Skinsinparadise

Members
  • Content count

    11,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

About Skinsinparadise

  • Rank
    The Bruiser
  • Birthday 04/20/1969

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Coral Springs, FL
  1. I guess we will agree to disagree about the fan base as to the 2014 season. If I read your post right, you saw major optimistic glimmers then from the fan base that impinge on the idea that fans were down in that period. I saw it as a major pessimistic period for fans (and I am far from alone with that feeling, Steinberg covered it well in his column today). I never said fan perception has a large role in decision making. I said when fans are seriously unhappy. And again nuance is important here -- its not any day they are unhappy but key junctures in time which effect sales -- fan perception appears to be an influence in the soup. 2014 would be a good example, 2009 would be another one, ditto after the 2004 season. In other words, when the outcry is pronounced it likely does get Danny's attention. And while I don't love Vinny Cerrato or think that Grant Paulsen is always correct -- my gut is their take on serious fan discontent bothering Danny has some merit considering things which transpired in those moments in time -- which were followed with major PR moves to seemingly restore confidence. Maybe they were all coincidences which were purely incidental. That would seem hard to believe. But, we will never know. As for you backing Bruce in all of this. Sorry if I miscast you on that front. It struck me that you are posting a lot with spin that seems more pro-Bruce than balanced but maybe I am not recalling correctly. And even if so, we are all entitled to our opinions. Actually funny enough your description of yourself on this is how I see myself on the topic. I haven't taken Scot's side or Bruce's side on this. My point is centered on the power structure and in the sea of stories I've yet to stumble on a pro-Bruce spin to that part of the story -- aside from he usurped power because he had no choice. Like you, I am digesting every component to the story. I haven't commented on the jealously part -- I don't know or care if that part of the story is true. I've commented that I've heard enough to figure Scot is culpable in the mix. I've not heard anything that makes me think Bruce though is absolved either, though. As for the future of the team, I don't think it matters IMO who was the bad guy Bruce or Scot -- IMO it's all about the power structure. And like I've said many times, Bruce for me will be judged by who his next hire is and what power structure is put forward with it. You got two interesting narratives IMO in those sea of stories: Kirk getting a long term contract and what is the future power structure/GM situation. There is nothing I've digested on either front that makes me give Bruce the benefit of the doubt. I am not though condemning him either. Will see what happens.
  2. I agree with that. If Kirk is gone. They are likely starting over. In that case, by the time they might be good again, Pryor would be in his 30s
  3. The fact that they were talking to Scot in the middle of the 2nd abysmal season in a row versus at the end of that 2nd bad season -- I don't think counters my point at all. It doesn't have to be one wild crazy extreme to another. Major decisions are rarely about just one thing. It's usually multiple reasons and multiple variables. Lets take Fassel. I doubt they were in love with the guy but in one fell swoop dumped the idea because fans were upset. But if they are weighing the pendulum on Fassel pros and cons -- it adds another factor to consider. That's all. A problem can be seen differently from year to year. Joe Gibbs being the final say on personnel could help put Vinny Cerrato under the radar some versus when he's the main guy under Zorn and running a radio show in the spotlight. There are nuances and variables to a discussion like this. It's rarely about just one thing. I never said Danny makes ALL decisions about public perception so any example you give to show that it wasn't sexy PR wise isn't relevant to my point. When he hired Zorn in the aftermath of a playoff season, why would he expect fan backlash? They were coming off a successful season. Zorn was an unknown aside from being a QB guru and the narrative was back then if anyone can fix Jason Campbell, he could. In 2014, when they had two abysmal seasons back to back -- I'd gather it would effect the mood some at Redskins Park versus coming off of a good season. In particular, if season ticket holders were canceling their tickets. I gather from reading your posts, you trust more than most Bruce running the ship moving forward. If so, that's cool. And if your point about its all about winning -- that if the team kicks butt in 2017 with Bruce at the helm of the GM role -- no one will complain. I agree. Heck they can dump Kirk Cousins and if Colt McCoy kicks butt in his place, people would dig that, too. The issue though is Danny's reign on the aggregate hasn't been successful. It hasn't been a winning franchise. This isn't the Patriots or Seahawks were you might look at something and say well my gut tells me they are wrong but I got to trust those guys because they go against the grain and get it right a lot. Under Danny's reign, when they go against the grain and or make changes, its gone awry aplenty -- IMO they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt where we can sit back and relax and let another in their series of genius moves play out and succeed. So, IMO people have every right to be skeptical because this doesn't feel like a fresh new movie during the Danny reign. It feels like a remake of a 1 to 2 star movie we've seen before. And yeah it could all work out great. But IMO the voice of reason perspective isn't just trust the process -- because we are in good hands. If the point is you never know. I agree with that. You never know. It could work out. As for Bruce, I need to see what he does next.
