Redskins tenure

[Burgold]

Whether we are talking about Portis, Randle El, Rogers, Landry, or a host of others there seems this sense of entitlement to job. On the Redskins starters seemingly can't lose their jobs. It was an incredible moment that Rogers even got benched. I think that lack of fire and heart that we complain about is tied to the fact that there is no fear of losing playing time or starter status.

Granted it was one game, but look how much better when we were forced to play the seconds.

Why should a starter designation be so sacred? Why can't the player performing best be able to supplant a vet? No one should be granted tenure in the NFL or very, very few and this team has no Tom Brady's or Peyton Mannings or even Riggos. We have no one has done anything in terms of bringing this team glory.

Non productive, non-disciplined players need to be benched. They need to be given the right to earn back their playing time, but even players like Moss who have been guilty of heart breaking drop after drop this season needs to get slapped now and then.

I think this idea that almost all roles are set in stone (except strong safety and right guard) needs to go.

[Koolblue13]

Why would a HC who is coaching for his job, play question marks, instead of proven vets?

Did this need to be it's own thread or could this have just gone unnoticed in the "Thiesman thinks" or "Portis will play" threads?

[tshile]

i reject the notion that we have a lot of 'proven vets'.

'proven vets' don't drop balls, miss open receivers, miss blocks, and miss tackles. 'prove vents' don't get stupid penalties. 'proven vets' don't miss asignments when it matters the most. 'prove vets' don't have a long history of injury problems

if this team lacks anything, its 'proven vets'. we've tried to get them, but so far this season we haven't gotten much from them.

[TheGreatBuzz]

[QUOTE=Burgold;7021613]

Why should a starter designation be so sacred? Why can't the player performing best be able to supplant a vet?
QUOTE]

I don't think a vet should have his job guaranteed. I think they shouldn't lose it after only one bad day either (not that any of our guys fall in this catergory). I think vet's should get a little benefit of the doubt but if a rookie is CONSISTANTLY better then said vet, the vet should become the back up.
Just my 2 cents.

:dallasuck

[Burgold]

I partly blame the salary cap for this, but mostly I blame the coaches. They need to set up a meritocracy. Best players play.

The quotes I hear from Zorn are horrible about not wanting to risk making his pwayers feel bad by changing their status. The players need to be accountable for their play or their lack of it.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Why would a HC who is coaching for his job, play question marks, instead of proven vets?

Did this need to be it's own thread or could this have just gone unnoticed in the "Thiesman thinks" or "Portis will play" threads?

Burgold loves to write so do not question his effort.

While it did not need it's own thread ;), he is right about the question of demand on this team. There is no accountability and the majority of the problems stem from the envious of money.

[Koolblue13]

Burgold loves to write so do not question his effort.

Oh, I know, but if Burgold is not kept in check, he will go hog wild and make threads all day. :hysterical:

There was no malice in my post, B.:)

[Oldfan]

...The quotes I hear from Zorn are horrible about not wanting to risk making his pwayers feel bad by changing their status. The players need to be accountable for their play or their lack of it.

What quotes are you referring to? Could you give an example or two?

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

What quotes are you referring to? Could you give an example or two?

He is likely referring to the Randel 'El decision to keep him at punt returner. I'm too lazy to look for the exact quote, but Zorn elected to keep him at his natural spot because he did not want him feeling neglected in anyway.

[Burgold]

I'll try to look for it, but the one that got me most was Zorn's recanting of Randle El not being the starting punt returner because they didn't want the demotion to make Antwaan feel bad about himself.

Then there's this... the quote just doesn't makes sense to me.

"I don't want this to be something where Ladell came in and did a wonderful job- good grief, he really did a tremendous job - and yet have Clinton lose his job because Ladell came in in support."

Edit: Yup, that's the one.

[Dick Edds]

I agree with the sentiment of the OP. If Zorn is more worried about a few high priced players egos' ... then he is an even worse coach than i thought. If he cant realize that players need to be motivated by fear of losing their job, then he needs to be trained on how to be a HC in this league and how to motivate.

This is how you tear a team apart, this is part of the reason this team will not become more than they are. because we'd rather continue playing the same players, at the same positions, and running the same plays over and over again.

It's funny how when we are forced to make personell changes due to injuries, that the backups who actually practice during the week come out and perform better than those who don't practice. What a player has done in the past should not mean antyhing in regards to how you prepare and put your best players on the field for the next game.

