This stat about Shanny/Allen personnel decisions may surprise you.

[roanoker]

Ok, I'm surprised. However, too lazy to see if this turnover rate is the norm for NFL teams. Glad Vinny is out of the picture.

[NewCliche21]

For me, it's more a matter of accuracy, regardless of the overall point. Because that point is not diminished one iota by presenting the actual stats, so no need to fudge them even slightly.

They weren't fudged and they were accurate. Yeesh.

You guys are going to have to get used to positive things on this board regarding our boys. It's been a long time coming, and it'll be here for a long time.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

They weren't fudged and they were accurate. Yeesh.

You guys are going to have to get used to positive things on this board regarding our boys. It's been a long time coming, and it'll be here for a long time.

Rogers wasn't cut. That alone shows an inaccuracy. I also think leaving out starters that are free agents right now like Carter is "fudging" things, considering the point that was trying to be made...and again, that point gets made loud and clear even when you make it more factually accurate.

Not sure why this bothers you to the degree that it does.

[NewCliche21]

Rogers wasn't cut. That alone shows an inaccuracy. I also think leaving out starters that are free agents right now like Carter is "fudging" things, considering the point that was trying to be made...and again, that point gets made loud and clear even when you make it more factually accurate.

Not sure why this bothers you to the degree that it does.

Ah, I see where you are with that. To me, not being re-signed is the same as being cut. Maybe, "Out of the 150 players that Shanahan decided were not right for the team . . ." would be better? We're kind of splitting hairs here.

I do agree that any hyperbole is unnecessary, though.

What bothers me is that the immediate response is negative for something that's really, really positive. The reaction isn't about how this effing rocks, but rather it's about the use of the word "cut." That is finding the cloud on a gorgeous day, and that is even more unnecessary than anything else discussed.

[Laxpunk2006]

As for the QBs, Jason Campbell wanted gone after we traded for McNabb, it wasn't the other way around. We would've been willing to keep him as a backup.

Interesting to think what may have happened if JC hadn't requested a trade. He probably would have been starting those games instead of Grossman. We might have been mediocre enough to keep us out of the running for RGIII.

Rogers wasn't cut. That alone shows an inaccuracy. I also think leaving out starters that are free agents right now like Carter is "fudging" things, considering the point that was trying to be made...and again, that point gets made loud and clear even when you make it more factually accurate.

Not sure why this bothers you to the degree that it does.

I'm not really sure that the Carter bit is "fudging" anything. If Carter was a younger player with a recent record of consistent production he would be signed by now regardless of his injury. Due to his age, injury, and lack of a consistent track record the past 3-4 years he is still on the market. That is an indication of the type of players Shanahan inherited. Past their prime and limited in talent. That isn't to slight Carter but while he was a good 4-3 DE he was never a world beater. We're talking about a guy that just had his fourth double digit sack season in 11 seasons without the flexibility to drop into coverage.

[SirClintonPortis]

Ah, I see where you are with that. To me, not being re-signed is the same as being cut. Maybe, "Out of the 150 players that Shanahan decided were not right for the team . . ." would be better? We're kind of splitting hairs here.

I do agree that any hyperbole is unnecessary, though.

What bothers me is that the immediate response is negative for something that's really, really positive. The reaction isn't about how this effing rocks, but rather it's about the use of the word "cut." That is finding the cloud on a gorgeous day, and that is even more unnecessary than anything else discussed.

It matters because they are distinct actions that have different implications for the teams and players, even if it doesn't matter much to us fans results-wise. It is not about positivity or negativity, but rather about accuracy.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Ah, I see where you are with that. To me, not being re-signed is the same as being cut. Maybe, "Out of the 150 players that Shanahan decided were not right for the team . . ." would be better? We're kind of splitting hairs here.

The only thing is, with free agents they have a say-so on whether or not they stay with the team as well...Would Shanahan kept Rogers if Rogers was one thousand percent willing to come back to the Skins? Maybe...

I do agree that any hyperbole is unnecessary, though.

What bothers me is that the immediate response is negative for something that's really, really positive. The reaction isn't about how this effing rocks, but rather it's about the use of the word "cut." That is finding the cloud on a gorgeous day, and that is even more unnecessary than anything else discussed.

Oh, it's definitely a positive for Shanahan's decision making lol :yes:...he was correct on damn near ALL of the players he parted ways with...their absence from any real production in the NFL after leaving the Redskins more or less backs that up.

And I think the hyperbole of saying Shanahan "cut" 150 players is what caused people to see if that's actually correct, and then point out if it's not...because that's a ****load of players to actually cut ...

---------- Post added June-16th-2012 at 10:36 PM ----------

I'm not really sure that the Carter bit is "fudging" anything. If Carter was a younger player with a recent record of consistent production he would be signed by now regardless of his injury. Due to his age, injury, and lack of a consistent track record the past 3-4 years he is still on the market. That is an indication of the type of players Shanahan inherited. Past their prime and limited in talent. That isn't to slight Carter but while he was a good 4-3 DE he was never a world beater. We're talking about a guy that just had his fourth double digit sack season in 11 seasons without the flexibility to drop into coverage.

Hmmm...then how about Shaun Suisham?...Does he count as a starter? lol...Because he's kicking for the Steelers.

Or Edwin Williams...he started the last 7 games for the Bears, and they extended his contract for 2 more years. I don't know if they named him the official starter for 2012 but since he ended the season as the starter and they extended him, and while he got his start due to another player's injury the Bears seem very high on him, even possibly at center.

[DC9]

Yeah, it's hard to have a good team when your a lot of your starters aren't even considered role players for other teams.

---------- Post added June-17th-2012 at 08:52 PM ----------

EDIT: Already mentioned...

[FrFan]

I'm very pleased to learn about this stat about Shanahan, even though it's not fully accurate. I think we can add Chad Rinehart to the very few exceptions that prove the rule.

Overall, the record is very impresssive.

[NewCliche21]

It matters because they are distinct actions that have different implications for the teams and players, even if it doesn't matter much to us fans results-wise. It is not about positivity or negativity, but rather about accuracy.

No, it's entirely about positivity and negativity. You're 23, so you're not new to Redskins Nation. If ANYTHING good happens, then we have to find what's wrong with it. Always.

This isn't a presidential election; it's a blog. It's saying that Shanahan knows who to keep and who not to keep. Getting caught up on semantics instead of focusing on the actual point makes you (not you specifically) look like the guy who didn't get Editor in Chief for his high school newspaper so now he wants to nitpick at every word choice. It's ridiculous.

This is just another example of that.

[BKSkinsFan]

It's not really a surprising stat to me at all, we have had quite a bit of turnover on our roster, and for the most part it has been extremely positive. Our youth and depth is so great right now, not just by our standards, but I think we have one of the more promising rosters in the league at this point. That may be a bit of a homerish statement, but it's one that has a very good chance of proving to be accurate in the next couple of seasons.

RG3, Helu, Trent W, Davis, Garcon, Hankerson, Morgan have the potential to be part of a great offense. Couple that with Jenkins, Orakpo, Kerrigan, Riley on D and you have some great young talent to build this team around.

[Kindred]

Does he get a minor ding for players who left and are still serving as backups for other teams? They still like Chase Daniel over in NO unlike Beck...

[wholee]

When Shanahan came in and started getting rid of players (that didn't fit his system), I had the grandfathered Redskins way of thinking "We can't lose that player because (insert reason other than talent)". I no longer think this way and I'm glad! Shanahan and Allen did a great job last year with the Defense and it seems like this year with the Offense. We are far from a finished product but I like the moves they've made so far. HTTR

[artmonkforHOF]

Courtesy of Dan Graziano/ESPN... Since the duo took over prior to the 2010 season, the Redskins have cut 150 players, and only one of those players -- San Francisco's Carlos Rogers -- is currently starting for another team.

