Roster transition in the Shanny era

So square peg-round hole is good roster management or you'd advocate reshaping philosophy to suit two ill fitting players? Not trying to be a wiseass, just trying to grasp your issue with the roster management under Shanahan as it relates to players he cut that are on rosters elsewhere.They let them go because they were deemed to be "inconsistent" players unworthy of long-term deals. Not bad performers within the scheme, inconsistent performers.

Well, whose fault was that? The players? Well, at the time you could have argued that, but then they went elsewhere and performed like deserving pro bowlers. Nothing remotely inconsistent in their game.

So the only people who were wrong were those who determined that they were inconsistent performers in the first place. Again, no one thought these players were bad here, but Carter couldn't consistently do what was asked of an edge player in the scheme (I'm amazed they didn't try him over the tackle at LDE with Lorenzo Alexander as the in-space edge guy, but that is their prerogative).

Carter was still our second best pass rusher last season, and Rogers was our best or second best cover corner (depending what you thought of Phil Buchanon). That's what they were in this scheme. In other roles, they were pro bowlers. But if you looked at this years defense and thought that it couldn't have used a cover guy or another pass rusher, well, then I don't agree.

Full disclosure: I didn't disagree with the decision to get rid of either of them. But that is not an excuse for poor roster management. I just think it's masquerading as one. The bigger issue is that when they were here in 2010, the unit underperformed and they got blamed for it. Good teams don't pass the blame, but that's something that the Redskins have been doing on departed veterans since the Cerrato days.

To say the 2010 defense wasn't talented or didn't have the right pieces simply isn't accurate. What those two guys did in 2011 (as every down players) shows as much.

Redskins blamed Carter and Rogers? Interesting

Also, are you suggesting that Shanahan "can't find a role for most [of the] players" on the current roster?? There are lots of gaps to fill, but, c'mon man that's just crazy talk.

You mean like we did with Carter and Rogers? Like we may do with Landry? (Honestly, I don't remember if we cut Carter or just didn't renew. Even if we cut him, his replacement was a definite upgrade in our scheme and, letting him go, let us keep a couple of younger developmental guys - Jackson and Marcus White).

Well, seeing as 35 players of the 2009 roster are no longer in the NFL, I would suggest a substantial amount of people more knowledgeable than Redskins fans would agree that the 2009 roster contained a lot of "useless" players. Also, with an 85% turnover, there are going to be lots of "he's crap, but at least he's my crap" moves (Maake comes to mind).My apologies on a misrepresentation of your argument. I'm so confused by the many different defenses for Shanahan that my brain is combining them into arguments that no one is making. I apologize for making a straw man about a high percentage of the current roster being non-scheme fits. That's not really the problem that caused 6-10/5-11.

Carter was released prior to drafting Kerrigan, creating the obvious need for an edge rusher. Rogers hit free agency, but the scheme-fit argument about Rogers was disingenuous when Shanahan made it and it's disingenuous now. I know the Redskins want to be a zone coverage team and they viewed Rogers as an inconsistent zone player. But I've spent a lot of time grading Rogers as a corner since 2005; he's not a poor zone player. The problem, IMO, was positioning (on the slot) in the Haslett defense. And "inconsistent" when you have the corner who gave up more passing yards than any player in football on the other side of the field is a really suspect term anyway.

It's the same problem the Eagles had with Nnamdi Asomugha this year. They got it fixed by the last four games though. The Redskins have a strong tendency to project failures onto departed players, a tendency that pre-dates Mike Shanahan. It's nice on some level to see Redskins draft picks make pro bowls, no matter how little affiliation I have with them when they do it.

If we do it with Landry, the mistakes are the same. Look, I realize Landry is doing himself no favors with this charade of trying to avoid surgery. I get that the Redskins probably should be growing frustrated with him. If you continue to let good secondary players walk because they do dumb things that make you want to pull your hair out, and then act like "hey, we're letting Landry walk now, it's addition by subtraction!" Well, sure. Have fun. Did I mention that I will criticize the Redskins for mishandling the situation? Thought you should know.

If you want to send a message, slap him with the franchise tag and don't open up long term contract negotiations until he gets his act together. He's a player you need in the defense, let's not overlook that.

The 2009 roster did contain a lot of useless players without any trade value. It also happened to include many of the players who are the high quality performers on the current team. And I think there could have been at least a few more quality starters on the 2011 team if things had been managed better.

One thing the Redskins have done well is getting picks for players they don't want anymore. What they've struggled with is replacing the players they don't want anymore with players who 1) they do want, and 2) are actually capable.

Redskins blamed Carter and Rogers? Interesting

Well at least we've moved on to players worth talking about.

Redskins blamed Carter and Rogers? InterestingAre you asserting they did not?

Because their efforts to bring either of them back onto the 2011 team, well, failed.

Well at least we've moved on to players worth talking about.Wait only veteran starters are worth talking about?

I suppose we could start discussing McNabb and Haynesworth. What are those two worth going forward?

Are you asserting they did not?

Because their efforts to bring either of them back onto the 2011 team, well, failed.

Blamed is the not word I would use

**awaits 10 paragraph response**

Blamed is the not word I would use

**awaits 10 paragraph response**Let's try "soured" then.

So we're not going to talk about how it was Andre Carter who went to the Redskins front office initially and said "no hard feelings but I don't think where you guys are headed and what I'm looking for mesh anymore" or that basically the whole league "soured" on Carlos Rogers' initial contract demands

So we're not going to talk about how it was Andre Carter who went to the Redskins front office initially and said "no hard feelings but I don't think where you guys are headed and what I'm looking for mesh anymore" or that basically the whole league "soured" on Carlos Rogers' initial contract demands

It seems the Skins Mgmt stated that he requested the trade to find a team more in line with his abilities......AND they honored it because he's a great dude that worked hard...Super Smart....Always fighting his guts out...etc