Redskins trade for Free Safety Dashon Goldson

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

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.

I absolutely agree that he is a smart and experienced as a corner. As Goldson demonstrates, and as FRPLG indicates, safety is very scheme/skill specific and Hall may or may not be capable of being the last line of defense. Hall may recognize all sorts things, but his ability to recognize where he - as the safety - should provide help is a very different type of scheme experience.

Look, I like Hall - a lot. I think he is a rock solid CB even as he slows down. Hell, he may actually improve as a CB as he relies less on his physical abilities and perfects his technique. In the past, he has taken a lot of risks b/c he had the physical ability to recover. Not so much anymore. Watching him the last couple years, it seemed to me he became more technically sound in both on and off man coverage. Still, he has the instincts and mentality of a CB and being on the island. I just think asking him to be the ball-hawking, last line of defense, centerfielder - even w/out expecting physicality - is not something he is either familiar with or likely to be successful doing except in spot duty.

I think you have nailed the perfect time to use D. Hall as a spot-safety, to provide deep cover. At the same time, not sure you play Goldson close to the line in any situation which may require him to drop into coverage - if you do, then you are scheming failure as T.Bay did.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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".

Second worst, to be precise. And they had him as worse in coverage than Clark.

I didn't vote on this poll because while I don't think Goldson will be any good here, kicking his tires is costing us next to nothing. "Meh" move.

[Irrefutable]

Need to Know: What is the Redskins biggest need after free agency? | Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

Need to Know: What is the Redskins biggest need after free agency? | Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

Draft a corner and convert him to safety?
Hmmmmm.....

[HailGreen28]

It's a meaningless pickup. A 30 year old safety. We aren't good enough to seriously contend in the next couple years, and Goldson will be gone in a couple years tops. So I vote thumbs down. Just wasting a roster spot that we could develop a young guy in.

[ethat001]

I wouldn't say meaningless because he's better than last years' old Ryan Clark, and better than having pretty much nothing (which is what we had before we got him).

Clearly age matters at safety and we can't expect too much.. Ryan Clark retired at 35, Polamalu at age 33, Reed at 35 (obviously the last two were among the best all time and that helps longevitiy). Seems to be the proverbial "wall" happens for safeties around 30-32, so the very best we could hope is Goldson would be good for 1 or maybe two years. Not expecting much but hoping for developing a young replacement.

[spAtt]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

It's a meaningless pickup. A 30 year old safety. We aren't good enough to seriously contend in the next couple years, and Goldson will be gone in a couple years tops. So I vote thumbs down. Just wasting a roster spot that we could develop a young guy in.

So where does this "young guy" come from? If you are talking about drafting ok, but it may not benefit him anymore from watching to being burnt on the field.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by spAtt

So where does this "young guy" come from? If you are talking about drafting ok, but it may not benefit him anymore from watching to being burnt on the field.

Oh, I am totally unqualified to point and say "this guy" in FA or the draft. But McCloughan is supposed to be good at this. Which begs the question, why did we fill a roster spot with a 30 year old safety? I get it's a likely stop gap, which does nothing to advance this team to the Superbowl, imo.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Oh, I am totally unqualified to point and say "this guy" in FA or the draft. But McCloughan is supposed to be good at this. Which begs the question, why did we fill a roster spot with a 30 year old safety? I get it's a likely stop gap, which does nothing to advance this team to the Superbowl, imo.

There is something to be said for experience. A lot of times, its the older players helping the younger ones to develop. Its not like you can cut the whole team, sign 53 rookies, and then claim that you are on the verge of a SB victory since the team is full of youth.

If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a 30 year old safety, then we are much farther along in this rebuild than I could have ever imagined.

No one has said that McC can fill every position with quality youth in 1 year. He may be good at the draft, but we dont have 50 picks in this draft, we have 7. Getting some older players is going to happen.

[JoeRedskin]

Folks, I know we are all psyched about Scot McC and his draft skill, but, unforrunately, not every one of his draft picks is going to end up in the HOF. He is actually going to miss (probably badly on at least one or two).

Others are going to take a year or two to develop into competent pros and inserting them into the starting line up will likely destroy their confidence and rack up losses.

