Mason to Ravens

[SBXVII]

I'll give you another example.....why did we retain Broughten....he has not shown anything either. and.....every year he gets cut. He's an injury waiting to happen. Tryon sucked during preseason. Exactly what did he do to show he should be on the team?

I was a Mix supporter, but my support dwindled when he couldn't catch a cold. However, McMullen did a good enough job to land him the 6 position that we don't have ...but went out and picked up a no name from the Colts after they trash him. Atleast McMullen already knew the scheme, routes, and the QB.

All I was suggesting is if we are going to get rid of a one demensional RB then we should get rid of all the one demensional RB's. Wouldn't that be fair. Lets see...Portis runs well and blocks well....depending on who you talk to. He's a keeper. Betts is a good runner and a mediocre blocker. He's a nice #2. Neither are on special teams though....thats a negative.

Mason was a good RB and mediocre at blocking (sound familiar), and terrible on punt/kick returns. Rock excellent on kick/punt returns and mediocre at RB and terrible at blocking. I guess you are right..if Rock wanted to make the team he better be good at something no one else is. and I base my theory on all the yrs I've watched the Skins, not just preseason. It's also not just about the numbers he puts up. It's about how well he runs the ball. If he would stop dancing behind the line and simply run the ball through the whole (as Portis does, Betts does, and Mason did) then he might gain more yardage. The problem with Rock is he's always looking to break the big one and we end up with several "caught at or behind the line of scrimage" plays before we get the "big one" where he gets a 50-70 yrd run. I would rather have a consistent RB then have one who dances in the back field.

It all goes back to what the coach's want though. They are always looking at the guy who might break one loose at any given time. but I digress back to my real issue which was if the team wanted to get younger as they say then Mason should have been on the team. The other 3 all came out of the same draft and are almost 8-10 yrs in the league. They could have developed Mason as a kick/punt returner on the practice squad. Unless he's truely that ignorant.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I was a Mix supporter, but my support dwindled when he couldn't catch a cold. However, McMullen did a good enough job to land him the 6 position that we don't have ...but went out and picked up a no name from the Colts after they trash him. Atleast McMullen already knew the scheme, routes, and the QB.

We signed a WR for the practice squad. It's not the same thing

Wouldn't be surprised if the Skins re-sign McMullen down the line, if necessary. For now though, I really don't think he's needed.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We signed a WR for the practice squad. It's not the same thing

Wouldn't be surprised if the Skins re-sign McMullen down the line, if necessary. For now though, I really don't think he's needed.

I was simply suggesting that it would have been better to sign someone who already knows the plays and scheme to practice squad vs signing someone who doesn't have a clue. In case (god forbid) someone gets hurt he could step up instead of us having to hunt him down and sign him.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I was simply suggesting that it would have been better to sign someone who already knows the plays and scheme to practice squad vs signing someone who doesn't have a clue. In case (god forbid) someone gets hurt he could step up instead of us having to hunt him down and sign him.

You're ignoring the rules though. And the rule is McMullen is ineligible for the practice squad. So it's either keep him on the 53 man roster and have him sit on the sidelines or be a gameday inactive most weeks, at the expense of some needed depth at other positions (including special teams); or just cut him outright.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I was simply suggesting that it would have been better to sign someone who already knows the plays and scheme to practice squad vs signing someone who doesn't have a clue. In case (god forbid) someone gets hurt he could step up instead of us having to hunt him down and sign him.

If McMullen or any other player has a halfway decent agent, the minute someone gets hurt(ditto) he will be calling Vinny and co. making the same case that you just made. I doubt the Skins would have to "hunt him down".

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'll give you another example.....why did we retain Broughten....he has not shown anything either. and.....every year he gets cut. He's an injury waiting to happen. Tryon sucked during preseason. Exactly what did he do to show he should be on the team?

I was a Mix supporter, but my support dwindled when he couldn't catch a cold. However, McMullen did a good enough job to land him the 6 position that we don't have ...but went out and picked up a no name from the Colts after they trash him. Atleast McMullen already knew the scheme, routes, and the QB.

All I was suggesting is if we are going to get rid of a one demensional RB then we should get rid of all the one demensional RB's. Wouldn't that be fair. Lets see...Portis runs well and blocks well....depending on who you talk to. He's a keeper. Betts is a good runner and a mediocre blocker. He's a nice #2. Neither are on special teams though....thats a negative.

Mason was a good RB and mediocre at blocking (sound familiar), and terrible on punt/kick returns. Rock excellent on kick/punt returns and mediocre at RB and terrible at blocking. I guess you are right..if Rock wanted to make the team he better be good at something no one else is. and I base my theory on all the yrs I've watched the Skins, not just preseason. It's also not just about the numbers he puts up. It's about how well he runs the ball. If he would stop dancing behind the line and simply run the ball through the whole (as Portis does, Betts does, and Mason did) then he might gain more yardage. The problem with Rock is he's always looking to break the big one and we end up with several "caught at or behind the line of scrimage" plays before we get the "big one" where he gets a 50-70 yrd run. I would rather have a consistent RB then have one who dances in the back field.

It all goes back to what the coach's want though. They are always looking at the guy who might break one loose at any given time. but I digress back to my real issue which was if the team wanted to get younger as they say then Mason should have been on the team. The other 3 all came out of the same draft and are almost 8-10 yrs in the league. They could have developed Mason as a kick/punt returner on the practice squad. Unless he's truely that ignorant.

Your case for Mason is getting a little tired.

A 3rd string RB really isn't worth all this trouble. In the end Rock won out because he brings more to the table in terms of special teams play.

The team kept all 10 draft picks... I'd say that's quite the youth movement. Keeping or letting Mason go wasn't going to make or break the team in regard to that.