PFT - Redskins dump Donte’ Stallworth(Merged)

[Champskins]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/08/redskins-dump-donte-stallworth/


The non-rebuilding rebuilding process (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/07/mike-shanahan-doesnt-like-the-word-rebuilding/) in Washington continues.


Receiver Donte’ Stallworth (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/1043/donte-stallworth), a one-time first-round pick who has floated around the league with so-so results, joined the Redskins not long after the lockout ended. Now, the Redskins have decided to move on.


According to Mike Jones of the Washington Post, the Redskins have cut Stallworth (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-cut-donte-stallworth/2011/11/08/gIQAbI570M_blog.html). But this wasn’t a Brian Robiskie (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5171/brian-robiskie) roster-spot-at-another-position move. The Redskins dumped Donte’ to sign another receiver.


Appearing in only four games, Stallworth had five catches for 46 yards with the Redskins.
Per Jones, David Anderson will replace Stallworth. Anderson played for the Texans during Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan’s time there as an assistant coach. Which means that Anderson’s arrival is the result of nepotism with a dash of cronyism.


Good move... but adding Anderson is not.... Should elevate Royster or Robinson and keep our young talent out there. I don't know what bringing Anderson in is worth unless they plan on reuniting Grossman with an old- familiar Houston target on game day

[AKM311]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/08/redskins-dump-donte-stallworth/



Good move... but adding Anderson is not.... Should elevate Royster or Robinson and keep our young talent out there. I don't know what bringing Anderson in is worth unless they plan on reuniting Grossman with an old- familiar Houston target on game day

Anderson's knowledge of the system will help push Hank, Paul, and Austin to get better. This is all about increasing preperation for the youngsters. We are focusing on developing those three, developing a 4th isn't possible in our situation. It is the exact reason why Anderson was added. Knowledge and prior production in the same system.

[SkinsNoles21]

I'm sure you will all be happy about this. Full youth movement is on.

Redskins waived WR Donte' Stallworth.
Stallworth predictably had no impact as a Redskin. The veteran fell behind Anthony Armstrong and Leonard Hankerson on the depth chart, compiling just five catches in four games. At age 31 with nothing significant on tape since 2007, Stallworth won't garner much interest on the open market.

http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/1043/donte-stallworth

[SkinsNoles21]

ahhh you got me by like a minute ... mods merge please.

[c4man5282]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?358096-PFT-Redskins-dump-Donte%92-Stallworth

[TheLongshot]

Good move... but adding Anderson is not.... Should elevate Royster or Robinson and keep our young talent out there. I don't know what bringing Anderson in is worth unless they plan on reuniting Grossman with an old- familiar Houston target on game day

If you elevate them before they are ready, you risk running out of PS eligibility for them, which makes keeping them around a lot harder. If you are thinking long-term, the best thing would be to keep them on the PS as long as possible.

[Boss_Hogg]

thank goodness!

Let's see what the pups can do.

[Champskins]

If you elevate them before they are ready, you risk running out of PS eligibility for them, which makes keeping them around a lot harder. If you are thinking long-term, the best thing would be to keep them on the PS as long as possible.

I understand that, but im thinking more in terms of dumping guys like Banks and seeing if Robinson can step up in game time... we don't have anything to lose at this point and id rather them have game time experience to see if they can handle the pressure.... we need to get our young talent out there and gel together, gain some compatibility - so they will be ready and in place for our first round QB in April

[Enter Apotheosis]

Good move... but adding Anderson is not.... Should elevate Royster or Robinson and keep our young talent out there. I don't know what bringing Anderson in is worth unless they plan on reuniting Grossman with an old- familiar Houston target on game day

Again... why would you elevate Royster or Robinson? Unless they are 100% ready to step in to games and contribute in meaningful ways, the smart move is to keep them right where they are so that you don't limit the pool of guys you can bring in.

[NLC1054]

I understand that, but im thinking more in terms of dumping guys like Banks and seeing if Robinson can step up in game time... we don't have anything to lose at this point and id rather them have game time experience to see if they can handle the pressure.... we need to get our young talent out there and gel together, gain some compatibility - so they will be ready and in place for our first round QB in April

Aldrick Robinson pretty well proved in preseason that he's not a solid punt/kick returner. He also proved that's he raw. REALLY, REALLY raw. Throwing him into the pool and telling him to swim will more likely result in him drowning. Robinson is coming from an offense in college that's worlds apart from anything he's ever seen. His best spot right now is on the practice squad, learning.

Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I was relatively sure we still had a few veteran wide receivers that could help our first round quarterback too.

You can't rush some of these guys on the field. And as someone else mentioned, if you bring him up now, you risk your ability to put him back on the practice squad later.

[Riggo#44]

He just never got a chance.... :evilg:

[THEREALTOR1]

saw the same thing happen around this same time last year with the running backs

[GaryGreenMonk]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol.. j/king

[Spunkush]

well considering Moss and Paul are out for a few weeks, and Shanahan doesnt consider Banks a WR, that leaves u with hank, austin, gaffney, and armstrong... so we got a special teams wr to replace a terrible player in stallworth. Makes sense.

[santana_4_prez]

Again... why would you elevate Royster or Robinson? Unless they are 100% ready to step in to games and contribute in meaningful ways, the smart move is to keep them right where they are so that you don't limit the pool of guys you can bring in.

Yes, as i said in another thread. It is valuable to be able to keep these guys on the practice squad as long as possible. Once you move them up, it is very hard to move them back down to PS...if possible, keep them stashed away the whole year or at least until the last couple weeks. People who want to see them now, are just being impatient IMO.

