Roster transition in the Shanny era

I also want to suggest that there's no way Carter or Rogers is a probowler on this team in 2011. That's not what I'm trying to suggest: that the Redskins voluntarily gave up the only two probowlers on their roster. I think they gave up two very, very good players because they did not fit what the Redskins wanted to do. And generally speaking that's not good roster management. But the fact that Carter is already replaced in the scheme makes it easier to stomach.

What else are you supposed to do with guys that don't fit your scheme? Anytime a new coach comes in, there's going to be significant roster turnover and yes often times good players are going to be let go.

What else are you supposed to do with guys that don't fit your scheme? Anytime a new coach comes in, there's going to be significant roster turnover and yes often times good players are going to be let go.Isn't this just an assumption based on longitudinal observation of a team that consistently makes awful coaching hires? I mean, obviously not every player is going to be great in every scheme, but two things:

1) There really isn't much scheme diversity in the NFL. Shanahan runs about 80% of what Zorn ran. They likely use different coaching points on similar plays, but the results tell me that one didn't coach the zone stretch more effectively than the other. The year to year variance in the running game for the 2008-2011 Redskins was all about the available talent. Obviously Shanahan evaluates his players differently than Zorn did, mostly because he is a different person. No coach can find a role for everyone on an inherited roster, but if you can turn over 85% of the roster in two years and you still can't find a role for most players, then you're doing wrong.

2) When you make good hires, they'll use the good players in roles they are comfortable with. Maybe they won't extend them when they hit free agency. The Vikings opted not to offer Sidney Rice a huge deal after Childress and Bevell left. That's the kind of thing that will happen when you change coaching staffs.

But the idea that a change of staff means that every player on the roster is now useless is not something that people who aren't Redskin fans believe.

No, not every player is useless. But when you take over a team a coach is going to look to bring in "his guys". Either to upgrade the talent level, or to fit the scheme better, or to even help change the locker room culture. What Shanny has done really isn't that out of the ordinary. I'm still not sure what impact guys like Williams, Rinehart, and Tryon would have had. It's not like they are game changers on their current teams.

When Gibbs and Williams were hired in 2004 and all they had was a bunch of Spurrier's leftovers (because Spurrier was a bad hire who tore apart Schottenheimer's roster), did they complain about needing to turn over 80% of the roster before needing to compete?

Or did Williams have a GREAT defense in the fall because he used previously unused guys like Pierce, Marshall, and Clark combine with his handpicked signings such as Springs, Taylor, Washington, Griffin, and Daniels to make one of the best units in the league? I mean, that was a totally different scheme than what George Edwards was running, about as different as you can get. But it's not possible if he releases Pierce and Clark to bring in guys like Prioleau and Lawyer Milloy because he once worked with them before.

It wasn't a fluke. He did the same thing with New Orleans in 2009.

I mean, the real shame of the Shanahan excuses is that the Redskins have actually done it right (arguably twice) while Dan Snyder has owned the team. And when Shanahan is doing it so horribly and arrogantly wrong, people are defending it as it being "the right way" to build a team.

First of all, suggesting that there is one right way to build a winning team is a really arrogant line of thinking, and is nothing more than a job security ploy (fire me and you'll be screwed!). Secondly, the Redskins already DID IT A LOT BETTER AND A LOT FASTER than this.

You can argue that Gibbs didn't fix all of the organizational ills, and the fact that he was good at making hires and pretty good at evaluating veteran talent didn't fix everything Snyder had done wrong with the team. You can argue that Gibbs threw away far too many draft picks frivolously to have built a "great" organization in Washington. You'd probably be right.

What you can't argue is that what he did was more successful in the short term. And to be totally honest, it's probably more sustainable than what the Redskins are trying now. That last part is something the jury is still out on. But I definitely hold it to be true.

I also want to suggest that there's no way Carter or Rogers is a probowler on this team in 2011. That's not what I'm trying to suggest: that the Redskins voluntarily gave up the only two probowlers on their roster. I think they gave up two very, very good players because they did not fit what the Redskins wanted to do. And generally speaking that's not good roster management. But the fact that Carter is already replaced in the scheme makes it easier to stomach.

So square peg-round hole is good roster management or you'd advocate reshaping philosophy to suit two ill fitting players? Not trying to be a wiseass, just trying to grasp your issue with the roster management under Shanahan as it relates to players he cut that are on rosters elsewhere.

Wonder what Gregg Williams would have been like as a head coach of the Skins??... Quess we'll never know but i would have like to have seen it.

Wonder what Gregg Williams would have been like as a head coach of the Skins??... Quess we'll never know but i would have like to have seen it.

No better than Zorn due to the Vinny factor.

Isn't this just an assumption based on longitudinal observation of a team that consistently makes awful coaching hires? I mean, obviously not every player is going to be great in every scheme, but two things:

1) There really isn't much scheme diversity in the NFL. Shanahan runs about 80% of what Zorn ran. They likely use different coaching points on similar plays, but the results tell me that one didn't coach the zone stretch more effectively than the other. The year to year variance in the running game for the 2008-2011 Redskins was all about the available talent. Obviously Shanahan evaluates his players differently than Zorn did, mostly because he is a different person. No coach can find a role for everyone on an inherited roster, but if you can turn over 85% of the roster in two years and you still can't find a role for most players, then you're doing wrong.

Also, are you suggesting that Shanahan "can't find a role for most [of the] players" on the current roster?? There are lots of gaps to fill, but, c'mon man that's just crazy talk.

2) When you make good hires, they'll use the good players in roles they are comfortable with. Maybe they won't extend them when they hit free agency. The Vikings opted not to offer Sidney Rice a huge deal after Childress and Bevell left. That's the kind of thing that will happen when you change coaching staffs.

You mean like we did with Carter and Rogers? Like we may do with Landry? (Honestly, I don't remember if we cut Carter or just didn't renew. Even if we cut him, his replacement was a definite upgrade in our scheme and, letting him go, let us keep a couple of younger developmental guys - Jackson and Marcus White).

But the idea that a change of staff means that every player on the roster is now useless is not something that people who aren't Redskin fans believe.

Well, seeing as 35 players of the 2009 roster are no longer in the NFL, I would suggest a substantial amount of people more knowledgeable than Redskins fans would agree that the 2009 roster contained a lot of "useless" players. Also, with an 85% turnover, there are going to be lots of "he's crap, but at least he's my crap" moves (Maake comes to mind).