Skip to content

Need to Know: Do the Redskins have any players they could trade?

Mar 15, 2016, 5:17 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Tuesday, March 15, 44 days before the NFL Draft.

Do the Redskins have any trade bait?

Scot McCloughan is always on the hunt for additional draft picks. Do the Redskins have any players that other teams might be willing to give up picks for? Let’s take a look at a few players who aren’t on the block right now but have contracts and roster situations that could allow them to be dealt.

TE Niles Paul—When Paul was injured last year they brought in Derek Carrier, who is a similar player. If Carrier, who suffered a torn ACL in early December, is going to be ready for training the camp Paul could be expendable. He has a $1.25 million salary and the Redskins would have to carry $667,000 in dead cap if they dealt him.

ILB Perry Riley—He has lost his starting job due in part to a foot injury that got Mason Foster into the lineup. There should be some demand for a 28-year-old player who has started for four and a half years. To be sure, his $4 million salary does detract from his trade value but a team in need could pay it. The Redskins would be left with a little over $1 million in dead cap.

WR Pierre Garçon—This seems very unlikely but if a contending team has a training camp injury it’s possible. On the Redskins side of it, they might consider this if they go for a receiver early in the draft and feel that he can be productive as a rookie. Garçon is in the last year of his contract and a team trading for him would be responsible for his $7.6 million salary.

QB Colt McCoy—This is plausible now but it would become more likely next year. A team trading for him in 2016 would be a backup quarterback at a salary of $1 million, what passes for a bargain in this market. But the Redskins would realize no net cap savings after accounting for dead money and they don’t have a backup QB. But next year the Redskins would save $2.4 million in cap space by dealing him and the team picking him up would pay him $2.8 million. If the Redskins have a backup quarterback they developed from the draft ready by then they might listen to offers for McCoy.


—The Redskins last played a game 65 days ago. It will be about 180 days until they play another one.

Days until: Redskins offseason workouts start 34; 2016 NFL draft 44; Redskins training camp starts 135

In case you missed it

  1. colorofmyskinz - Mar 15, 2016 at 6:23 AM

    I would have thought Morris could have enticed a trade. But with no extension it was not possible and we did not want to risk being stuck. I am surprised that he and RGIII have not been signed yet… Or did we place too much stock in them??

    • troylok - Mar 15, 2016 at 7:05 AM

      My feeling is RG3 has to be re-calibrated on what his earnings potential is. He made a lot of money with the Redskins and he may be thinking he can get something in that range with another team. No other team is going to pay that for what would be viewed as a player that needs to prove his value. I think San Francisco makes a lot of sense for RG3 but they are in limbo with Kaepernick’s request to leave and no good plan to deal him.

      Morris also needs a chance to redeem himself. Teams needing a one-cut runner like him are Denver and Atlanta and they have their stables full. I think Morris will find work, but he will most likely sign with a team that has a camp injury and it will be a one year prove it deal.

      • darcrequiem - Mar 15, 2016 at 9:30 AM

        I agree on Morris. With CJ Anderson potentially landing in Miami, I think Alfred would be a great fit in Denver. He fits what Kubiak likes to do in the running game so well.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM

          CJ Anderson is staying in Denver. So that one is out for Morris

      • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2016 at 9:47 AM

        Griffin may need a reality check on his earnings potential, but he didn’t make that much money as a Redskin (compared to Sam Bradford, for instance, or the going rate for top tier back-ups). Being the 2nd pick in the draft, his entire rookie contract was guaranteed and worth $21,119,098 which included a $13,799,344 signing bonus. So he’s averaged $5,279,774.50 over his four year career. The undrafted Chase Daniel is coming off a similarly averaged contract in Kansas City and has now signed a three-year $21,000,000 contract with $12,000,000 fully guaranteed which includes a $3,000,000 signing bonus. This for a guy who went undrafted and has started just two games in the NFL. Maybe there isn’t a team that will pay him that much but I suspect it has more to do with what teams want and what Griffin wants. If he is willing to be a back-up, he’d be signed by now. Then again there is the whole Tebow-like circus that follows Robert around that may also keep teams away.

