The 2026 Free Agency Thread

[Ashburn Dave]

I was a Maye fan also but hopped on the JD train

I've been on the JD train since we drafted him and I'll stay on it until they snap him in half.

 

[burgold]

Another thing I think about when it comes to "elite" players is, according to analysts, from 82-91 a period when the Redskins were in four Super Bowls in a nine year stretch, the team only had three Hall of Fame worthy players.

(The Bobby Wagner point is a good one, too, Conn)

 

[Conn]

Another thing I think about when it comes to "elite" players is, according to analysts, from 82-91 a period when the Redskins were in four Super Bowls in a nine year stretch, the team only had three Hall of Fame worthy players.

(The Bobby Wagner point is a good one, too, Conn)

Those rosters are widely considered to be pretty stacked, and probably deserve a couple more HOF accolades among them…but there’s an extremely wide gap between a player being elite for a period of time and being a HOFer. So I don’t think this really correlates. Especially since such a special part of those teams was Gibbs, and part of what made him special is that he did it by maximizing so many different players across those rosters for periods of time, even different QB’s. Unheard of and that’s his legacy.

The longevity and sustained peak a player must maintain in relation to his peers to garner HOF consideration, never mind enshrinement, is so far beyond most of the great/elite players you see on the field each week. It’s easy to lose sight of that

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm going to just skip to this part of your post to reply, otherwise it's just going to be too long. It's probably too long anyway. I will say that I think the reporters you sited as worthy of an opinion, I guess I don't respect any of them enough to care what they say about anything. If you want to debate that, we can discuss it in the Covering the Commanders thread.

As for cornerback, yes, I'm concerned there too—but not to the same degree. If they are running a Flores-style defense, as people who've watched practice have hinted, the scheme asks corners to play a lot of off coverage, provides safety help, and leans heavily on multiple-DB packages. That's a system that can mask some weaknesses. I still don't love the position, but I can at least see how they plan to compensate.

I have to admit, I don't know if you've written it this way before or not, but this statement has be absolutely baffled.

On offense, literally everybody has said they are going to run the offense through the running game, McLaurin, TE, slot WR (Williams/McCaffery/Lane), and then Outside WR2 is like the 4th -5th option on any given play. Keim has said this, JP has said this, Standig has said this. I don't know who else. But they've all said they believe that is the type of scheme the team is planning on. Which immediately reduces the dependency on the outside receiver. De-emphasizing it, if you will. compensate for it, using your word. This is how they are compensating using the scheme on offense to deal with not having a proven starter opposite McLaurin on the outside. And it's been reported ad nauseum. And we do have 1 proven starter in the WR room in Terry, who depending on how you rank them, is probably the 3rd best player on the entire team, with Tunsil and Daniels being 1 and 2 in some order.

But on defense, because they're running the Flores scheme which de-emphasizes the CBs where they play off, multiple DB sets, safety coverage, etc., or compensates, as you said, you're less concerned with running out a group that doesn't even have one proven starter?

Well, the scheme on offense is going to de-emphasize the outside WR2 to compensate. The scheme on defense is going to de-emphasize the CB to compensate.

I don't understand why you can understand the plan to compensate on defense and not on offense, especially when it's been reported by, of all people, Keim, multiple times.

But you're still more concerned about WR even though both schemes are going to de-emphasize, or compensate for, the weakness.

I'm much more concerned about CB because Amos is coming off a season ending injury, hasn't practiced fully yet this off-season, and while he had a good rookie season, nobody is anointing him the next Darrell Green. And Sainristil is undersized and had a bad year last year. Those are the 2 starters. I have more health concerns about Amos than Terry. Amos couldn't even get through his rookie year without getting hurt. Terry has a long history of being durable. Sure, he's older. But he knows how to take care of himself, and he didn't miss the entire off-season.

At best "what happens if Terry/Amos gets hurt" is a push. I'd argue Amos getting hurt is 1) more likely and 2) as damaging to the defense as Terry getting hurt is to the offense. Opposing offenses can target a weak spot. Pressure is great. However If the opposing QB knows they have a weak link at CB, your pressure is nullified because the ball is out before pressure can get there. I get the idea of playing off, safety help, etc. Teams have done that since the 60's. But if you're outside guys can't cover, you're dead on arrival. They have to hold up to allow the pressure to work. Or else it's 2.1 seconds, ball out, completion, move the chains all the way down the field.

So you're saying that in competing schemes which are both saying they are going to compensate for a weakness, your bigger concern is the group with the 3rd best player on the team and some proven depth over a group with no proven starter and no depth?

