Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1140944]I wouldn't mind drafting another OLB even with Gallette back. I'd be happy with a guy like Floyd from Georgia. Any player on the defensive side would be alright by me. Or Laquon Treadwell if he is available[/quote]

We have Preston who was drafted in the 2nd last year. We don't need another OLB at this point. We have some good depth at that spot right now.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1141072]We have Preston who was drafted in the 2nd last year. We don't need another OLB at this point. We have some good depth at that spot right now.[/quote]

Agree...I also believe we are basically set at ilb as well. Kept Riley and signed the guy from Pittsburgh.

I expect us to continue improve free safety, dline and cornerback on defense.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

We heard the rumor/speculation before that Murph might be a candidate to move to DE.

Personally I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it now.

Murph has value in his currently role. Asking him to bulk up and move to DE in base defense is a huge ask.

It could also mean they want him to play DE in a 4 man line on passing downs. But between him Ryan, Gallette and Preston...Murph is the last of that group I expect quality pass rush from.

Murph is good at setting the edge as a 34 OLB and there is value there on 1st and 2nd down and in known/expected run situations. Murph in that role allows Junior to be come in fresh as a situational pass rusher.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

If a ILB is BPA at any point I'm not going to allow Foster and Riley to dissuade me from picking thar ILB.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141057]No. Why?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/quote]

because I believe he will be a starter, yet you don't have him listed on your "depth chart"

was just curious as to why.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141082]If a ILB is BPA at any point I'm not going to allow Foster and Riley to dissuade me from picking thar ILB.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/quote]

not even close . . . we need a real MLB, one that has the speed to tackle sideline to sideline and to cover RB's and TE's . . . Foster and Compton are ok . . . but not top of the line by no means, average at best.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=SkinsGuru;1141085]not even close . . . we need a real MLB, one that has the speed to tackle sideline to sideline and to cover RB's and TE's . . . Foster and Compton are ok . . . but not top of the line by no means, average at best.[/QUOTE]
Lol, then you agree with me. There are some ILB prospects I like from the top of the draft like Ragland to the middle like Schobert to the end like where BJ Goodson is currently projected.

Any you like in particular?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=Bangee7;1141084]because I believe he will be a starter, yet you don't have him listed on your "depth chart"

was just curious as to why.[/QUOTE]
Oh, right. I think Perry when healthy starts over Compton.

You threw me off with the trade scenario, that's why I asked

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

i don't think there's ever a reason to pull JG for murph, unless JG is winded or hurt, so i'd definitely look at a position switch where he's limited pass rushing ability isn't as big of a negative.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1141072]We have Preston who was drafted in the 2nd last year. We don't need another OLB at this point. We have some good depth at that spot right now.[/quote]

It's not our biggest need, but Galette is only on a 1 year deal, and Murphy is looking more like a DE and/or 3-4 OLB run stuffer. So if the best player available is a guy like Leonard, I'd say you take him.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=sdskinsfan2001;1141104]It's not our biggest need, but Galette is only on a 1 year deal, and Murphy is looking more like a DE and/or 3-4 OLB run stuffer. So if the best player available is a guy like Leonard, I'd say you take him.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.

I don't subscribe to "need" based drafting. But if it makes need philosophy drafters feel better you could argue that having 2 premier edge rushers is a need. And right now we barely have 1 in Kerrigan.

We're 'hoping' that Junior can return to form but expecting dominant pass rush from a speed rusher returning from injury is really r i s k y. If a edge rusher is BPA that makes the team better in arguably thee most important area on the team: pass rush.


On passing downs you could go Gallete-Preston-Kerrigan-rookie edge rusher

But from a prospect standpoint Leonard wouldn't be my choice as BPA edge rusher...but I can see how BPA could having drafting an OLB
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141107]On passing downs you could go Gallete-Preston-Kerrigan-rookie edge rusher[/quote]

JG rushed from the inside in NO a lot on passing downs. Also, don't forget Chris Baker. He is good rushing from the inside as well.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1141152]JG rushed from the inside in NO a lot on passing downs. Also, don't forget Chris Baker. He is good rushing from the inside as well.[/quote]

If Galette comes back healthy, watching him + Kerrigan/Smith should be pretty sexy lol.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Pierre Thomas on the Redskins "radar" - why ?

