The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

CSN Washington reports we are hot after Terrance Knighton...aka, Pot Roast!

One of the best run stoppers, this would be a nice signing.

WOW 1 year deal!? http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantas ... e-redskins

1 year for 4 mill may be a decent deal... there is some risk as its reported he is not in good shape which scared some other teams off. Hopefully its not garunteed or has some clauses in it to protect us incase he cant get it together through ota's.

I think thats a steal of a deal! Wish it was longer than 1 year, but maybe he will want to come back.

Great pickup , I can't believe we got him for 4 mil. Denver sports radio is livid.

1 year.......prove it type year, and we'll give you more.

I still hope Shelton is in line for us. Can't hurt to get a young stud to groom.

tribeofjudah wrote:1 year.......prove it type year, and we'll give you more.

I still hope Shelton is in line for us. Can't hurt to get a young stud to groom.

That is true with him being signed for only 1 year. But since we have only signed dline free agents. I wonder if they will draft a safety in the 1st round.

With signing 3 new d linemen I think that points to McCloughan having different plans for that #5 pick. Its likely his BPA is either an OLB, RT, or DB... or he is confident in trading back to go for one of those positions. If he had a D lineman as BPA at #5 he wouldnt have brought in all 3 of these guys.

No way we pick Shelton now.....

Prowl33 wrote:1 year for 4 mill may be a decent deal... there is some risk as its reported he is not in good shape which scared some other teams off. Hopefully its not garunteed or has some clauses in it to protect us incase he cant get it together through ota's.

The good news about that is his child hood buddy and Bestman in his wedding this weekend (Chris Baker) will be there to push him. Idk his work ethic but when I'm in the gym or on the course w one of my brothers I push it up a notch. Hope that happens and our new faced DLine is MEAN!! Hatcher should be healthy along with SOLID depth im much more confident in the outlook for this front then last year... even if Rak (traitor!) Is gone!!!

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:

Prowl33 wrote:1 year for 4 mill may be a decent deal... there is some risk as its reported he is not in good shape which scared some other teams off. Hopefully its not garunteed or has some clauses in it to protect us incase he cant get it together through ota's.

The good news about that is his child hood buddy and Bestman in his wedding this weekend (Chris Baker) will be there to push him. Idk his work ethic but when I'm in the gym or on the course w one of my brothers I push it up a notch. Hope that happens and our new faced DLine is MEAN!! Hatcher should be healthy along with SOLID depth im much more confident in the outlook for this front then last year... even if Rak (traitor!) Is gone!!!

Good point about Baker and youre likely right. Plus he is more likely to stat for less money than another team would pay if he does work out.

If our front 3 can be really strong and create pressure, a pass rusher wont matter as much... itll be good to get one... but its not as pressing a need as ILB or safety for us now..

fredp45 wrote:No way we pick Shelton now.....

What??? Because we signed a 29 year old guy on a one year contract???

oneman56 wrote:Great pickup , I can't believe we got him for 4 mil. Denver sports radio is livid.

They should be. I still don't understand how/why they were able to get that type of deal with him.

My question is: is the one year contract more favorable to the player or to the team? It kind of seems like it would have been preferable for us to get him on a two or three year deal.

I think Shelton is still in play.

Countertrey wrote:I think Shelton is still in play.

Of course he is. You don't sign a 29 year old nose tackle to a one year contract and call it a day at that position.

McGloughan's whole philosophy is to build through the draft and fill the roster with the best players he can get. If you do that well enough, eventually you don't have to plug so many holes with expensive, unreliable free agents.

riggofan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:I think Shelton is still in play.

Of course he is. You don't sign a 29 year old nose tackle to a one year contract and call it a day at that position.

McGloughan's whole philosophy is to build through the draft and fill the roster with the best players he can get. If you do that well enough, eventually you don't have to plug so many holes with expensive, unreliable free agents.

Shelton, added to this line, would simply make it scary. Almost as though it were designed to hammer a certain, oft-injured, new Ducks QB...

Countertrey wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:I think Shelton is still in play.

Of course he is. You don't sign a 29 year old nose tackle to a one year contract and call it a day at that position.

McGloughan's whole philosophy is to build through the draft and fill the roster with the best players he can get. If you do that well enough, eventually you don't have to plug so many holes with expensive, unreliable free agents.

