Skip to content

CSN: Should the Redskins worry about the Giants’ new defensive players?

Mar 10, 2016, 12:56 PM EDT

Olivier-Vernon

The three defensive free agents the Giants picked up on Wednesday all played against the Redskins last year. Tandler takes a look at how each of them performed on CSNmidatlantic.com. 

  1. Mr.moneylover - Mar 10, 2016 at 1:01 PM

    Hell naw….janoris Jenkins struggle greatly tryna cover p.garcon and Jordan reed and struggle tackling in the running game….Olivia Vernon struggle against Morgan moses and Trent Williams I think redskins sitting back laughing right now

  2. cmehustle - Mar 10, 2016 at 1:07 PM

    Giants tryin to win the superbowl in March! I remember those days! Lol

    • Bryan - Mar 10, 2016 at 1:21 PM

      I think these players can help them but they made two of them the 1st or 2nd highest paid player at position for some reason. The de was ok and that was playing with suh and wake for a period. Jenkins the Rams decided to keep the other corner that should tell you something. I do think Harrison will be good for them and just makes us needing a bigger c more pressing need. The thing I laugh at is they haven’t done anything to fix their crappy online. I know that system is quick hitters but they won’t Beable to protect a aging manning who will start to feel the pain more as he gets older. I’m not to concerned but I do think it will help them. I don’t want the skins to sign Vernon Davis we have two better te and carrier I think is more beneficial than him so we actually have 3 better. I read something that said skins and Hawks possible deal for chancellor, anybody else read that? Might have just been dreaming, I think Nelson could help for 2 years but def getting old.

  3. bangkokben - Mar 10, 2016 at 2:12 PM

    Since Janoris Jenkins is one of the Giant defensive signings and both he and Griffin were a part of THE TRADE and no longer part of the teams that drafted them, here is my scorecard since the trade.

    Division championships since trade:
    Redskins 2
    Rams 0

    Players acquired with the trade picks:
    Rams 9
    Redskins 1

    Players remaining with original team:
    Rams 4
    Redskins 0

    Starters remaining:
    Rams 3 (Greg Robinson, Alec Ogletree, and Michael Brockers)
    Redskins 0

    Who won the trade?
    In my mind, it’s not over yet, but the Redskins are still ahead. Greg Robinson is the Rams starting left tackle and has two years left on his rookie contract; Alec Ogletree is in the final year of his rookie contract, coming off a season ending injury, and making the move inside from weakside linebacker to replace James Laurinitis; and Michael Brockers is starting defensive tackle next to Aaron Donald. He is currently has one year remaining as the team picked up his option. Meanwhile the Rams haven’t found their quarterback and haven’t had one winning season.

    • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM

      One telling stat you left off, PLAYOFF APPEARANCES since trade! I won’t go as far to say we won the trade because clearly we just got lucky but, I’ll take luck over traded draft picks any day/draft incompetence. We’re certainly better off but there were no winners here.

      • bangkokben - Mar 10, 2016 at 4:39 PM

        Did I leave it off? Division championships rather implies playoffs does it not? Luck — schmuck. The moral of the trade is: No matter where, when, or how many you have; make your draft picks count! We rolled four picks into one very promising player and got two playoff appearances in the run (one because we played the player and the other because benched that player). They took those four picks, rolled them into nine players and still haven’t broke seven wins, gone to the playoffs, surpassed 3rd place in their division, or found a quarterback AND folks want to declare them the winner in this trade? Utter bull____. Sure, it’s like picking the winner between a 1st grade thumb wrestling contest but unless sucking with the most reasons not to is the criteria, I don’t see how the Rams wind up the “winners” of this trade.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM

          Well you don’t have to win your division to get into the playoff so yeah. WE WON our division but was just stating the further salt in the wound that they couldn’t even muster a wild card spot. I hear an echo, 4 drafts into 9 players and no playoff berth sound like draft incompetence. Conversely turning 4 picks into one player that isn’t the one we traded for sounds a lot like luck. I don’t see how the Rams wind up winners either regardless of criteria, which is why I said there are no winners of this trade. One completely dropped the ball with a ton of 1st round picks and the other dropped the ball with THEE first round pick yet got lucky with a guy we could’ve gotten without mortgaging the house for. Tomato Tomahto. Rams suck and we suck less but still have a little ways until I consider us a legit GOOD team. Good pieces don’t= good team ya know.

