Skip to content

Redskins practice report: Day 13

Aug 14, 2016, 3:09 PM EDT

Jackson-Breeland camp AP

RICHMOND—This is it, folks, the last day of practice this year that I’ll be able to watch and write about in any amount of detail. So follow along as I give you the highlights as they unfold.

–Yesterday I managed to make it thorough practice without my iPad crashing due to the heat. I’ll try the same techniques as I did yesterday but if some time goes by without an update, that’s why.

–It sure seems as though Perry Riley watches an awful lot, even during special teams drills. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a surprise cut on Sept. 3.

Callahan coaching them up.#Redskins

A video posted by Rich (@richtandler) on

–Good technique by Logan Paulsen to use his body to shield Mason Foster while catching a short route. It’s stuff like that that coaches love and gives him a chance at sticking around for another season.

–There was a brief scare yesterday when Ty Nsekhe went down with what looked like a knee injury. But after a minute or two on the ground he got up and walked around. It was near the end of practice. He’s back full go today.

–Jordan Reed has a knack for making little plays look spectacular.  He just made a one-handed catch of a desperation short pass that Kirk Cousins flipped in his direction. ;Just routine, he stuck out a paw and pulled it in.

–Trent Williams is not playing in full team work. He could still play against the Jets if he’s able and if the coaches think he needs to, even though there is only one more full practice between today and the game.

–Seven on seven has been mostly lackluster for far. Right when I was walking up Couins hit on a long one to DeSean Jackson. I saw Josh Norman trailing him but I’m not sure how close he was or what happened on the play.

–If reps over the last few days are an indication, Dashaun Phillips is the first nickel cornerback. He is in there with the first team whenever nickel is called for. That puts Kendall Fuller at the No. 4 CB, a somewhat low status for a third-round pick.

–Will Blackmon just missed tipping a pass away from Ryan Grant. And by just missed I mean a few inches. Grant made the grab and turned upfield.

They are close to wrapping this up (Gruden said they might cut it short due to the heat) and my iPad is overheating so that will be in from Richmond. Thanks for following along.

  1. bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 3:54 PM

    Jordan Reed is just sick. Just stay healthy.

  2. Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:02 PM

    Is there any chance that Golston doesn’t make the team? Or, what are the chances somebody at least jumps him on the depth chart as the starting nose? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t he out there in sub packages Thursday night too? Is he really a better option than Hood, Paea, Francois, and Reyes in a 4 man front?

    I have nothing against the guy. But we have a ton of decent, but not great, DLinemen. It seems like a good strategy would be to keep up a healthy rotation to keep them fresh. Golston is getting old and, frankly, I thought Hood and Reyes looked decent on Thursday. I’m struggling at the thought of cutting a player like Hood to keep a player like Golston. As much as we all love him, is he adding that much at this point?

    • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:23 PM

      We can keep 7 DL, Golston will probably only be in on run downs (first downs/short yardage) at NT. I don’t see him playing much at all in nickle packages this year when we have better pass rushers like Baker, Paea, RJF, Reyes, Hood & Murphy to do that.

      • redskins12thman - Aug 14, 2016 at 5:45 PM

        Golston has been survivor and found many ways to contribute to the team so I am fond of him (he is also very articulate). That said, I would rather keep Toler and some of the younger players than Golston this season if we felt other players, like Hood, could adequately play NT, a spot we suspect will have just 10-15 snaps per game.

        • bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:16 PM

          Here’s a case for Golston from Keim: This is what it means to have veteran leadership: During a full-team drill, the No. 3 defense — most of whom probably won’t make the roster — were a little sloppy. So starting nose tackle Kedric Golston walked over and firmly addressed them; he clearly wasn’t happy. Next play: linebacker Terence Garvin popped running back Mack Brown for no gain. The defense, for what it’s worth, does seem to be a close group. A number of times the starters will get a chant of “Defense! Defense!” going during practices. There’s been more of that than in previous camps I’ve attended.

