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

[carex]

I remember when Snyder bought the right to an Arena League team.  That would be the place to stick a guy like this

[oraphus]

6 hours ago, JaxJoe said:

If Hankins is still available post-draft, I think his stock goes down and maybe we can sign him at a lower offer.  Personally, I'd like to sign him for a multi-year and I can't figure out what cap voodoo Allen & company are conjuring regarding the one-year signing rumors. It's not like Hankins is old.

 

Another angle Allen might be playing is: saving his money to sign a left guard that is a victim of a post-draft cut and he knows this may cost him $5M-$7M.  Who knows? I certainly don't.

 Something has got to be up with Hankins... maybe he is locker room cancer. Colts got rid of him after just one year and no-one else is giving him a contract either. Maybe he lacked motivation after he got paid. Only reason i can think of for why skins would only want him for one year.

[Est.1974]

Last year it became apparent that we loved Allen and Anderson. The second round selection of Anderson almost became a lock. I can see the same with Billy Price. I think we get hit at #44 or trade up slightly using a future pick to get him.

 

At this stage, I think I'd also prefer we just sit at #13 and take the best on offer. We are well set to get a damn good prospect.

[nonniey]

55 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Last year it became apparent that we loved Allen and Anderson. The second round selection of Anderson almost became a lock. I can see the same with Billy Price. I think we get hit at #44 or trade up slightly using a future pick to get him.

 

At this stage, I think I'd also prefer we just sit at #13 and take the best on offer. We are well set to get a damn good prospect.

Wrong thread but you don't trade up for Price unless he drops into the 3rd round. He should be available to us if we trade a down a bit in the 2d.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, oraphus said:

 Something has got to be up with Hankins... maybe he is locker room cancer. Colts got rid of him after just one year and no-one else is giving him a contract either. Maybe he lacked motivation after he got paid. Only reason i can think of for why skins would only want him for one year.

 

Actually he's known to be a really good locker room guy, I've read that in multiple places.  Sounds like the drill with him is length of contract and money. Last year he held out for a contract right through the equivalent of the end of this recall if I recall.

 

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/Is-Johnathan-Hankins-Ready-To-Walk-His-Talk/9d05d70a-5b94-428f-a334-2e64eb9c113e
The Colts brought Hankins in to change the perception of defensive football in Indianapolis.

That has trickled to off the field as well.

“I’m working on being more of a leader and having that confidence that you have to have,” Hankins, 25, says.

“If you don’t set goals or high goals, what are you working for? I feel like that was necessary for me to do that, especially with the new GM and the new atmosphere they want around here. Just have to go out there and prove that.”
 

[Skinsinparadise]

I think this article is premature because I still think they are poised to make a move but if they don't I agree with the premise of this article. I am chilled either way though.  If they have a good season -- that's always my top desire in any context.  If they don't ultimately make another move in FA -- and they have a mediocre to bad season, it likely spells the end for Bruce.  And for me that would be losing the battle to win the war.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2018/04/09/redskins-are-preaching-patience-but-offseason-looks-more-like-stagnation/?utm_term=.c37529e8e5a2

Redskins are preaching patience, but offseason looks more like stagnation

 

The record speaks for itself — the Washington Redskins are 64-95-1 in the last 10 seasons and haven’t won a playoff game since 2005. The organization has finished last in the NFC East six times in the past decade and in third place twice. The win total has dropped each of the last two years.

 

Coming off a 7-9 record in 2017 and with just one playoff appearance in five seasons, improving the roster would seem to be imperative, particularly for a franchise in which changes to coaching staffs and executives have often followed failure. But as the offseason continues, the Redskins’ approach to retooling the roster cannot be called aggressive, and the limited activity in free agency has some observers concerned the organization isn’t taking steps to address its shortcomings.

 

...While the team’s patient approach may prevent it from overspending or offering a bad contract, the remaining free agent talent may not offer much of an upgrade. In general, the roster has gotten a little older with the additions but also now has more winning experience. The average age of the departures is 27.1 compared with 28.6 for the additions.

