Redskins trade for Free Safety Dashon Goldson

[skinsguy]

What do we currently have on the team at that position that says we're better off with them rather than picking up Goldson? I mean, sure, McCloughan is not going to hit on every player he chooses, whether that be in the draft or free agency. But, he's right more than he's wrong, and even if Goldson doesn't turn out to contribute much to the team, it's not like we're paying him a huge guaranteed contract.

Just continue to trust the system. It's going to take awhile.

[JoeRedskin]

The only downside to this trade is we may possibly be overpaying for a starting safety.

At the same time, if he doesn't make the team or if a better option arises after teams start cutting rosters, all we done is moved down in the 6th round to ensure we at least had a starting caliber free safety.on the roster.

If we end up overpaying for his services this year, okay. Not like T.Williams is getting cut to make room for him. There is plenty of cap flexibility and a 1-2M overpay is not going to hurt us in either the short or long term. Signing Goldson gives us an insurance policy at the FS position and doesn't prevent us from exploring any of the other options others have said we should do (moving guys, signing guys, drafting guys, developing. guys).

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

^^ agreed. And this allows us to go into the draft with at least some flexibility regarding safeties. If somehow there is a run in the second we aren't caught picking from a bare cupboard.

Sent from my S6 Edge

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The only downside to this trade is we may possibly be overpaying for a starting safety.

At the same time, if he doesn't make the team or if a better option arises after teams start cutting rosters, all we done is moved down in the 6th round to ensure we at least had a starting caliber free safety.on the roster.

If we end up overpaying for his services this year, okay. Not like T.Williams is getting cut to make room for him. There is plenty of cap flexibility and a 1-2M overpay is not going to hurt us in either the short or long term. Signing Goldson gives us an insurance policy at the FS position and doesn't prevent us from exploring any of the other options others have said we should do (moving guys, signing guys, drafting guys, developing. guys).

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

YOU know that's BS. Shanallen....Snyderatto.....All..Sny......BruDan.. .
F..d this up and undermined us once again......
Another 20 years down the toilet......

[rocnrik]

with all the holes to fill there will have to be chances taken..Its not like there are a lot of options out there for a starting safety. we really did not give up much to take a chance at upgrade..and if we sat still we might not could have landed this player..desperate teams sometimes do desperate things..The Skins are desperate at DB …maybe the worst in the league last year..

[JoeRedskin]

As usual, excellent write up by Keim:

Washington Redskins scouting report: Dashon Goldson - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN

The crux of it is that he is a solid tackler and plays well when he keeps the plays in front of him. He is not good in coverage and asking him to man up on WR's or pass receiving TE's does not play to his strength. His skills are very scheme related. From the article:

Goldson is one exhibit for why it’s hard to throw big money at safeties. They’re a little more scheme-reliant and dependent on what’s around them. Goldson did well in San Francisco, but he was surrounded by a talented roster. The Niners did not have to ask him to do things he could not -- like cover one-on-one too often. Also, in one 49ers game I watched from 2012, the Niners had Goldson line up a little deeper when playing deep middle -- by perhaps two yards from what Tampa would do in a similar look.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As usual, excellent write up by Keim:

Washington Redskins scouting report: Dashon Goldson - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN

The crux of it is that he is a solid tackler and plays well when he keeps the plays in front of him. He is not good in coverage and asking him to man up on WR's or pass receiving TE's does not play to his strength. His skills are very scheme related. From the article:

I really hope someone out of this group of safeties that we have (or someone we draft) comes out to be a solid pure free safety. It seems that we have a lot of guys that are good at tackling and help against the run game. But we need a pure free safety that can cover the top of the field and provide help to the CBs.

I don't like this attitude that our team has about having guys that can play either position. It seems that every year we cannot get a safety, I hear this line from the coaches. I know it is good to have versatile players that can play either position, but this whole approach of having safeties that can play either position continues to not work.

Maybe an improved pass rush can help the secondary, but I hope McC can find longtime FS in the draft.

[FRPLG]

IF we can get just adequate play from a S it is an improvement.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I really hope someone out of this group of safeties that we have (or someone we draft) comes out to be a solid pure free safety. It seems that we have a lot of guys that are good at tackling and help against the run game. But we need a pure free safety that can cover the top of the field and provide help to the CBs.

I don't like this attitude that our team has about having guys that can play either position. It seems that every year we cannot get a safety, I hear this line from the coaches. I know it is good to have versatile players that can play either position, but this whole approach of having safeties that can play either position continues to not work.

Maybe an improved pass rush can help the secondary, but I hope McC can find longtime FS in the draft.