Shelton, added to this line, would simply make it scary. Almost as though it were designed to hammer a certain, oft-injured, new Ducks QB...

I like Shelton a lot, and would have been fine with him at #5 - BEFORE Free Agency, however, after our 3 DL signing he's not our guy.

This best available ONLY is crap. I believe need enters into it too. I do agree with not reaching but if the best available every time we pick is a WR or CB - do we pick 7 guys who play 2 positions?

We have so many holes that you can't plug them all - with NTs. When our mock draft started a lot posters were hot for Collins, then it turned to Shelton. I was absolutely against Collins at #5. If we trade down, we could pick Collins (or a ROT). I could see Scot picking a NT later in the draft if he's shocked a great NT has dropped to the 4th, or wherever.

After this first week of free agency, Shelton is off our board. Scot has to get someone in the first round that starts and dominates. Shelton would certainly play but he'd be in a rotation with these new guys. That won't protect our QB or play free safety.

fredp45 wrote:I like Shelton a lot, and would have been fine with him at #5 - BEFORE Free Agency, however, after our 3 DL signing he's not our guy.

This best available ONLY is crap. I believe need enters into it too. I do agree with not reaching but if the best available every time we pick is a WR or CB - do we pick 7 guys who play 2 positions?

We have so many holes that you can't plug them all - with NTs. When our mock draft started a lot posters were hot for Collins, then it turned to Shelton. I was absolutely against Collins at #5. If we trade down, we could pick Collins (or a ROT). I could see Scot picking a NT later in the draft if he's shocked a great NT has dropped to the 4th, or wherever.

After this first week of free agency, Shelton is off our board. Scot has to get someone in the first round that starts and dominates. Shelton would certainly play but he'd be in a rotation with these new guys. That won't protect our QB or play free safety.

. Well... For the record, nor would wasting value on the wrong pick. Scot has said... and his history bears out... that he believes in best available. Now, it's certainly possible that there will be a strong safety there at 5, but I don't see O line there.

On the other hand, a front seven that can still shut down a running game, and give the ball back at our own 40, deep in the 4th Quarter sure doesn't hurt the quarterback...

riggofan wrote:

oneman56 wrote:Great pickup , I can't believe we got him for 4 mil. Denver sports radio is livid.

They should be. I still don't understand how/why they were able to get that type of deal with him.

My question is: is the one year contract more favorable to the player or to the team? It kind of seems like it would have been preferable for us to get him on a two or three year deal.

Not really with his current physical condition. If he does good this year I can see us locking him up for a couple more at a good price because of Baker. Plus, Scot is looking to build through the draft, so I wouldnt look for many long term FA deals. Especially for players over 30.

Countertrey wrote:

fredp45 wrote:I like Shelton a lot, and would have been fine with him at #5 - BEFORE Free Agency, however, after our 3 DL signing he's not our guy.

This best available ONLY is crap. I believe need enters into it too. I do agree with not reaching but if the best available every time we pick is a WR or CB - do we pick 7 guys who play 2 positions?

We have so many holes that you can't plug them all - with NTs. When our mock draft started a lot posters were hot for Collins, then it turned to Shelton. I was absolutely against Collins at #5. If we trade down, we could pick Collins (or a ROT). I could see Scot picking a NT later in the draft if he's shocked a great NT has dropped to the 4th, or wherever.

After this first week of free agency, Shelton is off our board. Scot has to get someone in the first round that starts and dominates. Shelton would certainly play but he'd be in a rotation with these new guys. That won't protect our QB or play free safety.

. Well... For the record, nor would wasting value on the wrong pick. Scot has said... and his history bears out... that he believes in best available. Now, it's certainly possible that there will be a strong safety there at 5, but I don't see O line there.

Fredp45 has clearly not listened to a word Scot McGloughan has said since he got here. Believe what you want. In March 2012, the Seahawks brought in free agent QB Matt Flynn on a three year $20m contract. They already had Tavaris Jackson on the roster. A month later he used a high third round pick on A QUARTERBACK, Russell Wilson.

Yeah, this best player available stuff is crap. Never happens. lol.

riggofan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

fredp45 wrote:I like Shelton a lot, and would have been fine with him at #5 - BEFORE Free Agency, however, after our 3 DL signing he's not our guy.

