Official 2024 FA/Trades: Ertz, Armstrong, Ferrell, Fowler, Ndubuisi, Biadasz, Allegretti, Deiter, Luvu, Wagner, Pittman, Walker, Ekeler, McNichols, McManus, Mariota, Driskel, Ott, Chinn, Iggy, Davis, Pierre, Zaccheaus, Reaves, Crowder, Obada, Lucas, Byrd

[redskinss]

Anybody care to make a wager that Forbes is on the roster this year?

 

I'd put the odds of him being cut below 5 percent. 

 

Let's not forget that this regime absolutely loves ballhawks, its their stock in trade, whitt likes to brag that between Dallas and green Bay if you go back to his time there no defense has more picks than his.

 

Forbes has the type of talent I think they'll give at least a year to rehabilitate and that's assuming he doesn't already look much better in camp.

 

[RVAskins]

I think Forbes will be on the team next season. I actually want to see what he can do with better coaching.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

He will be on the roster week one I reckon, but if he goes out there and gets rag dolled again, he’s not guaranteed week eighteen.

[Conn]

10 hours ago, seantaylor=god said:

This is true, but you can be an average NFL player that doesn’t fit in a new coach’s scheme.

 

I don’t think he will be cut but when Whitt and DQ talk about “run and hit” players, physical tacklers, etc. does any of that sound like Forbes. Yes, he has ball skills. If the new scheme requires him to play more press man, can he do that?
 

Unless he really commits to playing in the hard nosed style that they are asking of their players I would not be surprised if he gets traded at some point.

 

But he is talented and maybe he shows them enough that he sticks around until we build up the roster more.

Since we’re looking for violent run-and-hit players in our scheme, I wonder if we can trade him to a team whose defensive scheme now requires tiny pansies. A straight swap, perhaps. 

[TurningTheCorner]

1 hour ago, Conn said:

Since we’re looking for violent run-and-hit players in our scheme, I wonder if we can trade him to a team whose defensive scheme now requires tiny pansies. A straight swap, perhaps. 

Not sure if this is an attempt at being funny?

 

Ron had a ton of flaws. But Forbes is a legitimate talent that was put in a terrible position last year (due to said flaws). Trading him now would be getting 50 cents on the dollar which no good GM would ever do. Let’s see how he plays this year before calling him a pansie, not a great look. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

It was a joke. I laughed.

Edited May 6 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[kingdaddy]

16 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

What could have been early struggles for an undersized rookie were exacerbated by an incompetent staff.  

This is the hope of all of us, the staff/scheme was so bad that they totally mismanaged him. Listening to St. Juste it's clear the guys were often confused and playing on their heels instead of doing what their eyes told them to do and playing freely. That clearly won't be the case with this new regime. We really need Forbes to be good, hopefully his head is in a good place and ready to put last year behind him while stepping up this season. 

[Est.1974]

Whitt said he was a big fan of Forbes pre 2023 draft.

[CommanderInTheRye]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:55 AM, philibusters said:

Emmanuel Forbes is too good to cut.   He was a three year player in college and a three year starter (meaning he started as a true freshman).  He played in the SEC the best conference in college football. He was second team all SEC as a true sophomore and first team all SEC as a junior.  He set the D1 record for most interception return for a TD.  The odds that a college player that good completely busts in the NFL is low.  He may not live up to his 1st round draft pick status but he is definitely roster worthy.  Even his very disappointing rookie season, he had a 51 PFF grade.  The same grade as fellow first rounder NY Giants corner Deonte Banks had last season and higher than Derek Stingley's (3rd overall pick in 2022 draft) rookie season grade in 2022  who had a 49 PFF grade in 2022.  You don't give up on that type of talent after a year.  Derek Stingley is a perfect example why.  After getting a 49 PFF grade as a rookie he bounced back with an 81 last year and played his part in the Houston Texans turnaround.  

I am not going to lie, if given a redo with that pick, if I was the GM I probably wouldn't draft Forbes, but even if he was picked too high, he is still super talented and it would be foolish to give up on him after one season.

 

You are answering a question without giving consideration to the conditions which I presented in my original post.

 

Let's go back to my original post for clarification purposes.

 

In the entire post there is one single word that I emboldened for emphasis, because without it,  my hypothetical argument could be misunderstood, and easily dismissed, as a more general, non-contingent argument.

