Roster transition in the Shanny era

[MTK]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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.

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 everyone 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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 everyone 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.

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.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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).

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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).

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).

My apologies on a misrepresentation of your argument. I'm so confused by the many different defenses for Shanahan that my brain is combining them into arguments that no one is making. I apologize for making a straw man about a high percentage of the current roster being non-scheme fits. That's not really the problem that caused 6-10/5-11.

Carter was released prior to drafting Kerrigan, creating the obvious need for an edge rusher. Rogers hit free agency, but the scheme-fit argument about Rogers was disingenuous when Shanahan made it and it's disingenuous now. I know the Redskins want to be a zone coverage team and they viewed Rogers as an inconsistent zone player. But I've spent a lot of time grading Rogers as a corner since 2005; he's not a poor zone player. The problem, IMO, was positioning (on the slot) in the Haslett defense. And "inconsistent" when you have the corner who gave up more passing yards than any player in football on the other side of the field is a really suspect term anyway.

It's the same problem the Eagles had with Nnamdi Asomugha this year. They got it fixed by the last four games though. The Redskins have a strong tendency to project failures onto departed players, a tendency that pre-dates Mike Shanahan. It's nice on some level to see Redskins draft picks make pro bowls, no matter how little affiliation I have with them when they do it.

If we do it with Landry, the mistakes are the same. Look, I realize Landry is doing himself no favors with this charade of trying to avoid surgery. I get that the Redskins probably should be growing frustrated with him. If you continue to let good secondary players walk because they do dumb things that make you want to pull your hair out, and then act like "hey, we're letting Landry walk now, it's addition by subtraction!" Well, sure. Have fun. Did I mention that I will criticize the Redskins for mishandling the situation? Thought you should know.

If you want to send a message, slap him with the franchise tag and don't open up long term contract negotiations until he gets his act together. He's a player you need in the defense, let's not overlook that.

The 2009 roster did contain a lot of useless players without any trade value. It also happened to include many of the players who are the high quality performers on the current team. And I think there could have been at least a few more quality starters on the 2011 team if things had been managed better.

One thing the Redskins have done well is getting picks for players they don't want anymore. What they've struggled with is replacing the players they don't want anymore with players who 1) they do want, and 2) are actually capable.