Skip to content

Are the Redskins saving their cap dollars for 2017?

Mar 20, 2016, 10:12 AM EDT


Most expected the Redskins to remain relatively inactive during free agency this year. During the Senior Bowl practices Scot McCloughan said that the Redskins wouldn’t be “big players” in free agency.

If he reversed course and had a big signing or two he would not have been the first GM to render earlier statements inoperative. But things have been quiet with the Redskins bringing in three defensive role players in S David Bruton, DE Kendall Reyes, and LB Terence Garvin.

They still have about $15 million in cap space left. They could have fit a player like nose tackle Damon Harrison, who plays a position of great need, into the budget. His contract with the Giants has a 2016 cap hit of $6.6 million and the Redskins could have probably squeezed that another million or so lower if they had wanted to.

But there were good reasons for McCloughan to show restraint. In fact, I can list six of them right here:

  1. Kirk Cousins
  2. Pierre Garçon
  3. Chris Baker
  4. Jordan Reed
  5. Junior Galette
  6. DeSean Jackson


These players will be free agents in 2017. It’s safe to say that they are among the team’s most important players. Cousins’ passing accounted for 74 percent of the team’s offensive output. Garçon, Reed, and Jackson accounted for 55 percent of Cousins’ passing yardage. Baker was among the most valuable players on defense and if Galette regains his 2013-2014 form, when he posted double digit sacks with the Saints, he will provide needed pass pressure.

In addition, one key player on offense, Morgan Moses, will be eligible to get a contract extension as will cornerback Bashaud Breeland. But those six players will be key players that the team will either want to get extended or, perhaps in the cases of Jackson and Garçon, replaced in the free agent market. The two wide receivers will both be 30 years old in 2017 and the Redskins may prefer to move on. Although one could be replaced in the draft they still might have to invest in a free agent receiver in 2017.

The last thing that McCloughan wants to do is to commit a lot of money to free agents this year and find the team cap strapped when it comes to taking care of some of their own players in 2017.

The good thing is that the Redskins should have plenty of cap space to enable them to keep the players they want to keep. It’s too early to talk about 2017 cap space with any precision but after they sign their 2016 draft picks they will have about $110 million committed assuming they don’t sign any more free agents to multi-year deals. There already have been reports that the NFL salary cap will increase by as much as $10 million next year, from about $155 million in 2016 to around $165 million next year.

That would mean that the Redskins could have about $55 million in cap space to work with. That would be plenty to take care of Cousins, Baker, Reed, and Galette and to have the flexibility to deal with the situation at wide receiver. They could also consider extending Bashaud Breeland and Morgan Moses. Both would be eligible for new deals after the 2016 season.

In any case, the Redskins can roll over whatever is left over from this year into 2017, adding some $10 million towards building an even stronger war chest to be able to keep their own.

  1. bassmonty81 - Mar 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM

    Love finally having a GM who gets it. Take care of your own, build through the draft and wait till the 2nd round of FA where slightly above average players aren’t getting stupid amounts of money. Still a couple of years away from being a legitimate contender, but the future looks bright!

    • MasterKwon - Mar 21, 2016 at 6:06 PM

      “legitimate contenders”…hilarious.

  2. renhoekk2 - Mar 20, 2016 at 10:49 AM

    Having salary cap space to resign your own players? What an unusual concept. If they keep the same players it’s going to put a huge dent in merchandise sales. How can the owner sell football jerseys if they don’t sign under motivated FA’s to huge contracts?

  3. Mr.moneylover - Mar 20, 2016 at 11:02 AM

    I think they is…knowing they gotta pay guys like Jordan reed and desean Jackson and depending on what kind of season Chris baker have they gotta pay him as well and on top of that if junior gallette stay healthy and have a double digit sack season they gotta pay him von miller or JJ watt type of money so its smart to save money for 2017 we have a good core group of guys that we can’t lose

    • Trey Gregory - Mar 20, 2016 at 12:16 PM

      Thank you for being someone who understands Junior’s value. Usually I see people greatly underestimate how much he’s worth.

      Now, JJ Watt/Von Miller money might be a little much. Watt literally doubled Galette’s 2014 sack number. Von Miller’s sack totals are still
      more than Galette, but closer. The thing is that both players seems more versatile. Miller makes a lot of money in coverage and Watt plays all over the line. I need to see Junior do all that before I say he’s going to get THAT big of a payday. But if he does, wow, that with Kerrigan will be scary. Assuming he has a good season, I could see him making as much or more than Kerrigan though. I think that’s something a lot of fans are going to complain about.

      • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 12:30 PM

        If anyone needs to know Galette’s value, ask Rob Ryan. He went from a guy who fixed the Saints defense to THE WORST DC in football. If Galette’s presence provides the reverse impact on the “skins D as his disappearance did to the Saints D, then we’re going to be excited about this defense.

    • John - Mar 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM

      Galette should help the team, depending on recovery from the Achilles injury. Regardless of how much he helps, sorry but I don’t see him being a Watt or Miller. Those two are elite. They make all the other guys rushing around them better because teams have to account for Watt and Miller on every play.

      Regards to Preston Smith, he just needs more time. Last season it was about the transition to LB from DL. He like others has the body type but don’t necessarily fit the switch (Andre Carter, Chris Coleman to mention a few).

      Bates, Jeffcoat and such are situational guys. If you have Kerrigan, Smith and Galette out there together, I can’t see the other guys playing, except special teams.

  4. abanig - Mar 20, 2016 at 11:08 AM

    This would make big time sense. Good point Rich

  5. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 20, 2016 at 11:08 AM

    Also, there’s a huge pool of money this year chasing a relatively small number of high caliber free agents.

    Aside from needing to resign our own guys, the bang for the buck this year is poor.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 20, 2016 at 11:49 AM

      Having said that, there are still some free agent corners and safeties out there that will be cheaper than the guys like Jaoris Jenkins.

      The rash of injuries that hit us last year (and lead to Quinton Dunbar changing positions) shows how important depth in the secondary is. A player like Brandon Boykin is intriguing.

    • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 12:34 PM

      With the four year cycles of cash needing to be spent by teams so that they don’t spend less than the floor, it appears that the big years for free agents are the first and fourth years of those cycles with the fourth being higher than the first. Next year there will continue to be ridiculous contracts but not as bad and our team will need every penny to keep it’s own if this year is a successful year and need every penny to start over at key positions if this year is unsuccessful.

  6. sidepull - Mar 20, 2016 at 11:37 AM

    Yup they are going to go into next year with a number of contracts to deal with. The draft is going to clarify who may be a cap casulty early on. For examle, say they pick a WR I would think that they are going to move on from one of those big WR contracts they have and fill it with a rookie contract. The draft is where they are going build and along with it realize cap savings. Jordan Reed stays healthy and keeps playing like he did, he is going to be getting $$$. Baker and Gallette and Cousins are going to have to bring it this year and by the time next year rolls around their play will dictate their salary and worth to the Redskins. Good to see a plan that is conservative and thoughtful rather than somebody making it rain every tie some washed up, over priced, worthless lug shows up…yea I talking about Haynesworthlless.

  7. Chris - Mar 20, 2016 at 11:39 AM

    We should have been doing this for the last 15 years but better late than never

  8. celticsforever - Mar 20, 2016 at 12:04 PM

    I keep reading the “of the 250 free agents who switched teams last year only 2 made the pro bowl”. Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. The big splash RARELY if ever pays off. Draft talent. Draft football players. Draft depth & role players. Sign cheap young FA depth. Compete. You don’t think Kendall Reyes wants to start (for example)? He sure does. And he will compete tooth and nail. That’s what you want. Not a 60 million dollar DE who “has it made”. This team will become a yearly playoff contender at this rate. Cheers.

    • Trey Gregory - Mar 20, 2016 at 12:27 PM

      Well there’s also only so many pro bowl spots and elite players who are perineal pro bowlers like Aaron Rogers, JJ Watt, AJ Green, Von Miller, Earl Thomas, etc., etc., don’t usually hit the FA market. Also, how many of those 250 were in the pro bowl the year before? That number can be a little misleading.

      Also, guys like Ryan Kerrigan and Jordan Reed didn’t make the pro bowl last year even though they’re two really good players. The pro bowl isn’t the only barometer for if a guy is good.

