Skip to content

The state of the Redskins, Week 5—Run defense a perpetual issue

Oct 5, 2016, 11:00 AM EDT


Here is where the Redskins stand in Week 5 of the NFL season.

Record: 2-2 T-3rd in NFC East
vs. NFC East: 1-1
vs. NFC: 1-1
vs. AFC: 1-1
Home: 1-2
Away: 1-0

Rankings (through Sunday’s games)

Offense (yards/game): 380.0 (8th)
Defense (yards/game): 413.4 (29th)
Points for: 99 (12th)
Points against: 112 (26th)
Passer rating offense:  92.6 (16th)
Opp passer rating: 94.2 (23rd )
Yards/rush attempt: 4.4 (7th)
Opp. yards/rush attempt:
 4.9 (31st)
Weighted DVOA through Week 4 (Football Outsiders): 2.3% (14th)

Trending the right way: The Redskins have not allowed a touchdown in the second half of either of their last two games and have outscored the opposition 27-9.

Trending the wrong way: After throwing three interceptions in the last 10 games of 2015 Kirk Cousins has thrown four picks in the first four games of this season.

Top three storylines:

The defense can’t rest—Opponents are feasting on the Redskins defense on third down, converting 57 percent of them to first downs. The good news is that they are unlikely to remain that historically bad; their pass defense on first and second downs is pretty good and third downs are likely to catch up eventually. The bad news is that until they start getting it done on third down every game will be an adventure.

Stopping the run remains an issue—When it comes to rushing defense, it’s the same, uh, stuff, different year. Last year the Redskins were 31st in the league, allowing 4.8 yards per rushing attempt. This year they are also 31st allowing 3.9 per carry. Since the personnel in the front seven hasn’t been upgraded substantially it’s hard to see how this is going to improve substantially.

Injury picture improving—Bashaud Breeland and Shawn Lauvao will get on the field sometime this week to test their injured ankles. They could still be a week or two away from returning but getting on the field is a necessary first step. Although concussions are tricky there is a chance that David Bruton and Su’a Cravens will be able to go this week. And it looks like Ryan Kerrigan will wrap up his hyperextended elbow and go on Sunday.

Next three games

Sunday @ Ravens (3-1)—On paper this was one of the “easy” games based on Baltimore’s 5-11 record last year but I think everybody knew better. This will be a tough one especially if the Redskins can’t stop Joe Flacco going to Steve Smith Sr. on third down.

October 16 vs. Eagles (3-0)—Does rookie Carson Wentz really possess the best traits of Bret Favre and Peyton Manning as his coach said he does? Or is he a rookie who is off to a hot start and will come back to earth when defensive coordinators figure him out? If I’m the Redskins I’m more worried about an Eagles defense that has allowed just nine points per game.

October 23 @ Lions (1-3)—The Redskins once went for 30 years, from 1968 through 1997, without losing to the Lions. Now the Lions have won three in a row. The last time the Redskins beat Detroit Jim Zorn was in his first year as the head coach.

  1. snyderisanidiot - Oct 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM

    Nothing against Will ‘Straight Outta’ Compton or the other guy that plays ILB but after watching the tape our ILB play has been really bad. They are not getting off of blocks at all.
    I do not blame it all on the ILB position as the Defensive Line is one of the worst in football but at some point in time we need to realize our ILB’s are not playing at a pro level. Compton has looked awful this year.
    Would have to assume we draft defense next season.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Oct 5, 2016 at 12:21 PM

      We are in severe need of talent at DL, ILB, and safety.

      Need to hit on some draft picks…

  2. greed - Oct 5, 2016 at 11:51 AM

    they just released REYES / is potroast on his way in ? Or any other big body dlineman

    • colorofmyskinz - Oct 5, 2016 at 12:13 PM

      There is no way we can make it with the group we have on DLine. We are in desperate situation here. Sure hope they have someone lined up.

    • snyderisanidiot - Oct 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM

      Trent Murphy, Get your hand in the dirt and regain another 25 lbs!