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=Irrefutable;1141242]Pierre Thomas on the Redskins "radar" - why ?[/quote]

because he was solid last year and if we don't draft someone, we'll need a body. he catches, he blocks, he doesn't fumble.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Why not with Thomas?

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=Irrefutable;1141242]Pierre Thomas on the Redskins "radar" - why ?[/quote]

Because he plays football and we need football players...

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Personally would prefer another Matt Jones in the 4th or 5th round again this year as the 2nd RB in the rotation.

I got zero problem bringing in Peirre Thomas to compete with Chris Thompson as the 3rd down back.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=That Guy;1141243]because he was solid last year and if we don't draft someone, we'll need a body. he catches, he blocks, he doesn't fumble.[/quote]

Agreed, he showed he fit our offense incredibly well so I don't know why anyone would have a problem with him being our 3rd RB rotating with Thompson.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

^ Agreed -- and good veteran presence and influence on the younger guys.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=MTK;1141244]Why not with Thomas?[/quote]

#1 RB big question mark

#2 RB averages 6.3 games per year... 3 carries per game

#3 RB if Thomas wants to compete at the NFL minimum, ok

They need two RBs that can establish a running game.... Jones might be one

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=Irrefutable;1141276]#1 RB big question mark

#2 RB averages 6.3 games per year... 3 carries per game

#3 RB if Thomas wants to compete at the NFL minimum, ok

They need two RBs that can establish a running game.... Jones might be one[/quote]

thomas was vet min last year, and was available mid-season. no idea why he'd get a raise.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1141244]Why not with Thomas?[/QUOTE]
Consistency of FO philosophy. If the focus is on youth then he's too old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1141283]Consistency of FO philosophy. If the focus is on youth then he's too old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
SM's philosophy is "football" players and Pierre Thomas is that. Second is value and a threat like PT at around vet minimum would be good value. Youth is important but not the sole aspect of this FO philosophy.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141283]Consistency of FO philosophy. If the focus is on youth then he's too old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/quote]

Nobody would be building a team with Thomas and the Redskins certainly are not. If he is a good veteran influence at minimal cost that can still play, in the judgement of coaches and the front office, why the heck not? It's not like he's being put on the 53 man roster, it's March, for crying out loud.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1141284]SM's philosophy is "football" players and Pierre Thomas is that. Second is value and a threat like PT at around vet minimum would be good value. Youth is important but not the sole aspect of this FO philosophy.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Agreed, youth is not the sole aspect. Pierre Thomas is just a guy in my book.
Hasn't played much recently and has limited production and he's on the wrong side of 30 which for a RB is old and has been knicked up.
On top of that he doesn't contribute on special teams.
So if they're not resigning Hatcher due to age then imo from the sake of consistency then PT shouldn't be signed at RB.

Draft or sign a younger guy that can contribute as both a RB and "football" player on special teams.

My 2 cents anyhow....with that being said it's all but a lock he signed now, lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1141286]Agreed, youth is not the sole aspect. Pierre Thomas is just a guy in my book.
Hasn't played much recently and has limited production and he's on the wrong side of 30 which for a RB is old and has been knicked up.
On top of that he doesn't contribute on special teams.
So if they're not resigning Hatcher due to age then imo from the sake of consistency then PT shouldn't be signed at RB.

Draft or sign a younger guy that can contribute as both a RB and "football" player on special teams.