Not every move has to be brilliant to be a step in the right direction.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Folks, I know we are all psyched about Scot McC and his draft skill, but, unforrunately, not every one of his draft picks is going to end up in the HOF. He is actually going to miss (probably badly on at least one or two).

Others are going to take a year or two to develop into competent pros and inserting them into the starting line up will likely destroy their confidence and rack up losses.

Not every move has to be brilliant to be a step in the right direction.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Curse You Joe......You have now Jinxed us with the...."Vinnie"
It's on your head if we miss

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Folks, I know we are all psyched about Scot McC and his draft skill, but, unforrunately, not every one of his draft picks is going to end up in the HOF. He is actually going to miss (probably badly on at least one or two).

Others are going to take a year or two to develop into competent pros and inserting them into the starting line up will likely destroy their confidence and rack up losses.

Not every move has to be brilliant to be a step in the right direction.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Sent from my S6 Edge

[JoeRedskin]

lol ...

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

There is something to be said for experience. A lot of times, its the older players helping the younger ones to develop. Its not like you can cut the whole team, sign 53 rookies, and then claim that you are on the verge of a SB victory since the team is full of youth.

If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a 30 year old safety, then we are much farther along in this rebuild than I could have ever imagined.

No one has said that McC can fill every position with quality youth in 1 year. He may be good at the draft, but we dont have 50 picks in this draft, we have 7. Getting some older players is going to happen.

Good point about experience, I think. Though I would put more onus on the coaching staff. I guess decent examples of vet play to go with coaching is good.

The "if the only thing" is kind of nonsensical to me. We could apply that to anything. "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a poor right tackle". "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a corner that bites on first moves" "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a lack of another safety".... whelp I guess we don't need to worry about those things either, right?

Well, a 30 year old safety isn't our only issue. And it is an issue if what we got was another old Ryan Clark or Tracy Porter. Did those vets experience help our team's development last season? I think you still have a point about experience, just saying it's not a guarantee I guess.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Good point about experience, I think. Though I would put more onus on the coaching staff. I guess decent examples of vet play to go with coaching is good.

The "if the only thing" is kind of nonsensical to me. We could apply that to anything. "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a poor right tackle". "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a corner that bites on first moves" "If the only thing standing in our way of a SB is a lack of another safety".... whelp I guess we don't need to worry about those things either, right?

Well, a 30 year old safety isn't our only issue. And it is an issue if what we got was another old Ryan Clark or Tracy Porter. Did those vets experience help our team's development last season? I think you still have a point about experience, just saying it's not a guarantee I guess.

I dont disagree about coaching being apart of young players progressing, but I also believe that vets can teach younger players as well. Someone like Ryan Clark, I dont think was necessarily a bad thing. He didnt play well last year, but he has done enough where younger players would listen to him when it comes to preparing, taking care of your body, etc. Sometimes the words of a coach can go right over the head of a young guy, but they tend to respect the vets that have done it for a while. Sadly, we may not have had the young player necessary at his position for any teaching to matter, but that doesnt necessarily make it a bad idea in general. It just means we needed better young safeties for a Ryan Clark on a 1 year deal to matter.

Maybe I shouldnt have made the if the only thing comment. But to me, Its not a strong field for safeties. What is the other option? Trading for Goldson doesnt stop us from getting a young guy to back him up, but what are you going to do without him? There doesnt seem to be that one young guy that can come in and start right away. If we do find that guy late in the draft, he will most likely need at least a year to play like a starter. So Goldson can keep that guy on the sidelines for a year so he can learn. Some people, if they fail badly, can mess them up for future years. It can be a confidence killer and some rookies cant handle that. If this was a strong draft for safeties, and one looks like he can start immediately, then you may have a point about getting Goldson here, I just dont see that player being available. It basically cost us nothing, I dont consider swapping a 6th for a 7th to be much at all, and it can be looked at as a 1 year 4 mil contract since we can cut him next year with no cap hit.

Stop gaps arent necessarily a bad thing. We dont have to force a move or draft pick for a safety. Stop gaps can really let you concentrate on best available with your picks instead of constantly drafting for need. Doing it for however many years we have is terrible, but thats not on McC at all, he just got here.