 

Using the grades of Pro Football Focus for comparisons, the Redskins haven’t exactly improved on paper, and it’s difficult to see any clear talent upgrades to a team that finished with a sub-.500 record last season.

[Thinking Skins]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

...While the team’s patient approach may prevent it from overspending or offering a bad contract, the remaining free agent talent may not offer much of an upgrade. In general, the roster has gotten a little older with the additions but also now has more winning experience. The average age of the departures is 27.1 compared with 28.6 for the additions.

That's a premature evaluation because the youth comes from the draft. Most guys coming off a rookie contract are going to be at least 24 or 25, so there's not much opportunity to get younger through free agency. Plus the guys we brought in have been mostly reserves and people battling for roster spots. The key question becomes how many of our day 2, day 3 and UDFA draft picks are going to make the roster and be contributors? One portion of that is simply how many day 2, day 3 and UDFA picks will we have. Scot liked to have 10 picks and 10 UDFAs, so with an average age of 21 that'll make the 90 man roster way younger.

 

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Using the grades of Pro Football Focus for comparisons, the Redskins haven’t exactly improved on paper, and it’s difficult to see any clear talent upgrades to a team that finished with a sub-.500 record last season.

And I'll quarrel with this one too because PFF - as good or bad as you want to make it - only looks at a season and historical perspective. By PFF standards we would have been crap at slot corner in 2017 because we had Fuller slated to start there and he had a mediocre to bad season, but he did make a second year improvement.

 

I stand by my perspective that we're going to see others make similar jumps, and the coaches will know a lot more about who's closer to that improvement than PFF or an outside news source (even the beat reporters, but they'd be more likely than anybody else that reports to the fans). Does that mean we don't need to make a move to improve the team? I think that's more about who's available and a contrast of their value vs those guys on our team. Can Jared Allen become an Aaron Donald? Can Nicholson become a dominant FS? What's going to happen with Anderson? Will Lanier improve against the run? There are a lot of questions, and for a team that finished 7-9 and 2 plays away from 9-7, I don't think there's a need to blow the team up and make massive changes.

[fordranger76]

I still don't understand the logic of having a legit nose sitting there in FA and one of the younger better ones and we don't get him locked up. I still think Bruce is too cheap for his own good. Signing Hankins would free up the draft pick, solidify the line, and allow us to target game changers. Do not care for how this FA has progressed at all.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

That's a premature evaluation because the youth comes from the draft. Most guys coming off a rookie contract are going to be at least 24 or 25, so there's not much opportunity to get younger through free agency. Plus the guys we brought in have been mostly reserves and people battling for roster spots.

 

There really aren't that many guys they've brought in period, I guess Scandrick is a depth guy.  McPhee is a little younger than Galette.  Alex is older than Kirk.  Richardson is if I recall about the same age as Grant.

 

Personally, I agree with the premature drill not just about the age but the whole take they got.  I am just saying if they surprise (and I genuinely would be surprised if so) and basically rest with this FA crop then its a statement IMO that we are good now.  And if Bruce's job is truly on the line and he ends up wrong on this count its almost the perfect storm to lead to his canning.

 

As much as I'd LOVE to see Bruce reassigned the heck out of personnel.  I am not rooting though for him to be wrong.  Hopefully. they know what they are doing.   And again, I think a signing is coming.  Bruce more or less telegraphed that it will -- he suggested that he's waiting for an interesting cut of a player.  Typically you got some interesting cuts after the draft.

 

As for Hankins, I am pessimistic but hey heck as Jay said you never know.  To me personally, I think its an odd off season, if they successfully address DT and RB either in FA or the draft -- they will have a good year.  If they successfully address just one of the two items, i think its an 8-8 kind of team.  To me the D line is on the brink of being  good or bad -- one run stuffing player is the missing link.   It's a depth position.  It's a rotational position.   And I think the running game will stagnate with our current crop -- but will take off if they draft someone like Guice.  

1.  
2. Pro Football Focus‏Verified account @PFF 34m34 minutes ago

   More

   It's always Snacks SZN!