      Now, I’m completely against splashy FA signings just for the sake of it. A lot of those first and second day deals are wildly overpriced and stupid. But that doesn’t mean you can’t bring in solid guys to shore up a roster and even be starters. I loved Chris Culliver’s signing last year. Corner had been one of the weakest positions for a long time and, just like that, we get a well respected, physical, and pretty good corner to pair with Breeland. It didn’t work out, but injuries happen. McCloughan went out and signed a solid, non-pro bowl, player to fill a gap until we could draft and develop our own. And it wasn’t a cheap contract either. Doesn’t make it a bad signing.

      • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 12:43 PM

        You can also take the 2014 FA class Denver signed. Talib, Ware, and Ward didn’t go to the Pro-Bowl this year because they were in the Super Bowl. Point is: FREE AGENCY isn’t just a one year solution. Having said all that, I’m fully behind this year’s approach. I don’t think we can see definitively one way is ALWAYS better than another way. I think we can agree that this year’s approach was the best for us and quite possibly this year’s approach was the best for the New York Giants. Teams have different starting points each year and those points should be in the equation. Signing Galette last year might have been the best thing for this coming season.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 20, 2016 at 2:42 PM

          That’s a very good point Bang. I feel like I’ve said things about free agency the last couple weeks that could seem contradictory. Because I don’t believe there is a one size fits all approach to free agency.

          Like you said, certain types of signings seem to work better at certain developmental milestones for a team. I do not believe we’re at the point where it’s wise to make this big signings yet. But I’m also not convinced what the Giants have done was a good idea either. That’s just a side note, and my opinion, though. Only time will tell.

          I think Galette will be a huge addition for us. Just wish we had more if a long-term situation with him for stability. Wonder if galette would have signed a multiple year deal at a reasonable price if we offered it to him. I don’t think McClougan could have done that before he felt more comfortable with Galette’s personality. Not saying he should have. It’s just something interesting to think about that could have saved us money long term.

        • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 3:39 PM

          The reports coming out of ESPN and the post were that Galette was looking for a one-year “prove it” deal worth $7-$9M while the Redskins were looking for a more modest multi-year deal. In the end they agreed on a modest one-year deal. So, in other words, the Redskins tried to do exactly what you wished – if you believe the reports.

          As for the Giants, I’m not sure what they did will work but I certainly don’t blame them for trying. Basically, they’ve decided that they needed an upgrade in talent and a new voice to make it work. That might be true. They have a QB, they have a #1 WR, they have a pass rusher, last year they drafted their LT, and this year they feel like they’ve got a cover corner and other pieces. The Redskins meanwhile, have a LT, may have a QB that can develop to top 1/3, have two #2 WRs, and a TE that is a match-up nightmare. Defensively, they might now have a guy to game plan for and some solid pieces.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 20, 2016 at 7:43 PM

          Yeah I know how the Galette negotiations went this year, I was talking about the 2015 offseason. Right after he was released from the Saints. I don’t think Scot could have actually taken the risk, but if he did and somehow talked Galette into signing a multiple year deal it may have saved us money in the long run. Maybe. The 1 year at a vet min saved a lot of money

        • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 8:54 PM

          The one-year vet minimum with the right of first refusal saved a ton for two years on a high risk high reward player. The suspension was looming over Junior’s head and the ‘skins basically have had the potential of a double digit sack guy for $2.5M a year. They ate the suspension with the vet minimum contract — probably reasoned this with him as well. You want to lose less money when you lose (two) game checks, right? I don’t think they could’ve gotten a two-year deal for $5M at the time and due the injury that’s the end result.

        • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 8:54 PM

          Weren’t you concerned he was going to cost too much at the beginning of FA?

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 21, 2016 at 1:30 AM

          @Bang: No, I wasn’t concerned he was going to cost too much. If you remember me talking about it it’s probably you remembering me trying to convince people that he wouldn’t sign for another vet min. People (not always here, a lot in ESPN comment sections too) kept insisting he wouldn’t cost more than he did last year because he hadn’t done anything for the team yet and the injury. I was just trying to explain that he played before he arrived in Washington and that’s what he was going to get paid for.

          Now, I did expect him to cost more but 1) I fully expected Scot to pay it and 2) I thought he would cost more because we would sign him to a multi year deal.

          Please don’t take a double meaning behind this, there isn’t one, I’m just trying to remember. But didn’t we go back and forth about how much Galette would cost? I kind of remember you initially thinking he wouldn’t cost more than a mil but then came around once we looked at his older contracts and some of the other contracts around the league.

