Roster transition in the Shanny era

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think they all did, except perhaps Heyer, who is simply one of two uninspiring veterans on a one year contract in Oakland.

The Colts got rid of Tryon during this season (after starting 10 games on a playoff team last year), and the Giants then picked him up. He's on IR with the Giants, but is also a free agent in March. I don't know where his future is. Probably as a backup. He essentially was a younger Philip Buchanon who could have played inside.

The jarring thing may not be that any one of those players got away, but that 3/5s of an offensive line was deemed by Shanahan/Forester to be not worthy of a roster spot. Meanwhile, we signed Tyler Polumbus for some reason.

Williams I can MAYBE give you because he could have been developed to be decent but Rinehart and Heyer were given plenty of chances here and never showed potential for being any good. Rinehart started (after injuries) on a team that went 1-10 down the stretch. Heyer was a turnstile at both tackle positions. It seems like you are looking at anything that Shanahan has done and twisting it to be a mistake.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Williams I can MAYBE give you because he could have been developed to be decent but Rinehart and Heyer were given plenty of chances here and never showed potential for being any good. Rinehart started (after injuries) on a team that went 1-10 down the stretch. Heyer was a turnstile at both tackle positions. It seems like you are looking at anything that Shanahan has done and twisting it to be a mistake.

They're different players but I don't think it's any sort of a stretch to think that Chad Rinehart could have been a better player for less money than Chris Chester. We're talking about a projecting here, but I thought there was more to work with re: Rinehart, than Chester.

I wouldn't say that anything and everything Shanahan has done is a mistake. But let's put it this way: when you trade for Donovan McNabb with two draft picks and can't find a place for him in your offense, and somehow that gets lost in history as some sort of a necessary progression of the QB position in Washington...well, lets just say that stringing together a bunch of small evidences fits a lot better when you also have the all-time personnel gaffe.

The easiest way to make my argument seem like nitpicking is to go pick another losing team, and find six to eight players they've let go via free agency or release who have gone on to start elsewhere within the last two years (with two pro bowlers?!), and suggest that the Redskins aren't alone in their struggles to identify starters. Trust me, I am looking. I don't want to keep repeating this point only to find out that I missed a team that has been doing the same thing.

Every team has two or three of those guys (I would expect the winning teams to have a lot more of those guys), but the Redskins have six or seven even if you count Heyer as a backup.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're different players but I don't think it's any sort of a stretch to think that Chad Rinehart could have been a better player for less money than Chris Chester. We're talking about a projecting here, but I thought there was more to work with re: Rinehart, than Chester.

I wouldn't say that anything and everything Shanahan has done is a mistake. But let's put it this way: when you trade for Donovan McNabb with two draft picks and can't find a place for him in your offense, and somehow that gets lost in history as some sort of a necessary progression of the QB position in Washington...well, lets just say that stringing together a bunch of small evidences fits a lot better when you also have the all-time personnel gaffe.

The easiest way to make my argument seem like nitpicking is to go pick another losing team, and find six to eight players they've let go via free agency or release who have gone on to start elsewhere within the last two years, and suggest that the Redskins aren't alone in their struggles to identify starters. Trust me, I am looking. I don't want to keep repeating this point only to find out that I missed a team that has been doing the same thing.

Every team has two or three of those guys (I would expect the winning teams to have a lot more of those guys), but the Redskins have six or seven even if you count Heyer as a backup.

. I guess I'm not excited by backups pushed into starting roles on bad teams as evidence of huge personnel gaffes.
Since no team has turned thier roster over so much in the past two years you aren't going to find those parameters. We see it differently, that's cool. Hope the 2012 roster has the playmakers and depth necessary for progress to continue.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're different players but I don't think it's any sort of a stretch to think that Chad Rinehart could have been a better player for less money than Chris Chester. We're talking about a projecting here, but I thought there was more to work with re: Rinehart, than Chester.

I wouldn't say that anything and everything Shanahan has done is a mistake. But let's put it this way: when you trade for Donovan McNabb with two draft picks and can't find a place for him in your offense, and somehow that gets lost in history as some sort of a necessary progression of the QB position in Washington...well, lets just say that stringing together a bunch of small evidences fits a lot better when you also have the all-time personnel gaffe.

The easiest way to make my argument seem like nitpicking is to go pick another losing team, and find six to eight players they've let go via free agency or release who have gone on to start elsewhere within the last two years (with two pro bowlers?!), and suggest that the Redskins aren't alone in their struggles to identify starters. Trust me, I am looking. I don't want to keep repeating this point only to find out that I missed a team that has been doing the same thing.

Every team has two or three of those guys (I would expect the winning teams to have a lot more of those guys), but the Redskins have six or seven even if you count Heyer as a backup.

See, I don't think you can just look at losing teams and I don't think it's fair to just say "team's back-up became starter for another team". Doing so, to me, isolates only whether the guy could play in the NFL but takes him out of context for both the team that cut him and the team that picked him up. Carter no future here b/c of the scheme switch. Rogers had no place here for reasons other than his football play (money/just didn't want to play here). There are just too many variables to make such a comparison - was it actually a miss on talent evaluation, was it a youth movement, was there an adequate or better replacement, or were there other factors that we, as casual fans of other teams, didn't get (do you think most fans of Jax looking at our decision to not pursue C. Rodgers were aware of his back story here?).

Further, except for a few, most marginal to average NFL players are not interchangeable - by that I mean they need to be in places that play to their strengths. The Chester/Rinehart comparison is very appropos of this. As I understand it, Rinehart was viewed as power blocker and not a particularly good fit for the zone blocking scheme MS runs. Chester was viewed by Baltimore as a marginal blocker in the scheme they run. In my opinion, each has been valued more by their acquiring team, in part at least, b/c the new teams play to their respective strengths. Thus, although marginal in their prior settings, each seem to be deemed average to above average in their new settings.

The QB was an epic fail and MS has absolutely punted on admitting any error. Okay. He has a history of ego-mania and poor personnel decisions. Okay. Should he have kept Campbell and forgone the McNabb trade? I think that was the best option but it wasn't really a solution. Grossman? <sigh>. When it comes to his handling of the QB position and his failure to own up to it - I am in complete agreement with you and the majority of the WP posters. That is all on MS.

Ultimately, however, I disagree with you that this current roster has as much dead weight or is as lacking in depth as the team he inherited in 2009. That's not to say it is good or deep. It is not - I would agree that a good 1/4 of this roster may be out of the NFL in 2 years and I believe another 1/4 may be on other teams (D. Hall, S. Moss for example). At the same time, I see a significant amount of contributors being here for the next two to three years and maybe beyond - most of whom have still have a potential upper level (Cofield, Bowen, Riley, T. Williams, Helu, Royster, Hankerson, Kerrigan). There are a lot that could go either way also (Smith, Chester, Hightower).

I think we all agree that this off-season will be key in determining whether this club turns the corner into the realm of well-managed teams or remains among the bottom tier in terms of talent management.

I, like you, hope it has.

P.S. - As to Buffalo, I think you missed Jason Peters but he I don't remember if the Eagles got him in 2009 or before.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

See, I don't think you can just look at losing teams and I don't think it's fair to just say "team's back-up became starter for another team". Doing so, to me, isolates only whether the guy could play in the NFL but takes him out of context for both the team that cut him and the team that picked him up. Carter no future here b/c of the scheme switch. Rogers had no place here for reasons other than his football play (money/just didn't want to play here). There are just too many variables to make such a comparison - was it actually a miss on talent evaluation, was it a youth movement, was there an adequate or better replacement, or were there other factors that we, as casual fans of other teams, didn't get (do you think most fans of Jax looking at our decision to not pursue C. Rodgers were aware of his back story here?).

Further, except for a few, most marginal to average NFL players are not interchangeable - by that I mean they need to be in places that play to their strengths. The Chester/Rinehart comparison is very appropos of this. As I understand it, Rinehart was viewed as power blocker and not a particularly good fit for the zone blocking scheme MS runs. Chester was viewed by Baltimore as a marginal blocker in the scheme they run. In my opinion, each has been valued more by their acquiring team, in part at least, b/c the new teams play to their respective strengths. Thus, although marginal in their prior settings, each seem to be deemed average to above average in their new settings.

The QB was an epic fail and MS has absolutely punted on admitting any error. Okay. He has a history of ego-mania and poor personnel decisions. Okay. Should he have kept Campbell and forgone the McNabb trade? I think that was the best option but it wasn't really a solution. Grossman? <sigh>. When it comes to his handling of the QB position and his failure to own up to it - I am in complete agreement with you and the majority of the WP posters. That is all on MS.

Ultimately, however, I disagree with you that this current roster has as much dead weight or is as lacking in depth as the team he inherited in 2009. That's not to say it is good or deep. It is not - I would agree that a good 1/4 of this roster may be out of the NFL in 2 years and I believe another 1/4 may be on other teams (D. Hall, S. Moss for example). At the same time, I see a significant amount of contributors being here for the next two to three years and maybe beyond - most of whom have still have a potential upper level (Cofield, Bowen, Riley, T. Williams, Helu, Royster, Hankerson, Kerrigan). There are a lot that could go either way also (Smith, Chester, Hightower).

I think we all agree that this off-season will be key in determining whether this club turns the corner into the realm of well-managed teams or remains among the bottom tier in terms of talent management.

I, like you, hope it has.

P.S. - As to Buffalo, I think you missed Jason Peters but he I don't remember if the Eagles got him in 2009 or before.

I think pretty much every team is running a zone blocking scheme these days. I know of a few teams that aren't: Dallas still runs man blocking under Hudson Houck. The Bucs still run a lot of man scheme. Sean Payton still prefers man blocking. But outside of rare exceptions to the rule, any lineman who is driving guys off the ball in 2011 is doing it zone style. That's what all the colleges are running anyway.

I think I get the individual reasons for making the moves they did (Rogers, Carter decisions). My assertion is that the evidence is abound that the Redskins cannot evaluate talent on their own roster very well. This is based on between 20 and 30 data points between playing time decisions, roster moves, and play usages. I never tried to argue that the Redskins don't act rationally. I did say I am often confused by their lines of reasoning, but I am not denying that they have their reasons.

Hypothetical time:

I think there's a good chance Roy Helu will head into next year as the starting RB and that Leonard Hankerson will start at WR, and those are two guys who we are absolutely counting on to solve our problem at two different positions of need. But lets say (hypothetically) that Mike Shanahan resigns tomorrow and we get an entirely new offensive coaching staff for next year. And that coaching staff decides that they are going to go with veterans at those two positions that they were previously chummy with at a prior stop. So they trade Helu to New York for a conditional seventh round pick, and on the last day of the preseason, Hankerson fails to win the 5th receiver job because he doesn't play special teams and is released.

If that happens, how much talent is really left behind by the Shanahan era drafts? Like: Trent Williams, Ryan Kerrigan, Jarvis Jenkins, and one year of pre FA Perry Riley? That's really not a lot for two years.

My point is that the 2011 draft looks excellent until a new coach comes and and gets rid of your developmental depth. And while the 2013 version Matty can come in and ask me if I'm really lamenting the losses of Roy Helu and Leonard Hankerson (no pro bowls between them!), or why I can't just get behind Todd Haley as head coach and trust him that Jerheme Urban is really a better fit for his offense than Hankerson, there were still some really questionable moves made and on top of that the Redskins were still not winning. That's why it matter.s