What is Carlos Rogers doing in Jim Zorn's doghouse?
Rumors persist that the Redskins are dangling cornerback Carlos Rogers, a former first-round pick, in trade talks to replace the pick sent to Miami in the Jason Taylor trade. The thinking in the Washington front office is that Rogers can be replaced by free agent acquisition DeAngelo Hall, who started to usurp Rogers' playing time as the season went along to the point.
Would it be a good move? We can answer that question with our Game Charting data, which is compiled by a group of volunteers who break down every play of the NFL season to analyze, among many things, who was in coverage and why a pass was complete or incomplete.
This yields some interesting data for comparing the performance of Hall and Rogers. Here are the metrics for all of the Washington corners this year:
A breakdown of Rogers and our other pass-defenders.
carlos played great last year.........smoot=toast even though he is as good an open field tackler as they come.........carlos should be #1 or #2.......typical front office crap........yep trade carlos to miami for a #2 and draft a w/o.......oh yeah and replace him w/hall who quickly becomes another high price free agent aquisition for the dan.......
Rogers is a bum IMO. There are at least 5 games (no, I can't list them) that the Skins would have won if Rogers didn't drop the INT. Seriously, he is a liability out there on the field.
"I really like our cornerbacks," Zorn said. "I hope we can keep DeAngelo. Shawn played very well when he was healthy [nine of 16 games] last year. I told Carlos that he has a tremendous future with us. I expect him to be with us in 2009."
RIP Sean Taylor 1983-2007
RIP Kevin Mitchell 1971-2007
RIP Justin Skaggs 1979-2007
RIP Sammy Baugh 1914-2008
RIP JPFair
RIP VetSkinsFan
#60 Chris Samuels: 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time Pro Bowl left tackle!
cleg wrote:Rogers is a bum IMO. There are at least 5 games (no, I can't list them) that the Skins would have won if Rogers didn't drop the INT. Seriously, he is a liability out there on the field.
Such a cop-out. Rogers played very well for us last year, on a knee that wasn't 100%. He wasn't even supposed to play until November of last year. He'll be even better next year.
Such a cop-out. Rogers played very well for us last year, on a knee that wasn't 100%. He wasn't even supposed to play until November of last year. He'll be even better next year.
I agree. I will be really upset if they get rid of Carlos. Springs is great when he's healthy but we need Carlos and Hall as the starting corners IMO. They could be a great tandem for a long time
Such a cop-out. Rogers played very well for us last year, on a knee that wasn't 100%. He wasn't even supposed to play until November of last year. He'll be even better next year.
I agree. I will be really upset if they get rid of Carlos. Springs is great when he's healthy but we need Carlos and Hall as the starting corners IMO. They could be a great tandem for a long time
I would feel great about it. I would love to recieve a second round pick for an ok cornerback that doesn't even start. We need a second rounder this year, there will be some nice pass rushers falling to the second round.
cleg wrote:Rogers is a bum IMO. There are at least 5 games (no, I can't list them) that the Skins would have won if Rogers didn't drop the INT. Seriously, he is a liability out there on the field.
There are at least 5 games that the Skins would have won if the offense could have scored a RESPECTABLE amount of points... You know...like more than 17...
cleg wrote:Rogers is a bum IMO. There are at least 5 games (no, I can't list them) that the Skins would have won if Rogers didn't drop the INT. Seriously, he is a liability out there on the field.
There are at least 5 games that the Skins would have won if the offense could have scored a RESPECTABLE amount of points... You know...like more than 17...
"I really like our cornerbacks," Zorn said. "I hope we can keep DeAngelo. Shawn played very well when he was healthy [nine of 16 games] last year. I told Carlos that he has a tremendous future with us. I expect him to be with us in 2009."
Thank you, Jake. It's amazing how some in the media will latch onto rumors and completely ignore what the team and the coaches say, which is far more credible.
They were saying Rogers was in the doghouse, not that he's definitely out of here. And he was definitely in the doghouse at the end of the year: benched.
FO isn't a source of rumors, but there have been reports (whether credible or not) that the Skins were considering trading him. When FO says something like that I tend to trust them, unlike less professional sites such as pro football talk and Redskins Insider.