          The other thing I’m talking about is stupid. Just a hypothetical I started wondering about and shouldn’t have even brought up. It would have been dumb to give Galette a long-term contract with decent money right after the Saints booted him. I was just trying to think about if it would have saved us money in the long run assuming he excels next year and we ink him to a 4-5 year deal that upper echelon OLBs get. But there’s too many unknowns to really answer that and it would have been wildly irresponsible.

        • bangkokben - Mar 21, 2016 at 9:36 AM

          You were right he wasn’t going to take the vet minimum and we did have a back and forth about how much he would cost. In the end you made me see clearly that it would be more than the vet minimum – which I originally thought for a moment. If I remember we both moved away from our original position. You’re position being that the Redskins couldn’t fit in under their cap.

        • Trey Gregoru - Mar 21, 2016 at 1:30 PM

          Well, I honestly don’t remember saying that and I feel like I wouldn’t have because I don’t remember ever being worried about the cap, for any player, this offseason. But, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve said something and I forgot. Truly though, I don’t think that was my concern. If anything I think my concern was fan reaction when he signed for significantly more money than he did last year.

          However, I don’t think I ever said he would sign for 4 mil. I think my initial estimate was 8-10 mil (on a long term deal) and you talked me down a bit. I guess I thought he would go ahead an ask for a more secure deal.

          Now, I have been off on plenty of things. The most recent I remember was Goldson. I wasn’t nearly as convinced as most that he would get cut. But even more than just him, I didn’t think there was any way they would ship off all the guys that they did. I figured at least either Knighton or Goldson would stay. I also didn’t expect McCloughan to low ball Cousins the way he did. Figured he would come in with a decent offer (probably aroun 18mil) and try to lock him up before other teams could set the market. So I hope you don’t think I’m trying to insist I’m always right about these things. I’m more than happy to admit when I was wrong. I just really don’t remember being concerned about the cap and Galette.

        • bangkokben - Mar 22, 2016 at 9:56 AM

          I may have misinterpreted where you were coming from. Sometimes the nuances can escape us in the written language – especially in this format.

          As for Goldson and Knighton, they still may be back but those, I had. Knighton more than Goldson. I think there is a greater chance Goldson comes back at a reduction. Knighton comes back if there are no other options – which would be saying something after the draft.

          I’m with you on Cousins. They have misplayed this from the start. They could’ve had him on the cheap had both parties worked a deal last year. It does take two to tango but I still wouldn’t be surprised with a 5-year $90M deal with half guaranteed getting done before the deadline.

          I was wrong on Hatcher. I thought that they would work a deal out with him.

          None of these things matter though, as we have a guy in charge that is capable. Capable of getting the job done as well as capable of overcoming the franchise’s mistakes – his included.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 23, 2016 at 1:27 AM

          Yeah. So many things seem to get lost in translation here. Half of the time I make a point and someone comes back arguing the exact point I just made. As in, they’re implying I said the exact opposite of what I just said. (I’m not talking about you or most of the regulars here. Most in that category are pretty cool)

          Example: I say, “I think Cousins did a good job last year and showed a lot of promise. I’m excited for his future potential.”
          They reply, “you’re an idiot. Cousins was great. He set the single season franchise passing record and had the highest completion % in the league. You don’t know football, just trust me.”

          It gets frustrating.

          But yeah. You called the Knighton thing from the start. I just don’t like letting pieces go before we have a viable replacement. Most positions on the team, we have guys waiting in the wind. Not NT. I don’t think he was as bad as most people so im the thought of releasing him, before we had his backup, bothered me. But let’s not pretend I know better than McCloughan.

          I don’t think I even had an opinion about Hatcher. I was kind of hoping he retired but I was so concerned about the Dline that I just didn’t know what to think. That has passed though. I’m feeling a lot better about next season. The moves just had to set in.

        • bangkokben - Mar 24, 2016 at 11:06 AM

          I’m with you on the principal of making sure you have a replacement before getting rid of someone. This isn’t exactly that case. Knighton’s contract was finished and the team wanted to upgrade there. Whether that’s impact, better cap value, or simply younger/long-term; it remains to be seen. But just like Alf and DY, they wanted to go in another direction. Because NT only plays 25%-35% of your defense’s plays, there is no one exactly in the pipeline – unless you count Jerrell Powe who was in camp last year or Kedrick Golston who was Pot Roast’s back-up. As for Knighton, in the Atlanta game, the Falcons used him as an extra blocker because he couldn’t move side-to-side effectively. From that point on, the run defense was a sieve until Compton and Foster took over at ILB and then it simply was better than a sieve. That was not all on Knighton but I think a the coaches realized his limitations in this defense.

