Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=Bangee7;1139482]...I saw Liz Clarke (WP) noted that the 'Skins FO isn't high on moving T Murphy to DE, but mentioned the possibility of moving him to ILB. That seems interesting to me & I'd like to see how that could play out.[/quote]I heard about Kiem's? suggestion early in this thread that they might move Murphy to DE. It didn't make sense to me to move Murph to DE in a base 34....now moving him to ILB seems more realistic move then to 34 base DE. So I agree with Liz Clarke's source/speculation.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=punch it in;1139471]Well I just said that if there was a stud wr available at the same point there was a damn good ilb or dline pick available i would go with the damn good pick. I think our team is capable of taking the next step only if we improve our D. After 25 years Im ready to win.[/quote]What do the terms 'stud' and 'damn good' mean in terms of grade? Which is would have the higher grade? That's who I want.

If the WR grades out higher then the ILB/DL then I want the WR.

Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1139489]What do the terms 'stud' and 'damn good' mean in terms of grade? Which is would have the higher grade? That's who I want.



If the WR grades out higher then the ILB/DL then I want the WR.[/QUOTE]


If the wr grades out slightly higher i want the ilb/dl. Because you do need to take need into account. Otherwise a team winds up with 9 wr's. Lol.
Edit: ill take Garcon Crowder Jackson Reed and a damn good ilb/dl as opposed to that same group plus a slightly higher graded wr but thats me. I think our offense (with a C) is quite capable as it is. Our D. Not so much.
Oh and to answer ur question stud would be graded higher than damn good. Lol

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=punch it in;1139492]If the wr grades out slightly higher i want the ilb/dl. Because you do need to take need into account. Otherwise a team winds up with 9 wr's. Lol.
Edit: ill take Garcon Crowder Jackson Reed and a damn good ilb/dl as opposed to that same group plus a slightly higher graded wr but thats me.[/quote]BPA would not result in drafting 9 WRs. But I think you know that. BPA prevents a team from having to draft from need. Which to me is a good thing. BPA allows an organization to take the draft as it comes and build the best team possible. Imo when a team allows need into the draft process it skews evaluations because a team will always 'need' something and just because you 'need' something doesn't mean that 'something' will be there when you pick so you reach.

But you know who will be there? The BPA. It might not be what you "need" but getting the BPA will improve the team. A need team can tell themselves ~'well the difference between these 2 players isn't 'that' large or outright skew the evaluations altogether and rank players higher then others due to position. Which opens the door to selecting inferior players. Also I believe a good FO needs to have a forward mindset, you also have to look into the future as you project not just the current team but the team going forward. So while WR might not be "need" this year what are you gonna next year? Draft a WR in the 1st round next year and reach a little because you "need" a WR and end up selecting a WR that is slighty worse then BPA ILB/DL/S/CB because you "need" one?

What you're doing is building a team only 'slightly' worse then the team that could have been built via BPA. And in the NFL the difference between winning and losing is the accumulation of 'slight' differences in quality.

[quote]I think our offense (with a C) is quite capable as it is. Our D. Not so much.[/quote]I think our offense is capable right now as is even with our current C situation. But there is still room for improvement. I would never turn my back on getting better on offense to chase after a lesser rated "need" defender. The draft is not free agency its not a menu. If say Corey Coleman is the BPA at pick 21? Rock and roll. The team just got better.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=punch it in;1139492]If the wr grades out slightly higher i want the ilb/dl. Because you do need to take need into account. Otherwise a team winds up with 9 wr's. Lol.
Edit: ill take Garcon Crowder Jackson Reed and a damn good ilb/dl as opposed to that same group plus a slightly higher graded wr but thats me. I think our offense (with a C) is quite capable as it is. Our D. Not so much.
Oh and to answer ur question stud would be graded higher than damn good. Lol[/quote]

If we draft 8s at positions of need and the better teams picking behind us are drafting 9s and 10s as BPA, then in a few years we are going to be playing teams full of 9s and 10s with a team full of 8s. A team full of 9s and 10s beats a team of 8s every time.

The numbers/grades are of course not absolute, but relative to the players still available around them.

That's why BPA is always the best long term strategy. We weren't a position or two away from the NFC championship. If we strictly adhere to BPA, in a few years, then we're the team stocked full of 9s and 10s.

I totally agree with you, and would love to get a stud DL that can make a QB worry an entire game and really hope it lines up with BPA.

The Cowboys will continue to invest in guys with 10 talent and 1 character and get burned.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

I hear what you are saying 30 gut. Believe me. And i dont want to "reach" for anything. Hence my damn good vs stud comments. Maybe im splitting hairs but after the way our season ended, and what I saw Denver do to Carolina with Half a manning at QB I really really believe we need to draft heavy D.
There has to be a happy marriage between BPA and Need and I trust Mclovin will evaluate both sides at every pick.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[QUOTE=DYoungJelly;1139495]If we draft 8s at positions of need and the better teams picking behind us are drafting 9s and 10s as BPA, then in a few years we are going to be playing teams full of 9s and 10s with a team full of 8s. A team full of 9s and 10s beats a team of 8s every time.



The numbers/grades are of course not absolute, but relative to the players still available around them.



That's why BPA is always the best long term strategy. We weren't a position or two away from the NFC championship. If we strictly adhere to BPA, in a few years, then we're the team stocked full of 9s and 10s.



I totally agree with you, and would love to get a stud DL that can make a QB worry an entire game and really hope it lines up with BPA.



The Cowboys will continue to invest in guys with 10 talent and 1 character and get burned.[/QUOTE]


Again I am not discounting BPA. Thats just silly. However dont discount Need either. You have to evaluate all of it with every pick. In the later rounds BPA is probably king. Im not so sure we werent a player or two away. Maybe im being uber optimistic but I think a strong edge rusher and a good safety/cb could have made a world of difference against GB. There were sooooo many times this past year I said damn we need a pass rusher. Don't remember ever really thinking damn we need a stud wr.
Not saying either to grab 8 need players constantly over the years vs the 9-10's.
However - again - a couple of 8's on D in the first round would have imo put us into the second round. One game from that conference championship. Where as a 9 on offense would have made it less of a blowout vs GB. D was without a doubt our weakness. Lets fix it and try and win now. Once we get to that next level BPA away. Thats a luxury you can afford when you are solid on both sides of the ball and a SB contender.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

We need to bring in at least 1 SOLID G/C type (2 at most) whether thru free agency or the draft. I think after that, we'd be pretty secure there (obviously any injury changes this).

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

I agree with BPA. That being said I hope BPA at our picks are:

1. any stud on defense (preferably on d-line - also hoping we sign another young veteran d-linemen - if we don't get a d-linemen in round 1, every other pick gets pushed down 1 or out for the ST guy)
2. CB/S (either free or strong)
3. TE
4. G/C
5. RB (I'm assuming Morris is gone)
6. ILB
7. Anyone that can contribute on ST

But Scott nailed the last draft, and i'm just a fan with no access to the info he has or the skills to really evaluate the talent, so I trust whatever he does.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1139510]I agree with BPA. That being said I hope BPA at our picks are:

1. any stud on defense (preferably on d-line - also hoping we sign another young veteran d-linemen - if we don't get a d-linemen in round 1, every other pick gets pushed down 1 or out for the ST guy)
2. CB/S (either free or strong)
3. TE
4. G/C
5. RB (I'm assuming Morris is gone)
6. ILB
7. Anyone that can contribute on ST

[B]But Scott nailed the last draft, and i'm just a fan with no access to the info he has or the skills to really evaluate the talent, so I trust whatever he does.[/B][/quote]

Truth. Also, we forget the needs of a team change, occasionally on a day-to-day basis. We might not need a wide receiver today, but could we need one down the road? Absolutely. You take the player you think will be successful. What if you take an ILB in a draft class where all the remaining options are terrible? And 2 years later he's already released. Drafting for need is how you end up wasting draft picks.

Edit: Not to mention, the entire draft is a crapshoot. Look at the first round [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NFL_draft"]results of the 2013 NFL draft[/URL]. Here we are 3 years later and how many of those first rounders became the elite players they are expected to be? You pick the player you expect to be good. Obviously you keep your needs in the back of your mind but with a draft board changing every few minutes you have to make smart, quick decisions.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

Just for the record I am in no way wanting to reach for needs. Im simply saying if there is a wr sitting at 21 that grades out slightly higher than a Defensive player we need than imo go with the need.
And yea the entire draft is a crapshoot.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

you don't choose to draft 100% for need or 100% for bpa. it's a mix, it's always a mix. if the bpa ends up being a WR in all 7 rounds, then 4 of those guys aren't making the roster.

in a way it's all semantics, but i think as long as you go for the highest total projected value with your picks, you'll end up alright. it's not like baseball where you can have 25 pitching prospects and trade them away 3 or 4 years down the line. roster slots are limited, nfl careers are short, and trades are very very rare. if you take bpa to the point where you overload a position, that's lost value in that draftees will either have to be cut or have a very limited role that hurts their progression over the course of the contract (or possibly limit their willingness to resign).

drafting a wr makes sense since 2017 is a year where it'd add a lot of flexibility in regards to PG and DJ and what the future WR corp is going to look like. so even though there's not much need in 2016, it'd still project as a spot with high potential value over the entire rookie contract (which is all that's guaranteed to the team).

last year our RG pick tended more towards the traditional need than bpa (of course they'll always say he was the highest our their board), but again, high value. we needed someone to start right away, and he was able to do that and do it pretty well. since we had already signed like 14 guys on the DL in free agency, drafting there would have had smaller dividends, especially when you consider the depth of talent that was going to be available the next year (and scot is very big on plotting out draft plans and potential/positional draft/FA availability 1-2 years in advance).

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

First I think Scott and most GM process the draft independent from future drafts. There is simple to much fluctuation between prospects from year to year.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

It's not semantics for me because I disagree that passing over a higher rated prospect for a lesser rated prospect can never be called BPA. As in the case of punch it in 2 posts ago. But there are several ways to skins a cat.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=30gut;1139548]First I think Scott and most GM process the draft independent from future drafts. There is simple to much fluctuation between prospects from year to year.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

It's not semantics for me because I disagree that passing over a higher rated prospect for a lesser rated prospect can never be called BPA. As in ghetto case of punch it in 2 posts ago. But there are several ways to skins a cat.[/quote]

if you're including your team (ie guys on the last year of their deal) then it's not really about getting the best player period. green bay took aaron rogers because he was the best player available, even though they had brett favre (who started for 3 more years). that's bpa. he added exactly 0 value for 3 years and did not improve his team at that position, so i think your understanding may be flawed, or a convenient way to deflect criticism. by that logic we would take 0 WRs this year, cause none will be better than PG or DJ, and then in 2017, we'd potentially end up with crowder as our #1 and nothing else. you can't just look at things in a vacuum, which means you're accounting for need in some respect.

and scot does look at future years. he's said so, that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better. same for FA. for future drafts he's looking more at positional availability than at specific guys.

Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

There is no exact science. If there is one it has been proven wrong a million times. Scot will evaluate everything from team needs to bpa in his opinion. Judging by our needs and this upcoming draft Id say Defense is what's for dinner.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=30gut;1139548]Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.[/quote]

When did McLovin say this?

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=That Guy;1139586]if you're including your team (ie guys on the last year of their deal) then it's not really about getting the best player period. [/quote]I can't imagie (other then Vinnie-Dannny) that any FO evaluates their team in a 1 year vacuum.

[quote]...by that logic we would take 0 WRs this year, cause none will be better than PG or DJ, and then in 2017, we'd potentially end up with crowder as our #1 and nothing else. you can't just look at things in a vacuum, which means you're accounting for need in some respect.[/quote]To be clear, the above is based on some 1 year vacuum logic that you invented. Not my view.

When a team evaluates the BPA they are doing so against their own team not just this year but headed into the future. And maybe for you none of the WR prospects are grade out higher then our current WRs but that is not the case for me in the slightest.

[quote]and scot does look at future years. he's said so, that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better.[/quote]Looking at future years and basing draft day decisions on future drafts are 2 completely separate things. I don't claim to know why Scott did or didn't make certain draft decisions. I think that type of speculation is pointless not to mention unknowable.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

its strange how your warped version of bpa includes looking at current and future needs. that'd mean it's not just about picking the best player period and accounts for need. which means your ever changing definition has no relation to its common usage and generally agreed upon meaning. bpa is generally choosing the best player available at your spot in a vacuum with regard to your team. like aaron rogers or detroit taking WRs year after year. needs is "we need a NT, so let's take an NT."

obviously no one is 100% bpa or 100% needs, it's a mix, and good gm's use game theory and value propositions (over average) to determine the best pick, while accounting for external information like future contract expirations, possibly lower perceived value among other teams, etc. i don't know why you keep trying to redefine bpa as something it's not while also insisting that you're mangled view of the term is somehow the right one.


as to your other points:

-which wr prospects are better than PG or DJ in 2017? who should we take? lets not be vague. otherwise it comes off as a premature i told you so without actually telling us anything. so, let's hear it.

-things that scot has said are not speculation or unknowable, so i have no idea where that response is even coming from.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

They really took a huge step forward in 2015. Indeed best days are ahead.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=That Guy;1139596]its strange how your warped version of bpa includes looking at current and future needs. that'd mean it's not just about picking the best player period and accounts for need. which means your ever changing definition has no relation to its common usage and generally agreed upon meaning.
[/quote]Classic. My definition of BPA is different from yours therefore mine is warped? Okay.

My definition of BPA has not changed. These are from previous draft philosophy conversations:
[quote=30gut;1139198]Why? (actual question because im curious how other people view the draft)

The only caveat I have 4 best player available isn't really a caveat. But best player available applies not only to the drafted prospect but to the players on your own team. Meaning if the player you have on your team is better than the player that's available in the draft then that player cannot be the best player available because he's not better than the player that you currently have. But for me that is the only caveat the best player available.[/quote]
[quote=30gut;1139494]BPA would not result in drafting 9 WRs. But I think you know that. BPA prevents a team from having to draft from need. Which to me is a good thing. BPA allows an organization to take the draft as it comes and build the best team possible. Imo when a team allows need into the draft process it skews evaluations because a team will always 'need' something and just because you 'need' something doesn't mean that 'something' will be there when you pick so you reach.

But you know who will be there? The BPA. It might not be what you "need" but getting the BPA will improve the team. A need team can tell themselves ~'well the difference between these 2 players isn't 'that' large or outright skew the evaluations altogether and rank players higher then others due to position. Which opens the door to selecting inferior players. Also I believe a good FO needs to have a forward mindset, you also have to look into the future as you project not just the current team but the team going forward. So while WR might not be "need" this year what are you gonna next year? Draft a WR in the 1st round next year and reach a little because you "need" a WR and end up selecting a WR that is slighty worse then BPA ILB/DL/S/CB because you "need" one?

What you're doing is building a team only 'slightly' worse then the team that could have been built via BPA. And in the NFL the difference between winning and losing is the accumulation of 'slight' differences in quality.[/quote]

[quote]bpa is generally choosing the best player available at your spot in a vacuum with regard to your team.[/quote]I'm not going to call your view warped or wrong, just different. I don't believe NFL GM that follow the BPA philosophy approach the draft in the manner you describe it.

[quote]-things that scot has said are not speculation or unknowable, so i have no idea where that response is even coming from.[/quote]....This[quote]...that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better..[/quote]

Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

Is warped different than "flawed"?
Edit: you say you are going to call his opinion of bpa "different". Not wrong or warped. You clearly though called it flawed which is what spawned all of this.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=punch it in;1139607]Is warped different than "flawed"?
Edit: you say you are going to call his opinion of bpa "different". Not wrong or warped. You clearly though called it flawed which is what spawned all of this.[/quote]You mean this?[quote=30gut;1139548]... If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed.[/quote]

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

you can't arbitrarily redefine understood terms using the same name and just assume it's a good idea.

water - that gooey yellow stuff that comes out of trees. "why are you guys drinking water, water's not for drinking." go onto four other boards and ask them what bpa means, and i promise none of them are going to mention team needs, positional weaknesses, expiring contracts and all of that. I called it warped because it differs from basically everyone that's not you. I mean, come on, you're saying bpa prevents you from drafting for need, while at the SAME TIME saying that you consider needs (team weaknesses would increase the value over average of draftees at that position. you use team strengths reducing the value of draftees instead, but it's literally the exact same thing) while figuring out what the bpa actually is. it's speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

and again, i don't know how something scot actually said in an interview last year somehow becomes "speculation or unknowable" in your mind. that's just weird.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[QUOTE=That Guy;1139613]you can't arbitrarily redefine understood terms using the same name and just assume it's a good idea.



water - that gooey yellow stuff that comes out of trees. "why are you guys drinking water, water's not for drinking." go onto four other boards and ask them what bpa means, and i promise none of them are going to mention team needs, positional weaknesses, expiring contracts and all of that. I called it warped because it differs from basically everyone that's not you.



and again, i don't know how something scot actually said in an interview last year somehow becomes "speculation or unknowable" in your mind. that's just weird.[/QUOTE]


Simple. He will just redefine redefine therefore he is not really redefining.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

So I guess that settles it.

No point in discussing different draft philosophies and what they entail.

BPA takes only the current year into account and completely ignores your own team.

BPA GMs could result in them drafting 7 WRs or 7 QBs.

Good discussion.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

the problem is you kept using the term bpa, but your definition of bpa is closer to needs based drafting than an actual bpa strategy. it makes things really confusing, especially when mentioning that GMs use a mix gets met with "no, you always use bpa, while accounting for team needs, which is totally bpa."

matt millen used bpa and kept taking skill players in detroit and it worked out horribly for him (he/the lions may also just be bad at talent evaluation). green bay used it to trade up and steal rogers, which worked out great for them. new york used it in the 2000's when they drafted DL guys they had no place for... turns out you really can't ever have too many pass rushers.

true bpa picks aren't really that common though, because it can leave you in a hole, and coaches aren't interested in total talent over a 20 year span, they care about winning games this year, cause that's the only way they can stay employed. and most GMs do listen to their coaches, since everyone wants to win and giving coaches guys they don't want is generally a bad idea.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[url]https://mobile.twitter.com/Redskins/status/702644307627343873?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/url]

Wow...gotta get this guy back on the field. Good to see him workin and training

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1139643][url]https://mobile.twitter.com/Redskins/status/702644307627343873?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/url]



Wow...gotta get this guy back on the field. Good to see him workin and training[/QUOTE]


This guy is the wildcard rite now. Huge glaring weakness is the passrush and we might have the answer.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=That Guy;1139642]the problem is you kept using the term bpa, but your definition of bpa is closer to needs based drafting than an actual bpa strategy. it makes things really confusing, especially when mentioning that GMs use a mix gets met with "no, you always use bpa, while accounting for team needs, which is totally bpa."....

matt millen used bpa and kept taking skill players in detroit and it worked out horribly for him (he/the lions may also just be bad at talent evaluation). green bay used it to trade up and steal rogers, which worked out great for them. new york used it in the 2000's when they drafted DL guys they had no place for... turns out you really can't ever have too many pass rushers.
[/quote]We have different views of BPA and drafting and my view of BPA isn't needs based.

Needs based drafting means you can potentially pass on higher rated/graded prospect to draft a player that fits a need; in the manner punch it in outlined.

That is nothing like how I think a GM with a BPA would approach a draft. A BPA GM would always take the higher rated prospect. Needs based, as outlined by punch the higher rated prospect may be passed over in favor of addressing a need.

Another and really the key area where we disagree is I don't think GMs that are BPA advocates ignore their own team and I think they have longer focus then a 1 year snapshot of their team. So when a GM espouses a BPA philosophy its not gonna result in drafting 7 WRs or 7 QBs. In my view they're gonna ask themselves is this prospect the BPA on my team?
For example the Vikings when they had Chester Taylor, he was a 1,000 yard RB but Adrian Peterson was still a better prospect. Or when it was rumored that Scott would have taken Gurley even though we had Alfred.

I have no idea what Matt Millen's draft philosophy was; all I know is he wasn't good at drafting players regardless of his strategy.

And when it comes to pass rushers I think any GM regardless of BPA or need based will agree that you can never have enough. And depending on scheme you could potentially have anywhere from 4-7 positions where you could have a pass rusher from DL to LB to DBs.

To each there own, when I look at drafting history for GM's that I know espouse BPA (Scott, Casserly, Wolf, Thompson,Schneider) I think it bears out that they take into account whether the BPA prospect is also the BPA on their own team.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

Don't paint me as a strictly drafting for needs guy though. If we get into the third round for example and the safety pool is all but dried up I certainly do not suggest reaching for a safety over taking the "damn good", (there are those words again), wr prospect sitting there. Even though imo we "need" a safety over a wr at this very moment. Its just not that black and white. There are so many things that go into the equation. How far off is your team from competing for a championship? After all - that is the goal of all of this. At this moment , imo, we are a few defensive players away from competing from said championship. So, again, if there is, for example, a wr who grades out SLIGHTLY higher than a ILB sitting at, for example, pick number 21 or 42, based on our teams chances of making some noise next year, I am pulling for the ILB or the BPA on the defensive side of the ball - secondary, dline, ilb - whatever. That doesn't mean I am drafting for need to the point that im going ilb at all cost at any point in the draft. That would be silly.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

Rappoport says skins are keeping all options open including tagging cousins and trading him

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[QUOTE=kingj;1139716]Rappoport says skins are keeping all options open including tagging cousins and trading him[/QUOTE]


No effing way they trade him unless its for two or three firsts. He's getting tagged or my name isnt orville Redenbokker. I would sign him now and save a few mill. Cus he is worth it.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

A sleeper free-agent Safety David Bruton Denver.... probably cost a little more than J.Johnson. And might be a steal

[url]http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/roster/David-Bruton/4eb85e3d-502f-4a8b-b1af-b1d4b203bd57[/url]

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=punch it in;1139718]No effing way they trade him unless its for two or three firsts. He's getting tagged or my name isnt orville Redenbokker. I would sign him now and save a few mill. Cus he is worth it.[/quote]

if he's asking for $24 mill a year, you're not saving anything. we don't know what the details are, but scot and eric and danny know contracts and are willing to pay, so you've got to figure kirk's side is asking for a lot.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

Then there's this:

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2016/02/28/junior-galette-unhappy-with-contract-negotiations-fires-agent/?postshare=2401456686194080&tid=ss_tw[/url]

Galette fires agent who also represents McLovin.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1139790]Then there's this:

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2016/02/28/junior-galette-unhappy-with-contract-negotiations-fires-agent/?postshare=2401456686194080&tid=ss_tw[/url]

Galette fires agent who also represents McLovin.[/quote]


Yes, this is bad news. Asking for more money, with not much room under cap means less likely to be here next year.. Still hopeful however, after all he's got a Redskins tattoo..

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=ethat001;1139804]Yes, this is bad news. Asking for more money, with not much room under cap means less likely to be here next year.. Still hopeful however, after all he's got a Redskins tattoo..[/quote]

I find it interesting that he's asking for a one-year deal. I guess the Redskins see a lot of potential; but I don't blame Galette for seeking that one-year deal.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

of course he wants a one year deal. he had a prove it deal last year and produced exactly 0 stats, which means his value right now is way down. he still won't be fully right when the season starts, but he'll be pretty close.

the skins aren't going to shovel money his way. he still has character concerns and he hasn't done anything for us on the field yet. I do think he can help us quite a bit, but if he wants to get too cute with this, the skins might just walk away. until the QB contract situation is dealt with, i'm pretty sure everything else (that isn't a great value buy) is sort of on hold.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[QUOTE=That Guy;1139736]if he's asking for $24 mill a year, you're not saving anything. we don't know what the details are, but scot and eric and danny know contracts and are willing to pay, so you've got to figure kirk's side is asking for a lot.[/QUOTE]


No way he is asking for 24, but franchise tags if he plays well (which he will) can bring u to that number real quick.

Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
 

[quote=ethat001;1139804]Yes, this is bad news. Asking for more money, with not much room under cap means less likely to be here next year.. Still hopeful however, after all he's got a Redskins tattoo..[/quote]

right now the Redskins do not have much cap room. However, it will
change when they make cuts... (Goldson,Roberts+ Riley) adds about $15 million. There could be a lot more money with renegotiated contracts and other cuts.

That is not counting cutting RGIII who will be close to the amount needed to sign KC