Redskins trade for Free Safety Dashon Goldson

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Oh, I am totally unqualified to point and say "this guy" in FA or the draft. But McCloughan is supposed to be good at this. Which begs the question, why did we fill a roster spot with a 30 year old safety? I get it's a likely stop gap, which does nothing to advance this team to the Superbowl, imo.

There is something to be said for experience. A lot of times, its the older players helping the younger ones to develop. Its not like you can cut the whole team, sign 53 rookies, and then claim that you are on the verge of a SB victory since the team is full of youth.

If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a 30 year old safety, then we are much farther along in this rebuild than I could have ever imagined.

No one has said that McC can fill every position with quality youth in 1 year. He may be good at the draft, but we dont have 50 picks in this draft, we have 7. Getting some older players is going to happen.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

There is something to be said for experience. A lot of times, its the older players helping the younger ones to develop. Its not like you can cut the whole team, sign 53 rookies, and then claim that you are on the verge of a SB victory since the team is full of youth.

If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a 30 year old safety, then we are much farther along in this rebuild than I could have ever imagined.

No one has said that McC can fill every position with quality youth in 1 year. He may be good at the draft, but we dont have 50 picks in this draft, we have 7. Getting some older players is going to happen.

Good point about experience, I think. Though I would put more onus on the coaching staff. I guess decent examples of vet play to go with coaching is good.

The "if the only thing" is kind of nonsensical to me. We could apply that to anything. "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a poor right tackle". "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a corner that bites on first moves" "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a lack of another safety".... whelp I guess we don't need to worry about those things either, right?

Well, a 30 year old safety isn't our only issue. And it is an issue if what we got was another old Ryan Clark or Tracy Porter. Did those vets experience help our team's development last season? I think you still have a point about experience, just saying it's not a guarantee I guess.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Good point about experience, I think. Though I would put more onus on the coaching staff. I guess decent examples of vet play to go with coaching is good.

The "if the only thing" is kind of nonsensical to me. We could apply that to anything. "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a poor right tackle". "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a corner that bites on first moves" "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a lack of another safety".... whelp I guess we don't need to worry about those things either, right?

Well, a 30 year old safety isn't our only issue. And it is an issue if what we got was another old Ryan Clark or Tracy Porter. Did those vets experience help our team's development last season? I think you still have a point about experience, just saying it's not a guarantee I guess.

I dont disagree about coaching being apart of young players progressing, but I also believe that vets can teach younger players as well. Someone like Ryan Clark, I dont think was necessarily a bad thing. He didnt play well last year, but he has done enough where younger players would listen to him when it comes to preparing, taking care of your body, etc. Sometimes the words of a coach can go right over the head of a young guy, but they tend to respect the vets that have done it for a while. Sadly, we may not have had the young player necessary at his position for any teaching to matter, but that doesnt necessarily make it a bad idea in general. It just means we needed better young safeties for a Ryan Clark on a 1 year deal to matter.

Maybe I shouldnt have made the if the only thing comment. But to me, Its not a strong field for safeties. What is the other option? Trading for Goldson doesnt stop us from getting a young guy to back him up, but what are you going to do without him? There doesnt seem to be that one young guy that can come in and start right away. If we do find that guy late in the draft, he will most likely need at least a year to play like a starter. So Goldson can keep that guy on the sidelines for a year so he can learn. Some people, if they fail badly, can mess them up for future years. It can be a confidence killer and some rookies cant handle that. If this was a strong draft for safeties, and one looks like he can start immediately, then you may have a point about getting Goldson here, I just dont see that player being available. It basically cost us nothing, I dont consider swapping a 6th for a 7th to be much at all, and it can be looked at as a 1 year 4 mil contract since we can cut him next year with no cap hit.

Stop gaps arent necessarily a bad thing. We dont have to force a move or draft pick for a safety. Stop gaps can really let you concentrate on best available with your picks instead of constantly drafting for need. Doing it for however many years we have is terrible, but thats not on McC at all, he just got here.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I dont disagree about coaching being apart of young players progressing, but I also believe that vets can teach younger players as well. Someone like Ryan Clark, I dont think was necessarily a bad thing. He didnt play well last year, but he has done enough where younger players would listen to him when it comes to preparing, taking care of your body, etc. Sometimes the words of a coach can go right over the head of a young guy, but they tend to respect the vets that have done it for a while. Sadly, we may not have had the young player necessary at his position for any teaching to matter, but that doesnt necessarily make it a bad idea in general. It just means we needed better young safeties for a Ryan Clark on a 1 year deal to matter.

Certainly, if we could get a winning culture in the locker room like the Steelers or Patriots, that would be a good thing. From Ryan Clark's comment awhile back before he rejoined us that . “Being in Washington, they don't care about football. ...", to the preseason scrimmage we had last season with the Pats, where they continued to practice while we signed autographs.

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Maybe I shouldnt have made the if the only thing comment. But to me, Its not a strong field for safeties. What is the other option? Trading for Goldson doesnt stop us from getting a young guy to back him up, but what are you going to do without him? There doesnt seem to be that one young guy that can come in and start right away. If we do find that guy late in the draft, he will most likely need at least a year to play like a starter. So Goldson can keep that guy on the sidelines for a year so he can learn. Some people, if they fail badly, can mess them up for future years. It can be a confidence killer and some rookies cant handle that. If this was a strong draft for safeties, and one looks like he can start immediately, then you may have a point about getting Goldson here, I just dont see that player being available. It basically cost us nothing, I dont consider swapping a 6th for a 7th to be much at all, and it can be looked at as a 1 year 4 mil contract since we can cut him next year with no cap hit.

Meh, you're cool, the "only thing" just rubbed me the wrong way. I think we should go with a young guy and take our lumps if necessary. That's how good teams mostly build, not by relying on signing vets.

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Stop gaps arent necessarily a bad thing. We dont have to force a move or draft pick for a safety. Stop gaps can really let you concentrate on best available with your picks instead of constantly drafting for need. Doing it for however many years we have is terrible, but thats not on McC at all, he just got here.

McC definitely will need time. Vinnie destroyed what Gibbs built, and it hasn't gotten better since. I would hate if there was a good safety prospect we didn't try out because we had a stopgap. We really do need to go BPA, we have holes nearly everywhere. Need is for teams that only have a few holes.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

I would hate if there was a good safety prospect we didn't try out because we had a stopgap.

Nothing to worry about here.

Real GMs, like McLovin, are constantly looking to upgrade every position including the ones we assume are locked down for a few years.

Whether it's further acquisitions in FA or acquiring more picks in the draft these guys (now anyway) are always grinding.