I find this position absolutely wild.

The receiver situation is different. Maybe Washington is right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe the Bears, Patriots, Broncos, Steelers, and Bills were foolish to spend significant resources upgrading their No. 2 receiver spots because that position really isn't that important. Maybe Washington gets the last laugh.

That's somewhat disingenuous. And I think you know it. I've already gone through the playoff teams and the list of #2 WRs. You twisted that into "you made my point, I'd rather have those #2 WRs than ours." Ok, fine whatever. But the point still holds, if any of those teams top WR goes down, they're cooked. Doesn't matter who the second WR is.

Further, to the teams you listed, I don't think you're representing the information accurately.

The Patriots, going into Maye's second year, had Diggs coming off of a torn ACL as their primary receiver with a bunch of guys who've done nothing as backups. They had to invest in WR in 2026 because they saw Diggs was not a viable #1 (though he was good for them last year), and their number 2 was just "meh." So they traded for AJ Brown and signed Doubs. So they hadn't invested in Maye's first 2 years, then they did this year. In fact, it's absolutely inarguable our WR corps was better than theirs the last 2 years (absent injury) because Terry is better than anybody they had, regardless of whatever else was on the field.

The Bears have been investing in WRs forever and they have been getting crappy returns on it as of late. To the extent that they just traded DJ Moore to the Bills. Their leading receiver last year was TE Colston Loveland at 713 yards. DJ Moore was next, but they just traded him. They are putting a lot on Odunze and Burden. Both might be good, both are young and somewhat unproven yet. They didn't make a big move to add anybody this off-season as far as I can tell.

The Bills had to address WR. They didn't have anybody close to 1000 yards. Their top WR was Shakir with 719 yards and 4 TDs. Their second WR was Keon Coleman with 404 yards and 4 TDs, and they had 2 TEs (Kincaid and Knox) with 571 and 417 yards between them. So they traded for DJ Moore. Who's good, but only had 682 yards in the Bears offense last year. His last really good season was 2023, and he's entering his age 29 season. So the Bills are adding a guy who's ok to a whole group of WRs who are "ok."

The Broncos had Sutton (1000 yards) and Franklin (700 yards) and yeah, they made a big play trading a first-round pick (No. 30), a third-round pick (No. 94), and a fourth-round pick (No. 130) for Waddle. However, that wasn't to get a #2, that was to get a #1. That pushes Sutton down to #2, and frankly, that's great for them. I don't think I would do that trade, but I could see the argument for it. Waddle is good (basically averages 1000 yards pers season), but I don't think he's THAT good. The Broncos are betting 3 draft picks the only thing keeping Waddle back was Tua from being a top 5 WR.

The Steelers traded for DK Metcalf last year, and he got 850 yards and 6 TDs in 15 games. That's not what they were hoping for after they traded for him and then signed him to a mega deal. They did go out and sign Pittman, which might help them if they get their QB situation sorted out.

So of the teams you listed, the Bears got arguably worse this off-season, the Patriots just admitted they didn't have any WRs on the team, #1 or #2, the Bills didn't have a #1 and still might not, the Broncos traded for a #1. The only team that really beefed up #2 is the Steelers, assuming DK is still the #1 and Pittman is #2.

And FWIW, I'm not sure what the Patriots did is going to work. It might. But Pierce is not a #1 WR, or at least he hasn't proven that he is. He's a deep threat specialist, a lot like Desean Jackson. And Doubs is an ok #2. While they are splashy signings, is it going to work? I dunno. It might. It also very much might not.

We'll see.

I hope they do. I just wouldn't bet on it though it seems you would.

I don't bet on anything. I let things play out.

My point has always been, for reasons completely passing understanding, this WR2 debate has become emotional and not remotely logical. Is there some reason for skepticism? Yes. But the amount of vitriol over it is just weird. I said before I think it's because of how badly things went last year people have PTSD over it and absent having Chase and Higgins, they won't be happy.

Every team has holes somewhere. This team has plenty. The fact the one that became emotional is the second outside WR and probably 5th most important weapon on the offense is what I'm fascinated by. And there are posters who have gotten extremely dug in, sarcastic and nasty about the point that if you don't believe the sky is falling because we might have Burkes/Van Jefferson lined up outside, you're a complete moron.