  4. Sheehan heard from someone close to Scot that had A. Cooper ranked higher than Scherff but he was taken before our pick. After Scherff he had Gurley apparently ranked next. Scot himself told me that he had a DT in his sights in round 2 but was taken before his pick. He ultimately didn't draft a D lineman as we know until the 5th. It's fairly commonly said and Scot hinted before the draft that his top pick was Ryan Kelly in the previous draft (Cooley doubled down on this point actually the other day) but Kelly was gone and heck he didn't even take a center at all in that draft ultimately. I think its pretty clear for better or worse Scot walked his talk for being a BPA guy.
  5. I don't mean this sarcastically but my fear with Pryor is yeah Bruce got a bargain but he's unlikely to get a bargain next year when his contract is up -- so in my mind Pryor will likely playing elsewhere in 2018. I still love the signing but if he has the monster year I think he will, the odds are good he ends up playing out his career elsewhere.
  6. 1. Sure but not sure how this is a revelation though in relation to my point? Yep fans unhappiness or happiness is directly related to team performance. I said the McCloughan hiring happened after a bad season. 2. As for Vinny's clown show -- somehow it escaped Danny for about 9 years. Vinny's main point was Danny and his mom and sister pay attention to fan outcry and it bothers them. Grant Paulsen has said a variation of the same thing. Maybe what we witnessed with Jim Fassel is a fantasy? They could all be making it up. But it seems intuitive to me. I think the idea that fans don't dictate what teams do and teams aren't obligated to listen to fans is an exclusive point to teams don't care if their fan bases are happy or unhappy. It's two entirely different points -- one point doesn't override the other IMO.
  7. I agree Bruce isn't going anywhere. And I haven't advocated that he should be fired, I just like him to stick to his lane. I am not discounting an internal hire as for the likelihood of it happening -- I still think at least 50-50 it will. As for discounting it working out -- the only one internally I find intriguing but I still wouldn't like it would be Eric Schaffer. Schaffer is regarded as perhaps the best at what he does in the league on the money side. I like hiring people who are considered among the top of their craft. I'd just rather have a scout-personnel type in the role of making personnel calls not a money guy. But that would be the internal hire, I'd hate the least. I think this subject has some major grey area that sometimes gets lost in this debate. A business (including the Redskins) aren't beholden to their customers. That's true. But customer perception of a business usually has some influence. That to me is the grey part. They can do what they want, when they want without explanation. But most businesses need paying customers to turn a profit. If that business doesn't care what their customers think of them and how they go about things -- they are entitled to feel and operate that way. But many would say that's a bad and unusual way to run a business. Sarcasm in this paragraph isn't directed at you, just using it to make a point: when Bruce popped up in a press conference years back to introduce Scot. I doubt what led up to it was a feeling at Redskins Park that was guided by who cares what bothers our ticket holders and fans. Yeah we stunk last year again but let the fans complain all they want -- we don't owe them squat. Yes we are hiring Scot but its purely incidental and has nothing to do with public perception. Vinny was on the radio a couple of weeks ago and said public perception bothers Danny a whole lot and not just him his family, too -- and that's why he's gone. Grant Paulsen said people he talks to at Redskins Park said nothing bothers Danny more than no shows at the stadium - that it drives him nuts. Redskins are famous for selling hope. Every off season for the most part it was something new. They seem almost frantic to reel people back in. Gibbs is back, We got the fun and gun, Marty!, Shanny!, Look at all these new and shinny FAs! Bringing this to Scot. Yeah it does feel in retrospect that they oversold Scot's power as a perception play when they needed it. There really weren't many cards left to play at that point. The one constant criticism they got from the media at that point in time is the team lacks a real GM with a personnel background and Bruce is a money guy, not a personnel guy. Then they brought in Scot and it felt like hey we hear you so watch this! I agree that we aren't owed explanations so I agree with your point in that regard. But it seems like people at Redskins Park do notice and care when fans are unhappy -- especially when it translates to no shows at the stadium. I am not saying public perception is everything to Danny or Bruce or whomever or that it guides their every decision. But I do think its one of the variables that's in the soup. And it should be IMO. I run my own business myself -- can my customers tell me what to do, nope -- but do I care what they think of me, heck yeah I do.
  8. I get the vibe that Manusky is going to use the interior of his D line to be run stuffers whether playing 3-4 or 4-3. The Giants play 4-3 but stuff the run up the middle with Harrison and Hankins. They are a tough run defense because Vernon and Pierre-Paul are also good against the run. I am guessing Manusky envisions something similar. Mark Bullock from the WP when studying the Colt's defense under Manusky said he saw it primarily as a 2 gap scheme. I see some gave him a hard time for that saying he's wrong and that Manusky is aggressive so he's a 1 gap guy. I think 1 gap has become the definition of aggressive to some in part because of how Barry hyped it up. But listening to Manusky and watching his FA signings, I am not so sure he's a pure 1 gap guy. And there are different ways to run an aggressive scheme. In Manusky's recent interview, Sheehan questioned him about getting a DE who can put pressure. Manusky responded they are a rare find, and asked Sheehan to name those type of players in the NFL. And at different points in that conversation and the prior one on 980, he talked about pressure coming from the edges. He emphasized stopping the run a lot. And I recall someone dissected his defense where they saw similarities to Zimmer's scheme in Minny where they used the middle linebackers some on blitzes. So my theory is he wants a stout D line against the run first and foremost and rely on more pressure come from the edges and corner blitzes and linebacker blitzes up the middle. That's part of my reason why I think its between Reddick, McDowell or Brantley at #17 unless they are in love with a corner. Reddick to me seems like a perfect fit. You can move him around like they tried to do with Cravens last year. But he'd be a much better fit for a role like that. You can move him to the edge. You can rush him from the middle. McDowell to me would be the next one and perhaps the more likely pick, considering talent wise he can both stuff the run and bring pressure. And, Manusky said interior guys who can bring heat are rare finds. I think McDowell will be way tempting.
  9. Not me as for the internal hire. The Redskins with some around the league were viewed as a team that doesn't value having a high end personnel wiz running the show -- that's why Scot was a game changer perception wise and we saw a bunch of articles at the time of the hire alluding to that point. It's how I felt, too. Going back to lets just get a guy who can play the office political game at Redskins Park IMO is going back to square one. It would be a sad day for me. The only current guy at the Redskins FO who is widely touted as being one of the best at what they do is Eric Schaffer. But I don't want a money/contract guy overseeing personnel. Another theory into that soup, knowing a little about HR, when Scot was smeared in that WP article it could have set them up for a lawsuit. If you damage someone's ability to be hired at their next job that could have legal consequences. Bruce going out of his way saying Scot is hirable now could be part of them doing their due diligence to protect themselves on the front of Scot's marketability going forward -- saying heck I promoted him in that regard on live TV.
  10. The one person who ironically broke the story, Chris Russell doesn't see it as opposing narratives, he sees both points being true. He didn't get into Scot being hired into the future. But he's implied on a couple of radio shows without elaborating but citing its from sources at Redskins Park, yeah Scot was out of hand and yeah Bruce was a jerk, too. But who knows?
  11. I'd love to see what a 3-4 looks like here with the key cog in the wheel. The NT is supposed to be the linchpin of a 3-4. The guy in the middle that plugs the middle lane and occupies the center and the guard. That player is supposed to make it easier for the ends but especially for the middle linebackers who don't have to worry much about being engulfed by guards and can shoot through the gaps when needed. But the NT has oddly been the afterthought. If I had to do just two things it would be get a real NT and add a speed rusher to the mix. The typical good 3-4 defense has both components. But I do think the larger problem hasn't been scheme but lack of difference makers up front, too many JAGs.
  12. Two different points though in play. 1. We are also speculating on what the team will do. Forget our opinion of what they should do. And in that conversation if they are meeting with players multiple times they are an option versus not being options. That was my key point. 2. As for your other point. If I recall it was you or if not someone else debated Solomon Thomas the same way, that he's not an option for a 3-4. Some scouts disagreed on that point. Some scouts apparently disagree with you on Barnett, too. It's not IMO a slam dunk get out of here, no way type of an opinion that these guys are misfits for 3-4 defenses. My take on the D line isn't that we got good guys but just wrong fits. We just have a lack of talent period. We don't have push up the middle. We don't have speed on the edges. We can't stop the run. It's a mess and driven by lack of talent. Kerrigan was a DE who converted fine to OLB. Murphy took awhile but ditto. They aren't IMO the problem. The only misfits in my book is who we put out there at NT. The problem IMO is a lack of a speed rusher in that mix and consistent pressure. I don't think that would change whether Kerrigan rushed standing up or with his hand in the ground. I don't mind an undersized DT playing on the inside on third down. And playing some end against the run on first down. Are either players my top choice at #17? No. But I don't think they fall in the category of not an option. My top guy at the moment is Reddick. I liked McKinley until the shoulder surgery -- I just doubt they'd go with a guy who is iffy to start the season after what happened with Doctson last season. I like Baker but hard for me to see them going with a nickel corner in the first round. If they think Taco could put on another 10 pounds and play 5 technique I wouldn't hate that pick. I go back and forth on Barnett. I don't love his lack of speed. The one thing that gets my attention about him is some say he can be really special, outsmarts defenders, overpowers them, great use of hands. If they see him as distinct improvement over lets say Murphy then why not? You can put 3 to 4 pass rushers on the same field at a time -- especially 3rd and long where we've stunk. The Giants went to a Superbowl in part with that approach.
  13. Even running with the idea that they are bad fits for 3-4 -- they play 4-3, like what 70% of the time? They met with Taco at the combine and I read they are about to meet with him again. I doubt they are doing so purely to amuse themselves. Don't get me wrong, it's cool for you to think these players aren't options but you say it so matter of factly as if we are wasting our time even talking about them. Clearly, its not a waste of time since Taco is in play. And clearly they indeed see him as an option. As for Barnett, who knows. But the idea that he's no OLB isn't a slam dunk opinion. Ryan Lippert‏ @Lippert42 Mar 15 McShay on Derek Barnett- "Really smooth and athletic. Could have ablility to play 3-4 outside linebacker. http://gridironnow.com/former-scout-sees-derek-barnett-3-4-outside-linebacker-nfl/ Derek Barnett made his name in the SEC at Tennessee as a defensive end. But in the NFL, he might be better suited playing another position. Former NFL scout Chris Landry wrote as much about Barnett on LandryFootball.com ahead of the upcoming 2017 NFL Draft. “Tennessee DE Derek Barnett is one of the most productive defensive linemen to come out of the SEC in quite some time despite lacking the length and explosiveness off the edge,” Landry writes. “The 6-foot-3, 267-pounder was a first-team All-SEC pick and first-team All-American last season after posting 18 TFL and 12 sacks. I see him as a early down, outside ‘backer in a 3-4 with the ability to put his hand in the ground on sub packages. I look for him to be a mid-first round pick.” https://www.profootballfocus.com/college-football-derek-barnett-performance-key-tennessee-playoff/ How he was used Through two games, Barnett had spent 87 of his 116 defensive snaps lined up at either left defensive end or left outside linebacker
  14. No way I buy they are going with Francis (undrafted and has hardly played) or Taylor (hasn't played for 2 seasons) at NT. So I am taking Manusky at his word about looking for an NT in the draft -- Vanderdoes, M. Adams, Tomlinson, Qualls. It seems like a given. If not, wow imagine stopping the run with journeymen nose tackles and Will Compton up the middle? It would be a familiar story. And sadly, I don't think it will matter how much better the communication is on the field -- they will still be likely run on at will.
  15. I was big on McKinley earlier in the process but reading about his shoulder surgery where he's out for months wonder if they'd be guy shy after what happened with Doctson last year. I think Barnett is a possibility at edge rusher and a dark horse if they traded down a little would be Jordan Willis. If it were me, I'd take Barnett in that scenario, Baker would be my next pick.