   

[bedlamVR]

I am thinking the Hankins situation is increasingly strange. I am really not a fan of the Potsons at all - Buuuuuut  I am not sure how you can still be an agent a take a guy who - was a fairly hot commodity; wait for the money and starting positions to dry up and watch teams turn their attention fully to the draft not once but twice  - 

 

I think Jonathan did fairly well for himself 10 million for one year - buuuut He would have been on somewhere near 8.5 this year - Right now he is on nothing the draft which is deep for the interior d-line is right around the corner  - seems like a miscalculation from hism his agents part - I would suspect he would be hard pressed right now to get a one year deal anywhere near 8.5...

 

I find it interesting that he is looking for a multi-year deal again - (I am wondering if that might be due to the agent taking his cut on the size of the overall contract) - if I was him I would try and make sure my agent doesn't agree to something that is essentially a series of 1 year deals making him super expendable when budgets come around. 

 

[Thinking Skins]

I was hinting at this in the Bruce Allen thread, but I really wonder if we would have this same negative opinion of the scouting department if we had AJ Smith as our head of personnel instead of Bruce/Scot/Kyle/Doug/Eric. AJ Smith has a history of building teams through the draft and being one of the top GMs in the game, was known to find talent in UDFAs. But he's not our GM. His son has a high role in scouting. How good is his son though? How similar is he to his father? How much do they talk about tape? And even though AJ Smith is not a consultant any more, is he one by second hand in the father son relationship?

 

I don't know, maybe this is a grasping for straws, but I feel like our personnel department is lacking a name like Scot (or AJ Smith) and because of that they're more likely to be criticized as not knowing what they're doing. But if there were a big name making these moves, I feel like there'd be a lot less complaining going on.

 

EDIT: I'll just add that there was a whole movement going on 2 years ago called "In Scot we trust" basically agreeing with this principle, that because Scot is a big name we agree with whatever move he makes. Bruce/Eric/Doug/Kyle is not a big enough or well respected enough of a name so we are more likely to criticize them.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't know, maybe this is a grasping for straws, but I feel like our personnel department is lacking a name like Scot (or AJ Smith) and because of that they're more likely to be criticized as not knowing what they're doing. But if there were a big name making these moves, I feel like there'd be a lot less complaining going on.

 

We've come to find out over time that whether its Scot or Doug touted as the guy in charge of personnel, it's Bruce that really calls the shots at the end of the day.  So I'm not sure what it would really matter if there was a big name in there.  Until Bruce is entirely removed from football operations, I don't think anyone will ever trust the guy with the title - big name or little name.  Another difference is that we've seen a decade of Bruce and all he did before he ended up in Washington.  If he had a track record of building successful football teams, he'd have more rope from the fan base.  The issue is that he doesn't, he's actually a big name with little results.

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

We've come to find out over time that whether its Scot or Doug touted as the guy in charge of personnel, it's Bruce that really calls the shots at the end of the day.  So I'm not sure what it would really matter if there was a big name in there.  Until Bruce is entirely removed from football operations, I don't think anyone will ever trust the guy with the title - big name or little name.  Another difference is that we've seen a decade of Bruce and all he did before he ended up in Washington.  If he had a track record of building successful football teams, he'd have more rope from the fan base.  The issue is that he doesn't, he's actually a big name with little results.

 

Yeah its not like hey we liked what's going on but Bruce's name is attached to the off seasons so we frown on it.  The cool thing about this thread in particular is that its very organic.  We lay out what we want typically in advance so if the GM does what we advocate we like it and if he doesn't we don't.

 

Building a team is a mix of things not just one thing.  Being basically conservative and relatively ineffective in FA (19% hit rate as it was shown) -- can't be ignored with blanket statements, hey we are draft people now or whatever IMO.  Howie Roseman and Belichick are cases in point.  They make trades.  They know how to get capital for their assets.  They play FA aggressively when they choose.  They move up and down in the draft.  They secure the in house players they need to often before their market gets out of hand.   They play every angle hard.  They are far from perfect but they got everything in their arsenal. 

 

Can we imagine the Eagles getting a 3rd round comp for Kirk?  If they can get a 1st and a 4th rounder for Bradford imagine Kirk?  I am using hyperbole to make a point but it feels like our FO is playing checkers while the really great teams are playing chess and are a few moves ahead.  And again not that our FO stinks, they are OK IMO, so so, but I don't see this approach taking them to the Superbowl ever. 

 

There are a lot of moving parts to build a successful franchise.   IMO It's going hardcore and smart on ALL fronts.   As for who are the guys working under Bruce.  I do think they have some good ones.  But the actual guy in charge sets the direction of the team not his underlings.  Kyle Smith isn't symphonizing the whole team -- he's not doing FA, deciding what to do with Kirk, the cap, etc.  Smith goes to Bruce and says these are who I think you should draft and then goes back to his corner.  

 

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/09/nfl-draft-prospects-gil-brandt-dallas-mmqb-peter-king

The Super Bowl champions’ plans: “I don’t know what [the Eagles] are going to do, but I have been amazed at their presence everywhere at these pro days. I told [general manager] Howie Roseman, ‘You must have an unlimited scouting budget—and I think you’ve exceeded it.’ They’ve had coaches and scouts everywhere. They don’t act like they just won the Super Bowl. They act like they’re dying just to make the playoffs.”

  

[Thinking Skins]

28 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

We've come to find out over time that whether its Scot or Doug touted as the guy in charge of personnel, it's Bruce that really calls the shots at the end of the day.  So I'm not sure what it would really matter if there was a big name in there.  Until Bruce is entirely removed from football operations, I don't think anyone will ever trust the guy with the title - big name or little name.  Another difference is that we've seen a decade of Bruce and all he did before he ended up in Washington.  If he had a track record of building successful football teams, he'd have more rope from the fan base.  The issue is that he doesn't, he's actually a big name with little results.

 

Its funny, you can say that but our FO moves have gotten better during Bruce's tenure. Maybe it's the removal of Shanahan, but 2014 onward sees us looking a lot better than 2009 - 2014. So I don't see this as a with Bruce vs without Bruce. Even if Scot didn't have final say, that 2014 draft was better than any draft Bruce has had here. The 2016 draft looks really good, especially the lower round picks. Last year looks decent. He's got to be listening to somebody. And if he's not then maybe he's done what people are saying that Schaffer did, which is get good on personnel. I don't know but I have a lot more faith in our moves since 2014 vs the ones beforehand.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Its funny, you can say that but our FO moves have gotten better during Bruce's tenure. Maybe it's the removal of Shanahan, but 2014 onward sees us looking a lot better than 2009 - 2014. So I don't see this as a with Bruce vs without Bruce. Even if Scot didn't have final say, that 2014 draft was better than any draft Bruce has had here. The 2016 draft looks really good, especially the lower round picks. Last year looks decent. He's got to be listening to somebody. And if he's not then maybe he's done what people are saying that Schaffer did, which is get good on personnel. I don't know but I have a lot more faith in our moves since 2014 vs the ones beforehand.

Sure, Bruce gets credit for taking the roster from an F to a C.  This is where I think the argument gets lost.  We aren't saying Bruce Allen is literally the biggest idiot of all time.  He's just 'meh'.  'Meh' is better than what we've had in the past.

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Building a team is a mix of things not just one thing.  Being basically conservative and relatively ineffective in FA (19% hit rate as it was shown) -- can't be ignored with blanket statements, hey we are draft people now or whatever IMO.  Howie Roseman and Belichick are cases in point.  They make trades.  They know how to get capital for their assets.  They play FA aggressively when they choose.  They move up and down in the draft.  They secure the in house players they need to often before their market gets out of hand.   They play every angle hard.  They are far from perfect but they got everything in their arsenal. 

I know you like these guys but they are not the only way to build a team. Ron Wolf has a whole set of former scouts and now GMs in the league who have a different philosophy that relies on the draft with minimal influence from free agency. And just like everybody who dives into FA doesn't get the same kind of returns as Roseman and Belichick, everybody who has the draft investment doesn't finish last in their division. Heck, the Packers had one of the most conservative FA approaches ever and they won 2 SBs in that time. They have made the playoffs in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007, etc. This is not some run of the mil, last place philosophy. And not only that, but we've seen the branches of this tree, one branch being Scot. Others aren't direct branches but have adapted the philosophy. So if I were to call this a Ron Wolf approach to FA, I think it would give it a much more positive spin. Problem is that people think its blasphemy to use Ron Wolf and Bruce Allen in the same sentence, so Bruce is just a laughing matter and we're not doing enough.