        • bangkokben - Mar 10, 2016 at 5:16 PM

          We’re in accord for the most part.

          The reason I originally wrote my thoughts on this matter are two fold. The first is to dispel the myth that more is better. More is less risky. It gives you more options to succeed and allows for failure. The Redskins have failed this way in the past as well (2008 draft for instance). The second reason is that one mistake DOESN’T jeopardize your franchise. Sure, in hindsight, it would be nice to have those four picks back but losing those picks didn’t stop the franchise from winning the division last year and that is combined with the $36 million cap penalty. The right people can right the ship.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 10, 2016 at 5:32 PM

          Right. Having a ton of picks in a weak draft is a set up for failure. For anyone reading, not just directed at you, I don’t want people thinking that I’m saying draft picks are less costlier than FA. From a dollars and cents stand point yes, you can draft a guy number one and pay him less than we paid Pot Roast last year. You could also draft a guy (high or low) and the guy behind him could be the Russell Wilson or Tom Brady. I’m far from an economist but when it comes to drafting opportunity cost is definitely something to take into account. “More is less risky. It gives you more options to succeed and allows for failure.” I’d like to add that the more you have the less excuses people will be willing to accept when you fail. Not just the skins in 08 but Scot also had a terrible draft in 08′ that harkens back to my point having a ton of picks in a bad draft is just as troubling as having a few picks in a good draft. I’ll be in Millennium Park whispering “don’t do it” in the MADTV guys ear this year. Don’t worry, it wont be us =)

        • bangkokben - Mar 10, 2016 at 5:59 PM

          You’re right about the excuses. Jeff Fisher didn’t get the maximum from his picks from the Griffin deal but he got Aaron Donald and Trumaine Johnson from their own picks. So, he gets an extension and they play the sloooow build.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 10, 2016 at 6:46 PM

          Slow and shameful build. Shanny really saved us with Kirk, at least that’s how it looks for now. Makes you wonder if the Rams were drafting according to need or BPA. It’s like a kid with $20, you think you have a lot more than you really do.
          Rams needs heading into 2012: WR OL DL LB CB S (sounds like us this year)

          Rams gave away their 1st rd pick to the cowboys. Dal turned that into Morris Claiborne.

          Rams pick 14th overall, M Brockers. Picked before him? Michael Floyd. After him Bruce Irvin.

          Rams 1st pick of the 2nd Brians Quick, after him Coby Fleener. Before him, David Wilson (the Giants saved him here but he’s at least still under contract)

          Rams 51st pick overall RB Isaiah Pead. Pick 47? Bobby Wagner Pick 57? Brock Osweiler

          Trumaine Johnson

          Pick 96 for the Rams? WR Chris Givens. Pick 92? TY Hilton. Pick 97? Lamar Miller. Pick 102? Kirk Cousins a guy they were rumored to be in the running for this year.

          They picked Rokevious Watkins 150overall. Pick 137? Malik Jackson. Pick 167? George Iloka.

          Kicker Zuerlein in the 6th 171st and the next pick was CB Jeremy Lane whom the Seahawks drafted. After Lane is a guy Alrfed Morris 173. At 188 Danny Trevethan was still on the board.

          Man this 2012 draft was STOCKED. Sheesh! I mean I know no one knows the future but the Rams have to be looking back like wow. There’s getting it wrong then there’s getting yourself fired, sorry Jeff.

        • bangkokben - Mar 11, 2016 at 7:23 AM

          The 2012 draft was stacked full of talent. Shame we’ve got just one of our nine picks left – although that would’ve been different had 2013 yielded different results.

  4. Bryan - Mar 10, 2016 at 3:02 PM

    Rich

    With us bringing in branch and trying to sign Jg back have you heard anything about them asking Murphy to bulk up and move him to end?

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 10, 2016 at 3:37 PM

      I’ve heard talk of it, hard to tell if it’s based in reality or just speculation. Gruden non-committal at the combine.

  5. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM

    We need to worry more about our own defense.

    As for blocking the Giants, we can upgrade at center. I’m sure McGlue is thinking about it.
    ~

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter