Final 53. Why Not Just Go With 2 Quarterbacks?

[Bulldog]

decisions on the final roster are close at RB, WR, CB and on the DL.

rather than cutting a player that may very well be able to help us in 2009, why not instead cut the candidates for the #3 quarterback slot and go with 2signal-callers to start the season?

Chase Daniel is raw and undersized. He might turn into a capable backup spending 2-3 years in one system. But he is not going to be of much immediate help if Campbell and Collins both go down here in 2009.

In regards to Colt Brennan, what is the team really missing due to his absence? He has been in the system for a year plus but still doesn't seem to have overcome the very basic issues of mental preparation and sound field judgment that are a prerequisite to getting into a game with something on the line.

He is a very poor man's version of Jeff George, a guy who spent 12 years in the NFL as a gunslinger with a fireball arm and a tin-plated head.

He never understood that his 80 yard TD pass that was so pretty to watch wasn't worth as much to the team as the 2 or 3 slow 10-12 play drives with less spectacular playcalling that yielded 14-21 points on the scoreboard rather than just 7.

From the comments in RI about Brennan's bravado and chatter and also his penchant for taking too many chances on the field to try and redeem himself, it appears #5 is perhaps headed down a similar road.

In any case, I don't think the club would be in contention to win many games with either player on the roster as a guy you have to count on.

So, why not go with the 2 who have shown they can play in the NFL and then pursue a veteran with WCO experience if it comes down to that because of injuries during the season?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Who knows - maybe that's one of the "surprises" that are in store for tomorrow's cuts - neither Chase NOR Colt make the team. Ha! Maybe Zorn is happy with Randle-El's QB skills to the point he thinks he can fill the slot-WR role as well as the emergency 3rd QB role.

 

[LizKauai]

Hmmm. I thought Colt was leading a pretty good march down the field, followed the gameplan, showcased the abilities of his teammates for everyone to see and got some points.

But that's just me... and Sonny J. (gotta wait til Saturday to see the video).

HTTR!

 

[Aston Gambino]

In any case, I don't think the club would be in contention to win many games with either player on the roster as a guy you have to count on.

With the defense we're going to roll out on Day 1, combined with the fact that our out of conference schedule is against the AFC Worst, I don't think we'll have to rely on any QB.

Also, I think if there was a veteran QB out there that was worth getting, our FO would have signed him by now. And I'd hate to find ourselves in another Jason Taylor scenario where we have to cough up a 2nd round pick just to fill a position for one year.

I'm not exactly blown away by either Colt or Chase either, but I can't imagine anyone filling that last roster spot with someone who will bring more value than one of them.

 

[Riggo-toni]

If the coaches don't see any potential in either Brennan o Chase, then fine. Colt's INTs don't bother me - Bradshaw led the league in INTs his first year or two starting out. The fact that he has accuracy issues and puts too much air under his midrange throws bodes poorly for his potential. He reminds me more of Rex Grossman than Jeff George.
On the other hand, if coaches see potential in both, I'd be up for keeping 4 QBs, since Collins and Campbell will both be gone next year.

 

[Boone]

Sorry Bulldog - I usually respect the hell out of your posts, but I think you're way off here. The simple answer is - because a casual glance at a player early on (and lets face it, that's really all we have had of either Brennan or Daniel) doesn't always accurately define them.

In other words, how many times have relatively unheralded 2nd or 3rd string QBs, suddenly thrust into action, surprised? And how many such 'surprises' develop into solid QBs? More than a few is the answer IMHO.

You're a smart guy, and one of the best football posters I've seen on the interwebs. But even you aren't smart enough to relegate a couple of youngsters like Brennan and Daniel to the NFL trash heap based on what we've seen to date.

Sorry - I ain't buying it. I'd sooner go the risky route I earlier proposed of writing off #2 this year by sending Collins packing, on the risk that either Brennan or Daniel would prove to have much greater future upside.

 

[Jimbo]

Gotta agree with John on this one, which is usually a 50/50 propostition with me.
I'd rather go with Colt and Chase minus Collins that just a backup who likely won't be around next year.

Chase reminds me a lot of Drew Brees. Not sure how he went undrafted unless it was purely his height. The bottom line is he produced this preseason like Brennan did last preseason. I'm still not sure about Colt THIS preseason other than he scares the heck out of me whenever he gets near the red zone. The fact that he's GETTING to the red zone is a good sign though. I think he can work the other stuff out.

All I know is I'm gonna feel really bad for whichever guy gets cut. Not sure how much more Chase could have done given limited opportunity and I like Brennan. This is gonna be hard to watch.

 

[EatSleepRedskin]

Agreed with Boone.

I'd rather dump Collins and keep Colt and Chase than dump either of the No. 3s.

Crazy? Absolutely. But, you don't know what you go til you got it.

At one point in time, the organization is going to have to make up its mind about who it thinks is and will be a better QB. But don't think that time is now.

Collins brings nothing to the team besides a solid backup who has no future potential.

If Campbell gets injured, well, see what the young guys have. I think it's dangerous, but it could be smart if either of the young ones are good.

Remember, Tom Brady might never have seen the field if Drew Bledsoe never had gotten hurt. If Bledsoe doesn't get hurt, there is no Brady.

 

[Phil781]

We do not have to worry about that now since colt will be on IR. I still feel that we put chase on PS this year and call him up later if needed. I think there may be another guy who is cut from another team or on ours that may help us out more than a third string quarterback.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Well, looks like Bulldog is closer than some of us would have liked - from Chris Mortensen via twitter:

Reported for ESPN: despite Colt Brennan on IR, Chase Daniel will not make 53-man roster & not considered for practice squad.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Lanky Livingston]

ESPN link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/mv74ep
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Boone]

Well, looks like Bulldog is closer than some of us would have liked - from Chris Mortensen via twitter:

Reported for ESPN: despite Colt Brennan on IR, Chase Daniel will not make 53-man roster & not considered for practice squad.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

I hate it when that happens

If Mortensen is right, props to sir Bulldog. Even if Mortensen is right, it may only mean we're going to sign a #3 from elsewhere - not actually go into the 2009 season with just 2 QBs. We'll see here shortly.

 

[The Burgundy Ghost]

Looks like if the Skins can they will sign him to the PS.

from the post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/jason-reid/daniel-a-redskins-roster-casua.html

Daniel via his Twitter: "was told they want me back if I clear waivers for practice squad. I'll know for sure [Sunday]."

 

[Bulldog]

I don't have a problem with signing and carrying a #3, just as long as that player shows the skills to be worth cutting a player at another position that has demonstrated NFL ability

That was always my issue with the roster.

 

[LegionOfDoom]

I wondered during the last preseason game why Daniel went in after Campbell. I guess the coach wanted to see how Chase would perform eventhough he would get shelled.

 

[Jimbo]

Props to BD. Never for a second did I think we'd only keep two QB's

Now, if I can just wrap my head around why we'd keep both Betts and Mason along with Rock. You have to love Mason's story of perserverence but he's extraneous. If you're gonna bother to keep an extra back, he should at least play Special Teams and possibly have a talent someone in front of him doesn't already have. Unless one of the three in front of him gets hurt, I can't see him even being active. Oh well, it's not the first thing Zorn has done that doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Bulldog]

I agree with the numbers at RB.

But you know why the Redskins kept Mason.

Betts gets hurt a lot for a guy that plays part-time and is 30 years old. Cartwright is not thought of by this coaching staff as a legitimate threat in the backfield, he is of value to Zorn strictly on special teams.

 

[Neophyte]

BD is right. They kept Mason because everyone remembers the Alexander experiment last year when Betts was hurting. I would much rather have Mason on the depth chart if we have to go 3 deep on offensive snaps this year.

My guess is that this was also a move to help set up for the future on the RB depth chart. No one really knows how much CP has left in the tank but with another average year for him he will be over 10K for his career. Not many backs are still effective over that mark. He might be the exception and I hope he is but you just can't bank on it.

 

[The Burgundy Ghost]

I agree with the numbers at RB.

But you know why the Redskins kept Mason.

Betts gets hurt a lot for a guy that plays part-time and is 30 years old. Cartwright is not thought of by this coaching staff as a legitimate threat in the backfield, he is of value to Zorn strictly on special teams.

Also, Mason can get that 1-2 yards on 3rd/4th and short than neither Rock or Betts (and even Sellers) can get. Mason can also be a decent threat as a pass catcher as well.

 

[beamish]

why not keep him? betts did nothing all preseason and the kid has been running hard for three years - glad he was finally rewarded. now if he relaxes and fails to realize his true value at this point in his career is at special teams, then cut him.