Why did we keep Tryon?

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by celts32

That's for sure. I have not seen hating on a player like this since Archuletta...but at least Arch was a veteran who was paid a lot of money and cost us real games. This is a 4th round pick who was not given a big contract and has never taken a meaningful snap. It's not like they gave him the starting job...all they did is keep him on the roster.

Saying someone is not qualified to make an NFL roster does not make you a "hater"....especially if you are a fan of the team pulling for the guy to succeed.
It is just an objective opinion based off of a ton of film.

I would understand keeping him on the practice squad.
The reality is the team decided they needed 5 CB's and he beat out the weak competition.

If you are comparing Tryon's performance to others, few would argue that he performed better than some other cuts such as Mason and McMullen.

I think we all expected a mid round corner to not get torched so frequently.
We all understand that he is a long term project and that corners need to be tested on an island...but long term projects should initially be on the practice squad, not be called into action on game day if there is an injury.

The reality is Tryon, Chris Wilson made the team and not Mason or McMullen.
Why not use the practice squad and keep all 4?

[SmootSmack]

I'm starting to think maybe a new thread is needed specifically to explain why McMullen cannot be placed on the practice squad, becuase too many people aren't getting it.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Also, let's remember that Torrence needed some time to develop as well.

[dmvskinzfan08]

I do think Torrence looked alot better this year.

McMullen can't be placed on the practice squad because he actually has played in games or was on a active roster for a whole season..(or something like that)..am I correct?

[dmvskinzfan08]

Got it somewhat right..had to google it to be sure

Practice Squad Eligibility? «

[JLee9718]

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JLee9718

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

We did, he's on the practice squad.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by JLee9718

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

I don't know who is better. Keep in mind that the coaches saw Richardson and Tryon a LOT more than we did. I'm willing to give the coaches the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Saying someone is not qualified to make an NFL roster does not make you a "hater"....especially if you are a fan of the team pulling for the guy to succeed.
It is just an objective opinion based off of a ton of film.

I would understand keeping him on the practice squad.
The reality is the team decided they needed 5 CB's and he beat out the weak competition.

If you are comparing Tryon's performance to others, few would argue that he performed better than some other cuts such as Mason and McMullen.

I think we all expected a mid round corner to not get torched so frequently.
We all understand that he is a long term project and that corners need to be tested on an island...but long term projects should initially be on the practice squad, not be called into action on game day if there is an injury.

The reality is Tryon, Chris Wilson made the team and not Mason or McMullen.
Why not use the practice squad and keep all 4?

They probably felt that Tryon would have been claimed if he was put on the practice squad. Even though he was bad in the games he was still a pretty highly ranked prospect and anyone who had him on thier draft board may have claimed him.

[PennSkinsFan]

We kept Tryon because it would have been embarrassing to cut him taking him as a long shot in the 4th round. Fact is, Tryon was awful, he looked lost,and Matteral Richardson played better than he did. This was the one roster spot that was really just a poor move.

[CRedskinsRule]

Here is an excellent Q&A with Scott Campbell about the roster cuts and the thoughts behind them:
Wednesday, September 3: Talking Cuts With Scott Campbell « The Official Blog of The Washington Redskins

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Here is an excellent Q&A with Scott Campbell about the roster cuts and the thoughts behind them:
Wednesday, September 3: Talking Cuts With Scott Campbell « The Official Blog of The Washington Redskins

Good read thanks for posting that.

[EXoffender]

Yes, maybe we drafted him too high but, we needed to draft a CB. None of our CBs are durable and we have to build for the future. We can afford to give him some time to stick. He has speed and had good stats coming out of college.

Maybe the bickering is about who should be on the roster instead of him?

[celts32]

Originally Posted by PennSkinsFanhR

We kept Tryon because it would have been embarrassing to cut him taking him as a long shot in the 4th round. Fact is, Tryon was awful, he looked lost,and Matteral Richardson played better than he did. This was the one roster spot that was really just a poor move.

I don't buy that. You can cut a 4th round pick without embarresment. You are definitley locked into keeping rounds 1-3 the first year but 4th round picks and lower get cut all the time. They are obviously too high on him to pull the cord just yet over the bad pre season game performances.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JLee9718

I would rather have kept Matteral Richardson than Tryon.

Actually JLee, we kept them both. Fact is that the chances another team would take Tryon is probably a lot higher than someone taking Richardson(obviously no one else took Richardson so even a 1% chance of someone taking Tryon is higher) and then we WOULD have only had one choice. As it is now, we can develop both, and see who can compete in the future.