Does Shanahans refusal to play younger players equate to ineptitude

[Tatankgough]

Since Mike Shanahan has stated that even though we are eliminated from the playoffs he refuses to play the younger players for evaluation going forward doesn't this show just another reason that he is not that good of a HC?

 

With Adam Gettis, LeReibus and Tom Compton poised to pontentially be part of our future OL why wouldn't this HC put them into the live experience to see where they are in their development and to see where they are now as professional players going into next season? Lichtenstein could slide to center to allow these younger guys to get experience at the 2 guard positions and at the RT spot before the season is over.

 

Since the entire interior line are all natural centers it seems to me that a combination of these players with one of the three starters playing center could tell a lot about what we have at this point.

 

Same with the offensive side of the ball. Why not allow players like Chase Minnifield, Baccari Rambo and David Amerson get more live time so they can grow as players going into next season?

 

Another option is to keep the OL as is but to insert Kirk Cousins to see how he performs with the same enviroment as RGIII?

 

In this same light some of the practice squad guys could be given limited playing time. Didn't we add a RT to the practice squad? Why wouldn't we want to see if he has the instincts to play the game?

 

Giving Nick Williams, Lance Lewis and Fred Davis more playing time to me makes sense, but maybe he doesn't want to do this because if they do show promise other teams might be more apt to try to steal them. On the other hand if they do show promise wouldn't it be easier to make those decisions about veterans already coming up for re-ups at a higher pay scale?

 

Maybe it would be a good time to give Nick Barnett more playing time in the middle linebacker spot, to see what kind of chemistry he and Riley could find together?

 

All of this to me simply shows more reason why Mike Shanahan may not deserve his option year.

 

Just what am I missing here? Is this just simply a ridiculous notion or does it have merit?

 

I am interested to hear from all of you as to why he would insist on not giving backup players or players on the practice squad playing time when we need to know what we have.

 

To hear the other perspective to the why and whats to this issue, I am sure that there are many other opinions on this and I am truly wanting to hear from those that have more educated insight for Mikes reasoning on these things.

 

HTTR

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

He basically said straight up he doesn't care about development. Oh well, he'll be gone soon.

[elkabong82]

Or the other perspective is what he has said: the young players have to earn their way up. Let's actually look at what has happened, shall we? 

 

Alfred Morris earns starting spot after last week of preseason, RG3 declared starter right after draft, Jordan Reed pushes out Fred Davis, Rambo starts day 1, then benched for poor play, then earns his way back into starting roster, Hankerson pushes out Morgan, Amerson starts eating into Wilson's time. Barnett even pushed out Fletcher a bit. There are other examples as well.

 

Bottom line, one of the good things about Shanny is that he doesn't have an allegiance to vets. The best performers play, and have time and again pushed out under performing players who previous regimes would have likely clung too far longer.

 

If a player can't beat out starters who aren't doing well on this team, then he doesn't deserve to get a nod. Chester and Licht. are playing poorly. Given the other young guys who have earned starting spots on this team, and did so fairly quickly, it stands to reason that if Gettis and Hurt can't easily outshine those guys in practice then putting them out there anyway is a bad idea. 

 

Plus, if Shanny does stick around, there may not be a quicker way to alienate the locker room than by sitting vets in favor of young guys who aren't doing better than them in practice simply because of age. Sure a bunch of those vets are likely gone, but it could create resentment in players who do stick around who are friends with those vets and/or have learned from them.

 

Shanny has at least set the standard that you have to put your all into it and earn your way on, and you have to keep at it and keep earning it. That's why Fat Al and McNabb were shown the door quickly. That's why young guys with great work ethic like Morris, RG3, and Reed are on this team. It's a standard I'm happy with. 

 

Playing hypothetical, let's say they put Gettis out there "just to see what happens, because he's young," and then he blows a blocking assignment big time and it leads to an RG3 injury. Then we find out Gettis has looked terrible in practice all season. There goes the relationship with RG3, the entire team too probably, the media and fans will have a field day, and Shanny is definitely fired at the end of the season.

 

I think the better option is to stick to your principles and make players actually earn their way on to the active roster. Given the players I mentioned above, this isn't a regime that typically holds back hard-working, talented young players in favor of vets, so if there are young guys on the team doing well in practice, they very likely are already active for us.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I love how supposing that the players he has been drafting and developing are so god awful that putting them on the field will get someone killed equals a defense of Shanahan.

[elkabong82]

I love how supposing that the players he has been drafting and developing are so god awful that putting them on the field will get someone killed equals a defense of Shanahan.

