Skip to content

Need to Know: McCloughan on RG3, tagging Cousins, and Redskins’ personnel staff

Jan 29, 2016, 4:42 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Friday, January 29, 26 days before the NFL Combine in Indianapolis.

Five thoughts on McCloughan at the Senior Bowl

On if the Redskins would use the franchise tag on Cousins: “Well it’s an option, of course you’d rather not, you’d rather get a long term deal done . . . ”

Some believe that just tagging Cousins and giving him another year to show what he’s worth in a long-term deal is the best way to go. But it’s not the route that McCloughan wants to take. The tag is fraught with problems, including the fact that the player really isn’t under contract until he signs it and he doesn’t have to sign it until he wants to. It doesn’t seem like Cousins is the type to hold out but he’s never been put in such a position before. And if he plays well, it would become more difficult and costly to agree on a contract in 2017; another tag will cost about $23 million for a year. The tag is there to be used but it’s not like slapping a $7 million tag on Fred Davis. It’s better to trust your judgment, make a deal, and take your chances.

On if he feels the team is ahead of schedule: “You know, I wouldn’t say ahead of schedule, I think it’s going in the right direction . . . “

It’s tough to say what a “schedule” for the Redskins, a team that had double-digit losses in five of six seasons before McCloughan came aboard a year ago, should look like. They took some steps in the right direction last year and they were good enough to take advantage of a fairly weak schedule and performances by the other teams in the division that were below expectations. The Redskins also had some bad luck in the form of injuries (only three teams lost more man-games to injuries). They could take a few more steps in the right direction this year and they might not win as many games and not make the playoffs. Improvement in the NFL isn’t always linear. All McCloughan can do is try to get better every year, and hold on to as much of the improvement made in previous years as he can.

On the team’s plan with QB Robert Griffin III: “Well you know what, the thing is, and I’m looking forward to getting back because we had the playoff game, of course, then you had the loss . . . “

This went on for another hundred words or so, with McCloughan not wanting to say that the team is going to release Griffin at some point. I don’t think that this should give false hope to those RG3 diehards who think he could somehow end up with the Redskins in 2016. A player is on your roster until he’s not. There is much more potential harm in announcing that you’re going to let a player go before you can do so than there is in not talking about it and just sending out the press release after you’ve done it.

On if there is confirmation or clarity on if DT Jason Hatcher is retiring: “No. I talked to him too and I said, ‘Listen, you do what’s best for you and your family. You’ve had a really good career and we’d love to have you back.’

McCloughan said a couple of times that he wasn’t going to discuss contracts so nobody asked about whether they would love to have Hatcher back at his current cap number, which is $8.7 million. His contract has the look of a deal that was set to be either terminated after two years or at least redone. Hatcher’s salary jumps to $6.25 million with another $250,000 due to him as a roster bonus. I can’t see the Redskins paying that to a player who is coming off of a two-sack season and will turn 34 before training camp starts.

On making possible changes to the team’s scouting staff: “Not right now; nope. We’re going forward.”

Looking at the results to date—and that consists of one draft—it appears that the Redskins’ unproductive drafts were due more to the man making the final call than it was an inadequate scouting staff. In particular, Mike Shanahan was notorious for ignoring the recommendation of the personnel department and making his own picks. It’s hard to blame the area scouts, director of college scouting Scott Campbell, and others responsible for evaluating draft talent if their work goes out the window when the card is turned in during the draft. But before we apologize to the current group for wondering about their competence when they worked for Shanahan let’s see what McCloughan can come up with in the next couple of drafts.


—The Redskins last played a game 19 days ago. It will be about 226 days until they play another one.

Days until: NFL Combine 26; NFL free agency starts 40; 2016 NFL draft 90

In case you missed it

  1. skinsgame - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:11 AM

    I recall the Redskins pursuing Alonzo Highsmith for a personnel position last year but getting denied by the Packers to interview him. Maybe it worked out for the best as Scot seems to like the hand he was dealt after all.

  2. timwillhide - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM

    You have to admit some of the Key players on this team Shannahan brought here

    • goback2rfk - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:22 AM

      Shanny was a victim of Rg3. Shanny knows what he is doing. Rob got Mike fired. I have always thought lobster face was a decent coach. His son little Shanny is a decent offensive mind also. RIP Shanahans.

