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

[DC9]

44 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I’m not worried about Norman’s injury rate.

 

Its his cap number plus the defense not dipping when he was out.

 

The key, though, is Bree. We need one of the two. Either/or. Bree is a lesser player with less of a cap hit and CB is still one of the top if not the top unit on the team. Norman is a greater player with a greater cap hit.

 

We need the cap to fill our lesser positions, pay our QB and get Zach Brown back.

 

Brown is more important than Norman. 

 

Where we disagree on Reed is simple: He ain’t bluechip if he ain’t on the field. 

 

I can't believe you didn't think the defense looked different with him out.

 

The 2nd half of that Chiefs game they basically kept Cousins off the field by taking 3 plays to get a first down the whole way down the field with runs and short passes.

 

When he was in Smith really didn't even look to his side of the field.  When he went out the whole field was available.

 

If it takes cutting him to get to Cuzzo and Zach Brown then I guess I'm for it.  I dont' think it does, but maybe.  Do we still owe him any guaranteed money?

[Voice_of_Reason]

16 hours ago, DC9 said:

Yeah, you're right.  But when you have Crowder, who can only play the slot, and guys like Ryan Grant and Mo Harris as your WR1 then there is a problem.

 

They are fine to fill out the roster in the WR5 or WR6 role, but when they're running 1 and 2 routes it's a miracle that we're in position to finish the season at .500 when you couple that with all of the injuries we have.

This.  100% this.  I've been screaming about this forever.  

 

We need difference makers at skill position players.  DJax might have only been a one trick pony, and probably not worth bringing back, but he was a force multiplier.  Defenses HAD to respect his deep speed, and so they couldn't just stick a DB on him and call it a day.  He demanded that on just about every play, the defense account for him.  This pulled, or at least delayed, support to the middle of the field.  Crowder and Reed BOTH benefited from this.

 

Garcon on the other side wasn't as much of a speed guy, but with his veteran skills, he could win 1:1 matchups, which also drew some additional attention at times.  This opened things up also for the guys inside.

 

We've got to get 2 WRs on the outside that can win 1:1 matchups and by their very presence for DCs to adjust.  This will open up things inside, and also pull a safety out of the box to help the run game.  

 

I just don't trust Doctson, yet, to be one of those guys.  He's got the talent to be one of those guys, but he's been too inconsistent to bank on it.

 

This comes back to my "what happens with Kirk drives the plan" point.  IF they get him to sign a LTD, then I think you can sign 1 WR, and take another year to evaluate Kirk. 

 

If they tag him, then I think you've got to sign 2 starting caliber WRs, because you've probably got only one more year of Kirk, and you might as well load up to try and make a run.  

[elkabong82]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

I’m not sure why some are married to Norman. He’s good. One of the best CBs we’ve had here. But the team’s defensive production didn’t dip too bad when he was on the shelf, and CB is our strongest position group in my opinion. We re-sign Breeland, for much less than Norman’s price tag, and we’re in a better spot financially for Cousins and other FA.

 

.

 

We MUST have a top 10 defense to win a championship. CBs need to remain a top unit. Have to keep Norman for that. Plus, the way the market is, Breeland will command a contract that will be close to what Norman makes. If he accepts a team-friendly contract extension that's one thing, but priority should be KC, Brown, and a NT IMO. Doubt there's room also for Breeland with the assumption being he can command a big contract in the market. Better to let Breeland walk and elevate Fuller, then let Moreau take over slot. Key to winning football games is keeping a top unit a top unit. 

 

That being said, team brass needs to talk with Norman and guage his interest in staying here because his comments lately warrant looking into. If he doesn't look to be a part of this team for next 3 to 4 seasons, then team should consider trading him and re-sign Breeland. 

[skinny21]

@Voice_of_ReasonI totally agree about Doctson (and the receiver position).  

 

Some points though - 

 

Missing Reed and Crowder having a rough year meant Doctson was more of a target for defenses.  Ditto Thompson going down.  

 

Doctson never had a viable threat on the other side of the field (a guy that can win 1 on 1s, like you said).  

