Who sits, who plays in Week 17 ?

Redskins still deciding who to sit in finale against Cowboys - Washington Redskins Blog- ESPN

John Keim ESPN Staff Writer
ASHBURN, Va. – With one week left in the regular season, the Washington Redskins have just one question left: Who will, or won’t, play in the finale?

The Redskins already won the NFC East and can’t improve their draft standing. So there’s a good chance more than a few starters will sit against Dallas on Sunday.
Redskins coach Jay Gruden said Monday that he wasn’t yet sure who would sit and wanted to get a better injury report Tuesday before determining.

“The injuries will be a major part of that, but the guys that play, they have every intent of trying to win this football game,” Gruden said. “It’s a big game for us to keep our momentum, but we also have to be smart about the guys that are a little bit [hurt] and get them well for the playoffs.”

There are a handful of players it would make sense to rest. Here’s a look at them:

Receiver DeSean Jackson: He’s battled various leg injuries this season and keeping him fresh for the postseason is a must. He will have a huge part in trying to spring an upset. You don’t want to disrupt the momentum he and quarterback Kirk Cousins have built, but a healthy Jackson is a productive one.

Right tackle Morgan Moses: He played with an ankle injury last week and actually played quite well. If there’s any doubt, he should sit.

Running back Matt Jones: He did not play against the Eagles because of a hip injury that he might have aggravated late in the week. The tough part is that he needs to keep playing, but, again, if there’s doubt then he’ll sit. But I’m not sure I’d want someone with ball security issues going two weeks without a carry.

Left tackle Trent Williams: He’s always playing with something banged up, so this is a chance to rest him. But it would be tough to sit both starting tackles, leaving them with no backups if anything happened in the game to those who replaced them (Ty Nsekhe and Tom Compton).

Quarterback Kirk Cousins: Gruden said this largely depends on what they do with the other offensive players, especially the linemen. You don’t want to risk injury so if, for example, both tackles sit then it makes no sense to play Cousins. Heck, it might not make sense even if they just rest Williams.

Running back Chris Thompson: If Jones can’t play, then Thompson might not have a choice. But he’s still dealing with a torn labrum in his shoulder and it’s all about pain tolerance. He did a nice job Saturday and continues to pick up blitzes well.

Defensive end Jason Hatcher: He does little to nothing on Wednesdays to rest his knee and keep him ready for this time of the year. Against Chicago, he should not have played but did so because of the playoff push. Give the man some time off.

Safety Dashon Goldson: He played last week with a broken rib and other various aches and pains. Again, they’ll need him more in the playoffs than Sunday. The only problem is, who plays safety along with him? Kyshoen Jarrett is healthy as is Jeron Johnson, but that leads us to the next player.

Safety DeAngelo Hall: He was limping badly after the game Saturday because of a calf injury. Hall has had various injury issues over the last year and they will need him in the postseason. If he can’t play, then Goldson might have to stay active just in case something happens to one of the others.
 
From Tandler


Talk around Redskins Park is of the team resting its starters for the upcoming game in Dallas. The game is meaningless in the standings for the Redskins and many are thinking that the best thing to do would be to treat it like a preseason game and give many starters either limited playing time or none at all.

But here is one problem with doing that. When you’re playing in the preseason, you opponent is doing the same thing, putting in more and more backups as the game goes on. The Cowboys won’t be doing that. They will play their starters from beginning to end.

And the Redskins need to be concerned about one Dallas starter in particular—defensive end Greg Hardy.

Why Hardy? The one-year contract he signed with Dallas has incentives for sack totals in it. If he gets to eight sacks for the season he gets a cool $500,000. If he gets 10 that increases to $1 million.

Hardy currently has six sacks on his ledger so two against the Redskins would get him that $500K and four to get the seven-figure bonus.

Hardy is the right defensive end and with that much money on the line he will look to inflict pain on the Redskins’ quarterback on every play. If this was a regular game, controlling Hardy would be in the capable hands of Trent Williams. When the teams met earlier this month Hardy had no sacks and just one tackle.

But Williams would be a prime candidate to be rested as one of the more valuable members of the team. Do the Redskins want to risk lining up Ty Nsekhe or Tom Compton against a highly motivated Hardy? Even if they rest Kirk Cousins do they want to risk the health of backup Colt McCoy?
 
Left tackle Trent Williams: He’s always playing with something banged up, so this is a chance to rest him. But it would be tough to sit both starting tackles, leaving them with no backups if anything happened in the game to those who replaced them (Ty Nsekhe and Tom Compton).

I don't understand this thinking. If they sit Moses and Williams, can't they be available as backups if Compton or Nsekhe get hurt ?
I mean, assuming that "sitting" a player doesn't necessarily make him inactive.
Certain players, you can sit and rest, then keep active, in case of emergency.
 
Gruden might have his toughest week of, coaching, this season.

Play the starters, and lose again, to the backup Cowboys, and he loses much of the premature praise being thrown his way.
Lose an important starter to injury, and he loses all of the premature praise being thrown his way.

I'd go 3rd preseason with most of the roster. Only guys I'd rest is Reed, and Jackson. Gruden doesn't seem to know what to do if they aren't on the field.
If Kirk is in, Trent needs to be in.
 
No one's going to care if we lose against Dallas if we win a playoff game. No one. There is no real dilemma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Kellen Moore had a 17.7 QBR vs Buffalo. We can beat them without, Trent, Kirk, Desean, #86Beast, Hatcher, Goldson, Deangelo.
 
Didn't we already lose to them, at home, with our four best offensive players?
 
For the draft conspiracy theorists, with a win the Cowboys could seriously jeopardize their top 4 draft status, and hence their potential pick of the litter of 2016 QB's in the draft. Just sayin.
 
No one's going to care if we lose against Dallas if we win a playoff game. No one. There is no real dilemma.
Kind of putting the cart before the horse.

IF, that is IF, we play our starters, and get butt reamed, again, by a further depleted cowboy team, it will be a week of hell leading up to the playoff game. I know it would concern me if we have a repeat of the clueless performance on Monday night.

If we rest a bunch of guys, it doesn't matter at all.
 
They won't have to spend a draft pick on RG3
Don't be so sure we don't, a) re-sign Griffin and keep him.
Or, b) sign him to a friendly contract that allows him to renegotiate with his new team as part of a trade deal, while giving us the ability to get something for him, in a trade.
 
I'm not suggesting we rest a bunch of starters. I'm saying all of the hand-wringing is sort of silly. There are potential benefits and risks to either approach. I trust the leaders here to make the right decision (which I suspect will be a compromise solution, resting guys who've been playing hurt but playing most starters). Only big question is if, or how long, to play Cousins especially if Trent is off. It's always good to beat Dallas but that's not the prize we should have our eye on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Don't be so sure we don't, a) re-sign Griffin and keep him.
Or, b) sign him to a friendly contract that allows him to renegotiate with his new team as part of a trade deal, while giving us the ability to get something for him, in a trade.

I don't get your logic on this Ax? If there's serious interest in Griffin, he has no reason to sign a contract with us. Truth is, he may want the hell out of dodge regardless of what the Redskins want.

If there is not serious interest in Griffin, there's no reason for the team to resign him unless you believe someone (other than Snyder) still really believes he can develop into a future starter. I don't see any evidence that's the case.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We mostly agree, Boone.

All I'm saying is, if our starters go into Dallas and get their asses handed to them again, there is no good way to excuse it as anything other than bad.

And I think that fear will help Gruden decide to pull a lot of guys.
 
Yep - I think we do agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Don't be so sure we don't, a) re-sign Griffin and keep him.
Or, b) sign him to a friendly contract that allows him to renegotiate with his new team as part of a trade deal, while giving us the ability to get something for him, in a trade.

If I understand his contract correctly, we don't need to re-sign him, to keep him.
As long as we don't cut him by March 1st, his contract automatically kicks in for another year for 16 Million, right ?
 
I don't get your logic on this Ax? If there's serious interest in Griffin, he has no reason to sign a contract with us. Truth is, he may want the hell out of dodge regardless of what the Redskins want.

If there is not serious interest in Griffin, there's no reason for the team to resign him unless you believe someone (other than Snyder) still really believes he can develop into a future starter. I don't see any evidence that's the case.
We don't know what deal the team and Griffin have in place. I'm confident there is one. I believe they've been up front with him. Hence, zero distractions from him. Much to the dismay of so many that were screaming that keeping him on the roster was going to cause an asteroid to destroy the Earth.

I also believe, handled properly, Griffin WILL be a starter in this league, and a damn good one too. Even if he rode the pine 2 more years, learning to play the position in a more traditional way, he'd still be what, 26? I'd have no problem whatsoever going into next season with the 3 QB's we have right now.

And, I don't find it impossible to think the team and Griffin have worked out a plan that would allow the team to re-sign him, removing the guaranteed money, so that the team could then try to cut some of it's losses in a trade.
 
If I understand his contract correctly, we don't need to re-sign him, to keep him.
As long as we don't cut him by March 1st, his contract automatically kicks in for another year for 16 Million, right ?
But we'd need to re-sign him to a tradable deal. One that removes the guarantee. Yes, it would require a major concession on Griffin's part. But I don't see it as totally impossible.

Mostly, but not totally.
 
But we'd need to re-sign him to a tradable deal. One that removes the guarantee. Yes, it would require a major concession on Griffin's part. But I don't see it as totally impossible.

Mostly, but not totally.

I think we should focus first and focus more, on re-signing Reed and Jackson, before worrying about re-signing RG3 just for the sake of trying to recoup some picks in a trade.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top