      • timwillhide - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:39 AM

        The salary cap penalty and Hasselet got Shannahan fired. He wasn’t able to improve the Oline and had to start scrubs.

        • bangkokben - Jan 29, 2016 at 2:08 PM

          I’ll agree with you that Shanahan brought in key players – especially through the draft. (Griffin and Morris in 2012; Cousins and Reed were huge in 2015 although drafted earlier.) But he built the o-line entirely in his own image. The 2012 o-line was completely revamped from Jim Zorn’s o-line. He drafted Trent Williams for LT in 2010, he salvaged Lichtensteiger off the scrap heap – whom he drafted in Denver in 2008 but brought into DC in 2010, Will Montgomery was resigned by Shanahan in 2010 after he had started just three games at right guard in 2009 (Shanahan made him the primary center in 2011), Shanahan signed Chris Chester in 2011 to a five-year contract to play RG, Tyler Polumbus was signed in the middle of the 2011 season and later replaced Jammal Brown at right tackle. Shannahan traded a 2011 3rd rounder for Jamal Brown in 2010. The trade resulted in the Redskins getting a 2011 5th rounder from New Orleans. Then in 2011 Shanahan re-signed Brown to a 5-year $20.25M contract. Brown started 12 games before injury shut down his career. He was on the PUP list for all of 2012 and the final three years of his contract were void. Shanahan was hampered by the salary cap penalty but this did not effect his building the o-line. He already spent a ton of resources on the o-line:

          2010 (overall position)
          4th Trent Williams T
          229 Erik Cook C
          231 Selvish Capers T
          72nd Jammal Brown T (trade with New Orleans)
          217 Maurice Hurt G
          71st Josh LeRibeus G
          141 Adam Gettis G
          191 Tom Compton T

          Other Free Agents
          Artis Hicks
          Sean Locklear

          Btw, this line seemed to serve Shannahan’s system just fine as the Redskin’s were number 1 in rushing yards in 2012. It sucked for any other system and needed to be dismantled but Shanahan’s downfall had little to do with the o-line but plenty to do with his arrogance, his people management skills, and his inability to accept his responsibility in failure.

        • ET - Jan 29, 2016 at 5:45 PM

          Let’s not forget that Shanny helped find and develop a few diamonds in the rough as well, including Darrel Young, Niles Paul, Chris Baker and Will Compton. And that “redundant” 4th QB pick he made a few years back.

          Yeah, he’s a system guy, but Shanny isn’t the worst judge of talent.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 12:12 PM

        Shanahan is a very good coach. I’m not big on Kyle though. Also, losing his job was due to a power struggle with him wanting control of personnel that I “think” Snyder and Bruce starting to take away. I don’t think it was Rob’s fault but Snyder did have some poor influence on RG3 that didn’t help his relationship with Shanahan.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Jan 30, 2016 at 5:58 PM

          What got Shanny fired was the mismanagement of the whole all in for week one campaign. If I remember correctly 2013 started off favorably with an early bye that RGIII could’ve returned at. Now I’m insulated, my bubble of friends all agreed RGIII should sit. Rookie year what game 4? concussion against atl, LCL sprain against Bmore and complete ligament annihilation week 17. Not to mention all the close calls in between. It was in his best interest to sit and Shanny let external and internal pressures overrule his better judgment. Now I’m not minimizing the internal pressure of RGIII that comes along with Danny in his back pocket but he should’ve went kicking and screaming “sit him down” It’s fair to say expectations would’ve been moderate upon robs return. Considering he didn’t get a year to grow as a pro, he spent it rehabbing, he could’ve used that as a developmental year. Instead of allowing him to parade his high stepping ninja steps during pregames as if he’s really ready to go. Now RGIII gets to learn the business of it all. You get the guy who wanted to tailor an offense around you and bring pocket elements in at a gradual pace fired. Not only that, you burned Danny because youre throwing temper tantrums and throwing coaches under the bus while regressing as a qb. Games were selling at $4.. Now youre hurting the brand. Messed Danny up so bad he waved the white flag like you know what… Ima just swirl my Hennessey over here in the corner.. y’all run the team. Now you have to deal with the guy who has his own system, the support of Danny(by way of hands off approach) and no attachment to you because he and the new GM (oh yeah forgotnabout him LOL you muffed it BAD RGIII) didn’t draft you! Now I believe Jay failed as a coach. You were brought in to coach up RGIII not Kirk. After Rob kinda hung him out to dry last year, by not even being serviceable at his position but then being a diva at the podium, I can see how GRU chose to engage in the pizzing contest. You figure if you’re Jay and you see rob and kirk at practice you know where they are developmentally. If they were even then he knew he was looking at another losing season by going with Kirk. Only difference is the poise. Kirk would shoulder blame and idk maybe respond by getting better instead of subway commercials and finger pointing. I say all this to say; head coaches (shanny one and two, gru) closed mouths don’t get fed! Qbs; (rob, kirk) closed mouths get pàaaaaiiiiddddddddd. Speak when spoken to… say nice things all that jazz.