          Once again, it will come down to the draft. Last year, the tension between BPA and need was at a peak. The notion of drafting a RT or even a G at #5 was one I didn’t think the GM would do. At the same time, all the FA signings were on the DL – even if Pot Roast was just a one-year rental, drafting Shelton made sense – especially if we moved back – and the thought was that there were guys that could be available at guard in round two.

          As Rich has pointed out, I don’t think McCloughan cares about convention as much as getting a pick that will materialize into a solid starter. So where will that be? Will he draft an NT too high? Or will he draft a WR? I’m putting my chips on the best NT available at #21 but will be fine with whomever he selects.

        • bowlregard - Mar 20, 2016 at 5:50 PM

          Junior himself tweeted there was nothing to the reports.

        • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM

          Nothing about his salary demands but not nothing to that he only wanted a year deal. He said he wanted something fair. He knew he wasn’t getting a long-term deal that he was willing to accept coming off getting released, suspension, and injury.

    • Mr.moneylover - Mar 20, 2016 at 2:36 PM

      That why redskins only sign three free agents that come from a different team…non of our free agents from last season made a impact but our rookies did so that’s why scot m. Looking forward to this year draft… Our rookies will determine what kinda season we gonna have not our free agents…all the giants free agents struggle last season against us but they spent 105 mill on them…that will get a head coach fired quick…redskins gonna build something special threw the draft and we finally got the smart coaches to develop the rookies

      • Trey Gregory - Mar 20, 2016 at 7:50 PM

        None of the free agents made an impact? Blackmon? Foster? They played a lot and had a lot of impact. You maybe didn’t love Knighton and Goldson but they made an impact. Goldson was the team’s leading tackler and it’s well documented that him and Knighton were big leaders in the locker room. It’s not all about stats. Leadership and locker room cohesion makes a huge difference. It helps lesser talent over perform. I know a lot of people aren’t high on Culliver but I like him and I liked that signing. He was a starting corner. If not for injury, he would have had an impact. Not saying he would have been Josh Norman, but he would have helped. Paea and Francois didn’t help with depth? Neither of them got a sack? Our special teams also improved a lot.

    • jonevans511 - Mar 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM

      The flip side to this argument is the pro bowl is nothing more than a popularity contest. I don’t care if our FA pickups ever become pro bowlers. I want guys who help us win games, big name or not (and i’m not belittling the Skins moves this year, I love every move and non-move for the record). You know who was a pro bowler last year? Teddy Bridgewater, by default, because no one wanted to play in it. I wish they’d use different metrics to determine the value last year’s FAs brought, but the point is you build a team much better via the draft. The polar opposite, however, is the Packers. They think they don’t ever need FAs but go ask Aaron Rodgers how he felt about last year and the year before. Sucks to be oh so close to having a championship team but missing out because you weren’t deep enough one way or another.

  9. murphsman - Mar 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM

    Refresh my memory-when is Kerrigan under contract until? I thought we only picked up his fifth year option, which would have left him a free agent after this year. But clearly i was wrong.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 20, 2016 at 1:35 PM

      Signed a five-year contract extension last summer, under contract through 2020.

      • murphsman - Mar 20, 2016 at 4:59 PM

        Thanks Rich

  10. rtcwon - Mar 20, 2016 at 2:14 PM

    Eric Schaffer & Scott Campbell are two of the most talented, underratted front office guys in the league and deserve the majority of the credit for the current roster/cap ratio.

    Everybody wants to laugh/cry about the Vinny & Shanny tomfoolery as we should. But a glorified scout who merely knows the right way to build and lets people do their (correct) job shouldn’t get all the credit. Even the pants & picnics guy is doing well now that his role is correct. Santos is the weaklink in the FO and that’s were Scot’s impact is the greatest.

    All the kind words aside, I still feel they blew it low balling Kirk. They could have wrapped him up for around $18M earlier. Now he’s going to be much more expensive. And having him long term could have allowed them to sell DJax, Garcon or both on extensions. Reed is getting $10M per sooner or later, hopefully here and sooner. Like Trent & Kerrigan, it is always cheaper to extend your guys early.