[DavidGQ]

We can't play young players just so we can say we're rebuilding. If they're not ready, they should stay on PS for the year. Hankerson drafted in 3rd finally got his chance. Aldrick is no where close to be ready. Glad they bring a WR that is familiar with the system so he can teach these young rookies. Temporary solution. And please, don't bring up this signing as a Win Now attitude.

[Champskins]

We can't play young players just so we can say we're rebuilding. If they're not ready, they should stay on PS for the year. Hankerson drafted in 3rd finally got his chance. Aldrick is no where close to be ready. Glad they bring a WR that is familiar with the system so he can teach these young rookies. Temporary solution. And please, don't bring up this signing as a Win Now attitude.

This is what I don't get. I keep hearing that "Aldrick had a chance in preseason and proved he's not ready" and "Aldrick is no where close to be ready" but how in the world do we possibly know that?! First off, Aldrick was known as a return threat when being drafted... id post videos but Ill let you look them up yourself. Secondly, I'd say Hankerson had the worst preseason so it doesn't necessarily account for much in terms of not being ready. Now I'm ok with keeping him on the PS for now, but you just can't tell me he's not ready if he's not even given a chance. And third, yes bringing in a joke of a player is really going to teach these young rookies, SMH, he obviously didn't know the system well enough to stick with the team. We already have Gaffney, Moss, (Stallworth), Armstrong to help with their transition, even though they are learning from a good one of the past in Keenan Mccardell.... Give these boys a chance and see if they stick before next years draft, we arent winning (and i hope we dont win anymore) this year and itll give us an evaluation of our current WR's.

[Laxpunk2006]

This is what I don't get. I keep hearing that "Aldrick had a chance in preseason and proved he's not ready" and "Aldrick is no where close to be ready" but how in the world do we possibly know that?! First off, Aldrick was known as a return threat when being drafted... id post videos but Ill let you look them up yourself. Secondly, I'd say Hankerson had the worst preseason so it doesn't necessarily account for much in terms of not being ready. Now I'm ok with keeping him on the PS for now, but you just can't tell me he's not ready if he's not even given a chance. And third, yes bringing in a joke of a player is really going to teach these young rookies, SMH, he obviously didn't know the system well enough to stick with the team. We already have Gaffney, Moss, (Stallworth), Armstrong to help with their transition, even though they are learning from a good one of the past in Keenan Mccardell.... Give these boys a chance and see if they stick before next years draft, we arent winning (and i hope we dont win anymore) this year and itll give us an evaluation of our current WR's.

Considering plenty of our other developmental players have seen the field I think it's safe to assume Robinson still isn't ready. Does anyone really think our coaches would be keeping him on the PS just because they can? Our coaches have been good about getting guys opportunites as they've been ready.

[Champskins]

Considering plenty of our other developmental players have seen the field I think it's safe to assume Robinson still isn't ready. Does anyone really think our coaches would be keeping him on the PS just because they can? Our coaches have been good about getting guys opportunites as they've been ready.

No, what I'm saying is why keep Banks when Robinson can do the same damn thing and he can play WR. Our coaches are notorious for waiting until an injury to finally give a guy a chance...

[hunterx]

This is what I don't get. I keep hearing that "Aldrick had a chance in preseason and proved he's not ready" and "Aldrick is no where close to be ready" but how in the world do we possibly know that?! First off, Aldrick was known as a return threat when being drafted... id post videos but Ill let you look them up yourself.

That's fine but he fumbled two balls in the preseason so there's a trust issue. We also don't need to rush Aldrick up since we have Banks taking up that spot.


Secondly, I'd say Hankerson had the worst preseason so it doesn't necessarily account for much in terms of not being ready. Now I'm ok with keeping him on the PS for now, but you just can't tell me he's not ready if he's not even given a chance.

Hankerson was never on the practice squad, and because he was a 3rd round pick a team would pick him up if we cut him (which you have to do to put a player on the PS). Hank had a very bad showing the first game, and I think a few more dropped balls in the second or third game. However, and someone actually posted it before, he was at the top of the list for rookie WR's in receptions and yards during the preseason. He rebounded well.


And third, yes bringing in a joke of a player is really going to teach these young rookies, SMH, he obviously didn't know the system well enough to stick with the team. We already have Gaffney, Moss, (Stallworth), Armstrong to help with their transition, even though they are learning from a good one of the past in Keenan Mccardell

I don't think Anderson was brought in to teach the rookies, that's what the coaches and current players are for. He was brought in to fill a need because we're down 2 WR's for a few weeks. He played in Kyle Shanahan's system so he can make an impact for the 4 or 5 plays he will see a game. Plus, maybe Kyle saw something in him while he was with Houston that they decided to take a gamble over some washed up veteran in Stallworth?


Give these boys a chance and see if they stick before next years draft, we arent winning (and i hope we dont win anymore) this year and itll give us an evaluation of our current WR's.


I think that's what they are doing, as we saw this past game. Hank and Paul got more reps, so did Austin. We will continue to see the young guys in there to prove their roster spots for next year. I think it's pathetic to hope we don't win anymore. You can make the argument that we would get a better player in the draft, but I can make an argument that there is more proof to teams finishing seasons strong rather than hoping a better draft pick makes an immediate impact.