      • Trey Gregory - Oct 5, 2016 at 2:18 PM

        I agree with that. We weren’t better off with Murphy having the extra weight and playing DE.

    • troylok - Oct 5, 2016 at 1:00 PM

      They need a nose tackle. If they don’t sign Pot Roast, then maybe they should consider moving Baker back to nose. I know he doesn’t like playing there but he is a big obstacle for teams trying to run up the middle.

      • snyderisanidiot - Oct 5, 2016 at 1:13 PM

        Baker is a big cry baby when he has to play nose. I used to follow the guy when he played at my local college in Hampton, VA. Baker has incentives on sacks and he figures to lose money if he moves to nose.
        Big Swaggy needs his counterpart PotRoast back. When is PotRoast coming back, Reyes is gone.
        We can sign PotRoast for like $18,920 a game, chump change.

        • Greed - Oct 5, 2016 at 11:14 PM

          Instead they sign whitner & Evans I’m all for upgrading weak spots but isn’t Dline the weakest of all positions SMH ! By the way I’m in the 757 also , if you listen to nick cattle’s show I’m PAULLY from the peninsula , HTTR !

        • Trey Gregory - Oct 6, 2016 at 1:03 AM

          Actually I think safety might be the worst position. Dont get me wrong, the D-line is not good. But we at least have a couple good-to-average players there and some depth. We had nothing but bad player and no depth at safety with Hall and Bruton out. I get the feeling we didn’t make much of an upgrade either. But I have to think they will be some sort of upgrade. Just someone who can tackle would be better at this point.

          The D-line still has Baker, all the OLBs (even if you’re not counting OLBs because they all play a hybrid DE role in nickel too), Hood, and RJF. Baker hasn’t been great but I think he’s been playing hurt. Hood hasn’t been great but I think he would be a lot better if we could get him away from being a nose tackle and make him a 3-technique. That’s what he is but he’s filling the nose role for us. That’s what signing someone like Knighton would accomplish as well. It gets us another body but it also frees up one of our better DEs to play DE. I think they have to bring in somebody to help along the D-line if they actually want to get better. I don’t care what they say, the in-house options won’t get it done.

        • John - Oct 6, 2016 at 2:05 PM

          If we got rid of Pot Roast and 30 other teams passed on him, hes not that good.

          Regarding Baker he does not want to play nose and sucked at it, when he did play nose. So why move him?

          Reyes wasn’t getting the job done.

          Regardless of size, the player has to actually make something happen. Size does not determine ability.

  3. chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 12:35 PM

    Every GM has hits and misses, but reyes was paid 2.5 million coming off two seasons of minimal production in san diego… i understand you can’t fix all the problems at once, but just not enough was done to improve a bad front 7 from last year, Hood has been serviceable at least.

    Not enough depth either, so our guys who have some talent aren’t playing great either.

    • snyderisanidiot - Oct 5, 2016 at 1:15 PM

      Every Gm has hits and misses and this GM has had plenty of misses, thats for sure. Its a travesty what was allowed to happen to the Defensive Front. Not happy at all with the state of the Washington Redskin Defense.

      • bangkokben - Oct 5, 2016 at 6:44 PM

        “what was allowed to happen…”
        WTF?! The implication is that it was good. When? 1991? It wasn’t even that good when Gregg Williams and Greg Blache were running things. It’s only ever been serviceable this century.

        • snyderisanidiot - Oct 5, 2016 at 7:10 PM

          This is true, this is true. But when you invest a 1st round pick in a WR you dont use while the defensive line is struggling it makes you wonder? eh?

        • bangkokben - Oct 5, 2016 at 7:20 PM

          I have a hard time believing that one of the DTs picked after 21 would’ve been a panacea. Also, I don’t need the organization to reach on a draft pick, to tell us fans that we see the problem. We had a guy that did that for a decade with nothing to show for it.

        • chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 8:16 PM

          I find it hard to believe there wasn’t a DLineman in the first 4 rounds who couldn’t have helped us. I understand the big name guys fell because they weren’t Aaron Donald, that they were just solid hold the point run stuffers with maybe just a bit of penetrate and disrupt, and those guys have been collectively downgraded by GMs across the league, but geez you still need some of those guys, and if you look at our free agency attempts, there just aren’t many big guys out there that are even average.

          That said, I agree that with a team with as many holes as the skins, you don’t want to overly reach. A “small” reach (Sherff) is acceptable in a position of need. And some people say RG is not an important position relatively speaking, but I still feel that Oline and Dline are the place to build a roster through the draft.

          I still remember the Giants ridiculous Dline being the key unit in beating the Patriots in their almost undefeated season, and last year Malik Jackson was a terror on the Dline, the Denver front 7 was ridiculous, and that unit is what won the SB.

        • bangkokben - Oct 5, 2016 at 8:58 PM

          Right and one d-linemen only improves the unit marginally. Leonard Williams would’ve improved the d-line but a lot but we reached and ended up with a guard. Would you rather have the next DL off the board instead of Cravens or Fuller? The further you get from the top spot the less likely you’re getting a guy with much of an impact.

        • chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 9:37 PM

          I agree we would
          be better off not reaching, and we would have been better off with leonard williams than sherff, obviously the talent evaluations have to be right more often than not in the draft and in free agency.

          With as poor a defensive roster as the skins have, barry has no excuse to not be playing and developing cravens and fuller as much as possible. If fuller turns out to be a stiff, at least we find out sooner rather than later. As bad as our safety play has been, and maybe it’s too much on the rookie to have him learn safety, but if that’s the way he can be on the field for almost all of the defensive snaps, then barry needs to give it a shot.

        • bangkokben - Oct 6, 2016 at 8:50 AM

          “barry has no excuse to not be playing and developing cravens and fuller as much as possible. If fuller turns out to be a stiff, at least we find out sooner rather than later.”

          I disagree on two points. First, players do need to develop. It isn’t a matter of whether you can play at this level or not. Griffin is a prime example of someone who could play at this level in a tailor made system but would utterly fail if expected to drop back and throw it. On the job training has to be tailored for long-term success. The defensive backfield isn’t as complicated as QB but the adjustment is similar. The college hashmarks and the spread offenses change the zones in coverage — never mind the talent level. There is an adjustment to playing with everyone playing with NFL talent on a more central field with different offenses. Therefore, Barry does have an excuse. The Redskins are coming off a 9-7 division winning campaign — not a 4-12 anything will be improvement season. In the later, you might just throw rookies out there with the understanding that experience is more important than results. That is not the case this season. It would be careless to jeopardize the development of two DBs to “see if they got what it takes.” They should get more snaps since the vets above them aren’t getting the job done but there’s no reason to expect them to be the fix.

        • chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 9:45 PM

          talking about having cravens play safety… and while i wanted williams and not sherff, at least sherff is playing well for us.

        • chimps000 - Oct 6, 2016 at 11:49 AM

          i understand your points. But when the “veterans” (bruton was a career backup, don’t know how many nfl
          snaps phillips had played prior to this season but i’m betting it’s not many) look as lost and out of position as they looked, you play your highly drafted rookies.

          Pretty much all nfl people say that you learn best with real live reps.

  4. wvredskins - Oct 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM

    I like the pick up of Donte Whitner. He could start this Sunday and be an upgrade to David Bruton is my eyes! Still not a long term fix, but for short term and this season, he could be a spark this defense could use! HAIL

    • Trey Gregory - Oct 5, 2016 at 2:48 PM

      I can easily see him filling a Goodson type role. I know I know, Goodson wasn’t a good player for us. But he was the leading tackler on our team and now we’re having historically had tackling. I believe Goldson was also a leader who helped the young guys around him play better. This defense was better with guys like Goldson and Knighton. One of who took forever to find a new team and one who is a free agent. That should tell you a lot about the state of this defense.

