Putting round pegs in round holes

[burgold]

skinsinparadise mentioned something about Lane being a screen and YAC guy in college, but not used that way here and it got me to thinking about a pet peeve. Why do teams draft or get a free agent and so often not let them do what they're best at? Why is there such a strong compulsion to reinvent the player to fit their system or when a player succeeds ignore it because you originally wanted them to do that other thing.

A silly version of this is it baffles me how after two years, Luke McCaffrey has not attempted a single option pass. The guy is a converted QB who has way more experience as a passer than a route runner. You'd think once out of 32 games there'd be a chance to exploit that. I get that you traded for Deebo to be the screen and gadget guy, but if that's what made you notice Lane then why not let the kid have a few end arounds or screens to help build his confidence. Don't expect your light in the pants, penetrating DT to play the role of a 360 pound NT. Letting people succeed is a great tonic.

Sainristil and Coleman were other examples of players who succeeded and exceeded expectations when put into a role that was different than what the team probably first envisioned and then reassigned. In both cases, it was because they drafted someone they hoped would do a better job (Connerly--->Coleman & Amos--->Sainristil) but it took too many games of Mike struggling and Lattimore being a bum to make the switch. It would have hurt nothing to bench Lattimore and move Mike over before Lattimore got hurt. See if last year's success was real. Take advantage of the fact that even if he doesn't look the part he fits the part.

Now, some players were moved out of their round holes because of necessity. We lost three defensive ends. Luvu got stuck out of position because he and Von Miller were practically the only ones left standing. Next season, we need to get back to letting him do what he does well.

This round peg issue also relates to free agency. If we decide to spend this year on free agency. Get a guy and use them to their strengths. Don't get an in the box thumper safety and make him play deep exclusively. Don't play a cerebral, but physically limited linebacker in space or depend on him to control the edge. Don't expect your penetrating

 

[HTTR]

skinsinparadise mentioned something about Lane being a screen and YAC guy in college, but not used that way here and it got me to thinking about a pet peeve. Why do teams draft or get a free agent and so often not let them do what they're best at? Why is there such a strong compulsion to reinvent the player to fit their system or when a player succeeds ignore it because you originally wanted them to do that other thing.

A silly version of this is it baffles me how after two years, Luke McCaffrey has not attempted a single option pass. The guy is a converted QB who has way more experience as a passer than a route runner. You'd think once out of 32 games there'd be a chance to exploit that. I get that you traded for Deebo to be the screen and gadget guy, but if that's what made you notice Lane then why not let the kid have a few end arounds or screens to help build his confidence. Don't expect your light in the pants, penetrating DT to play the role of a 360 pound NT. Letting people succeed is a great tonic.

Sainristil and Coleman were other examples of players who succeeded and exceeded expectations when put into a role that was different than what the team probably first envisioned and then reassigned. In both cases, it was because they drafted someone they hoped would do a better job (Connerly--->Coleman & Amos--->Sainristil) but it took too many games of Mike struggling and Lattimore being a bum to make the switch. It would have hurt nothing to bench Lattimore and move Mike over before Lattimore got hurt. See if last year's success was real. Take advantage of the fact that even if he doesn't look the part he fits the part.

Now, some players were moved out of their round holes because of necessity. We lost three defensive ends. Luvu got stuck out of position because he and Von Miller were practically the only ones left standing. Next season, we need to get back to letting him do what he does well.

This round peg issue also relates to free agency. If we decide to spend this year on free agency. Get a guy and use them to their strengths. Don't get an in the box thumper safety and make him play deep exclusively. Don't play a cerebral, but physically limited linebacker in space or depend on him to control the edge. Don't expect your penetrating

No doubt. Hindsight is 50-50 on this, of course, but I agree with you.. definitely after acquiring Debo they felt the need to give him those opportunities. I do think once he’s gone, we will see Lane used in that fashion more and more. They just didn’t want to count on a third round pick to be a super productive day one.
Luke is another story, it’s not just passing it’s everything. They just don’t seem to want to give him many chances. I can only assume he simply hasn’t earned their trust in practice. Probably more patience is warranted because he’s learning a new position. Yes he could learn faster by taking his lumps on the field in games, but the idea was to win now, so they decided to play the long game and see how it goes in practice. If not for the injuries I wonder if he would’ve seen the field much this year. Will certainly be interesting to see how Blough uses him, because it’s possible it was Kingsbury mainly who didn’t trust him.

 

[Discobob]

No doubt. Hindsight is 50-50 on this...

 

[Bulldog]

There's no hindsight about it. Guys can come in as selected prospects but it's up to the organization to appropriately slot them so that they are most effective.

It's clear Washington has been slow to come to these realizations with certain players, despite the fact last year the team was out of real contention fairly early and the performance of some of these units were impacted by injuries to other players or poor performances.

If you can't give players a shot during a 5-12 season, then when are you going to develop talent?

Again, the team did sign Treylon Burks and Drake Jackson after I think Peters realized the dumpster fire that was in front of him with 35 and 36 year old players on defense and ZERO veteran depth at wide receiver.

Now Washington needs to resign these players for 2026 to try and make good on these moves as both players didn't get a full chance to show what they can do.

Both players play positions of need.

Even if Washington takes a DE with the #7 pick we still need 5-6 guys at the position to round out our depth.

Ditto at WR where Deebo is question mark to return and others like Noah Brown and Chris Moore to me don't rate a contract to return in 2026.

 

[philibusters]

For what its worth they did give Luke a pass in his very first NFL game against Tampa Bay. He had Jayden open and he instead ran it for like a yard. I think the story came out Jayden sold it too well and because he was not looking back, it made Luke hesistant to throw the pass.

 

[Boone]

As fans, we overthink things at times (I think ).

The truth is not so much that we try and fit round pegs into square holes, but that the talent we have on this roster just isn't that good. No one wants to believe that because it is more promising and reassuring to characterize it as 'they just aren't using him correctly', or 'they need to *develop* him', etc... of course those things aren't patently false - but I think they miss the point.

In more simplified terms, I believe:

- Deebo is a good, not great WR, whose best ball is probably in the rear view mirror.
- McCaffrey is a good athlete. He's not an accomplished WR and probably isn't a starting caliber player at WR.
- Ben Sinnott is an average TE at best.

Etc... etc... etc...

It's not that these guys are being used incorrectly or are poorly coached or just need one more season to break out. They just aren't that good. Doesn't mean I'd cut all of them, but we need talent upgrades and real NFL starters at a lot of positions.

 

[KDawg]

The problem with the hypothesis presented here is that it assumes that all of the coaches are stupid and all of the players are great and the fans are smarter than everyone.

Of course there are things I'd do differently with player personnel, coaching personnel and decision making. And of course I have an opinion - but I am fully aware that I'm not there. I'm not there day to day. I don't know who is struggling schematically, who mentally is having a hard time, which coaches are not fitting in well, etc.

A good example of your point is Sinnott. I think he has been misused and can be used much better. But the question remains: Has the coaching staff purposely ignored what he is good at and thrown him into a role he is likely to fail in? Do they see a different skillset in the pros versus college? Has Sinnott struggled with the playbook, or mentally? Is he just not as good as we thought? It could be any, all or a combination of these... I have no idea.

I do agree, though, that all teams in the NFL should be looking at strengths and weaknesses in a player (including the off-field variables we don't usually have a large window into) and selecting those that best fit the vision. And we've seen there are some teams who do not think that way in the past, we've seen players put in their perfect role and fail as well.

 

[Boone]

I'm curious based on your experience KDawg... how do you feel about this statement?

Really good players find ways to be really good regardless of what team they play for, who is coaching them, or whether their NFL situation is ideal or not.

I personally think this is true, and that Washington fans spend a lot of time and energy trying to explain away poor or marginal player performance giving every reason under the sun why a player hasn't blossomed except the most obvious one of all - the player just isn't that good.

Is that a massive oversimplification?

 

[KDawg]

I'm curious based on your experience KDawg... how do you feel about this statement?

Really good players find ways to be really good regardless of what team they play for, who is coaching them, or whether their NFL situation is ideal or not.

I personally think this is true, and that Washington fans spend a lot of time and energy trying to explain away poor or marginal player performance giving every reason under the sun why a player hasn't blossomed except the most obvious one of all - the player just isn't that good.

Is that a massive oversimplification?

No. I think this is absolutely the truth and a fair statement.

Here's the thing... I don't think there are that many really good players coming into the league (at least as it pertains to being a really good NFL player for a sustained time period).

I think to be a universal scheme fit you have to be an absolute elite prospect.

I think a lot of the very good players in the League are guys who are schemed appropriately AND put in the extra work to be successful.

I think there are very few universal talents in the NFL.

 

[burgold]

I'm going to go deep into the past.

Remember Jermiah Trotter? He was an all star and perennial probowler for the Eagles. We signed him as a free agent. With us, he was a bum: constantly out of position, lost, and ineffective. After a few years, he went back to Philly and was immediately played one of the best middle linebackers of the era again.

I always bristle at the word "all." I don't think I implied that every player is being misused or forced into a role that ill suits them. I said we are seeing a disconnect between what a player does well and what they are being asked to do on the field. Sometimes, as with Luvu that is out of necessity. Sometimes, I think it's because of scheme inflexibility. Sometimes, I do think it's because coaches outsmarted themselves. For example, they see Mike Sainristil and because of his size predetermined that his best role was nickel and then they were very slow to make that change. Coleman's situation is a little more complex. They traded for Tunsil and they drafted Connerly in the first round. So, may be the idea was that they needed to get their best five lineman on the field rather than force Coleman to change positions four years in a row because the general belief was he would be better at guard.

In any case, we saw multiple cases of players being asked to do things that wasn't what got them noticed, signed or drafted. That's not necessarily bad because players should be able to expand their game, but it does open up the question why.

 

[burgold]

To put it more simply, coaching isn't irrelevant to player success.

 

[Boone]

Interesting point. So part of our problem as fans that leads to perpetual disappointment is our expectation that most guys we draft are going to be 'universal talents' when that may be a pretty rare talent level.

I don't mean to argue that how players are used, schemed, and (ugh) 'developed' doesn't matter. I think burgold raises a reasonable point. But as you pointed out, we have to assume that most of the time at the NFL level, the coaches know what they are doing, are able to identify player's strengths and weaknesses and design a plan to work on them, and know the players far better than we as fans ever could. So when players do not 'develop' and become the major contributors as we as fans envisioned, it may likely be a lot more about the player's talent level, ceiling, and other objective factors, not because the coaching staff is clueless.

 

[Chris]

To put it more simply, coaching isn't irrelevant to player success.

Also, a players talent isn’t irrelevant to coaching success.