 

If that's all you took away from my post then you should stop posting in here and work on your comprehension skills.

 

I guess my list of young players who ousted poor performing vets, you know, actual evidence, was just too much for you to handle so you went with addressing a hypothetical I stuck in at the end instead. So unless you can counter my evidence of young players who were elevated past poor performing vets with ones who weren't that deserved a shot, or address my other actual points made, then move on, because right now your post is nothing but a useless drive-by that contributes nothing to the thread.

[Dirt]

elkabong explains it well.  you don't play players just to play them.  You put your best team on the field.

 

Laugh all you want, but there's no reason to think the inactives would make the team better.  We have what we have, this OP is a desperate grasping at straws.

 

I mean what would playing Cousins 'in the same environment' prove?  To satisfy your curiosity?

 

When this team loses, it's fans lose their football logic.  There's no reason to bench RG3 or anyone else, you're forgetting that part:  you're BENCHING someone.  You don't get BENCHED unless you're hurt, playing terribly, or pissing off coaches.  I'm sure you would say we ARE playing terribly, but I'm sorry, our answers aren't on the practice squad, and they ain't under the Christmas tree either.

[elkabong82]

Alfred Morris, Jordan Reed, David Amerson, Fred Davis then Jordan Reed, Hankerson, Rambo, Roy Helu, Perry Riley, Aldrick Robinson, Darrell Young, Richard Crawford, all pushed out underperforming vets.

 

We recently elevated Chase Minnifield from the practice squad, as well as Lance Lewis and Nick Williams. Do they not count as young guys getting a shot? 

[Rufus T Firefly]

If that's all you took away from my post then you should stop posting in here and work on your comprehension skills.

 

I guess my list of young players who ousted poor performing vets, you know, actual evidence, was just too much for you to handle so you went with addressing a hypothetical I stuck in at the end instead. So unless you can counter my evidence of young players who were elevated past poor performing vets with ones who weren't that deserved a shot, or address my other actual points made, then move on, because right now your post is nothing but a useless drive-by that contributes nothing to the thread.

LMAO. I have no duty to break down every silly "point" you choose to spew. If I feel like making a joke at the expense of one of the nonsensical elements of it, I will. And I won't shut up because a self-important twit like you tells me to.

[elkabong82]

LMAO. I have no duty to break down every silly "point" you choose to spew. If I feel like making a joke at the expense of one of the nonsensical elements of it, I will. And I won't shut up because a self-important twit like you tells me to.

 

By not addressing my actual points when you make a reply to my post, it shows you aren't interested in actually discussing the topic but more so in trying to make fun, as you admit, no matter how foolish it makes you look. It's also off topic.

 

Nice personal attack, though a bit hypocritical to call me self-important when you recently started a thread on a topic that already had several threads dedicated to it and even admitted so in the OP, stating that your thoughts just "had to have" their own, separate discussion.

[Fred Jones]

I thought he provided some valid points and made a valid stance.  I didn't see it as defending a coach that should fired at the end of the season, just explaining why just putting players on the field to play is not necessarily the correct call in this situation.

 

If you want to bash Shanny for not having anyone good enough to challenge the current starters, that is a different story.

[MrJL]

Or the other perspective is what he has said: the young players have to earn their way up. Let's actually look at what has happened, shall we? 

 

Alfred Morris earns starting spot after last week of preseason, RG3 declared starter right after draft, Jordan Reed pushes out Fred Davis, Rambo starts day 1, then benched for poor play, then earns his way back into starting roster, Hankerson pushes out Morgan, Amerson starts eating into Wilson's time. Barnett even pushed out Fletcher a bit. There are other examples as well.

\

 

 

From what I've heard Shanny had Morris penciled in to start well before that final preseason game.  All the guys you list are skill position players, guys who rotate in and get some actual game time to prove they deserve more

[MrJL]

elkabong explains it well.  you don't play players just to play them.  You put your best team on the field.

 

Laugh all you want, but there's no reason to think the inactives would make the team better.  We have what we have, this OP is a desperate grasping at straws.

 

I mean what would playing Cousins 'in the same environment' prove?  To satisfy your curiosity?

 

When this team loses, it's fans lose their football logic.  There's no reason to bench RG3 or anyone else, you're forgetting that part:  you're BENCHING someone.  You don't get BENCHED unless you're hurt, playing terribly, or pissing off coaches.  I'm sure you would say we ARE playing terribly, but I'm sorry, our answers aren't on the practice squad, and they ain't under the Christmas tree either.