        • John - Mar 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM

          Bradford got a big contract as a rookie, but then that was before the adjustment to the rookie pay scale. Regarding Robert, perhaps he is not getting a lot of action because all the talk of so many teams being interested in him was hype from his agent and Robert is not “all that”.

        • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2016 at 3:19 PM

          Exactly. Bradford got nearly 3x the amount as Robert due to the CBA changes. So Robert didn’t get “that much” from the Redskins. As for the 10-15 teams interested, everyone knew that his agent was the source of that information. What kind of interest was that? Clearly, tepid interest or we’re interested in you if we can’t get Fitz or Kaep or even Chase Daniel. As soon as the Kaepernick domino falls, then we can see what interest there is in Griffin, if any.

        • warpath1 - Mar 15, 2016 at 5:04 PM

          there will definately be interest. Once all of the starting jobs are taken, someone will pick him up

    • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 15, 2016 at 6:13 PM

      Well RGIII has only visited two teams so there’s that. The hold up with him is that he probably doesn’t want to be a back up and the teams with starting QB vacancies are probably less impressed with his 2012 season and more concerned about every year that followed it. I mean signing an injury prone QB is one thing. We see it all the time Bradford is getting paid, Romo got an extension a few years back, Vick has gotten jobs through injury and convictions. I think it’s the attitude that’s tearing down the value. Even in the 2012 season RGIII was running his mouth, daddy in the locker room etc. That’s going to be harder to disprove than any health or re-injury concerns a team may have. You don’t know how he’s going to respond til he’s in the presser. Someone will take a shot on him, hopefully he’s matured enough that his mouth won’t hold him up from anymore jobs. I’m still rooting for you Rob cause even though you were definitely a little sassy, the head coach’s job is to manage egos and develop talent, he failed at doing that.

      • John - Mar 15, 2016 at 11:51 PM

        For those that were saying Robert would leave here and tear up the league, now what do you think of your hero?

        Some have said KC would be the place. Nothing happening there and they lost Daniel, their #2 QB. What about Dallas, they don’t have anyone behind Romo? What about Denver? They got Sanchez and are trying to get Kapernick or Fitzpatrick. Houston all ready got their guy. The Rams will more than likely draft a QB. The Jets let RG3 walk, surely he’s better than Geno. So, looks like its football hell, aka Cleveland or bust, but then again it seems certain they’ll draft a QB.
        To bad, so sad for Robert and his dad…

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 15, 2016 at 11:57 PM

          @John: I’m not one of the people you were talking to, but I’m not sure that was really necessary; at all. It’s over man. Just let it go.

          I would also point out that it’s way too early to make those statements. You don’t know what these teams have brewing. There’s a lot of leverage and strategy going on behind closed doors right now. Whatever we’re hearing in the news is not the whole story.

          Now, I don’t really think there’s many teams out there who want him as their starter right now. There’s too many questions. But I think plenty of teams would love him as their backup. Just remember he has to agree too, and the situation needs to be right. He could very well just be comparing offers and situations. So let’s relax and see what happens before we just assume nobody but Cleveland wants him (which I haven’t even heard a single report about btw).

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 24, 2016 at 4:57 PM

          You called it John! Hopefully he’s matured to where his attitude won’t allow him to have to go through a lengthy FA again.

  2. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 15, 2016 at 8:31 AM

    I’m getting a “Basically, no” vibe from your post, Rich.

    • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2016 at 9:23 AM

      Thunder, you beat me to it.

      Then again there is the question of why a division winner would want to trade away pieces for draft picks when trading the above players also creates holes.

      • Trey Gregory - Mar 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM

        @Bang: I don’t actually think any of these trades would happen. But just because nobody would want them, maybe outside of Paul but I can’t see us letting him walk.