[NLC1054]

This is what I don't get. I keep hearing that "Aldrick had a chance in preseason and proved he's not ready" and "Aldrick is no where close to be ready" but how in the world do we possibly know that?! First off, Aldrick was known as a return threat when being drafted... id post videos but Ill let you look them up yourself. Secondly, I'd say Hankerson had the worst preseason so it doesn't necessarily account for much in terms of not being ready. Now I'm ok with keeping him on the PS for now, but you just can't tell me he's not ready if he's not even given a chance. And third, yes bringing in a joke of a player is really going to teach these young rookies, SMH, he obviously didn't know the system well enough to stick with the team. We already have Gaffney, Moss, (Stallworth), Armstrong to help with their transition, even though they are learning from a good one of the past in Keenan Mccardell.... Give these boys a chance and see if they stick before next years draft, we arent winning (and i hope we dont win anymore) this year and itll give us an evaluation of our current WR's.

And this is the crux of it.

It's not that the coaches don't know, because they do know. They see Aldrick practice every week. We all know how important that practice is to Coach Shanahan. The reason why Niles Paul got his oppotunity is because he played teams and played well in practice. The reason why Hank is getting his opportunity now; he worked on scout team, and then was he was practicing so well, it got hard for the defense to cover him.

Coaches see Aldrick every day, see him in the film room, on the field, everything. So it's clear to me that they DO know what Aldrick brings to the table.

What it comes down to is that FANS want to see whether or not Aldrick can be a contributor so they can judge for themselves. But Aldrick Robinson will get on the field when he's ready, and not a second before, unless we get some injuries.

[Champskins]

That's fine but he fumbled two balls in the preseason so there's a trust issue. We also don't need to rush Aldrick up since we have Banks taking up that spot.

Banks fumbled two balls last game, and he's had over a season to practice... Aldricks nerves were probably just acting up... Banks is useless... even N. Paul would be better


Hankerson was never on the practice squad, and because he was a 3rd round pick a team would pick him up if we cut him (which you have to do to put a player on the PS). Hank had a very bad showing the first game, and I think a few more dropped balls in the second or third game. However, and someone actually posted it before, he was at the top of the list for rookie WR's in receptions and yards during the preseason. He rebounded well.

Hank was never going to be put on the PS, I was stating facts that they all had the rookie jitters. also, its rare that other teams snatch off of PS's


I don't think Anderson was brought in to teach the rookies, that's what the coaches and current players are for. He was brought in to fill a need because we're down 2 WR's for a few weeks. He played in Kyle Shanahan's system so he can make an impact for the 4 or 5 plays he will see a game. Plus, maybe Kyle saw something in him while he was with Houston that they decided to take a gamble over some washed up veteran in Stallworth?

We're down 2 WR's... that still leaves us with Gaffney, Armstrong, Paul, Hankerson, Austin.... I still don't get it but it is what it is





I think that's what they are doing, as we saw this past game. Hank and Paul got more reps, so did Austin. We will continue to see the young guys in there to prove their roster spots for next year. I think it's pathetic to hope we don't win anymore. You can make the argument that we would get a better player in the draft, but I can make an argument that there is more proof to teams finishing seasons strong rather than hoping a better draft pick makes an immediate impact.

In our case, we are playing for a QB... plain and simple. Better draft position, better chance. Like its been stated before, id rather show improvement in losing with our younger players than losing with seasoned vets in place.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Happy to see Stallworth finally gone.

Not so happy at his roster replacement.

Hail.

[PeterMP]

And this is the crux of it.

It's not that the coaches don't know, because they do know. They see Aldrick practice every week. We all know how important that practice is to Coach Shanahan. The reason why Niles Paul got his oppotunity is because he played teams and played well in practice. The reason why Hank is getting his opportunity now; he worked on scout team, and then was he was practicing so well, it got hard for the defense to cover him.

Coaches see Aldrick every day, see him in the film room, on the field, everything. So it's clear to me that they DO know what Aldrick brings to the table.

What it comes down to is that FANS want to see whether or not Aldrick can be a contributor so they can judge for themselves. But Aldrick Robinson will get on the field when he's ready, and not a second before, unless we get some injuries.
Do you think that playing him now might get him ready more quickly?

Experience is the best teacher?

That w/o a veteran in front of him, that he might see more meaningful practice time?

How much time do you think Shanahan spends coaching or watching any non-starter in a week when preparing for a game?

[TheLongshot]

Do you think that playing him now might get him ready more quickly?

Experience is the best teacher?

That w/o a veteran in front of him, that he might see more meaningful practice time?

How much time do you think Shanahan spends coaching or watching any non-starter in a week when preparing for a game?

Problem with your logic is that we already have three young receivers on the roster also trying to get experience. With that, I doubt Robinson would get much more experience on the active roster. At least, not enough to make it worth potentially losing his eligibility for the PS.

As for what Shanahan sees, he certainly saw enough of Hankerson to promote him from the bottom of the roster. Robinson has as much opportunity to impress in practice.

[jtpop]

Oh no somebody will swoop and gobble him up just like they did Malcom Kelly, everybody is just waiting for us to cut a WR :)

[#BgMase76#]

Based on the way Shanny goes through RB's why wouldn't you elevate Royster? He can't be any worse than Torrain. It seems like he always has stage fright. His best games come when nothing is expected of him. If we're really doing a talent check of this roster then why not elevate anyone who could help us next year by showing something this year. I mean if we're gonna keep Beck as our starter then all is moot. He's the new NFL check down king.

[PeterMP]

Problem with your logic is that we already have three young receivers on the roster also trying to get experience. With that, I doubt Robinson would get much more experience on the active roster. At least, not enough to make it worth potentially losing his eligibility for the PS.

As for what Shanahan sees, he certainly saw enough of Hankerson to promote him from the bottom of the roster. Robinson has as much opportunity to impress in practice.
And as I've said before, then don't tie the position to WR, or get a WR from some other team.