    So as good as things are now, the dominoes could have fallen as such that all four of the offense guys would be locked for a few years with $6-$8M more cap space than now. That would make it easy to tag Galette, do whatever Baker’s play dictates & be aggressive getting the one or two difference makers this team needs.

    And for those looking for different options, I don’t see upgrades for one, much less two WRs in next year’s FA or either draft. But it all centers on Kirk. There are no other options. They need to pay him now. If last year was an aberration & he does suck as bad as some think, the team will suck too & the dead money from unloading him will not matter. Not having a QB is a bigger problem than $20M dead money spread over two years. Accept that.

    • Trey Gregory - Mar 21, 2016 at 1:15 AM

      @RTC: Pretty solid post man. I especially agree on the point about Cousins. I’m very happy with McCloughan, and no teams runs completely perfect. But I do think they messed up low balling Cousins. They started at 12.5 mil when they signed RG3 up for 16 mil the year earlier! Like that was ever going to work! There’s was hope all the way until the Bradford deal went down. But there was no chance after that. Probably should have tried a deal before the season ended, but definitely needed to get it done before Bradford’s.

      I also agree that it’s not the worst thing to pay Cousins even if he doesn’t work out. There’s something to be said for QB stability. Even if Cousins regresses, he’s good enough to start a year or two more while we develop a new guy. He’s good enough to keep around so that we don’t have to overdraft or give away the farm for the new “savior.” College QBs have never been less ready to start in the NFL and more expected to start right away. Get a guy, let him sit and develop behind Cousins, then start him when he’s ready. Keep the draft picks in the process. That’s worth the money.

  11. Mr.moneylover - Mar 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM

    Ryan kerrigan is a good pass rush….but he don’t have the power and explosiveness that junior gallette have…the word around redskins park was Junior got just got that it factor…Preston smith also gonna be beast just watch when he get comfortable with the defense this season he should be better…I’m glad they got a pass rushing coach this season something they didn’t have last season….its something about that kid Houston bates I like I think once he get his chance to play he’s gonna be a beast he got his first NFL sack against Dallas I never seen somebody get to the QB as fast as he…the guy I think is in trouble going into training camp will be Trent Murphy because hes behind schedule on were he suppose to be at….my dark horse pass rusher is Willie Jefferson if he can stay out of trouble I think he will make the team he did some good things with the until he got in trouble with josh Gordon and the Texans release him…redskins got good depth at the pass rusher position…and bout time the draft is over they will have good depth on they D-line

    • Trey Gregory - Mar 20, 2016 at 3:04 PM

      I’m excited about Galette and Smith too. Galette’s first step and explosiveness is awesome to watch. Smith seems primed to be a great player for us for a while.

      It’s true that Kerrigan isn’t the fastest or most explosive pass rusher, but let’s not sell him short. He’s very, very good. Galette and Kerrigan are just different types of pass rushers. Kerrigan wins with strength and technique. He’s always toward the top of the league in QB hurries. That’s an underrated part of his game. And, although it’s what gets them paid, OLBs do more than pass rush. Kerrigan has ther skills that I, frankly, don’t know if Galette has because I didn’t watch him close enough in NO.

      Trent Murphy is all but a backup who will be gone when his rookie contract is up at this point. Which is a shame. But, maybe the rumors are true and they will try him at DE. That could be interesting. He has ability, and he’s not a bad run defender. It would be nice to get more out of him. But at least he’s solid depth.

      I kind of like Bates too. But I just haven’t seen enough of a sample size to truly know. He would be an intreaguing candidate to take Murphy’s role if Murphy goes to DE. We woul still, hopefully, be stacked at OLB.

  12. skinsdiehard - Mar 20, 2016 at 3:27 PM

    Kirk Cousins
    Pierre Garçon
    Chris Baker
    Jordan Reed
    Junior Galette
    DeSean Jackson
    Bashaud Breeland
    Morgan Moses

    Of those players, I let Baker and Garcon go. Replacements for them will be part of the 2016 draft class anyway.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM


    • bowlregard - Mar 20, 2016 at 6:00 PM

      Baker is our best DE. And I believe Garcon is underrated by a number of Skins fans. What’s more, I think it is good for team morale that the team doesn’t cut and trade players unless they have to. Continuity is an advantage.

