Making Moves: per @john_keim

[Bat~man]

I laugh everytime I see someone mention a former player as if they would immediatley come in and turn the defense around. Landry, Rogers, Barnes, Westbrook, Thompson, Tryon and on and on were let go for a reason. I just can't stand that so many keep wanted to look into the past for answers. I'm already losing my hair, but I feel like pulling the rest of it out when I see these posts (Not yours, this wasn't directed at you, but adding to what you said.)

---------- Post added November-7th-2012 at 12:52 PM ----------

Also, everyone keeps saying that firing Haslett now won't make a difference. I think sometimes you have to look at the other side of the coin. Would I love him fired today? Yes. Will it happen. No. I'm thinking he won't be brought back after the season, but why not give someone else a chance to make the defensive calls? Maybe they have a different persective of the personnel or what the offense is doing that Haslette cannot see. I know it didn't work with Philly, but Todd Bowles has never called a defense, but guys on our staff have. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to try something else.

Regardless of what people dream up, firing a DC mid-season will not improve the defense at all. Unfortunately, our best chance THIS year is with Haslett...and that just shows how bad we are. Firing Has now would just add more fuel to the "Shanny concedes the season" fire. Getting rid of him now would only be to send a message. A lot of this can be placed on Has, but just watch the game, our players are not good. No push on the line, no rush, no cover skills, no ball hawking, poor tackling...the players are terrible. Kerrigan is less than average this year, Fletch is aging..we're bad.

[moondog]

I agree there is little point in cutting players unless you have people you can bring in who you believe can produce at a higher level. I also agree there is no point ditching Haslett at this point.

However there are some players - at least in my opinion - who are simply not performing and have shown no real sign of improvement. Cutting them and bringing in guys from either our practice squad or practice squads around the NFL to see if we can find someone who will take the opportunity and show they can be part of our future. We already cut one corner, Jones, and brought another guy in - for example I would cut Banks and use that roster spot on a young safety and turn the kick off returns over to Paul and punt returns to Moss. Chris Cooley is another guy I would look at - he may still be getting up to speed but he has been a shadow of what he was in his first two games back.

This is all bottom of the roster stuff and it's not going to make any material difference but taking a look at some young guys who might have a future is not going to hurt. It also maybe sends a signal that there is accountability for lack of production.[COLOR="Gold"]

Ok, now I definitely see what you're saying. I wholeheartedly agree with you about Banks. You make a point about Cooley but I disagree for a couple reasons.

First, Banks. You're absolutely right. So many argue for his explosiveness and the threat. I don't think he's returned one for a TD (that didn't get called back) in a couple years. While some could argue the "it's not his fault" about the ones that got called back, bottom line is there are several no name guys out there who have probably scored more recently on returns and are averaging similar, if not better numbers. I will always think that Kickoff returners should be bigger, stronger, faster guys who can break a tackle - much like Paul or Percy Harvin. Guys that get going up field and can be a load to bring down rather than side to side kind of players. Punt returners are usually very effective as smaller guys but Banks is the absolute extreme. He's brought nothing to the offense outside of a couple good runs (all in one game) and it is important to note that Griffin usually got lit up on those option plays.

Cooley - I disagree here only because we've done that before. The last couple years we brought in guys like Byrd, among others as young guys with talent to see if they could make it or turn the corner. I think we kept 2-3 different guys for at least a little while and they all proved to be nothing. While Cooley has yet to even catch a pass, at this point he is likely not only better than anyone out there, but there is no real project player either. Don't forget we have a talented young tight end on the roster that really fits exactly what you're talking about. Yes, Paulsen, aka the only "receiver" on the entire team who has been reliable catching the ball. I think he's a gem and the coaches are working on another project in Paul. If Paul becomes nothing other than that project and Davis can get healthy next year, he and Paulsen should see plenty of playing time together because they can be deadly.

[Laxpunk2006]

First, Banks. You're absolutely right. So many argue for his explosiveness and the threat. I don't think he's returned one for a TD (that didn't get called back) in a couple years. While some could argue the "it's not his fault" about the ones that got called back, bottom line is there are several no name guys out there who have probably scored more recently on returns and are averaging similar, if not better numbers. I will always think that Kickoff returners should be bigger, stronger, faster guys who can break a tackle - much like Paul or Percy Harvin. Guys that get going up field and can be a load to bring down rather than side to side kind of players. Punt returners are usually very effective as smaller guys but Banks is the absolute extreme. He's brought nothing to the offense outside of a couple good runs (all in one game) and it is important to note that Griffin usually got lit up on those option plays.

Further more on this point about Banks, it doesn't matter if it's "not his fault." If a team's special teams unit is incapable of blocking for a returner to make big plays then there is no sense in allocating a roster spot to a dedicated return man. Just like it wouldn't make sense to use a roster spot on a deep threat if the starting QB can't throw the ball deep. Roster decisions should not be made in isolation. It's important to always remember the larger context.

[MrJL]

I laugh everytime I see someone mention a former player as if they would immediatley come in and turn the defense around. Landry, Rogers, Barnes, Westbrook, Thompson, Tryon and on and on were let go for a reason. I just can't stand that so many keep wanted to look into the past for answers. I'm already losing my hair, but I feel like pulling the rest of it out when I see these posts (Not yours, this wasn't directed at you, but adding to what you said.)[COLOR="Gold"]


[

Landry and Rogers essentially chose to leave, and Rogers seems to have dealt with the issue he had in Washington, meaning that he can keep the ball in his hands. Tryon is a Giant. And as for turning the defense around, an average former player who knows the system will do more than an average player who doesn't know the system. No one is advocating these guys being inserted in the starting lineuo, we're suggesting they may help in the nickel and things like that.

[DogofWar1]

Further more on this point about Banks, it doesn't matter if it's "not his fault." If a team's special teams unit is incapable of blocking for a returner to make big plays then there is no sense in allocating a roster spot to a dedicated return man. Just like it wouldn't make sense to use a roster spot on a deep threat if the starting QB can't throw the ball deep. Roster decisions should not be made in isolation. It's important to always remember the larger context.

Well, the difference would be that a deep threat could become useful in the future, whereas a dedicated return man who needs a special teams unit to block well is pretty much expendable in every situation.

Though this is just me being very nit-picky, your point is well made.

[MrJL]

Well, the difference would be that a deep threat could become useful in the future, whereas a dedicated return man who needs a special teams unit to block well is pretty much expendable in every situation.

Though this is just me being very nit-picky, your point is well made.

well for some reason the Skins don't seem to run Banks straight down the field for a deep ball much. I'm not sure he's got the moves or size. Honestly, most deep threats these days are pretty tall. Tall receivers came into vogue for jump balls in the endzone but now days it seems like everyone realizes the big guys are easier to aim for too.

[kingdaddy]

Who are the starting WR's going into the Philly game?
Hankerson and Morgan? If Moss is out on top of Garcon how bout going with Briscoe over Hankerson?
Morgan, Briscoe and Robinson with Hankerson as the 4th......
Hopefully Moss can go?

[MartinC]

Who are the starting WR's going into the Philly game?
Hankerson and Morgan? If Moss is out on top of Garcon how bout going with Briscoe over Hankerson?
Morgan, Briscoe and Robinson with Hankerson as the 4th......
Hopefully Moss can go?

Hankerson and Morgan are our best two healthy receivers and should start. But all four will see snaps. They gave Robinson a start the last game and he was pretty invisible.

[acuratl1984]

Hankerson and Morgan are our best two healthy receivers and should start. But all four will see snaps. They gave Robinson a start the last game and he was pretty invisible.

Personally think it's about time they give Desmon Briscoe more chances on the field.

[pjfootballer]

Landry and Rogers essentially chose to leave, and Rogers seems to have dealt with the issue he had in Washington, meaning that he can keep the ball in his hands. Tryon is a Giant. And as for turning the defense around, an average former player who knows the system will do more than an average player who doesn't know the system. No one is advocating these guys being inserted in the starting lineuo, we're suggesting they may help in the nickel and things like that.

I know what people are suggesting. I'm ready to move on from these players.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 08:35 AM ----------

Personally think it's about time they give Desmon Briscoe more chances on the field.

At least in the redzone. Guy has a knack for scoring.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 08:36 AM ----------

Anyone know who they signed to the practice squad to take DJ Johnson's place?

[moondog]

At least in the redzone. Guy has a knack for scoring.[COLOR="Gold"]

I agree he is a big target that obviously had some nice scores in the redzone for Tampa. I'm actually really surprised we haven't thrown a single fade in the endzone all year to either Briscoe or Hankerson. I think the real problem is the coaches have given Briscoe a few opportunities and he's had a couple drops. I think the coaches are so frustrated with the receivers dropping balls (to go along with missing their golden acquisition, Garcon) that Robinson and Briscoe are pretty much on a one opportunity basis. They'll give them some plays and if they're targeted and don't come up with the ball (within reason) it's see ya later. But if they come up with the ball they'll see more opportunities.

Like I said, Briscoe was targeted a couple times earlier in the season and had some pretty easy drops and since then we've seen him maybe once a game. I was surprised to see them give him a reverse the other day as opposed to Robinson (not sure how that makes sense when they say Robinson is possibly our fastest player). On the same note, Robinson got the first pass of the game when Griffin threw from our own goalline. Robinson got wide open, the throw was slightly off but Robinson did not come up with what was a reasonably catchable ball. Guess who we never really saw again the rest of the game?

These guys just need to continue to step up in practice and do exactly as the Shanahan's have preached, word for word, when they get in a game, "Take advantage of opportunities." If they gain some confidence and reel in some balls, the coaches will keep them out there, which will be good for us because I think Robinson especially can develop into an excellent playmaker and a great slot, if not #2 receiver. Briscoe can also be a very effective player, but same goes for him. If he doesn't start catching everything in sight when he does get the opportunity, he'll continue to spend the majority of his time on the sideline. We don't have room for errors/dropped balls right now.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

The Doughtys and Golstons on the roster make the roster because they are smart guys who work hard. We want guys like that on our team. The problem isn't that they are on the roster. The problem is when the talent level is so thin that they have to start. (BTW, not sure why Golston is mentioned when he's a reserve.)

The bolded part is the ****ing truth and one that everyone needs to keep in mind when evaluating this team.

[pjfootballer]

On the same note, Robinson got the first pass of the game when Griffin threw from our own goalline. Robinson got wide open, the throw was slightly off but Robinson did not come up with what was a reasonably catchable ball. Guess who we never really saw again the rest of the game?

Robinson was smashed on that first pass. He drew the 15 yard penalty, so despite not catching it, we got positive yards from it.

[stevemcqueen1]

How can anyone argue that Brown is not better than Polumbus? He's a ProBowl left tackle.

IF he is healthy and can play at a high level, he will not only beat out Mr. Polumbus, but he will acnhor the right side of the line. I think people forget how good he was pre-injury. He was one of the best linemen in the NFL.

Pre injury was like five years ago. He isn't a shadow of the player he once was. He's cooked.

[RandyHolt]

Polumbus does fine when we run the ball.

When we can't run the ball, the entire line (less TW) is being exposed as weak in pass protection.

We need a RB that we can use to spell Morris for breathers, that makes defenses think we may actually run. Royster (12 carries) is not leading them to think we may run. They are teeing off on RG3 and its obvious he is our only option with Morris off the field. So passing or running with Morris out, there is a bullseye on 3, and the D is tight on the line/WR.

We can't pass from the pocket, and its not Polumbus's fault. Its our GMs preference for mobile run blockers.

Get a RB in here, GM. Mike, for clarification.

We all saw Morris getting worked on, and absent much of the 2nd half. Its almost like the elephant in the room around here. What we do hear is, why didn't we keep running Morris?/???/?

I want to know, why don't we have a backup?