SkinsFTW]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

He actually started off with the equipment manager:

 

"Wins and losses is the most important statistic when it comes to the equipment manager, team president, quarterback, running back, a guard..."

 

And considering he's already gone through

 

Mcnabb (winner)

Grossman (winner)

Beck

RG3

McCoy

Cousins

 

And soon Smith (winner)

 

The dude is a proven loser. He's almost guaranteed to lose with Smith as well but will he be fired?

 

Just like in Tampa where they went through about 10 QBs in 5 years and at least 1 of those was a winner too.

 

At least Tampa eventually fired this loser. We're stuck with him like he's Marvin Lewis or Jeff Fiaher (who he's actually outlasted already)

[MartinC]

13 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

@MartinCI know I’m one that gets caught up in the DT vs NT vs DE, as opposed to techniques.  Personally, I just want a stout Dline. 

 

I hear you. We all do - and we all understand we have to be much better against the run.

 

I agree Hankins would help us against the run. But for a guy who would likely be off the field on obvious passing situations it’s hard to pay the kind of money ($9M per) he is reported to be asking.

[Mr.Will]

Gotta Question..whatcha think at grabbing D.Guice 13???..only if NT is addressed at some point before the draft??..watching highlights(and yeah,they’re only “highlights”)but man,I’d love to have that kid on our squad!!..he’s such a beast,not only running by but actually Thru guys trying to tackle em!!..????

[skinny21]

14 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I hear you. We all do - and we all understand we have to be much better against the run.

 

I agree Hankins would help us against the run. But for a guy who would likely be off the field on obvious passing situations it’s hard to pay the kind of money ($9M per) he is reported to be asking.

Yeah, that’s fair enough.  

 

Personally, I think he’s probably worth it.  Sub Lanier in on passing downs (or an OLB).  Cover all 3 downs and financially, Lanier plus Hankins would = less than 10 mil.  

 

There’s a risk that teams pull a hurry up on us, but I’m not so concerned with Hankins in that department.  He doesn’t get many sacks, but he does push the pocket (and he’s used to playing a lot of snaps), so he can still be an asset to our OLBs/D.  

 

Ironically, NFL.com’s player comparison was Terrence Knighton, lol.   

 

@Mr.WillI wouldn’t mind.  He’s a freaking stud.  Still allows us to get what we want in the 2nd.  Of course, there’s a lot more to the situation... I’d check out the draft thread - it’s been discussed a fair amount there.  

[Malapropismic Depository]

On 3/24/2018 at 2:22 PM, Taylorcooley1 said:

It's Nancy not Nellie u silly..

 

On 3/24/2018 at 9:29 PM, Fat Stupid Loser said:

I think this is wrong. Pretty sure it's Nellie.  I took a poll around the house and everyone said Nellie.

 

So, by this logic, it means that anyone who is upset about the signing of Pernell McPhee, is a Negative PerNellie

[Mr.Will]

What’s the thoughts on,oh never mind 

[Malapropismic Depository]

19 minutes ago, Mr.Will said:

What’s the thoughts on Cravens??

 

That would be too much to sum up in just one post.

There's 56 pages of thoughts on Cravens

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/415682-per-schefter-sua-cravens-considering-retirement/

 

 

[Mr.Will]

7 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

That would be too much to sum up in just one post.

There's 56 pages of thoughts on Cravens

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/415682-per-schefter-sua-cravens-considering-retirement/

 

 

Yeah,yeah I know!!..was just on this page with a thought an was interested in any other quick comments to the question(without the “Thread Police” pointing out another page)..there were ppl logged into this one an simply was throwing something out to a group who had posted something within the last 8hrs ago unlike that page was doing,but thx!!

[turtle]

any word yet on contract numbers for McPhee?

[Malapropismic Depository]

25 minutes ago, Mr.Will said:

Yeah,yeah I know!!..was just on this page with a thought an was interested in any other quick comments to the question(without the “Thread Police” pointing out another page)

 

Trust me, I was not being snarky or being thread police. Because I honestly thought you didn't know about that thread, since I got the impression you were very new here.

If I knew you knew about the thread, I wouldn't have posted that. And if I did, it wouldn't have had a happy face.

[Mr.Will]

16 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

Trust me, I was not being snarky or being thread police. Because I honestly thought you didn't know about that thread, since I got the impression you were very new here.

If I knew you knew about the thread, I wouldn't have posted that. And if I did, it wouldn't have had a happy face.

Then I do apologize,due to the fact I am new on here..I actually saw it After I had posted my question-but all good bruh..I was simply throwing a question out there on a topic that’s been bugging me-but you were definitely right..56 whole pages of the exact question..good looking out!!?