While I think it's a roster hole, I find the CB hole is MUCH more concerning. I also have some questions about safety. Hell, I have more questions about RB. If we're really going to be a 50/50 run/pass team, do we really have the backs to do that? Maybe. Maybe not. On my list of concerns, WR2, given the scheme and the other personnel, is much farther down the list.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

My goal for this season is higher. So I want to see a front office with a go-for-the-kill mentality that's building to win a Super Bowl, not just field a respectable playoff contender. If the goal is simply to be solid, I think this front office has done a fine job.

Well, in 2024, when they needed a CB to theoretically put them over the top, they went out and traded for one at the deadline. That was definitely a "win right now move."

It didn't work. But they tried.

The 2025 off season was full of mis-steps. That happens. They're trying to fix it. And they spent a lot of big money to overhaul a lot of the roster.

But you can't fix everything in one off-season. The biggest problem they have is the 2024 draft hasn't hit yet.

And there was almost zero carryover from Ron. Like, what, 6 or 7 players total from any of those drafts?

Did they catch lightening in a bottle in 2024? Yes. Peters deserved executive of the year for bringing in 40 FAs on good deals and putting together a roster which got to the NFC Championship Game (which did happen. I watched.)

What they should have done last year is what they did this year. That was the mistake. But they tried to walk the line of "let's not blow up a good thing" while "let's fix what's broken" and candidly, they failed miserably.

You can't go all-in to win the SB every year. You've got to build, and then take your shots. This might not be a SB year. Though, if Daniels plays the way he did in 2024 and the defense is better, it absolutely might be.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Those rosters are widely considered to be pretty stacked, and probably deserve a couple more HOF accolades among them…but there’s an extremely wide gap between a player being elite for a period of time and being a HOFer. So I don’t think this really correlates. Especially since such a special part of those teams was Gibbs, and part of what made him special is that he did it by maximizing so many different players across those rosters for periods of time, even different QB’s. Unheard of and that’s his legacy.

The longevity and sustained peak a player must maintain in relation to his peers to garner HOF consideration, never mind enshrinement, is so far beyond most of the great/elite players you see on the field each week. It’s easy to lose sight of that

To add to your point, the fact Joe Jacoby isn't in the HOF is a complete joke. There are others on that roster which absolutely deserve to be in the HOF based on who else has gotten in over the years.

What is working against players is the Joe Gibbs factor. A lot of voters have given Gibbs the majority of the credit over the players. It has become less "look what this player did" and more "Joe got this out of this player."

Which is completely unfair. Both should get credit.

 

[burgold]

Those rosters are widely considered to be pretty stacked, and probably deserve a couple more HOF accolades among them…but there’s an extremely wide gap between a player being elite for a period of time and being a HOFer. So I don’t think this really correlates. Especially since such a special part of those teams was Gibbs, and part of what made him special is that he did it by maximizing so many different players across those rosters for periods of time, even different QB’s. Unheard of and that’s his legacy.

The longevity and sustained peak a player must maintain in relation to his peers to garner HOF consideration, never mind enshrinement, is so far beyond most of the great/elite players you see on the field each week. It’s easy to lose sight of that

That's kind of my point. Those rosters were stacked. We deserved more than three HOFers over that period and yet analysts have consistently underrated the talent on those teams. How many years did NFL voters scream that Art Monk was nothing special and undeserving?

Frankly (I'm much too lazy to actually look up the numbers) I'd bet that we were also underrepresented in all pro and probowl votes during those years. So, while I don't disagree with the reality that we need more elite talent I also don't really give that much credence to what analysts say.

 

[skinsinparadise]

Well, in 2024, when they needed a CB to theoretically put them over the top, they went out and traded for one at the deadline. That was definitely a "win right now move."

If I said I wished they went for it when they got on that run in 2024, you'd have me. But I am on to 2026, that's the season I was referencing, not rehashing 2024.

Well, in 2024, when they needed a CB to theoretically put them over the top, they went out and traded for one at the deadline. That was definitely a "win right now move."

It didn't work. But they tried.

The 2025 off season was full of mis-steps. That happens. They're trying to fix it. And they spent a lot of big money to overhaul a lot of the roster.

I am over 2025 and the missteps of it, too. It's irrelevant to me. The only relevance it has to me is some seem very defensive of any critique of Adam Peters. And while I am not as negative on him as some here. I also don't think he's off limits. He's been far from perfect. I don't think he's the 25th best GM per that national ranking and I disagree with his colleagues that apparently aren't impressed with his off season. I think he's been solid. Not steller. Solid. If he was stellar I'd defend his every instinct too -- but he hasn't earned that for me at least.

You can't go all-in to win the SB every year. You've got to build, and then take your shots. This might not be a SB year. Though, if Daniels plays the way he did in 2024 and the defense is better, it absolutely might be.