      • bangkokben - Mar 20, 2016 at 6:34 PM

        Spot on – on all points.

        • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 20, 2016 at 7:38 PM

          You can’t build a team if you don’t keep your best dancer.

  13. Tassos - Mar 20, 2016 at 5:16 PM

    Love this chess match. It takes the off season to a whole new level.

  14. mark williams - Mar 20, 2016 at 9:29 PM

    I think if the redskins could pick up some good but cheap defence player that would do just justice .to complete with any team out there

  15. Skulb - Mar 21, 2016 at 1:06 AM

    There might be some of this. But weren’t they slow on the draw last year too? Galette, Blackmon and a few others didn’t join until TC I seem to recall. Well actually Blackmon joined in August even. Maybe it’s at least also a way of playing the FA market until the most reckless players have waded through it a few times. People might get cut at any time from now to September who you really like and then you will need the space.

    • Trey Gregory - Mar 21, 2016 at 1:18 AM

      Well, yeah, but Galette wasn’t available right away. And, like you said, Blackmon was in August after we realized both Culliver and Breeland would miss time. I think we pounced as soon as he was available. Remember, our big signings were Culliver, Goldson, Knighton, and, to a lesser extent, Johnson.

      • bangkokben - Mar 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM

        Goldson was a trade – last April. (Tampa paid all the bonuses and half the cap hit and “we” swapped 6th rounders in this year’s draft.) That’s how you trade for a starter!

        Blackmon and Mason Foster were signed after the season in September — along with Dustin Hopkins. Foster was in the Bears training camp, Blackmon was not in a camp, and Hopkins was with the Saints. So three of “our” 2016 FA signings were re-signing Blackmon, Foster and Galette who joined the team during training camp.

        We signed Ricky Jean-Francois before FA started because the Colts released him after the Super Bowl and the only additions of FAs during March were: Paea, Culliver, Knighton, Jeron Johnson, and Justin Rogers.

        This season, we have added DE Kendall Reyes, S David Bruton, and LB Terence Garvin.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM

          I forgot about Hopkins. Don’t know how. He was my MVP for the first half of the season.

        • Skulb - Mar 22, 2016 at 11:59 PM

          But that makes sense to me. It was the first season of the new regime and lots of guys they felt they had to replace. If they were already unhappy with all those people this year it would be a bad sign. We just have fewer acute holes now I think. Safety is one, nose tackle another and possibly a center. Other than those three positions I’m fine with a careful approach and trading for extra picks in the draft.

      • Skulb - Mar 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM

        Yes but my point was that waiting served them well last year. You never know who might become available over the summer. And McLoughan was bringing guys in all through the season as well, which never happened previously. So you have to believe he’s not suddenly become lazy here but that he still knows what he’s doing.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM

          @Skulb: That’s a good point. I mean, I’m not worried about his FA approach, but it’s a good point for those who are.

          Truly, you never know who will become available. Or who Scot may trade for. Or if some of the guys we cut will be back. I’ll double down and say my only really concern is a safety with more starting experience, or a guy just generally considered better than what we have right now. It would be nice to see that reserved. And safety is my only concern because I assume we’re drafting a DT early.

  16. Vivian W Hawkins - Mar 21, 2016 at 9:08 AM

    This GM gets it. He actually knows what he is doing.,WOW! This is great and about time. In the end those who are skeptical or just flat out don’t understand, will see the benefits of “Taking care of your own”. It will make for a stronger team in the end,both mind and body. This coming from a fan of 42 years. NEVER ONCE even thought about changing teams even in the bad times. And we have had a lot of bad times. I think this will be our time if our GM sticks to his ways. GREAT JOB.

  17. smotion55 - Mar 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM

    I don’t know yet, just because they are spending wisely. Don’t forget they will have post June 1st cuts and the final cuts to 53 that could change a few spots also. I would call this Smart for a change. Cleaning up 20 years of Stupidity does not happen over night = they are in the middle of a 3 year changeover

  18. Fergus - Mar 21, 2016 at 11:36 AM

    Never pay fat men millions of dollars in an extension. Let Baker walk.

  19. Bob david - Mar 22, 2016 at 8:11 AM

    Love having a good general manager at last Archives

Follow Us On Twitter