 

Which is essentially what your post above has achieved.

 

That critical word is "if".

 

Here's the unedited paragraph as originally presented, with emphasis unchanged. 

 

"IF after multiple mini-camps, training camp, and pre-season games, Quinn, and his defensive staff, feel that Forbes is broken beyond repair, and he will never hack it in the NFL and AP tries to trade him, but gets no takers..."

 

Those are the conditions under which I arrive at my conclusion as follows...

 

"--they will keep a more promising player on the roster and cut him without remorse."

 

So, my direct question to you is would you still be of the belief that "Emmanuel Forbes is too good to cut"  even if the conditions layed forth in my original post were present? ie:

 

1. After all mini-camp evaluations are concluded

 

2. After training camp evaluations and pre-season games have concluded

 

3. The defensive staff concludes that Forbes is "broken beyond repair" and can't play effectively in their defense

 

4. Head coach Dan Quinn similarly concludes that Forbes is "broken beyond repair" and can't play effectively in his defense.

 

5. Adam Peters then attempts to trade this player, that can't play effectively in the team's defense, but no other team makes an offer for Forbes.

 

 

So, under the conditions in my original post would you still refuse to cut Forbes, because he was once a successful  college player, and is as you put it "too good to cut", or would you move forward with other players that the coaches believe can be more effective than Forbes, today, in the actual NFL?

 

.

Edited May 6 by CommanderInTheRye

[redskinss]

6 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

You are answering a question without giving consideration to the conditions which I presented in my original post.

 

Let's go back to my original post for clarification purposes.

 

In the entire post there is one single word that I emboldened for emphasis, because without it,  my hypothetical argument could be misunderstood, and easily dismissed, as a more general, non-contingent argument.

 

Which is essentially what your post above has achieved.

 

That critical word is "if".

 

Here's the unedited paragraph as originally presented, with emphasis unchanged. 

 

"IF after multiple mini-camps, training camp, and pre-season games, Quinn, and his defensive staff, feel that Forbes is broken beyond repair, and he will never hack it in the NFL and AP tries to trade him, but gets no takers..."

 

Those are the conditions under which I arrive at my conclusion as follows...

 

"--they will keep a more promising player on the roster and cut him without remorse."

 

So, my direct question to you is would you still be of the belief that "Emmanuel Forbes is too good to cut"  even if the conditions layed forth in my original post were present? ie:

 

1. After all mini-camp evaluations are concluded

 

2. After training camp evaluations and pre-season games have concluded

 

3. The defensive staff concludes that Forbes is "broken beyond repair" and can't play effectively in their defense

 

4. Head coach Dan Quinn similarly concludes that Forbes can't play effectively in his defense.

 

5. Adam Peters then attempts to trade this player, that can't play effectively in the team's defense, but no other team makes an offer for Forbes.

 

 

So, under the conditions in my original post would you still refuse to cut Forbes, because he was once a successful  college player, or would you move forward with other players that the coaches believe can be more effective?

 

Under those circumstances it is possible, I just believe the likelihood is extremely low.

 

Of all the first round picks over the last, let's say 30 years how many have been cut before the start of their second season?

 

I say that not as a rhetorical question but as a real question because I don't know the answer but I would imagine the number is exceptionally low.

 

 

[CommanderInTheRye]

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

 

Under those circumstances it is possible, I just believe the likelihood is extremely low.

 

Of all the first round picks over the last, let's say 30 years how many have been cut before the start of their second season?

 

I say that not as a rhetorical question but as a real question because I don't know the answer but I would imagine the number is exceptionally low.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough.

 

It's definitely highly unlikely that a 1st round pick is dismissed before his 2nd season.

 

But if it were to happen the perfect conditions would be a scenario where:

 

1. The GM and coach who originally drafted the player are no longer involved with the team.

 

2. The player drafted played poorly and never established himself during his first season.

 

3. The team acquired new talent that fits their system much better both in the draft and via free agency.

 

4. The player in question performs so poorly throughut mini-camp and pre-season that the new coaches feel he is a liability without upside (see original hypothetical).

 

5. No one wants to trade for the player (see hypothetical).

 

6. Cutting the player sends a powerful message to the team.

 

 

.

