Why did we keep Tryon?

dmvskinzfan08 · 09-02-2008, 04:27 PM

I do think Torrence looked alot better this year.

McMullen can't be placed on the practice squad because he actually has played in games or was on a active roster for a whole season..(or something like that)..am I correct?

dmvskinzfan08 · 09-02-2008, 04:30 PM

Got it somewhat right..had to google it to be sure

Practice Squad Eligibility? «

JLee9718 · 09-02-2008, 04:36 PM

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

Mattyk · 09-02-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLee9718

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

We did, he's on the practice squad.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 09-02-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLee9718

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.

celts32 · 09-02-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsnut

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.

PennSkinsFan · 09-03-2008, 10:56 AM

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.

CRedskinsRule · 09-03-2008, 11:39 AM

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

Mattyk · 09-03-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

Good read thanks for posting that.

celts32 · 09-04-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PennSkinsFanhR

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.

CRedskinsRule · 09-04-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLee9718

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.

JoeRedskin · 09-04-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant observation. You must come from a very very smart family.

T.O.Killa · 09-06-2008, 04:53 PM

I just wanted to point out that Tryon, played in the Giants game and we never saw him.

JLee9718 · 09-08-2008, 11:08 AM

I don't know why we kept Tryon, but I do know that Richardson looked awfully good in the preseason games and he got cut from the 53 man roster.

mcarey032 · 09-09-2008, 12:23 PM

I am sorry, but there is no way that Tryon deserved a spot over Mason. I believe that this is a pride thing and that Zorn wants to put guys that he and Cerrato selected to have some sort of loyalty towards him as opposed to picking the guys that are best suited for this team. You can't tell me that Billy McMullen and Marcus Mason didn't play their way onto this team and that Tryon deserved a spot over them. They kept a guy who was burned like toast and they cut the guys who produced, but supposedly had minor things like he catches the ball with his body and the running back doesn't know the playbook. I am sorry, but I dont care really about how they practice, but it is how they produced and against other teams those two players did so. It is insane that they worked their butts off and Tryon got abused and looked lost out there kept his job. Rediculous.

09-02-2008, 04:27 PM	#46
dmvskinzfan08 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 968	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? I do think Torrence looked alot better this year. McMullen can't be placed on the practice squad because he actually has played in games or was on a active roster for a whole season..(or something like that)..am I correct? __________________ HTTR 09 - RIP#21 HATERS << Misery Loves Company

09-02-2008, 04:30 PM	#47
dmvskinzfan08 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 968	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? Got it somewhat right..had to google it to be sure Practice Squad Eligibility? « __________________ HTTR 09 - RIP#21 HATERS << Misery Loves Company

09-02-2008, 04:36 PM	#48
JLee9718 Impact Rookie Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 559	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

09-03-2008, 10:56 AM	#52
PennSkinsFan Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Age: 42 Posts: 752	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? 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. __________________ DC Pro Sports Report - Home of the Internet's Largest NFL Mock Draft Database. Best Redskins Redskins discussion, theWarpath.net

09-03-2008, 11:39 AM	#53
CRedskinsRule MVP Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Pasadena, Md Age: 45 Posts: 10,899	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? 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

09-06-2008, 04:53 PM	#58
T.O.Killa The Starter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Berlin, MD Posts: 1,937	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? I just wanted to point out that Tryon, played in the Giants game and we never saw him.

09-08-2008, 11:08 AM	#59
JLee9718 Impact Rookie Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 559	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? I don't know why we kept Tryon, but I do know that Richardson looked awfully good in the preseason games and he got cut from the 53 man roster.

09-09-2008, 12:23 PM	#60
mcarey032 Special Teams Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arlington, VA. Posts: 215	Re: Why did we keep Tryon? I am sorry, but there is no way that Tryon deserved a spot over Mason. I believe that this is a pride thing and that Zorn wants to put guys that he and Cerrato selected to have some sort of loyalty towards him as opposed to picking the guys that are best suited for this team. You can't tell me that Billy McMullen and Marcus Mason didn't play their way onto this team and that Tryon deserved a spot over them. They kept a guy who was burned like toast and they cut the guys who produced, but supposedly had minor things like he catches the ball with his body and the running back doesn't know the playbook. I am sorry, but I dont care really about how they practice, but it is how they produced and against other teams those two players did so. It is insane that they worked their butts off and Tryon got abused and looked lost out there kept his job. Rediculous.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Why did we keep Tryon?

Redskins Locker Room