      But all Whittier has to do is tackle, play his assignment, and fill the right gap when need be. If he does that then he’s an upgrade. That’s how low the bar is. I’m a little concerned about him getting into the correct position in coverage. But he’s a vet. He’s probably played plenty of cover 2/cover 3 in his life and it shouldn’t be too difficult to transition. Just don’t everyone go losing your mind if he doesn’t play great the first week.

      • chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 2:54 PM

        Goldson was better than bruton, its not even close. He cost the Falcons $1.5 million, only $250,000 guaranteed, while bruton got $3.4 million guaranteed.


        • Trey Gregory - Oct 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM

          That was kind of my point in tying to rally for Goldson this offseason. People thought I was nuts and said ,”he sucked.” I get that and I agree but who are you going to get that’s better? David Bruton? People are so quick to call for guy’s heads before there’s a legitimate replacement.

          The real issue with Goldsom was the money. He had to be cut or take a pay cut. But we should have tried to get him back after the cut. He knew the system, knew the guys, and was clearly available for cheaper. I’m happy we signed Whitner and all but he wasn’t in camp and is starting from 0.

          I can basically make the exact same argument for Knighton. Wasn’t great but he’s better than who we have and could be reaquired cheaper.

          You mentioned some defensive misses. Think about this list: Jeron Johnson, Culliver,Paea, RJF, Hood, Lanier, Knighton, Goldson, Bruton, Jenkins, Galette, Reyes, Garvin, Blackmon, Foster, Tolar, Norman, Smith, Daniels, Mitchell, Spaight, Cravens, Fuller, Ioannidis, Jarrett. That’s 24 draft picks or free agents and 1 undrafted free agent in two seasons. 25 total moves on the defensive side of the ball and how many of them have worked out? How many have been at least acceptable for their draft position or pay check? I think about half are still on the active roster. That’s nuts. Anyone saying McCloughan isn’t trying to fix the defense is dead wrong. 25 moves in two seasons. He’s just hasn’t been very good at it.

      • bangkokben - Oct 5, 2016 at 7:29 PM

        “I’m a little concerned about him getting into the correct position in coverage.” Shouldn’t be a concern since everyone who has played the position to date seems to have failed to be in the correct position.

        Goldson and Whitner play different safety positions. Hall was playing Goldson’s spot. So not signing Goldson saved money there since Hall was already under contract. What we as fans often fail to see is how contracts effect decision making. Bruton and Hall will likely be dead money guys next year. $1,666,667, and $812,500, respectively. Still, that will allow the Redskins to save another $6,729,166 combined. You might as well throw Kory on that pile as well — unless the Redskins center position is still up in the air and they want to renegotiate with him again. As it stands, he would be $550,000 in dead money and $3,500,000 in additional savings. So a little over $10 million for three starters only pays for another patchwork unless you dig into the actual available cap.

        • Trey Gregory - Oct 6, 2016 at 1:15 AM

          I thought I made it clear that I agreed the reason Goldson wasn’t back was because of money. I get it, he was way too expensive for his production. I see how the contract affected the decision making.

          But now, in hindsight, we know he could have been reacquired fairly cheap. Cheaper than Bruton. So the argument isn’t that Goldson was a great player who we had to keep. It’s that we should have tried to get him back cheap after the cut.

          And I get that him and Hall are free safties. I meant that he could play a Goldson role as a leader and an experienced/steady presence in the secondary. Goldson, if nothing else, was that for us. I also think you could argue that having both Goldson and Hall on the roster is good planning. That Hall’s injury was pretty predictable and that depth and being able to rotate players are always good things even if they’re healthy.

          I also think safties have to be able to play both positions in the modern NFL. They often don’t get to choose because the offense dictates which they will be. I always thought Goldson would make a pretty good SS and didn’t understand why we never tried him there. I’m willing to bet he would have been a better SS than Bruton.

        • bangkokben - Oct 6, 2016 at 9:23 AM

          My point was because Hall was being moved to free that that move was cheaper than re-signing Goldson on the cheap. Bruton never was replacing Goldson the dollars spent on him were to fix the strong safety which there was never really an answer for after Duke went down last year.