I doubt that practice squad players see the field as much in practice as a 3rd round pick in terms of being put in a position to impress the coach.

[NLC1054]

Do you think that playing him now might get him ready more quickly?

Experience is the best teacher?

That w/o a veteran in front of him, that he might see more meaningful practice time?

How much time do you think Shanahan spends coaching or watching any non-starter in a week when preparing for a game?

Like I said; Aldrick is raw. Real raw. The system he ran at SMU was world's different than anything he's seeing in the playbook in Washington. He's not a polished route runner, and he's not polished at getting seperation. He's not great on teams, and we saw him muff two punts during preseason. He does get time to at least learn the fundamentals of the NFL game when he runs scout team every week. And before anyone says "he's not going to do anything on scout team", Mike Shanahan told Daryl Johnson that Hank worked his way onto the starting roster because he was playing great on scout team, and then worked his way up into working with the regular offense, and then worked his way up to being a starter.

It's just like the Galloway thing last season. "Why isn't Terrence Austin getting called up, why isn't he playing more often, wouldn't he be better if he saw the field more often?". Well, relatively early in his short career...no. He's made some plays here and there, but he's still raw and still learning and still trying to get better. He's improved, but one can't say the increased playing time and more opportunities to practice has helped him significantly. It's more likely a full offseason work out program would do more for him than seeing live bullets.

Far as I've heard, Mike watches EVERYONE in practice. If he's not watching him, Kyle and Keenan are. The coaches have meetings, the coaches talk and are constantly evaluating players. So I'd like to think that they know what they're doing. I really don't think it's a case of Mike not wanting to give young guys a chance. But he wants them to earn it. If Aldrick's not playing to a certain level in practice, it's best to let him set and learn the playbook now. Then, come into next season with a full summer of workouts in front of him, where he'll likely be catching passes from our rookie quarterback as is.

I doubt David Anderson's going to be taking a bunch of reps with the first team anyway. He's just a seat filler for now.

[PeterMP]

I doubt David Anderson's going to be taking a bunch of reps with the first team anyway. He's just a seat filler for now.
Then why not fill the seat with somebody that would appear to have more long term potential?

[NLC1054]

Then why not fill the seat with somebody that would appear to have more long term potential?

Because in an emergency situation where we need him to play, David Anderson will likely be more to be able to contribute and positively affect the game than Aldrick would.

[PeterMP]

Because in an emergency situation where we need him to play, David Anderson will likely be more to be able to contribute and positively affect the game than Aldrick would.
Who cares?

[NLC1054]

Who cares?

Last time I checked, we were still trying to win.

I know this is shocking to some people, but, you know, that IS the case.

[PeterMP]

Last time I checked, we were still trying to win.

I know this is shocking to some people, but, you know, that IS the case.
I'm not suggesting that they intentionally lose games. I am suggesting that they try and win games in the context of maximizing the longer term potential of the roster.

Given the state of this team how does that not make the most sense?

You have 2 things:
1. "Win" games now.
2. Be better in 2 years.

Which is more important?

[pimpumd]

Who cares?


Wait a second. In the other thread (the one talking about the Anderson acquisition) you didn't approve of the signing because you were assuming none of the veterans were going to be cut. You said:


And I'll tell you I think we have enough veteran recievers and even our rookies now have been here long enough that they should know what they are doing for the most part. It isn't like we are talking about cutting Stallworth, Gaffney, Moss, or Armstrong. Our number of vetern receivers hasn't really changed (yeah, we've loss Moss for now, but he's still on the team and Amstrong came back from his injury), and at this point in time, even Hankerson should have the offense down for the most part.

So now that you know we did in fact cut one of the veteran receivers and replaced him with Anderson, it seems you still have a problem with the signing. What's the problem? You said before you thought we had "enough veteran receivers." We cut one of those guys and replaced him with another, leaving us with the same number of veteran receivers---which you deemed to "enough." Should be no problem.

[TheLongshot]

I'm not suggesting that they intentionally lose games. I am suggesting that they try and win games in the context of maximizing the longer term potential of the roster.

Given the state of this team how does that not make the most sense?

You have 2 things:
1. "Win" games now.
2. Be better in 2 years.

Which is more important?

First, why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive? Second, what makes you think that playing a player who might not be ready now will make us better in 2 years?

[NLC1054]

I'm not suggesting that they intentionally lose games. I am suggesting that they try and win games in the context of maximizing the longer term potential of the roster.

Given the state of this team how does that not make the most sense?

Because if he was ready, he'd be on the team. Period. We sit around acting like Mike never gives guys a shot to succeed and he's content with playing vets. Mike wants his players to earn what they are given. Nothing is handed to them, which is why Hankerson, despite being a giant bundle of talent, didn't start in a game until this week. But what did Hank do? He worked his butt off on scout team, until it got hard for the defense to cover him there. Then he moved into working regularly with the regular offense, until the defense couldn't cover him THERE. Then he got his opportunity.

It's the same thing that happened with Armstrong last season. A virtual unknown in a sea full of veterans. But what did Armstrong do? He worked his butt off all camp, impressed coaches, and by the end of camp, he was REGULARLY running with the number ones. By week 5 he was starting.

It goes back even further than that, to Brandon Marshall in Denver. There's a clear, obvious path to what it takes to make this football team.

You have to earn everything you're given on this team now. Every guy who's worked his way up has done so by standing out in practice and outperforming the veterans.

If Aldrick was ready he'd be on the team. I don't get why you don't get it.