And that guy wanted out regardless.

There were flops like the McNabb acquisition, but for the most part their personnel choices have certainly been vindicated.

and how many of those 150 cuts where starters to begin with? Carlos, Big Al and???????????? And how many of those cuts where brought in by Shanny & Allen in the first place?? McNabb, John Beck & Dante Stallworth comes to mind. How many of those guys would have retired, or have tried to catch on with another team only to then retire had they not been cut? And how about some of the other guys they have signed to be a starter, they have not cut but still remain on the skins roster like Rex Grossman?? and as it has been said before, Carlos was a FA, not a cut so why even post this if you are ESPN or Dan Grazing-on-donuts? (if he isn't going to bother to check his facts, I'm not going to bother to look up 4 lines to spell his name correctly)

This sounds like something Shanny & Allen told ESPN to print, or they would cut off their access to the team. They are trying to hide their MASSIVE mistakes by lumping them together with the purge they had to do from Vinny's pile of crap that he left, hoping no one would notice. Neither Shanny or Allen have had any success at BUILDING a team, they can take top contenders from being on the cusp to over the hump, but there is no proven track record of either man having success with a team that they

have build themselves from the ground up.

Here is a big tip off to show that these guys are not nearly as good as they would have you believe: they have cut 150 players in 3 years, yet there are only 53 men on a roster for a season. that means they have cut basically the entire team one year, replaced them with 50 new guys and then cut those second 50 guys, brought in a 3rd team of 50 guys and cut them. You can't blame all the bad contracts & players on the old regime, since the old regime only gave you 53 players, that means even if you cut all of the first regimes bad talent (and we know that not to be the case, Moss, Cooley, etc) that means you brought in and cut 97 players. so for every RG3 success story you hear, remember, they messed up 100 times to make that one good move.

All that being said, RG3 could come out like gangbusters and make these guys look like geniuses and give them an extra 3-4 years of work that they do not deserve, and then the next guy in here will have to cut all the crap they left us with still.

[JPCreativelab]

and how many of those 150 cuts where starters to begin with? Carlos, Big Al and???????????? And how many of those cuts where brought in by Shanny & Allen in the first place?? McNabb, John Beck & Dante Stallworth comes to mind. How many of those guys would have retired, or have tried to catch on with another team only to then retire had they not been cut? And how about some of the other guys they have signed to be a starter, they have not cut but still remain on the skins roster like Rex Grossman?? and as it has been said before, Carlos was a FA, not a cut so why even post this if you are ESPN or Dan Grazing-on-donuts? (if he isn't going to bother to check his facts, I'm not going to bother to look up 4 lines to spell his name correctly)

This sounds like something Shanny & Allen told ESPN to print, or they would cut off their access to the team. They are trying to hide their MASSIVE mistakes by lumping them together with the purge they had to do from Vinny's pile of crap that he left, hoping no one would notice. Neither Shanny or Allen have had any success at BUILDING a team, they can take top contenders from being on the cusp to over the hump, but there is no proven track record of either man having success with a team that they

have build themselves from the ground up.

Here is a big tip off to show that these guys are not nearly as good as they would have you believe: they have cut 150 players in 3 years, yet there are only 53 men on a roster for a season. that means they have cut basically the entire team one year, replaced them with 50 new guys and then cut those second 50 guys, brought in a 3rd team of 50 guys and cut them. You can't blame all the bad contracts & players on the old regime, since the old regime only gave you 53 players, that means even if you cut all of the first regimes bad talent (and we know that not to be the case, Moss, Cooley, etc) that means you brought in and cut 97 players. so for every RG3 success story you hear, remember, they messed up 100 times to make that one good move.

All that being said, RG3 could come out like gangbusters and make these guys look like geniuses and give them an extra 3-4 years of work that they do not deserve, and then the next guy in here will have to cut all the crap they left us with still.

best post ive ever seen on this board

[artmonkforHOF]

To add to my last post, if Sahnny & Allen cut all of Vinny's bad crap, that would be a team of 50 or so players, that means in 2 years plus they have brought in and then had to cut twice as much crap as Vinny left them, even more considering some of Vinny's guys are still here.

So Extremeskins logic:

Vinny's scouting & roster (under 50 players cut)= very, very, very bad. worst front office man in the history of the NFL

Shanny & Allen scouting & roster over 100 players signed then cut within 2 years = NFL FRONT OFFICE GENIUSES!!!!!!! all hail the great Shanny!!!!!!!!!!!

[RonYoungEra]

and how many of those 150 cuts where starters to begin with? Carlos, Big Al and???????????? And how many of those cuts where brought in by Shanny & Allen in the first place?? McNabb, John Beck & Dante Stallworth comes to mind. How many of those guys would have retired, or have tried to catch on with another team only to then retire had they not been cut? And how about some of the other guys they have signed to be a starter, they have not cut but still remain on the skins roster like Rex Grossman?? and as it has been said before, Carlos was a FA, not a cut so why even post this if you are ESPN or Dan Grazing-on-donuts? (if he isn't going to bother to check his facts, I'm not going to bother to look up 4 lines to spell his name correctly)

This sounds like something Shanny & Allen told ESPN to print, or they would cut off their access to the team. They are trying to hide their MASSIVE mistakes by lumping them together with the purge they had to do from Vinny's pile of crap that he left, hoping no one would notice. Neither Shanny or Allen have had any success at BUILDING a team, they can take top contenders from being on the cusp to over the hump, but there is no proven track record of either man having success with a team that they

have build themselves from the ground up.

Here is a big tip off to show that these guys are not nearly as good as they would have you believe: they have cut 150 players in 3 years, yet there are only 53 men on a roster for a season. that means they have cut basically the entire team one year, replaced them with 50 new guys and then cut those second 50 guys, brought in a 3rd team of 50 guys and cut them. You can't blame all the bad contracts & players on the old regime, since the old regime only gave you 53 players, that means even if you cut all of the first regimes bad talent (and we know that not to be the case, Moss, Cooley, etc) that means you brought in and cut 97 players. so for every RG3 success story you hear, remember, they messed up 100 times to make that one good move.

All that being said, RG3 could come out like gangbusters and make these guys look like geniuses and give them an extra 3-4 years of work that they do not deserve, and then the next guy in here will have to cut all the crap they left us with still.

Ugh, where to begin. First, what these all of these MASSIVE mistakes that you speak of? Even without the wins that we'd like the past two years, if you can't see that this team is headed in the right direction, then maybe you DO need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Sounds like you'd prefer Vinnie still be around as Danny's right-hand man? Give me a freakin' break. And take off the tin-foiled hat--it's ludicrous to think that Mike & Bruce "told" ESPN to print this article. Sheesh, did they pee in your Cheerios or something?

And your claim of cutting 3 years of 53-man rosters. Who's to say the 150 that they're speaking of in the ESPN article isn't referencing roster cuts prior to the final 53-man roster. You know, from 90ish down to 53. I certainly don't think they've cut 3 full 53-man final rosters full of players over the past 3 years. If you include the cuts from 90ish to 53, that's almost 120 cuts in the 2+ years here. Another 30 gets rid of the old/less skilled players that were already on the roster. I see no problems with their moves.

You claim that neither Bruce nor Mike have had previous success at building franchises. Okay, Bruce went to Oakland in '95, was the Executive of the year in '02 (7 years there, captain), and had quite a good track record of successes at turning around their franchise. From '04-'08, with Tampa, he purged old vets and still managed to build a team that had a winning record 3 out of 4 seasons. If you're a fan of the Redskins over the past few years, I think you'd agree that we'd be happy with that! All Mike did after going to the Broncos in '97 is win them 2 Super Bowls in '97 and '98. No big deal. Now sure he may have had a decent roster to begin with, but he was still able to produce multiple 1000-yard-rushers annually and, let's face it, not many people on this earth can claim to have coached a winning Super Bowl team and he did it...twice.