 

 

when you no longer have a chance at the post season why not play a little pre-pre-season.  After all, this is the 53 man game day roster.  Everyone of those guys could be forced into seeing game day action.  Of course two of the guys people are hoping to see on the field have actually been active every game this year.  

 

Also, if you best team can't win, then putting other guys out there may give you some surprises.  

[elkabong82]

From what I've heard Shanny had Morris penciled in to start well before that final preseason game.  All the guys you list are skill position players, guys who rotate in and get some actual game time to prove they deserve more

 

They are all guys who replaced underperforming starters. It's not just game time rotations that are used to determine who gets more playing time. Practice, film room, weight room all factor in too. Players who show hard work, dedication, and play well do go ahead of underperforming players. By your definition of rotating in and out, only a few positions would even then qualify in the conversation: OL, QB, and FB. 

 

An OL doesn't typically rotate because they work as a unit and gel. But, the skill position players who rotate in and out are proof still that players who outperform others and put in the work do get starting nods. Plus, Shanny has said many, many times, that what players do in practice is heavily looked at too. That's why Morris got the starting nod so early. 

 

There is a thread specifically on if younger OL should get a nod. This thread, while mentioning OL a lot, asks about the entire team, including the skill positions. We just saw Chase Minnifield get activated from practice squad, same with Nick Williams and Lewis, so they are starting to get their chances as well. 

 

But as far as the OL, Hurt is still on PUP I believe, Ribs from what I read is something like 60 lbs overweight, Very talented but has regressed into the overweight stuff as he did once before. Given the mediocre play of Chester, you'd think if Gettis were even decent then he would outshine Chester in practice. Compton IIRC they have said is good back up LT, and Trent is playing through injury so if he gets hurt they need Compton at LT. I do think it's safe to say that if not for the cap penalty then more resources would have gone into the OL.

 

If a player can't outshine an underpeforming vet in practice then they don't deserve a spot, regardless of age, IMO.

[Mad Mike]

Yeah, it's a shame he won't play young guys like Morris or Reed. Oh wait....

 

You people are flat out living in some kind of fantasy land. For the life of me I can't figure out where this crap comes from. I guess people who don't know anything about football have to make up **** to **** about.

 

Dumbest thread I've seen in some time. And that's saying a lot. 

[skinny21]

In his presser, when asked about this, Shanahan said something to the effect of 'the competition has to be close'. As in, they don't have to perform better in practice etc., they have to be close. He also added that playing a young guy (and benching a vet) just to play him/evaluate him is a good way to lose a football team. It shows the coach isn't as interested in winning.

On the flip side, once you're mathematically eliminated, you'd think the players would understand a coach's desire to look to the future. Overall I see Shanahan's point - it is a fine line. Why should a player be expected to do their best to win (even in a meaningless games) if the coach isn't doing the same?

To be clear, I, as a fan concerned with the future, would love to see the young guys evaluated... but I can see Shanahan's point as well.

[drowland]

Nick Barnett is 32 so I wouldn't consider him a young player.  At this point I'm not sure why he's even on the roster.  

[HAILSKINSNYC]

It says to me that our backup o-lineman must really stink.

 

Rambo has played better.  I would start him over Doughty.   I would also give Lance Lewis an opportunity over Aldrick Robinson and I would play Minnifield over Josh Wilson....get Brandon Jenkins some action as well.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Actually, Shanny's refusal to respect veterans and his pernicious desire to scapegoat/bench team leaders equates to sabotage.

 

Sabotage.  Or maybe you can explain to me why Alfred Morris can't get a carry in the red zone?

[2006Skins]

Thank you, Elka.  I felt like the last sane person going crazy.  Why would we put in guys that haven't earned a starting spot on this team yet?  And for the people saying we need to develop players; some guys are busts.  Plain and simple.  He gets guys based on scheme and sometimes that doesn't work.  Is everything he's doing perfect?  No.  I wish he'd get heavier interior linemen so we could get better protection inside.  I wish they would a true 3-4 nose tackle because I think Cofield would be way better as a DE.  But I'm not the coach, he sees these guys every day and I'm a shmuck on a computer who watches the skins once a week.  This talk of putting in Cousins to "see what we have" is insane to me.  Start guys that have been inactive their whole career to "see what the kids got" is crazy.  They see what they have in practice every day all year, and obviously it ain't much if they're not starting. 

