Skinsinparadise Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 58 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said: Seems to be a decision of Jets vs Redskins. Full Press Redskins Retweeted Robert HensonVerified account @Mr_Henson51 3h3 hours ago More Robert Henson Retweeted jw gravley Jets are the only other major player from what I know Robert Henson added, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said: Full Press Redskins Retweeted Robert HensonVerified account @Mr_Henson51 3h3 hours ago More Robert Henson Retweeted jw gravley Jets are the only other major player from what I know Robert Henson added, Could be in with a shout then. One year prove it deal from us on average money, or I'd guess longer maybe 3 year offer from the Jets on slightly better money but still well under what he wants. Chances are he takes us so that he can get back on the FA market next year or nail it here and get paid big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 16 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: Could be in with a shout then. One year prove it deal from us on average money, or I'd guess longer maybe 3 year offer from the Jets on slightly better money but still well under what he wants. Chances are he takes us so that he can get back on the FA market next year or nail it here and get paid big. Hopefully. At the moment I'd grade their off season FA wise at a D + but if they sign Hankins to me it rises fast to a B + or ditto if any DT becomes available and they pounce post draft. So grading them right now s somewhat meaningless because the grade is incomplete. If they are secretly infatuated with Vea or Payne or Hurst or whomever and that's driving this all, I'd get it. We will find out next week. But if this ultimately goes like the 2016 off season where the idea was hey we knew DT was a big need but the off season just didn't flow that way -- to me that's a debacle if that position ends up burning them during the season especially considering the team with arguably the best D line in the division already was the team who added a marquee player to strengthen their strength. There were solutions in FA pre Hankins. All adds up to yuck to me. However... I am in no panic though. I still think the position gets addressed. If it doesn't and the run defense stinks than I gather Bruce is reassigned out of personnel. So for me its no lose either way. But I am rooting for success like always. I am not in the camp that they are conserving funds for extensions for all three -- Preston, Scherff, Crowder. If I were a betting man I think the only one of those three that returns is Scherff. Preston I think some team will offer the moon for if he has a big season and I think its the FO's ammo to say hey we got Anderson so lets take the third round pick compensation. And as for Crowder, unless you are a premier slot WR (like Landry) its not a big money position. You can find an Albert Wilson type in FA at slot every FA season. It's not a hard get. So am doubting we got some big money slated for Crowder that wouldn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: I am not in the camp that they are conserving funds for extensions for all three -- Preston, Scherff, Crowder. If I were a betting man I think the only one of those three that returns is Scherff. Preston I think some team will offer the moon for if he has a big season and I think its the FO's ammo to say hey we got Anderson so lets take the third round pick compensation. And as for Crowder, unless you are a premier slot WR (like Landry) its not a big money position. You can find an Albert Wilson type in FA at slot every FA season. It's not a hard get. So am doubting we got some big money slated for Crowder that wouldn't make sense to me I think we'll pay both Smith and Scherff with big contracts. Crowder can take or leave right now. Can't see us spending big in 2019 on external FA unless we cull a couple of big hitters off the roster. Plus we should have a loaded draft bounty to work with. Very useful if cap space is limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: I think we'll pay both Smith and Scherff with big contracts. Crowder can take or leave right now. Can't see us spending big in 2019 on external FA unless we cull a couple of big hitters off the roster. Plus we should have a loaded draft bounty to work with. Very useful if cap space is limited. Will see. I am betting against Preston being brought back for these reasons: A. Feels like the Breeland-Moreau drill. Hey we got a a cheap replacement in house. Granted Anderson needs to perform this year. B. Pass rushers get a ton of money on the market C. Not sure we'd pay Preston a ton of money D. If they are getting a kick out of the comp pick thing -- Preston's market would likely lead to a 3rd Rd comp, I think they'd find saving the cap room and getting the pick enticing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 37 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: Could be in with a shout then. One year prove it deal from us on average money, or I'd guess longer maybe 3 year offer from the Jets on slightly better money but still well under what he wants. Chances are he takes us so that he can get back on the FA market next year or nail it here and get paid big. I don't think he has anything to "prove" at this stage of his career. I also don't think he's Kirk, probably would prefer a longer term contract. As I stated earlier, I don't see any value to us in renting him for a year. Offer a 3year deal averaging 8m. Last offseason he took a longer term contract over the 1 year deals, I doubt his thinking has changed. Just MHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, bowhunter said: I don't think he has anything to "prove" at this stage of his career. I also don't think he's Kirk, probably would prefer a longer term contract. As I stated earlier, I don't see any value to us in renting him for a year. Offer a 3year deal averaging 8m. Last offseason he took a longer term contract over the 1 year deals, I doubt his thinking has changed. Just MHO I think if it were that clear cut it wouldn't take this long to decide. In truth, he doesn't seem to have much of a market. I also think we have numerous cap moves to consider next year so a one year deal works better for us. Either way, hopefully he makes a call soon so it comes to a conclusion. 