Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

There's been a lot of hand wringing over the state of the roster right now and how good or poor of a job Shanahan is doing with it..

It's been 2 years and most new management around the NFL gets at least 4 years. Do some of us really forget how bad that 2009 roster was? To wit, of all of the players who were here then and are no longer on the roster, how many players have moved on and are contributing vs. those no longer in the league?

From the final 2009 roster (including IR), by my estimation, these players are out of the league completely or not in a contributing role on their current team:
Richard Bartel
Todd Collins
Quinton Gather
PJ Hill
Marcus Mason
Malcolm Kelly
Marko Mitchell
Todd Yoder
Paul Fannika
Levi Jones
Casey Rabach
Phillip Daniels
Corneilius Griffin
Anthony Montgomery
Renaldo Wynn
HB Blades
Alvin Bowen
Curtis Gatewood
Robert Henson
Chris Wilson
Lendy Holmes
Marcus Macauly
Kareem Moore
Fred Smoot
Ethan Albright
Ladell Betts
Clinton Portis
Colt Brennan
Chris Horton
Jeremy Jarmon
Chris Samuels
Randy Thomas
Eddie Williams
Mike Williams
That's 35 players that either are retired or are no longer NFL caliber players within 2 years.

From the 2010 roster (without duplicating):
Andre Brown
James Davis
Ryan Torrain
Roydell Williams
Artis Hicks (he may be on a roster, I can't recall)
Anthony Bryant
Joe Joseph
Macho Harris
Reggie Jones
Sha'reff Rashard
Sam Palescu
Josh Bidwell
Mike Furrey
Ma'ake Keymoyatu
Clint Oldenburg
Anderson Russell
Chad Simpson

That's 17 more players for a total of 52 players who are no longer in the NFL. Is it any question why it is going to take more than 2 years to restore this roster to the level of respectability? Even now there are probably about 10-15 players that wouldn't be on other rosters but we had SO many holes to fill we had to plug bodies in. With a couple more off seasons like this past one there is hope for 2013 and beyond but it's going to be a while before we see the results.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

As far as most people are concerned, no one else matters but Carlos Rogers and Andre Carter. Those two players are the poster children for why "former Redskins ALWAYS go to to other teams and have so much success"

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=SmootSmack;872636]As far as most people are concerned, no one else matters but Carlos Rogers and Andre Carter. Those two players are the poster children for why "former Redskins ALWAYS go to to other teams and have so much success"[/quote]

Don't forget Chad Rinehart.

As I said in another thread, MS/BA have not been spectacular in talent acquistion/management. But for their mismanagement of the QB position (a big "but for" I acknowledge), I would suggest they have been solid. Good acquisitions have been made. The 2011 draft has the potential to be a foundation for this team for years to come and may be the best one since 1981.

Plenty of players go from one team to another and succeed. It happens. The question is - are you developing young players to provide the depth needed when players leave. In the past, under Cerrato/Snyder/Gibbs, I would suggest we did not do that. It appears, to me, that we now [I]are [/I] trying to do that.

I think this off-season will tell us a lot about whether the Paintrain (there has been a plan from the beginning) or the GTripp (No plan or management, just reaction to events) school of thought is in place.

In my humble opinion, the team Gibbs took to the play-offs hung around too long under Zorn. Had Gibbs coached it another year, perhaps the 6-0 streak would not have been a mirage (I personally think it was more the result of a Gibbs hangover rather than anything Zorn did or didn't do). Unfortunately, Zorn/Cerrato simply couldn't manage the team that Gibbs built and it was allowed to continue with the inmates (including Cerrato) running the asylum.

I agree with Paintrain that Shanahan came in and said, essentially, "Let's see what we got." At that point, I think a lot of us felt that that team had the talent to win. We were wrong (Actually, at that point, and IMHO, it may have had the talent to be a winner, but it certainly didn't have the "personality" of one - for lack of a better term). MS should have blown it up immediately. At the same time, I have a hard time holding that against MS/BA when so many folks seem to think he was inheriting a talented team.

Frustrating as they have been, I will not count the last two seasons as a waste [I]so long as[/I] the 2012 offseason continues to build upon the 2011 offseason - solid, not necessarily spectacular, acquisitions; continuing to show a belief that throwing lots of darts on draft day is the best way to succeed; and a focus on the offense through both free agency and the draft.

As I have said elsewhere, if our 2012 off season mirrors our 2011 off season in terms of talent managment, I think we will have the foundation for a truly competitive team (play-offs and better) for years to come.

Wait - - I just realized I typed that whole spiel with my rose-colored glasses on. Let me try it again with my "GTripp Glasses" instead ....

Oh, crap - were doomed.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=SmootSmack;872636]As far as most people are concerned, no one else matters but Carlos Rogers and Andre Carter. Those two players are the poster children for why "former Redskins ALWAYS go to to other teams and have so much success"[/quote]

well, unless we were going back to a 4-3, AC had to go. he was great in SF until they moved him to LB... that's why he ended up here in the first place. The move to a 3-4 probably wasn't a wise choice just based on the talent we had available, but now the personnel fits the 3-4 so great 4-3 players that can't make the move gots ta go. It sucks to give up a pro bowler, but he would've sucked here.

rogers we should have kept, since he was the best corner on the market... but he was frustrated with the skins and asking for way too much money (hence him finally taking a 1 year deal), so that may have been out of the skins control. I would have rather dropped hall and kept him though, and that's not revisionist history, it's what I said this time last year.

The QB thing has really been awful though, and there really haven't been a ton of good available starting QBs, but beck was a huge mistake (he's failed 3 times, so... he must be great!) and DM stopped caring about football, so I'm not sure if that was a lack of research or something that just happened, but that was a huge loss (cheap money wise, but thinking you've got a QB when you don't and blowing a #2 pick on him is BAD).

outside of that, it's been fine.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Paintrain;872632]There's been a lot of hand wringing over the state of the roster right now and how good or poor of a job Shanahan is doing with it..

It's been 2 years and most new management around the NFL gets at least 4 years. Do some of us really forget how bad that 2009 roster was? To wit, of all of the players who were here then and are no longer on the roster, how many players have moved on and are contributing vs. those no longer in the league?

From the final 2009 roster (including IR), by my estimation, these players are out of the league completely or not in a contributing role on their current team:
Richard Bartel
Todd Collins
Quinton Gather
PJ Hill
Marcus Mason
Malcolm Kelly
Marko Mitchell
Todd Yoder
Paul Fannika
Levi Jones
Casey Rabach
Phillip Daniels
Corneilius Griffin
Anthony Montgomery
Renaldo Wynn
HB Blades
Alvin Bowen
Curtis Gatewood
Robert Henson
Chris Wilson
Lendy Holmes
Marcus Macauly
Kareem Moore
Fred Smoot
Ethan Albright
Ladell Betts
Clinton Portis
Colt Brennan
Chris Horton
Jeremy Jarmon
Chris Samuels
Randy Thomas
Eddie Williams
Mike Williams
That's 35 players that either are retired or are no longer NFL caliber players within 2 years.

From the 2010 roster (without duplicating):
Andre Brown
James Davis
Ryan Torrain
Roydell Williams
Artis Hicks (he may be on a roster, I can't recall)
Anthony Bryant
Joe Joseph
Macho Harris
Reggie Jones
Sha'reff Rashard
Sam Palescu
Josh Bidwell
Mike Furrey
Ma'ake Keymoyatu
Clint Oldenburg
Anderson Russell
Chad Simpson

That's 17 more players for a total of 52 players who are no longer in the NFL. Is it any question why it is going to take more than 2 years to restore this roster to the level of respectability? Even now there are probably about 10-15 players that wouldn't be on other rosters but we had SO many holes to fill we had to plug bodies in. With a couple more off seasons like this past one there is hope for 2013 and beyond but it's going to be a while before we see the results.[/quote]Good post. I feel like I can use this as a starting point for some research into other teams who also have struggled to win over the last two years and see if the Redskins have made more progress than those teams.

If my assertion that the Redskins aren't better off in 2011 than 2009 is correct, then our current roster will end up looking a lot like that list you made by 2013. Is that a good bet? I'd say it probably is. But you still made a pretty good indictment of the Cerrato/Zorn rosters (the point that no one wanted these guys).

And I think I've also made good points that Shanahan gave up on more players that ended up as starters elsewhere than maybe any other coach in football over the last two years.

The truth may very well be that the 2009 roster sucked, the 2010 roster sucked, the 2011 roster sucked, and the 2012 roster will suck. That's not my opinion on the matter, nor anyone else. It's a really negative view of the Redskins that I do not hold. But sometimes the truth hurts.

And if the truth is that the Cerrato-Zorn Redskins were worse than we thought and the Shanahan-Allen Redskins were still bad, then I hope our analysis leads us there. Likewise, if the truth is that our roster is deeper and talented than any scout currently acknowledges, I hope analysis of this sort leads us there.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

who have we given up that turned into starters? AC and CR off hand... campbell and DM, but neither one lasted very long, so i'm not sure I'd count either of them.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=That Guy;872931]who have we given up that turned into starters? AC and CR off hand... campbell and DM, but neither one lasted very long, so i'm not sure I'd count either of them.[/quote]Edwin Williams, Chad Rinehart, Justin Tryon. Stephon Heyer is kind of sort of a starter, he's in a timeshare at RT.

Those are the seven/eight, but its only been two years. My fear is that we add LaRon Landry and maybe Fred Davis to this list before too long. Those guys were Cerrato picks after all.

Re-signing those guys would be, I think, a step in the right direction. But if we look at the recent history of the franchise, we can't feel good about those two being free agents.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872935]Edwin Williams, Chad Rinehart, Justin Tryon. Stephon Heyer is kind of sort of a starter, he's in a timeshare at RT.

Those are the seven/eight, but its only been two years. My fear is that we add LaRon Landry and maybe Fred Davis to this list before too long. Those guys were Cerrato picks after all.

Re-signing those guys would be, I think, a step in the right direction. But if we look at the recent history of the franchise, we can't feel good about those two being free agents.[/quote]

No offense to any of those guys but did any of them represent an upgrade from who replaced them?

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Paintrain;872938]No offense to any of those guys but did any of them represent an upgrade from who replaced them?[/quote]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.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

You could make the Heyer > Brown argument, but we already had that debate. Neither is an average offensive lineman in the NFL today.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872939]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

We're really lamenting the likes of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, etc.?

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Mattyk;872949]We're really lamenting the likes of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, etc.?[/quote]

Exactly.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Paintrain;872947]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.[/quote]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.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872954]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.

[B]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.
[/B]
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.[/quote]. 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.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

I looked at the 2009 Jaguars roster. They have five guys from that team who went on to be starters elsewhere:

-Quentin Groves, DE (who Oakland picked up and started at LB)
-John Henderson, DT (who is a rotational guy for the Raiders)
-Derek Landri, DT (who started for the Panthers in place of Kemo in 2010, and is having a career year with the Eagles in 2011)
-Justin Durant, LB (who left for Detroit in free agency)
-Reggie Nelson, S (who has started 22 games with the Bengals after being traded)

That's about as much as I've found elsewhere: the Jaguars defense has shed some real talent. But even with them, that's not the side of the ball that's a disaster for them. No offensive players from the 2009 or 2010 Jags have ended up elsewhere having success.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

2009 Buffalo had just four guys (all first or second rounders) who left via FA or waivers to achieve success elsewhere:

-Donte Whitner, S (with SF)
-Aaron Maybin, LB (with NYJ)
-Marshawn Lynch, RB (with SEA) *possible pro bowl
-Paul Posluzsny, LB (with JAX)

Then the Lee Evans trade, which would make five total. I don't remember what they got back for Evans. I remember it being kind of like the Haynesworth trade: like a 4th/5th rounder for a starter, and then the starter underwhelms.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

2009 Minnesota Vikings

-WR Sidney Rice (with SEA)
-LT Bryant McKinnie (with BAL)
-DE Ray Edwards (with ATL)
-DE Jayme Mitchell (with CLE)
-OG Artis Hicks (with CLE via WAS)

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Mattyk;872949]We're really lamenting the likes of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, etc.?[/quote]

Rhinehardt is going to be a solid 10-13 year vet and an irritation for administrators/creators of fan forums the whole time ;)

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Mattyk;872949]We're really lamenting the likes of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, etc.?[/quote]Those guys are relevant in the discussion about the recent past, i.e. why the Redskins haven't been successful under Shanahan.I'm willing to concede that it's meaningless [I]going forward[/I], w/free agency around the corner for those guys. It's been a tough two years. Lots of sub-par decisions. Obviously the REALLY meaningful ones are Rogers and Carter.

2012 = make or break. That's something we can agree on that the release trades of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, and Heyer have no effect on. If the re-building re-tooling effort worked, then it worked. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872983]Those guys are relevant in the discussion about the recent past, i.e. why the Redskins haven't been successful under Shanahan.I'm willing to concede that it's meaningless [I]going forward[/I], w/free agency around the corner for those guys. It's been a tough two years. Lots of sub-par decisions. Obviously the REALLY meaningful ones are Rogers and Carter.

2012 = make or break. That's something we can agree on that the release trades of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, and Heyer have no effect on. If the re-building re-tooling effort worked, then it worked. If it doesn't, it doesn't.[/quote]

The Redskins havent been successful in over a decade due to draft mis-management and roster rot. With an organization that much of a mess I think it will take all of Shanny's contract just to get this team back to being competitive (not great but competitive) because its impossible to fix over a decade of destruction in 2 or 3 years. IMO, to call 2012 a make or break is waaay premature.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872983]Those guys are relevant in the discussion about the recent past, i.e. why the Redskins haven't been successful under Shanahan.I'm willing to concede that it's meaningless [I]going forward[/I], w/free agency around the corner for those guys. It's been a tough two years. Lots of sub-par decisions. [B]Obviously the REALLY meaningful ones are Rogers and Carter.[/B]

2012 = make or break. That's something we can agree on that the release trades of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, and Heyer have no effect on. If the re-building re-tooling effort worked, then it worked. If it doesn't, it doesn't.[/quote]
I'll even disagree on them.. Carter is a terrible 3-4 fit, he just is. Now an argument can be made that we should have tried to get something in trade for him, which I agree with but the fact that he is an ex-Redskin isn't really a big deal.

Rogers wasn't coming back regardless. When he didn't get a big extension that he thought he deserved after the '09 season he was mentally done in DC. He vastly overrated himself in the marketplace and received a one year contract as a result. Historically he has played his best in contract years so I'll be interested to see how he performs on a long term deal.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872983]Those guys are relevant in the discussion about the recent past, i.e. why the Redskins haven't been successful under Shanahan.I'm willing to concede that it's meaningless [I]going forward[/I], w/free agency around the corner for those guys. It's been a tough two years. Lots of sub-par decisions. Obviously the REALLY meaningful ones are Rogers and Carter.

2012 = make or break. That's something we can agree on that the release trades of Tryon, Rinehart, Williams, and Heyer have no effect on. If the re-building re-tooling effort worked, then it worked. If it doesn't, it doesn't.[/quote]

Would our W/L record have been any different with these guys?

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872954]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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.[/quote]

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 [I]and[/I] 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 [I]and[/I] I believe another 1/4 [I]may[/I] 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.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

these off season threads are already starting to get brutal.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

And to cut Tripp some slack ...

11-21 in two years is bad. very bad - and that's the bottom line. Until and unless you win, all of your talent management moves will be suspect.

In the words of the Ol' Ball Coach: "5-11, that's not too good."

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;873031]And to cut Tripp some slack ...

11-21 in two years is bad. very bad - and that's the bottom line. Until and unless you win, all of your talent management moves will be suspect.

In the words of the Ol' Ball Coach: "5-11, that's not too good."[/quote]

Round of Applause

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;873031]And to cut Tripp some slack ...

11-21 in two years is bad. very bad - and that's the bottom line. Until and unless you win, all of your talent management moves will be suspect.

In the words of the Ol' Ball Coach: "5-11, that's not too good."[/quote]

Of course, but let's talk about some moves that matter. Talking about depth guys and borderline starters doesn't do much for me.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Mattyk;873022]Would our W/L record have been any different with these guys?[/quote]With vastly improved personnel management? Of course. With just one of them? Probably not.

Every one of these cases is a small symptom of a larger problem. The larger problem is one of the core reasons we can't win games. There's no obvious reason why we couldn't have picked better players to take these guys' roster spots, but we obviously did not. Pointing out that these guys once existed as Redskins is just a response to the idea that we never had any talent here. It was once here, we chose to go in a different direction.

Now to me, that was obvious at the get-go (March 2010), but to a lot of people who believed in a long term rebuilding plan, they need to be reminded that those guys were here and are now improving elsewhere. Obviously, we had a different vision for the franchise. I don't think the vision was back to back ten+ loss seasons, but that was the result of the execution.

It's only because this is a thread where we are trying to dig deeper than the final record that guys like Edwin Williams and Chad Rinehart are still relevant. If we weren't into hard analysis, well, bad record = bad coach.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;873025]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 [I]and[/I] 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 [I]and[/I] I believe another 1/4 [I]may[/I] 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.[/quote]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

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

I also want to suggest that there's no way Carter or Rogers is a probowler on this team in 2011. That's not what I'm trying to suggest: that the Redskins voluntarily gave up the only two probowlers on their roster. I think they gave up two very, very good players because they did not fit what the Redskins wanted to do. And generally speaking that's not good roster management. But the fact that Carter is already replaced in the scheme makes it easier to stomach.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

What else are you supposed to do with guys that don't fit your scheme? Anytime a new coach comes in, there's going to be significant roster turnover and yes often times good players are going to be let go.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=Mattyk;873146]What else are you supposed to do with guys that don't fit your scheme? Anytime a new coach comes in, there's going to be significant roster turnover and yes often times good players are going to be let go.[/quote]Isn't this just an assumption based on longitudinal observation of a team that consistently makes awful coaching hires? I mean, obviously not every player is going to be great in every scheme, but two things:

1) There really isn't much scheme diversity in the NFL. Shanahan runs about 80% of what Zorn ran. They likely use different coaching points on similar plays, but the results tell me that one didn't coach the zone stretch more effectively than the other. The year to year variance in the running game for the 2008-2011 Redskins was all about the available talent. Obviously Shanahan evaluates his players differently than Zorn did, mostly because he is a different person. No coach can find a role for [B]everyone[/B] on an inherited roster, but if you can turn over 85% of the roster in two years and you still can't find a role for most players, then you're doing wrong.

2) When you make good hires, they'll use the good players in roles they are comfortable with. Maybe they won't extend them when they hit free agency. The Vikings opted not to offer Sidney Rice a huge deal after Childress and Bevell left. That's the kind of thing that will happen when you change coaching staffs.

But the idea that a change of staff means that every player on the roster is now useless is not something that people who aren't Redskin fans believe.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

No, not every player is useless. But when you take over a team a coach is going to look to bring in "his guys". Either to upgrade the talent level, or to fit the scheme better, or to even help change the locker room culture. What Shanny has done really isn't that out of the ordinary. I'm still not sure what impact guys like Williams, Rinehart, and Tryon would have had. It's not like they are game changers on their current teams.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

When Gibbs and Williams were hired in 2004 and all they had was a bunch of Spurrier's leftovers (because Spurrier was a bad hire who tore apart Schottenheimer's roster), did they complain about needing to turn over 80% of the roster before needing to compete?

Or did Williams have a GREAT defense in the fall because he used previously unused guys like Pierce, Marshall, and Clark combine with his handpicked signings such as Springs, Taylor, Washington, Griffin, and Daniels to make one of the best units in the league? I mean, that was a totally different scheme than what George Edwards was running, about as different as you can get. But it's not possible if he releases Pierce and Clark to bring in guys like Prioleau and Lawyer Milloy because he once worked with them before.

It wasn't a fluke. He did the same thing with New Orleans in 2009.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

I mean, the real shame of the Shanahan excuses is that the Redskins have actually done it right (arguably twice) while Dan Snyder has owned the team. And when Shanahan is doing it so horribly and arrogantly wrong, people are defending it as it being "the right way" to build a team.

First of all, suggesting that there is one right way to build a winning team is a really arrogant line of thinking, and is nothing more than a job security ploy (fire me and you'll be screwed!). Secondly, the Redskins already DID IT A LOT BETTER AND A LOT FASTER than this.

You can argue that Gibbs didn't fix all of the organizational ills, and the fact that he was good at making hires and pretty good at evaluating veteran talent didn't fix everything Snyder had done wrong with the team. You can argue that Gibbs threw away far too many draft picks frivolously to have built a "great" organization in Washington. You'd probably be right.

What you can't argue is that what he did was more successful in the short term. And to be totally honest, it's probably more sustainable than what the Redskins are trying now. That last part is something the jury is still out on. But I definitely hold it to be true.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;873144]I also want to suggest that there's no way Carter or Rogers is a probowler on this team in 2011. That's not what I'm trying to suggest: that the Redskins voluntarily gave up the only two probowlers on their roster. [B] I think they gave up two very, very good players because they did not fit what the Redskins wanted to do. And generally speaking that's not good roster management.[/B] But the fact that Carter is already replaced in the scheme makes it easier to stomach.[/quote]

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.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

Wonder what Gregg Williams would have been like as a head coach of the Skins??... Quess we'll never know but i would have like to have seen it.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=CrustyRedskin;873160]Wonder what Gregg Williams would have been like as a head coach of the Skins??... Quess we'll never know but i would have like to have seen it.[/quote]

No better than Zorn due to the Vinny factor.

Re: Roster transition in the Shanny era
 

[quote=GTripp0012;873149]Isn't this just an assumption based on longitudinal observation of a team that consistently makes awful coaching hires? I mean, obviously not every player is going to be great in every scheme, but two things:

1) There really isn't much scheme diversity in the NFL. Shanahan runs about 80% of what Zorn ran. They likely use different coaching points on similar plays, but the results tell me that one didn't coach the zone stretch more effectively than the other. The year to year variance in the running game for the 2008-2011 Redskins was all about the available talent. Obviously Shanahan evaluates his players differently than Zorn did, mostly because he is a different person. No coach can find a role for [B]everyone[/B] on an inherited roster, but if you can turn over 85% of the roster in two years and you still can't find a role for most players, then you're doing wrong.[/quote]

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.

[quote=GTripp0012;873149]2) When you make good hires, they'll use the good players in roles they are comfortable with. [B]Maybe they won't extend them when they hit free agency.[/B] The Vikings opted not to offer Sidney Rice a huge deal after Childress and Bevell left. That's the kind of thing that will happen when you change coaching staffs.[/quote]

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).

[quote=GTripp0012;873149]But the idea that a change of staff means that every player on the roster is now useless is not something that people who aren't Redskin fans believe.[/quote]

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).