          I’m going to agree with Adam above. Kedric plays the position how the team wants him to play it (see below). If he makes the team, he’ll be in on short yardage, the base defense, and play teams like he did last year.

          From Keim’s piece on Preston Smith: “Smith was pleased with how he defended the run, using both his length (he’s 6-foot-5) and his power (he weighs 268 pounds). And, on the play in which the fullback had to chip him, Smith’s footwork put him in position to win off the snap. Another time, when safety DeAngelo Hall blitzed from the backside, Smith and nose tackle Kedric Golston prevented the back from taking it wide because of how they set the edge. And that led to linebacker Trent Murphy recording a tackle for a loss.”

          If Kedric makes the team, more power to him; if not, that’s life in the NFL.However, let’s not push him out the door because we want flash from a 33-year NT on a line devoid of flash.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:24 PM

          Good stuff Ben. And Keim is right about the value of that. I’m a huge believer in what leadership and comradery does for a team. That was my biggest argument for not wanting Pot Roast to leave. I guess Golston deserves the same, or more.

        • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:11 PM

          In a perfect world yes. In reality the coaches have made it clear that Golston is the best NT option we have and will the starting NT. He will probably only play on run downs. On pass downs the younger guys will be in.

        • redskins12thman - Aug 15, 2016 at 3:42 AM

          I haven’t figured out if Golston was so good, why didn’t he beat out Pot Roast for starting NT role last season…

        • abanig - Aug 16, 2016 at 8:48 AM

          They wanted Pot roast to be the guy but he wasn’t consistent enough. I personally believe they should have allowed Golston to start last year after it was clear Potroast didn’t enough about the team to get in shape so he could make it through a drive without nearly having a heart attack

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:00 PM

        Well you kind of hit on my point. We have better and younger pass rushers. So Golston isn’t going to play in nickel, which is most of the time. Is he really so much better than everyone else at NT that he’s worth keeping around for 10 snaps a game while we cut a better pass rusher (probably Hood). I guess the numbers are a little more favorable with Murphy technically being counted as an OLB now. But still: Murphy, Baker, Ioannidis, Paea, Francois, Hood, and Reyes makes 7. You could even argue that we should only keep 6 since Kerrigan and Smith will act as the ends a lot in nickel. And if you keep Golston, but shift Murphy to the OLB side, then Trail, Jefferson, or Bates will probably getting cut.

        My point is that we might sacrifice a player who could be good in 2-3 years for a guy that’s probably gone next year and might not be THAT much better at nose than the nextu Y behind him. And that he would hardly play anyway.

        • bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:18 PM

          Or you’re cutting leadership for a young player that likely will be gone next year because he’s a replacement player (Bates, Jefferson, Trail, etc.)

        • abanig - Aug 16, 2016 at 8:51 AM

          I have made that argument before. I do believe and believed before the offseason even started that Hood would shock people and I could see him being our starting NT over Golston.

          I would have no problem with Hood starting at NT, Ioannidis being his back up and then rolling with 6 DL plus Murphy as our DE/OLB combo guy.

  3. Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM

    Paulsen is better than I’ve been giving him credit for recently. It won’t shock me if he ends up getting a ton of snaps this season.

    • abanig - Aug 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM

      Yeah, Paulsen has always been a favorite of mine. I think he makes the team as the 4th TE and I hope we use him a lot as a blocker because he’s good at setting the edge in the run game.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 16, 2016 at 8:27 PM

        I don’t see how they couldn’t have him make the 53 and use him as the primary blocking TE. Davis looked good and all: and I get that Paul hasn’t played for a year and deserves more time to get back to form: but Paulsen pretty clearly looks like the best blocker to me. He has the body, willingness, and seems to have the fundamentals to get it done. I was more or less surprised at A) just how good he looked blocking but B) how good he looked going out for a pass. He’s more fluid than I gave him credit for.