Daniels isn't going to be on a rookie contract forever. At some point, he's likely going to be eating up $60–70 million a year against the cap instead of roughly $10 million today. That's a dynamic this fan base really hasn't had to deal with before. But I've followed enough teams with franchise quarterbacks to know this is practically a cliché around the league: when you have an elite young QB on a rookie deal, you attack. You push your chips into the middle because that window closes fast.

This isn't a slow, patient rebuild with Taylor Heinicke at quarterback. This is a team that reached the NFC Championship Game in 2024 and found its franchise quarterback. Maybe I put too much stock in that run. Maybe it really was, as some people argue—including Jimmy Kempski, who covers the Eagles and has called that team a "lightning in a bottle" fraud—a complete outlier.

That's possible. I just don't see it that way. I'm more optimistic than that. I believe Washington has a real opportunity here, which is exactly why I want them to be more aggressive while the biggest advantage in the NFL—a franchise quarterback on a rookie contract—is still on their side.

 

[Conn]

That's kind of my point. Those rosters were stacked. We deserved more than three HOFers over that period and yet analysts have consistently underrated the talent on those teams. How many years did NFL voters scream that Art Monk was nothing special and undeserving?

Frankly (I'm much too lazy to actually look up the numbers) I'd bet that we were also underrepresented in all pro and probowl votes during those years. So, while I don't disagree with the reality that we need more elite talent I also don't really give that much credence to what analysts say.

That wasn’t really your point, your original point that drew my response was “do we really need that many elite players when our Super Bowl winning rosters only had 3 enshrined HOFers amidst the bunch” which is why I went into how elite is much different from “HOF-worthy”. Those rosters had plenty of elite talent. You’re right that more of those guys should probably be HOFers though.

But you don’t need to trust the media’s take on the roster at all, the fact is that we don’t have many elite players, and until we do, we won’t consistently be a very good or better team. I think everybody would like us to consistently compete deep in the playoffs, that’s not an unrealistic expectation for this regime to eventually meet, otherwise what are we doing here. They’re 50/50 right now, the sample size will continue to grow. But it’s very reasonable to expect the continued addition (through draft, FA, and trade—as well as the development of previously acquired players from those categories) of more elite players if we’re ever going to get where we want to go.

 

[skinsinparadise]

On offense, literally everybody has said they are going to run the offense through the running game, McLaurin, TE, slot WR (Williams/McCaffery/Lane), and then Outside WR2 is like the 4th -5th option on any given play. Keim has said this, JP has said this, Standig has said this.

I think we've probably reached the point where we're mostly talking past each other. Over the years, I honestly can't think of anyone whose football takes I've disagreed with more than yours. That's not meant as an insult—it's actually kind of interesting because we can watch the same games, listen to the same podcasts, read the same reports, and come away with completely different conclusions.

I also don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind, so after this I'll probably leave it alone. It's just easier for me to have longer debates with people where we agree on at least some of the bigger-picture stuff. There are plenty of people on this topic who lean more toward your side than mine, but we still have enough common ground elsewhere that the discussion feels more productive. With us, we're often on opposite sides of so many issues that we end up replaying the same debate.

That said, I'll respond one more time.

They never said the Z receiver is automatically going to be the fourth or fifth option. That's an assumption not something the coaching staff has stated. The reality is nobody knows how the targets are going to shake out. You don't know, I don't know, and they probably don't know yet either. What they have said is they'll use more 12 and 13 personnel. That's a completely different point from saying the Z is going to be marginalized in the passing game.

If you're that convinced Keim believes the Z has a minor role in this offense, I'd honestly tweet him. He's usually good about responding, and I'd be curious to see if he'd actually say that's what he expects. I don't think he has. But I am interested.

From a football standpoint, I'm not even sure that conclusion makes sense but I do think you do your best to work around your weaknesses and work to your strengths. Everything we've heard suggests they'll incorporate plenty of bootlegs and movement throws, and Jayden has consistently shown a preference for rolling to his right. If that's true, it's at least worth considering that the Z receiver could end up being pretty involved depending on how the route concepts are designed.

The speculation that the slot will be more important than the Z seems to be based on St. Brown in Detriot. But St. Brown is a stud, if you got a stud slot WR, milk it

But lets play along as if its so. Ironically, I'm probably the biggest Antonio Williams supporters on this board. I was pounding the table for him during the draft because I love the talent. But he's still a rookie. Treating him like he's already a proven difference-maker is speculative.