It's an interesting situation really. I could definitely see Rogers getting traded if Hall is signed because Springs, Hall, and Smoot is manageable. The problem is that Springs will get hurt. But yet he is still on the team, which hinders playing time for the other corners, making them less useful and possibly tradeable. It's really a conundrum.
cleg wrote:Rogers is a bum IMO. There are at least 5 games (no, I can't list them) that the Skins would have won if Rogers didn't drop the INT. Seriously, he is a liability out there on the field.
Such a cop-out. Rogers played very well for us last year, on a knee that wasn't 100%. He wasn't even supposed to play until November of last year. He'll be even better next year.
The Redskins absolutely should try to keep him.
It's not a cop out. He has been around three seasons, I think, and has dropped probably 15 INT's that could have changed the course of the game. Is it the only reason the Skins have not won more games, of course not but it is a reason.
brad7686 wrote:It's an interesting situation really. I could definitely see Rogers getting traded if Hall is signed because Springs, Hall, and Smoot is manageable. The problem is that Springs will get hurt. But yet he is still on the team, which hinders playing time for the other corners, making them less useful and possibly tradeable. It's really a conundrum.
Springs is fragile and getting old. You don't trade Rogers to bank on Springs. That's not smart business. If they had plans to get ANOTHER CB, on the other hand, it's a different story. That's THE ONLY way I would support this. I'm nto a big Rigers supporter, but other than brick hands, he's a great CB.
...any given Sunday....
RIP #21 Sean Taylor. You will be loved and adored by Redskins fans forever!!!!!
GSPODS:
The National Anthem sucks.
What a useless piece of propagandist rhetoric that is.
cleg wrote:Rogers is a bum IMO. There are at least 5 games (no, I can't list them) that the Skins would have won if Rogers didn't drop the INT. Seriously, he is a liability out there on the field.
Such a cop-out. Rogers played very well for us last year, on a knee that wasn't 100%. He wasn't even supposed to play until November of last year. He'll be even better next year.
The Redskins absolutely should try to keep him.
He played well for part of last season. He was much more effective in the first half of the season than the second half and lets not forget that he was essentially benched at the end of the year. I can actually see why the front office is doing this. While it might not necessarily make sense in the short-term to trade him, in the long-term it's the right move imo. Rogers has yet to put together a full season in which he has consistently played at a high level and next off-season he is going to be a free agent. I have no doubt that the Skins have discussed the parameters of an extension with his agent and if they feel that he wont be worth that he will want it makes sense to trade him now and get some value for him. I wouldn't trade him for nothing but if we can get a second round pick for him I'd take it. Rogers isn't a #1 corner and likely is never going to be. Our secondary is solid even without Rogers and if we can trade him for a pick and use it to upgrade our lines I have no problem with it.
Irn-Bru wrote:They were saying Rogers was in the doghouse, not that he's definitely out of here. And he was definitely in the doghouse at the end of the year: benched.
FO isn't a source of rumors, but there have been reports (whether credible or not) that the Skins were considering trading him. When FO says something like that I tend to trust them, unlike less professional sites such as pro football talk and Redskins Insider.
Yeah, I guess I don't understand why he'd be in the doghouse, if that implies to getting in trouble. I can see that with the addition of Hall late last year, Rogers wasn't always on the field. But with Springs a potential cap casualty and the reports of trading Rogers only coming from the media, I merely took stock in the direct quote from Zorn, in which he said Rogers has a tremendous future with the Skins and Zorn expects him to be on the team in 2009.
I can't see why we wouldn't want Rogers unless when he's a FA his salary demands are ridiculous. Like if he wants the money of a CB who can catch the ball. But he's a good depth member of our secondary in the meantime. It's just sad watching the ball hit him in the chest though and he plays it like a ball bouncing off the chest of a three year old with his hands waiving in the air like he thought he was going to catch it.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
CanesSkins26 wrote:He played well for part of last season. He was much more effective in the first half of the season than the second half and lets not forget that he was essentially benched at the end of the year.
Did you read the article? This is the judgment that they are questioning / criticizing. That he was benched is a fact, but whether it reflected the reality of his performance is another question.
CanesSkins26 wrote:He played well for part of last season. He was much more effective in the first half of the season than the second half and lets not forget that he was essentially benched at the end of the year.
Did you read the article? This is the judgment that they are questioning / criticizing. That he was benched is a fact, but whether it reflected the reality of his performance is another question.
Well the article does say the following...
Rogers did get worse as the season went along, but he was still very passable.
Calling someone passable isn't exactly a high compliment.
KazooSkinsFan wrote:I can't see why we wouldn't want Rogers unless when he's a FA his salary demands are ridiculous. Like if he wants the money of a CB who can catch the ball. But he's a good depth member of our secondary in the meantime. It's just sad watching the ball hit him in the chest though and he plays it like a ball bouncing off the chest of a three year old with his hands waiving in the air like he thought he was going to catch it.
Obviously it's just conjecture on my part but I think what it boils down to if the rumors are true is that the Skins and Rogers have differing thoughts as to how much he should get paid in his next contract.
KazooSkinsFan wrote:I can't see why we wouldn't want Rogers unless when he's a FA his salary demands are ridiculous. Like if he wants the money of a CB who can catch the ball. But he's a good depth member of our secondary in the meantime. It's just sad watching the ball hit him in the chest though and he plays it like a ball bouncing off the chest of a three year old with his hands waiving in the air like he thought he was going to catch it.
Obviously it's just conjecture on my part but I think what it boils down to if the rumors are true is that the Skins and Rogers have differing thoughts as to how much he should get paid in his next contract.
As has been brought up before, that a CB can't catch the ball to save his life isn't just a weakness but a major shortcoming in his game. Without that, you just can't keep the O honest. I can't imagine no matter how good at coverage the O thinks he is they wouldn't hesitate to try a shot at him on third down because worse case is you punt and no one can cover perfectly. You lose both that you can't burn the O for trying and they don't need to try to throw it where Rogers can't catch it making it more likely to complete the throw. I don't know how anyone as athletic as him could be that inept at catching a ball, but he is. I'm sure they've tried everything. He probably catches fine, in practice. Then on the field it's just ugly. Anyway, I know that's not new, but if he thinks anyone's going to pay him premiere money without his being a threat for the INT he's dreaming.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
KazooSkinsFan wrote:I can't see why we wouldn't want Rogers unless when he's a FA his salary demands are ridiculous. Like if he wants the money of a CB who can catch the ball. But he's a good depth member of our secondary in the meantime. It's just sad watching the ball hit him in the chest though and he plays it like a ball bouncing off the chest of a three year old with his hands waiving in the air like he thought he was going to catch it.
Obviously it's just conjecture on my part but I think what it boils down to if the rumors are true is that the Skins and Rogers have differing thoughts as to how much he should get paid in his next contract.
As has been brought up before, that a CB can't catch the ball to save his life isn't just a weakness but a major shortcoming in his game. Without that, you just can't keep the O honest. I can't imagine no matter how good at coverage the O thinks he is they wouldn't hesitate to try a shot at him on third down because worse case is you punt and no one can cover perfectly. You lose both that you can't burn the O for trying and they don't need to try to throw it where Rogers can't catch it making it more likely to complete the throw. I don't know how anyone as athletic as him could be that inept at catching a ball, but he is. I'm sure they've tried everything. He probably catches fine, in practice. Then on the field it's just ugly. Anyway, I know that's not new, but if he thinks anyone's going to pay him premiere money without his being a threat for the INT he's dreaming.
Irn-Bru wrote:Did you read the article? This is the judgment that they are questioning / criticizing. That he was benched is a fact, but whether it reflected the reality of his performance is another question.
Well the article does say the following...
Rogers did get worse as the season went along, but he was still very passable.
Calling someone passable isn't exactly a high compliment.
On their scale and in this situation it is. Springs and Smoot were deemed worse, for example. Only Hall was doing better.
. . . .which, again, raises the question: why was Carlos in the doghouse? I can only think it had to do with the kind of long-term strategy you had mentioned in your previous post. Perhaps at the time they felt Rogers wasn't a part of our future, and phasing him out starting then was a good plan. But I can't say I agree with that assessment.
