Redskins make first round of roster cuts

what if the cut list somehow included: Colt, Mason, and Marko. Oh the drama :)

edit: I know Marko is far fetched, but it would be huge for dramatic effect.

People would go out of their f'ing minds. LOL.

Kinda hard to envision Sellers getting the axe. I don't see anyone ready to step into his shoes.

what if the cut list somehow included: Colt, Mason, and Marko. Oh the drama :)

edit: I know Marko is far fetched, but it would be huge for dramatic effect.

Colt and Mason are not far-fetched. On Saturday we might want to duck and cover.

There's no double standard, nobody is out to screw over Mason.

As the #3 back Rock is just fine, but his main role is ST. Typically that's what you are looking for from that spot. Like it or not Mason is not a standout on ST, and it's likely what will cost him a roster spot again this year.

Rock might not be a lock to make the team, but it will be Dorsey or Alridge that take his spot, not Mason.

I totally agree with you on this. If I'm looking to get someone younger and faster to replace Rock, Mason is not my choice. We already have two of the same types of backs no need for a third. Alridge or Dorsey would be my pick.

If it was my decision (which obviously it's not) I would replace Betts with Mason OR.....any young talented RB who can replace Portis down the road. My main issue is not that I hate Betts and Rock. I think they have served the team admirably. My issue is the need to look to the future and to have a RB being developed/molded for the future so when Portis hangs up his cleats the team is not being forced to make a stupid move which will cost the team extra draft picks or putting hope and a prayer on a rookie RB that no one knows if he will work out or not.

As I said previously I do have a man crush for Mason, but drop him and insert new young RB and if he is pretty good and can be trained I'll back him the same way.

Which is why I wrote that if the team is resigned to keeping Betts as the #2 then I hope the team picks up Alridge or Dorsey cause we need something different in the line up. If the team is truly looking to get younger and have a replacement for the future then I would pick (at this point cause there's no other similar RB's that are young on the roster) Mason and still let Rock go and replace him with Alridge or Dorsey.

This is the same arguement I had with Jansen, we needed to get younger at the position. I had the same arguement for Thrash even though he was a locker room leader and special teams leader. This is the same arguement I have with Collins. and....to be honest at some point Smoot and some of the lineman.

what if the cut list somehow included: Colt, Mason, and Marko. Oh the drama :)

edit: I know Marko is far fetched, but it would be huge for dramatic effect.


If the team has something better on the roster then let them go. My only concern is the coach's possibly not taking chances on the younger guys not cause they don't have talent but cause they are comfortable with what they already have even if they know it is stagnant and will not get better at the position. Whether it's knowing what they have, or afraid of not knowing what they could have, or loyalty.

but yes it was on the radio that the fans would be in an uproar if Mitchell was cut. They even pointed out that he did some things in the last game while blocking that they only see in a vet who has played the game for yrs like R.Moss, T.O., and so on.

Kinda hard to envision Sellers getting the axe. I don't see anyone ready to step into his shoes.

Sellers is still healthy and blocking good, he's going no where, but the team did pick up a FB in the draft who looks pretty good and could be put on the practice squad for the future.

On a side note Agnone looks good also. I think I would let Yodder go.

I totally agree with you on this. If I'm looking to get someone younger and faster to replace Rock, Mason is not my choice. We already have two of the same types of backs no need for a third. Alridge or Dorsey would be my pick.

If it was my decision (which obviously it's not) I would replace Betts with Mason OR.....any young talented RB who can replace Portis down the road. My main issue is not that I hate Betts and Rock. I think they have served the team admirably. My issue is the need to look to the future and to have a RB being developed/molded for the future so when Portis hangs up his cleats the team is not being forced to make a stupid move which will cost the team extra draft picks or putting hope and a prayer on a rookie RB that no one knows if he will work out or not.

As I said previously I do have a man crush for Mason, but drop him and insert new young RB and if he is pretty good and can be trained I'll back him the same way.