[TheLongshot]

So now that you know we did in fact cut one of the veteran receivers and replaced him with Anderson, it seems you still have a problem with the signing. What's the problem? You said before you thought we had "enough veteran receivers." We cut one of those guys and replaced him with another, leaving us with the same number of veteran receivers---which you deemed to "enough." Should be no problem.

Because he isn't some unknown player from someone else's roster that hasn't gotten a chance to prove he sucks yet. ;)

[PeterMP]

Because he isn't some unknown player from someone else's roster that hasn't gotten a chance to prove he sucks yet. ;)
Exactly!

[NLC1054]

Because he isn't some unknown player from someone else's roster that hasn't gotten a chance to prove he sucks yet. ;)

Again; what these objections really come down to, is the fans want to see for themselves. They can't accept that coaches evaluate and understand players and know when to play them and how to use them. So they have to see it for THEMSELVES. And the first time Aldrick runs the wrong route or drops a ball or fumbles, everyone will go on talking about how he's a bust and our lack of talent.

Just the way it is around these parts, if I've learned anything.

[PeterMP]

First, why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive? Second, what makes you think that playing a player who might not be ready now will make us better in 2 years?
1. They aren't necessarily completely mutually exclusive, but do you have any reason to believe they are mutually inclusive?.
2. If the guy that is on the roster has more long term potential in one situation than the other, then there is a higher probability that we will be better in 2 years than the other guy.

Right, we are talking about a guy that is only likely to play much in an emergency anyway. Does anybody think Anderson is going to get meaningful playing time that is going to in any significant manner impact the out come of games? We're talking about a pretty bad team anyway, is it really going to be worse if we put player X rather than Anderson?

---------- Post added November-8th-2011 at 03:21 PM ----------


Again; what these objections really come down to, is the fans want to see for themselves. They can't accept that coaches evaluate and understand players and know when to play them and how to use them. So they have to see it for THEMSELVES. And the first time Aldrick runs the wrong route or drops a ball or fumbles, everyone will go on talking about how he's a bust and our lack of talent.

Just the way it is around these parts, if I've learned anything.
1. Don't generalize everybody on this board.
2. I don't care if the guy doesn't play. I don't expect Anderson to play (much- to the point that I can evaluate him), and I wouldn't expect his replacement to play. I'm certainly not advocating that they go out and get a guy that isn't even on the roster now so that I can evaluate him MYSELF.

I'm advocating that they do what they can do best maximize the long term potential of the roster, and I doubt this move does this.

[NLC1054]

1. Don't generalize everybody on this board.
2. I don't care if the guy doesn't play. I don't expect Anderson to play (much- to the point that I can evaluate him), and I wouldn't expect his replacement to play. I'm certainly not advocating that they go out and get a guy that isn't even on the roster now so that I can evaluate him MYSELF.

So now I'm confused. You're saying you want Aldrick to be on the active roster so he gains more experience, and then turning around and saying that you wouldn't expect him to actually play.

Sooooo...how the hell is he supposed to get more experience. Do you think either Anderson or Robinson is going to be taking up a majority of the reps from the starters in practice?

You're talking in circles here.

[TheLongshot]

1. They aren't necessarily completely mutually exclusive, but do you have any reason to believe they are mutually inclusive?.

Many teams manage to do it, so yeah, I have reasons to believe that.


2. If the guy that is on the roster has more long term potential in one situation than the other, then there is a higher probability that we will be better in 2 years than the other guy.

Robinson for all intents and purposes is on the roster as far as his development goes. He participates in all the practices and the coaches keep an eye on him. The only thing he doesn't do right now is play in the games, which I pointed out before, he's not likely to do anyways even if he's on the 53 man roster.


Right, we are talking about a guy that is only likely to play much in an emergency anyway. Does anybody think Anderson is going to get meaningful playing time that is going to in any significant manner impact the out come of games?

Does anybody expect anyone signed to that roster spot to get meaningful playing time? Not really. It is a depth slot. That being said, given that Anderson at least has some experience in the offense, if someone does get hurt and they need to use that depth, he's more equiped to go in than many players, which is really the point of having depth. When it comes to gameday, you want guys who can go in there and help you win games. If you can't do that, you are dead weight on the roster. And when it comes to the regular season, it is all about if you can play.

[PeterMP]

So now I'm confused. You're saying you want Aldrick to be on the active roster so he gains more experience, and then turning around and saying that you wouldn't expect him to actually play.

Sooooo...how the hell is he supposed to get more experience. Do you think either Anderson or Robinson is going to be taking up a majority of the reps from the starters in practice?

You're talking in circles here.
1. I would guess that a person on the active roster gets more attention than somebody not on the active roster (i.e. the practice squad), even if the person isn't likely to play, and CERTAINLY, such a person gets more attention (from our coaches) than somebody on ANOTHER TEAMS practice squad.

2. I expect the coaches are going to have to spend some time teaching up Anderson. That we don't run EXACTLY the same plays as the Texans w/ EXACTLY the same language, and I'd like to see that time spent on somebody that is more likely to be on the roster in 3 years.

3. I'd like to see the long term potential of the roster maximized in a manner that isn't likely (i.e. the person is only likely to play in an emergency and isn't likely going to be good enough even if they do play to really affect the out come of games (which I SUSPECT (never having seen him play) is the case with Anderson) to result in losing games.

---------- Post added November-8th-2011 at 03:30 PM ----------


Many teams manage to do it, so yeah, I have reasons to believe that.
What teams?
How?

(Are you telling me there are teams out there that wouldn't want James Harrison or Arian Foster on their teams? That they didn't have more long term potential than other people on those other teams when they were practice squad players?)