I also think we just evaluate risk differently. A big part of my concern has always been what happens if Terry misses time. I know you've said you agree that would hurt, but then the conversation usually shifts to, "Well, every team would have the same problem." I just don't see it that way. Some teams have enough proven pass catchers that losing their No. 1 receiver doesn't completely change the complexion of the offense. I don't think Washington is there yet, and that's really been one of my central points all along.

But on defense, because they're running the Flores scheme which de-emphasizes the CBs where they play off, multiple DB sets, safety coverage, etc., or compensates, as you said, you're less concerned with running out a group that doesn't even have one proven starter?

Well, the scheme on offense is going to de-emphasize the outside WR2 to compensate. The scheme on defense is going to de-emphasize the CB to compensate.

I don't understand why you can understand the plan to compensate on defense and not on offense, especially when it's been reported by, of all people, Keim, multiple times.

Because they did a ton on defense. They didn't completely finish the job at corner, but they still added a solid corner, signed one of the better safeties in free agency, and built around a scheme that uses three safeties extensively while often playing with just two corners. They invested heavily on that side of the ball.

Jayden is the future. He's the franchise. To me, maximizing his development is more important than anything else. If they had gone all-in on surrounding him with weapons and, as a result, come up a little short at one position, I'd have been perfectly fine with that. Instead, that's essentially what they did on defense—they upgraded almost every position except one.

That's why I think we're looking at this from completely different perspectives. It feels like you're either missing that point or, more likely, using cornerback as your example so it doesn't sound like you're giving Peters a free pass. Because saying WR2 is the best place on the roster to have a weakness is a pretty uncommon position. Most fans would prioritize giving their franchise quarterback as many proven weapons as possible while he's still on a rookie contract.

And your criticism of the offseason has been pretty mild. You've mentioned corner, but you've never really zoomed out and made a broader critique of Peters' approach this year. Your overall message has consistently been that any shortcomings are understandable and that you're comfortable with what they did on offense. I criticized the corner situation too, but I don't read your comments as someone who's genuinely dissatisfied with the offseason. I read them as someone who thinks the front office had a good plan, made a few understandable compromises, and largely got it right.

I think Peters has done a solid job. I'm simply not as enthusiastic about this offseason as you are. I like most of what he did. I just don't love it. And that's okay—we don't have to have the same standard or come away with the same overall impression. I just don't buy that you're all that bothered by the cornerback situation, because it never seems to factor into your overall evaluation of the offseason or the front office.

 

[burgold]

That wasn’t really your point, your original point that drew my response was “do we really need that many elite players when our Super Bowl winning rosters only had 3 enshrined HOFers amidst the bunch” which is why I went into how elite is much different from “HOF-worthy”. Those rosters had plenty of elite talent. You’re right that more of those guys should probably be HOFers though.

But you don’t need to trust the media’s take on the roster at all, the fact is that we don’t have many elite players, and until we do, we won’t consistently be a very good or better team. I think everybody would like us to consistently compete deep in the playoffs, that’s not an unrealistic expectation for this regime to eventually meet, otherwise what are we doing here. They’re 50/50 right now, the sample size will continue to grow. But it’s very reasonable to expect the continued addition (through draft, FA, and trade—as well as the development of previously acquired players from those categories) of more elite players if we’re ever going to get where we want to go.

It really was 100% my point

 

[Always Commander Never Captain]

I think you are taking the point too literally. There are teams that looked stacked. Agree no teams have no weaknesses.

But this team as many more ifs than the typical team, much less great players.

100% took it literally, honestly thought that was the intention of the guy you quoted/linked to.

To take it a little less literally, I suppose can question marks adequately be covered up by absurd strengths in other areas?

For us, is the overhauled Edge and Linebacker group combined with this new defensive pressure scheme going to mitigate other issues? If so, and this new pressure scheme really takes off, the defensive roster could look surprisingly good.

Huge "If", maybe a little unrealistic.

 

[DWinzit]

As for Rachaad White, he's another player I wanted before free agency, and I'm generally in line with the optimism around him. Where I disagree is when people compare his explosiveness to TreVeyon Henderson or a younger Austin Ekeler. I don't think he's quite at that level, but he's only a notch below it, and that's still a really valuable player. Keim has subtly hinted that White has a legitimate chance to win the No. 1 job, although it will probably end up as a committee. Maybe I am reading too much into it, though. That said, I think it's difficult to judge running backs this early in camp, so I'm expecting that narrative to evolve.