A little motivation from the HC, and player accountability would be nice to see. If Rogers can stop pouting and sulking in the corner, and come out ready to step it up I am sure that he will make his way back into the line-up. It's apparent that his contract situation is too big of an issue for him to put aside. It's obviously what's on the top of his mind and he is out there thinking too much instead of just playing football. Ok I am rambling, but I agree with the OP.

[Dick Edds]

I'll try to look for it, but the one that got me most was Zorn's recanting of Randle El not being the starting punt returner because they didn't want the demotion to make Antwaan feel bad about himself.

Then there's this... the quote just doesn't makes sense to me.

"I don't want this to be something where Ladell came in and did a wonderful job- good grief, he really did a tremendous job - and yet have Clinton lose his job because Ladell came in in support."

Edit: Yup, that's the one.

Wow, hard to believe how much coddling goes on with these guys. if anything Zorn should be worrying about how to save his own arse, and not whether CP or ARE or Rogers feeling are hurt. Unbelievable you would put the feelings of a couple players ahead of what is best for the entire team.

[nightbird]

Agreed -- WAY too much coddling of these guys and I have to believe it starts at the top.

I hear how easy training camp is, how the players appreciate being treated so well and not having to go out of town.

Well you know what -- why does the team that comes in LAST PLACE in their division think they are deserving of special treatment?

Why do we worry about hurting the feelings of our "proven vets" when these vets are the core of a bad to mediocre football team?

Case in point -- there have been six drafts since we traded for Clinton Portis, and we have drafted ZERO halfbacks in all those drafts combined.

I know some of that is we've had so few picks, but I also have to believe part of it is that CP would throw a hissy fit if it looked like we drafted his "heir apparent."

Why is ARE returning punts? Why is CP our starting running back? Why did we spend years and years ignoring the RT position, pretending as if Jon Jansen was still a high-level performer?

I want the next coach to treat these guys like walk-ons, and force them to fight like dogs all summer and earn their freaking jobs.

Too many of them are soft and coddled and it shows.

[Oldfan]

There's certainly nothing wrong with a coach who is sensitive to a player's feelings. I think it's a stretch to assume that the sensivity interferes with good judgment.

ARE most likely is the punt returner because the only player better at the job, Santana, is also the only player capable of drawing a double-team from the defense.

Portis should not lose his job as a consequence of suffering a concussion, however, there are plenty of other reasons why he could lose his job. Jim Zorn did not close the doors on Betts with his statement.

[clarkskin]

You really think Zorn has the final say on who plays and who doesn't? Or is he getting "strong suggestions" from someone else?

[Burgold]

ARE most likely is the punt returner because the only player better at the job, Santana, is also the only player capable of drawing a double-team from the defense.
.

He's averaging 5.2 yards per punt return is amongst the leaders in fair catches in the NFL (which means his average is in reality somewhere around 2 yards per return. He has also made key fumbles and miscues.

We could put Antonio D'Batiste in there blindfolded and get about the same level of productivity. Seriously, we can't do much worse and it has taken two years of absolute drek before we even responded. Put Moss, Thomas, Hall, Tryon, anyone else out there and the result will not be much worse and it probably will be better.

Randle El maintaining his role as Punt Returner after three consecutive years of poor production is insane.

[cphil006]

You really think Zorn has the final say on who plays and who doesn't? Or is he getting "strong suggestions" from someone else?

His contract says he has to do whatever the "owner" tells him to. It was Vinny's idea to have someone else call the plays, so he pulled out Zorn's contract and showed him when Zorn was reluctant.

If Vinny tells him who to play, he kind of has to listen. I think it is really crappy, but for the most part I think the coaches are deciding and Vinny is letting them. Vinny decided we would get Jason Taylor to play at the wrong-side DE. Vinny drafted Orakpo to play LB, but Blache is playing him more and more at DE while his LB skills are still developing if they ever do.

[cphil006]

What quotes are you referring to? Could you give an example or two?

Funny how you are asking people to give facts to back up there opinions...

Very interesting indeed...

[cphil006]

ARE most likely is the punt returner because the only player better at the job, Santana, is also the only player capable of drawing a double-team from the defense.



