Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821631]Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.[/quote]Well, yeah, read the rest of what I wrote. I was comparing the Shanaplan to what pretty much any other modern coach would do in the same situation.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821631]Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.[/quote]

All these teams are also teams that are in infinitely better situations than we are.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;821621]You think that's all they've got?[/quote]

Matty this isn't physics. The playbook thing is so overrated. Like I said, keep things real simple and work on execution, not formationing, shifting and motioning people to death. This is what the Colts do. Very little motion, no shifting and not a lot of formations. They stress execution with Reggie Wayne and bunch of no names.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NLC1054;821632]That's business, unfortunately, and that's what the coaches have to decide.

Fact is, Gaff and Moss are here to stay. AA's on, Hank's on. Banks, Robinson, Austin and Paul are going to have to fight like hell to get a spot.[/quote]Okay, this is a logical and reasonable position, but then we have to cut the charade that we're "finally rebuilding now." If you're right, then you have to hold Shanahan accountable for the ultimate product of his offense, seeing as that such a team wouldn't be expected to improve in 2012.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NLC1054;821634]All these teams are also teams that are in infinitely better situations than we are.[/quote]

And why is Tampa Bay in a better situation than we are?

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821638]And why is Tampa Bay in a better situation than we are?[/quote]

Better quarterback. Better o-line. Average defense, but oh well. They find one helluva running back in Blount. The Bucs were in a better position than we were, especially with a guy like Josh Freeman. And even though they went younger, they have a young quarterback and young receivers growing together.

[quote]Matty this isn't physics. The playbook thing is so overrated. Like I said, keep things real simple and work on execution, not formationing, shifting and motioning people to death. This is what the Colts do. Very little motion, no shifting and not a lot of formations. They stress execution with Reggie Wayne and bunch of no names.[/quote]

And then you have teams like the Green Bay Packers, who get by just fine with multiple formations and lots of motioning.

There's more than one way to 1.) build a football team, and 2.) execute an offense, or a defense for that matter.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821636]Matty this isn't physics. The playbook thing is so overrated. Like I said, keep things real simple and work on execution, not formationing, shifting and motioning people to death. This is what the Colts do. Very little motion, no shifting and not a lot of formations. They stress execution with Reggie Wayne and bunch of no names.[/quote]

It's not physics but it's not Madden either.

30 plays... c'mon. Oversimplify much?

And now you want to change up the offense too??

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=GTripp0012;821627]Well, if Hankerson looks good but still drops balls, he's pretty much locked into that 4th WR spots for the year. So then lets take the best of all worlds and say in this preseason that Terrence Austin, Aldrick Robinson, and Niles Paul all play quite well for young guys and look to our opponents like players who can help their WR situations. Lets say they play so well that it just becomes clear that Donte Stallworth has no role here.

Now, million dollar question: which two do you cut and expose to waivers in September? Why are you cutting two high upside rookies on a rebuilding team? Why, of course, because Moss and Gaffney are your starters.[/quote]

If they all look good in August that will be a nice spot to be in.

Let's wait to see how things actually play out before deciding if we're exposing any high upside guys.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;821631]Tripp I disagree here. We see young guys contributing all over the league at the Wr position. Macklin and Jackson in Philly, and the guys on Tampa Bay. Mike Wallace in Pittsburgh came into his own year in 2. 2013 is two years away. If he gets significant time now then that fastens his development. Right? Same with Austin and the rest of the guys. You don't get better sitting and watching. I'm not buying that sitting behind a vet and learning.

If this was 05, 06 and 07 and Gibbs was here, even 08 w/ Zorn and this was playoff team then fine, I'm all for Gaffney and co. But that's not the case now. This is a team that has won 12 games in 2 and a half years.[/quote]

Why the hangup with the WRs?

Why not just cut all the veterans on the team and just go with rookies?

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

ATTRACTIVE OFFER...........no thanx

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

Fred Davis should be working with the WRs. Cooley, Paulsen, and Sellers can handle playing TEs.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=diehard;821671]Fred Davis should be working with the WRs. Cooley, Paulsen, and Sellers can handle playing TEs.[/quote]

Dot. Dot. Dot.

He's not fast enough to be a WR. Would be like putting Banks at LG.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=NLC1054;821643][B]Better quarterback. Better o-line. Average defense, but oh well. They find one helluva running back in Blount. The Bucs were in a better position than we were, especially with a guy like Josh Freeman. And even though they went younger, they have a young quarterback and young receivers growing together.[/B]



And then you have teams like the Green Bay Packers, who get by just fine with multiple formations and lots of motioning.

There's more than one way to 1.) build a football team, and 2.) execute an offense, or a defense for that matter.[/quote]

My point exactly....they drafted some young guys and let them play.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;821647]It's not physics but it's not Madden either.

30 plays... c'mon. Oversimplify much?

And now you want to change up the offense too??[/quote]

No. Just keep things simple. I meant to say instead of having 100 pass plays tone it down to 30.

Re: Redskins Receivers Rotation
 

[quote=Mattyk;821649]Why the hangup with the WRs?

Why not just cut all the veterans on the team and just go with rookies?[/quote]

I just don't understand why they draft guys and then bring in older guys. If you have little or no intention of playing them then draft some freakin' o-linemen in the later rounds. This team is seriously obsessed with wr's. lol.