• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Skinsinparadise

  1. Whether the people who were under Bruce with the Bucs who made the personnel decisions or ditto the Redskins were good or not -- that's really IMO the discussion at hand since they are the ones making the recommendations and IMO its an odd discussion versus a normal one and the oddness of it is the crux of my point. When you talk for example Seattle, the question is how good is John Schneider at his job. He's not a figurehead where the point about him is how good are the people he hires and stays out of their way or not or how does he pull his favorite opinion from people in the building who know much more about football than he does. That same discussion pertains to most of the rest of the NFL's FOs. Schneider, the guy actually making the call has the rep in that building to be the smartest football guy. That's how it generally works. It would be like my neighbor asking me, hey who do you like as an electrician. And I tell him, I don't really have one directly but I hire this guy who comes to my house, we talk and have coffee and he brings another dude with him and he does the work. It's just odd. And in Bruce's case judging by what we've heard about the Kirk contract, he referees between multiple opinions so he does have some say in that regard. You can talk up Jay's power. But the bottom line is if you buy into Mike Jones' narrative on Kirk, Jay's take wasn't heeded to from Bruce. We read multiple accounts of the building being divided on Kirk -- Jay supposedly was the guy on the lets get the deal done. Jay didn't win that argument. So if Bruce isn't running with Jay's take on QB (his speciality), not sure where the confidence is that Jay's say will be the overriding one on other spots. Getting into the discussion as for how good Bruce is at hiring people or working with them and supposedly getting out of the way. Really is off topic, but the idea that the dude is really really good GM is questionable at best at least reputation wise. Buc fans didn't seem to love the dude when he ultimately got canned there. In his defense though, I don't think he was making the calls. But again that's a running theme with him. The GM who isn't a personnel guy. Nothing personal with me against Bruce. I just don't want ANY guy that fits that profile. In another post you seemed to imply that people forget all the glow about what we felt about Bruce before the Scot hire. That is, if I understood your point right. If so, I think you are forgetting what people felt after 2014. Any afterglow of hey Vinny is gone was over at least in terms of fans fist pumping that we got Bruce in the fold. Grant Paulsen questioned Bruce in that infamous post season press conference, with something to the effect of hey why not a traditional GM for once? Bruce goes well we had Casserly years back. Paulsen said something to the effect that yeah Bruce but that was long ago. The sentiment for a chunk of fans then, as I recall it, (I was among those fans) at the time was lets get a real traditional GM for a change. Then it happened with Scot! It was great. It wasn't that Scot just joined an operation that we already liked a lot and now we are forgetting about -- where Scot just added to the good feelings that already existed. Far from it. The feeling was the ship was sinking. As for Bruce versus Vinny, its irrelevant to the point. But I'll humor it for entertainment reasons. Both of them were here while really dumb trades happened that involved giving up high draft picks. Both of them had a bunch of FA lemon signings. Though who doesn't? So no biggie there. Both has up and down drafts, some good, some bad. Yes, Bruce is by a mile the smarter fiscal guy and I'd love it if he just stayed in that lane but that doesn't seem to be what he wants to do at least in the moment. I'd take Bruce over Vinny. However, If Bruce is the guy who can't lock in his franchise QB (unlike every other team on the planet) he in my book would be easily worse than Vinny. It really to me comes down at this point to Kirk to me. And I think I'm far from alone in that take. As Ross Tucker said months back (in his optimsm that a Kirk contract would happen), Bruce doesn't want his legacy to be losing the only franchise QB this team has developed in decades, so he won't. I guess that remains to be seen.
  2. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    I got all the confidence in the world that Kirk and the offense catches fire at some point. As for how quick, that's an unknown. I like Jay but I do think he needs to go over the hump (Kirk, too) for slow starts. They've started 1-2 three years in a row. Over the long haul in the season, I think it comes together well but I'm a bit on edge about the early part of the season -- with this schedule (similar to last year with 2 home games to start the season) they can't really afford a slow start. If they are firing on all cylinders they can beat the Eagles and Rams. they are likely favorites in both. Ditto the Raiders (tougher game granted) coming across the country.
  3. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    I watched Dak in that game. The simple short throws with a rare occasional deep one is his bread and butter. When teams like the Giants, play press and crowd the line of scrimmage (making the short throws tough) Dak tended to struggle last year but yeah the dude thrives on screens, quick slants, quick outs, etc. Kirk IMO generally can make a wider range of throws than Dak but it typically takes him for whatever reason longer to find his stride at the beginning of the season -- same in 2015, same in 2016. But when it kicks in and it always has when he's been the starter he lights it up. So I'm not worried.
