Why did we keep Tryon?

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.


We did, he's on the practice squad.

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

I don't know who is better. Keep in mind that the coaches saw Richardson and Tryon a LOT more than we did. I'm willing to give the coaches the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Saying someone is not qualified to make an NFL roster does not make you a "hater"....especially if you are a fan of the team pulling for the guy to succeed.
It is just an objective opinion based off of a ton of film.

I would understand keeping him on the practice squad.
The reality is the team decided they needed 5 CB's and he beat out the weak competition.

If you are comparing Tryon's performance to others, few would argue that he performed better than some other cuts such as Mason and McMullen.

I think we all expected a mid round corner to not get torched so frequently.
We all understand that he is a long term project and that corners need to be tested on an island...but long term projects should initially be on the practice squad, not be called into action on game day if there is an injury.

The reality is Tryon, Chris Wilson made the team and not Mason or McMullen.
Why not use the practice squad and keep all 4?

They probably felt that Tryon would have been claimed if he was put on the practice squad. Even though he was bad in the games he was still a pretty highly ranked prospect and anyone who had him on thier draft board may have claimed him.

We kept Tryon because it would have been embarrassing to cut him taking him as a long shot in the 4th round. Fact is, Tryon was awful, he looked lost,and Matteral Richardson played better than he did. This was the one roster spot that was really just a poor move.

Here is an excellent Q&A with Scott Campbell about the roster cuts and the thoughts behind them:
Wednesday, September 3: Talking Cuts With Scott Campbell « The Official Blog of The Washington Redskins (http://theredskinsblog.com/2008/09/03/wednesday-september-3-talking-cuts-with-scott-campbell/#comment-2260)

Here is an excellent Q&A with Scott Campbell about the roster cuts and the thoughts behind them:
Wednesday, September 3: Talking Cuts With Scott Campbell « The Official Blog of The Washington Redskins (http://theredskinsblog.com/2008/09/03/wednesday-september-3-talking-cuts-with-scott-campbell/#comment-2260)

Good read thanks for posting that.

Yes, maybe we drafted him too high but, we needed to draft a CB. None of our CBs are durable and we have to build for the future. We can afford to give him some time to stick. He has speed and had good stats coming out of college.

Maybe the bickering is about who should be on the roster instead of him?

We kept Tryon because it would have been embarrassing to cut him taking him as a long shot in the 4th round. Fact is, Tryon was awful, he looked lost,and Matteral Richardson played better than he did. This was the one roster spot that was really just a poor move.

I don't buy that. You can cut a 4th round pick without embarresment. You are definitley locked into keeping rounds 1-3 the first year but 4th round picks and lower get cut all the time. They are obviously too high on him to pull the cord just yet over the bad pre season game performances.

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

Actually JLee, we kept them both. Fact is that the chances another team would take Tryon is probably a lot higher than someone taking Richardson(obviously no one else took Richardson so even a 1% chance of someone taking Tryon is higher) and then we WOULD have only had one choice. As it is now, we can develop both, and see who can compete in the future.