Which is why I wrote that if the team is resigned to keeping Betts as the #2 then I hope the team picks up Alridge or Dorsey cause we need something different in the line up. If the team is truly looking to get younger and have a replacement for the future then I would pick (at this point cause there's no other similar RB's that are young on the roster) Mason and still let Rock go and replace him with Alridge or Dorsey.

This is the same arguement I had with Jansen, we needed to get younger at the position. I had the same arguement for Thrash even though he was a locker room leader and special teams leader. This is the same arguement I have with Collins. and....to be honest at some point Smoot and some of the lineman.


Well put. I totally agree. Portis just turned 28 and Rock/Betts are 29. Why would we carry 3 backs who are almost 30 when we can atleast build for the future with some younger backs with upside.

Well put. I totally agree. Portis just turned 28 and Rock/Betts are 29. Why would we carry 3 backs who are almost 30 when we can atleast build for the future with some younger backs with upside.The term "building for the future" doesn't imply loading up your team with replacement-level backs with a favorable birthdate.

It implies that you 1)draft/sign, 2)develop, and 3)plan to use younger talent. When you're choosing from a group of massively flawed players, you can choose "none of the above".

This is why I suggest that teams wait for a cut or two before deciding to keep 3 or 4 RBs. If you try to develop non-talent, you're just wasting time and resources.

For the record, I think we could have used our 5th or 6th rounder on a RB, and am confused to exactly why we did not do that.

Colt and Mason are not far-fetched. On Saturday we might want to duck and cover.

From what I say the first two games Mason was not showing anything special and everyone still could argue he was getting his yrds against second stringers. The third game showed he can get the yrds against 1st stringers and he still gets no love or it lasted like 3 days before everyone forgot and jumped on the "Mason doesn't do special teams" arguement and the age old one " he has blocking issues." I can't agrue against the last statement cause we all know he had the issue last yr, but he's gotten better. That issue you can teach. Plus in the third game it's not like he whiffed on every block....he missed one. One block. Portis has missed blocks and he's a vet. The team even kept Sellers in the game to help Portis last yr and on occassion they both whiffed on blocks letting the pass rush get to JC. I'm in no way saying Mason is better then Portis and Seller just pointing out that "to human is to error." Hopefully he's learned from his mistake. Now if he continually makes the same mistake then cut his arse. LOL.

Can someone please list all the people who play special teams and their position and their back ups if they know who they are right now? On the team site it only has it listed for the K, P, and holder and center on special teams. It doesn't list the whole line. I ask cause for the life of me I'm betting their are a ton of other guys who fail to play special teams also like Mason, Mitchell, and Hagens who was let go.

The term "building for the future" doesn't imply loading up your team with replacement-level backs with a favorable birthdate.

It implies that you 1)draft/sign, 2)develop, and 3)plan to use younger talent. When you're choosing from a group of massively flawed players, you can choose "none of the above".

This is why I suggest that teams wait for a cut or two before deciding to keep 3 or 4 RBs. If you try to develop non-talent, you're just wasting time and resources.

For the record, I think we could have used our 5th or 6th rounder on a RB, and am confused to exactly why we did not do that.

See here's the difference between our thinking. I'd rather have Mason cause we did pick him up/sign him. Our scouts saw something. We developed him for 2 yrs now and he's actually getting better according to the coach's...enough to make them seriously have to think what to do with him. So apparently he's not massively flawed or they would not have had him here 2 yrs and challenged San Diego for his rights this yr. If he was massively flawed I think the coach's would have passed on him and let San Diego see for themselves why we passed.

Replacement level backs. Thats funny. So I guess the Denver Bronco's with last yrs coaching staff (Shanahan) seemed to have the best running game for like the past 10 yrs apparently cause they were good at picking up excellent RB's had a massively huge brain fart and picked up Alridge who clearly has massive flaws. OK. Keep using that arguement cause apparently "it" does not have massive flaw written all over it.