  4. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    I was big on Swearinger before his draft, that's part of it for me. Ironically, he was one of the heavy rumored players that the Redskins might have an interest in back then. Jay can be reserved about dishing out praise (see for example his comments about Breeland) and comes off honest - pretty easy to see that he's gushing about DJ that's part of it for me. The two days I was at camp, he was all over the field, vocal as heck, fun to watch. As for Cravens, I think he has it in him to be a run-stopping, upfield kind of safety. Question is coverage. I like Everette my only concern about him is he seems to give off the vibe that he plays kind of wild but mostly in a good way.
  5. Semantics either way. My main point wasn't to define how Bruce defined things not working out with Scot. My point is its pretty clear there was bad blood between the two. From some of your posts you allude to people's feelings about Bruce and the current FO to be heavily colored by what went down between the two. I don't see it, though. The strongest critics of this FO on this thread barely even mention what went down let alone focus on it as an overriding take about the FO. As I've said before Bruce could have been Mother Teresa level nice and Scot a jerk or vice versa. It's irrelevant to the point at hand for me. Bruce-Scot is a side soap opera. I even sided primarily with Bruce on the incident and said heck if Scot needed to go, fine. But, so what? It has nothing to do with the current FO structure. I hope so. But following the narrative there while its tough to gauge what went down -- the one thing that is clear as a bell is that there is bad blood between the two. So, I really doubt you are right on this. It was actually brought up to a beat reporter awhile back (if I recall it was Finlay) in some interview in jest and he thought it was comical and started laughing. I see it as laughable too let alone a serious debate topic. But heck I hope I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong. IMO you got some pretzel logic in here. Acknowledging Bruce doesn't do personnel while giving him credit for building a team and then at the same time giving him an out for what didn't go right in Tampa. Then sort of criticizing the operation as a mixed bag under Shanny but saying he was hands off and let him do it. Now, suggesting he's hands off again but this time its good because Jay's around. It doesn't really add up to me as a ringing endorsement. But a debate about Bruce's resume is getting lost in the weeds. Let me start with this. I like Jay as much as anyone. But the dude isn't superman. Plus, Shanny had personnel control. Jay doesn't. You paint this as somewhat apples to apples. But its actually apples to oranges. Jay doesn't call shots on the FO staff. Jay doesn't have final say as to the picks. He's not the prime evaluator in the building on personnel. And from what I can tell he doesn't even have defacto control of the picks. So the idea that Jay is really the guy calling the personnel shots clearly isn't the case. It actually was brought up during the FO search process where it was told to a beat reporter that no Jay isn't getting a promotion that will including a title or responsibility relating to personnel. One of my biggest takeaways from meeting with Scot was personnel is a full time business. He was knee deep in the 2017 draft early in the 2016 season. He was going to college games himself. He was watching tape. Jay doesn't have time to do any of that stuff during the college season which is the heat of the evaluation period. The impression I got about Scot working with Jay (and granted he didn't elaborate with me on it so I'm extrapolating) is he'd be on the fence on a player or two and say what do you think of this dude. And he trusted Jay's judgment. He also told me he wanted Crowder. Jay didn't. He won out on it. I like Jay but I want a personnel guy having the final say. I don't want ANY head coach save for Belichick having final say on personnel. It's simple. They haven't put in nearly the time that the personnel people do. They have a lot on their plate. The typical GM is almost exclusively focused on making personnel moves and judging personnel. The coach has a lot of other things going on. Also, I detect in some of your pro-Bruce rhetoric, you really like the dude a lot and are excited about him as an individual or maybe its all about Jay. Look I spent 2 hours with Scot, it to this day was my coolest football experience I had by a mile. We got into a lot. It was very cool. I met Bruce for a few minutes, he seemed like a cool guy. Ditto Jay. My fandom though on any of these guys doesn't exceed the team. To me is still about the structure. It's about IMO do you like a FO structure where the top personnel guy isn't really even a personnel guy. Where its easy to say hey it wasn't me but him on that move versus the buck stopping with one person. Do you want the final say guy being an expert on what he has a final say? That's the debate at hand for most of us. How much we think of Jay or Scot or even Bruce isn't really relevant to that point IMO.
  6. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    If I recall I am a bigger Swearinger guy than you, I think he's the answer at FS. Not sure about SS. so yeah agree its up in the air. My fear at corner is they keep Breeland at outside and he struggles and put a natural outside corner at slot and they struggle, too. As for Breeland not making the team, you never know, Cooley-Sheehan discussed that last week. If PFF is on the money, Breeland belongs at the slot.
  7. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    The offense tends to start slow at least it has in the last 2 seasons. I actually think the offense starting slowly in the preseason might be a blessing in disguise. I read somewhere Kirk had almost as many reps yesterday then he did all of preseason last year. So I like the offense entering this season with some sense of urgency. But I'm confident that it will click eventually and probably sooner than later. My concern was the defense. But I think there is a lot to like. We might actually have a real nose tackle for once. The MLB rotation is looking to be Foster and Brown and if so I think it will be night and day better. Foster IMO is more of a natural Mike and Brown Mo. Anderson can set the edge. I notice they at times like to move Kerrigan from the left to the right. I think that might be the better fit for him especially with Anderson on the field. Usually you want the guy who can seal the edge in the run game on the left (like Anderson) because that's typically the strong side where you got more running action -- the TE is often playing on that side, etc. Then you got hopefully Galette who if healthy would be the first pass rusher in eons with real burst. My only concern right now (granted its a big one) is corner. Do we have a natural slot CB? Fuller played mostly outside in college, ditto Moreau. Not sure if Holsey is ready. And Breeland is so up and down.
  8. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Good article about Phil Taylor -- roots as Redskins fan, etc. I rewatched some of the game. It's hard to take my eyes off of Ioannidis. The dude looks explosive, charging into the backfield. Between him and Allen and Taylor the D line might actually be good. Back when we were talking about D line a lot -- Taylor was my one dark horse long shot hope for that position. I wasn't a big fan of just throwing a JAG at NT (been there done that so many times that I was skeptical on that front) and hoping Tomsula would transform him. I'm a talent over coaching guy. And Taylor in his prime was a beast, first rounder for a reason.
  9. Scot is just one side of the coin. You got Bruce, too. If you buy into what some of Bruce's media critics say there is some heavy ego involved on his end as for how things go post Scot. If so I'd gather hiring Scot's services next year wouldn't flow with the we didn't need this guy here anymore theme. In Bruce's defense (if its the case), heck many people who are accomplished have a strong ego so that's not a criticism but its hard for me to imagine them using Scot considering all that's gone down. Having said that, I have noticed one thing about Bruce that I'm not sure some of the pro-FO have picked up on considering how they frame their arguments. Bruce doesn't seem to define himself as a personnel evaluator. I can't recall Bruce ever saying, heck that's how I graded this guy or that guy (unless I missed something). Even in terms of the current FO, he refers to others driving the ship on personnel -- his take seems to be a variation of he just happens to have the final say but that's just a formality. So when people talk about the Bruce way (aside from contracts and cap which is his wheel house but even on that I caught him in one interview playing himself down and saying its Schaffer that primarily guides that) not sure what that "way" is. I personally don't think there is a "Bruce way" on personnel aside from trusting him as to who actually does the work on it and how the FO is structured in that regard. My point is if lets say Kyle Smith is the guy who defacto runs the draft (and he alluded somewhere that he learned a lot from Scot) maybe he does hire Scot service? Hard for me though to see Bruce on board who I'd presume has to sign off on it but who knows. It would be amusing fodder if so.
  10. Bill Callahan and the Offensive Line

    Cooley took on Jay a little on this in a recent interview, suggesting something to the effect that he believes the better running teams don't have as many type of plays to master but instead focus on a certain style. Cooley thinks they have too much going on it seems. I noticed one of the talking head types parlaying off of Cooley's point saying that Shanny stressed mastering zone blocking and having his O line focused on primarily that. Playing devil's advocate, Callahan is considered one of the best. And he hasn't been working with high pedigree running backs at least in terms of draft value. Jones would be the highest and he was the tail end of the third round. Maybe Perine changes things. Judging by 2016 season PFF metrics the running game's weaknesses are Long and the tight ends.
  11. LOL, it sounds like its very unlikely. Seems like bad blood now between the two. So I'm gathering the 2018 draft is the first chance since 2013 to see how a completely Scot free draft goes down.
  12. Agree. And your point is the core of what most of the critics are saying here. This isn't directed at you but other comments I've read recently. I don't recall the critics of the hire questioning his intelligence or said that he isn't smart enough to watch film, they are a bad hire because of their interviews. You can make a point or two like that if you take comments completely out of context but I think we can do better than that. As for the people making the criticism and I'm one of them on this thread -- it feels like we at times are debating entirely different subjects with the FO defenders. For me, it's not about whose to blame Bruce or Scot for what went down. It's not about Jay. It's not about optimism about the current roster. It's not about the media. I don't see how opinions about that whether they are positive or negative on these fronts have anything to do with the discussion at hand. If it was about those subjects, the defenders of the current FO structure would love my take on every one of those subjects. But I don't see their relevance. It's about the structure of the FO and the context of how it fits in its own way to previous versions of the FO.
  13. Game Day Thread - Redskins vs Packers

    Didn't know Marley was only 200 pounds, wonder if he has a future beyond special teams its at strong safety
  14. Game Day Thread - Redskins vs Packers

    Yeah I think he's smart, decent backup but he can't seem to put any zip on his throws thus not starter material IMO
  15. Game Day Thread - Redskins vs Packers

    On twitter getting the vibe he plays but haven't checked in recent minutes
  16. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    In terms of camp and the preseason game, I paid little attention on McClain and McGee. So personally I don't have a strong take on either one of them. Talking purely about Cooley's takes from studying their 2016 tape: he likes (but not loves) McClain, he doesn't like McGee (he seemed to suggest he could be a bust) and he's really doubling down on that point of late. My main point on it is purely entertainment value which is Cooley is really sticking his neck out against McGee. Last camp, he was going hard against Reyes and Bruton. As to whether he proves correct on McGee, you got me. Obviously, I'm hoping he's wrong.
  17. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Could be. If so the coaches seemed quiet about it. Jay, Tomsula, Manusky have talked about nose tackle at different times, and I don't recall McGee mentioned by them among the mix of players they talked about. Mbu seemed to be the early favorite and then supplanted by Taylor with Francis running behind. I don't recall McGee playing nose in the couple of practices I watched but maybe I missed it. McGee at nose did get some attention via some beat reporters really from day one after the signing considering McGee's size. But I haven't noticed the media speculation correlate to what coaches have said or camp reports but maybe i missed it. No doubt he fits the profile well of a nose tackle -- big/space eating run stuffer. I forgot where I recall reading it but saw something about Tomsula doesn't love nose tackles who are overly big and fat. He wants agility. One of my observations which I posted here after watching a little camp is I noticed Taylor moves well for his size. I really didn't pay much attention to McGee. Last year, I noticed Barry rotated a bit at nose tackle. Hood was primarily the guy but at different times we had Jenkins, Baker, RJF, Ioannidis play there. And we've heard Tomusla is having players learn all positions on the line, so I'd bet at some point McGee plays some nose. I think worse case scenario is McGee was known as a bit of an underachiever with the Raiders during his career, he had a career year (by his standards) during his FA year. And now he got paid and isn't as hungry (no pun intended). I am not saying that's my position. You got me one way or another. The good news is we keep hearing good things about Ioannidis. I was just listening to a Gruden interview were he touted him as having a really good camp.
  18. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Not sure about this. Manusky was asked in one of his earlier interviews (precamp) about McGee and said the plan was to play him at end. Ironically it was Cooley who thought he was suited perhaps for NT but he commented that it doesn't seem like Manusky sees it that way. Yeah like you I am very familiar with Cooley's take on players including Breeland. He'd hammer Breeland in his film reviews last year. Yeah I was part of the meh sentiment on the McGee and McClain signings, too. I'm just amused on how hard Cooley is willing to go at McGee where he said in a segment days back that he actually debated him with the Redskins scouts.
  19. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Specific to Cooley, he was meh about McGee when they signed him. He liked McClain but didn't love him. He loved Pryor, loved Swearinger, loved Brown. I guess will see how well he does. Granted though the players he loved in FA had a bigger track record. Cooley waffles some. I recall him challenging Scot on some players from time to time. The other day though he goes he saw/sees players in almost exact agreement with Scot. He was down some on Anderson now he's up on him. He's been brutal on Breeland. I hope he's wrong about him. The idea that he'd just throw his way if he was the opposing QB, wow.
  20. It's a good debate on your end as to your recent posts on the subject IMO. Your position is nuanced and unique compared to what I am primarily used to on the subject. With your point that Scot was good but you have faith that there will be lingering positive after effects from his time here and the stamp he left coupled with optimism about Jay pervade your points -- I have some hope along those lines, too. Good stuff. My pessimism is really just driven by one thing which is going back to the restaurant analogy I like to use relating to the FO. Great groceries = great food in the restaurant. It's been the oddest thing for me during Dan's tenure that he doesn't buy into that. It seems like the FO instead was about relationships, ego, Dan's own involvement, downplaying its importance, etc. Dan like many of us enjoyed the glory of the 80s years and it seemed like his takeaway was that it was 100% Joe Gibbs while Bobby Beathard was incidental or a nominal part of that success. Scot was a short departure from that mindset. Making a big deal of Doug Williams being the guy to replace Scot just strikes me as the same old same old mindset as to the FO. That's sad to me. For me none of it is relevant to the bottom line -- the Scot-Bruce stuff. I liked Scot a lot as a person when I met him. I've heard other beat reporters say a lot of nice things about him, too. Still, if Bruce or whomever is claiming he needed to go. OK, I'll go on that ride. I have no idea what was going down behind the scenes. And I said this when it happened, my thoughts on Bruce would be dictated by what his next move would be as to the FO structure. And I said if Bruce hired another Scot type to run personnel -- I'd be impressed. If he didn't, I wouldn't like it and I said that move would be telling. Even though I don't think its relevant to the main point at hand -- which is the structure of the FO and how things look moving forward-- but I'll respond because I think you are missing a key point in this mix. On both his first radio interview after it went down and on his first tweet, Scot complemented the heck out of a lot of people involved with the Redskins but conspicuously omitted one person in that mix -- the team president, Bruce. Some beat reporters doubled down on it saying yeah it was an issue with Scot and Bruce. So yeah I don't recall some blanket Redskins versus Scot drill ever being in play or people painting the issue that way. When Jay was cornered initially when it went down he said look I really like Scot I'm not going to saying anything bad about him -- or something to that effect. In defense of the people covering the Redskins -- the Redskins version of different usually translates to losing. We aren't the Patriots where their version of different means good things. And I'd add that point belongs on steroids relating to the FO. This FO has done many odd things over the years. They did it again in 2017. So for people covering the team to embrace it or just shrug their shoulders about it is asking for them to forget a lot. Going back to the media, Sheehan I think summarizes it well he goofs on Bruce when Bruce says look we do things the Redskins way and Sheehan laughs and says does Bruce understand that the Redskins way is much more congruent with losing than winning -- and using the term "Redskins Way" doesn't bring confidence to people who follow this team closely. For me personally, if they can get out of their own way (which I got my doubts about) and get Kirk signed finally this off season, I'll be optimistic about the future. Currently, I am optimistic about 2017 and that year alone.
  21. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Listening to Cooley right now. Among the veterans, he's beating up on Breeland and McGee as guys who stand out as players in his mind who are struggling with something to prove tomorrow. Sheehan hits Cooley back that the team doesn't agree with him on McGee, Cooley doubles down where he implies that he's rarely wrong when he is outspoken about being down on a player.
  22. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    It's how I see him, too. I think he's a good backup. Not expensive. Good locker room guy. Knows the plays and can play Mo or Mike.
  23. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Yeah I had my own experience with Compton, agree cool guy. Some in the media especially Chris Russell and Craig Hoffman love the dude personally. It seems like it hurts them personally to ever criticize him. But IMO the bottom line is the Mike LB is generally a big dude who is a heavy hitting run stopper that often helps plug up the A gap.. That doesn't fit IMO Compton's size/skill set. Foster on the other hand looks like a Mike-LB. And he is a heavy hitting run stopper. I am gathering between Compton's smarts as to understanding the defense and winning personality -- he's not an easy guy for Manusky to keep on the bench. But I think Foster-Brown will be the better combination.
  24. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    Maybe so. Yeah if Breeland's ego is fragile as some claim, Fuller taking over the outside duties would drive Breeland nuts. Cooley isn't always right and I hope he's wrong on the Breeland front. That is, his recent run of takes: he admits he was wrong about Anderson, he sees him as a gamer, he was blown away by his preseason game. Zach Brown he thinks must be on the field. Game breaker. I recall Cooley's was infatuated with Brown after he looked at his game tape back when they signed him. Fuller looks good. And Breeland he describes as a player who lacks confidence, often a step short, doesn't play aggressive enough, doesn't track the ball well in the air. Cooley flat out said if he's an opposing QB he'd just keep throwing Breeland's way. Harsh stuff. Hope he's wrong on that one.
  25. The 2017 Training Camp Discussion Thread

    I was listening to Craig Hoffman just now who watched practice today. He said Foster-Brown played with the 1's today but isn't convinced that they stick to it for good. He says Crowder plays this Saturday. No Jordan Reed. He said Fuller is looking great. Cooley said the other day that Fuller looked much better at outside corner (where he said he looked good) versus slot. Breeland last year was good in the slot (according to PFF) but not good on the outside. Wonder if they'd consider flipping them?