It would be nice to have a "Brian Mitchell", someone who regularly contributes on offense, while also being a PR and KR. Betts and Cartwright are good KRs, but why can't one of they do PRs as well?? I know they probably don't have the quickness or skill set that ARE has, but ARE isn't the same player he was at Pittsburgh. He's still a good receiever, but as far as PRs go... he may be best on our team, but we need another option...

[SKINSFAN87]

Why would a HC who is coaching for his job, play question marks, instead of proven vets?

Did this need to be it's own thread or could this have just gone unnoticed in the "Thiesman thinks" or "Portis will play" threads?

I think that your missing the point. Rogers has been sucking badly lately, so I would try an bring in someone else to replace him. Light a fire under his ***, and maybe he will play like the money he is not worth.

[Larry Brown #43]

Whether we are talking about Portis, Randle El, Rogers, Landry, or a host of others there seems this sense of entitlement to job. On the Redskins starters seemingly can't lose their jobs. It was an incredible moment that Rogers even got benched. I think that lack of fire and heart that we complain about is tied to the fact that there is no fear of losing playing time or starter status.

...

Why should a starter designation be so sacred? Why can't the player performing best be able to supplant a vet?

I agree Burgold, and I think there are a couple of reasons for this. First off, I think over the years, some players have had a cozy relationship with Snyder, and that has put the coaching staff in a difficult position.

Portis has had a particularly cozy relationship with Snyder, even referring to himself as "assistant GM" at times. In fact, I think even Vinny has called Portis that before. It would take some serious stones to bench the "assistant GM" when you're merely the coach. I wouldn't be shocked either if, given both his contract status and his relationship with the front office, if Portis has been assured of his starting job by forces higher up on the food chain than Zorn.

The other part of the equation gets back to the way the Redskins team is generally constructed. Most teams operate under a "planned obsolescence" model, meaning they are continuously drafting and acquiring replacements for their existing starters. They plan for their existing good players to eventually become obsolete. I think this helps to instill the motivation you're talking about--to always know there's a competitive, younger player looking over your shoulder.

Take Philly for example--they prefer to get rid of a player a year to soon rather than a year too late. We essentially do the opposite. It's happening now with Portis. It has already happened with Samuels and Randy Thomas, given their recent injury history. We wait until it's painfully clear that a player has passed the point of being useful (or passed the point of being consistently healthy), and then we're left to scramble after the fact to find a replacement.

We tend to give a player the front office considers worthy a fat contract and a cozy environment in which his job status isn't questioned or challenged. I absolutely think this creates a less-than-hungry football team. And if a coach doesn't have the authority from above to bench certain players (and I don't know for a fact that's the case here), then that's an even bigger undercut than taking away play-calling responsibilities, in my opinion.

[MassSkinsFan]

We tend to give a player the front office considers worthy a fat contract and a cozy environment in which his job status isn't questioned or challenged. I absolutely think this creates a less-than-hungry football team. And if a coach doesn't have the authority from above to bench certain players (and I don't know for a fact that's the case here), then that's an even bigger undercut than taking away play-calling responsibilities, in my opinion.

This reflects a culture that values hierarchy above merit. Those types of cultures in a competitive environment breed failure.

I'm with Burgold and others here - tenure needs to go. It's yet another facet of much-needed cultural change we can only hope will eventually come to the organization.

[HailGreen28]

I'll try to look for it, but the one that got me most was Zorn's recanting of Randle El not being the starting punt returner because they didn't want the demotion to make Antwaan feel bad about himself.

Then there's this... the quote just doesn't makes sense to me.

"I don't want this to be something where Ladell came in and did a wonderful job- good grief, he really did a tremendous job - and yet have Clinton lose his job because Ladell came in in support."

Edit: Yup, that's the one.Well, Gibbs had a similar rule. A starter shouldn't lose his spot because of injury. But if the backup performed well, he'd get more playing time and could compete for the starter postition.

As another poster said, it's probably not Zorn's call anyways. :doh:

Why the hell Randle-el is still receiving punts (not returning, that implies forward movement), I have no idea. That should be grounds for dismissing whoever's in charge, right there.

[Burgold]

Well, Gibbs had a similar rule. A starter shouldn't lose his spot because of injury. But if the backup performed well, he'd get more playing time and could compete for the starter postition.

As another poster said, it's probably not Zorn's call anyways. :doh:

Why the hell Randle-el is still receiving punts (not returning, that implies forward movement), I have no idea. That should be grounds for dismissing whoever's in charge, right there.

