Chat wrap: Redskins' future at linebacker

We had our weekly chat Tuesday. And though things got dicey around the middle, as you can see here, we still managed to get some good questions asked and answered around the silliness. Some of the highlights:

Scott (Virginia Beach): 3/4 (London Fletcher, Brian Orakpo, Perry Riley) of the redskins starting linebackers, 3 of their current CBs (Josh Wilson, E.J. Biggers, DeAngelo Hall), and Fred Davis are all free agents next year. Do you see the skins retaining all of these players with that $35 million in cap space? Retention seems to be key to what Shanny wants to do.

Dan Graziano: Well, I think Fletcher probably retires after this season and Orakpo probably gets an extension sometime this summer, so those will work themselves out. Davis' status depends on whether he can stay healthy and produce. Riley they like and plan to keep as Fletcher's successor.

Jason (New York City): Dan, I appreciate your work. Do you have a sense for what the giants salary cap situation as of now is like in 2014 or 2015. Since the antrel rolle and baas signing in 09 and 10, they have been prudent cap wise, so i was wondering if you think they have room to resign JPP, Hakeem Nicks, Victor Cruz and hopefully a rejuvenated Justin Tuck? Thanks.

DG: According to our figures, the Giants have about $102 million in cap cost committed to 45 players for 2014 and about $63.9 million committed to 14 players for 2015. David Baas and Will Beatty have big cap numbers, and so does Terrell Thomas, so it's possible that one goes away. It looks as though they'll have room to work, even if the caps stay flat.

Austin (St. Louis): Which running back in the NFCE will be hurt the most by the new helmet rule?

DG: Whichever one stupidly insists on leading with the top of his helmet in the open field. That RB could be hurt very badly, and quite literally. But I will say that, at those meetings, a few people told me DeMarco Murray was held up as an example of a back that did that too much.

junior (South Jersey): Dan, wouldn't it serve the Eagles best to stay put at #4 being that they might not be able to trade back with any team and if they want a impact player for the future that can play for years to come, wouldn't the best option be staying in the top 10?

DG: Yeah, there's no good reason for the Eagles to trade back. They'll be able to get a long-term impact player at 4, and that's what they need. They have nine picks in this draft. Nothing to be gained by moving back.