        He looks more like an undersized tackle while our other TEs look make like big receivers. There’s stuff I like about all these guys (including Carrier) but Paulsen far and away has my vote for lead blocker.

        I’m pretty excited to see what Gruden and McVay cook up for this TE group. I hope to see a lot of two TE sets out there.

        • abanig - Aug 16, 2016 at 8:30 PM

          Yeah, I think they should to keep 4. Paulsen should be in on first downs an an inline blocker, Reed can be in the slot with Djax and Garcon split out wide. They can use Reed more like a WR like they did last last year and both Davis and Paul have WR type speed, they just both have to do a better job catching the ball.

  4. mtskins - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:08 PM

    Spaight had a good game Thursday. He must be looking good in practice as well because if Riley is a surprise cut and after Haywards release/ Daniels’ injury he would be the first man up to replace Compton or Foster. I had limited expectations for him but if he is showing well and has developed in pass coverage as I have read it would be great to have him fill that role as a younger cheaper replacement to Riley.

    • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:14 PM

      Spaight kind of surprised me with how well he played. Plenty room for improvement, but it was a nice surprise. Now I would like to see him do it consistently against the 1s. I’ll get excited about his future if I see that. Especially if he comes in at points during real games and plays well.

    • bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:26 PM

      It’s not just Spaight but Cravens that makes Riley possibly expendable. You put their best together and you get what had been hoped for from Riley. I still have a hard time seeing the Redskins going with zero experience as the back-ups. They may cut him and try to re-sign him to a better contract for the team.

  5. abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:20 PM

    Just because Riley had a day off or a light day doesn’t mean he’s going to be cut. He’s still arguably our 2nd best ILB, and at worst our 3rd best ILB and there is some belief because he’s a good pass rusher he could rush the pass rusher at OLB also in passing situations of we slide Kerrigan or Smith inside or we can use Riley as an OLB but mostly drop him into coverage and only have him rush sometimes.

    I could certainly see him playing both positions.

    • Rich Tandler - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:30 PM

      I’m not just talking about today. And a $5 million cap hit is a lot for a reserve.

      • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:34 PM

        Yes, I hear you but we’ve seen Galette go out for the year and the only experience we would have at ILB behind Compton & Foster would be Garvin who’s never been more than a special teams ace in the NFL.

        I find it highly unlikely they’ll cut him because they need experience behind Compton & Foster and Riley could also help at OLB which we need also because of Galette’s injury.

        The cost is the cost, what do we really save by cutting him now? He already fits under the cap and I don’t see any vets out there who are upgrades at a position we need.

        It doesn’t make much sense at all to cut your most experienced linebacker IMO just because he’s a little overpaid to be a back up. If we were in salary cap hell that’d be one thing but we aren’t.

        • mtskins - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:59 PM

          Again I don’t pretend to know the in’s and out’s of cap space that’s Ben’s deal. But pretty sure teams can carry over most of their cap savings especially if they are before the regular season. We might not be in cap hell right now but certainly could use the extra savings next year.

        • bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:35 PM

          I’m with you concerning the experience but the team may try to play chicken with Riley on cut-down day to do exactly what mtskins said — so they can carry over the savings and add it to next year’s cap. Having Riley agree to a lesser contract ensures Riley a place on the team and allows the ‘skins to add the difference to next year’s cap.

          The Redskins are currently $11,558,038 under the cap according to OverTheCap.com. The Redskins could save $4,000,000 by cutting or trading Riley. Then their total $15M+ will change once they get to the final 53. Then they will have to pay reserve players, players that come and go throughout the season, the practice squad guys, and bonuses — both expected and unexpected will adjust the cap. After all that, they can carryover all or part of the difference to next season. Therefore adding 34.6% to your cap may be something the team considers.

    • mtskins - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM

      I don’t track the numbers all that well but think he is due $4 Million this year. If he is the team’s 2nd ILB he would be worth it, but if he is our 3rd I’m not so sure. That’s why I’m interested to see how Spaight develops and if his concussion problems are behind him. If he can fill the 3rd ILB role and contribute to special teams I think Riley is off the 53.