This best available ONLY is crap. I believe need enters into it too. I do agree with not reaching but if the best available every time we pick is a WR or CB - do we pick 7 guys who play 2 positions?

We have so many holes that you can't plug them all - with NTs. When our mock draft started a lot posters were hot for Collins, then it turned to Shelton. I was absolutely against Collins at #5. If we trade down, we could pick Collins (or a ROT). I could see Scot picking a NT later in the draft if he's shocked a great NT has dropped to the 4th, or wherever.

After this first week of free agency, Shelton is off our board. Scot has to get someone in the first round that starts and dominates. Shelton would certainly play but he'd be in a rotation with these new guys. That won't protect our QB or play free safety.

. Well... For the record, nor would wasting value on the wrong pick. Scot has said... and his history bears out... that he believes in best available. Now, it's certainly possible that there will be a strong safety there at 5, but I don't see O line there.

Fredp45 has clearly not listened to a word Scot McGloughan has said since he got here. Believe what you want. In March 2012, the Seahawks brought in free agent QB Matt Flynn on a three year $20m contract. They already had Tavaris Jackson on the roster. A month later he used a high third round pick on A QUARTERBACK, Russell Wilson.

Yeah, this best player available stuff is crap. Never happens. lol.

Exactly. So what if we brought in three DLs? As far as I can tell, that was McCloughan getting rid of a couple overpriced players and investing in replacements he hopes will bring at least as much production for less money. (Remember that we lost three DLs to FA, fredp45.)

Let's say we take a NT or big DE with our pick on the belief that he's the best player/athlete on the board, and we're right. Five years from now, is anyone going to care that we had signed three, instead of two, FAs along the line in the same offseason? No. The players we just signed will either have beat out someone else to stay on the roster or we'll have gotten rid of them. Either way, the team will be better as a result.

The draft is a gamble even when you know what you're doing, so it makes sense to take the best odds every time if you can. That's really all BPA means: which guy on your board do you think has the best chance to have a productive NFL career? It's following through on your scouting with conviction.

fredp45 wrote:I like Shelton a lot, and would have been fine with him at #5 - BEFORE Free Agency, however, after our 3 DL signing he's not our guy.

This best available ONLY is crap. I believe need enters into it too. I do agree with not reaching but if the best available every time we pick is a WR or CB - do we pick 7 guys who play 2 positions?

We have so many holes that you can't plug them all - with NTs. When our mock draft started a lot posters were hot for Collins, then it turned to Shelton. I was absolutely against Collins at #5. If we trade down, we could pick Collins (or a ROT). I could see Scot picking a NT later in the draft if he's shocked a great NT has dropped to the 4th, or wherever.

After this first week of free agency, Shelton is off our board. Scot has to get someone in the first round that starts and dominates. Shelton would certainly play but he'd be in a rotation with these new guys. That won't protect our QB or play free safety.

I don't think there is a SAF or OL worth #5 this year. Of course Scot may well have a board much different than any of ours.

Irn-Bru wrote:Let's say we take a NT or big DE with our pick on the belief that he's the best player/athlete on the board, and we're right. Five years from now, is anyone going to care that we had signed three, instead of two, FAs along the line in the same offseason? No. The players we just signed will either have beat out someone else to stay on the roster or we'll have gotten rid of them. Either way, the team will be better as a result.

That's it exactly man. You can't start building through the draft until you really start building through the draft. And sometimes that means taking a player at a position that doesn't currently look like a need. Its a long term strategy.

Tandler wrote a little about this idea today.

However, just signing a player doesn’t mean that your draft board shifts in a major way. Since the Redskins signed Terrance Knighton, many fans believe that they won’t draft nose tackle Danny Shelton of Washington. But Knighton is only on a one-year deal. The presence of Pot Roast will have a minimal effect on a decision to draft Shelton or a nose tackle at any other point in the draft.

It might be another situation at cornerback. With Chris Culliver now signed and second-year cornerback Bashaud Breeland showing that he can be at least a solid starter for years to come. That will lessen the need at cornerback considerably. That doesn’t mean that they won’t draft a cornerback but that player would have to be the best on the board by a considerable margin, especially in the earlier stages of the draft.

http://realredskins.com/2015/03/15/need ... ins-draft/