      • diehard cowboy - Jan 29, 2016 at 1:57 PM

        No. RG3 was a victim of Shanny boy.

      • brucefan1 - Jan 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM


        Some people might think that going 3-13 is what got Shanny fired! (Combined with previous 6-10 and 5-11 seasons, of course) All of that was not enough to offset that 10-6 blip on the screen.

        Now if you can prove to me that it was Griffin who was mainly responsible for 3-13, and also not the porous defense, the horrendous special teams, weak offensive line yada…yada… I might believe you.

        (Or do you know something else that we don’t know that you’re keeping to yourself?)

        • bullets2586 - Jan 30, 2016 at 10:45 AM

          OMG. The special teams for those years were the worst I’ve ever seen. Don’t ever bring that up again. Uggggh.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Jan 30, 2016 at 6:09 PM

          Well if your defense is terrible how do you combat that issue? Hmm. Maybe with competent Qbing? If you’re going three and out and putting your watermelon on toothpicks of a defense back on the field before the next commercial break you can’t expect to win. Not at all saying RGIII is Peyton but Manning made a career off of being the colts best defensive player. I’m just saying mainly responsible is exactly what he was.

      • rtcwon - Feb 1, 2016 at 9:35 PM

        Shanny the GM got Shanny the legendary coach fired in Denver and Shanny the GM is preventing Shanny the coach from getting even a sniff at another job regardless of what you think happened here.

    • nhskinsfan - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM

      Definitely and Allen brought in some key pieces too.

  3. goback2rfk - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:20 AM

    If Cousins wants more than 16.5 million per year its definitely a tag. Cousins is largely unproven and could most certainly have Nick Foles syndrome. See what he can do with a 1st place schedule next season and then decide on the big numbers. And for Cousins, who makes basically chump change, he would be more than happy with a tag.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 12:08 PM

      I think if the cap hit for the first season is over 14 million then tagging him is a viable option. Others here stating he should get 17 to 20 million, assuming that is a cap it total, are overvaluing Cousins based on where he is at a QB. that amount of a hit on the salary cap is reserved for high level performances for multiple seasons. I don’t think it is reserved for players like Cousins that still need more development and have one season to show for it.

      • rtcwon - Feb 1, 2016 at 9:58 PM

        I believe when others say a player should get X million, they are referring to average contract value, not cap hit.

        My ceiling or max hypothetical deal (7yr $141M) would be $20+M per year in average value but only a $13M cap hit year one. My floor or minimum realistic deal (5yr $79M) would be <$16M with a first year cap hit of $11M.

  4. Tramell - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM

    The scouting department, particularly Scott Campbell has been around a long time. It’s time to change. Vinny relied on him too and Gibbs. They always mentioned “their draft board”. Let’s not forget who put the board together: Campbell.

  5. nhskinsfan - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:40 AM

    If this team goes 7-9 or 8-8 while staying competitive with the schedule they have coming I would count that as a progress. If they do better then awesome, I hope they do.

    I’m a realist and know it could be tough go for them next year. I just don’t want them to turn into a bye week for their opponents. If they prevent that then the future looks bright.

    • ohioskins - Jan 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM

      I agree. This season was great, and the team and Cousins played well down the stretch, but they really were aided by a weak schedule. If they go 9-7, 8-8, 7-9 next year I would consider that good progress even though it would be the same, or lower, win total than this year. Mainly because next season they have a MUCH tougher schedule. It will be a real test as to where they are and the direction they’re headed.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 12:00 PM

        I agree with most of what you stated. However, I don’t know just yet the opponents below will be any more difficult than this years.

