Voice_of_Reason

Members
  • Content count

    16,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

About Voice_of_Reason

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
    1984
  • Location
    Vienna
  1. I've always thought the prevailing opinion on CT was that he was really fast and good in space, a third down back who might get a carry or two on first down here and there, and is often hurt. Is there a movement that CT can actually be a feature back? Because that seems ludicrous. I wouldn't really bother with Charles unless there were no other younger options, and I wouldn't do it until close to training camp. But, I wouldn't be all that upset if they brought in a vet. They need a professional RB. They didn't have that last year. On a related note, I'm really curious to see if Matt Jones actually makes the roster. Unless I missed it, he's still on the team. Not sure if that lasts through training camp though
  2. For whatever it's worth, Manusky didn't mention Ked as a possibility at nose. He mentioned a few other guys I haven't heard off (j/k, but barely), but not Ked. That gives me some hope. Ked is a coaches favorite because he's an effort guy who'll do whatever you ask him to at 100% effort. But hes physically limited. He doesn't deserve the hate he gets from fans. Good guy. Met him several times. I think there are more than that. Crowder, Long, Moses, scherff, Vernon, Kerrigan all are strong starters as well. Pryor also, though he hasn't played yet. Team last year was a player or two on dline, and a safety (and a d-coordinator who wasn't the village idiot) away from an 11 win team. They won 8 games, and should have won Detroit and Cincy minus completely awful, horrendous defense, and a kicker who missed a chip-shot field goal in OT. They were not as far away as people think because of the way yet folded like a cheap suit down the stretch. But they weren't that far away from being very good. Munusky said aid they were running the three for in base in his interview with Cooley and Kevin last week. Said he liked the flexibility, and allowed the DC to be creative and bring pressure from everywhere. But you've got to have the pieces to run it. i personally like the 3-4, but if you don't have a nose who can stand his ground and a kick-ass safety, it's useless. weve had neither since we switched to the 3-4. (Combined with two of the worst DCs in the history of the league.) hence the atrocious defense's we put out there. That was an awful read-react Blache defense that was putrid in every way. I'd take those numbers, but they are misleading. And that style of defense was absolutely painful to watch. ive said this a million times, it's not the scheme or system. Either can work and be outstanding. It's about getting the right coaches to coach the scheme, and the players that fit the scheme. Haslett was a 4-3 guy, and not one of his assistants had ever coached a 3-4. Joe Barry was just an idiot. Hopefully Munusky is better.
  3. The obsession over 2 average DL players on an atrocious defense is mind blowing. the guys we got might be better. Might not be. But the guys we had didn't get it done. time to try something else. Btw, Manusky was im SF when they drafted. RJF. And had him in Indy, believe. He didn't seem all that devestatesd by his release. This tells me he was expendable to the current coaches. baker was a great quote, had a good nickname, a good dance, and was an average player.
  4. So, the story that Bruce was not there, it was only SM and Snyder, was when it happened. Now, magically, Allen seems to have been re-inserted. I'm guessing the reason is that they want it to appear as though SM was actually not the only one who stood on the table for Cousins, and that it was a group decision and discussion. I don't think the article ever said that SM had to convince Allen, just that he was part of the process. Ergo, since he was part of the process, nothing has really changed. I believe they want us to believe that. I don't believe it to be true.
  5. I believe you asked the question rhetorically, but I will answer anyway: so that they can press the narrative that SM did nothing, Allen was always involved and in charge, and that they're not going to miss a beat without him. I will always give Allen kudos for one thing: since he joined the organization in 2010, we have been a fiscally responsible team. Even handled the $18m cap penalty about as well as possible. The folks that just can't forget all the over-spending on FAs seem to forget that hasn't happened since Allen's arrival in 2010. The 2 "splashy" FA signings were DJax and Josh Norman. And both worked out. Otherwise, the drafts have been anywhere from "pathetic" to "eh." 2010, didn't have a lot of picks, only Williams remains. 2011, had 12 picks, 2 remain on the roster (Kerrigan and Niles Paul.) 2012 had 9 picks, I think only 1 remains on the roster (Counsins). Though they get a Bonus Point for picking Morris in the 6th. 2013, had 7 picks, only 2 are on the roster (Reed, Chris Thompson 2014, had 8 picks, 5 are on the roster (Murphy, Moses, Long, Breeland, Grant). Not the best bunch of guys, but most are either starters or at least solid backups. 2015 (Hello SM) had 10 picks, 5 on the roster (Scherff, Preston Smith, Matt Jones, Crowder, Arie Kouandjo.) Though Matt Jones might not be long for the roster. 2016: Had 7 picks, 5 on the roster (Doctson, Cravens, Fuller, Ioanndis, Sudfeld) Did GMSM really do better than Allen drafting? Eh. Maybe a little, maybe not. FA has been similar, but I'm not going to list all of them. Most signings have been what they thought they would bee over the past 7 years. Rotational guys have been rotational guys, the 2 splashes have worked out. Anyway, I digress. Back to the point. The organization is trying to now say that Allen has been in charge for all of it, and GMSM was just an assistant. I have no idea if that's true or not. It's entirely possible that it was true, but previously they WANTED the narrative to be that GMSM was in charge, because that's what the fans wanted to hear. So they lied then, and they're telling the truth now. Or they could have been telling the truth then, and lying now. The only thing that is certain is that the story doesn't hold together, and either they were lying then or now. And most likely unless we can hook Dan up to a lie detector and publish the results, we'll never know which. (FWIW, I don't believe that Dan could beat a lie detector. )
  6. It was a very good interview. The Breeland answer was "He has to Listen, and he has to Play." Essentially, don't do anything else, just listen and play. I'm not sure if it was so much a shot, as it was "dude has the talent, but he's being distracted by other stuff. Just go out there and do your job. He also sortof punted the conversation about RJF. Said he's been with him a while, that they were just moving on, and that he was sure he would be with somebody else next year. Given the long term relationship between the two, Manusky was there when they drafted him in SF, I think it might be fair to connect the dots that RJF was not what they wanted, and there was no real reason to keep him around. He said that they want to build this thing through the draft. (Duh, everybody says that. But if you get 2 starters on defense in a draft class, which would be pretty good, it takes 5 drafts to get 10 starters. You've got to fill in holes elsewhere, or you'll never get there.) I didn't get from anything he said that they were done in FA. Clearly, they're going to bring in other players through FA on defense. Because they're going to need more guys. He said nice things about Ionitis when prompted. He also said he was big on pressure. Again, everybody says that. But he said that what was most important to him was 2 minute situations and 3rd downs, figuring out how to beat protections, etc. That's good to hear. Even if it's obvious. I've always liked Munusky's personality. He wasn't my first choice for DC, but he's got to be miles better than the 2 village idiots who have preceded him. (I almost wanted to say 3, because we haven't had a real solid DC since 2007, when Gregg Williams left. But I respect Blache. Even if his defenses were bland and reactive. He also said they stunk like the south end of a north bound skunk, and I love that quote.)
  7. Doctson is the question. I actually don't mind moving on from a 30 year old WR, even though he might have been my favorite 'Skin in the last couple of years WRs on the north side of 30 hit a wall at some point, and it's kindof impossible to tell when that will be. 30? 32? You never know. I'll take the Pryor 1 year deal. To me, there's no reason to think about long-term on offense until you lock up the QB.
  8. I don't actually believe this, but IF they might make a run at it, they'd have to give up something which would allow the 'Skins to draft a QB in the first round. They have the #1, #12, #33 and #52 in the first 2 rounds.That's A LOT of ammunition if they wanted to get Kirk. Would the 'Skins do #12 and #52 for Kirk, and then possibly package those to move up a few spots to get a QB? Do they LOVE a QB in the draft more than Kirk? If they were going to trade, I would love for them to do do a Kirk + #17 for the #1 overall. But I can't imagine that Cleveland would do that. My preferance, as it always has been, is to get a deal worked out with Kirk. But if they can't, Cleveland has a lot of picks and a lot of variety in the way they could put together a compelling offer. Question would of course be, who the hell is going to play QB?
  9. I read somwhere that GrudAllen overruled him on guys like Grant vs. Ross, Goldsten (or however you spell it) vs. Jenkins, etc. I have $100 in my pocket that says Allen couldn't give 2 poops about Grant vs. Ross, but Gruden did. SM wanted to keep Ross (he was right), Gruden LOVES grant, Allen sides with Gruden, and we keep Grant. I'm sure that there were more than a few times that happened. I think it's important that the coach and GM are on the same page, and that they work together to build the roster. But sometimes the coach can't quite see the forest through the trees, and the GM needs to overrule him. But Gruden is Allen's guy. As long as that relationship continues, and Allen has the ability to step in at the coach's behest, the GM's power is going to be limited.
  10. This might be unpopular, but the best part of Baker's game was his nickname. I liked him. He was fine. He's JAG. Now, he was OUR JAG, and had personality, and there is something about that which is special. He was good for a play here and there. He also wasn't a nose. I'm sad he's gone. But, eh. I'm not going to complain about it too much. The entire defense was awful. He didn't do a lot to make it better. Maybe it's somebody elses turn.
  11. He is. But Gruden has a man-crush on him because he does what he's coached to do. Apparently former GMSM wanted to keep Ross, but GrudAllen overruled him to keep Grant. Id put the chance of Grant starting at WR at 60% because Gruden is stubborn about this. I hope I'm wrong.
  12. We need somebody else to threaten the outside because right now, most of the weapons work inside, minus Pryor. Crowder, Vernon and Reed all work best inside. The run game also generally starts inside. Without outside threats, defenses will just crowd the middle of the field and minimize a bunch of threats all at once. Pryor helps. Doctson, if he plays, would help. But my biggest fear is GrudAllen think Grant could be that other outside guy. They'll find out quickly he can't be, but I hope they don't have to find that out.
  13. Yeah, everyone dies but humanity wins. I could see that.
  14. I have no idea why Martin is slacking on the books. Possibly because he's made a ton of money and doesn't really need to finish them if he doesn't want to? He knows that the Double D's are going to end the series with something, and he's probably influenced that somewhat, so there's no real NEED to finish them. Random thought: We know that there are show only folks (raises hands) and people who have read teh books and watched the show. Are there any book only people out there? I don't even know if there is any way to know that. But eh, random passing thought. All that said, there's no question coming up with an ending that isn't going to be ridiculous is going to be virtually impossible. At least 75% of the audience is going to hate the ending no matter what it is. They can't have a "fairy tale ending" at this point, because that would just be eh, ridiculous. I don't think they can just let the White Walkers win and destroy everything. Maybe. But that also would almost seem like the entire series has been pointless. Danny on the throne? Jon? Cercei magically manages to stay on the throne while killing everybody else? You're right. There's no good way to end this journey that's going to appeal to most folks.