Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Low roster turnover, does this typically mean a better team?


njxbean

Recommended Posts

Anyone have any statistics regarding roster turnover and how that translates into wins the following season?  This is the least roster turnover we have had an a long time.  I am curious if keeping roster turnover to a minimum translates into wins.  Obviously we were limited in our moves due to the salary cap penalty but might that be the silver lining as a result of that penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence I've seen is that minimization of turnover itself is meaningless.  Once you do find a good personnel set, you want to minimize turnover but only AFTER you find the right package.  You don't avoid turnover to get good but you may minimize turnover to stay good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suspect that it's the reverse... a better team means lower roster turnover. I don't think that the Bills are going to get better by just standing pat every year.

Agreed.  However, i suspect that bad players might get better by staying and learnng in the same system for multiple years as well as playing with the same core unit.  Im hoping that while we didnt make many upgrades, we have a better chance of some players stepping up/getting better as a result of low turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can look that, look at how rookies are treated do they basically waltz into starting to positions or are they in dog fights for starting/depth roles, and look at how many players that you cut that are picked up. To me all these things together signify a strong roster, rather than just low turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can look that, look at how rookies are treated do they basically waltz into starting to positions or are they in dog fights for starting/depth roles, and look at how many players that you cut that are picked up. To me all these things together signify a strong roster, rather than just low turnover.

Saw where Steelers picked up ex Redskin DB Jackson off waivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suspect that it's the reverse... a better team means lower roster turnover. I don't think that the Bills are going to get better by just standing pat every year.

Agreed.  However, i suspect that bad players might get better by staying and learnng in the same system for multiple years as well as playing with the same core unit.  Im hoping that while we didnt make many upgrades, we have a better chance of some players stepping up/getting better as a result of low turnover.
In the offseason, Packers fans always hear about how the biggest improvement to the team isn't going to be the new players so much as it is from second year players making the leap. For us last year, we had 2nd year WR Randall Cobb have a breakout season after doing mostly return duty his rookie year. Unfortunately for us, though, most of our top picks from the prior year caught the injury bug as Packers tend to do. Sherrod missed the entire season because of the leg he broke the year prior, Green was hampered by his knee injury from the year prior, House looked like he was gonna win the starting CB position until he hurt his shoulder in preseason, Smith was starting ILB before season-ending injury... Not a lot of luck with our second-year players, and we got bounced in a most embarrassing fashion in the playoffs.

I seem to have gone off on a tangent, but my main point is to keep your eyes on your second year and to an extent your third year players if you want to see how your team has improved this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the team was good the season prior then low roster turnover is probably great, unless it was a fluke season. If they sucked then probably the roster is going to get revamped anyway. If you have a lot of young players then maybe staying pat after a bad season is ok if you are implementing a new system and have to wait on the young guys to adapt to the system and improve.

 

But really most teams with low roster turnover have it that way because they were good the season prior, or the owner is cheap as dirt and doesn't care if his team sucks every season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also running the same systems on offense/defense year after year, not re-learning a brand new scheme every year, instead adding new wrinkles to what is already 2nd nature.

 

It's still pretty hard to believe RGIII excelled so much as a rookie in Kyle Shanahan's offense when a guy like Matt Schaub said it took 3 seasons to really get the most production you could out of it.

 

A statement like that means that last year might have merely been a sneak preview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low turnover can mean keeping your star players, or it could mean keeping players together to let them grow and work together.  Having low-turnover on the offensive line for instance is crucial, once you find a good group of players and depth.  Same with a QB/WR combo; they'll get better the more time they spend together to learn one another's nuances.

 

I think it is generally smarter to have a low turnover roster.  As elkabong said, a young team with a bad to average season may still be worth sticking with as they just need experience.

 

In our case, I feel we may have overperformed a little last year on offense, but as long as that offense can keep up that same level of play we are in good shape.  On defense, I am looking forward to a potentially much better group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, also keep in mind the salary cap penalty, so there may have been more moves that we would have made with that extra 18 mil to spend. 