        Home opponents (*playoff team): Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Cleveland Browns, *Green Bay Packers, *Minnesota Vikings, *Carolina Panthers, *Pittsburgh Steelers.

        Away opponents (*playoff team): Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, *Cincinnati Bengals (in London), *Arizona Cardinals, Detroit Lions, Baltimore Ravens, Chicago Bears.

        The key will be the division as to it’s strength. Will the group be as bad as this season? It’s hard to imagine but still possible with two new head coaches. the NFC East still looks very weak going into next season.

        As to the opponents outside the division, every year teams that look very strong one season fail dramatically the next. I could see this happening to Minnesota. The Redskins played Carolina Panthers this season so playing them next season has no change in the SOS outside the Panthers may not perform as well. It’s hard to match Superbowl level every season unless the team is a dynasty. New England is not on the schedule so to me that’s a wash with Arizona/Green Bay. The Steelers are a stalwart organization that seems to compete every season so I can say that is a bump in SOS. However, I think Cincinnati is going to be making major changes in the off season and may drop as a major competitor.

        Overall, I think you are probably right about the schedule being more difficult not much more though.

  6. timwillhide - Jan 29, 2016 at 10:02 AM

    here is the whole quote since it wasn’t put in the article


    general manager Scot McCloughan offered this vague response to a question about the team’s plan for Griffin.

    “Well you know what, the thing is, and I’m looking forward to getting back because we had the playoff game, of course, then you had the loss,” McCloughan said from the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Alabama, according to comments distributed by the team. “I had that week where I met with the staff as a whole on that Monday, we went over the game, you know, the tape and all that, and then they had that week to self-scout their own guys and I got the book right before I went to Florida last week for the East-West Shrine Game, and then of course I came here. So, I’m looking forward to getting back there after the Super Bowl and meeting with each coach individually and going over every player.”

    So yeah, he didn’t really answer the question. Let’s try this again. Can McCloughan see a situation that includes Griffin on the Redskins’ roster next season?

    “Certainly, the thing that’s good about what we have right now is that we have until March 9th, and that’s why I want to sit down with the coaches,” he said. “Not just the coordinators, the position coach, but everybody individually and just get a feel for it. He is a good football player, he’s a really good person, and he’s under contract. That’s where we’re at right now.”

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM

      While it could have been a more concise response, I think his explanation was clear in the end that he’d like to evaluate all the players and see what the next steps are for them all including RG3. While this can be construed that he is not 100% sold on Cousins, this tells me more he just wants to be absolutely sure before he makes any definitive comment about RG3’s future here.

      I still see the odds of RG3 as extremely low. The reason are that Gruden’s system most like won’t work for RG3 and Gruden has no intention of changing his scheme. It’s Gruden’s way or the highway in that regard.

      • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 1:02 PM

        Rg3 don’t have a problem with running jay gruden system its the lack of experience bein a pocket passer if jay gruden is willing to groom rg3 into that then he stays…when scot m. Say he’s approaching the draft like the redskins don’t have a QB…that’s saying a lot towards kirk cousins and his agent…earlier in the day kirk cousins said the ball is in scot m. Court so clearly they not on the same page when it comes to money…and jay gruden said during the season its gonna be up to kirk if he wants to return that means coming back for a low amount a year

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 1:18 PM

          Scot’s statement just maybe all about the leverage in the negotiation process. It’s all speculation but I still contend Redskins have serious intentions of signing Kirk for next season. As for grooming RG3, I think that lies on Matt Cavanaugh. I don’t think Gruden is capable of grooming QBs into systems that are not their best fit. Maybe he can be “groomed” but the pocket is not the biggest challenge for RG3 with Gruden’s system. Its the pre-snap reads at the line that include reading both the coverage and anticipating where the pressure is coming. In preseason the most noticeable issue I saw was incorrectly shifting linemen into proper position. While there was still breakdown on protection from the line some of it was because of RG3. I think another issue for RG3 under Gruden’s system is that WRs routes are similarly aligned and in many cases multiple receivers are in he same area. RG3 thrives on WRs and TEs spread out more that inclues more deep threat options which I don’t think exist in this system.

        • diehard cowboy - Jan 29, 2016 at 1:55 PM

          Gruden is not interested in grooming RG3. End of discussion.

        • brucefan1 - Jan 29, 2016 at 5:46 PM

          “if jay gruden is willing to groom rg3 into that then he stays”

          I think that line says it all, money … 1) Gru has shown no willingness to do that and 2) why would Griffin stay with a guy who admittedly lied to him and made him feel he obviously wasn’t wanted … 3) and IF it ever did happen, at what price? A hometown discount, maybe — because he’s all warm & fuzzy about his time in B&G?? LOL

          Griffin is gone. His future is elsewhere.

  7. timwillhide - Jan 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM

    This article states exactly what I’ve bin trying to say and getting bashed for. It’s a pretty good read

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM

      LOL, I was waiting for you to post this link. I knew it was just a matter of time. However, I credit the report put a lot of work into his analysis. There are many concerns about Cousins both you and I share. There are many here that will refuse to read this despite the thorough work put into reviewing Cousins work in 2015.

      What’s key to me from this article and what I emphasized during the season is the overly conservative game lacking enough down field attempts. I not only think this hurt the passing game but the rushing attack as well because it allowed defenses to play up on the offense knowing there was little chance of multiple receivers down field and Cousins rarely sat in the pocket long enough to allow those plays to develop. The irony of this statement is contrary to many who think Cousins has a strong arm. I think he can hit receivers down field but not with great regularity. This is something I want Cousins to demonstrate more and prove me as well as others wrong.

      A whopping 68 percent of Cousins’ passes were either behind the line of scrimmage or less than 10 yards. Comparatively, the NFL average for all 32 teams is 60 percent, according to Pro Football Focus. Even statistically, the Redskins’ inability to go downfield was evident, as Cousins had the seventh-most passing attempts but the 28th-highest yards per completion.

      Some notable offenses and quarterbacks around the NFL run similar short-passing attacks—most notably, the New England Patriots and the New Orleans Saints. With their aging quarterbacks, they’ve found it is more efficient to throw it short and intermediately. But they also have Tom Brady and Drew Brees, respectively.

      I like how the statement above provides some balance to the lack of attempts downfield. It shows great QBs can make a living with this approach to the passing game. However, the question will be can Cousins rise to the level of Brady or Brees in the long term?

      I was surprised with the report on stating Cousins footwork issues. I think too many feel there is only one or two proper stances when throwing the ball. This has been proven not to be the case. There are obvious poor footwork techniques but I’m not sure Cousins footwork is really an issue.

      Overall, I disagree about a long term contract. As long as the long term contract minimizes guaranteed money which I like to see in the low 30 million at the most, has voidable years at the back end, and the front end is conditional salary based on performance; then a long term contact is viable.

      • colmac69 - Jan 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM

        I read the article and I have stated on numerous times on here that I’m a cousins fan…….lots gd points for sure….as it states cousins got a few things to work on but I’m sure he knows himself……..redskins ask him to manage the games and that is what he done….gets his play makers involved….offense moved pretty gd during second half of season without lot help from running game…..some of the points in the article could apply to just about every QB in the league……

        As for contract the gm stated they want him here long term and preferably on long term deal but if they couldn’t come to an agreement then the tag is available….whatever fans think he should get paid is irrelevant in any arguments…..cousins will b here nxt yr one way or another as the starter…..the GM said all correct things bout rgiii but if people think he gonna b here nxt season then there not living in real world (why would he stay anyway when he could get fresh start somewhere else?)…..however if by some chance he stays then it won’t bother me….

        So far the gm has been impressive in everything he done since he arrived….let’s see how far he can take us

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

          There is no doubt IMO that Cousins is a good manager of an offense. He was in College at Michigan State as well.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 3:38 PM

          “So far the gm has been impressive in everything he done since he arrived….let’s see how far he can take us”

          With two exceptions I agree: One was losing Tevin Mitchel to Indy on a injury waiver and cutting Amerson was hasty. His performance at Oakland has been very impressive. He was too talented of a guy to cut loose so soon.

    • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 12:53 PM

      That’s why they not gonna release rg3 early…it was said that redskins had a contract ready for kirk cousins to sign after the season but what scot m. Said saying he’s approaching the draft like redskins don’t have a QB saying a lot and saying we have until march 9th to make a decision on rg3 then saying so many positive things about rg3…either kirk cousins and his agent turn down the contract redskins first offered or they simply not on the same page and not making progress… I think if we don’t hear about them making progress next month I think kirk cousins gonna test free agency witch means redskins gonna franchise tag him or let him go and resign rg3… Ppl that think rg3 bad…look how long it took can newton to be a pocket passer and believe it or not rg3 is capable of giving us a better record because he beat very tough teams…franchise tag kirk cousins is way to much money that’s why they don’t wanna do that and I don’t think they will do that I think they will let him go before they do that…scot m. Famous quotes I love the guys whose loyal and passionate about the organization and if kirk cousins won’t take 14 to 16 mill to stay then he’s not loyal to the organization

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 1:25 PM

        Some valid point Money but I laugh a bit at this one…

        ” Ppl that think rg3 bad…look how long it took can newton to be a pocket passer”

        How many here were falsely claiming Cam was just a running back playing quarterback when Rich made a report about him as one of the candidates? Oh and that he had no chance of being MVP in this league. I, myself, was wrong thinking he wasn’t a strong candidate for MVP because of how well their defense performed. However Cam really turned it on in the second half of the season. He’s a legit elite QB now, right Bernie, et al?

    • hail74 - Jan 29, 2016 at 4:10 PM

      I read it, and agree with the basic conclusion. Cousins is a young, improving QB who may or may not carry that over to next year. I also agree that Gruden is a far better coach than some on here give him credit for. Not sure I’d say cousins benefited from “excellent” playmakers tho. Reed, for sure, and djax when healthy, but there was no run game. Any improvement scherff and Moses brought was negated by long and lerib. In the end I still feel he’s earned a new contract and I’m more than happy to let Scot decide if that should be a multi year or tag.

    • firesnyder - Jan 29, 2016 at 5:02 PM

      That report/article cited by timwillhide is kind of a joke. Lets see Brady’s stats on short yardage throws. That’s how the Pats make bread and butter…. short yardage. Kirk did exactly what our coaches (and system) asked him to do. And, he got better as the season went on. If the Skins want to be conservative with signing Kirk, maybe structure a 3 to 4 year contract with some kind of out after 2 years. But, and I have said this a bunch of times, you have to give a guy at least 3 to 5 years of experience before he becomes elite in this league. Go to pro football reference and look at stats across all the “master” level QBs… they all took 3 to 5 years to become excellent. I think Kirk will get to that level in 2 to 3 years. He has the work ethic and the smarts.

  8. jonevans511 - Jan 29, 2016 at 11:50 AM

    This doesn’t really have anything to do with any of these NTK items but since I’ve seen a ton of people on here screaming about how badly Knighton played and how he needs to go, I want to add some perspective.

    Big NTs like him are not a dime a dozen; guys that even come close to fitting that mold are either far too heavy and can’t move the way we need them to (which Knighton at times looked too heavy, I’ll admit) or they’re super athletic but not big enough to take on two blockers and clog the middle.

    While Knighton didn’t reach the expectations we set for him (perhaps unfairly), not many players did this year. I know it’s fun to point out all of the individual performances from players who did well or sucked, but the fact is our D must be one, cohesive unit in order to succeed. Even if Knighton had played like an All-Pro this year, too often our LBs or secondary missed their assignments on run plays which led to the RB breaking a tackle at the line and having wide open space at the second level. Certainly Compton/Foster helped in this area as the season went on but it didn’t change the fact we needed more discipline on run play assignments.

    Back to Knighton. Was he great? No. Did he get more and more disruptive as the season went on? Absolutely. I think therefore they should offer him another “prove it” type year with weight clauses/restrictions while also drafting a NT in the mid-late rounds assuming there’s some value on the back-end. Reason being, Knighton may not have blown us away with his play but without him on the field this is what we saw (via John Keim/ESPN stats & info):

    For the season, the Redskins allowed 4.23 yards per carry with Knighton on the field and 5.49 yards without him, according to ESPN Stats & Information. In the last eight games, the Redskins allowed 2.9 yards or less five times with Knighton in the game.

    This is something to build on and if Pot Roast sheds some weight and comes in to camp well conditioned, he’ll return to the force he was in Denver. Bank on it.