[TheLongshot]

What teams?
How?

Let's take the Bills as an example, considering many tried telling me that they weren't an NFL team before the season started. No one expected them to win games, yet they are. Question: does the fact that they are winning games actively hurt them from being a better team in 2 years? I don't think so.


(Are you telling me there are teams out there that wouldn't want James Harrison or Arian Foster on their teams? That they didn't have more long term potential than other people on those other teams when they were practice squad players?)

Every team believes they have their own potential version of Harrison or Foster on their teams, and they all play games with their roster to hold onto such players. If the team believes that Royster, for example, to have a potential to be as good as Foster, do you really think that the team is going to broadcast it?

[PeterMP]

Let's take the Bills as an example, considering many tried telling me that they weren't an NFL team before the season started. No one expected them to win games, yet they are. Question: does the fact that they are winning games actively hurt them from being a better team in 2 years? I don't think so.
If they have people on their roster because they believe they are/can help them win games now instead of people that will be better players in 2 years, then yes.

There are almost certainly players on other teams practice squad that would make the Bills better in 2 years as compared to some people on their roster. There is almost no way the Bills are maximizing their long term potential.

We aren't either, and I'm not even asking us to do. I'm just asking that we do it in cases where it isn't LIKELY to have an effect on the out come of a game in terms of an L or W. If we lose 20-7 or 20-0, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't think it is LIKELY that Anderson is going to make enough of a difference in a game vs. a guy from a practice squad.



Every team believes they have their own potential version of Harrison or Foster on their teams, and they all play games with their roster to hold onto such players. If the team believes that Royster, for example, to have a potential to be as good as Foster, do you really think that the team is going to broadcast it?
No, but that doesn't mean that you can't look at lists of practice squad players, go back and watch film of them yourself, talk to old coaches and teamates, and make a judgement to which have the most potential on your own.

Practice squad players are public knowledge.,

[TheLongshot]

If they have people on their roster because they believe they are/can help them win games now instead of people that will be better players in 2 years, then yes.

If they will be better players in two years, they still will be better players. Playing won't accelerate it nearly as much as you think it would. In fact, it has gotten players into bad habits when they play before they are ready. Also, for those players you want to keep PS eligibility as long as possible, or else they might not be able to stay on the roster long enough to fulfill their promise. Coaches still need to win games and can't afford to have guys who are not able to contribute.


There are almost certainly players on other teams practice squad that would make the Bills better in 2 years as compared to some people on their roster.

Funny, but the Bills did do this, signing Antonio Coleman off of the Giants' PS. Thing is, tho, he played previously with the Bills. So, it doesn't really fit in with your argument. Fact is, the vast majority of PS transations are with the same team.


We aren't either, and I'm not even asking us to do. I'm just asking that we do it in cases where it isn't LIKELY to have an effect on the out come of a game in terms of an L or W. If we lose 20-7 or 20-0, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't think it is LIKELY that Anderson is going to make enough of a difference in a game vs. a guy from a practice squad.

No doubt. But, we aren't talking about impact, we are talking about keeping eligibility (and also stashing players as much as possible)


No, but that doesn't mean that you can't look at lists of practice squad players, go back and watch film of them yourself, talk to old coaches and teamates, and make a judgement to which have the most potential on your own.

Practice squad players are public knowledge.,

And what makes you think the Redskins scouting staff DOESN'T do this?

[NLC1054]

And what makes you think the Redskins scouting staff DOESN'T do this?

See my aforementioned "fans feel they have to see everything for themselves" comment.

Mike Shanahan should just wire Redskins Park with cameras and microphones and make it accessible through the internet.

[Painkiller]

Anderson played for the Texans during Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan’s time there as an assistant coach. Which means that Anderson’s arrival is the result of nepotism with a dash of cronyism.

WTF dude? Seriously? Why do they have to take cheap shots? If the guy knows Kyle's offense, and could become a contributor than it's a smart move. Stalworth was giving us nothing.

God I hate these ****ing douche bag "reporters" sometimes. Kind of hard to think it's "just doing my job" when they go out of their way to insult people.

[HailGreen28]

Per Jones, David Anderson will replace Stallworth. Anderson played for the Texans during Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan’s time there as an assistant coach. Which means that Anderson’s arrival is the result of nepotism with a dash of cronyism. Should have never had Stallworth on the roster.

Like painkiller said. Awful way to describe Anderson joining our team.

When those clueless reporters ordinarily talk about a player "following a coach", they effusively praise the coach in question. Why not in this case?

[Bang]

Considering Stallworth was playing special teams, and our returns stink, maybe this guy can block better and that is what cost Donte his job and got this guy a shot.

~Bang

[Mr. Nostril]

Great! It's kind of meaningless add in his place, but at least I can cheer in peace knowing that that guy, who is probably a terrible person, is longer with the team.

[PeterMP]

If they will be better players in two years, they still will be better players.
But if they aren't on your roster, they will be better players for other people. If the next James Harrison/Arian Foster is on the San Diego Chargers practice squad, then the Bills aren't maximizing their long term potential unless you want to claim that everybody on the Bill's roster will be better than the next James Harrison/Arian Foster.

You aren't really trying to make that claim, are you?


Funny, but the Bills did do this, signing Antonio Coleman off of the Giants' PS. Thing is, tho, he played previously with the Bills. So, it doesn't really fit in with your argument. Fact is, the vast majority of PS transations are with the same team.
I don't see where any of this is relevant. The only way this would be relevant is if it isn't possible to take a player from another theam and have them turn into a good player, and players like Donald Penn show that isn't the case.



