Official Redskins Free Agency Thread 2013

[MTK]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

This is probably a really dumb question so if they answer is as simple as "No, they can't do that" that's good enough for me, but could the Skins sign a FA to a 'back-loaded' deal that keeps them under the cap for this year but pushes guaranteed money into next season?

I'd have to assume not but I just figured I'd ask.

Yes, they definitely can.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

of course not, he's borderline horrible. guy can run block ok. thats it.


So lets gets this straight....We've signed 3 vetern Tackles, bringing back Hurt and a rookie who Shanny wanted in Compton last year for competition at the Tackle spot....meanwhile no signings of vetern secondary players. So that means we are happy with the weakest part of the team last year...?

Signings aren't made in order of priority.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by Gtothearry

This move confirms for me that we will stick with what we have. So, no solid moves in FA for the line.

I'd say we did have one solid move. We brought back Kory L.

Who knows what will happen at RT. We do know now though that we have our entire OL returning with a couple of injury plagued veterans returing to health. Time will tell if JT or TP can replace Polumbus on the line or if we are just going to ride it out for a year till we get our space back.

Who knows.

This move has nothing to do with our ability to sign or bring in secondary help though.

[Chico23231]

Well yeah, but it seems if we were going to bring back Tyler, especially on a 2 year deal, it would have been done sooner. Is Compton not ready to back him up?

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

of course not, he's borderline horrible. guy can run block ok. thats it.


So lets gets this straight....We've signed 3 vetern Tackles, bringing back Hurt and a rookie who Shanny wanted in Compton last year for competition at the Tackle spot....meanwhile no signings of vetern secondary players. So that means we are happy with the weakest part of the team last year...?

There were two weak parts to the team last year, Secondary and RT. Bad secondary gives up TD's. Bad RT gives up injuries to RG3. A bad secondary can be fixed with cap space back next year. RG3 can only be fixed so many times by Dr Andrews.

Im all for going after RT.

Btw, what veteran CB was signing for what we got the three tackles at? Its not like we have 30 mil wrapped in cap space this year for the RT's.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Exactly Skinzman.

These RTs all got little to no gaurenteed money (TP and JT for sure) and most likely signed vet min deals. They will probably be under the rule of 51 once the roster fills out.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

If we bring back Hall we are not improving as a secondary. In fact its more likely we are taking a step back at the CB position.

I fail to understand how resigning a player you had on your roster for the last couple of years is taking a step back. Obviously we do not have the cap room to pursue a viable top tier FA at the CB position. If we did, I'm sure we would have done it.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

There were two weak parts to the team last year, Secondary and RT. Bad secondary gives up TD's. Bad RT gives up injuries to RG3. A bad secondary can be fixed with cap space back next year. RG3 can only be fixed so many times by Dr Andrews.

Im all for going after RT.

Btw, what veteran CB was signing for what we got the three tackles at? Its not like we have 30 mil wrapped in cap space this year for the RT's.

The sameone we could bring back D Hall for.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The sameone we could bring back D Hall for.

We can easily clear enough cap space to sign anyone at what we paid for those tackles. So if Hall is willing to take that little, he will be a Redskin next year. Contrary to popular belief, signing Pashos or Youngblood was not the reason Hall was cut.

[Meks]

Fine with T.P. coming back to stride to improve, looking more and more like we need to bring Hall back.. and i'd be fine with that as well...

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Meks

Fine with T.P. coming back to stride to improve, looking more and more like we need to bring Hall back.. and i'd be fine with that as well...

appropriate initials

Still hoping Compton can beat out TP, we need to improve at Right Tackle.

[Gtothearry]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

If we bring back Hall we are not improving as a secondary. In fact its more likely we are taking a step back at the CB position.

We need help at safety. Madieu was awful last year. I can't imagine what it was like for our DB's to put any trust in him. I think if Safety is solidified our DB play will increase tremendously.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

appropriate initials

Still hoping Compton can beat out TP, we need to improve at Right Tackle.

If Compton can't beat out the human turnstile, then we might have a lil bit of an issue.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

I fail to understand how resigning a player you had on your roster for the last couple of years is taking a step back. Obviously we do not have the cap room to pursue a viable top tier FA at the CB position. If we did, I'm sure we would have done it.

If I had a to bracket out the availbable CB...Revis would be seeded #1 and D Hall would be a 16# seed and actually in the playin game. His game is weak son

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

of course not, he's borderline horrible. guy can run block ok. thats it.


So lets gets this straight....We've signed 3 vetern Tackles, bringing back Hurt and a rookie who Shanny wanted in Compton last year for competition at the Tackle spot....meanwhile no signings of vetern secondary players. So that means we are happy with the weakest part of the team last year...?

IMO we know who we want in the defensive backfield. We're just waiting for the market to settle. With each passing day, the Winfields, Halls, etc., of the world get cheaper to sign.