Skip to content

CSN: Redskins 53-man roster projection with first cuts looming

Aug 25, 2016, 10:30 AM EDT


Go here to see Tandler’s roster projection.

The Redskins are heading in to their third preseason game and next Tuesday the bubble will burst for about a dozen players as they cut their roster down to 75. Then on September 3, just nine days from today, the roster will be cut to 53.

Many of the roster spots are set but there are enough jobs up for grabs to make the last two practice games interesting.  One important thing to keep in mind is that Jay Gruden said last week that preseason games matter a lot when it comes to trimming the roster to 53. With two games in the books we have a lot of evidence to work with.

Redskins blogger Rich Tandler sorts out the bubble and gives you what he thinks the roster will look like when the make the final cut to 53.

Go here to see Tandler’s roster projection.

  1. redskins12thman - Aug 25, 2016 at 4:30 PM

    Would prefer the Redskins have Paulsen and Riley on the 53 man roster and Kouandjio and Ioannidis on the practice squad but I realize that this outcome is probably not going to happen. I do expect the Redskins to pick up a waived running back by September 4th and / or a vet by week 2 at the very latest.

  2. mtskins - Aug 25, 2016 at 5:23 PM

    I was pulling for Reiter to make the 53 as a dark horse and it was good to read yesterday morning that some other fans were behind the idea as well. By yesterday afternoon the Stork trade ended all chance and the best case scenario is another year on the practice squad. I might not be as sold on Stork as a starter as some of the others on here but certainly good depth add for the price of a 7th rounder.

    Thought Sudfeld was an easy addition to the practice squad based on training camp reports but he has showed enough in preseason games that now I’m not so sure. Still think Riley is a late cut as he is in the tail end of the contract that the team gave him when they were worried they wouldn’t be able find someone to captain the defense the way London Fletcher did. Not sure Riley ever excelled at that role but would be happy to keep have him on the 53 if he is willing to renegotiate.

    • bangkokben - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:53 PM

      I’m with you on all points. Stork really crushes Reiter making the team. I wouldn’t keep Sudfeld on the 53 but with enough of the beat predicting he’ll be here I expect it to happen. I can’t tell if Riley has been horrible in preseason or being rested like the other top defenders. I’m inclined to believe he’s been horrible.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 26, 2016 at 12:57 AM

        I think they just know who Riley is at this point and wanted to see what they had in Spaight and Cravens. Also give them the reps to try and get them ready sooner than later (Cravens especially on the reps). I’m shocked at how good Spaight looks. Really. Cravens still has some work to do but Spaight looks like he could play.

        I know you liked Reiter’s progress but I’m pretty happy that it looks like he’s not going to make the 53. I just haven’t been impressed with him. I have serious doubts about him and Kouandjo ever being good enough for me to feel comfortable with them as backups, let alone start.

        But, assuming Stork works out, he gives us quality depth behind an aging center. We potentially got a starting NFL center for a 7th. I like that. If Scot pulls a decent RB, OLB, and maybe even DT (I’m feeling greedy) out of a hat then my head will explode. I kind of wish he would have thought of the Mingo trade.

  3. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Aug 25, 2016 at 5:25 PM

    Paea seems to be the latest pricey free agent in a long history of Skins pricey free agent flops.

    We’re depending on you to break the curse, Josh Norman.

    • Trey Gregory - Aug 25, 2016 at 6:08 PM

      Paea really wasn’t all that pricey. Not compared to Josh Norman, Dion Sander, and Hainsworth. Garcon wasn’t cheap either.

  4. Skulb - Aug 25, 2016 at 5:27 PM

    I’ll give you the third PS game. But PS 4 is like being forced to finish your aspargus, as well as your little brother’s, before you’re allowed to have cake.

  5. Trey Gregory - Aug 25, 2016 at 6:11 PM

    I just don’t like the idea of going with 3 RBs, no fullback, and only 3 TEs. Especially when we’re sacrificing our only true blocking TE, and the injury history of our other TEs. Davis has looked good blocking, but not as good as Paulsen.

    I don’t get the Marshall thing at all. I haven’t seen a single thing about him I’ve liked in the preseason. Going into the season with Jones, Marshall, and Thompson is asking for trouble. Their unit nickname will surely be “the walking wounded.” All three of these guys have long injury histories and Marshall hasn’t accomplished anything other than being a 5 star recruit out of high school. Nothing since then. Nothing at all.

    • redskins12thman - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:35 PM

      Agree 100%; I would prefer 4 TEs. Comfortable with only 8 O-linemen. May need 4 RBs if both Jones and Thompson cannot play most of the season. Paul can “play” fullback.

      • bangkokben - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:39 PM

        Don’t need 4 RBs if none of them return kicks and none play FB. What’s the fourth RB going to do? He’s going to be inactive on game day. Then he better show promise. I don’t see that on this roster. There’s no reason to stash Kelly on the 53.

        • redskins12thman - Aug 26, 2016 at 3:39 PM

          Yeah I agree we should be able to have only three RBs but what if Jones and Thompson can’t play for the same game… like the game the Redskins have against the Bills? Are we just going to have one RB for the game?

        • bangkokben - Aug 26, 2016 at 4:05 PM

          That was an issue at tight end last year (not just one but undermanned) and some positions where they wanted more help with special teams. I’m pretty sure if this was a regular season game, Thompson would be good to go. Last year they cut Bates and Frank Kearse on alternate weeks for the first month of the season as a player was needed for whatever particular position and signed a guy of the practice squad. I suspect that if the same situation arose, they’d sign the back off the practice squad let go of whoever was the last guy on the roster (Deshazor Everette, Houston Bates, etc) and then switch again for the next week.

    • bangkokben - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:36 PM

      I’m with you on TE and Marshall instead of Kelly. I get Rich’s thinking. (When in doubt go with the draft pick.) Especially with what happened last year at tight end. Any injury and the Redskins are at square one looking for a tight-end. Paulsen seems like the kind of guy that will find a place somewhere. Then again maybe they’re counting on Carrier coming back of the PUP (GM’s hate to lose those draft picks) or promoting Jensen of the practice squad.

      • redskins12thman - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:40 PM

        How do Carrier and Jensen compare to Paulsen as blockers?

        • bangkokben - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:48 PM

          Carrier seemed be Jordan Reed Light (maybe less on the Reed and more on the light). Jensen seems to be a Paulsen in the making. Carrier is listed 6’4″ 248; Jensen 6’6″ 270.

        • redskins12thman - Aug 25, 2016 at 7:56 PM

          Jensen is just as good as Paulsen as a blocker?

        • sidepull - Aug 25, 2016 at 9:25 PM

          I like Jensen. He is definitely a load. Given the chance he will truck somebody and he can catch. I thought he was a good pick up out of Buffalo wasnt it?

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 AM

          Paulsen is hands down the best blocker. I’m not trying to speak for Ben, but I think he meant that Jensen has the potential to become as good as Paulsen. But for the 2016 season, Paulsen is the best blocker we’re going to get with the guys associated with our team.

          A lot of this isn’t necessarily anyone’s fault. Some of these guys were just clearly meant to be more receiving threats than inline blockers. Look at their height/weight. Paulsen is the only one of the top 4 with prototypical TE size.
          Paulsen: 6’5 268lbs
          Reed: 6’2 246lbs
          Paul: 6’1 (yup. 6’1. He’s a receiver) 248lbs
          Davis: 6’3 248lbs
          Carrier: 6’4 248
          Jensen: 6’6 270
          Gronk (for comparison): 6’6 265
          Jimmy Graham: 6’7 265lbs
          Heith Miller: 6’5 256

          I used Wikipedia for all so give or take a little on the weight. But can you see how, no matter how hard Davis or Paul try, they will never be as effective blocking a DE as Paulsen? It’s physics. Paulsen is like an undersized tackle who can catch.

          Keep in mind that, if we only carry 3 TEs, either Paul, Reed, or Davis would have to go to make room for Jensen or Carrier.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 26, 2016 at 1:17 AM

        There’s just no way Jensen comes off the practice squad and blocks as well as Paulsen. I mean, anything is possible, but I doubt it. I like Carrier and Jensen’s potential but I don’t see them being better in 2016.

        And I agree. No need for 4 RBs. Just 3 and 4 TEs with one who doubles as a FB. Get rid of that one TE though and it’s looking real thin.

        I understand wanting a 4th RB because of the injury history. That’s just why the 3rd RB can’t be Marshall. It just can’t. They’ll all be on IR by week 2 of we do that. The football gods will make it so just to teach Scot a lesson. We need at least one guy without an extensive injury history. And Kelley on the practice squad just in case. Marshall too. Why not?

        • bangkokben - Aug 26, 2016 at 7:13 AM

          I’m just trying to get in the mind of the GM if there are only 3 TEs. It may happen and the team may just not value the position. I’ve got think that last year’s woes would influence this year’s decision. As for RB, so what if it’s Marshall and they get injured or on IR? My point is that the back-ups are replacement level players and ANY guy of the street (Steven Ridley, for instance) could fill in for them. Therefore it only makes sense to have three whether it’s Marshall or Kelly. Marshall has been so unimpressive. If he makes the team it’s solely on being drafted and the state of the Redskins running backs. Gruden did take Silas Redd over Lache Seastrunk but that was before a “real” GM was making the picks and Scot has final say over the roster.

        • Rich Tandler - Aug 26, 2016 at 7:27 AM

          Three tight ends is pretty much the NFL standard. Redskins carried four the year after they drafted Reed and had Paul, Paulsen, and Davis. Not sure why carrying what most NFL teams carry is not valuing the position. It would mean the don’t value Paulsen, who could well have been cut last year had he not been injured.

        • bangkokben - Aug 26, 2016 at 8:46 AM

          I know all reports were that Paulsen wasn’t likely to make the team last year before he got injured. In watching just the preseason games, he’s looked better than he did last year. As good as Reed is, he’s never played a full 16 game season. Carrying just three tight-end would then probablly mean just two are active for a few games. At the same time Paul isn’t the most durable either. In the past Paul played a lot of special teams as well. Maybe both Paul and Davis play teams this year. With FB duties, teams duties and injury history. Three just seems a bit undermanned. That’s all. Last year they had Reed, Tom Compton, Derek Carrier, Ja’Ron Hamm, Marcel Jensen, Anthony McCoy, and Alex Smith take snaps at the position. Seems like carrying three and getting one injured will result in same revolving door.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 26, 2016 at 1:02 PM

          But it’s 3 TEs with 4 RBs right? As in 3 RBs and 1 FB? Or is the new standard 3 RBs and 3 TEs?

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 26, 2016 at 2:06 PM

          Yeah I only want to carry 3 RBs too. I just don’t want Keith Marshall to be one of them.

          And say what you will about these guys being replaceable (I agree). But RBs do need a little time in the system. It’s not as simple as one goes down in week 3 and you plug in his replacement week 4 with no fall off. They have to learn the playcalling, protections, playbook, all that stuff too. It doesn’t happen over night. Let’s get it right the first time and not have to start over at square one.

        • redskins12thman - Aug 26, 2016 at 3:44 PM

          We were told, last year, that one of the reasons the Redskins did not have a good running attack last year was the team lacked TEs who could block well. A year later, Paulsen, the best blocking TE on the team, has recovered from his injury and is playing well, but there’s no room for him?

          I know the Redskins acquired Davis but he’s just the second best blocking TE; should we have two?

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 26, 2016 at 4:19 PM

          Well even if we carry 4 RBs I don’t think we would have 4 active on game day. So we would be in that position no matter what. I know it’s scary. That’s why I think it’s irresponsible to go into the season with Jones, Thompson, and Marshal. Anybody can get hurt in any play. But we need at least one guy who isn’t know for injuries.

          As far as the TEs. Yes. I think we do need more than one good blocking TE. Some people (obviously not you) lose sight of the fact that TEs are not receivers. Their first job is blocking. They’re part of the OLine. Davis is old, doesn’t have prototypical size for blocking, and is just one guy. Paul is tiny and is, at best, a mediocre blocker. Paulsen is the best at something on the team and we’re going to cut him for a developmental QB, 6th CB, Riley, Paea, Hood, or whoever? I’m not on board with that. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter