Redskins make first round of roster cuts

[dmvskinzfan08]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I totally agree with you on this. If I'm looking to get someone younger and faster to replace Rock, Mason is not my choice. We already have two of the same types of backs no need for a third. Alridge or Dorsey would be my pick.

If it was my decision (which obviously it's not) I would replace Betts with Mason OR.....any young talented RB who can replace Portis down the road. My main issue is not that I hate Betts and Rock. I think they have served the team admirably. My issue is the need to look to the future and to have a RB being developed/molded for the future so when Portis hangs up his cleats the team is not being forced to make a stupid move which will cost the team extra draft picks or putting hope and a prayer on a rookie RB that no one knows if he will work out or not.

As I said previously I do have a man crush for Mason, but drop him and insert new young RB and if he is pretty good and can be trained I'll back him the same way.

Which is why I wrote that if the team is resigned to keeping Betts as the #2 then I hope the team picks up Alridge or Dorsey cause we need something different in the line up. If the team is truly looking to get younger and have a replacement for the future then I would pick (at this point cause there's no other similar RB's that are young on the roster) Mason and still let Rock go and replace him with Alridge or Dorsey.

This is the same arguement I had with Jansen, we needed to get younger at the position. I had the same arguement for Thrash even though he was a locker room leader and special teams leader. This is the same arguement I have with Collins. and....to be honest at some point Smoot and some of the lineman.

Well put. I totally agree. Portis just turned 28 and Rock/Betts are 29. Why would we carry 3 backs who are almost 30 when we can atleast build for the future with some younger backs with upside.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dmvskinzfan08

Well put. I totally agree. Portis just turned 28 and Rock/Betts are 29. Why would we carry 3 backs who are almost 30 when we can atleast build for the future with some younger backs with upside.

The term "building for the future" doesn't imply loading up your team with replacement-level backs with a favorable birthdate.

It implies that you 1)draft/sign, 2)develop, and 3)plan to use younger talent. When you're choosing from a group of massively flawed players, you can choose "none of the above".

This is why I suggest that teams wait for a cut or two before deciding to keep 3 or 4 RBs. If you try to develop non-talent, you're just wasting time and resources.

For the record, I think we could have used our 5th or 6th rounder on a RB, and am confused to exactly why we did not do that.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The term "building for the future" doesn't imply loading up your team with replacement-level backs with a favorable birthdate.

It implies that you 1)draft/sign, 2)develop, and 3)plan to use younger talent. When you're choosing from a group of massively flawed players, you can choose "none of the above".

This is why I suggest that teams wait for a cut or two before deciding to keep 3 or 4 RBs. If you try to develop non-talent, you're just wasting time and resources.

For the record, I think we could have used our 5th or 6th rounder on a RB, and am confused to exactly why we did not do that.

See here's the difference between our thinking. I'd rather have Mason cause we did pick him up/sign him. Our scouts saw something. We developed him for 2 yrs now and he's actually getting better according to the coach's...enough to make them seriously have to think what to do with him. So apparently he's not massively flawed or they would not have had him here 2 yrs and challenged San Diego for his rights this yr. If he was massively flawed I think the coach's would have passed on him and let San Diego see for themselves why we passed.

Replacement level backs. Thats funny. So I guess the Denver Bronco's with last yrs coaching staff (Shanahan) seemed to have the best running game for like the past 10 yrs apparently cause they were good at picking up excellent RB's had a massively huge brain fart and picked up Alridge who clearly has massive flaws. OK. Keep using that arguement cause apparently "it" does not have massive flaw written all over it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

See here's the difference between our thinking. I'd rather have Mason cause we did pick him up/sign him. Our scouts saw something. We developed him for 2 yrs now and he's actually getting better according to the coach's...enough to make them seriously have to think what to do with him. So apparently he's not massively flawed or they would not have had him here 2 yrs and challenged San Diego for his rights this yr. If he was massively flawed I think the coach's would have passed on him and let San Diego see for themselves why we passed.

Replacement level backs. Thats funny. So I guess the Denver Bronco's with last yrs coaching staff (Shanahan) seemed to have the best running game for like the past 10 yrs apparently cause they were good at picking up excellent RB's had a massively huge brain fart and picked up Alridge who clearly has massive flaws. OK. Keep using that arguement cause apparently "it" does not have massive flaw written all over it.

I forgot about all those yards and touchdowns Alridge got in the Broncos system. One more year there, and he would have been Clinton Portis. :P

I think Mason can be another Willie Parker, honestly I do. But I think the next level thinking is necessary. In 2005, when a second year back (Parker) was signed in the offseason, he clearly exibited all the physical skills, but the Steelers could have gotten Marion Barber (for example) for the cost of a fourth round pick. When both Bettis and Staley were hurt, they went with Parker, and he instantly put up the big numbers.

But the underlying situational performance never really did support his rep a significantly above average back. So the Steelers moved from a ground team to an air team, and tried to work though the things Parker couldn't do well. Eventually, they decided to draft Rashad Mendenhall in the first round. But had they just taken Barber in the middle round in 2005, they would have had a feature franchise back, and wouldn't have necessarily used that other pick on Mendenhall.

Mason can be a starting running back in this league. He just likely cannot be a quality one. "Building for the future" does not mean using developmental resources on players who can one day plug holes.

Don't envoke the "proven skills" argument about two guys who have failed to stick an entire season on an NFL roster yet. Please.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

See here's the difference between our thinking. I'd rather have Mason cause we did pick him up/sign him. Our scouts saw something. We developed him for 2 yrs now and he's actually getting better according to the coach's...enough to make them seriously have to think what to do with him. So apparently he's not massively flawed or they would not have had him here 2 yrs and challenged San Diego for his rights this yr. If he was massively flawed I think the coach's would have passed on him and let San Diego see for themselves why we passed.

Replacement level backs. Thats funny. So I guess the Denver Bronco's with last yrs coaching staff (Shanahan) seemed to have the best running game for like the past 10 yrs apparently cause they were good at picking up excellent RB's had a massively huge brain fart and picked up Alridge who clearly has massive flaws. OK. Keep using that arguement cause apparently "it" does not have massive flaw written all over it.

That's what they are though. That's why they are bubble guys right now and don't already have starting jobs wrapped up.

You seem to be taking it as a negative but it's really not.