[Dirt]

when you no longer have a chance at the post season why not play a little pre-pre-season.  After all, this is the 53 man game day roster.  Everyone of those guys could be forced into seeing game day action.  Of course two of the guys people are hoping to see on the field have actually been active every game this year.  

 

Also, if you best team can't win, then putting other guys out there may give you some surprises.  

It's just not how football works man, it's not how sports work.  It's a fantasy that angry/disappointed fans come up with.  

 

You said it yourself, it's the 53 man game day roster.  Know how it's made?  Through the week of practice.  These surprises you speak of are just not very realistic.  When 'surprise guys' like Alfred, or undrafted Victor Cruz show up, it's because they did it in practice and perhaps preseason.  

 

And again, like elkabong pointed out, there's been plenty of instances on this team when young guys have pushed out veterans, so this argument...again...is just being desperate and grasping for straws, playing the lottery.  

[TSO]

This thread is one of the few left that contains solid, pointed rebuttals to the rage infested trashing that has happened due to the team's struggles as of late. 

 

Which means it'll have maybe a page or two before it dies.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The lamest argument going is playing time has to be earned.

Not the argument per se. That's utterly pertinent and correct. But that should stand for EVERY player. And quite frankly we have a bunch of starters who aren't fit to wear our jersey but they get sent out there week after miserable week to make the same mistakes and have the same piss poor play week after miserable week.

If those spots were being earned, that would make the same for the young guys viable. But they aren't. And it doesn't. More to the point we have a HC fighting tooth and nail to get ANY win, not bottom out at 3-13; and add to his lame case to keep his job. So he goes with what he knows and experience, such as it is.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

I also find it highly amusing that the posters who preach this approach the loudest are also the ones that excuse and defend the HC the loudest.

Apparently Coaching our team doesn't fall under the 'has to be earned' banner.

Hail.

[skinny21]

The hard part with the o-line is the continuity (as others have mentioned),

factoring in the way they practice, but also the fact sometimes they play quite well and sometimes they play like hot garbage. Makes it a bit tougher to gauge. I do think we'll see a change made (particularly Chester).

I was a little vague above, so I'll give a specific hypothetical.

First, the facts - our offense was very good last year with Polumbus at RT. This year we've had multiple 200yd rushing games (w/ Polumbus in). He's been potentially put in a bad position by play-calling, playing next to Chester, playing with a QB is still learning protections, timing etc. These and others are potential variables for the coach to factor in (along with practice habits etc.).

Now (for the hypothetical part) say they graded Polumbus +5 in run blocking last year and -10 in pass pro. Now say he's +5 (or better) in run blocking and -5 in pass pro. Do they bench him because he's not doing too well? Or do they continue to play him due to the variables and the slight improvement? If Gettis was graded at -5 in run blocking this season and - 0 at pass pro, do they play him instead? Tougher decision than simply x player is younger and needs to be evaluated in game situations.

Side note: don't know why, but it's pretty apparent Chester has been playing poorly. That's the spot I see Shanahan saying **** it, we're starting ____ instead. Hope I'm right

Also, I have the feeling Robinson would be subbing for Fletcher quite a bit, particularly down the stretch. If healthy, I think Crawford and Thomas would have had their chances as well. Then of course we've played what, 4 or 5 guys at punt return? I don't think Shanahan avoids trying the young guys, but I understand some/most are fed up with Shanahan in general.

I'll likely be riduled for it, but I'm on the fence regarding Shanahan - lot of things (and I mean a lot) concern me, but I'm also not writing last year off as a 'miracle', or thinking the cap hit and loss of picks to attain Griffin were negligible. Too much grey area for me to make a firm decision. Part of me says **** it, we've been bad for so long, what's one more year? Part of me says "with the cap space we have and a young QB, what better time to make a change". Kinda wish we had a GM to make this decision.

Forgive the rambling - this probably should have been split between three different threads

[Rufus T Firefly]

If he benches a couple of underperforming vets on a 3-9 team and looks to the future, he'll lose contol of the team, is basically what he said. I'm just not sure if that's a comment on his inability to command a locker room or abiut the character of the guys he's brought in? Or both?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

This is presuming he hasn't already lost the respect of many on this team already right Rufus?

And yes, that's pure speculation on my behalf before the homers pile in. But given what happens Sunday in, Sunday out; given the continued 'he said/ she said' coming out of the locker room; and given the continued 'leaks' out of the Park aimed at denigrating the QB and taking the attention away from the Coaches that's as valid a probable as anyone claiming he hasn't.

Hail.