Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-02-2012, 10:27 PM   #16
The Starter
 
T.O.Killa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berlin, MD
Posts: 2,029
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Santana Moss, and Mike "in the basement"Cellars. These guys do nothing, but remind me of the worst years in franchise history.
T.O.Killa is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-02-2012, 10:34 PM   #17
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,264
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

you need a backup QB, and it'll be hard to find one that'll play better for us than grossman cheaply, believe it or not.

and you can't let your starting C just walk, monty will be back whether he's starting or not, he's okay.

cooley and moss are 50-50... if we get a blackmon or colston or bowe, he's kinda not needed. stallworth is fine as a vet min #4 if we don't have anyone else. I figure he'll be in camp if nothing else.

gaffney and hankerson will be good #2/#3s and with davis back and a #1 coming in, we'll be good there. I don't think there's much point in keeping both TEs unless you can't get value (which will be hard between IR/injury and the drug thing).
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 10:46 PM   #18
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,532
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by htownskinfan View Post
I dont know why anyone wants grossman back,you guys are killing me.He is a turnover machine,theres got to be better options out there in the offseason.I want beck and grossman gone.I'd take Mcnabb back over grossman,wheres sage r at? david carr,anybody! please!
I wish they would sign Josh Scobee and cut Gano,but I know theyre not smart enough to do that
Grossman should be kept as the #3 QB. Note the number. Someone has to teach our new #1 and #2.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 10:57 PM   #19
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

My whole thing is that it would seemingly be impossible for Shanahan to survive here unless Grossman can win some games at the beginning of next season.

I think the hope in the organization is that Grossman can take the Redskins to the playoffs next year, and that he stops making so many mistakes because of his environment and coaching. At least, that's what his coaches think/need to think.

Saying Grossman is plan A at this point is pretty much false, but there's a pretty good chance he goes through training camp next year as the starter. And so getting off to a good start in 2012 may very well be dependent on Grossman continuing to grow and fit the offense.

I don't think the no. 2 guy is going to be a traditional number two. I think he will be the number one of the future, whoever that may be.

It will be interesting to see who the competition is for Grossman. Will he be in competition with a draft pick? Or will he be in competition with a veteran?
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:05 PM   #20
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,916
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
My whole thing is that it would seemingly be impossible for Shanahan to survive here unless Grossman can win some games at the beginning of next season.

I think the hope in the organization is that Grossman can take the Redskins to the playoffs next year, and that he stops making so many mistakes because of his environment and coaching. At least, that's what his coaches think/need to think.

Saying Grossman is plan A at this point is pretty much false, but there's a pretty good chance he goes through training camp next year as the starter. And so getting off to a good start in 2012 may very well be dependent on Grossman continuing to grow and fit the offense.

I don't think the no. 2 guy is going to be a traditional number two. I think he will be the number one of the future, whoever that may be.

It will be interesting to see who the competition is for Grossman. Will he be in competition with a draft pick? Or will he be in competition with a veteran?
I think the organization will be just fine if Grossman never took another starting snap for the Redskins. He may have to based on circumstance but not based on an expectation that he will be improved.

Also, the notion that Shanahan will not finish his contract is off base. Snyder knows he has to let a project go to completion. He's not going to derail Shanny after 3 years, even with another 10 loss seasons. Doing so just feeds into what his critics want him to do. The only way Shanny doesn't complete his contract is if he retires first.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:16 PM   #21
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
I think the organization will be just fine if Grossman never took another starting snap for the Redskins. He may have to based on circumstance but not based on an expectation that he will be improved.

Also, the notion that Shanahan will not finish his contract is off base. Snyder knows he has to let a project go to completion. He's not going to derail Shanny after 3 years, even with another 10 loss seasons. Doing so just feeds into what his critics want him to do. The only way Shanny doesn't complete his contract is if he retires first.
Well, I think they (Allen and Snyder, not just Snyder) considered pulling the plug after two years. How could they not have?

Let's be realistic: this is it coming up. It's over without significant improvement and/or playoffs. And good riddance to the losing.

Because of this, I foresee an aggressive offseason that could get Grossman replaced. But assuming he will be back on the roster, it's going to be tough to find someone more qualified to start in Week 1. That's pretty much Luck or Griffin, or a huge money contract to a guy like Matt Flynn, or a blockbuster trade (a first rounder plus) for like Josh Freeman or something. It's a short list.

If the acquisition is Ryan Tannehill or Landry Jones, then Rex Grossman will need to win games in the short term for the era to continue.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:23 PM   #22
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,938
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

The chances that Rex isn't a Skin next year seem pretty low. Simply based on the fact that he'd be a decent #2 for us. He could also easily find work for any number of teams looking for a backup. Rex isn't a bag of sand...he does have some qualities...most notably that he has started plenty of football games and has looked "good" in his career coming off the bench.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:32 PM   #23
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,916
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Well, I think they (Allen and Snyder, not just Snyder) considered pulling the plug after two years. How could they not have?

Let's be realistic: this is it coming up. It's over without significant improvement and/or playoffs. And good riddance to the losing.

Because of this, I foresee an aggressive offseason that could get Grossman replaced. But assuming he will be back on the roster, it's going to be tough to find someone more qualified to start in Week 1. That's pretty much Luck or Griffin, or a huge money contract to a guy like Matt Flynn, or a blockbuster trade (a first rounder plus) for like Josh Freeman or something. It's a short list.

If the acquisition is Ryan Tannehill or Landry Jones, then Rex Grossman will need to win games in the short term for the era to continue.
See I doubt any consideration was given to making a change at this point by either Snyder or Allen. You've been detailed and consistent in your criticism of Shanahan and some of his moves but I guess I see it a little differently. I see a 2009 team that was a mishmash of Gibbs style, Zorn non-style and Snyderatto spending. Everyone Shanahan has brought in has come in for a specific purpose in the system.

This roster while incomplete, has a plan now attached to it. If he was able to win 10 games with this roster, he should have been up for coach of the decade. Now I know what you will say, he compiled this roster, which is true. To that I also add you can't reset a roster and stockpile it with exactly who and what you want. That's a Madden mentality. There was nothing on either side of the ball to build around when he got it so we are seeing about 30% of the work done but he still had to have 53 men on the roster.

The biggest mistake was not keeping Campbell at QB. Sure he's flawed, no doubt but that would have avoided the McNabb error and Grossman's grossness. But that ship has sailed so focus goes forward and his Redskins legacy rests on drafting a QB in the 1st round this year. He's not going the Manning or Flynn route. He has to fix this position, long term, and he know this. You or I have a better chance at being the QB next year than a Tannehill or some other second tier QB prospect.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:43 PM   #24
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.O.Killa View Post
Santana Moss, and Mike "in the basement"Cellars. These guys do nothing, but remind me of the worst years in franchise history.
That's not fair...they have the same amount of time w/ Shanahan as half the guys on the roster
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:45 PM   #25
JUST LIVIN
 
htownskinfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: houston,tx
Age: 52
Posts: 3,407
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Grossman should be kept as the #3 QB. Note the number. Someone has to teach our new #1 and #2.
I would be ok with him 3 but I dont see anyway that happens.If he's here it will be either 1 or 2
__________________
Ho
Lee
Chit
htownskinfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:52 PM   #26
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
See I doubt any consideration was given to making a change at this point by either Snyder or Allen. You've been detailed and consistent in your criticism of Shanahan and some of his moves but I guess I see it a little differently. I see a 2009 team that was a mishmash of Gibbs style, Zorn non-style and Snyderatto spending. Everyone Shanahan has brought in has come in for a specific purpose in the system.

This roster while incomplete, has a plan now attached to it. If he was able to win 10 games with this roster, he should have been up for coach of the decade. Now I know what you will say, he compiled this roster, which is true. To that I also add you can't reset a roster and stockpile it with exactly who and what you want. That's a Madden mentality. There was nothing on either side of the ball to build around when he got it so we are seeing about 30% of the work done but he still had to have 53 men on the roster.

The biggest mistake was not keeping Campbell at QB. Sure he's flawed, no doubt but that would have avoided the McNabb error and Grossman's grossness. But that ship has sailed so focus goes forward and his Redskins legacy rests on drafting a QB in the 1st round this year. He's not going the Manning or Flynn route. He has to fix this position, long term, and he know this. You or I have a better chance at being the QB next year than a Tannehill or some other second tier QB prospect.
Good logic here...but hopefully Shanny isn't guaranteed five years regardless of performance. A franchise hoodwinked for that long is a rare thing.
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:58 PM   #27
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,916
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat View Post
Good logic here...but hopefully Shanny isn't guaranteed five years regardless of performance. A franchise hoodwinked for that long is a rare thing.
Full disclosure, I think there is already a succession plan in place.. Draft a QB this year and keep building the team around him. Coach 2 more years then in the last year of the contract bump upstairs handing off a winning roster to Haslett or Kyle. This was a 3 year project slightly derailed by the uncapped 2010 and lockout in 2011 but was long range all the way from outset.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:14 AM   #28
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
See I doubt any consideration was given to making a change at this point by either Snyder or Allen. You've been detailed and consistent in your criticism of Shanahan and some of his moves but I guess I see it a little differently. I see a 2009 team that was a mishmash of Gibbs style, Zorn non-style and Snyderatto spending. Everyone Shanahan has brought in has come in for a specific purpose in the system.

This roster while incomplete, has a plan now attached to it. If he was able to win 10 games with this roster, he should have been up for coach of the decade. Now I know what you will say, he compiled this roster, which is true. To that I also add you can't reset a roster and stockpile it with exactly who and what you want. That's a Madden mentality. There was nothing on either side of the ball to build around when he got it so we are seeing about 30% of the work done but he still had to have 53 men on the roster.
Agree that 10 wins would have been an unrealistic goal for this roster, but maybe not for a roster with better design. I think Shanahan and his staff are really struggling with game management. But I don't think he (or many others) could have coached this team to 10 wins. Last year's team definitely had more potential, and had to be considered a much bigger disappointment overall.

I do wish people would stop saying this roster now has a plan attached to it without ever going into even the first detail of what the plan is. It's not just you, but that seems like a fundamental (and completely) unjustified belief of the last two years: we've been following a plan. Well, actually, we've just been making moves that don't point in any specific direction in terms of the present or future. Sometimes Shanahan values discipline over talent, other times talent and character over discipline. And it just seems to matter how he feels when he gets up that morning.

I agree that the 2009 team didn't have much of a focus either. We were heavily invested in defensive talent, but couldn't been less invested in the coaching or performance of the defense. The offense was under a microscope because there was no return on investment on the picks at WR, making the entire passing game dependent on Randle El (who had some very good years). Zorn stopped calling west coast plays after two weeks, stripped the offense back to it's Gibbs-era routes, then lost his playcalling duties so we went back to being a west coast team. It really was a mish-mash of successful and failed strategies.

And yet, the similarities between then and now are staggering. I think they've gotten consistently better at making fewer unforced mental errors, but then you see the Eagles game and you just have to wonder if it was all a mirage. It was a bad note to end on for sure. That game was as poor an effort in preparedness as any in the Zorn era.

Quote:
You or I have a better chance at being the QB next year than a Tannehill or some other second tier QB prospect.
As much as I wish this was true...its not. I think the probability of one of Foles/Tannehill/Jones/Cousins being targeted as the next Redskins QB is pretty darn high.

And I don't think Foles is second tier at all, but that's my evaluation and no one should hold the Shanahans to that.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:29 AM   #29
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,916
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Agree that 10 wins would have been an unrealistic goal for this roster, but maybe not for a roster with better design. I think Shanahan and his staff are really struggling with game management. But I don't think he (or many others) could have coached this team to 10 wins. Last year's team definitely had more potential, and had to be considered a much bigger disappointment overall.

I do wish people would stop saying this roster now has a plan attached to it without ever going into even the first detail of what the plan is. It's not just you, but that seems like a fundamental (and completely) unjustified belief of the last two years: we've been following a plan. Well, actually, we've just been making moves that don't point in any specific direction in terms of the present or future. Sometimes Shanahan values discipline over talent, other times talent and character over discipline. And it just seems to matter how he feels when he gets up that morning.

I agree that the 2009 team didn't have much of a focus either. We were heavily invested in defensive talent, but couldn't been less invested in the coaching or performance of the defense. The offense was under a microscope because there was no return on investment on the picks at WR, making the entire passing game dependent on Randle El (who had some very good years). Zorn stopped calling west coast plays after two weeks, stripped the offense back to it's Gibbs-era routes, then lost his playcalling duties so we went back to being a west coast team. It really was a mish-mash of successful and failed strategies.

And yet, the similarities between then and now are staggering. I think they've gotten consistently better at making fewer unforced mental errors, but then you see the Eagles game and you just have to wonder if it was all a mirage. It was a bad note to end on for sure. That game was as poor an effort in preparedness as any in the Zorn era.

As much as I wish this was true...its not. I think the probability of one of Foles/Tannehill/Jones/Cousins being targeted as the next Redskins QB is pretty darn high.

And I don't think Foles is second tier at all, but that's my evaluation and no one should hold the Shanahans to that.
Here is where we differ in our interpretation of the 'plan'.
2010, see if he can win with the roster in place with a few tweaks.. Bringing in McNabb, changing to a 3-4 with many of the same pieces, minor roster modifications. Stayed with Haynesworth, Portis, Griffin, Daniels, brought in older vets to try to 'make a run' and see if he could make chicken salad from chicken ----.

2011, fix the defense and start changing the roster. Draft was primarily about the defense, free agency was almost all about the defense. He's committed to a 3-4, thinking it is the foundation for championships so he wants to build that first. Offense is secondary and no real effort (or significant money) is spent on that side of the ball. Our combined QB group makes less than any other starting QB alone. Our combined WR group has no committed money past 2013. Our RB group had 2 rookies and a pending free agent. There's nothing but flexibility to fix that side of the ball with no money or immovable roster spots.

2012, fix the offense. Free agency will be spent on WR, OL and RB. QB will be addressed in the draft. 2012 will be the beginning of the team that will define the Shanny era in DC.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:44 AM   #30
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
Here is where we differ in our interpretation of the 'plan'.
2010, see if he can win with the roster in place with a few tweaks.. Bringing in McNabb, changing to a 3-4 with many of the same pieces, minor roster modifications. Stayed with Haynesworth, Portis, Griffin, Daniels, brought in older vets to try to 'make a run' and see if he could make chicken salad from chicken ----.

2011, fix the defense and start changing the roster. Draft was primarily about the defense, free agency was almost all about the defense. He's committed to a 3-4, thinking it is the foundation for championships so he wants to build that first. Offense is secondary and no real effort (or significant money) is spent on that side of the ball. Our combined QB group makes less than any other starting QB alone. Our combined WR group has no committed money past 2013. Our RB group had 2 rookies and a pending free agent. There's nothing but flexibility to fix that side of the ball with no money or immovable roster spots.

2012, fix the offense. Free agency will be spent on WR, OL and RB. QB will be addressed in the draft. 2012 will be the beginning of the team that will define the Shanny era in DC.
That's not a plan or the plan, that's a recap of what actually happened: we changed what we're doing at the on-set of every season.

Rest assured that this offseason will not follow the same pattern last offseason did. Job security is a serious issue now and the 2011 team didn't improve as much over the 2010 disaster as the coaches were predicting. Shanahan thinks he built a 10 win team that got ravaged by injury this year. No, I'm serious. He said that. He said that today.

I think enough went right in 2011 (including that the rest of the division didn't play very well) where an aggressive offseason trying to make a run at a division title in 2012 is worth trying. The offense was perhaps better than we all expected to be. The defense ended up being adequate. Maybe not as good as they anticipated it being, but adequate.

But we need to not act like the plan all along was to totally waste two seasons replacing the window curtains before going for broke in 2012. We've been through Plan A, B, and C, and we're already passed the point where most coaches would have survived. The last three (non-Gibbs) coaches didn't survive past this point.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Last edited by GTripp0012; 01-03-2012 at 12:46 AM.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.38372 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25