Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1062173]Darren Sproles?
[B]WTF do we do with him[/B]?
Don't we have Helu for that kind of thing?[/quote]

Let him score touchdowns. Thats all he really does.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

Hmmmm.......
I like Sproles but he's 30 years old.......
Who gets booted off the roster for his spot?
Royster?

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

Morris, Helu, Sproles would be a nice RB group.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1062179]Hmmmm.......
I like Sproles but he's 30 years old.......
Who gets booted off the roster for his spot?
Royster?[/quote]

Age isn't an issue for a role player, but salary is. Why is Royster even still on the roster? That's an easy decision.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1062173]Darren Sproles?
WTF do we do with him?
Don't we have Helu for that kind of thing?[/quote]

KR, PR, Recieving RB, and slot receiver just to name 4 things he can do.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

We can't go out and pay Sproles a lot of money as he's a role player. We might have that kind of player already on the team in Thompson. Hopefully he grows up and improves his play. But no way should we sign Sproles with all of the other needs this team needs.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1062186]We can't go out and pay Sproles a lot of money as he's a role player. We might have that kind of player already on the team in Thompson. Hopefully he grows up and improves his play. But no way should we sign Sproles with all of the other needs this team needs.[/quote]
You got count the ROI.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

We still keep Thompson until final cuts.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1062186]We can't go out and pay Sproles a lot of money as he's a role player. We might have that kind of player already on the team in Thompson. Hopefully he grows up and improves his play. But no way should we sign Sproles with all of the other needs this team needs.[/quote]
Gotta shake the 'all things shiny are bad' mentality to free agency. It's as ludicrous as the 'all things shiny are good' way we used to think as an organization.

If a player is a fit, improves the team and can be signed for a reasonable amount, smart teams make that move. Not specific to Sproles but free agency in general.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

Andrew Hawkins is a RFA at the Low Tender of $1.4MM. The Bengals have the right to match any offer and keep him.

Hawkins would be a great addition to the Skins as a slot receiver, IMO. Hard to say if the Bengals would match a reasonable offer but I read they would like to keep him.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1062193]Andrew Hawkins is a RFA at the Low Tender of $1.4MM. The Bengals have the right to match any offer and keep him.

Hawkins would be a great addition to the Skins as a slot receiver, IMO. Hard to say if the Bengals would match a reasonable offer but I read they would like to keep him.[/quote]

I'd make an offer

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

Whatever $ we'd spend on Sproles, I would far rather spend getting TJ Ward (or another starting safety), a FA guard or RT, and/or re-signing Riley. We just don't need Sproles nearly as much as we need help in those other areas. Not even close in my view.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

ESPN's John Clayton's "early prediction" is the Redskins will sign free agent CB Aqib Talib.
It's growing clearer and clearer that the Skins are simply going to outbid the Patriots for Talib. That would allow New England to focus its efforts on re-signing Julian Edelman. Talib is likely staring at $10 million a year.

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=calia;1062195]Whatever $ we'd spend on Sproles, I would far rather spend getting TJ Ward (or another starting safety), a FA guard or RT, and/or re-signing Riley. We just don't need Sproles nearly as much as we need help in those other areas. Not even close in my view.[/quote]

Why is it either or? If the $ makes sense, why not both?

Re: Current 2014 Free Agents
 

[quote=Paintrain;1062198]Why is it either or? If the $ makes sense, why not both?[/quote]

Exactly.