In the meantime, the Redskins could begin working to restructure the contracts of higher-paid players to create more salary-cap flexibility. All the while, the team’s talent evaluators are finalizing their plans for next week’s player interviews and the NFL combine.

AD

We discuss a lot of these topics in today’s mailbag.

Thanks, as always, for taking part. Keep the questions coming. E-mail me at mike.jones@washpost.com with the subject line of “Mailbag question,” and we’ll do it all over again next week.

AD

The more I think about it, I feel the franchise tag makes the most sense for Kirk. Assuming The Skins go that route, what’s the difference in salary should they sign Kirk to a contract this year versus signing him to a contract in 2017? I would think signing him this year would cost the Skins $17 million to $20 mil per season. Is it possible those figures go up should he have another season like the one that just passed?

AD

– Al Soumah, Falls Church

Yes, it’s definitely possible those numbers go up after another full season of playing time.

Having Cousins play on the franchise tag would mean roughly a $20 million salary for this season, and all of that $20 million would count against the cap. A multiple-year deal would translate into a salary in the range of anywhere from $15 million to $20 million. Those annual salaries could be structured in a more cap-friendly way, however. If Cousins plays under the franchise tag designation this season – and if he balls out – the Redskins could wind up having to pay him even more next year. Having to use the franchise tag for a second straight year would mean his salary would increase by 120 percent on that $20 million from this year’s tag.

AD

AD

Using the tag this year on Cousins could help the Redskins avoid overpaying long-term in the event that Cousins winds up being a one-hit wonder. But, given his steady improvement, he doesn’t seem like that kind of player.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens here. I’ve gotten some e-mails from fans worried after hearing that the sides aren’t close to nailing down a deal yet. But rest easy. This is still very early in the process. It’s natural that the two sides would open negotiations with very different financial stances. The team starts low, the agent starts high, and they work their way toward a middle ground that suits both sides. If they fail to do so by March 1, the Redskins would likely use the franchise tag. And even in that event, because the sides have until July 15 pursue a long-term deal, to they probably would keep negotiating.

Every year, there are the expected cuts and unexpected cuts: which Redskins players should be “looking over their shoulders” as the team goes into the offseason with designs to create cap space? And given the team’s present cap situation, is worrying about a tight financial [situation a] reasonable worry for now?

AD

AD

– Emmett Mosley

There certainly could be surprise cuts, and there definitely are some more obvious candidates. Robert Griffin III is cut candidate No. 1. The team will likely make a move on him and avoid the $16.155 million cap hit he would cause if he remained on the roster. Cutting linebacker Perry Riley Jr. would save another $4 million, and cutting wide receiver Andre Roberts would translate into a $3 million savings if the move happened right now. But, if the Redskins cut Roberts with a June 1 designation, they would save $4 million. Cutting Kory Lichtensteiger, which seems unlikely because he’s the most reliable center on the roster (and the only one under contract), would save $2.95 million, and cutting safety Jeron Johnson, who disappointed last season, would save just more than $1 million.

If Jason Hatcher decides to retire, as he indicated might be possible, that saves the team around $8 million. If they cut him instead, the Redskins would save themselves $4.2 million.

AD

AD

Other players are stronger candidates to have their deals restructured instead of getting cut. Those include safety Dashon Goldson, who has an $8 million cap hit, wide receiver Pierre Garcon, who has a $10.2 million cap hit, and possibly fellow receiver DeSean Jackson ($9.25 million cap hit) and cornerback Chris Culliver ($9.25 million cap hit).

The team currently looks to have about $12 million in cap space, but I don’t think there’s reason for grave concern. The team’s cap expert Eric Schaffer always seems to make enough moves to create the flexibility that the team needs.

I was just wondering your thoughts on Trent Murphy’s role for the 2016 Redskins.

AD

We used a high draft pick on him and he seems destined for a backup role at OLB. It seems he lacks the foot speed that 3-4 pass rushers require, and he really doesn’t have the bulk to move to DE.

AD

I was wondering about a move to inside linebacker. I was wondering in our hybrid sets, if you have any information on Murphy ever lining up inside in the past. He seems to be a pretty sure tackler and his height (6 feet 5) and length could present some problems for slants across the middle and help him chip tight ends. I’m wondering if they have “experimented” with this at all?

– Dan McDonald

Murphy has taken some snaps at inside linebacker. When Washington’s inside linebacker ranks thinned out severely because of injuries, coaches gave Murphy some practice reps there in case someone else got hurt and they needed him in a game. However, I don’t know that Murphy has the quickness and athleticism to do a lot of covering of tight ends downfield as he would have to as an inside linebacker.

AD

If he does switch positions, which at least was discussed to some degree last season as a possible future move, then I think defensive end would be the spot. It would mean bulking up quite a bit. But Murphy is strong and has done well against the run. There were times when he did slide inside and rush out of a three-point stance, so it’s not foreign to him.

AD

However, there’s no word out of Redskins Park that Murphy will definitely make a position change. Although it was discussed at one point last season, no final decision was made. I did ask general manager Scot McCloughan about this at the Senior Bowl, and he said such a decision wouldn’t be made until they got into offseason practices. I do know that at the end of the season, Murphy’s defensive coaches were encouraged by the improvements he had shown as an outside linebacker. So, it’s very possible that he remains an outside linebacker in base packages, and then slides in to defensive end on nickel packages.

Could Matt Forte help the Redskins and do you think that they keep RGIII so he can improve to be a backup? I don’t want him to go to Dallas.

AD

– Brian Burke

Former Bears running back Matt Forte certainly could help the Redskins. He would fill the need for a veteran with versatility as a runner and pass-catcher. Forte, an eight-year veteran, has averaged 1,075 rushing yards and 514.5 receiving yards per season. He is probably on the downside of his career. But paired with a young starter like Matt Jones, Forte probably could still have some impactful years.

AD

In regards to your other question, no, I don’t see the team holding on to Robert Griffin III. His contract calls for him to earn $16.155 million in 2016. You don’t pay a backup that much.

What do you think about moving Morgan Moses to the other starting guard position and signing a free agent right tackle? There are a lot of free agent offensive tackles out there this year.

– Bryant Simmons

There’s no reason to move Moses from right tackle, where he had a promising first season as a starter. If he continues to work as hard as he did last year, he will improve. Coaches believe he has the potential to develop into one of the best right tackles in the game. The Redskins also have candidates at left guard. Shawn Lauvao, Spencer Long and Arie Koudandjio will likely compete for that starting job.

Hey Mike I’m curious as to why the Redskins used D-Hall at strong safety and Dashon Goldson at free safety. To me, it seems that D-Hall would have been a better free safety, because he probably has better cover skills and is quicker while Goldson is a big safety, would can hit and led the team in tackle. So, why not have him at strong safety?

AD

– D. Holmes

The Redskins listed Hall as a strong safety on their depth chart, but when he and Goldson shared the secondary, Hall played free safety more often than not, and Goldson played closer to the line like a strong safety. In Washington’s defense, the positions are interchangeable, and the two players will swap alignments depending on what side receivers motion to. But in most cases, Joe Barry did prefer to have Hall playing deep centerfield because he had better range than Goldson.

More from The Post:

D.C. Sports Bog: Redskins and Cowboys likely to play on Thanksgiving