Do the Redskins overspecialze?

[carex]

Of course the modern NFL is all about packages, personnel changes and adapting but do the Redskins take it to far?  It feels like there are times they must  barely have enough players for teams because this player is crucial for this formation or that package, so they can't play special teams .  I mean why else do you deactivate a player like Peterson?

[Silvernon]

My wild speculation is that it has to do with Jay and Bruce. 

 

My bet is that Jay would have moved on from AP, and because Bruce has not resolved - and potentially exacerbated - the tension between Trent and the team, Jay is sitting AP. 

 

Jay is pouting. I'd probably do some protest move in his situation. 

[Burgold]

Certainly, the way Jay badmouthed AP and his usefulness to the team before Sunday sounded personal. The decision to bench AP was a crazy one esp. considering Guice was only cleared for contact two weeks ago. More, there are now reports emerging that Derius entered the game banged up.

[KDawg]

First off - I'll respond that there is no such thing as over specialization. There is good and bad personnel for each offensive package/scheme. The Redskins are awful at acquiring/rostering proper personnel for what they want to do.

 

Second - I've copied and pasted my response to another thread yesterday:

 

The problem is not that Adrian Peterson wasn’t used. Peterson being inactive is on Gruden and in my opinion, a bad decision from a management standpoint. I’ve documented that...

 

The bigger problem, and something I’ve been hammering for the last few years along with many of you is the front office.

 

IF ITS TRUE... that Gruden wanted to cut Peterson because he didn’t really have a role in the current offense and the FO didn’t let him, the FO deserves more blame than they are getting. For signing Peterson to an extension, for cutting Gruden’s knees out and for trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

Problem is: AP IS on the roster. And therefore, making him a healthy inactive is just poor management. 

 

Our total management is piss poor. The FO and Gruden included. 

 

That needs to be fixed. Quickly.

[Burgold]

I'm of two minds to that @KDawg. The first is you're right, but the second is that it is not unreasonable to adjust your offense to adapt to special players.  Gibbs did that all the time in the glory days. Joe Theismann was an entirely different quarterback than Doug Williams. Riggo was an entirely different running back than Earnest Byner. The Smurfs were different than the Posse.

 

If you find an exceptional talent, you find a way to make it work. Heck, even if you don't have an exceptional talent you make it work. If you are dealt a hand with three fours you don't discard two because you really want a flush.

 

Systems need to be adaptable enough to take advantage of what the players do well.

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

 

If you find an exceptional talent, you find a way to make it work. Heck, even if you don't have an exceptional talent you make it work. If you are dealt a hand with three fours you don't discard two because you really want a flush.

 

Systems need to be adaptable enough to take advantage of what the players do well.

 

There's a little of this and a little of that. 

 

In lower levels, you totally meld your offense to your talent. You don't have a choice.

 

In the upper levels you do a bit of a combo. But again, if Gruden wanted Peterson cut, then Peterson should have been cut. If the FO didn't want Gruden to cut Peterson, Gruden should have been cut. Why didn't they talk about this before they signed him last year? It's roster mismanagement. I don't care who you blame either way, to be honest. It's gross malpractice of roster management. 

 

Honestly, Peterson doesn't particularly fit what the Skins want to do offensively. But, having said that, he's capable of still being a good back in the system because of his talent. He should have been active. As I said above, regardless of what happened with the team actually keeping Peterson and who made the decision... The fact is: We have him. He should have been active.

[Jericho]

I'm not sure who on the team would be considered a "specialist". I suppose you could call Chris Thompson a third down back. Or Trey Quinn a slot receiver. But most teams have guys like that. So it's nothing specific to the Redskins. You could call Jon Bostic a two down linebacker. Again, that doesn't seem particularly unusual. But that's 3 guys. Who else? If you want to count the special teams guys - Hopkins, Way, and Sundberg - you can. But everyone had those too. So I'm not really seeing a ton of evidence that the team overspecializes.