8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Will see. I am betting against Preston being brought back for these reasons: A. Feels like the Breeland-Moreau drill. Hey we got a a cheap replacement in house. Granted Anderson needs to perform this year. B. Pass rushers get a ton of money on the market C. Not sure we'd pay Preston a ton of money D. If they are getting a kick out of the comp pick thing -- Preston's market would likely lead to a 3rd Rd comp, I think they'd find saving the cap room and getting the pick enticing. Kind of depends how he plays, but I think if he plays lights out he get paid here. With Murphy gone, Junior not retained, and McPhee on a one year vet min deal with knackered knees, we have scope to retain Sith. Maybe bring in another development rookie into the group this year and it looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 9 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said: I think if it were that clear cut it wouldn't take this long to decide. In truth, he doesn't seem to have much of a market. I also think we have numerous cap moves to consider next year so a one year deal works better for us. Either way, hopefully he makes a call soon so it comes to a conclusion. I get that, but honestly I would be against this signing if it's a rental. In that instance, we would still have to invest our draft pick on a good DL. We're either building a team here or we aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markmills67 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I want Hankins to be a Redskin, but we should tell his agent that we need to know at the latest 2 days before the draft. Yes or No we need to sign him or move on. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Here is some data on Preston Smith.... http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/need-know-its-science-preston-smith-one-nfls-top-pass-rushers Here is what you need to know on this Wednesday, February 7, 35 days before NFL free agency starts. A scientific evaluation of Preston Smith Preston Smith is one of the best pass rushers in the NFL. That’s not an opinion, that’s science talking. According to data gathered by the NFL via Next Gen Stats, the Redskins’ outside linebacker had a higher pass rush pressure rate than anyone in the NFL in 2017. That’s right. A higher pressure rate than Von Miller, Demarcus Lawrence, Aaron Donald, Everson Griffen, or whatever other pass rushers you want to name. The data does not come from someone with a pen and notepad watching the All-22 from NFL Game Pass. Next Gen Stats are generated from the precise GPS chips that are located in each player’s pads. If the pass rusher is within a certain distance of the quarterback at the time the pass is released, he is credited with a pressure. Per that data, Smith got pressure on 15.9 percent of his 309 pass rushing plays. That put him just a tick ahead of the Cowboys’ Lawrence at 15.8 percent. In third was another member of the Redskins, Junior Galette, with a rate of 15.1 percent on his 219 attempts. ============================================================================================ http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/how-much-will-it-cost-redskins-re-sign-preston-smith Since Smith came into the league in 2015 no other player matches or exceeds his stat line of 20.5 sacks, four forced fumbles, and three interceptions. Edge rushers get paid to get after the quarterback and make game-changing plays. Smith is going to get paid. The top eight 3-4 OLBs have deals with AAVs of $11.5 million and up (that’s Ryan Kerrigan at No. 8). Then there is a handful of players around $7 million to $8.5 million, players like Brian Orakpo (24.5 sacks since Smith came into the NFL), Pernell McPhee (14), and Tamba Hali (10, missed 11 games in 2017 due to injury). With the growth in the cap in the years since those three signed it’s perfectly reasonable to think that Smith, who at age 25 is just entering what should be his prime years of his career, could get a deal that pushes $10 million per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariusVT Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Even if hankins happens to sign here I still want Vea in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsOLfan Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 If we sign Hankins before the draft I'd rather get a stud LG either Will Hernandez or Isaiah Wynn in the first and a RB or DT in the second because there are many more really good DTs in this draft than really good G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 2 hours ago, MariusVT said: Even if hankins happens to sign here I still want Vea in the draft. If we can get Vea on a 4-5 rookie deal, I would think that salary money would best be spent extending our own. That's why I'm opposed to a one year rental of Hank. It adds NOTHING to the future of our team, and even takes away money we could spend securing