13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Sure, Bruce gets credit for taking the roster from an F to a C.  This is where I think the argument gets lost.  We aren't saying Bruce Allen is literally the biggest idiot of all time.  He's just 'meh'.  'Meh' is better than what we've had in the past.

 

 

But its a process. Just like most players don't become all pros right out of college, let the roster develop. For once we have depth at most positions. Now we can have an actual roster competition at these spots and say that our team is getting better because the guys we cut are getting signed elsewhere. One way to look at this offseason is that we lost guys like Murphy, Grant and Long, but I'd say that guys who were not good enough to make our roster got PAID elsewhere. That's something that Philly did in the early 200s, and GB has been doing for 20 years.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

17 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

One way to look at this offseason is that we lost guys like Murphy, Grant and Long, but I'd say that guys who were not good enough to make our roster got PAID elsewhere. That's something that Philly did in the early 200s, and GB has been doing for 20 years.

You're of the belief that Murphy, Grant and Long aren't good enough to make our roster?  Perhaps not at the price they got paid but right here today all 3 are absolutely good enough to grab a spot on this roster.  We shall see how well Bruce's 'each player has a value, and we won't budge' approach works but right now it looks like a team with a lot of depth and no star power.

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

You're of the belief that Murphy, Grant and Long aren't good enough to make our roster?  Perhaps not at the price they got paid but right here today all 3 are absolutely good enough to grab a spot on this roster.  We shall see how well Bruce's 'each player has a value, and we won't budge' approach works but right now it looks like a team with a lot of depth and no star power.

Yeah, Murphy got beat out by Preston Smith. Long got replaced by Rougher and with little loss in production. Grant was a decent player but shouldn't have cracked this WR core, even in a depleted state. Harris beat him out in 2016.

[HardcoreZorn]

@Thinking Skins Some great points and pretty much echoes exactly what I’ve been thinking. For the first time in the Dan Snyder era, we now rely on in house replacements. Guys that we’ve drafted and are developing. Ioanidis and Fuller were not key cogs going into last season. They ended up emergining and being really good players for us last year.  I’m sure the expectation is that guys like Anderson, Moreau, Roullier, Davis, Harvey Clemons build off quiet rookie seasons and become key components of our roster, thus negating the need to go out and sign a bunch of guys. Guys like Doctson and Allen will be expected to take that next step in their development and become the high impact guys everyone claims we don’t have. AND we are in such a unique position with pick 13 this year with all of these QBs slotted to go before us. We legitimately have the chance to add a top 5-8 talent. A real difference maker. The more I think about it, the more I really hope we stay put and add a high impact guy. Only other scenario id be okay with it trading back a bit and adding an impact back like Guice. Though I still wouldn’t hate Guice at 13.

 

Anyways, Philly is the flavor of the month. Next year if the Steelers win it, there will be a copious amount of articles written about building through the draft, developing homegrown guys, and steering clear of overpriced FAs. Narratives change in the blink of an eye in this league. Holding out hope for Hankins still though. Think he makes too much sense. Doesn’t count against comp picks, frees up the draft, solves a huge need. But overall I’m totally okay letting free agency pass us by for the most part. I’d hate to make it hard to sign guys like Smith and Scherff because we went all in on a few high priced impact guys from other teams. That’s old Dan Snyder, and that got us absolutely no where over the years. I respect the approach and am willing to see this thing play out. 

[kingdaddy]

43 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Yeah, Murphy got beat out by Preston Smith. Long got replaced by Rougher and with little loss in production. Grant was a decent player but shouldn't have cracked this WR core, even in a depleted state. Harris beat him out in 2016.

Need to see if McPhee is better than Junior too....we may never know. I do think the Skins got some good players out of last years draft class...Looks like they may be counting on several of them by the way they're treating this year in free agency.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I know you like these guys but they are not the only way to build a team.

 

I disagree unless you are just amazing at one thing like the Steelers in the draft or GB for finding insanely good QBs and receivers. And the new regime in GB has abandoned the draft or bust approach. Aaron Rodgers has been openly imploring them to be more aggressive for years.  They are more aggressive now in FA than we are. 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

And just like everybody who dives into FA doesn't get the same kind of returns as Roseman and Belichick, everybody who has the draft investment doesn't finish last in their division.

 

Like I said it doesn't have to be some wild extreme one or another. There is nuance to these points.  My whole point is building a team is complex and multilayered.  You got multiple engines humming.  That's what impresses me about Roseman and Belichick. 

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

IThis is not some run of the mil, last place philosophy.

 

"run of the mill" and "last place" are entirely different things.

 

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

So if I were to call this a Ron Wolf approach to FA, I think it would give it a much more positive spin. Problem is that people think its blasphemy to use Ron Wolf and Bruce Allen in the same sentence, so Bruce is just a laughing matter and we're not doing enough.

But its a process. 

 

It is laughable IMO.  And laughable to me is an understatement especially when you compare Wolf and Bruce's backgrounds.  One is likely a hall of famer and the other is a league wide punch line.

 

If Bruce starts drafting like Ron Wolf I'll be on your board with your point.  Instead of trading the farm for McNabb, RG3 he drafts himself Aaron Rodgers, etc -- then we are cooking with oil.

 

This process is about to go on year "9".  I give Bruce a break in that the off season isn't over.  My gut is there will be some moves coming we are going to like.  But I disagree on the notion, everyone should just sit back, Bruce has a plan just be patient and wait for it to unfold.  If so we've been waiting and waiting and waiting plenty. 

 

Just having fun below -- old 80s show I used to like

 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

@Skinsinparadise

 

I hate to say this because it will only make you think I like Bruce even more, and I’m embarrassed, but this nonsense about year 9 with Bruce is hogwash. Shanny was in charge for 4 of them and even if Scott didn’t have final say on certain matters, his imprints are all over this roster too. To act like Bruce has been leading the charge for 9 straight years is not painting a very accurate picture. If anything, Bruce has overseen the best three year stretch in Dan Snyder’s tenure and is responsible for bringing in the best coach this franchise has had in quite some time (excluding Gibbs II). 

[Thinking Skins]

55 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Like I said it doesn't have to be some wild extreme one or another. There is nuance to these points.  My whole point is building a team is complex and multilayered.  You got multiple engines humming.  That's what impresses me about Roseman and Belichick. 

But this is where I keep disagreeing with you. That's your opinion. It may not be Bruce's, but that doesn't make it wrong. Whether or not the Packers have changed philosophies now, their philosophy for the last 20+ years has been the draft, The Draft, THE DRAFT and they were successful doing that. I wish we could win 2 SBs in the next 25 years with a similar philosophy.

 

And its not that Bruce isn't active, its that (1) according to some he's not active enough and (2) when he is active, he's active on the wrong guys. But I one thing to say that you or I is smarter than Bruce at scouting (I wouldn't say that, but there are those in DC that think he's a doofis who can't tie his own shoes (like Eric Bickel)). Its another thing to say that we are better than their entire scouting department. We've seen already how wrong this board was when everybody was asking for us to get another FA safety last year, calling DJ a SS who couldn't play free and they said that Nicholson was gonna be a bust. Even the scouts across the league said he was nothing, couldn't hit and didn't have the instincts and that we picked him too early. But his first game showed his skills and when he was back there he was our solution at FS. And this was after YEARS of not being able to draft a FS or sign a good one in FA. So why can't we have the same thing again?

 

You say you're tired of the same story, but that's how life works. You try, try and try again. You're trying to buy a house, you put in an offer. If its not accepted, you try again. You could just put in an offer way over your budget that beats out the competition, but you could also say, "well, we'll have to find another dream house" and get your bearings together for another offer the next year. And eventually you'll either find the right one or you keep trying.