  9. Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36 PM

    Go read the whole quote on what scot m. Said of rg3 on….he said I have my thoughts on what I think is best for the team hes a good guy and a football player and when I get back and go over the positions with the guys I wanna see how they feel about him…I think they gonna keep him I think its a smart decision and just add a third rookie QB in the late round….scot m. Talked about kirk cousins and his contract situation he said he’s approaching the draft like the redskins don’t have a QB so that should say it all on what Scot m. Mindset is he’s not gonna break the bank for kirk cousins he will bring back rg3 before he do that plus the team have to many wholes to fill…so when kirk cousins say we gonna see how much the redskins really want me to stay that’s big money talk right there and scot m. Not doing that ….hmmm maybe if we don’t give him the big money he will test the free agency market that’s what it will be if we don’t hear that they at least making progress…its smart not to release rg3 early because we don’t know if kirk cousins gonna lower his value… It was said redskins had a contract ready for kirk cousins to sign after the season was over either they looking over it or they decline it and maybe that’s why scot m. Said that he’s approaching the draft like redskins don’t have a QB

  10. Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM

    Kirk cousins gotta make improvements this off-season he don’t deserve to get paid big money yet but I think his agent is asking for 17 to 18 mill scot m. Not gonna pay that much for only going on a 4 game winning streak against losing teams so I think they either franchise tag him witch is likely or let him go and possibly resign rg3 right now like Scot m. Said he’s still under contract they have to make the right decision about him…if we franchise tag kirk cousins he might have a off year simply because he didn’t get what he probably think he deserve so its kinda worrisome they need to make sure they have a good backup plan in case they have to bench him…he’s already a kinda guy who can’t deal with pressure on his back that’s why they made rg3 third string

    • babyteal1 - Jan 29, 2016 at 2:20 PM

      You may be one of the stupidest people on here. Let Kirk go and resign Robert…LOL

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM

        Yet another inflammatory comment from you. Money has been posting here as long as I can remember. He makes his opinions and leaves it there for the most part. He’s been right on his comments far more than ones that I’ve seen from you. Let me know when you are capable of providing a value comment to justify this type of criticism since I have yet to see anything insightful from you.

        • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 7:43 PM

          Lol…thanks…I don’t reply to the ppl who don’t really know about football…when ppl was claiming rg3 was gonna get release before the trade deadline…I was the one who said don’t listen to that its not true…scot m. Don’t listen to the media he’s his own guy and he makes the best decision for the team and guess were rg3 at now he’s still on our roster right ??????

    • nhskinsfan - Jan 29, 2016 at 2:42 PM

      Just so we are clear you think we should keep RG3 who will cost us 16 million next year and who you said in an above comment needs work on being a pocket passer(I completely agree. He does need a year or two) who’s best season was in 2012, and let Kirk go who’s best season was last year and broke passing records and ran for 2 touchdowns less than RG3(who was an electric runner) and threw for 900 yards more had a higher completion percentage and didn’t miss a start with one less win than RG3.

      He also had more total yards than RG3 did in his 2012 season and more touchdowns.

      Also Kirk is already a pocket passer and a good one too.

      Am I understanding this right?

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 29, 2016 at 3:50 PM

        I doubt he thinks we should pay RG3 $16 million when all of it is going to go against the salary cap. RG3 would have to renegotiate the terms if he was to stay on the team as a backup. I don’t see this being possible but I also didn’t expect the league to get away with the cap penalty on Dallas and Washington when it was obvious the league committed collusion by forcing other teams to agree to the penalty. So its possible but doubtful IMO.

        • nhskinsfan - Jan 29, 2016 at 4:42 PM

          That sounds reasonable to resign him on a team friendly deal. He will probably have to do that anywhere he goes. A one year prove it deal at the least.

          I don’t know where the league got the right to penalize a team for spending money in an uncapped year. That was the most ridiculous penalty I have ever seen. Penalizing someone for not breaking the rules.

        • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 8:11 PM

          And I think he will…scot m. And rg3 gets along really well…if they want him to rework his contract I think he will do so

      • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM

        No what will happen is they will release him but before that they will convince him to resign with the redskins… It really all depends on what happen to kirk cousins…if they have to franchise tag kirk cousins I think its a really good chance they resign rg3 because to be honest redskins is his best chance to start again…security is everything to a player if they don’t have that they usually have a bad year…I think rg3 is a great backup plan just in case kirk cousins decide not to play well cause he didn’t get what he thought it was…then add a rookie QB just in case you both is not the answer… I think scot m. Is thinking similar things to what I’m saying…the media want to run him out of town but scot m. Not gonna do that he’s gonna talk to everybody before he makes the final decision

      • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 8:19 PM

        Kirk cousins right now is worth 14 mill a year if we franchise tag him we will be over paying him that’s why its so important to get a long term deal done….rg3 is gonna be a backup no matter if its here or somewhere else he’s gonna have to take less money were ever he goes but redskins might offer a better backup QB contract…he said he wants to be here but its not his choice its out his hands…so if scot m. And him talk witch I think they will do I think its a good chance he stays

        • nhskinsfan - Jan 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM

          I’m going to respectfully disagree. I think Scot is trying to get what he can from RG3. While he controls his contract he

          1) devalues Cousins for us. This is a negotiating tactic.

          2) still holds rg3’s contract. If Dallas wants him and say Houston then it would make sense for them to trade for his rights than to leave it up to free agency. With Scot not in a rush to get rid of him makes teams think about this option.

        • timwillhide - Jan 30, 2016 at 12:50 AM

          I’m pretty sure nobody can trade for anyone till the new year starts and they will have to Cut or resign RG3 before then

        • Rich Tandler - Jan 30, 2016 at 5:10 AM

          That is correct. No trades until the option becomes guaranteed.

          If it amuses people to envision scenarios where the Redskins either get something in return for RG or where they don’t cut him, that’s fine. But the only realistic one if him getting cut before March 9.

        • Mr.moneylover - Jan 30, 2016 at 12:58 PM

          I don’t think franchise tag kirk cousins is a realistic option because he will be getting more money then he deserve…the ppl who don’t think scot m. Won’t let kirk cousins seek a bigger contract then they don’t know scot m. He clearly stated he will not over pay no player because that will be setting a bad example for the organization… I think its long term or nothing

  11. goback2rfk - Jan 29, 2016 at 6:26 PM

    Rg3 can stay on as a 16 mil back up and just take the salary cap hit to the face. Possible if we prolong the Reed contract and a few more contracts until the following season. Don’t resign Colt McCoy and just role with Cousins and Rob as the 2 qb’s.

    • Mr.moneylover - Jan 29, 2016 at 8:01 PM

      Scot m. Will find away to work it out if he feels rg3 is a good backup plan….all IMA say is don’t be surprise if he stays…scot m. Like the guy before he arrive and liked him after he watched all the games he played and liked how he progress during the season when staying after practice working on his technique

  12. Joseph Reese - Jan 30, 2016 at 10:23 AM

    The team isn’t bad at all. The division is tight as hell and the STAFF in the division on each team are of poor value. As far as RGIII, he’s a great mobile QB and can throw the bomb when necessary. The problem come down to your receivers. Pertaining to Capt Kirk Cousins, “if the line holds up to there part of the deal” he’s a quarterback that defenses love to hate. He can sit in the pocket all day long. The playbook is designed for short pass and backfield up the hole running. I’d wager if the redskins switched playbooks with the eagles they’d be deadly season in- season out like the patriots. The duel quarterback thing has been dormant for about 20 years in the league until recently. Its a good eye soar for the Redskins and thats the bottom line on this. QBs are good. The line need some work. The staff need city supervision classes on how to run a offensive/defensive line the championship edition. And go for the long ball some time. It will do wonders for defining not just the Redskins but the NFC East.

    Anybody wanna check me on this
    P.S. Steelersnation

    • rtcwon - Feb 1, 2016 at 11:20 PM

      Check the facts. After injury, RGIIIs problems were poor footwork and unnecessary scrambles. Receivers were open often. Not sure what your next two sentences are saying but Gruden’s WCO is more intermediate heavy than traditional WCOs. Are you actually suggesting switching to a true gimmick offense that got the HC fired? And we lived thru a dual QB thing with Spurrier. Some more non-sense I can’t understand until I almost agree with you, the OL back ups need some work. And another foolish attack on the coaching staff, they force safeties deep with multiple vertical routes opening up the underneath. But fools want to get stats from a soccer site that rates a slant or choice to Reed for 20+ yards the same as a check down because the ball flies the same distance.

      Take your effing towel out of here and go discuss your hospital ward offense and non-existent defense with your bandwagon nation. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter