Heyer, Jansen, or Other: The Redskins RT Position

I have more thoughts about the offensive line to add in the future, particularly how Randy Thomas' health could mean potentially disastrous things for the OL, given that we can't project improvement from Casey Rabach, but today's post will focus on that troublesome RT position.Some brief history. Since Casey Rabach and Randy Thomas (week one, 2005) have made up the right side of the interior line, here are all the right tackles who have started at least one game for the Redskins in that timeframe:Jon Jansen, 43 startsTodd Wade, 11 startsStephon Heyer, 8 startsJason Fabini, 2 startsThe Redskins have used three different starters each of the last two seasons at the position, which has contributed to the perception that something HAS to be done about the position. What the Redskins need at RT is not a superstar, but someone who will give them 16 games. The thing is, I think the guy who gave them the best chance of that is the guy they just released.Todd Wade is not with the team anymore, and he was the worst of the three tackles. Jason Fabini is currently unsigned, and won't be brought back no matter what happens. With Jansen in Detroit, and taking up a bigger chunk of the Redskins' salary cap than of the Lions', As I said back in June, the Redskins might be making a calculated gamble that Jon Jansen's open roster spot is more valuable to the team than actually having Jansen. But the Redskins' moves that lead up to Jansen's release: not drafting an OT, signing replaceable talent like Jeremy Bridges, and retreads like Mike Williams, were not good uses of the roster spot. The Redskins are no better prepared to handle multiple OL injuries than they were before the Jansen roster move, and arguably, the are less prepared.Of course, there could be an additional motive here. Even before the team decided they could part ways with Jansen, it was written on the wall that Stephon Heyer would be the opening day starter. Now, barring a situation like last year where Heyer loses the job early in the year, there would really be no purpose for Jansen on the team that a guy like Bridges wouldn't satisfy. So, one of the hidden motives in moving Jansen out, in place of the chase of the mythical fountain of youth this franchise has grown fond of over the last two and a half years, is that his presence on the team no longer overshadows Stephon Heyer's ability to play 16 games.Does this logic fly with you? We've come up with two possible reasons to justify Jon Jansen's departure as a positive for the long term success of the RT position that aren't "youth": 1) that his roster spot could be valuable, and 2) that his departure makes Heyer more likely to make 16 starts this year. Both of these things are true, but lets go back in time to the day after the April amateur draft. Handed control of this Redskins team with only Stephon Heyer and Jon Jansen at the RT position, and no immediate help from the draft, is it correct to say that the Redskins addressed the position properly?Here are all the things that, in my amateur opinion, would give the Redskins better production at the RT position than they received last year. Note that none of these actions are interdependent on each other, some will be contradictory.Hand the starting job to the man of the future (Heyer) and hope for the bestGet deeper at the position with a long term backup optionGive the job to the player with the best track record of being resistant to injuryOpt for versatility on the offensive line over specializationLimit the amount of roster spots given to backups on the OL who cannot handle RT at this point in their careerThose are some ideals for improvement on the offensive line. To recap, here's what the Redskins did from the day after the draft, on.Brought in RG Jeremy Bridges, worked him out at RT, and signed him to a contractBrought in RT Mike Williams, worked him out at RT, and signed him to a contractGiven an unexpected bump in cap space, took a hit to release Jon Jansen, who signed with Detroit a day laterEstablished Stephon Heyer as the front runner going into camp.Limited those taking practice reps at RT to Heyer, Williams, and BridgesIf you do honestly consider Williams and Bridges investments in long term backups, and potential starters given injury, this course of action looks a lot better than an alternative course of action that is more 2009 centric. The Redskins did extend every opportunity to win the job to Heyer, and that very much marginalized Jansen's role on this team. The team was working him out as a utility lineman, which made some sense, but ultimately decided that they could find more versatile guys than Jansen on the open market, and cut him loose.But was this necessary? Does a 28 year old Mike Williams offer you anything a 33 year old Jansen doesn't? I don't think so. It seems more like a mythological age improvement at a position where you are valuing a guy who hasn't been in the league since 2006 over a guy who could give you quality play off the bench. Williams is unlikely to make this Redskins team, and even if he does make it, he's unlikely to stick around for a whole season, but this is a minor factor.Where's the versatility? Bridges can play two positions, if you credit him as a RT, which is a stretch. Rinehart can play two positions, and is probably the emergency LT. If Will Mongomery makes the team as the backup C, he can also play RG. But the argument that this team has any sort of versatility on it's line compared to any other competitive team is bunk. And they aren't giving the job to the player who has proven most resistant to injury. If we add to this the fact that Bridges' ability to handle RT is fringe at best, and the biggest problem with the Redskins OL is not that they don't have starters, it's that they don't seem to have a plan.Chris Samuels and Stephon Heyer have a pretty good chance to emerge as a bookend tackle pair this year, but like every other Redskins plan gone wrong, plan B is to compromise the offense. Heyer has not proven durable, but the Redskins have essentially decided to throw all their eggs in his basket, and to back him up with another player who is more of a prospect than an adequate fit in this offense. What's irking me about that plan is that it's nearly certain that the Redskins will take an offensive tackle in the first two rounds next year, giving competition at the position anyway.In the end, this criticism of the RT plan is likely much ado about nothing. If Heyer stays healthy, and if Samuels stays healthy and allows Heyer to perfect his craft on the right side, the Redskins will have their most productive OT duo in the last three years. If either gets hurt, there is little that the team could do to expect decent tackle play anyway. It's 2009, and we know that teams that stay healthy on the offensive line stay successful, and teams with turnover on the offensive line are significantly less successful, and you can't save a season by having veterans on the OL to take over for your best players. This Redskins team is no exception.The Redskins' decision to move Jansen out looks much more perplexing right now in hindsight given the subsequent moves, but its a move that typifies the present team philosophy: Stephon Heyer, for better or for worse, is the right tackle of the Washington Redskins. Mike Williams doesn't matter. Jeremy Bridges hardly matters. Hopefully, Jansen's absence won't mattered either. This team has issues, issues that might in another era, with another philosophy, called for veteran help, but the one part of the Redskins offensive line plan that is clear is that youth is valued, and if you have been around for a while and your skills are declining, get out of the way and let the 20-somethings onto the field.