Redskins trade for Free Safety Dashon Goldson

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

The Redskins do not have a game until September, so the projected April starter is moot.

Not in any way responsive to the questions posed, but, okay.

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

Rosters are now about 90 players, so Free Safetys will be cut.

Again, not in any way responsive to the questions posed, but, yes, inevitably safeties will be cut. I would suggest - with a high degree of confidence - that neither Goldson nor Johnson will be among them for all the reasons previously cited.

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

Hall is a question mark at FS, he might be good.

So might Breeland or Goldson or a rookie. Why bet on Hall rather than these other options? You can't even parrot a blatantly clichéd basis in support of your assertion that Hall "might be good." He might suck. In fact, there is ample to reason to believe he might suck badly at FS. Given his lack of experience at the position, his past history of biting on double moves, and his willingness to take risks by going for all or nothing in coverage (oh, and his return from a season ending injury at age 31), there is a significant basis to believe he lacks the mindset to play a position requiring him to see the field and act as the last line of defense.

Again, other than wild-ass speculation, give some solid reason to believe that banking on the possibility Hall "might be good" is a sound basis for addressing the FS position in either the short term or the long term.

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

Goldson has been bad for a few years, expecting him to revert to high caliber play is a long shot.

"Bad for a few years"?! He had two bad years in Tampa after two pro bowl years in SF. In SF, he played a one-high safety position but, in TBay, he was playing as a cover two safety - different schemes emphasizing different abilities and skill sets. Two years removed from pro-bowl play, and after being removed a poor scheme fit, Why is it a "long shot" to expect that Goldson's play will improve enough to be better than any other option out there? or, at least, an upgrade over last year.

As to that, show me where ANYONE who is providing a positive review of this move based on an expectation that Goldson will "revert to high caliber play." The "expectation" that I have seen is that he will "revert" to "better than the sh** we had last year" play. For a guy two years removed from the pro-bowl and leaving a poor scheme fit, that doesn't seem like a "long shot" to me. It's not a guarantee, but I'm not seeing a better gamble out there.

Ultimately, taken in conjunction with your wild speculation that Hall "might be good" because we don't know he will suck, your reasoning is just painfully obtuse. The risk presented by Goldson being able to provide a short term upgrade at FS is a significantly smaller one than your "close my eyes and blindly hope the aging CB coming back from a season ending injury can switch to safety" plan.

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

Bring in as many veterans as you can, draft a FS or two, sign UDFAs, move CBs and SS to FS , and see who emerges. There is no Sean Taylor in the draft, but there are probably a few solid ones.

Move guys, sign guys, draft guys? Holy Crap! That's brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?? You're right! That is a much better plan than the one Scot McC seems to have been operating under!

Couple questions ...

Move guys? Who are we moving and, once moved, who are replacing them with?

Sign guys? What veterans should we sign and how much will they cost? How would any of the veterans available in this UFA period be a better option as an upgrade from last year than Goldson/Johnson/Culliver? What cheaper options were out there now? How is any one of these moves [Goldson/Johnson/Culliver] something to be criticized in light the available veteran options - and the salaries they have been signing for - and your amorphous assertion that we should "Bring in as many veterans as you can [and] sign UDFAs"?

Draft guys? So, in a year when the safety pool is bad, your plan is to draft two of them? Excellent planning - that's some real long term thinking right there man. Just a follow-up though ... Who are the solid ones that you think might be starter ready such that trading for Goldson and his $4M cap hit was in any way a bad move?

See who emerges? ummmm, okay. Isn't that what we are doing? Like you said, regardless of who's on the roster today, final cut down is in September. Are you suggesting that having an expectation when you sign certain players that they will be the guys who "emerge" is a bad thing? Rather, we should just randomly sign/draft players without any expectation that they will fill or address a particular role? Well, hey, it's a little out of the box but, if that's your method of long term planning who am I to argue with you Mr. Cerratto.

...

As I stated originally, you have bitched, moaned and poor-mouthed just about every move Scot McC has made so far. I asked a simple question: Specifically, how you would have done better than McC has done so far and you got nothing but bs platitudes and generalities.

Your name fits. Avoiding simple questions, falling back on speculation, cherry picked facts, and broad rhetorical platitudes makes you truly and absolutely irrefutable.