 

But, overall, I agree that for us, low turnover is probably a good thing.  Also concur with Packer fan that we should also be paying attention to how our second and third year draft picks are performing as that is a good measure of how we are evaluating the talent that we will need to sustain success in this salary cap league.  After all, you cannot pay everyone on the team top dollar.....and here in a few seasons RGIII will command a good portion of our salary cap.....putting a premium on younger/drafted talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we were bad the players we cut generally left the NFL, this season should see that change but it is the second indicator to look at.  The first is who signs and why.  Garcon signed last off season saying he wanted to play with RG3.  This season we resigned vets for much cheaper contracts than they were on and have players like Barnett coming in because he wants to play on a winning team.

 

Next off season when we have dollars should be even more evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can look that, look at how rookies are treated do they basically waltz into starting to positions or are they in dog fights for starting/depth roles, and look at how many players that you cut that are picked up. To me all these things together signify a strong roster, rather than just low turnover.

Saw where Steelers picked up ex Redskin DB Jackson off waivers.

 

That was the dude who was a dead-ringer for D'Angelo Barksdale from the wire! 

 

Anywho... great thread topic!  And while I will say not ALWAYS, but most of the time continuity will outplay it's opposition.

 

On the flip side, teams that go out and play "Fortune .500 Redskins" seem to have equally consistent results on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Again, not ALAWAYS, but most of the time.

 

Strong topic, OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think also what running the same system can do is elevate the play of some backup players, because they have been around and know the system so well they can concentrate on their fundamentals.


This produces what is commonly known as "system players"  They become very familiar with thei role in the system and excel in it, but often find a hard go at transitioning to another team and changing their role or taking on different roles from what they did before.


Remember Jeremiah Trotter? A stud for Jim Johnson's Scheme in Philly, a bust in D.C.  He was a total system player that was a product of working hard in a specific scheme that masked his weaknesses and let him pretty much be a pure downhill pursuing force.  As soon as he comes to D.C. and is asked to do more than lurk on the LOS, he looks lost, and he ends up gone in a season (or two?).  You never know if he would have been able to "get it" if he had been in this system for 3-4 seasons plus the offseason to work on the basics.

 

Changing coordinators and schemes can be difficult on players.

 

Another example is Reed Doughty.  While he isn't spectacular at any single thing, he is a solid fundamentals guy. He lacks the athletic gifts of everyone else but makes up for it with his work ethic and knowledge of the system he is in. However when the day comes that he is cut, it isn't likely he is going to be picked up for another team because it seems like the process of getting him up to speed in another scheme would not be worth the time and effort for a player of his lower caliber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than Griffin and Morris (which admittedly were big spots that we got lucky on), I feel like we had low turnover last season and look what it did for us. The problem was injury. If we can just stay healthy this season, low turnover could launch us even further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always think of the '89 squad that missed the playoffs, but finished strong to wind up 10-6.  The core of that team was very similiar to the '90 team that lost in the playoffs and the '91 team that was flat out historically dominant.  They made some changes of course, but it kind of reminds me of the situation we are seeing now actually.  So I'd say its a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suspect that it's the reverse... a better team means lower roster turnover. I don't think that the Bills are going to get better by just standing pat every year.

Agreed.  However, i suspect that bad players might get better by staying and learnng in the same system for multiple years as well as playing with the same core unit.  Im hoping that while we didnt make many upgrades, we have a better chance of some players stepping up/getting better as a result of low turnover.

I'd suspect that it's the reverse... a better team means lower roster turnover. I don't think that the Bills are going to get better by just standing pat every year.

Agreed.  However, i suspect that bad players might get better by staying and learnng in the same system for multiple years as well as playing with the same core unit.  Im hoping that while we didnt make many upgrades, we have a better chance of some players stepping up/getting better as a result of low turnover.

Ok, now I disagree w/ that statement. Bad players are bad players. You get rid of them not keep them around. I understand teams will keep a player or two as developmental projects. But bad teams keep bad players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also running the same systems on offense/defense year after year, not re-learning a brand new scheme every year, instead adding new wrinkles to what is already 2nd nature.

It's still pretty hard to believe RGIII excelled so much as a rookie in Kyle Shanahan's offense when a guy like Matt Schaub said it took 3 seasons to really get the most production you could out of it.

A statement like that means that last year might have merely been a sneak preview.

I think that RGIII success has more to do with Kyle tailoring his system to him (RGIII) than it does RGIII getting Kyle's system. I think that this speaks high praise for Kyle as a coach.

As it pertains to the OP, I think that any team who won their division and has a low turnover rate is on the right path. A good team can only get better with more experience in a successful system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...