No doubt. But, we aren't talking about impact, we are talking about keeping eligibility (and also stashing players as much as possible)
Only if we limit ourselves to our practice squad, which I see no reason to do. We aren't stashing people on the San Diego Chargers practice squad any more than the Bucs were with the Vikings w/ respect to Penn.


And what makes you think the Redskins scouting staff DOESN'T do this?
I expect they do. Your previous post made it sound like it was impossible to determine who was good on other team's practice squad w/o them advertising it.

I was just pointing out the stupidity of that idea.

---------- Post added November-8th-2011 at 08:17 PM ----------


See my aforementioned "fans feel they have to see everything for themselves" comment.

Mike Shanahan should just wire Redskins Park with cameras and microphones and make it accessible through the internet.
Do you think the Redskins scouts think that the two best players in terms of long term potential are Tashard Choice and David Anderson?

Is there any reason why this team shouldn't be looking to maximize its long term potential w/ respect tto roster spots that aren't likely to see the field much (or very soon)?

[NLC1054]

Do you think the Redskins scouts think that the two best players in terms of long term potential are Tashard Choice and David Anderson?

Is there any reason why this team shouldn't be looking to maximize its long term potential w/ respect to people that aren't likely to roster spots that aren't likely to see the field much (or very soon)?

Teams with issues like ours rarely look to other teams practice squad to grab people. They're always looking at the waiver wire, because you really don't have enough tape on any practice squad guys to know better. If a practice squader is worth REALLY having, you usually sign them to your roster before the season. Either that, or you have some guys go down, there's a guy you liked in the draft, and then you pretty much have to pray he's actually on a practice squad for you to pick up. You're essentially saying we should be blindly searching practice squads, hoping to luck into a guy who has more "long-term potential" instead of having guys who can potentially contribute in the short term.

As for Aldrick Robinson, like I said; you have to earn what you're given on this team. Aldrick getting placed on the active roster does him no favors. Hell, Aldrick would STILL probably be seeing most of his reps on scout team anyway (3rd, 4th and 5th stringers almost always play on the 2nd team or the scout team). So all putting him on the roster does is mean we can't add someone else and that he's taking up a roster spot. At least Anderson can partipate in an emergency. Aldrick, likely, can't positively contribute. And yes, being able to positively contribute does matter.

[PeterMP]

Teams with issues like ours rarely look to other teams practice squad to grab people. They're always looking at the waiver wire, because you really don't have enough tape on any practice squad guys to know better. If a practice squader is worth REALLY having, you usually sign them to your roster before the season. Either that, or you have some guys go down, there's a guy you liked in the draft, and then you pretty much have to pray he's actually on a practice squad for you to pick up. You're essentially saying we should be blindly searching practice squads, hoping to luck into a guy who has more "long-term potential" instead of having guys who can potentially contribute in the short term.

As for Aldrick Robinson, like I said; you have to earn what you're given on this team. Aldrick getting placed on the active roster does him no favors. Hell, Aldrick would STILL probably be seeing most of his reps on scout team anyway (3rd, 4th and 5th stringers almost always play on the 2nd team or the scout team). So all putting him on the roster does is mean we can't add someone else and that he's taking up a roster spot. At least Anderson can partipate in an emergency. Aldrick, likely, can't positively contribute. And yes, being able to positively contribute does matter.
I think I've said several times you have to be lucky. Somebody thought enough of them to put them on a practice squad to begin with. Somebody likely saw enough of them to sign them as a UDFA to start with. It isn't like after the draft where you have a ton of players to look at. A lot of the work has already been done.

Undoubtedly, there is a low probability of success, but I wouldn't say it was blind. Drafting guys in the 6th and 7th round has a low probability of success. I wouldn't suggest a team NOT draft players there with those picks.

I didn't say being able to contribute had NO bearing.

You didn't answer either question.

[NLC1054]

First question; they may not think they can contribute in the long term, but as of now, they're both cheap depth who can contribute in the short term.

Second question; you're idea of "maximizing long-term potential" amounts to "reaching for players, putting guys out there and hoping for the best".

If another team's practice squad player was so good, why wouldn't another team just put them on the active roster? That's why we didn't cut Hankerson; we knew we wouldn't be able to cut him and put him on the waiver wire and have him clear. The practice squad is usually for developmental guys; guys who have potential, but are raw or need some seasoning. Most teams aren't in the business of putting talent worth having right away on the practice squad.

Example: I seem to remember last season, when James Davis got here and was put on the practice squad, a lot of teams offered him bigger contracts to lure him away. (This was only after JD had some solid games for Cleveland, mind you). The Redskins essentially had to pay him a lot more than your average practice squad player to keep him around, because they simply didn't have the roster spot for him at that moment. Eventually Chad Simpson got injured and then moved right away to put him on the active roster. After the original bidding war for his services, it quieted down. JD was on on practice squad a month after teams originally really attacked him before he got called up.

Here you have a case of other teams wanting a guy, and the Redskins having to go out of their way to keep him on the team. Even so, James Davis pretty much amounted to nothing, and is likely just going to become one of those guys who you see bouncing around a lot of different practice squads whenever someone needs a running back in the wings. And cases like JD's are HARDLY the norm most of the time. The only reason teams wanted Davis was because he had contributed in real life game action during the regular season.

The work ISN'T already done for you in either case. Just because a player is on a team's practice squad doesn't mean he's fully scouted and you know what he's capable of on YOUR team. All you know is that some team thought a guy was worth having. You still need to see him on film and to study him in order to know what he can do for your team. You also don't have the benefit of an offseason to see if his has the intangibles like work ethic and the like. Again, going back to JD; we got lucky enough to claim him off waivers from the Browns, then after we got him, realized he didn't have the work ethic we wanted.

