What to do with LG

[Darth Tater]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

It's our new leprechaun we're trying to catch now that we finally used a first rounder on a NT(Thank God).  If there is a plan now its starting to look like finger paint.

 

"That's great, Bruce, but you do know you can use more then one color, right?"

There are always those positions that end up only getting filled because you evaluated a guy differently (but better) than everybody else.  According to Beathard, he had Grimm rated as a number 1 just behind May and apparently he was the only GM in the NFL as Grimm was available in the 3rd (if Washington had not been available for basically a 2, we'd have used it on Grimm according to Beathard).  Bostic was the guy we'd picked up off the NFL trash heap who Grimm was supposed to supplant. Bostic ends up as a solid center which allowed Grimm to start at LG from 1981 to 1986.  We found a guy in 1985 that allowed us to finally complete the switch we were planning and later, when Bostic recaptured his starting role, gave us a pretty deep line.

 

In 1981, Mark May was supposed to take the LT role but was beat by a UDFA (so we are talking about a guy who was rejected by all 28 teams multiple times).  We were able to get May to give a good account of himself at RG and got him to give us a SB year at RT.

 

Somehow, when we were desperate for a blue-chip LT, we were able to find a trade partner. Over the years, we had also found multiple street guys that were has beens according to the NFL (Huff never was a consistent starter but was a pretty solid 6 from 1983 to 1985 while RC Theilman was the starter on a SB team).

 

Sounds like finger paint to me.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Darth Tater said:

Sounds like finger paint to me.

 

Allen does not equal Beathard, full stop.  You're being hopeful, this doesn't have to be rocket science, for $2 million we could have a respectable player at LG right now.  What you described is a whole lotta luck.  A lot of teams wish they were that lucky.

 

I'm getting tired of ya'll trying to rationalize this instead of asking if it was rational to begin with.

[Darth Tater]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Allen does not equal Beathard, full stop.  You're being hopeful, this doesn't have to be rocket science, for $2 million we could have a respectable player at LG right now.  What you described is a whole lotta luck.  A lot of teams wish they were that lucky.

 

I'm getting tired of ya'll trying to rationalize this instead of asking if it was rational to begin with.

No one is trying to rationalize anything except you.

[Renegade7]

Just now, Darth Tater said:

No one is trying to rationalize anything except you.

You sure you understand what rationalize means if you're saying that to me?  Look, I don't agree with what we are doing for LG, I'm saying why and offering what we should've done instead.  You don't have to agree with me nor do you have to respond to me.  Hope is not a plan, potential does not equal production.

[Silvernon]

23 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Unfortunately, the free agent market for guards this offseason was really poor. I don't think there was much out there that was a real upgrade from Lauvao.

 

Hopefully, one of the young players will step up. I believe that is the Redskins' plan (hope).  

I think their hope is for a starting calibre guard to be released and they need someone who knows what to do in the meantime. 

[Darth Tater]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You sure you understand what rationalize means if you're saying that to me?  Look, I don't agree with what we are doing for LG, I'm saying why and offering what we should've done instead.  You don't have to agree with me nor do you have to respond to me.  Hope is not a plan, potential does not equal production.

Yes. Do you understand what the phrase means?  Rationalization here is your assumption that our failure to find a left guard is from lack of having a plan when the evidence clearly shows that the problem is an execution fail.

[Renegade7]

Just now, Darth Tater said:

Yes. Do you understand what the phrase means?  Rationalization here is your assumption that our failure to find a left guard is from lack of having a plan when the evidence clearly shows that the problem is an execution fail.

They didn't run counter-trey on 3rd and short, they ran it on 3rd and long.  It was a bad call to begin with, has nothing to do with execution. 

 

They should've better addressed the o-line in FA (signed a tackle instead of Ty and Evans now looks like the most sense to me for LG), and if they decided not to do that or draft a linemen that was better inside because most of our oline depth is for players that play outside (inside is our true weakness right now). 

 

Rationalization is typically done in defense of something, not what I'm doing here.

[Darth Tater]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

They didn't run counter-trey on 3rd and short, they ran it on 3rd and long.  It was a bad call to begin with, has nothing to do with execution. 

 

They should've better addressed the o-line in FA (signed a tackle instead of Ty and Evans now looks like the most sense to me for LG), and if they decided not to do that or draft a linemen that was better inside because most of our oline depth is for players that play outside (inside is our true weakness right now). 

 

Rationalization is typically done in defense of something, not what I'm doing here.

How are you not defending something?

[markmills67]

What contract did Lauvao get from us?.

 

HTTR 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

It's not about going on a shopping spree, not all holes have to plugged by rookies and projects.  Who is the starting LG?  For $2 million, Evans makes more sense while you're developing someone, imo, more sense then resigning an injury prone tackle and drafting one instead of a guard.  Allen is getting some stuff right, but he got this wrong.

 

As you know I don't completely disagree. I am not excited about Lauvao back in the building. But I am interested to see what their solution is. Not sure we can call it wrong until we see. Right now, we just do not know. 

 

Not saying it cannot be a disaster. And fair enough most history suggests it could be a real concern. In the end I guess I have more faith in the coaching staff - could be totally misplaced. But still I like what they have done at some position of concern. 

 

I will say this, if Lauvao is our starting LG to start he season, then I will be right on board with you. It will be a massive fail at addressing that position. 

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

How are you not defending something?

The only reason I'm defending myself is because you're forcing me to to defend MY position.  You are defending the Redskins position.  I didn't come into this trying to defend what the Redskins did, you did in how you are responding to me.

 

This is semantics at this point.  I don't agree with what we're doing at LG, you don't have to force me to explain why.  I still stand that you are trying to defend the Redskins decision making on addressing this position and I can't tell if in the back of your head you feel we shouldn't be in this position to be begin with.  Do me a favor and please make clear if you are fine with what the Redskins are doing as an overall plan for LG versus defending individual decisions that appear throughout the plan (where ever it seems to take us).

 

I don't agree with the plan to begin with, so I'm not going to defend each decision that pops up along the path of this "plan".    

13 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

As you know I don't completely disagree. I am not excited about Lauvao back in the building. But I am interested to see what their solution is. Not sure we can call it wrong until we see. Right now, we just do not know. 

 

Not saying it cannot be a disaster. And fair enough most history suggests it could be a real concern. In the end I guess I have more faith in the coaching staff - could be totally misplaced. But still I like what they have done at some position of concern. 

 

I will say this, if Lauvao is our starting LG to start he season, then I will be right on board with you. It will be a massive fail at addressing that position. 

I understand, we've talked about this before.  In no way do I want to be right about this, I want us to be okay at LG and us to do well this year.  I take no joy in pointing the mistakes of my favorite team, I'm just getting it off my chest.

[Darc Requiem]

1 hour ago, markmills67 said:

What contract did Lauvao get from us?.

 

HTTR 

I know it's a joke around here, but I honestly believe it's veteran minimum plus incentives. Lauvao didn't so much as a sniff from anyone else. He can't have gotten much.

[Master Blaster]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Allen does not equal Beathard, full stop.  You're being hopeful, this doesn't have to be rocket science, for $2 million we could have a respectable player at LG right now.  What you described is a whole lotta luck.  A lot of teams wish they were that lucky.

 

I'm getting tired of ya'll trying to rationalize this instead of asking if it was rational to begin with.

 

What specifically would you have done differently?

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

33 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

 

What specifically would you have done differently?

http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018G.php

 

C/G Matt Slauson 1 yr/ 3M deal seems ideal. 32 yr old vet that can play both positions, short 1 yr deal allows us to develop Arie or Welsh for a year. 

But that is about it, if I was the GM. The better options cost 7.5M per and up and we dont need or want that. 

 

I still believe a decent to good G option will become available via late cut. If not, sign Jahri Evans to a 1 yr. 

 

If I could revise history, Id draft Leonard Williams and pay Norwell (26). We are going to end up paying Scherff a similar 5 yr/65M type contract anyway. Unless we pull a Panthers and let Scherff walk bc we dont think Gs get paid like that. If so, dont draft a G in the top 10 to begin with if your organization philosophy is to cap G pay at like 5-6M per (which I agree with). Obviously this is all revisionist history and hypotheticals = has no redeeming value or merit. 

 

Norwell was an UDFA. 

[Bobby Peppers]

Zane Beadles was just released by San Fran. I doubt he'd be an upgrade however, he was as a starting guard. Got a decent contract but never lived up to it. 

[markmills67]

Zane Beadles just released by 49er's, worth a look?.

 

HTTR 

[Est.1974]

17 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

Zane Beadles just released by 49er's, worth a look?.

 

HTTR 

 

Probably worth a look as a short term option. May not be viewed as much of an upgrade over Lauvao. I'd say he was, but factor in the potential extra cost. Could be a wash.

[Bobby Peppers]

4 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Probably worth a look as a short term option. May not be viewed as much of an upgrade over Lauvao. I'd say he was, but factor in the potential extra cost. Could be a wash.

His PFF grade was 32.9. Lauvao was 38.3.

[Die Hard]

6 hours ago, Silvernon said:

I think their hope is for a starting calibre guard to be released and they need someone who knows what to do in the meantime. 

 

I won't deny the possibility that it may, in fact, be their strategy. It's just... if it is... is incredibly stupid. On occasion... somebody falls. And it's a nice bonanza when it does... but you can't formulate a roster strategy based around that possibility. It's ridiculous.

 

How much you wanna bet that Shawn Lavauo will be our starting LG on opening day?!?!

[Renegade7]

5 hours ago, Master Blaster said:

 

What specifically would you have done differently?

Easy, sign Jahri Evans at minimum.  I then would've weighed my options for backup tackle instead of resigning Ty because he old and gets hurt too much and used the third round pick on a linemen that I knew could eventually start at LG. Pretty reasonable, right?

[Master Blaster]

38 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Easy, sign Jahri Evans at minimum.  I then would've weighed my options for backup tackle instead of resigning Ty because he old and gets hurt too much and used the third round pick on a linemen that I knew could eventually start at LG. Pretty reasonable, right?

 

So if the Redskins signed Evans you’d be happy?

 

And you still didn’t go into specifics, considering the Redskins didn’t have a 3rd going into draft and you never said who you would’ve picked. 

 

Also didn’t say which T you would’ve signed. 

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

 

So if the Redskins signed Evans you’d be happy?

 

And you still didn’t go into specifics, considering the Redskins didn’t have a 3rd going into draft and you never said who you would’ve picked. 

 

Also didn’t say which T you would’ve signed. 

Yes, I'd be happy.

 

If we signed Jahri Evans, I don't need specifics on what else we need, this thread is about what to do about LG.  What, I have to say we still shoulda traded down and still got Guice, do you think I disagreed with that?  I already said we should've drafted guy the Texans drafted 6 spots back from us since we did trade down in like 2-3 other threads, I'm sorry you're not paying attention, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

 

If you have the audacity to say that resigning Ty was our only option in regards to a veteran backup tackle, I'll take 15 minutes to prove you wrong, otherwise, leave me alone.  

[Renegade7]

n/m

[#BgMase76#]

On 4/30/2018 at 11:10 AM, OVCChairman said:

 

 

we've got 2 probowlers, a top 5 highest paid tackle, and we averaged 3.6 ypc @ 90.5 ypg... clearly there is a piece of the puzzle missing that even Callahan cant overcome.  

That's only a fair assessment if they're healthy. Our running game didn't look bad early with the exception of the Philly game. Trent was playing on a bad knee until they shut him down. Lauvou is just trash (IMO). Every OL was in and out of the line up. 3/5 starting OL on IR. That's with Moses finishing the season on two bad ankles. 

[#BgMase76#]

On 5/3/2018 at 3:33 PM, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

Okay .... I dont know where we are going with this. Im not knocking Roullier. He doesnt need a defense to my perception of things. 

 

I feel like my thought that he exceeded low expectations last year when he was thrusted into a starting role as a 6th round rookie, you find disagreeable. okay, cool. 

 

He started what, 6-8 games last year as a rookie. I dont think I am being unreasonable or without logic that I see that as to small of a sample size to declare him the long term answer at C. He very well could be. I am not ready to anoint him yet. If I had to guess, Id guess there is a 75% chance he is the starter at C for the next few years. 

 

Idk ...  my point was I would like a decent vet starting at LG next to our second year C vs an complete unknown like Arie next to a still unknown but promising looking C. 

 

Well, here's another way to look at it. Roullier starting as a rookie was the least of our worries on the OL. Think about that one. LOL