        But, to answer your question, I think the division champs woul trade players for draft picks because they don’t actually expect to be division champs again. I think we kind of struck lightning in a bottle last year, and it was fun, but I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that again. I think McCloughan knows it’s year two of a rebuild, a rebuild that he wants to complete through the draft, so more draft picks would help us accomplish that better and sooner. But also, I think, he knows teams don’t usually have sustained succes in year 1 and 2 of a rebuild. McCloughan has made his philosophy pretty clear: if you want to build long-term success and not be a flash in the pan you stockpile draft picks and use them well for a number of years.

        • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2016 at 4:30 PM

          Organizations – winning organizations – don’t take steps backwards to rebuild. I’m not denying there is a building process but McCloughan doesn’t look at the division and concede defeat; therefore let me lose a TE for a draft pick. In fact the opposite is true. In season, during a rebuild, McCloughan traded a draft pick (2017 5th rounder) for Carrier. He could’ve signed Chris Cooley off the street but he was trying to do both – compete AND (re)build with youth. What he didn’t do was concede the season, when it could’ve easily been done.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 15, 2016 at 5:19 PM

          I think that’s a very general statement to make. Just today the Patriots traded a top DE to the Cardinals for a second round pick and an unproven linemen who, so far, hasn’t accomplished anything in the NFL. People trade players for picks. It just depends where you are in a rebuild. I don’t know that “winning organizations” are ever truly rebuilding. If they’re winning all the time, then maybe they’re maintaining more than rebuilding.

          Anyway, none of the guys that Rich mentioned are as valuable as Chandler Jones. Even a guy like Garcon, who I adore and I think is sorely underrated, has his downside because of cap hit, age, and that his contract is up in a year. Are any of the names on this list, outside of Paul, really in Scot’s plan for the future? Do you believe he sees any of these guys as long term solutions? Or as guys he wants around for a while? If not, why not get value for them while you can and go find the guys you want around long term.

          I think it just really depends on the individual player in the individual situation. So it wouldn’t be productive for us to talk about this so generally. But there are absolutely some guys on this team that, maybe have some value, who I would be okay with trading depending on the compensation. I think your point is, and I agree, that we would probably take some lumps this coming year in doing so. But I’m cool with that. Maybe the two of us see this team at a different stage. Winning the division was irrelevant to me because I know we’re not actually ready to make a push yet. I’m more concerned with building for long term stability than winning the NFC East in 2016 m. That’s just my opinion though. I’m pretty sure nether of us are right or wrong here.

        • bangkokben - Mar 16, 2016 at 9:26 AM

          I don’t know if we differ too much in our view of the Redskins – where we differ is our view on their division rivals. The NFL is not baseball or basketball where you can methodically build something. Sometimes you get ahead of schedule and you just have to take it. The window opens and closes much faster in the NFL due to the length of careers and all the moving parts on a 53-man roster. It doesn’t mean you didn’t overachieve but also doesn’t mean you can’t compete when building your foundation. Carolina was two games away from a perfect season a year after winning less than they lost – all the while having a sub-par receiving corps and not replacing Greg Hardy. It turns out they had their foundation set, the Redskins do not – not yet.

          My point isn’t that we would take lumps if we traded away players – we probably would. My point is that we wouldn’t come out on the winning side of any trade. For instance, if we traded Garcon, we now have created a hole on the roster – along with the many others – that needs to be addressed immediately for compensation that isn’t adequate. Furthermore, WE TAKE the hit in the cap. Sure, we’ve freed $8M but we also now have $2.2M in dead money, a likely 3rd round draft pick (maybe a 2nd), a big hole at WR, and whatever ripple affect this has on the offense and QB. Take any of the players mentioned and extrapolate likely compensation and I think it’s fair to conclude that we are weakening the team. Even, Perry Riley has more value to this team (right now) than an extra 5th or 6th round pick.

    • ET - Mar 15, 2016 at 1:20 PM

      With the possible exception of Riley, these are all guys the Skins (and fans) should want on the team. Yeah, it seems pretty unlikely that any of these players are traded this season.