I remember Gibbs talking about this rule and though he said folks couldn't lose their job due to injury... it happened pretty frequently as people stepped up. The problem with the Redskins is that either people aren't stepping up or their roles are locked in stone. Neither is a good situation to be in.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

His contract says he has to do whatever the "owner" tells him to.


Is this true? Where did you get this information?

[Larry Brown #43]

Is this true? Where did you get this information?

That line came from Steve Largent's recent rant about Snyder. Largent said they pulled Zorn's contract out and told him he had to do whatever the owner asks. Don't know if what Largent said is accurate, but that's what he said anyway. Presumably Zorn told Largent that's what happened.

[Veretax]

I agree, the WCO is about distributing the ball around to so many receivers that the defense has to play honest. That makes it harder to double santana all day long, and you take what they give you and pick them apart bit by bit.

[SAli457180]

This reflects a culture that values hierarchy above merit. Those types of cultures in a competitive environment breed failure.

I'm with Burgold and others here - tenure needs to go. It's yet another facet of much-needed cultural change we can only hope will eventually come to the organization.

You hit the nail on the head right there. The Skins need the attitude of teams like the Colts, who let Marvin Harrison go because he wanted more money and went with younger guys. The culture has to change and the first guy to realize that is the guy at the top because he's the one who's signing the checks and allowing the sense of entitlement.

[SirClintonPortis]

Frankly, I'm not sure if Zorn has the power to lay the wood because the vets have been given too much leeway before he came and because the FO may say no as well.
Also, this team really is "too loyal" to its players. Bill Walsh was also a guy who believed in getting rid of a player earlier than later, and that was before free agency.

[veteranskinsfan]

Tenure is a joke and that is why the Skins are losing year after year after year. Each starter needs to earn the right to start and you should not be a starter simply because you are getting paid more than the backup is being paid.

[Annonymous Source]

This is only true among free agent aquisitions or trade pickups. When we draft people they have to earn the right to be on the field as normal, but it really does seem some of the players we get thru Free Agency consistently overstay their welcome. Oh well, I am going to sit around and wait for enough home grown talent to emerge that we can make the playoffs.

Wake me in a couple years...

[joeknows]

Whether we are talking about Portis, Randle El, Rogers, Landry, or a host of others there seems this sense of entitlement to job. On the Redskins starters seemingly can't lose their jobs. It was an incredible moment that Rogers even got benched. I think that lack of fire and heart that we complain about is tied to the fact that there is no fear of losing playing time or starter status.

Granted it was one game, but look how much better when we were forced to play the seconds.

Why should a starter designation be so sacred? Why can't the player performing best be able to supplant a vet? No one should be granted tenure in the NFL or very, very few and this team has no Tom Brady's or Peyton Mannings or even Riggos. We have no one has done anything in terms of bringing this team glory.

Non productive, non-disciplined players need to be benched. They need to be given the right to earn back their playing time, but even players like Moss who have been guilty of heart breaking drop after drop this season needs to get slapped now and then.

I think this idea that almost all roles are set in stone (except strong safety and right guard) needs to go.

ya know this is exactly what i have been thinking since seeing the monday presser by zorn......

when asked about portis future role when compared to the play by betts and rock.... he said he didnt want a guy to lose his job because of an injury....

on one hand i can understand that but if the other guys are outplaying the regular starter then by god you have to stick with what is working..... i mean cmon.... portis is still going to get his millions starting or not.... so why sacrifice the team for someones ego....?

im not saying that portis should be benched and betts given the go ahead.... what i am saying is that no one man should come before what is right for the team.... no matter who they are....

[mi6]

You really think Zorn has the final say on who plays and who doesn't? Or is he getting "strong suggestions" from someone else?

I used to respect Zorn. When he got his play calling responsibilities pulled ... I would have thought he would have quit.

He is a puppet. And, his lack of rewarding players who produce is just disappointing.:mad:

[Oldfan]

Funny how you are asking people to give facts to back up there opinions...

Very interesting indeed...

Screw yourself.

[Oldfan]

Well, Gibbs had a similar rule. A starter shouldn't lose his spot because of injury...

Most coaches say the same thing.

