Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State


Recommended Posts

Nothing much to add (as usual), but I really appreciate the conversations you guys have in this thread and others, especially from SIP, stevemcqueen1, and TSO.

Just like the Skins, we have some real gems, not a whole lot of depth, and a pretty overrated guy who's writing this post.

Edited by NewCliche21
  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:


This. And Denver’s WR’s aren’t in the same universe as ours. Courtland Sutton put up better numbers than McLaurin last year and they drafted Jeudy and Hamler. I think Jeudy is a HOF caliber talent. He would have been our best offensive player, maaaaybe behind McLaurin. Fant is better than any TE on our roster, by a mile. They just have much, much better offensive talent than we do, and to suggest otherwise is super homer-ish. 
 

Our DL is more talented than theirs. Maybe Haskins is better than Lock. The rest of the roster isn’t really comparable. 

 

I don't disagree with your overall point--but Sutton didn't outperform McLaurin by much, in his 2nd year vs. McLaurin's first--200 yards or so in 2 more games. I would take Fant in a heartbeat. Jeudy puts this unit over the top--he is going to haunt the Raiders for passing on him. Given health (a HUGE assumption), I would take our backs--Guice is a phenomenal, again, when healthy. I still think there's a lot of talent on our offense, we just need to develop it.

 

I still add the caveat that our coaching staff was a train-wreck last year. We have no real evaluation because our entire staff was basically the Island of Misfit Toys--just a conglomerate of ill-fitting parts that didn't seem to really give a ****.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Damn, so Dwayne seems to be running his own version of OTA's from home. He's got Terry, Kelvin, and whoever else is around to work at a local field and he's got a home gym he's using to stay in shape. He says he's in the best of shape of his life and he looks it. He's getting along really well with the new staff and other than that, the rest of the interview is mostly about changing his commitment from Maryland to Ohio State.

Edited by Fresh8686
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I guess then am confused about your position, I thought I quoted you where you said our O line is "decent".    My response more or less to that was its likely less than decent so if anything I'd think I am more pessimistic than you.

 

I think I misinterpreted what you said then.  Thought we were both going with the line is average, but that you thought it was unlikely but possible they make a leap to above average.

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My take is I think Scherff is really good.  Case at center is decent.  Moses at RT is so so but props for durability.  LG is a wildcard and in theory at least it's not looking hot.  LT is a wildcard.

 

Is it odd that I feel decently confident our LG situation will be OK?  Not as good as Ereck Flowers developed into, but OK.

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I bring up the Giants because they in basically three seasons in theory have built themselves a good O line.  Arguably every team in the division now has an above average O line except for us so IMO we got some work to do on this front. 

 

 

Have they?  I mean, they were below average last season.  Drafting Andrew Thomas helps considerably, but is that enough to push them into good OL status?  I think it's the same OL unit except swap the poor Mike Remmers with the rookie Andrew Thomas.

 

Eagles somehow keep having a quality OL.  Even when I think there's going to be fall off...nope, they find the right guy in FA, or draft/develop the right player.  Dallas OL is overrated but still good.  I don't think they're world beaters, but it's clearly a good unit.  Compare that to the Giants, and I don't have faith in their OL suddenly turning a corner despite drafting Andrew Thomas.  I'm expecting the wheels to fall off somehow.

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for Charles, IMO he has the feet and athleticism to play LT.  The question is about his length, 33 inch arms from what I recall.  As for the LT-G conversation, looks like its mixed. 

 

33 inch arms are tough to overcome for an OT, who knows, maybe it was a measuring error like Joe Thomas.  It doesn't seem like he's got length issues on tape.  He's definitely one of those, let's try him out at OT and then find out if there are issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

33 inch arms are tough to overcome for an OT, who knows, maybe it was a measuring error like Joe Thomas.  It doesn't seem like he's got length issues on tape.  He's definitely one of those, let's try him out at OT and then find out if there are issues.

I'd add that he played LT on the best team, for the best offense, against the best competition, and basically dominated just about everybody he faced.  

 

If he hadn't had off the field issues, he would have been graded much higher.  

 

So we'll see.  I actually think he has a chance to be pretty special.  My wife is an LSU fan.  So I saw quite a bit of LSU football.  When he played, he was pretty damn impressive.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Is it odd that I feel decently confident our LG situation will be OK?  Not as good as Ereck Flowers developed into, but OK.

 

 

It's not odd at all.  For me it fits the category of I just don't know but anything is possible.  

 

2 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Have they?  I mean, they were below average last season.  Drafting Andrew Thomas helps considerably, but is that enough to push them into good OL status?  I think it's the same OL unit except swap the poor Mike Remmers with the rookie Andrew Thomas.

 

IMO they indeed have.  Zeitler at RG is as good as Scherff.  I'd easily take Hernandez at LG over Martin.  I'd easily take Andrew Thomas at LT over Christian.  To me Solder and Moses at RT is a wash.  Heck their PFF scores are just about identical.   I'd take Chase over Pulley but neither dude is some pro bowler stud.  

2 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

33 inch arms are tough to overcome for an OT, who knows, maybe it was a measuring error like Joe Thomas.  It doesn't seem like he's got length issues on tape.  He's definitely one of those, let's try him out at OT and then find out if there are issues.

 

I only watched 2 of his games, one of which was the Alabama game and i was impressed.  He doesn't have long arms but I love OTs with quick feet, who recover quickly when they are initially beat and who are feisty -- like the way he plays. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be shocked if they put forth $7m before evaluating ross, martin, and dude from Atl. Still thinking they look to replace Trent in the 1st next year, and groom Charles to replace Moses. 
 

Ismael takes over C this year. Never liked what chase brought, and thought he’s been our weakest link for a while. 
 

Side note, Dwayne looks really good. You can tell he’s put some serious work in just by his face. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skin'emAlive said:

Ismael takes over C this year. Never liked what chase brought, and thought he’s been our weakest link for a while.

 

Never understood the hate Chase is getting here. I also don't think he is a world beater but he is also not someone that is easy to upgrade from. He could for sure be better in the run game but he is pretty decent in pass pro and in general makes very few mistakes. Numbers look good, PFF grades him clearly as an above average C in this league and he is super durable.

I just don't see how he is our weakest link on the o-line that needs to be upgraded and why you think a 5th round rookie can immediatly replace Chase. I could understand when this is an argument based on scheme fit for example but not on his performances so far.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skin'emAlive said:

I would be shocked if they put forth $7m before evaluating ross, martin, and dude from Atl. Still thinking they look to replace Trent in the 1st next year, and groom Charles to replace Moses. 

 

I don't know if they chase Warford or not.  But I'd be surprised if Atlanta's former backup guard, Schweitzer, or Wes Martin is the reason why.  They supposedly were interested in bringing back Flowers but the price just got high so clearly they weren't totally sold on Martin being the guy.  As for Ross it makes me at least pause on him between them drafting another center and him getting no reps last year.  I don't know maybe they do really like him but I have at least questions if they do. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not saying Schweitzer, Martin, or Ross are better than Warford. And I would think about bringing him in for $7m. But we also got pretty good play out of Flowers for a fraction of that cost last year. I don’t think Rivera would bail completely on the 3 without having seen what they can do yet. I’m ok with whatever they do at LG, as long as it doesn’t break the bank. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skin'emAlive said:

I’m not saying Schweitzer, Martin, or Ross are better than Warford. And I would think about bringing him in for $7m. But we also got pretty good play out of Flowers for a fraction of that cost last year. I don’t think Rivera would bail completely on the 3 without having seen what they can do yet. I’m ok with whatever they do at LG, as long as it doesn’t break the bank. 


The reality is we did try to bring back Flowers but got out priced north of our 6-8 mil valuation on him. So really along with the Scherff tag, the likes of Martin and Ross weren’t getting much of a look in anyway.

 

if we don’t look to compete in bringing Warford in then I will find that another very average/disappointing offseason decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

I don't understand why he's asking for so little. He's 28, coming off three straight probowls, has missed 2 games the last two years... he could very easily be the highest paid guard with stats like that.

Is it possible Warford has a suspension looming and it just hasn't been disclosed league wide yet?

 

That salary doesn't fit the production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

Is it possible Warford has a suspension looming and it just hasn't been disclosed league wide yet?

 

That salary doesn't fit the production.


It is a strange one, but last year of his deal, they drafted his replacement and cut ties. 

 

I mean, I would compare that to the situation we have with Kerrigan. We have drafted his replacement 2 years running now, yet think it’s a good utilisation of resource to pay him in excess of 11mil this year on a one year rental. 

Edited by UK SKINS FAN 74
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


It is a strange one, but last year of his deal, they drafted his replacement and cut ties. 

 

I mean, I would compare that to the situation we have with Kerrigan. We have drafted his replacement 2 years running now, yet think it’s a good utilisation of resource to pay him in excess of 11mil this year on a one year rental. 

 

 

Not really though.  You don't rotate LG like you do DE.  Flowers played 99.57% of the snaps at LG.  Kerrigan played 56.71%, Sweat played 63.96%.  Ioannidis led our whole D-line in snaps at 73.06%.   1 draft pick can replace the LG and deem them replaceable.  1 draft pick cannot replace an effective pass rusher.  You always have room for that.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Not really though.  You don't rotate LG like you do DE.  Flowers played 99.57% of the snaps at LG.  Kerrigan played 56.71%, Sweat played 63.96%.  Ioannidis led our whole D-line in snaps at 73.06%.   1 draft pick can replace the LG and deem them replaceable.  1 draft pick cannot replace an effective pass rusher.  You always have room for that.  


So what % of snaps are you comfortable paying Kerrigan 11.5mil for then?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


So what % of snaps are you comfortable paying Kerrigan 11.5mil for then?

 

 

Its a lot less about snap count than it is production.  I think Kerrigan is going to feast in our new defense... and a lot more than Ryan Anderson is capable of.  Young and Sweat cannot play 100% of the snaps at DE, and I don't want us to be pushing interior DL outside to try and spell them.  If Young, Sweat, and Kerrigan can each get 50-60% of the snaps with each of them moving around, alternating sides, standing up at times... then it means each of them is more fresh, and stronger over the course of the game.

 

Lets say we release Kerrigan.  We're not likely to ask Young and Sweat to play more than 75% of the snaps, that would not be a good mix.  So you have to rotate players.  Without Kerrigan, you likely rotate Brailford and Anderson.  Now the drop off there is pretty big imho.  That would worry me, ESPECIALLY if one of those two went down.  The other option is to sign a FA.  Clowney is the top option, but Sportrac has his market value at over $18 mil per year.  Now i dont think he gets that, but regardless he's going to be more expensive than Kerrigan and likely want a long term deal since he's 27 and this is likely his last real chance to cash in.  

 

SO... can you find someone on the open market that can give you Kerrigan's production (4 double digit sack seasons in the last 6 in a terrible defensive system) that is going to cost LESS than Kerrigan, who also comes completely off the books next season?  Since Kerrigan was drafted in 2011, only 3 players have more sacks over that period of time, if i'm not mistaken.  Von Miller, Chandler Jones, and JJ Watt.  On this table, Wake and Matthews have 2 more years playing, and Wake had 19.5 across his first two seasons.

 

 

 

1 Terrell Suggs 139.0 2003-2019 3TM
2 Von Miller 106.0 2011-2019 den
3 Cameron Wake 100.5 2009-2019 2TM
4 Chandler Jones 96.0 2012-2019 2TM
  J.J. Watt 96.0 2011-2019 htx
6 Clay Matthews 91.5 2009-2019 2TM
7 Ryan Kerrigan 90.0 2011-2019 was
8 Justin Houston 89.5 2011-2019 2TM
9 Calais Campbell 88.0 2008-2019 2TM

 

 

I guess if you want to quantify it by a number, If Kerrigan get 10+ sack this year, and plays a healthy 50% of the snaps.  That's worth it to me.  If he repeats this past season, I don't see it as a loss either.  This is a 1 year audition to see if Kerrigan still got it in a new defense.  We owe him $0 next season.

 

The other part of this conversation, is what are you cutting him for?  Is there a high priced free agent you see out there at another position, and Kerrigan is contract preventing us from bringing that other guy in?  We're currently well under the cap, and I believe you can only carry over a certain amount of money... into a year that we are already going to be one of the top teams with regard to cap space.  What's the purpose of saving $11m THIS season?  Saving the money for the sake of saving the money to me is not worth letting him go, go have Jordan Brailford and Ryan Anderson rotating in Kerrigan's place... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

Its a lot less about snap count than it is production


I quoted your posted which was all about snap count. Nothing at all about production.
 

I’ve been a long standing supporter of Kerrigan from day 1. But it makes no sense to me at all to pay him up on his current deal. In fact, I will go on record as saying he doesn’t make the roster on that contract. I would only retain him on ~50% of what he is due to earn right now. I’d rather have a day 3 pick for him in 2021.
 

As for cap space, what is the point of a one year rental on Kerrigan? I’d sooner retain some more cap space to build with next year. Carry more forward. That must be the plan because we’ve avoided the upper parts of FA like the plague.
 

The plan must be to attack FA next offseason when it’s clear to RR what we have. These statements about one year auditions for veterans like Kerrigan and Scherff, I find them crazy. Either commit to them for the medium-long term now or move on now. Are the coaching staff unsure about what qualities they have? No way.
 

If we pay Kerrigan & Scherff a combined 26-27mil to finish 5-11 and see them both off the roster next year, that is GM-ing the Bruce Allen way. I’d rather play inexperienced backups at DE and start Martin at RG, and have 50mil cap carry over.

 

EDIT - just realised this is in the Haskins thread so will leave it as that and not derail the thread further...

Edited by UK SKINS FAN 74
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


I quoted your posted which was all about snap count. Nothing at all about production.
 

I’ve been a long standing supporter of Kerrigan from day 1. But it makes no sense to me at all to pay him up on his current deal. In fact, I will go on record as saying he doesn’t make the roster on that contract. I would only retain him on ~50% of what he is due to earn right now. I’d rather have a day 3 pick for him in 2021.
 

As for cap space, what is the point of a one year rental on Kerrigan? I’d sooner retain some more cap space to build with next year. Carry more forward. That must be the plan because we’ve avoided the upper parts of FA like the plague.
 

The plan must be to attack FA next offseason when it’s clear to RR what we have. These statements about one year auditions for veterans like Kerrigan and Scherff, I find them crazy. Either commit to them for the medium-long term now or move on now. Are the coaching staff unsure about what qualities they have? No way.
 

If we pay Kerrigan & Scherff a combined 26-27mil to finish 5-11 and see them both off the roster next year, that is GM-ing the Bruce Allen way. I’d rather play inexperienced backups at DE and start Martin at RG, and have 50mil cap carry over.

 

 

I know, I led with the fact that its less about snap % and more about production.  Kerrigan's value goes way beyond a % of snaps played.  Kerrigan could play 35% of the snaps and have enough production for me to think the contract was worth it.  He could play 80% of the snaps and fall short of what the value of the contract is.  If Kerrigan is able to get the actual production of an $11.5 million dollar contract, the % mean's very little to me.  Now i also mentioned in my post that part of his value is spelling Young and Sweat with a viable option that is better than anything we have, as well as anything we could get at a similar price.  

 

I only referenced snap count in my initial response because you compared Kerrigan's contract situation to Warford when they are very different because of the position they play.  A LG does not rotate the same way a DE does.  The snap count was just evidence of that.  Warford's replacement got drafted, and when you draft a replacement guard, then the high priced guy that's currently on the roster becomes more readily expendable.  A rotational DE does not share that philosophy because even the best DE's dont play 99.57% of the snaps like Flowers (our LG) did last season.  Retaining a proven pass rusher making $11.5 million (21st in the NFL) is a lot different than retaining a proven LG who is getting paid $12.5+ million (6th in the nfl, and Andres Peat is making $11.5 mil on the other side), and you drafted his replacement.  Meanwhile both of Kerrigan's 'replacements' as you put it are still on their rookie deals.  

 

I was incorrect, and there is no 'cap' on how much you can carry over, so that point you make is 100% valid.  Why spend the money now when we can save it for later, I was mistaken there so for that i'll take the hit.  I do wonder if the MINIMUM amount of cap required to be spent has changed.  Til this year it was 89%, so i would wonder what cutting Kerrigan would do to that part of it.  

 

As far as avoiding the upper parts of FA like the plague, I don't agree completely.  We took a major swing at Cooper, and we ended up missing out.  That's fine because I'm not sure i wanted to commit $25 million apy to Cooper, but Rivera and Smith clearly though he was their guy.  We were in the conversation for Hooper as well, if i'm not mistaken he actually came out and said he chose Cleveland over us because of a couple different factors.   Not sure what other top tier FA we should have gone after... I mean WR would not have hurt but i'm actually glad we didnt panic and overspend just because we missed out on our guy.   

 

I actually agree with most of your point that I don't necessarily feel good about paying Kerrigan that kind of money just for this year.  I'd actually look to extend him for as much as 3 years, or 2 with a team option for a 3rd.  

 

The bigger point that started this i guess was that I can't really look at Kerrigan and Warford's situation as the same.  It just went a long way lol.  Sorry. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

I do wonder if the MINIMUM amount of cap required to be spent has changed.  Til this year it was 89%, so i would wonder what cutting Kerrigan would do to that part of it.  

 

As far as avoiding the upper parts of FA like the plague, I don't agree completely.  We took a major swing at Cooper, and we ended up missing out.  That's fine because I'm not sure i wanted to commit $25 million apy to Cooper, but Rivera and Smith clearly though he was their guy.  We were in the conversation for Hooper as well, if i'm not mistaken he actually came out and said he chose Cleveland over us because of a couple different factors.

 

I actually agree with most of your point that I don't necessarily feel good about paying Kerrigan that kind of money just for this year.  I'd actually look to extend him for as much as 3 years, or 2 with a team option for a 3rd.  


I think the minimum cap/cash spend used to be on like a 2 or 3 year rolling period, but I could be wrong on that. 
 

In hindsight, I’m not that convinced we were ever realistically in the race for either of those FA. I mean, we reportedly only offered Cooper 23mil in guaranteed money, so even though we went in at 110mil in total, is that really competitive against the 60mil he got guaranteed from Dallas? And Hooper, RR said we were not interested in resetting the TE market with Hooper. So we were never getting him. Never.


Last note re Kerrigan, i agree on an extension. I’d give him a 3 year 20mil deal with the first 2 years paying him 12-13mil in fully guaranteed money. Basically a 2 year 12-13mil fully guaranteed deal. Last year optional 7mil salary.

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Key thing, we need to protect Haskins and give him weapons to succeed. Warford at that kind of potential contract would be a no brainer for me.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


I think the minimum cap/cash spend used to be on like a 2 or 3 year rolling period, but I could be wrong on that. 
 

In hindsight, I’m not that convinced we were ever realistically in the race for either of those FA. I mean, we reportedly only offered Cooper 23mil in guaranteed money, so even though we went in at 110mil in total, is that really competitive against the 60mil he got guaranteed from Dallas? And Hooper, RR said we were not interested in resetting the TE market with Hooper. So we were never getting him. Never.


Last note re Kerrigan, i agree on an extension. I’d give him a 3 year 20mil deal with the first 2 years paying him 12-13mil in fully guaranteed money. Basically a 2 year 12-13mil fully guaranteed deal. Last year optional 7mil salary.

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Key thing, we need to protect Haskins and give him weapons to succeed. Warford at that kind of potential contract would be a no brainer for me.

 

 

 

Just a quick response.... 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/austin-hooper-free-agency-it-really-came-down-cleveland-and-washington

 

Quote

With a giant hole at the tight end position and plenty of cash to spend, multiple reports suggested the Redskins would be aggressive in their pursuit of Hooper. And it sounds like they were. 

 

"It really came down to Cleveland and Washington," Hooper said. "At the end, I chose to be a Brown."

 

We may not have wanted to reset the market, but it appears, at least from Hooper, that we were a major player. 

 

As far as Cooper is concerned, I thought i read that the contracts were almost identical, but the major difference in guarantees would absolutely play a part.

 

 

 

 

I agree we need to protect Haskins, and Warford is a very interesting option to me.  I worry about the concept that i've heard that his production dipped last year.  New Orleans is paying Peat quite a bit, and Peat is injury prone, so why chose Peat over Warford?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


It is a strange one, but last year of his deal, they drafted his replacement and cut ties. 

 

I mean, I would compare that to the situation we have with Kerrigan. We have drafted his replacement 2 years running now, yet think it’s a good utilisation of resource to pay him in excess of 11mil this year on a one year rental. 

I understand cutting him for salary purposes, but for him to go out and say he's only looking for 7 mil a year is strange. Maybe he doesn't care about the money and just wants to go to a contender. I wonder if he wanted to restructure with NO but saw the writing on the wall when they drafted Ruiz. They've also been spot on when drafting OL so they had that luxury to go younger and cheaper.

I also wonder if there's any truth to rumors of trying Scherff at RT again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK changed the title to FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State
  • PCS locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...