The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

According to Pat Kirwin we're a top 5 team for depth.

Woah. When did that happen?

Depth usually means quality backups, not just backups. I guess, in some ways, the Redskins do have quality depth. Most of their backups have been forced into starting roles at one time or another.

I'd say,

QB Collins
RB Betts
WR (5 quality players, not sure about the starters but there is depth!)
TE Davis
T Heyer, Wade, Fabini
G Rinehart
DT Golston
LB Blades
CB Smoot, Rogers (whichever loses the #2 job)

all qualify as solid depth players. Hopefully can add E. James to that list in a couple months.

Pat Kirwin makes some nice points and I agree with his assessment. We have proven backup players that can make a difference if called upon.

I get that we like the piece because we're ranked in the top five, but personally, I find it a tremendous reach.

BossHog wrote:I get that we like the piece because we're ranked in the top five, but personally, I find it a tremendous reach.

But Kirwan backs it up by noting that last year, we lost a TON of starters for various periods (including our QB for 1/4 of the season) and still made the playoffs. Granted, if we were in the AFC, we'd have been sitting at home watching them, but the 'skins do have some decent depth at almost every position except the d-line.

I think the notion that any team has good depth is far-fetched, just too many spots to fill and not enough solid players to fill them. I think the best you can hope for is to have enough guys so that you can mitigate the sting of inevitable injuries.

I think this is the second year in a row, we've been on this list. If you remember Joe Gibbs made a point of getting good backups after the 2006 year. By the way, sorry I'm not at camp. A broken Kneecap has me on PUP! Should be their by Oct. 1st

edgardiner wrote:I think this is the second year in a row, we've been on this list. If you remember Joe Gibbs made a point of getting good backups after the 2006 year. By the way, sorry I'm not at camp. A broken Kneecap has me on PUP! Should be their by Oct. 1st

Hello sir, good to hear from you! Sorry to hear about the knee but get plenty of rest, we'll need you for the regular season.

Depth?

I think not. We just lost two defensive ends. We had to trade to get an aging vet. Running backs and wide receiver are the two positions with depth in my estimation. Then again what team really is two deep all the way round?

Fios wrote:I think the notion that any team has good depth is far-fetched, just too many spots to fill and not enough solid players to fill them. I think the best you can hope for is to have enough guys so that you can mitigate the sting of inevitable injuries.

Of course that depends on what your definition of "good" is. Of course that's going to be very subjective, but I think one could reasonably argue some teams have better depth than others. Frequently, teams may not even know it. Tom Brady came out of nowhere, and look how Kevin Boss filled in for J. Shockey up there in NY. The Giants didn't miss Shockey at all.

Well, I'm not an expert at NFL depth charts (or anything else for that matter) but I'm not so sure I agree with Kirwin that the Vikes and the Bucs have the best depth in the league.

A 53-man roster limits how much depth any given team can have. But I do agree the Skins have decent depth, mostly at RB, QB, WR, TE and S.

I can't profess to know the depth chart of every NFL team - especially at this time of year.

I just personally don't think of us as being all that deep but maybe some of that is because I see holes at number one and this is judging SOLELY the number two guys.

And there's no doubt that we do have some solid depth at some positions...

... and not in others IMO...

And I definitely agree that real depth is a commodity that not many NFL teams can afford... especially teams that spend a lot of money on starters and don't have a ton of developed draft picks in the stable.

BossHog wrote:I can't profess to know the depth chart of every NFL team - especially at this time of year.

I just personally don't think of us as being all that deep but maybe some of that is because I see holes at number one and this is judging SOLELY the number two guys.

And there's no doubt that we do have some solid depth at some positions...

... and not in others IMO...

And I definitely agree that real depth is a commodity that not many NFL teams can afford... especially teams that spend a lot of money on starters and don't have a ton of developed draft picks in the stable.

I don't think anyone has quality depth everywhere. There just aren't that many quality players out there.

The Redskins did some remarkable things last year given the overall health of the team, and look to be in pretty good shape along most of the offense, at least, for whatever may happen this year.

But when your backup center is your starting right tackle? That's not deep.

Paralis wrote:The Redskins did some remarkable things last year given the overall health of the team, and look to be in pretty good shape along most of the offense, at least, for whatever may happen this year.

But when your backup center is your starting right tackle? That's not deep.

Like I said, noone has good depth everywhere. I think Rinehart is also working some at center.

Oh, definitely. I'm concerned about depth all through the defense, but there it's a question of quality--there's bodies on the roster who have played the position; it's just a question of whether they're good enough not to sink the team when they step in.

It's only the one position, granted, but no legitimately deep team in the NFL has anything like the Skins' depth chart at center, where the only people with snapping experience are starters. Reinhardt might work out (and I certainly hope he does), but I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be incredibly nervous if Rabach goes down.

Last year we lost:
Thomas
Jansen
Campbell
MaCintosh
Rogers
Taylor

& still managed to be competitive. That's pretty good depth.

Paralis wrote:The Redskins did some remarkable things last year given the overall health of the team, and look to be in pretty good shape along most of the offense, at least, for whatever may happen this year.

But when your backup center is your starting right tackle? That's not deep.

Correction, the starting left guard PK is the back up center. It said JJ could also be but he is staying at RT.

When he spelled the name of one our depth wrong, Kedric G(h)olston? You wonder how hard he looked. But when you read the list he's going by it is pretty good depth. Collins did sub well last year and guys like Betts and Smoot are pretty good backups. Though with Rogers iffy you have to wonder if Smoot is depth and he gave us good credit for a couple of second round rookies. I guess to me the bottom line is it's not absurd but it is certainly giving us a positive assumption on the "ifs."

Then again by Redskins being "deep," he meant the analysis on THN.

yupchagee wrote:Last year we lost:
Thomas
Jansen
Campbell
MaCintosh
Rogers
Taylor

& still managed to be competitive. That's pretty good depth.

Not to mention all the players who missed games during the season, such as Moss and ARE. I know there were a few others as well.

We need depth because our players always get hurt, if not murdered. Vinny has done a good job this off-season and I think when you fire a guy like Gregg Williams you better be ready to do some things to make yourself better.