I am thrilled the team signed White and look at him as their second biggest offensive signings. #1 is Chig of course but White may be more impactful due to his often under appreciated pass protection ability. You are correct, he does not belong in quite the same category as Henderson because he isn't explosive. White is a poor mans version of Henderson. Thank goodness they signed him...and he wanted to come here to play with Jayden.

My #1 offensive target in FA was not a WR but Travis Etienne. He does fall into the explosive Henderson category and is good in pass pro. Adding Etienne is part of the reason NO has a lot of confidence going into this season with an inexperienced QB.

 

[skinsinparadise]

I am thrilled the team signed White and look at him as their second biggest offensive signings. #1 is Chig of course but White may be more impactful due to his often under appreciated pass protection ability. You are correct, he does not belong in quite the same category as Henderson because he isn't explosive. White is a poor mans version of Henderson. Thank goodness they signed him...and he wanted to come here to play with Jayden.

My #1 offensive target in FA was not a WR but Travis Etienne. He does fall into the explosive Henderson category and is good in pass pro. Adding Etienne is part of the reason NO has a lot of confidence going into this season with an inexperienced QB.

Yeah, I wanted Etienne too.

Rachaad was the guy I pushed as the poor man's version. As a pure runner, his reputation is that he's more straight-line than explosive. But as a receiver? He's dangerous. That's where I think he can really change the complexion of the offense.

And considering Ekeler surprisingly opened last season as the starter—or at minimum got the early reps—I wouldn't be shocked if Rachaad gets that same opportunity. That's also what I think Keim has been hinting at: White has a legitimate chance to get those starter reps, even if the backfield ultimately becomes a committee.

As for the national media, in all its various forms, crapping on this team's prospects, I get it to a point—and then I don't.

I understand the skepticism about the offense because, on paper, the weapons are pretty meh. I've pushed back repeatedly on the idea that this either doesn't matter or that we can simply assume some decent player is about to become a major difference-maker because of scheme or development. Sure, it's possible. But every fan base has players like that. Every team has its version of, "Just wait until this guy breaks out." Some do. Plenty don't.

I was listening to Mina Kimes the other day discussing an underrated reason quarterbacks develop bad habits: playing with subpar receivers. Her point was that a lack of trust in your targets can actually change how a quarterback processes the game. She's hardly alone in making that argument. Hell, after the Kurt Warner breakdown of Jayden, the team itself seemed to defend him with a version of that same point.

That's why I cringe when people say improving the defense helps Jayden just as much—or even more—than giving him better weapons. To each their own, but that argument is almost gag-worthy to me. And my other favorite is, "But he has a pass-catching running back and a tight end who can catch," as if that's some unique luxury that eliminates the need for quality receivers. Lol. The Bears have pass-catching tight ends. They have backs who can catch. So do plenty of loaded offenses.

A great offense is a symphony of weapons. That's why the Patriots and Bears were ranked in the top five of that recent offensive ranking I posted. It wasn't because Drake Maye and Caleb Williams are clearly better than Jayden. It's because those teams are loaded around their quarterbacks.

So yes, the offense gives me some angst. Don't get me wrong: if Jayden and Terry stay healthy, I still expect it to be good. I just have a harder time seeing it hit its full potential or become truly great with this current group.

The defense, though? That's where I think the national media may be missing the boat.

What I wanted them to do at receiver, they basically did at edge. They attacked the position. They may not have a singular superstar there, but the group is strong, deep and loaded with legitimate options. Same at linebacker. Safety looks considerably better with the addition of Cross. Robertson is a good addition in the slot.

Corner is obviously the weak spot, but I still expect them to add someone. And Peters clearly seems willing to live or die with his draft picks in Amos and Sainristil. If he's right about those two and they stay healthy, the secondary could be perfectly fine. If he's wrong, corner could become a real problem.

But that's the bigger picture for me: I think guys like White and Chig can help ensure the offense is good. I just struggle to see the current weapons making it great. Maybe somebody breaks out and changes that equation—you never know.

The defense is different. I don't just think it has upside. I think it's sneaky stacked right now. That's why, despite my concerns about the offense, I'm still more optimistic about this team than a lot of the national media seems to be.

 

[DWinzit]

Agree SIP. I believe the defense is going to be strong and exciting, especially if they add on more decent coverage DB.

The offense, I hope will be improved. It sounds like it will but we will see. I was hoping I'd be thinking the offense would be exciting this year but I have a better feeling for the defense at this point in time. We will see...

 

[skinsinparadise]

Agree SIP. I believe the defense is going to be strong and exciting, especially if they add on more decent coverage DB.

