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

[joeken24]

After thinking about it, I think the bridge is burned with Galette. If not the bridge, Galette's pride would definitely need to be compromised. The "slave" comment would be a tough nut to crack for him if he came back to a salary less than what he probably was offered in the beginning. If he came back, that would definitely be the case. Damn! IMO, I think he'd ball out this year.

 

[JaxJoe]

I'd take Galette back.  But you're right, I can only imagine the bridge has been burnt with the likely low-ball offer and the follow-up 'slave-wages' tweets.  @Burgold hit the nail on the head too when he commented that Hankins and Galette both think their value is a lot higher than the market is willing to offer.  And, by not signing to a team before the draft, I bet their stock is 50%-75% of what was.

 

Here is a list of the available free agents that are ranked higher than Galette and a few below. I threw Kirk in there as a reference.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/2018-nfl-free-agency-tracker

 

Robert Ayers

89.3

ED

32

Buccaneers

588

UFA

Tyvon Branch

88.5

S

31

Cardinals

579

UFA

C.J. Anderson

86.0

HB

27

Broncos

618

UFA

NaVorro Bowman

85.4

LB

30

Raiders

643

UFA

Johnathan Hankins	85.0	DI	26	Colts	687	UFA
Steven Terrell	84.9	S	27	Chiefs	72	UFA

Junior Galette

82.4

ED

30

Redskins

406

UFA

Eric Reid	81.4	S	26	49ers	736	UFA
Tre Boston	81.4	S	26	Chargers	1039	UFA

Bashaud Breeland

79.0

CB

26

Redskins

856

UFA

Kirk Cousins

78.9

QB

30

Redskins

999

Vikings

Marcedes Lewis

77.9

TE

34

Jaguars

1054

UFA

[Conn]

2 hours ago, joeken24 said:

For the 49ers to let him go so quickly, I'd have to get the facts first. But he definitely brought the wood in college. Didn't see much from him last year. 

 

 

They didn't let him go, even after the original arrest. There's no way they release him now that its being recanted. 

 

 

Its dumb that Reid and Boston aren't on rosters yet. I know why Reid isn't, don't get what's up with Boston. 

[primetime441]

On 3/13/2018 at 1:22 AM, primetime441 said:

Keenum is signing with the Broncos. Vikes seem more of a possibility for Cousins.

shoulda put some money on it 

[Burgold]

8 hours ago, joeken24 said:

After thinking about it, I think the bridge is burned with Galette. If not the bridge, Galette's pride would definitely need to be compromised. The "slave" comment would be a tough nut to crack for him if he came back to a salary less than what he probably was offered in the beginning. If he came back, that would definitely be the case. Damn! IMO, I think he'd ball out this year.

 

Injuries are not anybody's fault, but the Redskins gave Galette two years for free. Very few teams would have done that for a guy they had no history with. They also treated him with kid gloves last year, very carefully monitoring his pitch count. That probably frustrated him, but was a smart thing to do. I can't speak to how the Front Office negotiated with him, but the Redskins treated Galette as well as anyone could.

 

Almost every other team would have cut bait after two achilles injuries. Most wouldn't have re-signed him after one.

[Jericho]

Interestingly, the team will have to make a decision soon on whether or not to offer Galette and Breeland "June 1" tenders (and despite the name, June 1 tenders are not actually on June 1. The deadline was moved a little while back to the second Tuesday after the NFL Draft. Which this year is on May 8th).  Why would the team do it? Because if they don't, neither player will count towards the team's compensatory pick calculations. In Galette's case it may prove irrelevant as he probably won't get much money and the team is already expected to max-out on compensatory picks. But in Breeland's case, it could help better the picks the team receives (provided Breeland still gets a decent amount of money, even on a one year deal). The tenders are based on the previous year's salary, and because Galette and Breeland had pretty low salaries, this seems like a no-brainer. But we'll see...