          I do agree that you need versatility, that not trying Goldson at strong was curious, and that an injury to Hall was predictable. In hindsight, Goldson over Bruton is a no brainer but many times the damage for cutting for money is irrevocable. The team wants to move on to something new and the player wants to prove that the team made a mistake. I just don’t think it was realistic getting Goldson back after becoming a team leader in a year and being a cap casualty. Those cases where the player agrees to less money are when they’ve been part of the organization for a while.

    • snyderisanidiot - Oct 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM

      I like the pick also. Some call him Donte ‘Washed Up’ Whitner but he is serviceable and ready for action!

  5. chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 2:51 PM

    The obvious question: how did Bruton, who signed a 3 year deal for $9 million, go from starting every game (and playing terrible) to basically being cut? Doesn’t even get benched until the 4th game of the season, and maybe that was actually a benching for injury not for his awful play. Just baffling offseason decisions from the GM, and baffling coaching decisions from the DC.

    Can we please get Cravens to play as much as possible, when he is healthy, seeing as how he is one of the only guys with talent on the defense?

    Scott badly whiffed on Knighton, Paea, Reyes, Bruton. At least pot roast made a few plays for the millions (I thought it was 4) he got from Scott. Those 4 guys got a lot of millions for almost no production.

    Yes, I liked the Blackmon, Foster, Hood pickups, RJF at least gives us some snaps. The guys who were dirt cheap have worked out better than the guys Scott paid real money to.

    The front office didn’t do enough this past offseason to improve the defense, it was obvious, it was said at the time, the hope was that Cousins would continue his quality play and possibly even improve, and that would be the saving grace for the team. Now they really need Cousins to step up big time, for himself and the team.

  6. renhoekk2 - Oct 5, 2016 at 3:47 PM

    I think if we’re honest we can admit that the team has not been buying of the top shelf in FA. Most of the signings have been “just guys”. Reyes, Bruton, RJF, Foster are marginal starters. Before they were signed few if any Redskins fan could name what team Reyes, Foster, Bruton played for. Or even knew they played at all. They were all intended to be stop gap players until they could rebuild through the draft. I think if fans start to look at the McCloughan FA signings as “placeholders” instead of long term solutions it might be easier to deal with. They are signing inexpensive guys to short term deals (Norman exception) so that when their draft replacements are ready they can move on without cap hits. It also let’s them resign their own guys they want to keep. If they went out and signed Suh when he was available they don’t get to extend Jordan Reed, Trent Williams, or Ryan Kerrigan. And no Josh Norman. It’s going to take another draft or two to fill out the roster. That is what he inherited. The Redskins went year after year without resigning a single draft pick to a second contract. Those guys were supposed to be the core of the team. Without those draft picks on the roster the only thing they could do in a salary cap league is fill in with cheap FA guys. And if they are cheap and available there is a reason for that.

    • Trey Gregory - Oct 5, 2016 at 4:10 PM

      I generally agree with that statement. And it’s what I’ve been saying. All these fans and analysts who are confused with why McCloughan didn’t do more: it’s because he’s not trying to win it all this season. He didn’t expect this team to be very good. Take it in context if he thought this roster was still a couple seasons away, so he pushed cap space and some draft picks to the future, and suddenly it makes a lot more sense. People just can’t get past that a GM wasn’t actively trying to win as many games as possible. He sacrificed 2016 so we could have long-term success. And it’s not like he didn’t try at all, he’s trying to improve, he just didn’t go all out.

      However, not all of his failed free agents were cheap. Paws was not particularly cheap. He was coming off a career year in Chicago and cashed in with Scot. Paea was a reasonably young defensive linemen who had either 6 or 8 sacks the year before. Scot paid him like he was planning on Keeping him. He absolutely paid Culliver like a long-term piece. I think you could argue that we maybe overpaid RJF too.

      My point is that not every free agent has been “just a guy” for us to bide our time until we can draft the long-term guy. Some of them were in the long-term plans and just didn’t work out. But it would still take another 2-3 seasons to properly rebuild this team even if those free agents did work out. The roster was that bad. It needed that much work. And McCloughan is trying to do it right. That’s through the draft. There’s only so many draft picks a year. It takes time to do a proper rebuild.

      • ET - Oct 5, 2016 at 5:37 PM

        Scot essentially tried to split the difference on some of the signings—e.g., Paea was supposed to be a longer-term piece, but at his salary he could’ve been a bargin if his production stayed up. Goldson and Pot Roast were calculated risks that *kinda* paid off for a season and then did not. Scot set salary and performance expectations in each case, and he seems to have stuck to them.

        Pot Roast in particular could still be playing if he’d take his weight and conditioning more seriously.

        Scot is playing a short-, medium- and long-term game with the personnel, and the results are constantly in flux. Given his budget and the existing roster, I think he’s made some rational moves that fell short. It’s frustrating, but them’s the breaks.

        • Trey Gregory - Oct 5, 2016 at 5:56 PM

          I agree with all that. It’s a complicated chess board.

          Knighton shares plenty of blame for not being on the team. I probably don’t say that enough.

          I think the writing is on the wall for Scot to make some bigger moves in the next two offseasons. It seems like that’s what he’s setting everything up for. A lot of it depends on what happens with Cousins. We can sign just about any of our own free agents if we let Cousins walk. It gets more complicated if we sign him. And the moves really might be in the draft. He may take a QB high and make that the future plan. But I think he focuses on fixing the center and pass rushing problems next year. I would look for trades and him trying to get an extra pick or two somewhere around rounds 2-4. I think he drafts heavy on OLBs and DEs. I also think he lets both Garcon and DJax walk, which frees up a lot of space, and would allow him to sign another big ticket free agent if a young guy worth signing becomes available.

          But mostly I think next year is a big draft for the trenches then the year after we may see more activity in free agency. Assuming we have a QB and look ready to really start competing.

        • bangkokben - Oct 5, 2016 at 7:41 PM

          Well said.

        • Greed - Oct 5, 2016 at 11:20 PM

          True but in saying all that skins still made a late push to sign potroast before he ended up signing with the pats, my question is if you were going to sign him then why not pick up the phone now when the need is clearly there ?

    • chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 5:03 PM

      Paea got 7.85 million guaranteed
      Bruton 3.4 mill
      Knighton 4 mill
      Ricky Jean Francois 4 mill
      Reyes 2.5 mill
      Culliver 16 mill guaranteed but the skins got lucky and contract was voided due to his one game suspension

      all above amounts are guaranteed money.

      Thats a lot of cash for very, very little production. I give a pass on Culliver, he actually looked decent before he tore his ACL.

      • Trey Gregory - Oct 5, 2016 at 5:46 PM

        I liked the Culliver signing. Still think it was a good signing for what we knew at the time. He was a good player with an established resume. He wasn’t great, he wasn’t around Norman’s level, but he was a very solid corner for years. He just got hurt. These things happen. Norman can tear his ACL tomorrow. Doesn’t mean it was bad to sign him.

        I wish we still had Culliver to go along with Norman, Fuller, and Breeland. He’s a physical player who could maybe handle to spotlight opposite Normin a bit better than Breeland has so far. He had two significant knee injuries in as many years. So who knows if he will ever be his old self again. But I would have loved to see him back with a pay cut.

        I think it can reasonably be argued that this D would be better with Knighton, Goldson, Culliver, Paea, and Riley over Golston (or Ioannidis), Bruton, Tolar (or Phillips), Reyes (who is cut anyway), and Garin. And I’m sure the coaches and Scot knew that. I think it was mostly about the money. They’re trying to keep cap space free to play future free agents who we like better. I just can’t help but wonder if maybe they were a little too strict with that. We couldn’t keep those guys at the salary they were making but how much of an effort was made to renegotiate or resign at a lower number after the cut? I don’t know the answer to that. They could have tried hard. I just didn’t hear any reports about the team being particularly interested in resigning any of them. Even Knighton. That seemed like a courtesy deal for Baker’s sake that they knew Knighton wouldn’t accept.