 

Edited May 6 by CommanderInTheRye

[redskinss]

8 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

 

Fair enough.

 

It's definitely highly unlikely that a 1st round pick is dismissed before his 2nd training camp.

 

But if it were to happen the perfect conditions would be a scenario where:

 

1. The GM and coach who originally drafted the player are no longer involved with the team.

2. The player drafted played poorly and never established himself during his first season.

3. The team acquired new talent that fits their system much better both in the draft and via free agency.

4. The player in question performs so poorly throughut mini-camp and pre-season that the new coaches feel he is a liability without upside (see original hypothetical).

5. No one wants to trade for the player (see hypothetical).

6. Cutting the player sends a powerful message to the team.

 

It usually takes like a Demetrius underwood situation where the dude is just nuts.

[MartinC]

11 minutes ago, redskinss said:

 

It usually takes like a Demetrius underwood situation where the dude is just nuts.

 

It was a while ago but we drafted an OT called Andre Johnson first round in 96 ( we actually traded up to pick him!). He was cut before the start of the 97 season at the end of preseason without taking a single snap in a regular season game. 

[CommanderInTheRye]

15 minutes ago, redskinss said:

 

It usually takes like a Demetrius underwood situation where the dude is just nuts.

 

I actually agree that his being cut is absolutely improbable, but improbable things are a certainty in this life-- each of us are living proof of that truth.

 

Think about it. A man produces approximately 500 billion sperm in his lifetime.

 

What are the chances that one of those sperms ended up producing any of us?

 

Yet here we  stand.

 

XXXX

 

That aside as a purely intellectual exercise here are my off the top of my head (or some might say out the bottom of my arse) guesses on the percentages for different outcomes:

 

 

1. 10%

Forbes is on the final roster and develops into a superstar exceptional cb. Known for making incredible game breaking interceptions-- just like he did on college

 

2. 20%

Forbes is on the final roster and develops into a decent, but not great player.

 

3. 30%

Forbes is on the final roster but he's just a guy. Nothing special, but an NFL replacement value, middle of the road, win some- lose some, very average corner.

 

4. 30%

Forbes plays poorly during training camp and  pre-season and we have multiple new corners who are much better. AP executes a fair trade and he goes on to another team.

 

5. 10%

It just doesn't work out for Forbes. We can't fix him and nobody wants to trade for him. A couple of rookie free agents are playing great so after debating Internally we make the tough call abd cut the kid outright. He gets picked up to another practice squad then bounces around awhile and finally goes on to his life's work outside football.

 

.

Edited May 6 by CommanderInTheRye

[redskinss]

10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

It was a while ago but we drafted an OT called Andre Johnson first round in 96 ( we actually traded up to pick him!). He was cut before the start of the 97 season at the end of preseason without taking a single snap in a regular season game. 

 

Yeah it has happened but also very rare.

And that was also at the tail end of a time when we held first round picks in much lower regard.

We went over 20 years with 3 first round selections. 

crazy to even comprehend now.

[CommDownMan]

22 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

I actually agree that his being cut is absolutely improbable, but improbable things are a certainty in this life-- each of us are living proof of that truth.

 

Think about it. A man produces approximately 500 billion sperm in his lifetime.

 

What are the chances that one of those sperms ended up producing any of us?

 

Yet here we  stand..

 

This is true, but also 100% of us on this board won that lottery.

 

A fact that has no bearing on your current debate, but I wanted to say it anyway.

[moondog]

Last year was awful for Forbes until late in the year when he became at least serviceable. Given that from guys like Keim reporting and some interviews I think he’s a smart and hardworking kid. A lot of the blame I place on the staff but he deserves blame too. Him being a film studier and worker leads me to believe he cared so little for the coaching that he didn’t buy in or work the way he should have in his rookie year. 
 

I believe VERY strongly in Quinn and Witt’s track record with high picks and undrafted guys - they’ve gotten the best out of people, especially in the secondary. I believe they will here and so I’m optimistic Forbes will put in the work too. The scheme and coaching, imo, will be exception on that side of the ball but Forbes will have to put in the work. If he doesn’t improve drastically this year then I will conclude he’s not putting in the work. 
 

Quinn wants tough guys that will hit and tackle. But there is also a place in his defense for guys that can get their hands on the ball even if they aren’t good tacklers. You look at what they did in Dallas with a guy like diggs - they were ok with him biting and getting burned a decent amount because the payoff was so big. I imagine Forbes fits what they want to do in the same way if he can be productive in that manner. If he doesn’t, I’m pretty sure he’ll still be on the team but he’ll see his PT dwindle and probably won’t be around next year. 
 

Bottom line, I think this coaching staff was a Godsend and the best a guy like him or Davis could ask for in order to get closer to their ceiling. But it’s on them to buy in and put in the work. If they do, I think they can elevate their games significantly and be very productive. If not, they won’t be around beyond this year. 

[CommanderInTheRye]

2 hours ago, CommDownMan said:

 

This is true, but also 100% of us on this board won that lottery.

 

A fact that has no bearing on your current debate, but I wanted to say it anyway.

 

 

100% of us on this board won that lottery.

 

Beautiful!

 

You get it! We ALL are winners!

 

Most of us live defeated lives of quiet desperation, eternally fearful of forces beyond our understanding when all the while every conceivable opportunity is right in front of us despite the illusion of present circumstance.

 

We are luminous beings of eternal light yet so few us choose to glow.

 

Every moment is a precious gift.

 

Why not just go for it and dazzle the world with your brilliance!

 

Sadly so many of you out there have lofty ideas, but somehow repeatedly you undisciplined folks get distracted and lose your way…

 

 

 

 

Now, where the heck did I put that last bumper of Colt 45?

 

There she is… come to papa (gulp).

 

Now what was I saying?

 

—hick—

 

Doesn't matter...glug.. glug...

 

Ahhhh... ice cold and goes down sooo smoooth...now that's what I call real living... -hick-

 

I can always get back to dazzling tomorrow…

 

Or the day after. (glugata glugata glugata…)

 

.

 

 

Edited May 6 by CommanderInTheRye

[redskinss]

19 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

Now, where the heck did I put that last bumper of Colt 45?

 

 Day drinking?

 

Not fair, some of us still have to do that pesky work for a living thing.

[rumplestilskin]

14 hours ago, TurningTheCorner said:

Not sure if this is an attempt at being funny?

 

Ron had a ton of flaws. But Forbes is a legitimate talent that was put in a terrible position last year (due to said flaws). Trading him now would be getting 50 cents on the dollar which no good GM would ever do. Let’s see how he plays this year before calling him a pansie, not a great look. 

Relax. Forbes gets picked on for being skinny.  If he balls out next year the jokes will subside. 

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[TurningTheCorner]

19 minutes ago, rumplestilskin said:

Relax. Forbes gets picked on for being skinny.  If he balls out next year the jokes will subside. 

I just think we have a bad habit of throwing good players out due to bad scheme/circumstances is all. Less about the pansie comment and more about let’s not write this kid off yet.

 

I remember the Ravens and Decosta being really interested in him last year. Anyone think he goes to Baltimore and doesn’t become a ball hawking force back there? We need to be patient and build around him not judge him off a regime that were dead men walking.

[The Rook]

25 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

🤔

I find it interesting that 6 of those 10 teams were in the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[Conn]

15 hours ago, TurningTheCorner said:

Not sure if this is an attempt at being funny?

 

Ron had a ton of flaws. But Forbes is a legitimate talent that was put in a terrible position last year (due to said flaws). Trading him now would be getting 50 cents on the dollar which no good GM would ever do. Let’s see how he plays this year before calling him a pansie, not a great look. 

Yes when I called the NFL player a tiny pansy and speculated that an NFL team running a defensive scheme that calls for tiny pansies may want to trade for him, I was being deadly serious. They’ll have to find him in order to trade for him though—they must look at him straight-on lest he turn sideways and disappear! 

[TurningTheCorner]

11 minutes ago, Conn said:

Yes when I called the NFL player a tiny pansy and speculated that an NFL team running a defensive scheme that calls for tiny pansies may want to trade for him, I was being deadly serious. They’ll have to find him in order to trade for him though—they must look at him straight-on lest he turn sideways and disappear! 

I get it, it was a joke! Bad launch off point

16 minutes ago, The Rook said:

 

🤔

I find it interesting that 6 of those 10 teams were in the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

Me thinks the large QB deals have a lot to do with that.