You hate to hear about potentially significant injuries, especially this early in the process of the offseason.
The Washington Redskins began the first OTA practice of phase three of the offseason program on Monday. Not five plays into the practice session, linebacker Reuben Foster went down on the field in a heap with a non-contact leg injury. Foster required an air cast and a cart to leave the practice field. It’s not yet been confirmed whether the injury will be significant, but coach Gruden dubbed the injury “very concerning.”
The Redskins have spent a lot of time on Foster. They took a big risk claiming him off of waivers after the 49ers released him following multiple off-field incidents. They anxiously waited to find out whether the NFL would suspend him, which they chose not to. Now, they could potentially lose Foster for the season.
This injury does open up an opportunity for a trade that may have not been there before the injury. Now there is a possibility that the Redskins look outside their own roster to add another linebacker. The Chiefs in particular, have a linebacker the roster who is a better fit for the Redskins defensive scheme.
Reggie Ragland was traded from the Bills to the Chiefs under the guise that he was not a good fit for the Bills 4-3 defense. Just a year later the Chiefs have switched to a 4-3 defense. Ragland once again is unlikely to be a fit because of a change to a new scheme. The Redskins currently run a 3-4 base defense under DC Greg Manusky, so scheme fit wouldn’t be a problem in this move.
Additionally, Ragland has an allegiance that could make him extra appealing to the Redskins. The Redskins have six former Alabama Crimson Tide players on their defense including Foster, who was Ragland’s running mate in 2015 at Alabama. Ragland does offer a different skill set to Foster. He’s not as speedy as Foster, but Ragland is a punishing two-down linebacker.
So who or what could Brett Veach potentially pry from the grasps of the Redskins in a trade involving Ragland? Obviously there could be some minimal draft compensation like a Day 3 pick, but the Chiefs are probably looking for some earlier return on investment.
There is no doubt in my mind that GM Bruce Allen could try to move cornerback Josh Norman after June 1, in order to clear $11.5 million in cap space. Norman hasn’t been all the Redskins has hoped for when they signed him to a five-year $75 million dollar contract.
The Chiefs would be on the hook for two years and $24 million remaining on Norman’s contract. It’s a hefty chunk of change, but with the Chiefs currently in win now mode while Patrick Mahomes is still on his rookie deal, this is a contract that they could afford to take on during the next two seasons.
This type of player-for-player trade could potentially be a big win for both teams. Washington would shed a big contract of a CB who has underperformed since joining the team. They’d also get a player at a position of need. Kansas City would also add a player at a position of need, but they’d get rid of a player who no longer fits their defensive scheme.
Not sure that the Chiefs would have any real interest in Josh Norman. But damn if we could trade Reggie Ragland and a day 3 pick for Josh Norman it is hard not to say Hell Yes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by oldman:
"He’s not as speedy as Foster, but Ragland is a punishing two-down linebacker." Obviously, this was written by someone that didn't watch too many Chiefs games last year. The only thing Ragland punished was air.
Don't listen to this guy.
Yeah yea yea he's a punishing two down backer. For sure. Absolutely. Punishing.
I'm not gonna be hating on Ragland until he proves he sucks while playing for any coach other than Sutton. Seems to me that Sutton seldom (if ever) put his players in a situation where they could play to their strengths (see Houston playing in coverage as an example). Apparently Sutton's SCHEME was the focus, and NOT his players capabilities.
So, until I see proof positive that Ragland cannot contribute under Spags, I'm gonna hold criticism.
And yes, the past 2-3 years, Sutton was that bad. Period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Meatloaf:
I'm not gonna be hating on Ragland until he proves he sucks while playing for any coach other than Sutton. Seems to me that Sutton seldom (if ever) put his players in a situation where they could play to their strengths (see Houston playing in coverage as an example). Apparently Sutton's SCHEME was the focus, and NOT his players capabilities.
So, until I see proof positive that Ragland cannot contribute under Spags, I'm gonna hold criticism.
And yes, the past 2-3 years, Sutton was that bad. Period.
Yeah, I mean it's not like Chris Jones, Dee Ford, Justin Houston, and even Allen Bailey all had their best years under Sutton or anything. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Yeah, I mean it's not like Chris Jones, Dee Ford, Justin Houston, and even Allen Bailey all had their best years under Sutton or anything.
Sutton was the only coach these guys played for, so I'm not sure I get your point? I mean you could argue that Sutton was the best coach these guys ever had, and that he was the worst coach these guys ever had!
I just think that Sutton put scheme first and player capability second....rather than mold a scheme around player talents. Seems to me that Sutton simply was not going to modify scheme to suit said talents. [Reply]
Ragland and something for Josh Doctson. Doctson hasn't gotten really over 500 yards in a season, but give him to Mahomes and see what he can do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
That's the equivalent of saying that Dee Ford had his best year under Bob Sutton. He also had his worst year under Bob Sutton.
Well played.
Why even debate? Sutton was a terrible coach with terrible coaches on his staff. we don't even know for sure if Thomas was a good coach. We know he was a good player... [Reply]