Woz Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, turtle28 said: It can be argued that Spaight can bring to the table most of what Foster does. Then, behind Spaight and Brown you would have Vigil, SDH & JHC battling it out for two back up ILB spots, or maybe we’d keep all three of them behind them. As I said that if I were GM, I'm not sure I would be completely comfortable taking a guy who is a tested starter (and who I have under contract control for two years) and exposing him to an expansion draft to give his backup the inside track to a starting role knowing full well that said backup could walk after the season (or become significantly more expensive than I might want to pay). [*voice from the peanut gallery*] Holy run-on sentence, Batman! [*me*] Shut up, you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 4 hours ago, turtle28 said: It can be argued that Spaight can bring to the table most of what Foster does. Then, behind Spaight and Brown you would have Vigil, SDH & JHC battling it out for two back up ILB spots, or maybe we’d keep all three of them behind them. No it can’t. Spaight isn’t even remotely close to as good as Foster. Spaight is decent depth that should never be your starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldman9er Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 11 hours ago, lavar703 said: No it can’t. Spaight isn’t even remotely close to as good as Foster. Spaight is decent depth that should never be your starter. Never? Spaight is all of 24 years old. You could be right, and it might even be likely, but it still seems a bit premature to lock him in as a permanent backup-quality player. Seems like so much comes down to the faith or lack thereof for the coaching staff. Since they get to see the full picture, and we get but a fraction of how players are developing.. I'm cozy with kicking back and letting their work in the preseason determine which backups deserve roster spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 12 hours ago, lavar703 said: No it can’t. Spaight isn’t even remotely close to as good as Foster. Spaight is decent depth that should never be your starter. It’s clear Spaight doesn’t have the experience that Foster has but I do think they’re similar players. No doubt he needs to improve but I don’t think the drop off is huge. Spaight or SDH could certainly be our starting ILB next to Brown next year or the year after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostnote Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Spaight plays with a lot of energy and I can appreciate it. Could I see him as a starter? I dont know. Foster is far more experienced and should be starting, but I cant see him as a long term option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, mike23md said: Spaight plays with a lot of energy and I can appreciate it. Could I see him as a starter? I dont know. Foster is far more experienced and should be starting, but I cant see him as a long term option. Except for this exercise, the question on the table is: do you expose Mason Foster to an expansion draft? Do you feel comfortable with the possibility that Foster is picked up by NewTeam and the Redskins are essentially forced to start Spaight/Vigil/Harvey-Clemons/Dion Hamilton next to Zach Brown coming into the 2018 season? This whole Spaight vs Foster thing is getting clouded by the concept of "Spaight could develop into a starter." That's not the issue. Do you think Spaight (or any of the others behind him) should be a starter right now, because that would have to yes for the team to expose their veteran starting inside linebacker (who is on a very favorable contract) to get picked up by expansion? I'm not picking on you, @mike23md (or at least I'm not intending to). I just want the whole board to understand the question. Is there a better candidate to expose (i.e. would have less impact to the team) if he was taken? I would say, yes, Jeremy Sprinkle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Woz said: Except for this exercise, the question on the table is: do you expose Mason Foster to an expansion draft? Do you feel comfortable with the possibility that Foster is picked up by NewTeam and the Redskins are essentially forced to start Spaight/Vigil/Harvey-Clemons/Dion Hamilton next to Zach Brown coming into the 2018 season? This whole Spaight vs Foster thing is getting clouded by the concept of "Spaight could develop into a starter." That's not the issue. Do you think Spaight (or any of the others behind him) should be a starter right now, because that would have to yes for the team to expose their veteran starting inside linebacker (who is on a very favorable contract) to get picked up by expansion? I'm not picking on you, @mike23md (or at least I'm not intending to). I just want the whole board to understand the question. Is there a better candidate to expose (i.e. would have less impact to the team) if he was taken? I would say, yes, Jeremy Sprinkle. Spaight did start 6 games last year and played a lot of snaps in other games. He had 75 tackles, he’s solid against the run but gets a little lost vs the pass like Foster & Brown too. Lets think about this too. I trust @footy_29 analysis and judgment on players - especially young players - a lot. He was even thinking that Spaight could be a replacement for Brown this year. I wasn’t quite that bullish on Spaight, but if someone like Footy feels that way about him, I do believe he could replace Foster and we wouldn’t lose as much as we think. That being said, I have to agree with you that exposing Sprinkle is a much better option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.