The Redskins and building roster depth: How are they doing?

[Califan007]

I read an article talking about the teams building the best roster depth...as you can imagine, the Cowboys are best in the league in terms of roster depth lol...

Anyway, the more interesting part of the article was this blurb:

As one GM I interviewed said, "It is impossible to have perfect roster depth and hit on all the critical areas. But to be a team ready for the 16-game season, it must really hit on most of the areas listed below."

I was wondering how everyone felt the Skins were doing in the areas listed by the anonymous GM (my comments in red):

1. A backup quarterback who can go at least 2-2 if he had to take over for a month straight. (does that describe Grossman? He's 6-10 as a Redskin, so I could see him juuuust fitting the bill...Does this comment by the GM help validate drafting Cousins?)

2. A second running back who could be a 1,000 yard back if he had to take over or at least generate 75 yards of offense a week as a runner and receiver. (Do we have this right now? I think Royster can come in and carry the yardage load for several games if needed...not sure about the entire season, though)

3. A third wide receiver who could go in for a starter down and generate 4-6 receptions a game as an X or a Z. (If Hankerson pans out I think we're covered here)

4. A second tight end who could be a legitimate threat as a blocker or receiver. (If Cooley proves 100% healthy and/or Paul proves 100% capable as a blocking TE, the Skins are more than covered here)

5. Two experienced backup offensive linemen. A swing tackle for either side and an inside player for the guards/center. Experience required because they will not get many reps in practice until injuries occur. (I'm not sure about this area, only because I haven't paid too much attention lol )

6. A third defensive tackle already in a rotation that could play a whole game well if a starter went down. (sounds like a comment for the 4-3, but we have Neild and Jenkins/Golston...we're definitely thin here)

7. A pass rush specialist that could play some run down situations if a starter went down. (Who would this be? Jackson? He's a liability against the run, I think...who else? I'm thinking OLB only so maybe if considering the DEs as well we'd be in better shape, depth-wise)

8. A fourth corner back that could bump up to the nickel corner if that player had to replace an injured starter. (We're thin here, too, unless Minnifield pans out)

9. A third safety that can start or provide a defense with an opportunity to play some ‘Big Nickel' when needed. (ummm lol... )

10. Four core special team players that could help on offense or defense in a pinch. (I think we're covered here)

That is a total of 14 players not listed as starters that become the most important people on a roster when injuries take starters off the field.

According to my admittedly shallow analysis, we've got dependable depth at 4 out of 10 spots...6 out of 10 spots if Hankerson and Minnifield pan out....7 out of 10 spots if I my ignoring the O-Line proves faulty lol...

If you went down that list, in which areas of depth would you say we're pretty good?

[Chump Bailey]

I think we're pretty solid across the board on paper. To me, this is easily the most depth we've had in a long time.

[skinsrbeast]

We have depth in training. A lot of young talent that hopefully develop

[redskindan07]

#'s 5, 7, 8 & 9 need some additional help in my opinion. Really pulling hard for Minnifield!!

[Hitman21ST]

That's funny. Looking over the criteria, the Cowboys fit almost none of the criteria:

1. A backup quarterback who can go at least 2-2 if he had to take over for a month straight. Kyle Orton? Possibly, I might could see 2-2

2. A second running back who could be a 1,000 yard back if he had to take over or at least generate 75 yards of offense a week as a runner and receiver. Nope. Felix Jones? Cowboys haven't had a 1000 yard back in forever.

3. A third wide receiver who could go in for a starter down and generate 4-6 receptions a game as an X or a Z. Nope. Let's see...Ogletree? Danny Coale? Who?

4. A second tight end who could be a legitimate threat as a blocker or receiver. Nope here too - John Phillips, Andrew Szczerba, James Hanna

5. Two experienced backup offensive linemen. A swing tackle for either side and an inside player for the guards/center. Experience required because they will not get many reps in practice until injuries occur. Nope. They miss here too.

6. A third defensive tackle already in a rotation that could play a whole game well if a starter went down. Nope. Sean Lissemore, Josh Brent, and Rob Callaway are the only DTs on their roster.

7. A pass rush specialist that could play some run down situations if a starter went down. Nope. They have good starters (Bruce Carter, DeMarcus Ware) but absolutely no depth at OLB

8. A fourth corner back that could bump up to the nickel corner if that player had to replace an injured starter. Nope. Morris Claiborne, Brandon Carr, Mike Jenkins, Orlando Scandrick?

9. A third safety that can start or provide a defense with an opportunity to play some ‘Big Nickel' when needed. Nope. Brodney Pool, Gerald Sensabaugh, Barry Church?

10. Four core special team players that could help on offense or defense in a pinch. Possibly. I don't know Cowboys Special Teamers

[pjfootballer]

I think we're alright. We had quite a few rookie step in and play decent last year.

[MattFancy]

We've definitely improved. Still have work to do, but I feel more comfortable with our depth now than I did 2 years ago or even last year.

[Darth Tater]

Thing about depth is that you don't need it until you need it and you really don't know if you got it until you need it. Now, if you want to be dominant for more than just a season or so, you need depth but you can always get lucky either in terms of your own injuries (timing or players) or your opponents injury issues (timing or players) for a season. Depth is also were you can find guys to replace guys in front of them or possible trade bait (either the depth player or the guy in front of him can be trade-able from your perspective)

[terrifNick21]

Here's an article I wrote over a month ago regarding the roster change. It shows how different the roster really is, and how the Redskins are going in the right direction.

http://httr24-7.com/?p=403

[Califan007]

That's funny. Looking over the criteria, the Cowboys fit almost none of the criteria:

VERY true lol ...in fact, I did an eyeroll at this statement in the article:

Kyle Orton may be the best backup quarterback in the NFL and Dallas always puts a premium on that position. Heck, the head coach was a Dallas backup quarterback. Orton alone has to put the Cowboys in the top five teams.

Orton "alone" puts the Cowboys in the top 5 in terms of depth? Wow...he must have been playing absolutely incredible lately, huh!!...Unlike, say, Rex Grossman who is considered a league-wide joke.

In fact, to illustrate just how big the difference is between Kyle "Secret Weapon" Orton and Rex "What A Joke" Grossman, let's compare the two:


Over the last 16 games:

Record
Orton - 4-12
Grossman - 6-10

Completion percentage
Orton - 56.3
Grossman - 57.3

Yards
Orton - 3678
Grossman - 3991

Yards per attempt
Orton - 6.9
Grossman - 6.8

Touchdowns
Orton - 21
Grossman - 23

INTs
Orton - 15
Grossman - 24

Obviously the INTs are what separate the two QBs, but if Orton "alone" causes the Cowboys' depth to rank in the top 5, there should be a far wider gap between the two QBs' production and performance.

[Hitman21ST]

Obviously the INTs are what separate the two QBs, but if Orton "alone" causes the Cowboys' depth to rank in the top 5, there should be a far wider gap between the two QBs' production and performance.

And if they're counting Orton's influence so much, that must mean something's wrong with Romo...

...as evidenced right here:

Kyle Orton may be the best backup quarterback in the NFL and Dallas always puts a premium on that position.

[roanoker]

That's funny. Looking over the criteria, the Cowboys fit almost none of the criteria:

I was thinking the same thing...

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I think the biggest statement you can make about our team and depth is that "we just dont know." This is obviously, 1000X better than previous teams where we kinda knew what we were and who we had and just hoped they all came together or a player inexplicably improved beyond what we had seen in the past.

Mike and Bruce have infused the team with just a crazy abundance young players that we really don't know how they will fare. All signs point to good though for most of them which would turn this team in world beaters should they live up to what the coaches beleive they can be...until then though, it is hard to say what our depth looks like besides armed to the teeth with youth and potential.

[Alcoholic Zebra]

We severely need depth on the o-line. We've got some young players who might develop into that depth, but we don't know yet until we see them play. Our running game STUNK with Eric Cook playing. Our starting LG is coming off of a knee that was torn to shreds, that's another "we'll see" situation.

We've spent picks in the draft to help out along the o-line, so in theory, we'll have that depth in a season or two. This season it all depends on how quickly they transition to the NFL game.

[pjfootballer]

We severely need depth on the o-line. We've got some young players who might develop into that depth, but we don't know yet until we see them play. Our running game STUNK with Eric Cook playing. Our starting LG is coming off of a knee that was torn to shreds, that's another "we'll see" situation.

We've spent picks in the draft to help out along the o-line, so in theory, we'll have that depth in a season or two. This season it all depends on how quickly they transition to the NFL game.

We got a glimpse of Hurt, Willie Smith and Polumbus last year so we at least have game film to analyze.