said future. We've already danced to this song with Kirk. Knowing that every good play they make only increases next years price tag and decreases the odds of them being a part of this team. The whole treading water act with KC has reminded me of why rentals don't add value to the football team unless it's in the middle of a Superbowl run. Thats not where we are yet, but should become more reasonable once you build a core. Cores don't come with a U-Haul truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Except we resigned Zach Brown this year, and Eagles signed Alshon Jeffrey to an extension during the season. It has also worked out and many teams are going this route, not just the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 2 hours ago, JWB said: Except we resigned Zach Brown this year, and Eagles signed Alshon Jeffrey to an extension during the season. It has also worked out and many teams are going this route, not just the Skins. And players. I'd be fine with a year deal for Hankins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 I do like Hankins and think he would be a good addition but.... a guy this talented and not many suitors for his services... even if Hankins is asking for too much... you would think his name should be tied to more teams in the rumor mill... is his a yellow flag??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 No I think if anything this is his wake up call to get a better agent ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 9 hours ago, bowhunter said: If we can get Vea on a 4-5 rookie deal, I would think that salary money would best be spent extending our own. That's why I'm opposed to a one year rental of Hank. It adds NOTHING to the future of our team, and even takes away money we could spend securing said future. We've already danced to this song with Kirk. Knowing that every good play they make only increases next years price tag and decreases the odds of them being a part of this team. The whole treading water act with KC has reminded me of why rentals don't add value to the football team unless it's in the middle of a Superbowl run. Thats not where we are yet, but should become more reasonable once you build a core. Cores don't come with a U-Haul truck. The one benefit potentially to getting Hankins on a one year rental is in the scenario where you might address the D line with a developmental project later in the draft (someone with good upside but not a day 1 starter because it just gives you that extra level of flexibility where you are not forced into a selection by the current state of your roster - you should never go shopping for core players in free agency because generally, free agents are free agents for good reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedtater1 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 It seems all teams have a **** ton of one year wonders...there with a team one year and wondering where they'll be next year.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 The only benefit to me of having Hankins on a 1-year deal is how incredible the draft is next year at DL. It puts the 2018 class to shame. But I'd rather not be in a position again next year where we're forced to draft for need in the 1st round. But it would be idiotic IMO to sign Hankins to a 1-year deal and draft Vea in the 1st this year. What a waste of resources. Vea is an immediate starter, he doesn't need time to "develop" or come off the bench. If anything, signing Hankins to a 1-year deal would stunt Vea's development. Either sign Hankins to a 3-year deal or longer, or don't sign him at all if you plan to draft Vea as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshSkinsFan Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 1 minute ago, HTTRDynasty said: If anything, signing Hankins to a 1-year deal would stunt Vea's development. Either sign Hankins to a 3-year deal or longer, or don't sign him at all if you plan to draft Vea as well. Or draft Vea and sign Hankins to a 3 year deal and watch them team up with Allen to eat Wentz's lunch for the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said: Or draft Vea and sign Hankins to a 3 year deal and watch them team up with Allen to eat Wentz's lunch for the next few years. Yep. Good-very good players don't get their growth stunted by having other good players at their position on the roster. Drafting Scherff didn't stunt Moses' growth. having Garcon and Jackson on the roster didn't stunt Crowder's growth (no wisecracks about how short Crowder is lol)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tchrpe1 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 I would be all for that Scenario however I believe that the Jets would be willing to offer more for Hankins services then the Skins would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said: Either sign Hankins to a 3-year deal or longer, or don't sign him at all if you plan to draft Vea as well. That's pretty much how I feel. Depending on who's doing the projections, it's not only a possibility that Vea isn't the BPA at pick 13, in fact it's doubtful. So we should be attempting to draft the BPA (with slight emphasis on position of need) and give the team an improvement in overall talent. Reaching to fill a need due to glaring holes is a wasted opportunity. I get that renting Hank for a year might allow us to grab a late round pick to develop, but it might also FORCE us to. I'm not a pure BPA draft guy by any means, but for us to bypass Edmunds or Minkah (or losing the value of trading that pick) because we HAVE to draft a DT is not maximizing use of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.