The offense, I hope will be improved. It sounds like it will but we will see. I was hoping I'd be thinking the offense would be exciting this year but I have a better feeling for the defense at this point in time. We will see...

Yeah, I think the defense is being seriously slept on.

My disagreement with the people touting the offense isn't that I think it will be bad. I don't. If Jayden is healthy, I think it can be good. But they need some luck. If Terry gets hurt, I think the bottom could fall out pretty quickly because there simply isn't another proven high-end receiver behind him.

Where I can't follow the script is this idea that having a TE who can catch or a pass-catching RB is some novel cheat code that makes the WR issue less relevant. Plenty of teams have those things. And I also can't just assume that every offseason projection is going to hit: Croskey-Merritt becomes a star, Sinnott finally breaks out, Lane emerges, Chig turns into a Kittle-level beast, Antonio Williams hits immediately, etc.

The irony is that I liked many of these guys before Washington even acquired them. I pushed Croskey-Merritt before the draft. I wanted Chig before free agency. So this isn't me disliking the players. It's me refusing to assume that every optimistic projection becomes reality. It starts to feel a little too Larry Michael-ish for me—every flash becomes a breakout, every flier becomes a future star, every unknown becomes an answer.

Could one or two of those things happen? Absolutely. I actually expect at least one to happen. But the idea that all—or even most—of our hopes and dreams for every offensive flier are going to hit feels pretty far-fetched. I used to have more of that kind of offseason optimism myself. Over the years, I've become more cynical because I've watched too many "promising" players simply remain promising until they're gone. The defense is different because the depth is real. It's not built nearly as much on wishful projection. Guys like Wise, who were touted as major additions last year—and who I admittedly lampooned a little—are now depth pieces who might not even make the roster. Drake Jackson is the perfect example. He's exactly the kind of "what if" player this team is leaning on at receiver. The difference is that at edge, a "what if" player might end up on the practice squad. On offense, that same type of player gets discussed as a potential solution. That's a massive difference.

Edge is loaded with depth. Linebacker is similarly stacked. I love the addition of Cross at safety. I wouldn't call safety loaded with stars, but it's deep. At corner, Sainristil has his flaws but has at least been durable. Amos has talent, but we need to see if he can stay healthy. Robertson is feisty and, IMO, a good slot corner. They still need more depth there, no question.

That's why I don't agree with VOR's framing of CB versus WR. The difference is simple. If I thought Ben Sinnott was already amazing, Chig was already a superstar, or Croskey-Merritt was the next Saquon Barkley—I'm using hyperbole to make the point—then fine. I'd understand saying, "We don't need to emphasize WR because we're going to overwhelm teams elsewhere." They have the talent on defense to do just that. Offense has the question marks IMO.

If their TE1 was Loveland and their TE2 was Kmet? Sign me up. Let's old-school it and run the offense through two tight ends. If they had Gronk and Hernandez, obviously the WR conversation changes. If they had Kittle or Kelce, same thing. If they had Bijan in the backfield, sure, that changes the equation too. But that's not this roster.

The argument seems to be: "We don't have a stud WR2, but we'll emphasize the tight ends and backs instead." Okay—but that only becomes a compelling answer if the tight ends and backs are actually special. Right now, those positions are filled with plenty of projection and unknowns too. Warren Sharp, who is hardly an idiot, thinks this may be the worst RB room in the league. Greg Cosell, who actually likes the defensive talent on this team, isn't high on the TE talent.

Personally, I'm more optimistic than either of them. I think the RB room will be fine. I think the TEs will be fine. I like White. I like Chig. I still like Croskey-Merritt. I haven't given up on Sinnott. But I just don't see those groups as so uniquely talented or dominant that they somehow supersede the need for another quality receiver. That's the leap I can't make.

Meanwhile, on defense, they simply have a lot of good football players. And as Champ Bailey recently pointed out, the pass rush itself should make life considerably easier on the corners. That's why I'm much more comfortable with the defensive construction. The strength there is tangible. The depth is tangible. On offense, too much of the argument still feels like: "Just wait until all these guys become something they haven't been yet."

 

[DWinzit]

If their TE1 was Loveland and their TE2 was Kmet? Sign me up. Let's old-school it and run the offense through two tight ends. If they had Gronk and Hernandez, obviously the WR conversation changes. If they had Kittle or Kelce, same thing. If they had Bijan in the backfield, sure, that changes the equation too. But that's not this roster.