[Dirt]

I hope he keeps a job somewhere. I really feel for the guy after following all the details of his legal troubles. Dude was innocent, then ESPN rips him a new one in interviews, and teams start looking down their nose at him.

If Plaxico can blow his leg off like an idiot in a crowded place, then come back and contribute, Donte should get the same chance...but I suppose Donte's no Plaxico..?

[PeterMP]

First question; they may not think they can contribute in the long term, but as of now, they're both cheap depth who can contribute in the short term.

Second question; you're idea of "maximizing long-term potential" amounts to "reaching for players, putting guys out there and hoping for the best".

If another team's practice squad player was so good, why wouldn't another team just put them on the active roster?
Because other teams have more interest in winning now and less interest in long term potential. If we were in a situation like the Baltimore Ravens, and we signed David Anderson, I wouldn't blink an eye.



The work ISN'T already done for you in either case. Just because a player is on a team's practice squad doesn't mean he's fully scouted and you know what he's capable of on YOUR team. All you know is that some team thought a guy was worth having. You still need to see him on film and to study him in order to know what he can do for your team. You also don't have the benefit of an offseason to see if his has the intangibles like work ethic and the like. Again, going back to JD; we got lucky enough to claim him off waivers from the Browns, then after we got him, realized he didn't have the work ethic we wanted.
But a lot of that has to be done for the run up and after the draft. How many people that turn into UDFAs do you think they have some sort of scouting reports on. We're talking about then taking a subset of those people that made practice squads, and then beefing up those scouting reports partly based on the preseason games.

We're not talking about redoing a whole run up to the draft/post-draft analysis.

Is there any reason to believe that waiver wire players are better scouted than practice squad players? Would that make any sense to do?

Aren't you assuming that players teams have decided have NO value are better (even right now) than players teams have decided might have SOME value?

(And if you haven't scouted one set of those players, how can you make that determination?)

[TheLongshot]

But if they aren't on your roster, they will be better players for other people. If the next James Harrison/Arian Foster is on the San Diego Chargers practice squad, then the Bills aren't maximizing their long term potential unless you want to claim that everybody on the Bill's roster will be better than the next James Harrison/Arian Foster.

You aren't really trying to make that claim, are you?

I think you are mixing up what arguments I'm arguing. I'm talking about the Bills players, not players they could potentially get.


I don't see where any of this is relevant. The only way this would be relevant is if it isn't possible to take a player from another theam and have them turn into a good player, and players like Donald Penn show that isn't the case.

What I'm arguing is that your philosophy in raiding other teams' practice squads at this point in the season is rare, and the few times it happens it is for players who qualities are most likely known by the team getting them. (Kinda like us signing Marcus Mason off of the Jets practice squad. I don't see the Colts trying to do this, and their season has been over a lot longer than ours.


Only if we limit ourselves to our practice squad, which I see no reason to do. We aren't stashing people on the San Diego Chargers practice squad any more than the Bucs were with the Vikings w/ respect to Penn.

Again, you switch subjects. I'm talking about Robinson with that quote.


I expect they do. Your previous post made it sound like it was impossible to determine who was good on other team's practice squad w/o them advertising it.

I was just pointing out the stupidity of that idea.

Not impossible, but it isn't that easy, particularly when there is a somewhat stiff price that you keep the player on the roster for 3 games. It might not seem to be a lot, but if the guy can't contribute and you need the roster spot for someone else, you might have to cut someone you don't want to cut.

Here is a fact: the PS of most teams are filled with marginal players who are there because they are not no-brainers for NFL teams to sign. Most of those players may have potential, but they aren't NFL ready.


Do you think the Redskins scouts think that the two best players in terms of long term potential are Tashard Choice and David Anderson?

Is there any reason why this team shouldn't be looking to maximize its long term potential w/ respect tto roster spots that aren't likely to see the field much (or very soon)?

The regular season isn't about future potential. It is about who can help you now.

And while the fanbase may have given up on the season, the coaching staff can't. It is their job to win games.

[PeterMP]

What I'm arguing is that your philosophy in raiding other teams' practice squads at this point in the season is rare, and the few times it happens it is for players who qualities are most likely known by the team getting them. (Kinda like us signing Marcus Mason off of the Jets practice squad. I don't see the Colts trying to do this, and their season has been over a lot longer than ours.
It is rare, and I actually think it should be rare. I also think most teams aren't in the position we are in. I think the Colts are a particularly bad analogy because much of their future depends on Peyton Manning's health. I could easily see NEXT year being a very important year for the Colts.

And it isn't rare for bad teams to sign some players off of a practice squad (including their own). You are arguing that NO player should be signed from a practice squad. If you want to tell me that our guys aren't ready/good enough, fine, but SOMEBODY out there very likely is and will have a positive longer term impact.

Donald Penn was signed off the Vikings practice squad by the Bucs in 2006 in Oct. He has gone on to be a starter for multiple years.
Cary Williams was drafted by the Titans in 2008. The Ravens took him off of the Titans practice squad in Nov. 2009. He played in 13 games last year, and has started all 8 games this year.



The regular season isn't about future potential. It is about who can help you now.

And while the fanbase may have given up on the season, the coaching staff can't. It is their job to win games.
Which is one reason that I think it is difficult for a coach to also be the head of the organization. The head of the organization has to have a longer term picture/frame work in mind. The coach should be worrying about winning the next game.

If Shanahan wants to do both though, he has to balance them somehow.