[Burgold]

To play the contrarian to myself, Gibbs himself also beleived in player tenure esp. in the '80's. The thing is, having been through the wars, and having won those Superbowls the players earned that right. In the end, did we keep Jacoby, Grimm and Donnie Warren a year or two longer than we absolutely should have? Probably, but they also earned that right. Gibbs II set the terrible precedent by giving that unearned loyalty to Brunell.

Now, you can argue that Portis has given his soul for the team and has played through injury after injury, but it's not the same because we are losers with him. Same with Randle El and Rogers and Landry and anyone else you want to name who deserved a demotion for a series, a quarter, a game, etc.

I think you do give your Elways an extra year or two. You give it to your Farves. But that's because their example inspires their fellows and fuels their beliefs. I don't think there are players on the Redskins right now who have earned their right to that kind of status. I just don't.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

From top to bottom this organization has no concept of football, or talent evaluation, is it any surprise whatsoever that we can't get the best players on the field? Are we or are we not the same team that just absolutly had to start JC against the 9ers last season, rather than throwing Colt, Collins, maybe one of the fans in there to see what they had to offer so we would be that much wiser the upcoming season?

Can anyone read the writing on the wall? When Snyder pays big money in free agency that player has a starting job for life, unless that player forces his way out.

I don't know what anyone's allegiance is to mediocre players is around here, it's like Snyder has 300 user names on this board.

[Oldfan]

To play the contrarian to myself, Gibbs himself also beleived in player tenure esp. in the '80's. The thing is, having been through the wars, and having won those Superbowls the players earned that right. In the end, did we keep Jacoby, Grimm and Donnie Warren a year or two longer than we absolutely should have? Probably, but they also earned that right. Gibbs II set the terrible precedent by giving that unearned loyalty to Brunell.

Now, you can argue that Portis has given his soul for the team and has played through injury after injury, but it's not the same because we are losers with him. Same with Randle El and Rogers and Landry and anyone else you want to name who deserved a demotion for a series, a quarter, a game, etc.

I think you do give your Elways an extra year or two. You give it to your Farves. But that's because their example inspires their fellows and fuels their beliefs. I don't think there are players on the Redskins right now who have earned their right to that kind of status. I just don't.

I don't believe a player should ever earn the right to hurt the team's chances of winning football games. I don't think ARE has been given any such right. Nor, do I think that a player who suffers a concussion is being given any such right when the coach refuses to demote him without a chance to re-establish his right to start.

[BoRnAndRaiSedSkinsFan]

Why would a HC who is coaching for his job, play question marks, instead of proven vets?


I don't know. Maybe because some of these vets have not gotten the job done the past few years. I mean it's much more practical to keep playing the same guys and hope they all of a sudden turn it around. Not earning jobs has really done wonders for the players. They sure play with fire and don't make the same excuses week after week.

Coaching for his job? Zorn knows he's out of here. Why not throw a monkey wrench in and see what happens?

[Thirtyfive2seven]

I completely agree Burgold. Moss should have been benched ages ago by those standards. Portis too. Everyone on the offensive line. Jason Campbell... I could go on :)

[Burgold]

I completely agree Burgold. Moss should have been benched ages ago by those standards. Portis too. Everyone on the offensive line. Jason Campbell... I could go on :)

To a degree, I cut Campbell slack on this subject. Mainly, because he keeps picking himself off, shaking off injuries, and does seem to be fighting. The fact that his teammates aren't fighting for him and making that extra push or difficult catches is shameful to them. I mean if we really go by this year, Yoder has the best hands on the team (or maybe Cooley, then Yoder). I can't argue that Campbell hasn't played himself out of the starting lineup at times, but I think one can't really question his effort or heart.

[SkinsNumberOne]

I don't believe a player should ever earn the right to hurt the team's chances of winning football games. I don't think ARE has been given any such right. Nor, do I think that a player who suffers a concussion is being given any such right when the coach refuses to demote him without a chance to re-establish his right to start.

Well, it's all situational obviously, and there is a lot of preference in the decision (there's nothing cut-and-dry). Like, what about when Bledsoe was ready to come back for the Patriots? I think Bellichick didn't let him compete and went ahead with Brady.

Obviously if you're "sure" that you have found a better guy, hopefully you wouldn't turn around and give the position to someone who got healthy again. So, yes, they MAY be hurting their team if the coach refuses to demote him (if the reality is the replacement is better). In THIS particular case, I don't know (more data needed, which I am thinking we'll get), but it certainly can happen.