 

It happens with homework and understanding stuff in classes. You do the work and get it wrong, do it again and get it wrong again, keep doing it, keep getting it wrong until one day you didn't get it wrong. Maybe you got lucky, but hopefully a light went off and you understand what you were doing wrong so that next time a question like that one comes up on the test you can knock it out of the park.

 

And as a parent, I've got to deal with this. I see my son making mistakes and I want to do the work for him because he's making the same mistakes. I can't fire my son. I'm going to try to be patient and understand what he's doing wrong and try to help him find resources to improve.

 

And saying Bruce is not like Wolf for things done before 2014 is ignoring my argument. My statement is that since 2014 we've seen an entirely different scouting department. That's when he first started working with Scot. I think that's when we hired AJ Smith as a consultant (March of 2013). So the McNabb and RG3 moves are pre this philosophy. If you want to argue that Alex Smith isn't this philosophy then I'd say you have an argument.

 

But this philosophy has brought us from winning 7 games in 2 seasons to averaging 8 wins across the last 3. I know its not where we want to be, but its growth. And I think this same growth that brought us to an 8 win average will bring us to a double digit average over the next 3 or so seasons as these players grow together and learn to depend on one another more.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

@Skinsinparadise

 

I hate to say this because it will only make you think I like Bruce even more

 

People naturally can like who they like and to each their own on that front.  I've probably debated Thinking Skins at this point hundreds of times but its not personal on my end.  I get his position although I disagree with the core of his point -- I do agree with some of the fundamentals he pushes.  There is consistency to his position and he owns it. 

 

It came off different with you purely for this reason I recall your posts in the Kirk thread where you used the premise in a heavy handed way of being someone who doesn't like Bruce as much as anyone else on the thread and that specific premise gives you credibility to defend Bruce's actions on Kirk since you take him on just about everything else.  So each time that umbrella widens it catches my attention.   But anyway you addressed that so I get where you are coming from 

 

Everything Bruce does isn't dumb or brilliant -- I think both groups (Bruce defenders and critics) all cover that.  It's the issue of the whole soup, as a whole is this the right guy or not to run the team.  Do you want to see him stay or go?  I think that's the easiest way to define his defenders and critics.  I want to see him go.  And its not a tough decision for me.  It's slam dunk, easy for me.  and its not because I struggle to see the whole soup.  I can recount the things that I like that he's done.  But its like judging any CEO type -- as a whole looking at pluses and minuses where do you land...

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I hate to say this because it will only make you think I like Bruce even more, and I’m embarrassed, but this nonsense about year 9 with Bruce is hogwash. Shanny was in charge for 4 of them and even if Scott didn’t have final say on certain matters, his imprints are all over this roster too. To act like Bruce has been leading the charge for 9 straight years is not painting a very accurate picture. If anything, Bruce has overseen the best three year stretch in Dan Snyder’s tenure and is responsible for bringing in the best coach this franchise has had in quite some time (excluding Gibbs II). 

 

I get the point and IMO there is something to it.  However, Bruce was at least part of the soup then depending on the narrative you want to buy into.  At the very least he has always been described as the guy that determines compensation and makes the deal.  If you listen to Shanny's version of the McNabb deal -- that wasn't his deal, he didn't want it.  The three #1'a and a #2 for RG3 -- was likely Bruce deciding the compensation was right -- Shanny's story was he wanted the player but not at that price.  I think at the very least we can say Bruce was more than just a figurehead through those years.

 

Recalling your position, I guess I am less impressed than you at the 7-9, 9-7, 8-8 years.  To me its OK.  I'd be more impressed if there was more to the team than primarily Kirk and Jay's play calling.  Granted, it's not all about that.  But a big part of why the team is competitive yet not a threat yet to play with the big boys for the big dance is its tough for them to compete with well balanced rosters that have multiple strengths.

 

I am not saying they can't pull off upgrading units this off season.  But for me I'd have to see it before patting them on the back for the "process"

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

Need to see if McPhee is better than Junior too....we may never know. I do think the Skins got some good players out of last years draft class...Looks like they may be counting on several of them by the way they're treating this year in free agency.

Yeah, but they really need to see if they can get better at the position, whether that be with McPhee, another guy on the roster, or a rookie.