 

This somewhat obscure rule got a bit of attention last year with New England, who used it on LeGarrette Blount. The other interesting piece is that if the team tenders either player, that player must sign a player contract with a club by July 23rd or the first scheduled day of the first NFL training camp (whichever is later) or be stuck negotiating ONLY with the Redskins until the Tuesday following the 10th weekend of the regular season
 

[goskins10]

11 hours ago, joeken24 said:

I'd say each of the Dlinemen that got released (McClain & AJ Francis) were the best placeholders available last year. Hughes was a placeholder in waiting this year (if the draft didn't go according to plan).

IMO, the D-line is looking a lot more competitive:

First team: Phil Taylor, Allen and Payne

Second team: Ziggy, Ioannidis, Lanier and/or McGee  

Third team: Settles 

 

I both agree and disagree - how is that for commitment!!  

 

I agree in the end they were placeholders.Not sure they were the best they could get. Had wee paid up we could have had Hankins last year and still have him this year. There were a few others we could have had. What they were were the most economical options last year. 

 

Also, I am certain (no I was not in the room so it's just my opinion), they believed those two would solve the Dline issue. I get the feeling that Tomsula tried to tell them (Bruce basically) that you can't throw band-aids at the Dline (this with admitting I was hopeful the two Mcs would be the answer) and was proven right this year. With us taking JA last year then tripling down with Payne and Settle, it's clear that either Manusky, Tomsula or both are being heard and respected. I see this as a good thing. 

 

Could it be that Doug's best attribute - his people skills - is exactly what was needed to keep egos in check? He seems to be front and center on a lot of the recent decisions. I hope so for the teams sake. At least for this off-season it seems to be working.

 

Also, we (and I definitely include myself here), may have underestimated his talent evaluating abilities. Again, I hope so for the teams sake. I still do not liek Bruce. But if this continues to work, whether it's because of him or despite him, if it works then it is what it is. 

 

As for the players: I don't see it that way. 

 

1st team - Iaonnidis, Payne, Allen

2nd team - Settles, Taylor, Lanier 

 

If they keep 7, it will be between Hood or McGee unless Taylor gets injured or can't make the team. They both have positives. McGee is younger - 3 yrs. Hood is cheaper but he is also a lot less dead cap with the same cap savings as releasing McGee. McGee played decent when he was in. Not great but well enough. 

 

Hood has been here longer and from what I have heard is a locker room leader. Many of the young guys look up to him. The coaches may want to have a guy with more experience with the Redskins. It's very unlike they both make the team unless someone gets injured. 

 

 

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Jericho said:

Interestingly, the team will have to make a decision soon on whether or not to offer Galette and Breeland "June 1" tenders (and despite the name, June 1 tenders are not actually on June 1. The deadline was moved a little while back to the second Tuesday after the NFL Draft. Which this year is on May 8th).  Why would the team do it? Because if they don't, neither player will count towards the team's compensatory pick calculations. In Galette's case it may prove irrelevant as he probably won't get much money and the team is already expected to max-out on compensatory picks. But in Breeland's case, it could help better the picks the team receives (provided Breeland still gets a decent amount of money, even on a one year deal). The tenders are based on the previous year's salary, and because Galette and Breeland had pretty low salaries, this seems like a no-brainer. But we'll see...

 

This somewhat obscure rule got a bit of attention last year with New England, who used it on LeGarrette Blount. The other interesting piece is that if the team tenders either player, that player must sign a player contract with a club by July 23rd or the first scheduled day of the first NFL training camp (whichever is later) or be stuck negotiating ONLY with the Redskins until the Tuesday following the 10th weekend of the regular season
 

 

Breeland is not coming back. They did not offer him any kind of contract. That makes it clear to me that they do not want him back no matter what contract there is. I can see it. He did not handle them bringing in Norman very well. He had some other issues and was inconsistent. He showed flashes of being very good. But could never sustain that. Also, we don't know about the locker room but I did not see DJ getting upset they were not resigning Breeland like he did when Fuller was traded. Do not hear anyone else bemoan his loss other than fans. That says a lot. 

 

I believe Galette could come back but he will have to park his ego. He is clearly asking for a lot more than teams - yes teams since he is not signed yet - believe he is worth. If he can park his ego and come on a team friendly deal I think they would sign him. We will see. There is no need to be in a rush. They have shown great patience and discipline and it's paying off. I hate Bruce but you have to give him at least some credit for this. 

[HTTRDynasty]

29 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Breeland is not coming back. They did not offer him any kind of contract. That makes it clear to me that they do not want him back no matter what contract there is. I can see it. He did not handle them bringing in Norman very well. He had some other issues and was inconsistent. He showed flashes of being very good. But could never sustain that. Also, we don't know about the locker room but I did not see DJ getting upset they were not resigning Breeland like he did when Fuller was traded. Do not hear anyone else bemoan his loss other than fans. That says a lot. 

 

I think the FO will just have to suck it up and put ego aside.  I remember a couple of years ago that Breeland played extremely well when he was lined up in the slot.  I would much rather have him as our "stop-gap" CB there than Scandrick.  Breeland will have motivation to ball out and hit FA for a legit contract next year; would probably be more than anything he'll get at this point this year.  He instantly solves our worry over the hole at slot CB, and allows Dunbar/Moreau to compete for that outside CB #2 spot.

 

Put the tender on Breeland, and if he doesn't sign it, he's going to lose A LOT of money, both this year and next year (and probably multiple years into the future as well).  If another team signs him?  Great, we get a better comp pick than we would without putting the tender on him.  NE showed us the blueprint last year.  We'd be fools not to do the same.

 

 

EDIT:  I just found the info on how Breeland performed as slot/nickel CB:

 

• CB Bashaud Breeland is entering the last year of his rookie deal in Washington, so both Breeland and Washington will want him at his best. He is expected to open up the season playing opposite Josh Norman on the outside, but over his three years in the league, he has put up more impressive numbers playing as a slot cornerback.
•  
• Kendall Fuller saw the majority of slot corner snaps for Washington last year. His overall grade of 51.8 ranked him 90th of 111 graded corners in 2016. He allowed 1.99 yards per cover snap, the most among slot corners with at least 270 snaps. Fuller also allowed a passer rating of 122.7 when covering in the slot, the league’s second highest mark.
•  
• When Breeland lined up in the slot in 2016, he allowed a passer rating of 63.9, the lowest mark in the NFL.
•  
• Over his three-year career in Washington, Breeland has played 1248 snaps on the outside. He has allowed 1,794 yards at an average of 13.7 yards per reception and allowed 1.44 yards per cover snap (2016 average was 1.45) and a passer rating of 101.0 (2016 average was 93.5).
•  
• He has played 241 snaps as a slot corner and allowed 259 yards at an average of 10 yards per reception. As a slot corner, he allowed 1.07 yards per cover snap (2016 slot CB Average was 1.17) and a passer rating of 63.1 (2016 slot CB average was 97.2).

 

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-the-case-for-washington-cb-breeland-to-see-more-snaps-at-slot-cb-in-2017

[Jericho]

36 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Breeland is not coming back. They did not offer him any kind of contract. That makes it clear to me that they do not want him back no matter what contract there is. I can see it. He did not handle them bringing in Norman very well. He had some other issues and was inconsistent. He showed flashes of being very good. But could never sustain that. Also, we don't know about the locker room but I did not see DJ getting upset they were not resigning Breeland like he did when Fuller was traded. Do not hear anyone else bemoan his loss other than fans. That says a lot. 

 

I believe Galette could come back but he will have to park his ego. He is clearly asking for a lot more than teams - yes teams since he is not signed yet - believe he is worth. If he can park his ego and come on a team friendly deal I think they would sign him. We will see. There is no need to be in a rush. They have shown great patience and discipline and it's paying off. I hate Bruce but you have to give him at least some credit for this. 

 

I agree that Breeland isn't coming back. But the team still likely tenders him. The tender amount is so low, Breeland would never accept it and simply would sign elsewhere. It's more of a formality to ensure the team maximizes its compensatory picks.

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

I think the FO will just have to suck it up and put ego aside.  I remember a couple of years ago that Breeland played extremely well when he was lined up in the slot.  I would much rather have him as our "stop-gap" CB there than Scandrick.  Breeland will have motivation to ball out and hit FA for a legit contract next year; would probably be more than anything he'll get at this point this year.  He instantly solves our worry over the hole at slot CB, and allows Dunbar/Moreau to compete for that outside CB #2 spot.

 

Put the tender on Breeland, and if he doesn't sign it, he's going to lose A LOT of money, both this year and next year (and probably multiple years into the future as well).  If another team signs him?  Great, we get a better comp pick than we would without putting the tender on him.  NE showed us the blueprint last year.  We'd be fools not to do the same.

 

This completely ignores if the team has decided he is not a fit. It's not an ego thing. They do not want him on the team and the reasons are not financial. They jsut are not interested. 

 

Just now, Jericho said:

 

I agree that Breeland isn't coming back. But the team still likely tenders him. The tender amount is so low, Breeland would never accept it and simply would sign elsewhere. It's more of a formality to ensure the team maximizes its compensatory picks.

 

From that angle I guess. But what if he does sign it? Then what? You take another player off the roster for a guy you already told them you did not want? It's the same thing when people were saying tag Kirk again and force a deal on him. It sounds good on paper and if you get the desired outcome. But that is rarely what actually happens. 

[HTTRDynasty]

Just now, goskins10 said:

 

This completely ignores if the team has decided he is not a fit. It's not an ego thing. They do not want him on the team and the reasons are not financial. They jsut are not interested. 

 

 

Then they're idiots, who are increasing the chances none of them will be here next year after teams relentlessly attack our slot CB.  I can already picture Rodgers connecting with Randall Cobb for 150 yards and 2 TDs, leading to an easy win.  Sterling Sheppard, Cole Beasley, Nelson Agholor, etc. will similarly have big days against the Redskins.  And everyone will be looking at each other with stupid looks on their faces wondering why we didn't solve this issue with such an easy solution this offseason.

[Jericho]

5 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Put the tender on Breeland, and if he doesn't sign it, he's going to lose A LOT of money, both this year and next year (and probably multiple years into the future as well).  If another team signs him?  Great, we get a better comp pick than we would without putting the tender on him.  NE showed us the blueprint last year.  We'd be fools not to do the same.

 

The funny thing with New England is that it was a little risky to tender Blount. He wasn't getting any good offers, so there was a chance he's sign it and New England already had about 5 running backs on its roster. It's only money in the end, but likely was wasted money. But it worked out for all as Blount didn't want New Englands super crowded backfield and opted to go to Philly. And New England got a 7th rounder for its troubles.

[nonniey]

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

This completely ignores if the team has decided he is not a fit. It's not an ego thing. They do not want him on the team and the reasons are not financial. They jsut are not interested. 

 

 

From that angle I guess. But what if he does sign it? Then what? You take another player off the roster for a guy you already told them you did not want? It's the same thing when people were saying tag Kirk again and force a deal on him. It sounds good on paper and if you get the desired outcome. But that is rarely what actually happens. 

If he signs it and we really don't want him we have two options 1 trade him (he'll have a minimum salary and would be very trade-able) or two cut him.

1 minute ago, Jericho said:

 

The funny thing with New England is that it was a little risky to tender Blount. He wasn't getting any good offers, so there was a chance he's sign it and New England already had about 5 running backs on its roster. It's only money in the end, but likely was wasted money. But it worked out for all as Blount didn't want New Englands super crowded backfield and opted to go to Philly. And New England got a 7th rounder for its troubles.

Nope no real risk at all. A team can always cut him - it is not a guaranteed salary after all. 

[goskins10]

37 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Then they're idiots, who are increasing the chances none of them will be here next year after teams relentlessly attack our slot CB.  I can already picture Rodgers connecting with Randall Cobb for 150 yards and 2 TDs, leading to an easy win.  Sterling Sheppard, Cole Beasley, Nelson Agholor, etc. will similarly have big days against the Redskins.  And everyone will be looking at each other with stupid looks on their faces wondering why we didn't solve this issue with such an easy solution this offseason.

 

So if he is a bad fit for the team in terms of the locker-room and neither the coaches or players want him then they are all idiots? As for the rest, it's a bit overly dramatic. Just because we do not have one guy who was decent but not great we are get torched all over the place? I do not trust Bruce but I do trust Jay and Torrian. They feel like they have a good group. And they have proven to develop people. I seem to remember many on this board wanting Fuller kicked to the curb after year one - citing his was a total bust and waste of a draft pick. They developed him and he turned out pretty good. Now Bruce had to CYA and traded him for Alex. But that is not on Jay. Let's see before. Maybe what you say happens. 

 

The only thing that helps the team is if the offer him a tender and he turns it down and signs somewhere else big. Not really worth it, if they have decided they don;t want him on the team. 

[wit33]

On 5/1/2018 at 3:07 AM, Master Blaster said:

 

 

Good point. 

 

Someone should tell Belichick he was wrong to play Wilfork in the multiple matchups against P Manning. 

 

I’m not denying Vince Wilfork being a good pro and valuable to a team. My point is NTs as a whole have less value in today’s game. Teams are shifting away from 3-4 defense to counter 3wr sets that are used most often in games. Vince was a pro bowl type guy, what about the others.

 

**Vince played one time versus Peyton Manning and the team lost 34-38. Who cares really though. 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

This completely ignores if the team has decided he is not a fit. It's not an ego thing. They do not want him on the team and the reasons are not financial. They jsut are not interested. 

 

 

From that angle I guess. But what if he does sign it? Then what? You take another player off the roster for a guy you already told them you did not want? It's the same thing when people were saying tag Kirk again and force a deal on him. It sounds good on paper and if you get the desired outcome. But that is rarely what actually happens. 

I will say that while the team didn’t make an offer...

1) it’s possible they told him they’d love to have him back but weren’t going to make an offer because they couldn’t afford his market value... or

2) they could approach him now with that same type of verbiage if they didn’t already.  They could say he’d be their penciled in slot corner and hit FA next year with an even better resume.  

 

If they tender him and he signs, then you still have options - cut Scandrick (lesser player serving the same role as Breeland would), and/or PS Stroman.  

 

I’d feel a lot better about the corner group, and slot corner in particular if he signed.  Also gives a year for Holsey/Stroman to develop.  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

No notable releases yet, if things stay on course, I'd like Breeland or Cromartie please. 

 

More

Notable unsigned veteran free agents hours before the draft:

* Dez Bryant * Eric Reid * NaVorro Bowman * DeMarco Murray * Johnathan Hankins * Eric Decker * Karlos Dansby * Brandon Marshall * Bashaud Breeland * Kenny Vaccaro * Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie

101 replies631 retweets1,529 likes

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

9 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

So if he is a bad fit for the team in terms of the locker-room and neither the coaches or players want him then they are all idiots? As for the rest, it's a bit overly dramatic. Just because we do not have one guy who was decent but not great we are get torched all over the place? I do not trust Bruce but I do trust Jay and Torrian. They feel like they have a good group. And they have proven to develop people. I seem to remember many on this board wanting Fuller kicked to the curb after year one - citing his was a total bust and waste of a draft pick. They developed him and he turned out pretty good. Now Bruce had to CYA and traded him for Alex. But that is not on Jay. Let's see before. Maybe what you say happens. 

 

The only thing that helps the team is if the offer him a tender and he turns it down and signs somewhere else big. Not really worth it, if they have decided they don;t want him on the team. 

 

What players have come out and said they didn’t want him?  That is news to me. 

 

And its possible that that the coaches/FO just didn’t want him at the expensive contract he was asking for (and the one he got with the Panthers). It would be INCREDIBLE value if no other team signed him and we were able to have him play under the cost of the tender. 