 

Or is this just a thread about Peterson? It definitely seems like there is a difference of opinion between the coaches and the front office on him. That's not really that unusual either. Unless the coach has GM powers (which some do), there's often some disagreement on players. The Jets had a pretty big difference of opinion on several players as of late. Led to the GM being fired, partly since the coach was just signed to a big deal. But when there are 53 players on a roster, the idea that the GM and coach agree on all of them seems far-fetched. Peterson seems like more of a lightning rod because he's a bigger name than most.

[Burgold]

To this extent, I agree. There was a report that Alex Smith was traded for without even Doug Williams in the loop. If Allen or other people within the Front Office keep doing things behind the backs of others, it certainly makes it harder to plan. I don't know that the coach and GM have to be in concert. Gibbs and Beathard always squabbled and wanted different things. Gibbs focused on now. Beathard had an eye on the future. That's how it should be, but as you said, the coach ought to have final say on the now. That means when it's time to cut people he chooses the groceries. He may not get to pick them, but he gets to choose which ingredients he will cook with.

 

I suspect Gruden was wrong in this instance on many levels. Peterson was someone who deserved to be re-signed. If on the roster, he should have been active esp. if Guice came into Sunday already slightly hobbled and had only been cleared for contact just before the third preseason game. Etc.

 

Still, even in the case of Gibbs and Beathard, you are still correct, @KDawg because eventually when the balance of power shifted to Gibbs, Beathard left. There can be friction, but in there end there must be concert.

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

Still, even in the case of Gibbs and Beathard, you are still correct, @KDawg because eventually when the balance of power shifted to Gibbs, Beathard left. There can be friction, but in there end there must be concert.

 

This is it in a nutshell. They don't have to agree on every player. It's a large ****ing roster. They aren't going to agree on everything. But after they hash it out, they need to agree to disagree and get on the same page on how to attack the problem at hand. 

 

When you have AP on the roster, he needs to be active. Making him inactive invites discord inside the locker room for a team who can't afford it. Gruden (while seemingly liked by the players) hasn't earned the players' trust on matters like these.

 

If this was the Patriots and Belichick made Peterson inactive, players may have been surprised/caught off guard... but none of them would have questioned him. But this isn't the Patriots. No one on this team has that kind of built in benefit of the doubt. Making him inactive was an exercise in mismanagement. 

[dballer]

26 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

There's a little of this and a little of that. 

 

In lower levels, you totally meld your offense to your talent. You don't have a choice.

 

In the upper levels you do a bit of a combo. But again, if Gruden wanted Peterson cut, then Peterson should have been cut. If the FO didn't want Gruden to cut Peterson, Gruden should have been cut. Why didn't they talk about this before they signed him last year? It's roster mismanagement. I don't care who you blame either way, to be honest. It's gross malpractice of roster management. 

 

Honestly, Peterson doesn't particularly fit what the Skins want to do offensively. But, having said that, he's capable of still being a good back in the system because of his talent. He should have been active. As I said above, regardless of what happened with the team actually keeping Peterson and who made the decision... The fact is: We have him. He should have been active.

 

I'm kind of with you.

 

I understand why Jay doesn't want to use AP in a feature role. He does not fit Jay's offense at all. And I understand if the FO decided they needed him for insurance. Obviously, they were right. 

 

And you don't want to change your entire system due to any player other than a QB. But you can certainly throw in some wrinkles where you can use AP. And situationally, 4th quarter salting away a lead. Or you don't use him and just have him available, fine as well. But you can certainly find someone else to use on special teams in order to make AP active. If you can't, you have a coaching deficiency. 

[KDawg]

Just now, dballer said:

 

I'm kind of with you.

 

I understand why Jay doesn't want to use AP in a feature role. He does not fit Jay's offense at all. And I understand if the FO decided they needed him for insurance. Obviously, they were right. 