  3. vtsquirm - Mar 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM

    we have other players we could trade… it just doesn’t make any sense to do so. Breeland, Cousins, Kerrigan are all valuable.

  4. smotion55 - Mar 15, 2016 at 8:51 AM

    No Real Trade bait on that list, this year. If somebody needs a player like Garcon they will pay less than 8 million for a player like him somewhere else. McCoy maybe next year but like I said No Real trade bait on that list. Very slow week for that to come up as a question.
    Redskin fans are having a hard time sitting back and waiting on something to happen. No News is good news for a change. I was hoping for a couple of re-structured contracts like Garcon and Culliver or even Jackson . If I could get out of Culliver’s contract I would, Injury was severe and I don’t think he will be any good until late November if at all this upcoming year..

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 15, 2016 at 10:53 AM

      I agree with tne no news is good news when it comes to overpaying free agents.

      But it is hard to wait so long for the draft…

      • bk70 - Mar 15, 2016 at 11:59 AM

        Agree, I am soooooo ready for the draft

        Round 1st Choice 2nd Choice
        1 Ryan Kelly C Alabama 6-4 311 Jaran Reed DT Alabama 6-3 311
        2 Vernon Butler DT Louisiana St 6-4 325 Jeremy Cash SS Duke 6-1 212
        3 Miles Killebrew SS S Utah 6-2 219 Nick Martin C Notre Dame 6-4 296
        4 Kenyan Drake RB Alabama 6-1 210 Nick Vannett TE Ohio St 6-6 257
        5 Jihad Ward DE Illinois 6-5 296 Blake Martinez ILB Stanford 6-2 239
        6 Jake Coker QB Alabama 6-6 236 Romeo Okwara DE Notre Dame 6-5 266
        7 Josh Forest ILB Kentucky 6-3 245 Nate Sudfeld QB Indiana 6-6 236
        7 Jake McGee TE Florida 6-5 252 Jordan Walsh OG Iowa 6-3 290

        • pdxskin - Mar 15, 2016 at 1:42 PM

          Not a bad looking draft there, BK! I think Jihad is too low and Killebrew/Drake/Coker are too high, but that’s just me (you a ‘Bama guy by any chance?). With slight revisions, I’d be happy if it played out as follows:

          1 Ryan Kelly C Alabama 6-4 311
          2 Vernon Butler DT Louisiana St 6-4 325
          3 Jihad Ward DE Illinois 6-5 296
          4 Nick Vannett TE Ohio St 6-6 257
          5 Blake Martinez ILB Stanford 6-2 239
          6 Romeo Okwara DE Notre Dame 6-5 266
          7 Nate Sudfeld QB Indiana 6-6 236
          7 Jake McGee TE Florida 6-5 252

        • pdxskin - Mar 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM

          meant to delete Jake McGee from the bottom of the list (we should draft one TE, but definitely not two!).

    • John - Mar 15, 2016 at 12:26 PM

      There won’t be any restructuring of Garçon or Jackson’s contracts. Consider the money that Jones and Sanu got. Neither one is nearly as good as Garcon or Jackson but got the free agency big bucks, not a whole lot less than either of our guys. Were you in their shoes, would you take less? Garcon has all ready indicated no, more than once this off season.

      • pdxskin - Mar 15, 2016 at 1:47 PM

        No restructure also because we don’t really want to extend them beyond their current deals…. Garcon will definitely be gone next year, and I could see Jackson also being gone unless he has a career year in 2016 and Scott decides he is worth keeping around.

  5. Freddie Dempsey - Mar 15, 2016 at 8:52 AM

    What ever happened with K. Chancller?? I know we will never give a 2nd round pick away. We will build from the draft. Still be nice to do something like two players and maybe a 3rd or 4th pick. Just a thought. As close to S.Taylor as I have seen. Big hitter and can cover. Good teammate also. Just is done with Seattle.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 15, 2016 at 9:25 AM

      Nothing ever happened with Chancellor because there were never any discussions about him between the two teams. The entire thing was made up out of thin air.