 

And yes, we will get torched from the slot all year if Orlando Scandrick is our slot CB. I watched a lot of  Dallas games last year, and Scandrick was their worst secondary player by far IMO. PFF data also bears that out. 

 

The other two guys competing for that spot are 7th round picks (one from 2017 and one from 2018). That is far from a Kendall Fuller-like talent that only fell due to injury. I was definitely not one of the ppl calling for Fuller to be cut after the 2016 season because I realized the dude was a legit 1st round pick without the injury, and it would probably take a full season to get back to form. There was a lot of raw clay for coach Gray to work with there. I highly doubt he gets the same results from either 7th round pick, and I think we’d be fools to rely on it. If we do, there’s a good chance that good QBs will exploit that weakness over and over again throughout the season. 

 

If Breeland doesn’t sign the tender and no team picks him up, the worst thing that can happen is that we cut him at an extremely minimal loss. It’s a low risk, high reward move that teams like the Patriots and Eagles would do in a second. 

[bobandweave]

11 hours ago, primetime441 said:

shoulda put some money on it 

 

Trust me you couldn't. Bovada the place I wager never opened a line for the Vikings in the prop bets they took for where Cousins was going to sign, they had a lot of offerings but never the Vikings. Or I would have bet a lot on the Vikings in January

[Master Blaster]

47 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I’m not denying Vince Wilfork being a good pro and valuable to a team. My point is NTs as a whole have less value in today’s game. Teams are shifting away from 3-4 defense to counter 3wr sets that are used most often in games. Vince was a pro bowl type guy, what about the others.

 

**Vince played one time versus Peyton Manning and the team lost 34-38. Who cares really though. 

 

A team can go "Big Nickel" against a 3wr set.  Keep two NG's in as DT's to help stop the run, which is where the Redskins were weakest last year.

[Cskin]

14 hours ago, bakedtater1 said:

Kirk Cousins won that game in Seattle.

I agree his throw to Doctson, and to a lesser extent to Quick, won the game from an offensive standpoint.  But if Wilson escapes that sack and makes a play and we're looking at two plays for a TD from say the 20... do you think the Redskins hold them out?  As it was D. Hall made a hell of a play on the hail mary to keep them out of the endzone.  

[bakedtater1]

15 minutes ago, Cskin said:

I agree his throw to Doctson, and to a lesser extent to Quick, won the game from an offensive standpoint.  But if Wilson escapes that sack and makes a play and we're looking at two plays for a TD from say the 20... do you think the Redskins hold them out?  As it was D. Hall made a hell of a play on the hail mary to keep them out of the endzone.  

Kirk's toughness standing in the pocket making perfect throws just before getting drilled won the game.. but the sack put the cherry on top

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I watched a lot of  Dallas games last year, and Scandrick was their worst secondary player by far IMO. PFF data also bears that out. 

They also show that prior to that he was rated consistently in the 80's by PFF until 2017 (2nd team all pro by PFF in 2014) which was his first poor year, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion but come on, the reality is nobody knows how he will look next year but the ability is there and has been there for Scandrick to play well in the slot or at the #2 CB.  You're assuming because he had an off year he is no longer any good, what makes you 200% sure that he has nothing left?

 

If you look at his career, last year was the exception, not the rule, let's hope he gets back to 2016 form when he graded out as an above average player.

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

8 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

They also show that prior to that he was rated consistently in the 80's by PFF until 2017 (2nd team all pro by PFF in 2014) which was his first poor year, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion but come on, the reality is nobody knows how he will look next year but the ability is there and has been there for Scandrick to play well in the slot or at the #2 CB.  You're assuming because he had an off year he is no longer any good, what makes you 200% sure that he has nothing left?

 

If you look at his career, last year was the exception, not the rule, let's hope he gets back to 2016 form when he graded out as an above average player.

 

 

 

He was ranked as the 113th best CB last year.  That's not just an off year, that's atrocious. 

 

He's also 31 years old.  That suggests that last year is the start of a trend, rather than an outlier.  Maybe he does bounce back, but I wouldn't expect it.  And I definitely wouldn't be pinning my hopes on it.