Adam291 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 When it comes to using Alridge or Dorsey as a RB, I think it would be closer to what the Giants did than what the Chargers did. The coaches seem high on Betts this season, and I don't think they'd get rid of him or make him a 3rd RB. In fact, they want to use him more than ever to spell Portis. It seems more likely that if Alridge or Dorsey got the nod as 3rd RB over Cartwright, they might put them in once in a while, but for the most part, they'd be the 3rd RB who would get 50 or 60 attempts this season, which amounts to 3 or 4 attempts per game, much like Ahmad Bradshaw in New York. If Alridge or Dorsey show to be the top returners on the team, it's a no-brainer to replace Cartwright with them. The problem is, Rock is pretty reliable as a KR, and we never use a 3rd RB in a game. (Rock had all of 5 attempts last season.) If either of them can show that they can make game changing plays at RB with just a couple attempts, and be decent returners, then great, but I'm not sure it'll happen. I like how the team brought them in to try something new, but they never seemed fully on board with it and ultimately, I think we'll drop Mason, Alridge and Dorsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoRUSupposed2Be Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Chargers have a grade A quick-strike offense. The Colts don't have a grade A chain-moving offense because they were built originally for the quick strike. OldFan, he did say that as they've aged, their philosophy has changed also. The key argument in his paragraph was "age." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I agree that one of the quik-strike guys (Aldridge/Dorsey) was to replace Rock ... who hardly ran the ball from scrimmage last year ... although a mainstay on ST. I favor keeping Mason over Rock however, unless one of the QSers takes it to the house in TC or otherwise shows well ... then I would keep that guy in my arsenal as well. The KR function is a weakness and needs to be addressed. Rock proved last year he was only adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Most teams enter the preseason with only a handful of spots up for grabs anyway. Between returning guys, FA signings, and the draft, you usually have about 40 "camp fodder" guy competing for 5-7 spots depending on just how well they impress. It's difficult to know from the beginning who is going to do well and who isn't. On the other hand, knowing who will fill about 45 spots on the team means you don't want to wear these guys out in camp. Rogers pulls a hammy, so you've got 5-7 CBs vying to make the roster who get to take his spot while he heals since he's a gimme. Moss, DT, Kelly have various ailments that the coaches don't want to get worse, so you bring in a bunch of scrubs and see if any of them can do you team any good. Sure, you don't want to just try out guys for specific reasons, but if your starters are Moss and El, what's the harm in seeing if a 6'7" guy can run a fade and catch the ball? Same with RBs. Portis is a lock, it would take a miracle to unseat Betts, and Rock is probably 80-85% to make the team, but you always need bodies in camp. So you bring in 3-4 RBs to compete. Why not bring in a speedster or 2 to see they're any good? Sure, you might not want specialists per se, but if all of your recievers are under 6' why not try to find a good receiver who might crack 6'4"? Bring in a lineman who can benchpress a cow? Find somebody with sub 4.3 speed to see if they can be a returner/4th string RB just in case somebody gets hurt? Adding another dimension to your team isn't a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 These statements are contradictory. You say only to bring in players to fit the scheme, but to snag a Sproles or Hester if you can? How do you know if you don't take a look? I thought that is what training camp and preseason is all about? There's no contradiction. If our scouts sport a potential Devin Hester in the college draft, they might take a flyer on him as a receiver/returner. And you talk as though you know for fact that these guys were brought in solely for their speed and no other reason. I'm assuming, just as Jason Reid and most posters in this forum are assuming -- that speed is the primary attrribute they were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 OldFan, he did say that as they've aged, their philosophy has changed also. The key argument in his paragraph was "age." His point was that they were a grade A offense with Peyton regardless of their change in strategy. Can't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Giants do not have a speed demon like Sproles either and everyone was gushing over their running attack last year. Those RBs move the chains and are competent blockers. That whole stat line about Portis not having a run over 40 yards or so last year - who gives a crap about 40 yard runs? A nice 10 yard burst up the middle is fine by me. Stephen Davis got by fine with that from 1999-2001 when he was year. Whether it's Portis or Betts, they just need to have a nice yards per carry between 4-5 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 If Alridge or Dorsey show to be the top returners on the team, it's a no-brainer to replace Cartwright with them. I think one of them will have to be top notch at punt returning and kick returning in order to take Rock's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky52Mc Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 both of them stink and won't make the team anyway It's not that they stink, there speed is keeping them on the roster. But you can't fumble like that, it's too many times. I believe they're gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 ...but you always need bodies in camp. So you bring in 3-4 RBs to compete. Why not bring in a speedster or 2 to see they're any good? You are making a different argument. Jason Reid speculates that Zorn is eager to add diversity and most posters in this forum are saying that's a good idea. That's a long way from "Why not bring in a speedster or 2 to see they're any good?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 In the end I think Mason will earn the 3rd RB spot over Rock. I see no reason why he cant be as productive this preseason as he was last preseason and his special teams play has improved dramatically as said by the coaches. Don't see that happening and hope it doesn't every year it seems like Rock is counted out and every year he earns back his roster spot. Rock is our best ST guy and a solid backup RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Giants do not have a speed demon like Sproles either and everyone was gushing over their running attack last year. Those RBs move the chains and are competent blockers.That whole stat line about Portis not having a run over 40 yards or so last year - who gives a crap about 40 yard runs? A nice 10 yard burst up the middle is fine by me. Stephen Davis got by fine with that from 1999-2001 when he was year. Whether it's Portis or Betts, they just need to have a nice yards per carry between 4-5 yards. That's pretty much the way I see it. I put knocks on them both. Betts doesn't block well and Portis isn't much of a threat as a receiver. If we're looking to improve that position, we need more versatility in a primary back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 There's no contradiction. If our scouts sport a potential Devin Hester in the college draft, they might take a flyer on him as a receiver/returner. I'm assuming, just as Jason Reid and most posters in this forum are assuming -- that speed is the primary attrribute they were looking for. It is a contradiction to say that we should not bring in people who don't fit the system and then to say "yes" to a speedster in the style of Hester or Sproles, especially since there is no way of really knowing except for giving them a chance. I'm sure our scouts saw something to warrant bringing these guys in and the only way to be sure whether they are Hester or Sproles caliber is to try them out. Nobody knew for a fact how good Hester or Sproles were going to be until they were put through the paces and put on the field. Both of them could very easily have been busts as is generally the case in the NFL, especially when bringing in speedsters--look no further than the Raiders who seem to judge players based on no more than 40 speed and haven't struck gold. Ultimately, the idea that we shouldn't bring in fast guys for a look just because they are fast makes no sense. No one--probably not even the respective men--knows their potential or their ceiling. They could be the next Hester or Sproles, but you would rather write them off now simply because they don't fit the system, without seeming to consider that they could turn out to be very good NFL players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman69 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 If we assume the other units on their teams are absolutely equal, a grade A chain-moving offense will usually whip a grade A quick-strike offense by keeping their opponent off the field while denying them good field position. I agree on one hand, but not necessarily as cut and dry as that. A slow moving scoring team is great when you are running out a game and/or half as well as wearing down a defense. However, I would rather have both, and we can do that if we get a really consistent/reliable change of pace/quick back. It sounds like we may not have that in these two. If you don't have that threat of going down field receiving or breaking a big one, we will get what we had last year. A loaded box that wears the offense down and stalls them and they never reach the end zone. I would rather have an offense that can grind it slowly when they need to, but can just light up a TD in a couple plays from our 20 if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Redskins need a change of pace back. I agree you can't force it if you don't have the talent. Dorsey was brought in to return kicks, I don't remember anyone counting on him to be a factor in the backfield. Alridge was supposed to be that player but seems to be playing himself out of a spot with all of the fumbles and early injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 It is a contradiction to say that we should not bring in people who don't fit the system and then to say "yes" to a speedster in the style of Hester or Sproles... There's no contradiction because my argument does not rule out a Devin Hester who was brought in as a receiver by the Bears. His talent as a returner was just a happy discovery. If he's a bargain in the draft, or a UDFA, I'm not proposing that we should NEVER, under any circumstances, try out a speedster. Jason Reid, and most posters, are assuming that Dorsey and Aldridge were brought in as part of a strategy. I assume it was also. That's what my OP is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 It's not that they stink, there speed is keeping them on the roster. But you can't fumble like that, it's too many times. I believe they're gone. Well, Betts should go also. He fumbles at the wrong time. The offense needs more weapons. And the Skins need a punt returner in the worst way. ARE is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 We pound the ball. We run hard. That will change when our passing game picks up, but until then, it's 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Good news, we do that as well as anybody in the league and it just kills your opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 However, I would rather have both, and we can do that if we get a really consistent/reliable change of pace/quick back. It sounds like we may not have that in these two. I think the "change of pace" idea is a myth in a one-back offense. Defenses adjust to the personnel the offense puts on the field. The only reason that Darren Sproles is a threat is that he's versatile and very good. If you don't have that threat of going down field receiving or breaking a big one, we will get what we had last year. We need to get that threat from Thomas or Kelly who can also help us move the chains. Fred Davis can also beat LBs deep. A loaded box that wears the offense down and stalls them and they never reach the end zone. Defenses don't stack the box against WCOs as a rule. That's something they do against teams that pound the rock to set up their offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 You are making a different argument. Jason Reid speculates that Zorn is eager to add diversity and most posters in this forum are saying that's a good idea. That's a long way from "Why not bring in a speedster or 2 to see they're any good?" Then I will admit to misunderstanding what you were trying to say. It seemed that you had a problem with these 2 young guys because they were fast, and I couldn't figure out why. Just to be clear, you don't want guys brought in just because they're fast, but if they have something to show and happen to be fast/tall/strong/etc. so much the better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Redskins need a change of pace back. I agree you can't force it if you don't have the talent. The "change of pace" idea is a mystery to me. As a defensive coordinator, I'm going to adjust my "packages" to your offensive packages. If your package includes a speedster in the one-back offense, I'll have my D force him inside. If he's more of a power runner, I'll have my guys force him wide. Why should I be bothered by a change of pace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 Then I will admit to misunderstanding what you were trying to say. It seemed that you had a problem with these 2 young guys because they were fast, and I couldn't figure out why.Just to be clear, you don't want guys brought in just because they're fast, but if they have something to show and happen to be fast/tall/strong/etc. so much the better? More than that. really. My argument is that it is not good strategy, for the reasons I gave, to try to add diversity to this offense by adding a homerun hitting specialist. That's what Jason Reid and most posters, including me, think that the Skins are trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 There's no contradiction because my argument does not rule out a Devin Hester who was brought in as a receiver by the Bears. His talent as a returner was just a happy discovery. If he's a bargain in the draft, or a UDFA, I'm not proposing that we should NEVER, under any circumstances, try out a speedster. Jason Reid, and most posters, are assuming that Dorsey and Aldridge were brought in as part of a strategy. I assume it was also. That's what my OP is about. You said to bring in guys that fit the system unless they are Hester or Sproles quality. You can't find that out unless you bring guys in. Like you just said: Hester was "a happy discovery." The same can be argued of Sproles. No one, not even die hard K-State fans, thought that he might one day vie to unseat Tomlinson, no matter how gimpy LT got. Sproles was essentially meant to be a returner who was yet another "happy discovery" when he got in the backfield. The point being that you are against Alridge and Dorsey being in camp, but you seem to refuse to even wonder if they might be something special. Granted, the odds are stacked against them, but they still warrant a look. If it had been just about speed, we might as well have signed an Olympic sprinter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 Well, Betts should go also. He fumbles at the wrong time. Z has already discussed plans to expand Ladell's touches this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 If it had been just about speed, we might as well have signed an Olympic sprinter. Ah great, now you're gonna encourage people here once again to start screaming for the Redskins to bring in Usain Bolt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.