Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Hey, maybe the young guys will impress in the preseason. These games will be critical to evaluate them. Is it a bad thing if someone ends up on the practice squad? Every team is facing the harsh reality of having to make quicker than usual decisions on their rookies this year.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Well, if Hankerson looks good but still drops balls, he's pretty much locked into that 4th WR spots for the year. So then lets take the best of all worlds and say in this preseason that Terrence Austin, Aldrick Robinson, and Niles Paul all play quite well for young guys and look to our opponents like players who can help their WR situations. Lets say they play so well that it just becomes clear that Donte Stallworth has no role here.

Now, million dollar question: which two do you cut and expose to waivers in September? Why are you cutting two high upside rookies on a rebuilding team? Why, of course, because Moss and Gaffney are your starters.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821612]Ok so why not let all the young guys compete against each other??? Makes no sense to bring in middle age and old guys on a team that's rebuilding, especially at the wr position. He even tried to bring in Brandon Stockley. The Eagles put in DeShawn Jackson and Jeremy Maclin right away. I didn't see them signing older guys.[/quote]

What are we still upset about Stokley?

Even if Stokley was signed, we'd have four wide receivers out of the 14 we had that would be 30 or over.

FOUR. Out of 14. There are still more receivers under the age of 30. Stallworth is listed behind Hankerson on the depth chart.

And the Eagles already had a solid core of receivers AROUND DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. So that, you know, the whole friggin' game didn't fall squarely on their shoulders.

I can't imagine how the "let them go out there and fail" crowd figures that's supposed to work. Did Devin Thomas get any better with his numerous, NUMEROUS failures? No, and he's bloody unlikely to get better for the Giants. (At least I hope not, God I don't feel like arguing about DT again).

There's something to be said for having some confidence, not to mention having veterans around you to be able to teach you what coaches can't.

I'm not worried about our young guys. I think, eventually, they all make the football team. Good on the Eagles for just starting DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. They also went on a spending spree for over 30-year old jerks while D-Jax threatened to hold out so he can get paid to the level of his play.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=GTripp0012;821609]I can buy Gaffney as the guy who will gradually give reps to Hankerson as he earns them over the next two [B]years, setting up a breakout (in receiving yards) 2013 for Hankerson when Gaffney is out of his way.[/B] But I also think the best thing that you can do for Hankerson if they really like him is just play him. Instead of playing Gaffney until Hankerson knows everything about everything, just throw him out there and let him fail a few times.

We screwed up a lot about the Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly draft, but one thing they didn't do is acquire a vet to block them. Either Chad Johnsoncinco was going to be the acquisition that offseason, or it was going to be Thomas. And even then, Devin Thomas' lack of grasp of an NFL offense was probably the single biggest reason the 2008 team failed to make the playoffs. But that was justifiable because the idea was that the 2009 team would benefit from that.

I firmly believe that having Jabar Gaffney or Donte Stallworth in 2008 would have put that team in the playoffs, but I think it's a different animal entirely when talking about the difference between 4 wins (receiver position is total crap) and 6 wins (receiver position performs better than expected).[/quote]

Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=GTripp0012;821627]Well, if Hankerson looks good but still drops balls, he's pretty much locked into that 4th WR spots for the year. So then lets take the best of all worlds and say in this preseason that Terrence Austin, Aldrick Robinson, and Niles Paul all play quite well for young guys and look to our opponents like players who can help their WR situations. Lets say they play so well that it just becomes clear that Donte Stallworth has no role here.

Now, million dollar question: which two do you cut and expose to waivers in September? Why are you cutting two high upside rookies on a rebuilding team? Why, of course, because Moss and Gaffney are your starters.[/quote]

That's business, unfortunately, and that's what the coaches have to decide.

Fact is, Gaff and Moss are here to stay. AA's on, Hank's on. Banks, Robinson, Austin and Paul are going to have to fight like hell to get a spot.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821631]Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.[/quote]Well, yeah, read the rest of what I wrote. I was comparing the Shanaplan to what pretty much any other modern coach would do in the same situation.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821631]Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.[/quote]

All these teams are also teams that are in infinitely better situations than we are.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;821621]You think that's all they've got?[/quote]

Matty this isn't physics. The playbook thing is so overrated. Like I said, keep things real simple and work on execution, not formationing, shifting and motioning people to death. This is what the Colts do. Very little motion, no shifting and not a lot of formations. They stress execution with Reggie Wayne and bunch of no names.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NLC1054;821632]That's business, unfortunately, and that's what the coaches have to decide.

Fact is, Gaff and Moss are here to stay. AA's on, Hank's on. Banks, Robinson, Austin and Paul are going to have to fight like hell to get a spot.[/quote]Okay, this is a logical and reasonable position, but then we have to cut the charade that we're "finally rebuilding now." If you're right, then you have to hold Shanahan accountable for the ultimate product of his offense, seeing as that such a team wouldn't be expected to improve in 2012.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NLC1054;821634]All these teams are also teams that are in infinitely better situations than we are.[/quote]

And why is Tampa Bay in a better situation than we are?

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821638]And why is Tampa Bay in a better situation than we are?[/quote]

Better quarterback. Better o-line. Average defense, but oh well. They find one helluva running back in Blount. The Bucs were in a better position than we were, especially with a guy like Josh Freeman. And even though they went younger, they have a young quarterback and young receivers growing together.

[quote]Matty this isn't physics. The playbook thing is so overrated. Like I said, keep things real simple and work on execution, not formationing, shifting and motioning people to death. This is what the Colts do. Very little motion, no shifting and not a lot of formations. They stress execution with Reggie Wayne and bunch of no names.[/quote]

And then you have teams like the Green Bay Packers, who get by just fine with multiple formations and lots of motioning.

There's more than one way to 1.) build a football team, and 2.) execute an offense, or a defense for that matter.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821636]Matty this isn't physics. The playbook thing is so overrated. Like I said, keep things real simple and work on execution, not formationing, shifting and motioning people to death. This is what the Colts do. Very little motion, no shifting and not a lot of formations. They stress execution with Reggie Wayne and bunch of no names.[/quote]

It's not physics but it's not Madden either.

30 plays... c'mon. Oversimplify much?

And now you want to change up the offense too??

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=GTripp0012;821627]Well, if Hankerson looks good but still drops balls, he's pretty much locked into that 4th WR spots for the year. So then lets take the best of all worlds and say in this preseason that Terrence Austin, Aldrick Robinson, and Niles Paul all play quite well for young guys and look to our opponents like players who can help their WR situations. Lets say they play so well that it just becomes clear that Donte Stallworth has no role here.

Now, million dollar question: which two do you cut and expose to waivers in September? Why are you cutting two high upside rookies on a rebuilding team? Why, of course, because Moss and Gaffney are your starters.[/quote]

If they all look good in August that will be a nice spot to be in.

Let's wait to see how things actually play out before deciding if we're exposing any high upside guys.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821631]Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.[/quote]

Why the hangup with the WRs?

Why not just cut all the veterans on the team and just go with rookies?

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

ATTRACTIVE OFFER...........no thanx

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Fred Davis should be working with the WRs. Cooley, Paulsen, and Sellers can handle playing TEs.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=diehard;821671]Fred Davis should be working with the WRs. Cooley, Paulsen, and Sellers can handle playing TEs.[/quote]

Dot. Dot. Dot.

He's not fast enough to be a WR. Would be like putting Banks at LG.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NLC1054;821643][B]Better quarterback. Better o-line. Average defense, but oh well. They find one helluva running back in Blount. The Bucs were in a better position than we were, especially with a guy like Josh Freeman. And even though they went younger, they have a young quarterback and young receivers growing together.[/B]



And then you have teams like the Green Bay Packers, who get by just fine with multiple formations and lots of motioning.

There's more than one way to 1.) build a football team, and 2.) execute an offense, or a defense for that matter.[/quote]

My point exactly....they drafted some young guys and let them play.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;821647]It's not physics but it's not Madden either.

30 plays... c'mon. Oversimplify much?

And now you want to change up the offense too??[/quote]

No. Just keep things simple. I meant to say instead of having 100 pass plays tone it down to 30.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;821649]Why the hangup with the WRs?

Why not just cut all the veterans on the team and just go with rookies?[/quote]

I just don't understand why they draft guys and then bring in older guys. If you have little or no intention of playing them then draft some freakin' o-linemen in the later rounds. This team is seriously obsessed with wr's. lol.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=diehard;821671]Fred Davis should be working with the WRs. Cooley, Paulsen, and Sellers can handle playing TEs.[/quote]

Que?

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Just saw on twitter if the Niles Paul ends up on the PS, there's little chance that he'd stay unclaimed.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=12thMan;821709]Just saw on twitter if the Niles Paul ends up on the PS, there's little chance that he'd stay unclaimed.[/quote]

Yeah, kinda depends on what he flashes during the preseason

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821704]I just don't understand why they draft guys and then bring in older guys. If you have little or no intention of playing them then draft some freakin' o-linemen in the later rounds. This team is seriously obsessed with wr's. lol.[/quote]

But then we'd have to cut the veteran OL

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=12thMan;821709]Just saw on twitter if the Niles Paul ends up on the PS, there's little chance that he'd stay unclaimed.[/quote]

Hopefully that means he earns the #5 job. The dudes gonna be our offensive rookie of the year.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Assuming we keep 6... Moss, Gaffney, Armstrong, Hankerson, Austin & Banks is what's floating my boat right now.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

WR who make 53 man roster.
1.Moss
2.Gaffney
3.Armstrong
4.Hankerson
5.Austin (SP)
6.Paul (SP)
7.Banks (KR/PR) if not put on IR

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skins89moss;827692]WR who make 53 man roster.
1.Moss
2.Gaffney
3.Armstrong
4.Hankerson
5.Austin (SP)
6.Paul (SP)
7.Banks (KR/PR) if not put on IR[/quote]

No way we'd carry 7 Wrs and no way hankerson is higher than Austin

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Moss
Gaffney
Armstrong
Austin
Hankerson
Paul/Banks

Austin needs to be on the field as much as possible this year. That guy has top 2 potential not too far down the line.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Moss
Gaffney
Armstrong
Austin
Hankerson
Banks

Paul to the PS. Stallworth gets the axe (he doesn't play teams)

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;827835]Moss
Gaffney
Armstrong
Austin
Hankerson
Banks

Paul to the PS. Stallworth gets the axe (he doesn't play teams)[/quote]


Im gonna switch out Banks with Stallworth and drop Hankerson down a notch. A injured Banks doesnt play special teams either. Unless Banks plays [I]and[/I] doesnt swell up after the game next week i think he starts the year on the PUP list

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;827835]Moss
Gaffney
Armstrong
Austin
Hankerson
Banks

Paul to the PS. Stallworth gets the axe (he doesn't play teams)[/quote]


How do you still have Banks on that list seeing as how the KR/PR have been just as effective without him in there? I think there is too much potential on Paul to let go (not that he's shown us much yet) as compared to a 1 trick pony who's talents we've shown have been replaced in his absence.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NC_Skins;827887]How do you still have Banks on that list seeing as how the KR/PR have been just as effective without him in there? I think there is too much potential on Paul to let go (not that he's shown us much yet) as compared to a 1 trick pony who's talents we've shown have been replaced in his absence.[/quote]

If Banks is healthy he's too valuable in the return game. Austin is a nice backup as a returner, but Banks is still the big play guy. Austin doesn't match him in that regard.

Paul hasn't shown us much in the passing game. John Keim has remarked that his route running at this point is still really a work in progress.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=mlmpetert;827883]Im gonna switch out Banks with Stallworth and drop Hankerson down a notch. A injured Banks doesnt play special teams either. Unless Banks plays [I]and[/I] doesnt swell up after the game next week i think he starts the year on the PUP list[/quote]

He can't start on PUP. He would have needed to be on there at the start of camp.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;827835]Moss
Gaffney
Armstrong
Austin
Hankerson
Banks

Paul to the PS. Stallworth gets the axe (he doesn't play teams)[/quote]

This makes the most sense at this point assuming Banks is healthy

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Moss
Gaffney
Armstrong
Austin
Hankerson
Paul
Banks- If healthy, keep him as a return specialist, carry 2 QB's to create a position for him. If not healthy and it would not surprise me if he is put on IR for the year.

I would love to keep all 7.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

If Banks goes to IR (hope not), do they keep Stallworth as a 6th wr or go w/5?

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Oh man, I love Austin. This guy is for real unlike our post scrub preseason wr heros. He just might be worthy of the #3 wr spot.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;827897]He can't start on PUP. He would have needed to be on there at the start of camp.[/quote]


Damn, I didnt realize.

I dint think Stallworth would do anything when we signed him but hes really impressed me. Stallworth is a guy who could be the number 3 reciever on the team and Banks cant be in my eyes. If theres ever a injury or suspension issue at WR i think Stallworth would be better suited to step in and contribute then Banks.

I agree that Banks is at least a solid notch above Austin in his return skills, particularly in his KO returns. I guess it all comes down to coaches thinking that hell be healthy enough to play each week...

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

#1 Moss
#2 Gaffney
#3 Armstrong
#4 Austin
#5 Stallworth
#6 Hankerson

Practice Squad:
Paul, Robinson

Banks is making the team as a Special Teamer much like our punter and kicker.