I don't mean to sound like Captain Obvious, but we have had very little to no investment in drafting a FS high in the draft or success in finding one in the lower rounds. You can't polish a turd.
So the problem is not the approach of wanting our safeties to be interchangeable. The problem has been the lack of talent and the inability to find or develop a good FS period.

In terms of a solution for next season, I feel IMO it would be wise in long obvious passing downs (dime defense) we should probably have D. Hall in the deep safety role, Culliver & Breeland & Amerson at CB and Goldson closer to the line protecting against the run. After adding a top OLB with the #5, our pass rush should be much improved, so our DB's should have an easier time.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I really hope someone out of this group of safeties that we have (or someone we draft) comes out to be a solid pure free safety. It seems that we have a lot of guys that are good at tackling and help against the run game. But we need a pure free safety that can cover the top of the field and provide help to the CBs.

I don't like this attitude that our team has about having guys that can play either position. It seems that every year we cannot get a safety, I hear this line from the coaches. I know it is good to have versatile players that can play either position, but this whole approach of having safeties that can play either position continues to not work.

Maybe an improved pass rush can help the secondary, but I hope McC can find longtime FS in the draft.

If we had true center fielder then I don't think we'd hear much of this "he can play either position" talk from the coaches. It's as if they really mean to say "Well, if he doesn't work out at FS then we can try him at SS".

The most welcome scenario is that we'll find out that we have some guys who will do a pretty good job at the safety positions. That is a real possibility that I think some of us are already discounting.

Like you, I'd be very pleased to see us land a promising FS in the draft.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

IF we can get just adequate play from a S it is an improvement.

Right. As long as they don't ask Goldson to man up on Graham or any of his ilk, he sounds like he should be adequate. Again, they need to make sure they use him in a way that suits his abilities, and, if they do, I think he has to be an upgrade over Clark. [As I recall, PFF had Clark as the worst starting safety this year. In fairness, Goldson was not much better].

I am not holding my breath on a safety out of this draft that will be ready to play anytime soon (I mean, maybe, two years down the road, but not a guy who's going to be getting significant time this year or next).

Still think Johnson is going to be a real steal and, if Goldson can just (for now) be an upgrade over Clark, I will be happy.

As a side note, it is interesting to me to see the real dearth of talent at the S position. Outside of Chancellor and Thomas, really very few names jump to mind. It's like the position - league wide - is filled with "Just-a-Guy's".

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I don't mean to sound like Captain Obvious, but we have had very little to no investment in drafting a FS high in the draft or success in finding one in the lower rounds. You can't polish a turd.
So the problem is not the approach of wanting our safeties to be interchangeable. The problem has been the lack of talent and the inability to find or develop a good FS period.

In terms of a solution for next season, I feel IMO it would be wise in long obvious passing downs (dime defense) we should probably have D. Hall in the deep safety role, Culliver & Breeland & Amerson at CB and Goldson closer to the line protecting against the run. After adding a top OLB with the #5, our pass rush should be much improved, so our DB's should have an easier time.

Yeah, I am okay with D.Hall being the deep cover on occasion (though even then I am not confident in his ability to take the right angles or recognize where he needs to provide help; essentially, he would just be an extra CB handling the deep zone). Just don't think he is a real "solution" to the safety issue.

[FRPLG]

Safety in the NFL is a a position that can have vastly different roles depending on scheme. Even subtle changes in scheme and approach can increase/decrease the effectiveness of skill-utilization at the Safety position. That's probably true of almost every position but at the Safety position when you're not getting production it means TDs. When a LB get schemed out of being effective the immediate results aren't as obvious. I am pretty sure you could take Chancellor or Thomas, put him in a different scheme with different responsibilities and make them look ordinary. All-world Safeties like Taylor and Reed who can do everything are rare.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yeah, I am okay with D.Hall being the deep cover on occasion (though even then I am not confident in his ability to take the right angles or recognize where he needs to provide help; essentially, he would just be an extra CB handling the deep zone). Just don't think he is a real "solution" to the safety issue.

D. Hall is a pretty smart and experienced veteran DB. There ain't much he has not seen or cannot handle scheme wise, other then having to be extremely physical.
In terms of a solution, I meant it just for next season until we draft/develop a young FS center fielder. Depending on what Goldson can do in our scheme, we may not have a legit ball hawk FS at this time. I have a feeling our new GM will address this need of a young FS somewhere. We just need a quick, cheap, temporary plug at FS at this season, even if it is two or three guys (Goldson & D. Hall) for the short term.
We are miles ahead talent wise to where we have been the last few years, where we were devoid of talent.

[JoeRedskin]

I am hoping that, in a couple years, we look back on the safety position with the same "WTF, how could we play those guys?" we now look at the 2011 WR corp (FYI - J.Gaffney was our leading receiver w/ D. Stallworth and Anthony Armstrong in the mix).