      I guess I don’t see Riley having any value as an OLB and a poor fit in general there. If the team decides he can play both that would change things.

      • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:36 PM

        Experience is valuable especially should we have another injury at linebacker

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:11 PM

          I agree that experience is valuable. But don’t forget about Cravens in this conversation. It’s not wise to rely on a rookie, but he’s on the team too. That’s Compton, Foster, Cravens, Garvin and Spaight. Not all bad.

          The cap savings would roll over and help us retain or sign players next year. I’m also not so sure about Riley at OLB. It’s one thing to pencil him in as an emergency OLB, another thing for him to actually perform there.

          This really comes down to how well he plays and how well Cravens and Spaight play. I would prefer to keep quality depth despite the price too. But if he’s not playing well, he’s not playing well. We shouldn’t keep a guy just for the sake of it. If he performs well enough to be the 2nd string, keep him. If not, cut him. That simple.

        • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:49 PM

          Cravens is kind of a safety also. I don’t really consider him a straight up ILB. Just a dime LB.

          Yeah, but we can cut Riley next March and have the savings. It just seems irrelevant to get rid of a reliable player we can rely on.

          I’m saying in an emergency and it’s something he could do but do it more as coverage as a 3rd LB and he could blitz.

          I mean most 4-3 teams have a SLB that they blitz on 3rd downs. We used to do that with Lavar and Marcus Washington.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:32 PM

          Oh, we’ll all cringe if Compton or Foster go down (or both) after we cut Riley. It’s a risk.

          And I’m not one to take risks just to save a little cap room (and in the grand scheme, it is just a little cap room). But it’s just one more tick for why we should cut vs. shouldn’t. Yes, the cap is already set this year. But the savings roll over to next year. So round it to 5 mil to make it simple. We take 5 mil off this year if we cut him now. Then we save the 5 mil at the start of next year too. So that’s an extra $10 mil next year vs just $5mil next year. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

          And I actually see Cravens as a true ILB in the modern NFL. That might be one reason why I’m less concerned about Riley. Yes, he’s a hybrid. But other teams are using guys like him. He might need to bulk up a little but I think that’s what the new age Mo linebackers wilol look like. Only time will tell though.

        • mtskins - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:05 PM

          Again I don’t understand the cap backwards and fronts. Please explain to me how we can keep Riley all year then cut him and March and get all the savings.

        • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:09 PM

          I’m not saying well save $ by keeping him. I’m saying we already have our cap set for this season and Riley is included in it. So, what’s the point in cutting him to save $ for this season?

          We are already under the cap with him.

        • mtskins - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:22 PM

          The point is the team can apply those savings to next year. Norman’s contract is a giant cap hit next year. Assuming Cousins plays well the team will need to sign him as well. I can’t recall the full list of free agents but Baker and Breeland might need to be resigned as well if they play well. This is assuming you let Desean and Garcon just walk.

        • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:27 PM

          You get cap savings if you cut a player in March also.

        • bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:52 PM

          Riley’s cap expires at the end of the season but if you cut him this year, you can apply the $4,000,000 onto the 2017 cap increasing it by $4,000,000. Keeping him this season and that is not an option.

        • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:58 PM

          Oh ok. So the savings carry over to next year o

        • abanig - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:59 PM

          Man if we cut him though, you know he’s going to straight to Dallas, Phila or NYG who all could use LB help. It’s going to backfire on us.

        • bangkokben - Aug 15, 2016 at 8:56 AM

          I with you as far as keeping him for experience — or try to trade him to Buffalo they’ve had a rash of injuries. If the Redskins cut him, then they aren’t worried about him.

        • abanig - Aug 15, 2016 at 10:08 AM

          Yeah, I’m really just worried about this experience factor behind Compton & Foster. The $ doesn’t matter to me because he already fits under our salary cap for this year.

        • Rich Tandler - Aug 15, 2016 at 2:06 PM

          @abanig, I agree with you about the experience but the $ do matter because the will roll over to next year, when they have a lot of important free agents.

        • abanig - Aug 15, 2016 at 5:20 PM

          Yeah, I didn’t understand that part of the cap. In that case, I’m sure you’re right. If Spaight and Garvin continue to play as well as they did vs the Falcons, Riley is a goner.

          I hope they can trade him for a late round pick rather than Releasing him because that way we control where he goes. If he’s cut i think he’s going to end up in the division because all three teams could use at least one upgrade in their starting LB units, if not two.

        • Rich Tandler - Aug 15, 2016 at 5:52 PM

          @abanig, Some team might be interested in trading for Riley, but no team will want to trade for his salary.

          Perhaps the end game will be Riley working with a reduced contract that lets him make up some or all of the pay cut with incentives.

        • abanig - Aug 15, 2016 at 10:40 PM

          Yeah, that would be beneficial for both sides. Hope it happens. I’d hate to see him playing for Dal, Phila or NY this year and get an int or force a fumble in a game this year.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 15, 2016 at 5:54 PM

          I don’t know that Riley is much of an upgrade over what those guys already have. Probably Dallas, but I’m not so sure about NY and Philly.

          But the more I think about the free agents we have coming up next year the more I like the idea of rolling Riley’s cap over. Especially with the impending Cousins negotiations. We need all the wiggle room we can get.

          Depth is very important. But I don’t think Riley is part of the long term plan for this team. Holding on to expensive depth players might be okay for a team truly ready to compete. But that’s not us. I find it unlikely that we even make the playoffs. So maybe it’s more prudent to roll that money into the future and secure players part of the long term plan. I’m okay with taking lumps if Cravens and Spaight have to start if it gets them reps and helps us retain talent down the road. And I wouldn’t count Cravens as a downgrade from Riley just yet.

        • abanig - Aug 15, 2016 at 10:41 PM

          That’s true. Lumps for Spaight and Cravens are going to happen anyways right?

          Might as well get those lumps out of the way in their first year playing in the NFL.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 15, 2016 at 11:21 PM

          That’s basically my logic. I’m a big proponent of letting guys develop on the bench or in limited roles until they’re truly ready. But that’s easier with first round picks because there’s a 5th year option, this is Spaight’s second year, Cravens looks like he might be better than the average rookie, they wouldn’t be starters (just depth, and there’s 4 million reasons to take that risk. Also, there’s nothing like actual game reps to speed up development.

          Not trying to beat a dead horse, but again, I won’t be upset with what they do either way. And I’ll be so glad they kept him if Foster or Compton go down. But it does make an awful lot of sense to cut him if he can’t get the starting job back.

        • redskins12thman - Aug 16, 2016 at 10:14 AM

          If Redskins need to cut someone for salary cap reasons, could we cut Paea instead of Riley; I think the latter is contributing more to the team…

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 16, 2016 at 2:47 PM

          Your frustration is beyond justified there. But I’m personally not willing to give up on Paea just yet. I’m definitely looking at it through rose colored glasses, but guys do have down years. Especially in a new system. He has played much better in the past and could do it again.

          The trick is that he’s NOT taking Baker’s spot. He could play nose, but I doubt he’s more suited for it than Golston. So he basically has to fight 5 other guys for the RDE spot and Reyes/Francois didn’t look half bad. I could see him being rotated in as a DT next to baker in a 4 man front. But we do have quite a few guys go fill those shoes who are cheaper and are all around the same talent level. You may have a point here.

          Depth is important. Especially at a position we’re already weak at. But there’s only 3 linemen on the field, at the most, in both base and sub packages. So how many rotational guys do we really need?

        • abanig - Aug 16, 2016 at 6:14 PM

          Defensive line is more important than ILB though

  6. Mr.moneylover - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:33 PM

    To be honest they can trade perry Riley and get something in return…they could be keeping him out for a reason…there’s a report out there that teams are working on trades behind the sceen before the season start. You never know what’s going down with Scot M. …Martell Spaight do hustle a lot if he knows the defense then he will become a backup to will Compton and to see the development of Su’a Cravens its gonna be hard somebody gotta go and we simply can’t rely on perry Riley to stay healthy

    • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM

      Who is going to trade for Riley? And give us what? I just can’t see that. Especially since they would inherit his contract.

      • bangkokben - Aug 14, 2016 at 7:48 PM

        More than likely, the Redskins would get some other team’s third sock — some guy the team knows they’re going to cut but are willing to trade at this point in the pre-season to try to get some value or a conditional draft pick. Usually in these cases both of the men traded get cut. I don’t think the contract is an issue. The Redskins would still cover the signing bonus money and the new team could get a starting linebacker for $4,000,000 which they may try to negotiate down with Riley if they know he’s not a starter but want him on their roster. I do agree that it’s unlikely but I would put it in the realm of possibility.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM

          Then they need to be looking for a RB upgrade. A DT would be nice too but I doubt they’ll find one better than what we currently have for Riley. But there’s a chance they find someone better than Marshall or Kelley if a team is desperate for LBs and have too many RBs. Ha, like Dallas. Maybe they’ll trade is Morris back. Or McFadden.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 15, 2016 at 1:47 AM

          So I was trying to think of some teams with good RB depth, who need a LB, and might trade with us. Like you said, someone who they’re probably going to cut anyway. Buffalo and Dallas came to mind. But I don’t see any guys they would likely trade for Riley (or release) who would be an upgrade over what we have. Maybe the Saints and Tim Hightower.

          Tennessee though. Just got Demarco and Henry. Then they also have Bishop Sankey and Antonio Andrews. Neither are great, but have shown flashes. And they could use all kinds of defensive help.

          Niles Davis is still very intriguing to me and they have 3 other guys they like on that roster. I wonder if he gets cut? I also forgot Zac Stacey is a free agent.

          I’m not trying to abandon Kelley or Brown already. Just thinking about options if Pierre Thomas doesn’t work out for whatever reason.

        • bangkokben - Aug 15, 2016 at 9:25 AM

          29 days until Pierre Thomas signing day.

          As much as it would benefit the team to trade Riley for a running back, I think the possibility is less then one percent. The possibility of trading for a back less than 2% and the chance of trading Riley for anything less than 4%.

          For all we know, the Redskins are hoping that Riley improves over the next three weeks and becomes a valuable “starter in waiting” on the team. We as fans have the snapshot view of the entire off-season translated by one preseason game with limited action.

          Redskin fans know how quickly the narrative can change for any player in the pre-season by what happened to Griffin last year. Dropped deep ball by Garcon against Cleveland, the Detroit debacle where he lost his job and may have suffered a concussion, to the Baltimore game where Cousins secured the starting job.

          I got to believe that any actions for running back or Riley won’t happen at least for another week and then it could accelerate.

  7. Mr.moneylover - Aug 14, 2016 at 4:35 PM

    I looked back on the game starters was called for only 4 penalties out of the 14 that was called

  8. redskins12thman - Aug 14, 2016 at 5:48 PM

    I would vote for keeping Riley this season.