 

Improving the run game and having a healthy oline would put more stress on defenses to stack the box/blitz more.  

 

Essentially, (again, as you said) Doctson has the talent, but similar to Kirk, he had very little in the way of a supporting cast.  

 

So, with a few changes/additions, I think Doctson would be in a much better position to succeed.  Add an all around TE and a LG to get the ground game going, get Thompson back to help the short game, flex Reed out to draw coverage, have Reed/Davis/Crowder to threaten the middle of the field, and an outside receiver to put more pressure on deep safeties.

 

Of course I’d still like to add 2 receivers, lol.  I just think we would see a serious trickle down effect with the above changes... even if we only added 1 (good) receiver.  

[KDawg]

17 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

We MUST have a top 10 defense to win a championship. CBs need to remain a top unit. Have to keep Norman for that. Plus, the way the market is, Breeland will command a contract that will be close to what Norman makes. If he accepts a team-friendly contract extension that's one thing, but priority should be KC, Brown, and a NT IMO. Doubt there's room also for Breeland with the assumption being he can command a big contract in the market. Better to let Breeland walk and elevate Fuller, then let Moreau take over slot. Key to winning football games is keeping a top unit a top unit. 

 

That being said, team brass needs to talk with Norman and guage his interest in staying here because his comments lately warrant looking into. If he doesn't look to be a part of this team for next 3 to 4 seasons, then team should consider trading him and re-sign Breeland. 

 

So where was your disagreement with me?

 

Even with Bree and no Norman it’s still one of our top units. Bree’s contract should be less than Norman’s. If it’s not, you obviously keep Norman. 

 

I also added “either/or”. 

[WelshSkinsFan]

Bree has had a bounceback year and has made a number of references to getting paid so I don't see him signing for less than Norman.  If he hits FA and the money is not what he is expecting we may get him back cheap but he won't sign before FA unless we back up the truck.

[KDawg]

35 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

Bree has had a bounceback year and has made a number of references to getting paid so I don't see him signing for less than Norman.  If he hits FA and the money is not what he is expecting we may get him back cheap but he won't sign before FA unless we back up the truck.

 

Isnt Norman a June 1st guy anyways? Plenty of time to let it play out before cutting him or trading him.

 

Including the beginning of Bailey indicators of not wanting to be in DC. 

[RemoveSnyder]

Breeland's valuation is 3.5 to 4 million AAV, personally. 

In fact, swap Hall's 2017 AAV (4.25) in a contract to Breeland.

 

He's a #4 CB on the depth chart after the theoretical signing of Kyle Fuller. Ky Fuller and Norman would be the starting boundary guys with Kendall Fuller and, ostensibly, Breeland relegated to #3 and #4 as the interior CBs. 

 

If anyone here thinks he's worth 10 million+ on average, or more, or if Breeland thinks he's worth 10 million+, good luck to 'ya is what I say. 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Breeland's valuation is 3.5 to 4 million AAV, personally. 

In fact, swap Hall's 2017 AAV (4.25) in a contract to Breeland.

 

He's a #4 CB on the depth chart after the theoretical signing of Kyle Fuller. Ky Fuller and Norman would be the starting boundary guys with Kendall Fuller and, ostensibly, Breeland relegated to #3 and #4 as the interior CBs. 

 

If anyone here thinks he's worth 10 million+ on average, or more, or if Breeland thinks he's worth 10 million+, good luck to 'ya is what I say. 

 

Completely agreed. Don’t see why anyone would pay him that much cash. And we definitely shouldn’t. But I’m not expecting him to be asking for that much.

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Completely agreed. Don’t see why anyone would pay him that much cash. And we definitely shouldn’t. But I’m not expecting him to be asking for that much.

Recent contracts for CBs who seem comparable to Breeland:

 

Dre Kirkpatrick 10.5 mil per year

Logan Ryan 10m per

Sean Smith 9.5m

Robert Alford 9.5m

Kareem Jackson 8.5m

David Amerson 8.25m

 

I would be fairly shocked if no one offers Breeland at least 9 mil per year.

[KDawg]

12 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Recent contracts for CBs who seem comparable to Breeland:

 

Dre Kirkpatrick 10.5 mil per year

Logan Ryan 10m per

Sean Smith 9.5m

Robert Alford 9.5m

Kareem Jackson 8.5m

David Amerson 8.25m

 

I would be fairly shocked if no one offers Breeland at least 9 mil per year.

 

Personally, I don’t compare any of them to Breeland. But hey, we’ll see. No sense talking about his value when quite frankly, we don’t know it.

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

I don't think we need to add a bunch more stuff around Kirk. If we have a top 10 defense, which we should with those additions and need if we want to win it all, then the pressure comes off of the offense. Doctson, Reed, Crowder, Thompson, and a good vet WR combines to make a very good offense IMO. We just need younger depth behind Reed of course due to injury concern. I think Doctson will develop into our WR1. We just need guys taking all the attention off of him.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

If you want to win a championship, which should be the goal, look at the championship level teams and their skill position players behind their top QBs, and with top 10 defenses. I thought about it, and then I looked at 4 teams that would fit the mold of great QB play, top 10 defense.  Pittsburgh, New England, Eagles, Rams.  

 

Let's assume we make the moves and have a top 10 defense and Kirk is back. That puts us in the category with those teams, except for the skill position players.  

 

Pittsburgh:

QB: Ben Roethlisburger.  He's elite.  

WR: Antonio Bryant.  He's elite

RB: Le'Veon Bell.  He's elite. He's actually so elite that he has 1222 yards rushing plus 670 yards receiving on 80 receptions.  

Other: They have 2 other receivers with 40 catches and 600 plus yards (JuJu Smith-Schuster and Martavis Bryant)

 

They have the 7th rated defense in PPG, and 4th in terms of yards.  

 

Philadelphia:

QB: Carson Wentz. He looks like he's going to be elite.

WR: Alshon Jeffery and Nelson Agholor both have over 700 yards and both could end up as 1000 yard receivers.  That's a little unlikely, but possible.

TE: Zak Ertz.  He also has over 700 yards and actually leads the team in receiving yards.

RB: They have 3 RBs who split time between Blount, Clement and Ajay.  Between the three of them, they have 1400 yards.  FWIW, Wentz had 300 yards rushing as well.

 

They do it differently than Pittsburgh, who has elite talent everywhere.  Philly has really good talent, and a lot of it. I don't think that any of our guys would un-seat any of their guys at the same position.  Reed might be comparable to Ertz, but Ertz is more available and a better blocker.  

 

They have the 6th ranked defense in yards, and 8th for points.

 

La Rams

QB: Goff - trending to really good if not elite down the road. 

RB: Todd Gurley - Elite

WR: Cooper Kupp, Robert Woods and Sammy Watkins.  They have 800, 750 and 550 yards respectively.  Gurley has 600+ yards receiving also.

 

The Rams have an elite RB, and good WRs.  They spread the ball around more, but they have an elite RB. Kupp is a good WR. These guys don't have big names, but they are very productive, and can win in 1:1 situations.  Gurley and Goff are the glue that brings it together though.  

 

The Rams defense is ranked 12th in yards, and 5th in points.

 

NE Patriots:

QB: Brady - GOAT

TE: Gronk. - Elite

Everybody else - very good. 

 

NE defense is ranked 4th in yards, and 6th in points.  

 

Each of these teams has a great/elite QB, a top 10 defense in both yards and points.  And they also have elite talent on offense.  Pitssburgh has Bell and Byrant, Rams have Gurley, NE have Gronk. 

 

They complement the "elite" players with a lot of very good players, and that's why all of these teams are going to end up with 11+ wins.  

 

You can also look at the Saints (Brees/Ingram(Kamara before he was hurt)/Thomas) who have the 9th best scoring defense. They have elite talent to go along with Brees.  

 

The Jags and Vikings are a little different.  They have play-makers, but they also have the top 2 defenses in the NFL.  So they might not have as many play-makers, they have enough because they are holding teams to 15 and 17 points respectively.  I don't see the 'Skins defense getting to that level. Top 10, sure.  Top 2? I don't think we're there yet.

 

If you want to win a championship, you've got to have it all.  You need the top 10 defense.  You need the QB play, and you need the play makers.  CT, Doctson, Crowder, Reed, Grant, Perine, Kelley, some tier 2 guy, that's just not going to cut it when you play teams that also have the defense, good QB play and explosive, elite play-makers.  CT is about the only player on that list that scares anybody.  Reed would, but he's not available and can't run block at all.  So that drops him down a peg or two.  

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Missing Reed and Crowder having a rough year meant Doctson was more of a target for defenses.  Ditto Thompson going down.  

Doctson didn't play in pre-season because he was hurt, and had a slow start to the year to begin with.  That's a different problem.  

 

Doctson showed nothing last year to lead anybody to believe he should have been counted on to be a starter this year, which is why they went and got Pryor to compete at the same position.  However, Pryor also busted.  

 

IF Doctson is a starting WR, he needs to create matchups for others, not be the beneficiary of them.  WRs are the position that stretch the field and draw safety help.  Reed and Crowder, TE and Slot guy, are the beneficiary of that.  Not the cause of it.  

 

Doctson can't beat a guy 1:1 consistently, which means that injuries elsewhere don't mean anything, because 1:1 is the coverage you have to beat.  

 

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Doctson never had a viable threat on the other side of the field (a guy that can win 1 on 1s, like you said).  

But Doctson can't win 1:1 either.  So even if they had Jerry rice on the other side of the field, it wouldn't help Doctson.  At least not this year.  

 

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Improving the run game and having a healthy oline would put more stress on defenses to stack the box/blitz more.  

Healthy OL sure.  But we couldn't run the ball before the injuries.  Minus the Rams game.  But we couldn't run in any other game, we couldn't run in 2016, in 2015 or 2014.  

 

I'm big on improving the running game, but WRs who threaten defenses help the run game too, because the defense can't just stick 8 guys in the box.  

 

I actually think in our case, it didn't matter.  Defenses could stop the run with the front 7 and stop our WRs with 1:1 coverage on the outside, so they just did that.  

 

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Essentially, (again, as you said) Doctson has the talent, but similar to Kirk, he had very little in the way of a supporting cast.  

He has the talent, but has not developed, and WR is less of a dependent position than QB.  WRs help the QB out.  They win 1:1, they get open, and then it's up to the QB to get them the ball.

 

He's part of the problem this year, not a symptom of the problem.  

 

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

So, with a few changes/additions, I think Doctson would be in a much better position to succeed.  Add an all around TE and a LG to get the ground game going, get Thompson back to help the short game, flex Reed out to draw coverage, have Reed/Davis/Crowder to threaten the middle of the field, and an outside receiver to put more pressure on deep safeties.

The change is that Doctson needs to stay healthy, have an off-season, and develop his route running skills.  And catch the ball.  That's it.  Other players aren't going to help a WR who can't win 1:1 or catch the ball.  They have to do that on their own.  

 

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Of course I’d still like to add 2 receivers, lol.  I just think we would see a serious trickle down effect with the above changes... even if we only added 1 (good) receiver.  

On this we agree.  Need 2 starters.  If Doctson develops into a stud, which he has every opportunity to do, then you have a heck of a receiving corps.  

[elkabong82]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

So where was your disagreement with me?

 

Even with Bree and no Norman it’s still one of our top units. Bree’s contract should be less than Norman’s. If it’s not, you obviously keep Norman. 

 

I also added “either/or”. 

 

You seemed to suggest the team should move on from Norman and keep Breeland. That's what I took from the "married to" part of your post. I think it's other way around. Keep Norman, let Breeland walk unless signing him doesn't prevent getting bigger priorities of KC, Brown, and NT.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, elkabong82 said:

 

You seemed to suggest the team should move on from Norman and keep Breeland. That's what I took from the "married to" part of your post. I think it's other way around. Keep Norman, let Breeland walk unless signing him doesn't prevent getting bigger priorities of KC, Brown, and NT.

 

No.

 

Did you see the “either/or” part of the same post? I’d prefer Bree for cheaper than Norman and using the Norman money on some of our much worse off positional groups. But I’d never cry about having Norman on the team.

[elkabong82]

23 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

If you want to win a championship, which should be the goal, look at the championship level teams and their skill position players behind their top QBs, and with top 10 defenses. I thought about it, and then I looked at 4 teams that would fit the mold of great QB play, top 10 defense.  Pittsburgh, New England, Eagles, Rams.  

 

Let's assume we make the moves and have a top 10 defense and Kirk is back. That puts us in the category with those teams, except for the skill position players.  

 

Eagles and Rams have not yet shown their teams can sustain success. So I'm not as interested in their model just yet.

 

I'd prefer simply looking at Superbowl winners. That's the model for success that we want.

 

Recent ones: Patriots, Broncos, Patriots, Seahawks, Ravens. Past 5 years winners. Each had top defenses. Patriots have had good role players on their offense but not really any elite talent on offense outside of the QB and TE. Broncos rode that defense, even with Peyton at the helm. Seahawks had Lynch. Ravens also top defense, ok QB that was on a hot streak, good run game. 

 

IMO, based on recent results, you definitely must have a top 10 defense. On offense you need a good QB and then some aspect of the offense that is elite. Reed would be that for us but the health means he can't be counted on. But then we have Doctson developing, we have Crowder, Chris Thompson too. I'll add in that Grant and Harris are good role players. Outside of adding a reliable vet WR2, that offensive unit is good IMO. We have to continue investing in Doctson as the #1. He has that potential. This team I doubt will have the resources to re-sign KC, do what's necessary to create a top 10 D, AND still have money to get an elite WR out of free agency. I'd sooner us go for a bell cow RB in free agency as that is important to a winning team and cheaper than a WR1 would be.

 

Kirk showed he doesn't need a ton of skill position players to produce. If the defense could be relied upon to keep opponents under 20 each week, our current offense when healthy can generate 20+ each week and that has us going far then. 

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

No.

 

Did you see the “either/or” part of the same post? I’d prefer Bree for cheaper than Norman and using the Norman money on some of our much worse off positional groups. But I’d never cry about having Norman on the team.

 

Yes, and what I am saying is that my preference is the opposite. I'd rather us hang on to Norman and let Breeland go, use that money on other positional groups. It won't be as much, but Norman is elite talent which you need on D, and also given the market I don't think Breeland's contract will be significantly less than Norman's, so it's not like we'd be saving a ton of money to acquire a bunch more players. 

[bobandweave]

12 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Where are you getting the idea that Norman has an opt-out clause in his contract?

 

 

https://riggosrag.com/2017/12/14/is-redskins-cornerback-josh-norman-starting-to-regress/

Norman’s current contract expires in 2020, but there is a clause that allows Norman to opt out after this season, if he so chooses.

 

https://nesn.com/2017/12/josh-norman-hints-at-leaving-redskins-while-sounding-off-on-his-team/

Norman is under contract with the Redskins through 2020, but the star corner is eligible to opt out at season’s end.

 

 

[KDawg]

15 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

Yes, and what I am saying is that my preference is the opposite. I'd rather us hang on to Norman and let Breeland go, use that money on other positional groups. It won't be as much, but Norman is elite talent which you need on D, and also given the market I don't think Breeland's contract will be significantly less than Norman's, so it's not like we'd be saving a ton of money to acquire a bunch more players. 

 

Got news for ya... Norman can opt out at seasons end. Got a feeling his new deal will be worth more than his current deal. In which case Bree would be cheaper still.

[Paul Cumberland]

7 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Got news for ya... Norman can opt out at seasons end. 

 

Been looking everywhere where it says he has the choice here...  Can't find anything.  Do you have a link to this?

[KDawg]

11 minutes ago, Paul Cumberland said:

 

Been looking everywhere where it says he has the choice here...  Can't find anything.  Do you have a link to this?

