Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Why not with Thomas?

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=Irrefutable;1141242]Pierre Thomas on the Redskins "radar" - why ?[/quote]

Because he plays football and we need football players...

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

Personally would prefer another Matt Jones in the 4th or 5th round again this year as the 2nd RB in the rotation.

I got zero problem bringing in Peirre Thomas to compete with Chris Thompson as the 3rd down back.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=That Guy;1141243]because he was solid last year and if we don't draft someone, we'll need a body. he catches, he blocks, he doesn't fumble.[/quote]

Agreed, he showed he fit our offense incredibly well so I don't know why anyone would have a problem with him being our 3rd RB rotating with Thompson.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

^ Agreed -- and good veteran presence and influence on the younger guys.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=MTK;1141244]Why not with Thomas?[/quote]

#1 RB big question mark

#2 RB averages 6.3 games per year... 3 carries per game

#3 RB if Thomas wants to compete at the NFL minimum, ok

They need two RBs that can establish a running game.... Jones might be one

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=Irrefutable;1141276]#1 RB big question mark

#2 RB averages 6.3 games per year... 3 carries per game

#3 RB if Thomas wants to compete at the NFL minimum, ok

They need two RBs that can establish a running game.... Jones might be one[/quote]

thomas was vet min last year, and was available mid-season. no idea why he'd get a raise.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1141244]Why not with Thomas?[/QUOTE]
Consistency of FO philosophy. If the focus is on youth then he's too old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1141283]Consistency of FO philosophy. If the focus is on youth then he's too old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
SM's philosophy is "football" players and Pierre Thomas is that. Second is value and a threat like PT at around vet minimum would be good value. Youth is important but not the sole aspect of this FO philosophy.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141283]Consistency of FO philosophy. If the focus is on youth then he's too old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/quote]

Nobody would be building a team with Thomas and the Redskins certainly are not. If he is a good veteran influence at minimal cost that can still play, in the judgement of coaches and the front office, why the heck not? It's not like he's being put on the 53 man roster, it's March, for crying out loud.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1141284]SM's philosophy is "football" players and Pierre Thomas is that. Second is value and a threat like PT at around vet minimum would be good value. Youth is important but not the sole aspect of this FO philosophy.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Agreed, youth is not the sole aspect. Pierre Thomas is just a guy in my book.
Hasn't played much recently and has limited production and he's on the wrong side of 30 which for a RB is old and has been knicked up.
On top of that he doesn't contribute on special teams.
So if they're not resigning Hatcher due to age then imo from the sake of consistency then PT shouldn't be signed at RB.

Draft or sign a younger guy that can contribute as both a RB and "football" player on special teams.

My 2 cents anyhow....with that being said it's all but a lock he signed now, lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[QUOTE=30gut;1141286]Agreed, youth is not the sole aspect. Pierre Thomas is just a guy in my book.
Hasn't played much recently and has limited production and he's on the wrong side of 30 which for a RB is old and has been knicked up.
On top of that he doesn't contribute on special teams.
So if they're not resigning Hatcher due to age then imo from the sake of consistency then PT shouldn't be signed at RB.

Draft or sign a younger guy that can contribute as both a RB and "football" player on special teams.

My 2 cents anyhow....with that being said it's all but a lock he signed now, lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Signing him now doesn't take away any options but he is better than just a guy. He can protect on 3rd or leak out as a receiver. He did good in the short time he was with us and isn't the typical 30+ running back in how little full-time play he has seen. I have no problem if they sign him or don't but I also am OK if they don't.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

We cannot win the Super Bowl without PT. He is essential to our successs.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[quote=30gut;1141286]
So if they're not resigning Hatcher due to age then imo from the sake of consistency then PT shouldn't be signed at RB.
[/quote]

they're not resigning hatcher because he'd cost $8mill. if hatcher would take vet min, they'd be bringing him to camp for sure. PT costs you nothing and he does some things a lot better than matt jones right now, which makes him a reasonable 3rd down back, especially if someone gets hurt.

Re: Redskins Free Agency 2016
 

[B][/B][quote=CRedskinsRule;1141287][B]Signing him now doesn't take away any options[/B] but he is better than just a guy. He can protect on 3rd or leak out as a receiver. He did good in the short time he was with us and isn't the typical 30+ running back in how little full-time play he has seen. I have no problem if they sign him or don't but I also am OK if they don't.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk[/quote]

Key point. They can still draft a RB.

I agree with your other points as well.