  9. COSSkinsFan - Aug 14, 2016 at 9:17 PM

    I really like Riley and hopedo for him to produce more. When he was starting he was routinely burned in pass coverage. The other night on the touchdown the announcers even said Riley was 5 yards out of bounds what was he thinking. If he would accept backup money them keep him but his cap number is to high for a backup. He makes significantly more than both starters which doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Trey Gregory - Aug 14, 2016 at 10:08 PM

      Him making more than the starters is just because if circumstances. Not merit. Riley is a former 4th round pick who signed a 3 year extension in 2013 when the team thought he would grow into a better player, and they really didn’t have many other options. Especially with London Fletcher retiring, the loss of draft picks from the RG3 deal, and the salary cap penalty. But truly, they thought he would be better by now. Compton is still recovering from going undrafted. He’s a restricted free agent next year and, if he has another good season, he’s going to get paid. Then we all know about Foster. McCloughan pulled him from the unemployment office and gave him a chance. But he still has a lot to prove before he gets paid a lot of money. Foster’s 2 year deal is great value for us though. I wish we had more like that.

      Anyway. That play you’re talking about with Riley was bizarre. It almost looked like he was scared of something and was running away. He must have stumbled and momentum kept him going. Coverage is never going to be his strong suit. But that’s ok as the Mike I guess. As long as he can post up and run zone for the underneath routs. I just wouldn’t necessarily assign him to cover a specific player.

      It would be great for him to take a $600,000 deal (or less) and be a backup. But why would he? There are teams that need ILB help pretty bad (the Saints and Cowboys immediately come to mind.) If the Bills were willing to sign Spikes, they might be willing to take Riley. Or he could join Robinson in NY or RG3 in Cleveland. Come to think of it, Cleveland could REALLY use him. My point, somebody will pay him more. We can either have him as an overpriced but experienced backup who could end up starting by the end of the year or be a great replacement for injury. Or we can cut him, save 4 mil in cap space, or try to trade him for a RB. But I doubt we can have him as a discount backup.

      • goback2rfk - Aug 14, 2016 at 10:20 PM

        I blame the defensive coordinator for putting Riley in positions where he is responsible for coverage. I saw them line Riley out wide last season covering a reciever. If he has to he can cover the middle but dont put the man in a position where he is forced into pass coverage.
        Otherwise, Riley is worth much more than a minimum contract and I wish him well on his new team.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 15, 2016 at 1:31 AM

          Yes, Riley should never be covering a receiver. Certainly not Mike Evans (I’m sure we all remember that). I have a hard time imagining Haz, or any DC, intentionally doing that though. Could have been some sort of breakdown that he tried to fix.

          I’m not sure on if I want Riley to stay or not. I am sure, however, that I haven’t seen enough of his current form to have any clue about the right decesion. But reality is that his contract may have priced him out of a job on this team. It’s not his fault he’s getting paid more than the current starters. But it’s not the team’s fault if he can’t beat one of them out. He would be an outstanding option as a backup LB though, and depth is important. That’s what makes this a good conversation.

      • COSSkinsFan - Aug 14, 2016 at 10:28 PM

        It is circumstances that made Riley paid more than the two in front of him but still is what it is. I also agree with momentum possibly taking him out of that play but he still has been successfully targeted in coverage over the years I was surprised at how cheaply we resigned Foster. My point is the $ could be rolled over and spent better next year. We may not have experience behind the starters but sometimes hungry players trump experience. The combo of Cravens and Spaight appear hungry and I’m willing to live with their youthful mistakes. Trade or lower salary would still be my preferred way to go.

      • rtcwon - Aug 15, 2016 at 11:33 PM

        On that play, the QB was out of the pocket so Riley went to push his man out of bounds. The RB dodged him and he stumbled out of bounds. I’ll give him the “rust” benefit of doubt many are more than willing to give Paul on his missed blocks.

        And I’m not sure where the idea he struggles in coverage comes from. That’s his strength, what got him that contract. As a Mo or weak side ILB, he uses his athleticism to match up with RBs very well. His weakness is his tendency to run around blocks, thus making all his tackles 5-7 yards down field. That and he’s not very football smart. But with the right Mike (Fletcher or Compton, not Robinson) he can be a play maker.

        While the $4M cap savings is enticing, Garvin is the more likely cut. For now, I’ll chalk his lower reps up to they know what they have in him and want to see if Foster really is better & get Cravens the reps with the twos.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter