2016 Roster Thread (Building a Champion Edition) - Doct to IR - Mo Harris Up

[Stefanskins]

we could get burned again though...Shaun Alexander, Ki-Jana Carter, Tim Hightower,...TJ Ducket...course could be a Riggins too...

 

/did anyone else know that Don Shula played for the Redskins??..wow

[bird_1972]

I'd still like to consider Pierre Thomas.

RB is still a bit unsteady for us and he was very good for us down the stretch last year.

[HanburgerBum]

8 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

If I'm talking about Butler and Hargrave; why does it mean no Scherff, Norman, Cravens and Smith?

What does Butler and Hargrave have to do with the O-Line?   would have no impact.

 

I presume you are going to agree that not all areas can be addressed at one time.  And, your premise is the Redskins should have addressed the Dline and RB before anything else,  Do you seriously think acquiring Butler and Hargrave would unquestionably solve the Dline's problems?  It is not even clear those two are any better than Reyes, Hood and Lanier (who were brought in by McCloughan).  Moreover, none of them is a RB.  So, it is clear that you would have advocated acquiring more Dlinemen and RBs.  That has to mean less resources available for acquiring the likes of Scherff, Norman, Cravens and Smith.  In fact, if McCloughan followed your strategy, he clearly would have selected Leonard Wms instead of Scherff.  That's why there is no way Scherff would be a Redskins today if McCloughan followed your advice.

All you are doing is adhering to the proven-loser strategy of "drafting according to need".  It is a terrible idea to draft players just because they happen to play positions your team is weak at when there are more talented and better players available who happen to play positions that your team may not be weak at at the moment.  That is especially true for the Redskins when McCloughan took over, because the roster was weak in many spots (not just Dline and RB).  Had McCloughan concentrated on the Dline and RB, the Skins would not be anywhere near as strong as they are at the Oline and secondary.  And, in today's NFL, I would say Oline and secondary are more important than Dline (especially if you play the basic 3-4) and RB.

24 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

I'd still like to consider Pierre Thomas.

RB is still a bit unsteady for us and he was very good for us down the stretch last year.

If you brought Pierre Thomas abroad, who would you cut to make room for him?  That person you want to cut is probably a good special teams guy.  Unless Thomas is that, he will likely be inactive on game days.  Maybe if a RB gets hurt, but bringing Thomas aboard now makes no sense.

[HanburgerBum]

11 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Spaight gets tricked by play fakes and needs to learn how to not get washed by blockers and Cravens is not a ILB 

Why is it important to pigeon hole Cravens in any position, so long as he makes plays?  He is a tweener size-wise, the kind of prospects that used to be routinely down-graded by NFL scouts.  But, some teams are having success with this type of player, and based upon what Cravens has shown so far, there is no reason to think he wouldn't be a good defender.  Sometimes, it pays to think outside the box and adapt to the NFL as it it today--a league mostly about the pass and stopping the pass.  In that regard, Cravens can be valuable as a blitizer, a cover guy with enough speed to run with TEs and RBs and with more bulk than a DB for stopping the run.  I wouldn't have him out there on all snaps--but he can be a load in passing situations.

[HanburgerBum]

On 9/7/2016 at 11:03 AM, SemperFi Skins said:

Garrett Grayson waived by the Saints. Was supposed to be the heir to Drew Brees.

3rd rounder in 2015 draft.

Lots of draft guys wanted him and a few NFL Execs thought he'd be the best of that draft. He hasn't lived up to the hype.

http://www.profootballrumors.com/2016/09/saints-to-cut-qb-garrett-grayson

Possibly give him a tryout? Can't be worse than Sudfeld.

 

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/cfb/133328/garrett-grayson

Grass is always greener in the neighbor's yard, right?  I, myself, don't like to make a change just for the sake of making a change.  I think there is something to be said for continuity and stability--especially when it comes to team chemistry.

[HanburgerBum]

On 9/6/2016 at 7:14 PM, DC9 said:

 

I don't disagree, personally I would've kept Jenkins for the sake of keeping him.  But I also don't like Golston, so that was my way out of keeping 64 on the roster.  Neither one would play much, but I also understand there is value to keeping guys here who earn it vs signing a replacement off of the street.

At LB I have Garvin above Bates just because Garvin plays a stud on teams ( or at least that was the big reason he was brought in).  I also have Garvin ahead of Bates because I don't see us bringing in an ILB at all barring someone cutting someone we weren't expecting.

I was excited when we drafted Arie, but after his first PS game it was clear that he was at least two to three years away.  Hopefully the light goes on soon, for him.  I think he was the last in on offense at least.

Okay, so you were thinking of cutting Golston instead of Jenkins.  I think the coaches think more of Golston than you do.  They see Golston right now as the starting NT, and they don't know that Jenkins can be that at this point of his career.  Besides, as you said, there may be a negative team chemistry factor if a player were to be cut for an aging veteran whom no one has deemed worthy of signing almost the entire pre-season.

You could be right that Arie is on very thin ice.

[TK]

6 hours ago, The Mayor of Fed Ex Field said:

Ease up on the dude. He is a Redskins fan. You can tease him a little, but anything more than that, save for an opposing fan.

We are Redskins fans. Related by the burgundy and gold that courses through our veins.

You wouldn't tell your brother or sister some of these insults, would you?

I never thought I'd see the day when Mayor was the voice of reason. 

Nice job bro. 

[KDawg]

45 minutes ago, TK said:

I never thought I'd see the day when Mayor was the voice of reason. 

Nice job bro. 

Hey... Under your avatar...

 

What am I watching?

[TK]

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Hey... Under your avatar...

 

What am I watching?

It. Jdog. You're watching IT. Or you're gonna get IT Hotdog or whatever your name is you stupid idiot. 

Now drink it in, maaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

[SemperFi Skins]

4 hours ago, HanburgerBum said:

Grass is always greener in the neighbor's yard, right?  I, myself, don't like to make a change just for the sake of making a change.  I think there is something to be said for continuity and stability--especially when it comes to team chemistry.

 

lol, we're talking about 3rd string QB's. What are you concerned about changing besides who's butt is bigger to keep the bench warm

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, TK said:

I never thought I'd see the day when Mayor was the voice of reason. 

Nice job bro. 

Hey, wait, what?  

[Wildbunny]

13 hours ago, Stefanskins said:

we could get burned again though...Shaun Alexander, Ki-Jana Carter, Tim Hightower,...TJ Ducket...course could be a Riggins too...

 

/did anyone else know that Don Shula played for the Redskins??..wow

First, it's good to see you back Stefan. I believe you went through hard times lately, so I'm glad to have you back around here

Now, this being said, I agree with you on the subject, there's no reason to bring back a RB vet. I don't see what would it bring right now. Our running isn't going anywhere if we don't fix the line first, and I believe Callahan can do that. He's got a you line, a tough LT that should get the job done. Sure Licht isn't perfect, but at least Kory have a strong backup for him in Kirk Cousins. (You can watch his answer on the matter here).

Quoting the answer:

Quote

On C Kory Lichtensteiger:

“Kory makes a big difference for our offense because the center, similar to the quarterback position, is more than just a physical talent position. It’s quite a bit of mental, making calls, and being composed and being able to identify fronts and pressures, and then knowing what the proper call is in a split-second. I can’t afford to wait. I have got to react to his call and then make my decisions. So he’s got to be a quick thinker and those guys are hard to find. I think they have tried to replace Kory and it’s been hard to do because he’s very good at that part of the game. You can’t just roll anyone out there. You need someone who can accurately shotgun snap, who can effectively snap the football consistently. There are a lot of nuances that go into playing the center position and it’s hard to just plug a guy in who may not have had a lot of experience doing that in the past.”

Which is not to be discarded in the coaches' mind.

So we've got 4 young RB in Jones (23), Thompson (25), Kelley (23) and Brown (24). We would be unlucky if we cannot find our RB for the 3/4 years to come out of this group.

[Burgold]

Not sure why everyone is so down on Sudfield? I thought he did quite well in the preseason esp. for a 7th round rookie. Seemed to lead game winning drives. He was accurate. He didn't fumble. The team worked well around him. He's probably not the next Big Ben, but he showed well.

[GoSkins0721]

26 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Not sure why everyone is so down on Sudfield? I thought he did quite well in the preseason esp. for a 7th round rookie. Seemed to lead game winning drives. He was accurate. He didn't fumble. The team worked well around him. He's probably not the next Big Ben, but he showed well.

Yeah, I agree. I saw him early in camp and, as reported, he had a funky release when throwing. Almost like his ball was always pointed down as it approached receivers. There were a lot of missed passes during that practice and I came away thinking "The dude is BIG but he needs some work on his pass delivery." Watching him in the 4th pre-season game, I could tell he'd made changes and had a much better release. Actually, you could see it in game 3. 

So, for me, he has 3 things going for him right now: He's a big dude. So he has the size you want in a QB. He's able to learn & make adjustments. Not everyone is capable of doing that in a short period of time. Yes, there's still work to do on his mechanics but he's much improved from early in TC. And I guess the last thing is - he'll be carrying a clipboard for the season giving him an opportunity to continue to learn. To me, that's what you want from your #3 QB. 

[Wildbunny]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

Not sure why everyone is so down on Sudfield? I thought he did quite well in the preseason esp. for a 7th round rookie. Seemed to lead game winning drives. He was accurate. He didn't fumble. The team worked well around him. He's probably not the next Big Ben, but he showed well.

I haven't watched any preseason game, so I'll hardly comment on his performance so far. But I'll notice this:

- Looking at his stats lines they weren't great but there's no red flags amongst them.

- Coaches seems pleased with his play and progression so far and that in itself is enough to me. Sure there's obviously works do be done with him, otherwise he wouldn't have been a 7th rounder.

- Cavanaugh have been able to do some great job with Cousins last year, and Colt as well, I see no reason why Sudfeld wouldn't be able to learn from him as well. Just like Doctson he's in the perfect environment to learn and progress.