    • John - Mar 15, 2016 at 12:36 PM

      We’re not getting Chancellor. He’s the straw that stirs that secondarys drink. Were you Seattle with the way the defense fell off when he was out, would you give up a pick, just to see your defense fall apart?

  6. scottmccloughanfan - Mar 15, 2016 at 9:55 AM


  7. Trey Gregory - Mar 15, 2016 at 4:05 PM

    I would be a little upset if we traded Paul. I’m not sure we’ve seen his ceiling yet and he’s great insurance against a Reed injury. I agree Paul and Carrier are similar in paper, but I’ve seen more bang out of Paul. And I like Carrier too, I think there’s potential there. Maybe Paul is just further along at this point.

    I would also be upset to see Garcon go. I would much rather see Desean leave. But I’m not cool with either leaving until we have a viable replacement.

    Riley though? Yes please. I would be plenty happy to ship him off for some picks

    • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 16, 2016 at 4:35 PM

      Niles Paul has bricks for hands. Not even sure the guy would yield a 3rd or 4th rounder. MADTV guy likes to the later rounds of the draft so it’s possible we end up with a Patrick Willis Richard Sherman-esque pick. Maybe if we could just trade TE for TE. I’d take someone a little long in the tooth maybe on an expiring contract with sustained production over someone that young-ish and unproven.

      • Trey Gregory - Mar 17, 2016 at 2:36 AM

        Nikes Paul has brick hands? Really? Ive talked Redskins non-stop every day of the week for years and I’ve never once heard anyone make any statement even remotely close to that. What are you talking about? Are you sure you’re not confusing him with Logan Paulson? We’re talking Niles Paul. The guy who burst onto the scene in 2014 then won the starting TE job, over Reed, but didn’t play in 2015 because he was injured in the preseason. That’s who we’re talking about? Because I’m going to need to see some stats to back that up. The guy is great. He’s a converted WR. His whole thing is that he can catch. I get that he won the job over Reed because they thought he’s a better blocker, but he can still catch. That’s what got him on the team in the first place.

        People were drooling over Washington’s TEs last offseason because of all the great reports coming out about Niles. They went something like: We already know he’s a great playmaker, mismatch, and an offensive threat but he put on weight to became a better blocker and it seems to be paying off. If Reed can stay healthy then Washington will have two very dynamic weapons…. That’s what just about everyone said.

        I get the feeling, with a lot of players, that some fans see them on an off day and just keep that image in their mind forever. Maybe even just one missed catch and assume that’s them. I’m going to be pretty busy tomorrow but I’ll try to find time to look up his catch/drop ratio. Would be nice if you could do that to prove me wrong though.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 3:40 PM

          So he has career 53 catches on 80 targets. so there’s a 67% chance the guy catches something his way. He won the job over Reed in 2014? Reed missed 4 games to injury and STILL had more catches/targets than him 50/65. I understand some of them could be off target throws so give/take 5% he’s still BARELY serviceable. Seen him on an off day? YOU LOOK UP HIS NUMBERS. He’s 50/50 at best throughout his career. Which is why he was playing BEHIND Fred Davis with his legal issues and we went out and DRAFTED Reed because we KNEW Niles Paul wasn’t the answer. Which is why we have a glass TE playing ahead of him and are STILL in need of drafting one because Paul isn’t getting it done. He at the Shadow Room in Dc every Thursday when he should be on the jugs machine somewhere. Oh and who was his favorite partying buddy? Fred Davis. The guy he STILL couldn’t beat out or even replace when released. Not speculation my buddy works there and used we have this conversation all the time (except we were both in agreement because we didn’t start watching the skins in 2014 giving us a jaded view of his talents). I probably wouldn’t be so hard on him if he didn’t club so much but then again.. yeah I would because HE GOT BEAT OUT by Reed. Who was drafted first? Who is starting now? I know it’s St. Patty’s day but lay off the green.

          REC TGTS
          2011: 2 5
          2012: 8 15
          2013: 4 8
          2014: 39 52 (The year he supposedly beat Reed out yet amassed less targets and catches. Also Reed was the clear starter in camp the following year so how he was beat out is beyond me)

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 17, 2016 at 6:03 PM

          Dude you’re impossible to talk to because you’re not paying attention.

          No, Paul did not beaut out Reed in 2014, he beat him out I’m 2015. Look it up, it’s well documented. Paul was to be the starter but he was hurt in the pre season.

          Also, of course Reed had more targets and receptions in 2014, he was the starting TE. Paul didn’t break out until Reed’s injury then he was sidelined again when Reed returned, or at least used less.

          So everything you said about 2014 is irrelevant. Try again. Or don’t. You obviously don’t follow the team very close to not know this. It was the main story surrounding the team for a while last offseason.

          I’m also not the one saying Paul drops 50% of his passes. Which is absurd by the way. Nobody in the NFL drops 50%. Literally nobody. So since you’re making wild claims you need to support them with actual numbers.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 6:52 PM

          I never said he drops 50% of his passes I said there’s a 67% chance he makes the catch and that he’s 50/50 his whole career. Meaning he may run the wrong route or not give as much effort in going after it but the number doesn’t lie. I don’t have to support them with actual numbers, I already did a guy with 53 catches in his career as long as his. 53! Reed had 45 in his first season. YOU BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS! LOL! Paul plays the position that has been one of the most fluid, for our team, in recent years. He got beat out by Reed when Reed was supposed to be depth. Response? Reed is hurt EVERY year, multiple games, why do we continue to go BACK to Reed? Response? (please number them when you address me I noticed you skipped over his impotence in beating out other TE’s and look forward to grading your responses) Why if Paul is as “great” (and yes you used that word) as you say he is why did he play behind Fred Davis who failed more drug tests than you (and that’s had to have happened a lot if you think Paul is great) and Paul STILL GOT NO PRODUCTION. He got plenty of PT with no production to show for it. You’re the one that brought up 2014 so don’t get your Vickies in a Gregory. You yourself admitted he only “won” the starting job over Reed because of his blocking. Not his catching. But he’s a converted a receiver. Riddle me this how does a converted WR win a position battle with a TE with his blocking and not his catching? Response? The thinking there could be that they were about even with catching but Paul was a better blocker and that gave him the edge. Hmm well if that’s the case how does a converted WR have less career production than both Davis and Reed by their second year with the skins? Response? The article we’re commenting on is about trade value. WELL, he was drafted in the 5th round, has he helped his draft value? What would we get for trading a guy on his potential when he’s had opportunities with two TE’s ahead of him to step in and earn a contract? Response “Paul didn’t break out until Reed’s injury then he was sidelined again when Reed returned, or at least used less.” How Sway? You don’t have the responses! You’d think the coaches would go with the guy that can catch. Fred Davis only played two 16 game seasons and they were both before Paul got here. He’s gotten opportunities and he’s gotten surpassed. He’s a slumlord and you sound like the girlfriend that refuses to believe her dude is out here doing her wrong, he’ll make you look bad every time. Leave him alone babe he’s not good enough for you. And that’s not a personal attach, that’s sound advice.

      • Trey Gregory - Mar 17, 2016 at 2:49 AM

        Here’s a post from Rich on this subject that at least mentions Paul. It’s good enough for now. He dropped about 5% of passes, which isn’t bad at all.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 3:57 PM

          “Tight end Niles Paul also had three drops but he was targeted only 52 times.”

          Because Reed got a bulk of the work at that position that year and every year since EVEN WITH INJURY. The second most sure handed guy on the team. Yet the guy that was beat out by Paul who only has 80 targets on his career? The QBs even knew he wasn’t a viable option. Maybe if you want to do a league wide search of who drops more passes do it but it’s irrelevant because that’s not who he is competing with in camp. If he can’t beat out our guy or the guy that preceded him even with legal issues what team is really going to give us anything over a 5th round pick for him. He hasn’t even improved his draft stock he is what they thought he’d be if anything he’s disappointed. He should really just dedicate himself to his craft or begin his career as a Just For Men model, leave the catching for the professionals. 3 drops when he caught 39/50 sounds a bit generous, I know RGIII was missing guys high A LOT but that’s also apart of being a receiver laying out and catching balls not watching them sail over your head.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 17, 2016 at 6:58 PM

          Hey, I’m sorry I just came at you like that. Caught me in a bad mood and I shouldn’t have been snappy with you like I just was.

