Reaganaut Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Phew! Finally the crystal ball holders are speaking up. I was really worried he was going to be a bust too since he had zero playing time this year. What a relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And who says that Heyer can't be that guy? Fans don't seem to think that a player can improve. To be honest, most fans didn't think Dockery was worth a damn until his last season. Even then, I don't think he's worth what he got. Dockery was not well liked (by fans) during Spurrier's time or his early Gibb's years. In hindsight Dockery was worth more than we ever paid for him. However, I would never consider matching his current contract to get him back. He hit the market at the perfect time for his position, nothing more or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Here's a quote from Buges that kinda pissed me off. It shows his loyalty to the vets: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122701123.html?hpid=sec-sports See, Buges just doesn't want to let Rinehart play cause he knows that Rinehart's gonna take the job of one of them vets, and he doesn't like it. Thats why Heyer got benched for Jansen. But watch, our OL is gonna be dominant next year. You're talking about a guy who played Jeff Bostic and Joe Jacoby. A coach that benched Bostic in '87. I don't buy what you're selling. Starting at Center for your Washington Redskins Alex Mack! Why would we keep Kendall only to move him to the right side? That would probably require a cap hit in dropping Thomas and then signing Kendall. I can't see how that makes cap or football sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswerdlw Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'd like to see a lot more of Rinehart in preseason. I think he still has great potential. It seems to me that Heyer does a much better job at LT than at RT. Is that because of a natural inclination? because of Kendall's presence on the left? both? Anyone have ideas on that? Finally, though, I don't think he should be one of our starters. We need to draft a LT in this draft, who can play RT until Samuels is done. Next year or the year after, we draft our permanent RT. It's time we started thinking long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yea, he is so good he couldn't even get on the active roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanhillbilly Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yea, he is so good he couldn't even get on the active roster. For all you youngsters (those who never saw a Billy Idol video from Rebel Yell as it was released on MTV or friday night videos) out there, many of the Hogs did not come in and start their second year or even their third. Gibbs used to love to "redshirt" players by stashing them on IR (that is why the Gibbs rule exists today). And when it comes down to it, do you really want to dress 4 extra linemen? Besides the baltimore game when have you seen something like that happen? It makes sense that he wore a sweatsuit to games all year. Don't sweat it. If he can't play we will all know soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 For all you youngsters (those who never saw a Billy Idol video from Rebel Yell as it was released on MTV or friday night videos) out there, many of the Hogs did not come in and start their second year or even their third. Gibbs used to love to "redshirt" players by stashing them on IR (that is why the Gibbs rule exists today). And when it comes down to it, do you really want to dress 4 extra linemen? Besides the baltimore game when have you seen something like that happen? It makes sense that he wore a sweatsuit to games all year. Don't sweat it. If he can't play we will all know soon enough.Really?Joe Jacoby played 14 started 13 games his rookie year. Mark May played in 16 started 9. Russ Grimm played 14 started 13. Bostic played in 16 started 0. Started all 16 next year. Melvin Jones played in 11 started 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 So maybe Bugel (and certainly Zorn) hates using rookies. Well guess what? Rinehart isn't a rookie anymore... He's had one year to get used to the speed of the game and the complexity of the playbook. He's a vet now. Let's see what he's got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Bottom line is that Rinehart wasn't going to start over Thomas or Kendall. Both have done a great job. Next year he will play. I don't see Kendall, at 36, coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Phew! Finally the crystal ball holders are speaking up. I was really worried he was going to be a bust too since he had zero playing time this year. What a relief. LOL! :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Really?Joe Jacoby played 14 started 13 games his rookie year. Mark May played in 16 started 9. Russ Grimm played 14 started 13. Bostic played in 16 started 0. Started all 16 next year. Melvin Jones played in 11 started 10. Things are a just a "little bit" different now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The Draft is a huge crapshoot ... why is anyone surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Anyone think he will be starting next season?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critz1407 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am hoping he will be. I can't see Kendall coming back at 36. he has had a redshirt year, now its time to earn that paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Why would we keep Kendall only to move him to the right side? That would probably require a cap hit in dropping Thomas and then signing Kendall. I can't see how that makes cap or football sense at all. Who is dropping Thomas? Kendall played better then Thomas that's why I would start him. I would move Kendall to the right to balance the line with veterans and youth. What line-up would you like to start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It's hard to know what the deal is with Rinehart. On the one hand he couldn't sniff the field on a team whose offensive line was very much on the decline the second half of the year. OTOH, he projects by most accounts as a LG in the pros, and Kendall despite his age was one of our stallwarts this year. IMHO this will be the offseason to watch in this regard. We'll have to see whether we resign Kendall as a litmus test for what the team thinks of Rinehart. Hopefully we've gotten lucky with Heyer and Rinehart, and we really only need one or two more new OL's this offseason to get our OL back up to speed (I think Samuels still has a couple of more good years left in him). I've we've swung and missed on those two guys then we're staring a major OL rebuild right in the face, with probably another year of spotty-at-best OL play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I really hope so.... Because if Rinehart doesn't pan out, I can easily see Vinny Cerrato and the Redskins apologists saying some stupid crap like: "SEE! We drafted a lineman like you cried about wanting for years, and look how that turned out!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsLoveAffair2136 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 no, vinny has never drafted a olinemen in the first or 2nd round. chris samuels wasnt his pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never4get#21 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It's hard to know what the deal is with Rinehart. On the one hand he couldn't sniff the field on a team whose offensive line was very much on the decline the second half of the year. OTOH, he projects by most accounts as a LG in the pros, and Kendall despite his age was one of our stallwarts this year. IMHO this will be the offseason to watch in this regard. We'll have to see whether we resign Kendall as a litmus test for what the team thinks of Rinehart. Hopefully we've gotten lucky with Heyer and Rinehart, and we really only need one or two more new OL's this offseason to get our OL back up to speed (I think Samuels still has a couple of more good years left in him). I've we've swung and missed on those two guys then we're staring a major OL rebuild right in the face, with probably another year of spotty-at-best OL play. Well said. Rinho was good in preseason as a guard. He was slow as a tackle (That was against 2nd-3rd string personell). Kendall was one of the bright spots on the line last year (Minus his muff catch-fumble that cost us the game). Thomas was still adequate, so Rhino wasnt going to see playing time. He is not going to be a tackle. He's too slow. We draft a RT, and center and I think we set on the line. Plug Rhino in at LG. We could have Heyer for depth and Jansen could provide some depth along the line also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 no, vinny has never drafted a olinemen in the first or 2nd round. chris samuels wasnt his pick Uh, yes he was. That was Vinny's first draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I would have liked to see Rhinehart play, but Kendall and Thomas were both pretty solid at G. Our weak spots are RT, C, and LT once Samuels went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Uh, yes he was. That was Vinny's first draft. That's true. Snyder fired Casserly in 1999, but Casserly left the team with 3 first round picks in the 2000 draft. Cerrato used the first of those (the second overall) to pick Lavar Arrington, and bundled the next two to move up to the third overall pick to get Chris Samuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Reinhart to me gets a bad wrap since he wasn't active but tell me this; who would you have deactivated for him on the o-line? To me, he's a left guard and I'm basing this off of where he played in the preseason prior to Heyer's injury. So who goes inactive? 1. You need the backup Center so Geisinger is in... 2. Whoever wasn't starting between Heyer and Jansen was in.... 3. Fabini was active for parts of the season because he could backup at guard or tackle. So my question then is where did you want Reinhart to go? If Kendall went down he would have been active and possibly starting the next week but unfortunately for Chad he was playing behind one of the few solid guys on our line..... :applause: 100% agree. He missed out in the numbers game based on others versatility & experience at centre & tackle. He was hardly going to back-up LT was he ? We tried Geisinger at that for one series & it didn't look too pretty. In fact, I don't think he was seen again as he headed to IR.... I actually think Kendall may hang around, and having him & Reinhart on the roster for LG seems alright to me for 2009. PS - Go checkout the pre draft bio on Malcolm Kelly. It 'compares him' to Larry Fitz. Who would have thought that, eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 There was no reason not to give Rinehart reps once the team was effectively eliminated after the Bengals game. Once again the Redskins came up with a 'focus on today', the 'heck with tomorrow' formula that has so often pervaded the team over the past 10 years. A really secure NFL Head Coach would be more interested in developing his players and evaluating them in what had become a non-playoff year instead of looking for one additional meaningless victory. So what if the Redskins had gone 7-9 instead of 8-8? Bill Walsh went 2-14. Jimmy Johnson went 1-15. If you aren't going to be in the postseason the record is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 There was no reason not to give Rinehart reps once the team was effectively eliminated after the Bengals game. Once again the Redskins came up with a 'focus on today', the 'heck with tomorrow' formula that has so often pervaded the team over the past 10 years. A really secure NFL Head Coach would be more interested in developing his players and evaluating them in what had become a non-playoff year instead of looking for one additional meaningless victory. So what if the Redskins had gone 7-9 instead of 8-8? Bill Walsh went 2-14. Jimmy Johnson went 1-15. If you aren't going to be in the postseason the record is meaningless. I don't know if the only issue was job security. If San Fran had sacked and injured JC in a 'meaningless' game, and if the sack was Rinehart's fault, then I think we'd all be kinda upset at Zorn for playing him. This is where I disagree with many people about the OL. I think the major issue was that nobody (including Chris Samuels) DOMINATED this year. Everybody made their own set of mistakes (and Jon Jansen made a whole lot of them), so its really hard to single out anybody to get benched. So as much of a fan of Rinehart as I am, I don't want him to get a chance 'just because'. Kendall was playing OK and didn't deserve to be benched. And people have complained about Thomas, but I didn't really see him doing a piss poor job either. I think in the end he wasn't playing because of a numbers game. People may not like to admit it, but we have two (maybe 3 if you count Geisinger) young guys on the OL who should be contributing to this team in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.