        • chimps000 - Oct 5, 2016 at 7:11 PM

          I think you hit upon one of my issues- they downgraded the talent, for not much difference in salary. They didn’t evaluate the talent well on some of those guys (although I thought Riley was bad… and he just got picked up this week, so the other 31 teams didnt like him either to put him on an opening day roster).

          Goldson wasn’t good, but he was definitely better than Bruton, a career backup. The nickle corner experiment with Phillips was bad, but I don’t know that we can blame that on the GM, or Barry for not trying someone else until week 4 (I blame Barry – how about we develop our 3rd round pick Fuller, a pick I didn’t like, but give the guy a chance). On the D line, if we had Knighton, who the other 31 teams don’t want either, he could at least help with some snaps, as we just don’t have enough depth, and Knighton did make a play here and there. Can Barry give Lanier some snaps, just so we can see what the guy has in a real game? Who is so good on our Dline that Lanier can’t get a freaking snap?

          I understand the point of pushing the cap space and the 4th round traded pick until next year- the problem is that if this team implodes, which is certainly possible, and lets say finishes the year with 4 wins, you just don’t know what snyder will do. Then the third year becomes all in, from McLoughans perspective, because a bad 3rd year just might mean no 4th year.

        • Trey Gregory - Oct 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM

          There’s a possibility that McCloughan talked to Snyder and Allen before they hired him and said that it would take 5 years to rebuild this team properly and they would lose a lot of games before that. He could have set their expectations low and got their word he would get 5 years.

          Now, that exact same thing happened with Shannahan. He said it would take 5 years and Snyder said he could have it. But along came RG3. And Shannahan just happened to be coach and GM so there was no escaping either getting rid of RG3 or Shannahan. As long as there’s a clear plan and McCloughan can show he’s sticking to it then he should be fine. This roster, overall, is better than it was two years ago. And I think it’s better this year than last year. But there’s a lot of young talent that isn’t contributing a lot yet. Wins and losses don’t necessarily = better or worse. Do you think we’re better than the 1-3 Panthers? I said all summer that this team could be better but lose more games. We have a long way to go still.

          As far as playing the young guys: I would like to see them too. But we have to trust the coaching staff. They’re working with a lot more information than we are. Maybe the new guys just aren’t ready. Maybe it really can be worse. Maybe the coaches are worried they’ll shake the young player’s confidence and ruin them forever if we start them too soon. That has happened. I’ve heard multiple athletes speak about the importance of confidence and possibly never getting it back after you lose it. I think the best way to develop a young player is to not start them before they’re truly ready. If they’re in the long term plan then bring them along the right way. Everyone has a different trajectory.

      • sidepull - Oct 5, 2016 at 5:49 PM

        How would the Redskins D look if Norman didnt fall to them? That wasn’t in the plans. And that was after teams went on FA spending sprees, Redskins held their money and were able to land Norman. They are lucky with that kind of stuff. Djax was an unplanned, but welcome addition. So I guess its good to hold back and not make a bunch of expensive FA signing the moment FA begins.

  7. John - Oct 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM

    Sorry but I thought based on all the talk of Skins DLine depth, they were supposed to be better up front. Oh, wait a minute, didn’t I say all along that they were just a bunch of guys, aka larry, curley and no? So why are you all so surprised when they stink the joint out?

    McClue has made it clear he’s not going to reach? He also is not going to draft a DLineman or Center just because that’s what the fans want. He wants someone who can make an impact, whose committed to winning. He also wants DLinemen who can rush the passer in addition to stuffing the run. Most of the ones we have can’t do either. At least he doesn’t blow up the salary cap with high dollar free agents like AH.

    • Trey Gregory - Oct 6, 2016 at 2:43 PM

      You did say that they were just a bunch of guys. But you also made fun of me for saying Murphy would break out. So, maybe don’t give yourself too much credit ;)

      I can’t remember if I said Murphy would have 6 or 8 sacks in my “bold predictions” but either way he’s at least halfway there at the quarter poll. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter