Jump to content

It's been too quiet! Do you think we are in the process for big moves coming soon, or status quo?


Recommended Posts

I don’t think we needed to necessarily get a big splash free agent, but I worry that save Fuller we haven’t even gotten a guy that’s projects as a solid starter. We downgraded at left guard from Flowers and haven’t spent that money elsewhere. Our offense was beyond anemic last year and we’ve managed to only downgrade so far this offseason. If you assume our first round pick is Chase, that leaves us counting on a bunch of third round guys and beyond to be contributors straight away, and that’s not necessarily a high percentage success strategy. If you want Dwayne to be successful, I think you need to take some real steps on that side of the ball.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

With that in mind, what is Kerrigan, Scherff or Dunbar going to do? Why are we keeping them? They should all be dealt for draft picks. Same with Trent.

It's a cost to benefit ratio. If the cost for the player matches the benefit, then they can stay. It's the exact reason that Trent Williams should be traded. (And Dunbar if he continues his request to be traded.) Obviously the cost of certain FAs were too high for the presumed benefit and we backed out. This is why drafting/signing an UDFA is always so appealing, because the cost is always less than the FA market. 

 

I'm tired of "winning the offseason" and I'm ready to trust the process. 

HTTR!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lavar703 said:

Desean Jackson, Pierre Garcon, Josh Norman his first two years, Landon Collins was our best defensive player last year, London Fletcher etc. I mean, they haven't all been bad but I do agree we shouldn't be going after the big splash. I wasn't under the impression that paying Austin Hooper $10m a year would be a big splash. 

IMO, they chose to focus on Amari Cooper and ended up losing out on both FAs. 

I may be the minority, but I'm not overly impressed with Austin Hooper. He is a "solid player", but he isn't a game changer IMO. I would take a healthy Jordan Reed over him 10/10 times. That's just me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slappy Mc said:

IMO, they chose to focus on Amari Cooper and ended up losing out on both FAs. 

I may be the minority, but I'm not overly impressed with Austin Hooper. He is a "solid player", but he isn't a game changer IMO. I would take a healthy Jordan Reed over him 10/10 times. That's just me.

I think most everybody would take a healthy Jordan Reed over him. Jordan Reed was awesome. 

But we also gave (mostly) healthy Jordan Reed $47M four years ago. The cap was $155M that year, and it’s gone up by almost $45M in that span of time (28%). Its expected to continue to skyrocket with the new media deals over the next few seasons. And yet we can’t even get into the ballpark of giving Austin Hooper $42M? I get that it’s a higher AAV than the Reed contract ($10.5M compared to $9.4M) — but it’s a rapidly changing financial landscape at this point, and Hooper got a significantly lower percentage of the current cap than Reed did (5.3% for Hooper and 6.1% for Reed).

I’d gladly pay Reed more than Hooper, so I’m not saying Hooper got underpaid or anything. But my thing is, there’s really no decent alternative to Hooper out there. The rest of the FA market stinks, it’s a weak TE class, and it’s a position where you rarely get immediate impact anyway. The end result of passing on Hooper is we will go another season without providing Haskins a legitimately good receiving TE. To me, if you have to “overpay” to make sure you secure a player in that important role for a young QB, you do it. It’s not like we’re pressed up against the cap. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, e16bball said:

I think most everybody would take a healthy Jordan Reed over him. Jordan Reed was awesome. 

But we also gave (mostly) healthy Jordan Reed $47M four years ago. The cap was $155M that year, and it’s gone up by almost $45M in that span of time (28%). Its expected to continue to skyrocket with the new media deals over the next few seasons. And yet we can’t even get into the ballpark of giving Austin Hooper $42M? I get that it’s a higher AAV than the Reed contract ($10.5M compared to $9.4M) — but it’s a rapidly changing financial landscape at this point, and Hooper got a significantly lower percentage of the current cap than Reed did (5.3% for Hooper and 6.1% for Reed).

I’d gladly pay Reed more than Hooper, so I’m not saying Hooper got underpaid or anything. But my thing is, there’s really no decent alternative to Hooper out there. The rest of the FA market stinks, it’s a weak TE class, and it’s a position where you rarely get immediate impact anyway. The end result of passing on Hooper is we will go another season without providing Haskins a legitimately good receiving TE. To me, if you have to “overpay” to make sure you secure a player in that important role for a young QB, you do it. It’s not like we’re pressed up against the cap. 

This ^^^

Our scouts better be scouring the FBS AND FCS rosters to find some good UDFAs at the TE position they can sign. Because I have a feeling we won't draft a TE this year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Slappy Mc said:

It's a cost to benefit ratio. If the cost for the player matches the benefit, then they can stay. It's the exact reason that Trent Williams should be traded. (And Dunbar if he continues his request to be traded.) Obviously the cost of certain FAs were too high for the presumed benefit and we backed out. This is why drafting/signing an UDFA is always so appealing, because the cost is always less than the FA market. 

 

I'm tired of "winning the offseason" and I'm ready to trust the process. 

HTTR!

When was the last time we “won the off-season”? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

When was the last time we “won the off-season”? 

I’ve been wondering the same thing. I keep seeing this concept out there, but I feel like it’s been well over a decade since we were the “go out and buy up everyone” team that “won the offseason.” I’m curious to know how long others think it’s been.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, e16bball said:

I’ve been wondering the same thing. I keep seeing this concept out there, but I feel like it’s been well over a decade since we were the “go out and buy up everyone” team that “won the offseason.” I’m curious to know how long others think it’s been.

Agree with you and @lavar703

My memory is pretty good (okay, pretty good for a 50 year old guy with 2 young kids sapping the sanity from him). And I haven't seen us go out and buy up every FA we could in a long time. I don't mind signing role players and depth. And in general,. I'm okay with maybe one big signing per FA. But darnit, we needed to address two important holes and we either didn't or signed guys who I highly doubt are gonna make a difference over the guys we already have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2020 at 1:21 PM, Slappy Mc said:

IMO, they chose to focus on Amari Cooper and ended up losing out on both FAs. 

I may be the minority, but I'm not overly impressed with Austin Hooper. He is a "solid player", but he isn't a game changer IMO. I would take a healthy Jordan Reed over him 10/10 times. That's just me.

Yep, I absolutely see that being the case.  Teams can't communicate and focus on everyone.  It seems they put their focus on Cooper, thinking that they could overpay and that the Cowboys, when faced with a strong offer, would go ahead and shift their focus to re-signing Byron Jones, but they got played by Cooper.  

I'm also with you on not overpaying for Hooper.  While I understand the financials of the cap increasing, and thus, contracts go up across the league, making Hooper the highest paid TE in the league, where I don't think he's even top 10, wasn't a signing I wanted the Redskins to make.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...