The argument seems to be: "We don't have a stud WR2, but we'll emphasize the tight ends and backs instead." Okay—but that only becomes a compelling answer if the tight ends and backs are actually special. Right now, those positions are filled with plenty of projection and unknowns too. Warren Sharp, who is hardly an idiot, thinks this may be the worst RB room in the league. Greg Cosell, who actually likes the defensive talent on this team, isn't high on the TE talent.

Personally, I'm more optimistic than either of them. I think the RB room will be fine. I think the TEs will be fine. I like White. I like Chig. I still like Croskey-Merritt. I haven't given up on Sinnott. But I just don't see those groups as so uniquely talented or dominant that they somehow supersede the need for another quality receiver. That's the leap I can't make.

Meanwhile, on defense, they simply have a lot of good football players. And as Champ Bailey recently pointed out, the pass rush itself should make life considerably easier on the corners. That's why I'm much more comfortable with the defensive construction. The strength there is tangible. The depth is tangible. On offense, too much of the argument still feels like: "Just wait until all these guys become something they haven't been yet."

I think the TE room with Chig appears extremely promising. The issue I have again is none of group are all around TE's. Chig, Yankoff even Cager are receivers. Bates is a blocker. Sinnott is more of a HB type lead or moving blocker with some YAC potential. Teams will know what each of the players main goals are when on the field, kind of signaling the obvious which kind of stinks. Also if Bates gets injured, none are inline blockers.

 

[skinsinparadise]

I think the TE room with Chig appears extremely promising. The issue I have again is none of group are all around TE's. Chig, Yankoff even Cager are receivers. Bates is a blocker. Sinnott is more of a HB type lead or moving blocker with some YAC potential. Teams will know what each of the players main goals are when on the field, kind of signaling the obvious which kind of stinks. Also if Bates gets injured, none are inline blockers.

Logan is really high on the TE room, but to be fair, Logan is almost always high on the TE room. I remember the years when he and others were talking up Armani Rogers, Cole Turner, Hodges, and whatever developmental project was next. Sometimes the upside hits. Often it doesn't.

As crazy as it sounds, Ertz would almost be the perfect addition to this offense IMO. Some people are talking as if this is the first time Jayden will have a TE as his No. 2 option, completely forgetting that Ertz already was his No. 2 option. We've literally seen that version of the offense in terms of relying on the TE as the #2.

And I think there's a bigger point being missed: Jayden strikes me as a trust-and-anticipation quarterback. He wants to know that the WR or TE is going to be exactly where he's supposed to be, exactly when he's supposed to be there. That's a different skill from simply being athletic or dangerous after the catch.

Chig is explosive and terrific after the catch, but he's not known as a polished route runner. Sinnott has had issues being where he's supposed to be—something Logan himself has pointed out—and Sinnott has basically acknowledged that he's not an Ertz-type route technician. Bates can contribute, but nobody is confusing him with a high-end receiving TE. I remember one film guy saying Yankoff really struggled as a route runner. Maybe that improves, but again, it's projection.

Same issue at receiver. Some are talking up Burks, but route precision has never been his calling card either.

Ironically, the one guy who does profile as a polished route runner is Antonio Williams. Yes, he's a rookie, so I'm not declaring him the answer. But his skill set might fit Jayden extremely well, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if he gets more action than people expect. And for the same reason, maybe Van Jefferson ultimately leapfrogs Burks—not because he's more physically gifted, but because he's the more dependable route runner.

That's why I like the TE room but don't see 12 or 13 personnel as some magical catch-all solution to the WR issue. If Washington had multiple proven, high-end receiving tight ends, I'd understand the excitement. But that's not what they have IMO. They have intriguing wild cards.

Can Chig become a more polished route runner? Maybe. Can Sinnott finally break out? Maybe. Can Bates become more involved in the passing game? Maybe. Can Yankoff improve as a route runner? Maybe.

But that's a lot of maybes. I don't look at this TE room and see a loaded, proven unit that can simply offset a weakness at WR. I see upside. I see possibilities. I see some interesting players. But I also see a group we're projecting onto—and that's a very different thing from already having the answers.

 

[DWinzit]

I love the receiving weapon Chig brings to our offense, something we lacked last year.

I don't rely on Burks becoming anything but really hoping he can prove itself big and stay healthy in the preseason. Luke is the guy we really need to shine I think along with WIlliams of course

Van Jefferson is a guy that at first look won't make the team but I could totally see him making the team and being a decent contributor in different roles.

 

[burgold]

I think if Burks can become a reliable chain mover/possession type that's all we need from him. We can look for dynamic plays from Terry, Lane, Dyami, and Chig. White, Burks, and Williams role will be to get open and keep the drive going.