My 2 cents anyhow....with that being said it's all but a lock he signed now, lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Signing him now doesn't take away any options but he is better than just a guy. He can protect on 3rd or leak out as a receiver. He did good in the short time he was with us and isn't the typical 30+ running back in how little full-time play he has seen. I have no problem if they sign him or don't but I also am OK if they don't.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

We cannot win the Super Bowl without PT. He is essential to our successs.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141286]
So if they're not resigning Hatcher due to age then imo from the sake of consistency then PT shouldn't be signed at RB.
[/quote]

they're not resigning hatcher because he'd cost $8mill. if hatcher would take vet min, they'd be bringing him to camp for sure. PT costs you nothing and he does some things a lot better than matt jones right now, which makes him a reasonable 3rd down back, especially if someone gets hurt.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[B][/B][quote=CRedskinsRule;1141287][B]Signing him now doesn't take away any options[/B] but he is better than just a guy. He can protect on 3rd or leak out as a receiver. He did good in the short time he was with us and isn't the typical 30+ running back in how little full-time play he has seen. I have no problem if they sign him or don't but I also am OK if they don't.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk[/quote]

Key point. They can still draft a RB.

I agree with your other points as well.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

PT is on the radar, which means if no better options are available before camp we could bring him back in.

He's a cheap and available type that can fill in well when needed as a 3rd down back.

Not even really worth the discussion we've had so far.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Alot of these guys will probably linger til after the draft now.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=Evilgrin;1141293]Alot of these guys will probably linger til after the draft now.[/quote]

Exactly, no reason to sign him now only to release him if a RB is BPA.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/24274/david-bruton-can-help-the-redskins-even-if-hes-not-starting]David Bruton can help Washington Redskins, even if he's not starting - Washington Redskins Blog- ESPN[/url]

good stuff about Bruton on how he fits. Good signing

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Chris Baker ✔ ‎@cbaker92redskin
Ummmm Scott come on man PLEASE #KEEPPOTROASTINDC [url]https://twitter.com/rapsheet/status/714448828456386560[/url] …
11:30 AM - 28 Mar 2016

Baker posted photos of an apparently slimmer Knighton on Monday and promised that “y’all haven’t seen us at our best yet.” Knighton, who played fewer than 400 snaps and battled cluster headaches last season, finished with 29 combined tackles and 1 1/2 sacks.

Coach Jay Gruden estimated last week that the Redskins utilized their base package on less than a third of their defensive snaps last season, and that reduces the need for an exclusive nose tackle. [Defensive coordinator Joe] Barry plans on further de-emphasizing the position this season, Gruden said.

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/03/29/redskins-chris-baker-is-lobbying-hard-to-keep-terrance-knighton-in-d-c/[/url]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I expected more from Knighton last season. He just didnt collapse the pocket enough imo. Then it seemed like he was trying to penetrate to make tackles vs taking on blocks ... but then there were times when he would push the center back and disrupt plays.

I would like him back but i wonder how much of that is bc he is baker's bff. Im torn on this one.

Terrance Knighton ‏@MisterRoast98 22h22 hours ago
Keep that word rotational out of any thing about me

^^ and then he says this. sorry, you would be rotational if you sign w the skins.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

I thought he looked about the same in the photos...

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1141398]I thought he looked about the same in the photos...[/quote]

I agree, although it was hard to tell, Knighton was in dress clothes .... lets see what he looks like in a t shirt

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

He's OK. Can get somebody with better upside in the draft in rounds 1 or 2.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Knighton would be fine as a not-quite last resort - assuming it was the right price. He had a "prove it" deal and, well, he proved he was average at best. At the same time, he provided good leadership and character to the locker room.

If Scot's guy isn't there in the draft or other positions have better players when we pick, I have no problem bringing Knighton back at a less-than-prove-it deal. He is not the disruptive force he was in Denver two years ago (that may be b/c he is not surrounded by the other disruptive forces that were in Denver at the time), but he is a solid pro who knows the D, knows the personnel, and knows what it takes to win.




"Well, we need to find [I]somebody[/I]."

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Boldin visiting the Redskins

[url=http://www.nfl.com/player/anquanboldin/2505587/careerstats]Anquan Boldin: Career Stats at NFL.com[/url]

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000648730/article/anquan-boldin-visiting-washington-redskins?campaign=Twitter_atn]Anquan Boldin visiting Washington Redskins - NFL.com[/url]