So he's a 7th rounder that managed to grab a spot on the 53 roster, which in itself is some kind of achievment (for the record Austin Reiter got cut last year for a month or two before coming back to the practice squad due to injuries). So if he keeps on working he'll probably be our backup in two years replacing Colt, and maybe one day our starter if the team doesn't found better until then, or don't get some valuable trade offer.

[HapHaszard]

It appears the explanation for why they kept Sudfeld on the 53 was that they felt that some other QB needy team would claim him off of waivers.  This tells me that he played well enough to cause interest from other teams.  He was drafted as a developmental QB, has shown incremental improvement over the preseason, didn't make huge rookie mistakes.  Remember we are now in a promote from within mode not go out and grab whoever we can.  There are a lot of teams out there that would love to be in our position with a good steady backup and a development QB that could step in at a future date. 
 

[Jericho]

You never know what another team is thinking, but the odds that some other team would have claimed Sudfield seem remote. So many teams go with just two active QBs (unless you're the Jets) and no one wants Sudfield to be their primary back-up. So you'd have to find a team willing to give him a spot on the 53 as a third guy. And remember, this is a league that passed on Sudfield as a whole until the mid-6th round when the Redskins took him. And he was pretty mediocre in the pre-season. So teams that didn't think he was that great during the draft time and saw nothing special in pre-season would have to bring in a guy they know very little about to learn their entire playbook during the season. I mean it could happen, I just doubt it would.

 

Let's face it, the odds Sudfield develops into anything aren't great. Low round QBs have pretty poor success rates. Hell, non-first round QBs don't have great rates. Just look a few posts above to see Grayson getting cut one year after being the 3rd QB off the board. From 2014, Johnny Manziel (first round), Logan Thomas (fourth), Aaron Murray (fifth), Zach Mettenberger (sixth), David Fales (sixth), Keith Wenning (sixth), Tajh Boyd (sixth), and Garrett Gilbert (sixth) have all already been cut (in two years time). I can't say how Sudfield will do, but odds are he's more Keith Wenning than Tom Brady.

[Darth Tater]

I think of a QB needy team as one who needs a starter or a primary back up NOW.  Sudfield, if other teams were sniffing around him, seems he'd be more of interest to teams with an established but aging starter and a primary backup but are dissatisfied with the primary backups long term growth potential. I could also see interest from teams with a high potential but somewhat unproven guy (Tampa as an example) who may want to hedge their bets.

[carex]

13 minutes ago, Jericho said:

You never know what another team is thinking, but the odds that some other team would have claimed Sudfield seem remote. So many teams go with just two active QBs (unless you're the Jets) and no one wants Sudfield to be their primary back-up. So you'd have to find a team willing to give him a spot on the 53 as a third guy. And remember, this is a league that passed on Sudfield as a whole until the mid-6th round when the Redskins took him. And he was pretty mediocre in the pre-season. So teams that didn't think he was that great during the draft time and saw nothing special in pre-season would have to bring in a guy they know very little about to learn their entire playbook during the season. I mean it could happen, I just doubt it would.

 

 

only ten teams opted to go with two QBs, and one of them is the Pats, who have Brady suspended

[Jericho]

To be fair, it's largely a lot of hand wringing over nothing. The only player the Skins cut to be picked up on an active roster was Paulsen (I believe). So for all the worry of who was cut, they're all still available if the Redskins wanted them. I'm sure at least someone cut by somebody today will develop into a bona fide starter for someone. But largely the fringe roster guys hang a round for a brief period and then just disappear and are often long forgotten. Unless you're Kedrick Golston. In which case you never leave. Ever.

5 minutes ago, carex said:

 

only ten teams opted to go with two QBs, and one of them is the Pats, who have Brady suspended

 That's arguably better then. That means 2/3 of the teams already have a third QB they deemed worthy of keeping on the 53. Odds they switch now are probably not great, particularly since "their" guy has an offseason in the system already.

[Stefanskins]

8 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

First, it's good to see you back Stefan. I believe you went through hard times lately, so I'm glad to have you back around here

 

Thank you Wildbunny. 

[Est.1974]

We kept Sudfeld around because he's gonna be great. It's that simple.

[wit33]

I wonder what thoughts SM has watching T. Simien do his thing with a great supporting cast, while making 7th round money.

Roster with a game manager??

Roster with a top 5 salary QB??

[Jericho]

15 minutes ago, wit33 said:

I wonder what thoughts SM has watching T. Simien do his thing with a great supporting cast, while making 7th round money.

Roster with a game manager??

Roster with a top 5 salary QB??

 

We'll see if Simien can keep it up. It seems virtually anyone can look good as an NFL QB over small spurts. The real question is sustained success. If Denver finishes 8-8, or worse, then probably he doesn't think much of it. And let's be fair, the teams that compete year in and year out all have good to great QBs. The teams that seem fine for a year and disappear are usually the ones with crap QBs.

[Master Blaster]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

I wonder what thoughts SM has watching T. Simien do his thing with a great supporting cast, while making 7th round money.

Roster with a game manager??

Roster with a top 5 salary QB??

 

If Simien duplicates his stats every game he would have the following stats

2,848 yards

16 TD's 

32 INT's

 

I'm sure SM is fine with the QB he has.