Ironically enough check the post above mine

[Paul Cumberland]

@KDawg I did after I posted.  Article was written by someone named Adam London.  Looked him up.  He works for CBS sports and a website called NESN.   Doesn't appear to be a football head there and NESN is a Boston sports website..  I'd really like to see the details of Norman's contract where it specifically states he has the option to opt out rather than reading an article by someone that may not know the details and could be purely speculating.  Perhaps I can get Tandler and/or Keim to respond to an inquiry..

[skinny21]

@Voice_of_Reason

 

I’d argue that only very good receivers win 1 on 1s consistently. 

 

I’d also argue that Thompson, Reed and Crowder (and maybe Davis) are all mismatches against single coverage.  If we add an outside receiver that also fits in that group, you’re talking 3-4 guys (depending on personnel) on the field together.  Can’t double them all.  

 

The bottom line is that while I’d be thrilled to add two good receivers, I think we have more pressing needs.  I made the same point about adding a runningback to SIP and to someone else (DC9?) about adding a top tier DT in FA.  

 

We have guys we need to re-sign, and if Kirk is one of them, we’re going to have a tough time fitting much else under the cap.  So maybe that’s a receiver (or a LG).  I don’t know.  

 

Now, if we sign a FA wr and then draft one?  Great.  My only hesitation there is I’d put TE, LG, DT, DE, and NT ahead of receiver at that point.  Maybe some others depending on re-signs (swing tackle, ILB, S, corner if Norman opts out, etc.).  

 

If we dont wind wind up with a serious #2 receiver, that’s definitely a risk.  However, as I said, we have other weapons, and 1) Cousins has shown he can get it done with lackluster weapons (though we’d be a big step above that), 2) it would mean we (likely) addresses other areas of weakness.  

 

If we wind up with a deeper and (far) stouter defense, and the run game improves, we can certainly make do with the cast we have (plus the FA receiver).  

 

So essentially, we need 1 good receiver, it would be nice to add 2.  

 

 

Sidenote on Doctson.  There were a couple or more games early in the year that he was getting open, but Kirk wasn’t throwing to him.  Following that (and a few games Kirk did complete some deep balls to him), I heard talk of Doctson drawing more defensive attention.  Around that time, Crowder had his first big game (and a few more since... fumbles, etc. aside), but then we lost Thompson.  So again, I’d argue that Doctson, similar to Kirk) hasn’t had that supporting cast (run game/other weapons) to really benefit him.

 

So again, I think Doctson would be helped by the others keeping attention away from him, and if he does, it forces defenses to adjust and leave other guys in advantageous situations.  

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m hesitant to really rely on Doctson just yet.  His health concerns are still an issue and he hasn’t really proven himself... so I get where you’re coming from.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

Yeah, no offense to anyone, but I need more than a couple of random internet dudes as proof of some opt-out clause. There are way too many breakdowns of Norman's contract out there, and I haven't seen one that mentions any out. It also defies logic that a guy could earn half of the money from a  5 year contract in 2 years and then be allowed to walk away from it. There would, at the very least, need to be a buyback of some sort for that to be part of his deal. And again, such an agreement would certainly have shown up in the breakdowns of his contract.

 

Im just not going to take the words of two random bloggers. And my guess is that they misread this article:

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/24725/josh-normans-contract-provides-an-expensive-out-for-redskins-in-2018?ex_cid=espnapi_public

or. like many people have done here, misinterpreted the spotrac "potential out" line under his contract details.

 

Otherwise it would be showing up in the other articles about the deal.

[DC9]

Well, I think we all can see the major players and the major turning points on this roster in terms of free agency this year.

 

Will be entertaining even if there isn't a lot of turnover.

[elkabong82]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Got news for ya... Norman can opt out at seasons end. Got a feeling his new deal will be worth more than his current deal. In which case Bree would be cheaper still.

 

Yep and it's why FO needs to talk with him to figure out his plans. I like to think Norman's comments before were simply frustartion on the season. But if he does opt out then we'd definitely want to re-sign Breeland of course.