          Maybe I’m mistaken and Paul drops more passes than I realized, maybe not. But it’s pointless for me to say you’re wrong if I don’t have any proof. Ill have time later tonight to try and find some actual stats for us to look at and we’ll figure it out.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 7:11 PM

          Don’t sweat it. I’m at work with the studious/busy face so everyone thinks I’m doing actual work :-D I’m your proof! Trust me, he’s had ample time to get it together an he hasn’t. Most fans on here, and the talking heads, consider TE as a draft need for us this year. Why would that be the case if we actually had two solid TE’s and Logan as a third? How many TE’s do teams normally carry? How many TE’s do teams normally work out in camp? Believe in me Trey, if you don’t every time he drops a pass this season I’m going to be relentless lol.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 7:13 PM

          I’, going full Wilbon “Well Trey did you see YA BOY drop 9 passes yesterday?” Lol I’m kidding, they’d never target him that many times.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM

 I don’t know why they’d have an entire article breaking down his drops if he can catch, beyond me. Be sure to check out the 162 comments on the article cause I KNEW I wasn’t the only one pissed at this guy.

        • Rich Tandler - Mar 18, 2016 at 5:13 AM

          Not sure why this dropped into the spam folder. One link should get through.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM

          Thanks Rich.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 8:04 PM

          I’ve tried to post the article but my comment wont show when I post the link so check out hogs haven and search for the article “niles paul catching trouble drops” They literally break everything down for you. It’s not a phantom issue I just made up Trey. The guys been a slumlord, that’s why were still drafting TE’s. Also some stuff on CPND about him.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 17, 2016 at 11:29 PM

          If you make a post with multiple links it goes into a spam folder. We have to do them one link at a time. I’ll try to find what you’re talking about though.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 17, 2016 at 11:31 PM

          I tried putting it up by itself but it wouldn’t go through.. maybe because it’s a competitor blog?

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 18, 2016 at 12:29 AM

          Ok. I read the link you posted here and found the Hog Haven one too. Thank you for finding me some stuff to read. Again, I apologize that I came at you a little sideways. Shouldn’t have accused you of making it up. People have different opinions about players all the time. No big deal.

          Now, I want to point out that the link you posted was an article from 2012 and the Hogs Haven article was written in 2013 but I believe he was talking about Paul in the 2012 season. So that takes me back to, just because a guy used to be something doesn’t mean he will always be that thing. Paul was transitioning from WR to TE in 2012 and obviously had some growing pains. He didn’t really do anything of note until 2014. It’s also pretty obvious he would have struggled to catch even if he was still playing WR. He had to grow, but he did. If you look at the articles from around the time he came in when Reed got hurt (in 2014), to now, people gush over him. Because he used to be pretty bad then he got a lot better.

          To address why we’re still drafting TEs: First, we all know Reed is a stud and one of the best pass catching TEs in the league. The problem is we don’t have good blocking TEs. Reed isn’t a good blocker at all. He was also hurt a lot. So, we needed a guy in case Reed couldn’t shake the injury bug and a guy to block. As far as I understand, the team believed they found Reed’s pass catching replacement with Paul, but not a blocker. Both agreed and Paul are a bit undersized. So Paul added weight between the 2014-2015 seasons to help him block. Every report out of camp was that it worked and Paul won the starting job because he stayed healthy (woops), could block, and was pretty good at catching passes too. Paul got injured, so we never really got to see his new self. His injury, and Paulson’s, devistating out TE depth and that’s why so many people still want a new TE. But it’s all about blocking.