Have some faith, man. We're going in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. If you want instant gratification, go jump on the Giants bandwagon--I hear they did well last year, despite the two whoopins that we laid on them.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I actually view that as a bit of a negative. Good teams sometimes have to let good players go, because there is no room for them. (It's not really a poor reflection on Shanahan and Allen. It's just an indication of how little talent has been here the last few years. The Skins will know they are good when you see starters and say, "That guy couldn't make our team.")

[RonYoungEra]

Yeah, of course it's a negative--if all of the folks you're cutting aren't starting or even in the NFL any more, they weren't any good to begin with. It's part of the purge to rebuild our team and it's a good thing!

[TheLongshot]

Yeah, of course it's a negative--if all of the folks you're cutting aren't starting or even in the NFL any more, they weren't any good to begin with. It's part of the purge to rebuild our team and it's a good thing!

Except that most of those people are players Shanahan brought in. I expect that the vast majority of the players we don't keep are not going to make the grade elsewhere, but when your team is 5-11 after all of that, it still doesn't look good.

[TSO]

best post ive ever seen on this board

:doh:

---------- Post added June-18th-2012 at 01:30 PM ----------

Except that most of those people are players Shanahan brought in. I expect that the vast majority of the players we don't keep are not going to make the grade elsewhere, but when your team is 5-11 after all of that, it still doesn't look good.

The players we brought in who we had to cut were players we were basically forced to get just to help the depth of the previous regime's poor handling of that area. Look, I was never a straight up Vinny basher like the majority here but I always recognized our lack of depth. We were top-heavy and injuries/age always ruined that anyway.

The players brought in by Shanahan/Allen who were then cut by Shanahan were in spots where there were little to no options otherwise. Guys like Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Donte Stallworth, etc... were only brought on as stop gaps because our options were limited and we needed some semblance of depth. There's only so much you could do. The good news is we are willing to part ways with those kind of guys as soon as we get better, and younger, depth at those spots. We are seeing the fruits of this now and that MUST account for something.

To me, it's simple. Both years under Shanahan thus far we've gotten off to decent-to-strong starts and then just fell off miserably. In 2010, we were 4-3 through week 7 and then won two more games the rest of the way. In 2011, we were 3-1 through week 5 and then just won two more games after that. That, to me, says a lot about our depth being a major issue. Logically, that flows from how little depth we've had for so long and it's not something you fix with one or two drafts. We're starting to see the last two drafts begin to pay dividends and now this past draft has only boosted are depth (potentially) as well as netting us what should be a franchise QB. It's coming together.

Maybe this year we actually can get past the start of the season with enough depth to get through the inevitable injuries. Maybe this time we can actually keep winning instead of going on a horrible losing streak because we just don't have the guys to fill in?

[RonYoungEra]

Don't we only have like 1/3 of the players that were on the roster before Mike took over? I'm not sure of the exact percent, but I know there are few holdovers from Vinnie's reign of terror. Personally, I'm glad Mike brought in fresh faces to make it his own rather than going with the old regime. Sure he made lots of cuts to the ones he brought in, but he also has kept many and made some great moves. We're younger and we have more talent and we are building towards something great.

[artmonkforHOF]

In response to those who think I'm trying to rain on your parade, let me make it clear I hope rg3 is more than he is made out to be, this team is headed in the right direction, but I think they would be further along without mike at the helm. I think mike is a good coach, buy not the right coach for this team at this time, same with Bruce as GM. Both guys stepped into situations where they only filled in pieces, & with the moves they have made so far, I don't think they are the right guys to rebuild.

I don't want to kill the hope, but I think it would be best to curb the hype. That stat should not be viewed solely as a positive or negative on mike, because it is a combination of both. Yes he had to sign a bunch of stop gaps, but partially due to roster moves that cost him cap space, even in years where the players where no longer on the team like big al and mcnabb. And yes he has gotten rid of crap, but a lot of that crap he brought in, so why everyone has blind faith in his scouting ability is beyond me.

Yes mike finds gem RB's in the late rounds, but you can't build a team solely out of RB's. Oakland, TB and Denver had horrible rosters and cap problems when Bruce & mike left, and I see the same pattern repeating itself here if they continue. Realistically, this team is not one QB away from contending, but they traded the farm to get this kid, and my worst fear is not having enough help around the kid to the point where he gets beat up and loses confidence. Right now this team has a question mark at RT, the blind side protector for a lefty QB. I hope brown can stay healthy & perform, I like the guy, but I don't count my chickens before they hatch. This team could also use an upgrade across the board on the inside, they could survive with the ones they have, but none of them are entrenched in their spots. They might also need a # 1 & 2 WR, I hope hank fills one of those, but I am always skeptical of FA #1 WR like Garçon, most don't pan out like fans hope.

On D, you could use an upgrade for atleast one position at all 3 sectors, line, LB & corners. So what this team needs is more talent overall, even at the back ups, talent that mike & Bruce have not had much success in finding. Now they also have to find guys cheap because of cap issues that they created and with 3 less top quality picks because of the rg3 trade. This team will build around rg3, but now it will take much longer because of the way mike & bruce have set up the future of this team. If you want to rebuild wit a rookie QB, u better have a stockpile of picks to help get the talent you need when u need it, even more so when your up against the cap and can't sign FA.

I hope this team comes out this year & proves me wrong, winning 10 plus and making a playoff run. But none of mike & bruce's moves so far have lead me to believe they have got it right this time, and the longer they stay in the more damage they will do to this team going forward. With fewer picks and little caP room for the next 2 years plus, it is even more important to have a great scouting department. Mike can tale care of the RB's, but I need someone to find a late round pick or FA steal on the Oline, WR, ILB to replace fletch, NT, DE & safety, not to mention competent back ups.

[88Comrade2000]

Well, if this doesn't work out; Bruce can always write a column like he will on July 9. He will be a guest columnist for Peter King; while King is on his annual summer break.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/06/18/mmqb/2.html

>>>Washington general manager and football history nerd Bruce Allen on July 9<<

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm pretty sure that the "150 players cut" figure is due to camp bodies being let go.

Nobody has done any research to see if 150 players cut/released/whatever in 2 1/2 years is high, low or the norm. My guess is that it's somewhere between the norm and high.

And any rate, for a 4-12 team who had the worst "GM" in the league building its roster, going through 150 players to completely remake that roster should be seen not as a positive or a negative, but a necessity.

Now, having basically none of those 150 players latch on to any teams as a starter should at the very least point to the decision makers making the right decisions when parting with these players. It shows Shanahan and Allen aren't letting talented gems slip through their fingers. Even parting ways with proven commodities like McNabb and Haynesworth were shown to be the right decisions.

The better stat to concentrate on would be how many of the players Shanahan inherited are starters on another team right now. and even more telling, how many of those same players inherited by the current coaching staff are out of the league within 2 years after being let go by the Redskins.

I understand that there's a segment of the fan base who either can't, or refuse to, look at the coaches, front office and players through the lens of anything except wins and ESPN highlights. But for many of us Redskins fans, we are enjoying keeping track of the progress, even if the successes haven't arrived yet. Are we finding starters outside of the 1st round...are we using the draft better in terms of depth...are we seeing real promise in our young talent when they are on the field, promise that can be developed into consistent production...are we adequately developing the positions most important for success--QB, O-Line, pass rushers...is the team showing consistency and patience...are the decision makers learning from past mistakes...and a bunch of other things worthy of monitoring.