 

And you don't want to change your entire system due to any player other than a QB. But you can certainly throw in some wrinkles where you can use AP. And situationally, 4th quarter salting away a lead. Or you don't use him and just have him available, fine as well. But you can certainly find someone else to use on special teams in order to make AP active. If you can't, you have a coaching deficiency. 

 

Doesnt sound like “kind of” being with me. Sounds like you’re in total agreement!

[London Kev]

First off, I don't think that we overspecialise any more than other teams appear to. Our special teams are comprised of second and third string players and this seems pretty normal.

 

The issue with Peterson specifically is an interesting topic. For perspective, does anyone know how other teams would handle it if the HC said that he didn't want a certain player on the roster? Whether it's because he thinks that the player isn't a good fit or because he's got beef with the player.

 

If (and it may be speculation) Jay didn't want AP on the team but was overruled, then who overruled him? is this a committee decision or solely by the GM and/or owner? It seems apparent that Gruden still had the authority to make AP a healthy scratch, would that decision also have to be sanctioned by others first?

 

Quite a lot of questions here, but basically I would like to know if Jay has more, less or about the same authority regarding player decisions as other coaches around the league.

[Peregrine]

Ive been kind of thinking this too, and wondering if the predictable the Redskins playcalling shows that.  Teams are able to key on it because we specialize so much, they know when players A and B are in the game we are doing one thing, because those players are only good at one thing and so bad at other things, and when players C and D come in its different.  All teams do this to some extent, but we seem to do it much more than all but a few.

Having players who are a little worse at a couple of things, but much more talented overall could be what many of the more successful teams do, as this also allows them to hide what they are doing better.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Anyone recall Doug saying that they don’t worry about scheme fit?  That it’s the coaches jobs to work with what they are given.  That says a lot right there.

[London Kev]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Ive been kind of thinking this too, and wondering if the predictable the Redskins playcalling shows that.  Teams are able to key on it because we specialize so much, they know when players A and B are in the game we are doing one thing, because those players are only good at one thing and so bad at other things, and when players C and D come in its different.  All teams do this to some extent, but we seem to do it much more than all but a few.

Having players who are a little worse at a couple of things, but much more talented overall could be what many of the more successful teams do, as this also allows them to hide what they are doing better.

 

I don't believe that this is down to the Redskins over specialising as a whole, just that we have TEs who can't run block consistently. I really like Reed and Davis, but let's be honest, they're just a big receivers. Sprinkle is more of a blocking TE although he shows some catching ability. If Reed could run block (and stay healthy), I have no doubt that he would be one of the best ever TEs and constantly confuse defenses as to our intentions.

[carex]

5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Anyone recall Doug saying that they don’t worry about scheme fit?  That it’s the coaches jobs to work with what they are given.  That says a lot right there.

 

well, I suppose Gibbs was able to do stuff with that, but he had no cap to worry about

[Peregrine]

5 hours ago, London Kev said:

 

I don't believe that this is down to the Redskins over specialising as a whole, just that we have TEs who can't run block consistently. I really like Reed and Davis, but let's be honest, they're just a big receivers. Sprinkle is more of a blocking TE although he shows some catching ability. If Reed could run block (and stay healthy), I have no doubt that he would be one of the best ever TEs and constantly confuse defenses as to our intentions.

But I think thats part of it, we CHOOSE who we sign and who we value in free agency and the draft.  We could chose a guy who might not be a great pass catcher but terrible run blocker and vice versa, or we could chose a guy whos above average in both, but not great at either.

[RandyHolt]

Overspecialize? 

 

It's all the rage. The league changed what, about 30 years ago?

 

Back in the day - substitution packages groupings, little to none of that existed. It's taken networks forever - only recently to even show us more than the 11 starters on offense.  And they are still wrong when the OC throws a curve at DCs to start games. Philly opened 5 wide. I am sure they gave our 3-4 D that we barely use.