          Now, you also mentioned some of this may be because he’s not putting himself in the best position to catch the passes. So here’s an article from Pro Football Focus, from 2014 (the last season he played) that has him ranked 3rd among all TEs and WRs for putting himself in the proper position to catch passss (it’s a little more complicated than that but you’ll see).

          Now, as far as having 53 career receptions and playing behind Fred Davis and Logan Paulson: I get your point. Not exactly eye popping numbers or a ringing endorsement. But I think it’s important to note that I’m focusing on what’s recent here. He was a project, it took Washington some time to develop him, and it paid off. I think we should be happy about that and not begrudge him for having the growing pains. He took on the challenge and came out the other side stronger.

          It’s also important to note that 39 of his 53 receptions happened in 2014. That’s where he broke out. I’m talking about that guy. That’s a very sharp uptick in numbers. It’s also just a fact that he was named the starting TE in the 2015 offseason over Reed because they felt he was more well rounded. He can catch and block. I’m not saying he’s better than Reed at catching, but Gruden and staff did name him the starter. That’s just a fact. They don’t make a guy the starter over Reed just because he can block a little. Logan Paulson is out best blocking TE, he would be the starter if that’s all it took.

          So, I guess my point is that he absolutely had some troubles in the past and you’re right about that. But he’s not the same player. The most recent stats we have on the guy is that he didn a pretty good job. And that’s really all we have to look at. It’s a small sample size, but it’s what we have. 5% dropped passss is pretty decent.

          Do me a favor if you have time? Don’t take my word for it, read some articles about him from 2014 and the 2015 pre season. It paints him in a very different light.

          I also truly hope we do keep this conversation going into the season. I’m more than happy to admit when I’m wrong and I’ll be interested to see how his numbers shake out with more playing time.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 18, 2016 at 4:03 PM

          It’s not a small sample size, it’s the bulk of his career. You can’t say oh he’s making an adjustment from WR to TE. You shouldn’t forget how to catch the ball. 2014 he stepped in and played well and had a good showing in camp but THAT is too much of a small sample size to believe he has turned the corner and is not just a breakout year followed by a return to sauce town. Keep in mind that when you’re injured you’re not really physically able to advance as a player, you’re healing to get back to regular form and then try to get your football legs under him. A player that has struggled that much for that long and has one good season but is still outworked by the injured #1 doesn’t really warrant great trade value. Remember that’s what my original response was about. A TE that may or may not be headed towards an upswing doesn’t quite merit the lengthy discussion we’re even having nor further research into the lone season he played well. Too small of a sample size. Let alone whether or not if he’s valued over where he was drafted at this point. Now he’s making a transition to TE but he has the blocking down, that’s the only part he had to get down. Yeah he’s running inside more (different routes) but against slower LBs what really could be the hold up? We need another blocking tight end… we have Paul he’s a great blocking TE so is Paulsen. Why are we bringing in competition if these guys excel at blocking? Because neither of them represent much offensive threat. The biggest rub against the TE’s coming out of school now is that they aren’t great blockers, better pass catchers, so why would we be rumored to waste a pick on players that most have already deemed a project as blocking TE? They don’t want steep drop off in production when Reed inevitably goes down. They’re not going to get excited over one year and he’s been here for four. Reed’s been here in less time and established himself as the number one. They’re looking for that kind of TE with better blocking ability to build a tandem, probably why Niles’ name is mentioned in this article in the first place. Not producing makes you replaceable, they’d sell the uptick but would anyone buy it? Be interesting to see whether we actually draft one and where Paul ends up falling on the depth chart with Reed being established as the clear #1 now. Especially coming off of injury. Hate to see him get beat out a third time…

  8. John - Mar 16, 2016 at 10:59 AM


    I don’t see where the demand would be for any team to be picking up the phone for any of those players.

    Riley: inconsistent and expensive.
    Paul: coming off injury
    Garcon: Losing a step and very expensive.

    Gotta have something in value to get something back. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter