• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         1
      ES Coverage Cowboys vs Redskins
       
      10/21/18
       
      Cowboys versus Redskins - now that just sounds correct.
       
      Hello friends, JimmiJo here along with THE Spaceman Spiff. Space is already on the sidelines, yucking it up with the important people. Me? I'm thinking how grateful I am for the 3-car accident on the beltway...
       
      If you cannot get up for this game, there isn't enough viagra made on earth for you. After all; the Redskins are hosting their eternal rival, the Cowboys. Winner will be sitting on top of the division, with a truckload of bragging rights.
       
      What's not to like?
       
      Well, for starters, everybody and their mom is inactive. Chris Thompson Jamison Crowder, Paul Richardson, Quinton Dunbar; all inactive. What a time to have have your top two receivers out. The chatter here in the press box is Washington should do what they can to bring in receivers - to include making a trade with the Raiders for Amari Cooper.
       
      Then there's the question of which Redskins show up? They could come out and light Dallas up. Or, post an anemic effort to suffer another embarrassing lost. Neither would surprise me.
       
      One this is for sure, the distribution in fans is something like 55-45 Redskins. Already an embarrassment. Until you consider this team has done much to earn the lack of support.
       
      Still, you have offer the finger in the middle to those fans who sold their tickets to Dallas fans. What were you thinking?
       
      Back shortly...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Paul Richardson Jr.
      o   No. 23 CB Quinton Dunbar
      o   No. 25 RB Chris Thompson
      o   No. 30 S Troy Apke
      o   No. 55 C Casey Dunn
      o   No. 74 T Geron Christian Sr.
      o   No. 80 WR Jamison Crowder
       
      The team held a touching tribute to my friend Rich Tandler, who passed this week.
       
      Follow along in-game on Twitter @Skinscast
       
      Half
       
      Did you hear the one about the team that got chance after chance but couldn't score more than a touchdown?
      That's right; they are tied at 7 at the half and completely anemic in the second half.
       
      "Against the run of play" is a term you hear in soccer all the time. It is applicable here. It means the better team is either tied or trailing.
       
      Whoever said football was fair?
       
      Washington needs to find a way to get hot in the second half. The Dallas Cowboys are infinitely beatable today.
Makaveli

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Two more observations from current articles.  Allen seems to list his greatest achievement recently in re-organizing the FO.  Big whippeedoo.  Just the same people given new titles with no GM anymore with Allen still the head of the ‘octopus’.  

 

Also with Gruden praising Smith’s quick processing of plays....it was expected since Smith is known as Captain Checkdown.  He sees 5 receivers running their routes and checks down to the easiest by throwing 5 yards to the running back.  If I were Chris Thompson I would start asking for a raise since he will be getting the bulk of the work.  

 

In case you can’t tell...I despise Allen.  He is the new face and villain of all that is wrong with the team now.  Could be reason why Snyder is so quiet lately...he is off the hook and the venom is now directed towards Allen.  

 

Smart move.

Edited by XtremeFan55
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XtremeFan55 said:

 

Also with Gruden praising Smith’s quick processing of plays....it was expected since Smith is known as Captain Checkdown.  He sees 5 receivers running their routes and checks down to the easiest by throwing 5 years to the running back.  If I were Chris Thompson I would start asking for a raise since he will be getting the bulk of the work.  

 

So the same as the last three seasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

So the same as the last three seasons.

 

I don’t think so.  Compare Smith’s best season...2017...with Cousins best 2016.  Just looking at their top 4 receivers.

 

Garcon...79 catches...1,041 yds...283 yds after catch.

Jackson..56 catches...1,005yds...307 yds after catch

Crowder...67 catches..847 yds...386 yds after catch.

Reed...66 catches...686 yds...247 yds after catch.

 

Total yds for above...3,579...1,223 yds after catch...34% YAC

 

Tyreek Hill...105...1,183..467

Kelce...123...1038...441

Wison...63...554..238

Kareem Hunt..63..455..410

 

Totals above...3,230...1,556 YAC...48%

 

The above shows evidence of why Smith is a checkdown quarterback since 48% of the yards gained were after the catch therefore short passes that depended on the receiver being able to extend the yards.  Look at Kareem Hunt.  Almost all of his receiving yards were after the catch meaning the bulk were screen passes behind the line of scrimmage. 410 YAC leaves 45 total yds beyond the line of scrimmage. 

 

Cousins is far more of a downfield passer than Smith by a wide margin.  Only 34% of his yds for the 4 top receivers was YAC. That means his passes not only account for most of the yardage but throws further upfield than Smith.  Keep in mind that 2017 was Smith’s best year ever by over 500 yds.  Smith is heavily dependent on athletic receivers that can gain yds after the catch particularly RB’s like Hunt.  Chris Thompson is a 3rd down back used mainly for receiving out of the backfield so he is going to be used heavily and because of his size is going to get hurt.  

 

This could be a product of Reid’s offensive philosophy since McNabb had similar results with Reid in Philadelphia with the RB Westbrook used heavily. 

 

Without a star RB, Smith will be exposed.  Makes me think the Redskins should use their 13th pick on Guice or Ronald Jones from USC.  

 

But rather than trying to cut down Cousins since he left the team and build up Smith to make the loss more palatable...just watch next season.  The results are going to be jaw dropping IMO.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

And with that last post, I’ve got to say my favorite posts and tweets lately are from the “move on” and “why are we still talking about him” crowd. 

 

Here, they say that, then proceed to give their two cents on him without a hint of irony. Yup, move on everyone, but before you do I’m going to say something antagonistic and likely to draw a response, trash the dude in the process based entirely on my narrative that has plenty out there to refute it or at least bring it into question, but hey! We all should move on after I finish because I don’t get why we’re still talking about him, thanks guys! :ols: 

 

On twitter, you’ll find them commenting on tweets that are positive about Kirk. Move on! You idiots in the media are obsessed! Talk about something else, shut up about Kirk!

 

 The negative tweets? The same exact crowd retweeting, joining in on the bash-a-thon, and just generally doing anything but “moving on”. 

 

Awesome. :ols: 

Ahhhh knew this was coming. I'm sure there are a bunch of those guys out there in the twitterverse (I don't use twitter outside of reading redskins news) doing what you say but that's not me. I don't think I have even made a Kirk related post since he signed with the Vikings. So probably not the right person to direct that comment to.

 

My point is that there is a sector of the fanbase acting like we just lost prime Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady. He's not that. He just got paid like that. Again, if this franchise wasn't trotting out the Becks and Grossmans of the league year after year for the past 20+ Kirk would not be looked at in the same light that he is looked at.

 

There is a ton of evidence that Gruden's offense is a quarterback friendly system. Hell, even Gruden's first year coaching when we were running the QB merry go round of Griffin, Cousins, and McCoy, we still had over 4000 yards passing that year. There is also reason to believe we upgraded at the position, or at least got a very comparable player at a much lower cost. And no, not just because Jay Gruden said so.

 

With all of that being taken into consideration, there is an exorbitant amount of energy still spent whining about losing Cousins. Just seems like a waste of time for a guy that won literally nothing here. I find it amusing is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Compare the Redskins with Vikings.

 

Vikings went 13-3 last year and had a number one defense but still entered FA with over $ 50 million in cap space allowing them the ability to not only acquire Cousins but also Sheldon Richardson plus Trevor Siemen and Tom Compton for depth.  After all that they still have $ 22 million left.

 

On top of that they just moved into their new $1 billion facility which is not just the best sports facility in the NFL but the WORLD and playing in a brand new state of the art stadium that just hosted the Super Bowl.

 

Meanwhile...the Redskins went 7-9 with a lot of their best players missing significant parts of the season.  With a dismal defense and no running game.  So far this FA period has been very quiet picking up a no-name receiver and making a bad trade for an old quarterback. There has been no upgrades nor has the weaknesses...running game and stopping the run...been addressed.  No reason yet to assume that this season will be better than last so far.

 

The Redskins also boast probably the worst training facility in the league and play in a ugly and inconvenient stadium that the last time I was there had all the toilets out of order.  An embarrassment.

 

What is different is that the Redskins need an owner willing to spend beyond the team in a new facility that is desperately needed.  An owner willing to spend close to $1 billion since real estate here is more expensive than in Minnesota so the equivalent amount would be just to be near the average facility.  Redskins need a new stadium but first they have to provide a product that will fill the stadium to pay for it.  Then the Redskins need to find a Rick Spielman who was able to find receivers like Adam Thielman and Stephon Diggs whom were either UFA or 5th round picks.  

 

While Minnesota Vikings are in the hunt for a Super Bowl...the Redskins are spinning their wheels in the mud and in danger of going backwards.  

 

They Need a bonafide GM who knows talent and is willing to make knowledgeable and bold decisions such as trading players like Reed and Kerrigan in their prime while they are still worth something and who is able to find young talent consistently.

 

You won’t realize how bad things are until you start looking at teams like the Vikings and how they operate.

Edited by XtremeFan55
  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Ahhhh knew this was coming. I'm sure there are a bunch of those guys out there in the twitterverse (I don't use twitter outside of reading redskins news) doing what you say but that's not me. I don't think I have even made a Kirk related post since he signed with the Vikings. So probably not the right person to direct that comment to.

 

My point is that there is a sector of the fanbase acting like we just lost prime Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady. He's not that. He just got paid like that. Again, if this franchise wasn't trotting out the Becks and Grossmans of the league year after year for the past 20+ Kirk would not be looked at in the same light that he is looked at.

 

There is a ton of evidence that Gruden's offense is a quarterback friendly system. Hell, even Gruden's first year coaching when we were running the QB merry go round of Griffin, Cousins, and McCoy, we still had over 4000 yards passing that year. There is also reason to believe we upgraded at the position, or at least got a very comparable player at a much lower cost. And no, not just because Jay Gruden said so.

 

With all of that being taken into consideration, there is an exorbitant amount of energy still spent whining about losing Cousins. Just seems like a waste of time for a guy that won literally nothing here. I find it amusing is all.

Yet, here you are again, feeling the need to keep talking about what you don't like about Cousins/don't like fans still talking about Cousins.  :ols:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

When I was in Richmond for camp for a few days, I was eating at an Irish bar outdoors across the street from Mortons -- Bruce walks by wearing what it looked like a casual t-shirt and a ragtag looking pair of shorts and walked into Morton's wearing that.  That added to me --to the Bruce is a man of the people mystique image. :)

 

I haven't really commented here about Kirk of late but reading through the posts here on it -- I'll cap my swan song on the subject this way. Bruce more or less admitted to Finlay the other day that they decided to move on from Kirk in 2017 but didn't want to trade him that year because he was all in for winning in 2017 and that's all that mattered to him -- to me that says it all.  And it should IMO say it all regardless of what you think of Kirk as a player.  I am not going to even add any editorial to it aside from can you imagine Andy Reid and Howie Roseman act that way?  

 

I listened to a podcast from Finlay who interviewed Jay saying his vibe from being around Jay is that he's frustrated so far by the FO's approach to FA.  Finlay goes when Jay told him before FA that they will be aggressive, it felt that he meant it. Ditto Doug.  Granted there is some time still for it to play out and I think more is coming.  I am just saying that for those who say that Jay and Bruce are joined at the hip making these decisions -- I wonder.  The other part of this was Jay apparently somewhere said that he didn't have a chance to watch the young QBs in the draft before the Alex Smith deal was done.   The thought there is Bruce trusted his college scouts without Jay's input in that regard. 

 

Now, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the process of personnel people dictating personnel decisions -- I am just questioning the idea that Jay is a heavy part of it.  Cooley-Sheehan joked about that today with Cooley more or less saying he trusts Jay the most in player evaulating and Sheehan kicked in saying Scot said the same -- but then Sheehan goes well we know they don't per se use Jay in that way a heck of a lot -- or enough.

 

I think what it comes down to, is the FO thinks we have a good football team. And that injuries played a huge part in last season's shortcomings. There isn't a need or much value added beyond this year to go out and sign a bunch of guys that will only prevent us from signing and extending Preston Smith, Scherff, Crowder, etc. Sure we could have gone crazy and tried to sign a bunch of guys this year. Might look better on paper. But at the expense of future years and being able to retain our own coming up? The goal I would hope (and think) is to build a sustainable contender. Not one built for one year and then falls apart in salary cap hell and has to start over.

 

Now, that assumption could end up being wrong. But I remember all the way up through the Saints defensive collapse last season thinking we had the goods. Ultimately, Thompson also went down in that game and his loss among all of the others was just too much to surmount. But I get, and even do agree, with the premise that we are a good football team.

 

How many years has it been since we've been able to say we only have 3-4 true needs? Running Back, Left Guard, Nose, and potentially slot corner (Though I like Hosley and think Scandrick could be passable). I have followed this team for the better part of the past 15 years and I can't ever remember feeling we were this complete across the board. Our roster used to be littered with Jason Fabini's, Golstons, Doughtys, Holdmans etc. starting. Not to mention the always gaping whole at Quarterback.

 

Look, I get it. It hasn't translated into a contender yet. It's been 20+ years since we've been one and people (myself included) are getting antsy. I also would love to see us sign Hankins because I think it opens us up in the draft even more. But not at the expense of being able to extend Smith and Scherff on their own big contracts. And I presume Hankins' initial offer was in that range since he remains unsigned still. But this team IS talented. Only time will tell if they are correct in their assertion. But from an outside perspective, I do get it. We could presumably come out of the draft with an impact DL and really good RB. That leaves us with a hole at LG and maybe Slot? Assuming none of our other picks make an impact year 1. Every team has holes, we wouldn't even have many to mask for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Then fire everyone.

 

You would be just like young Danny Boy, many people around here act and do as Snyder did in his early years. Very ironic considering those same people hate Danny Boy :rofl89:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

You would be just like young Danny Boy, many people around here act and do as Snyder did in his early years. Very ironic considering those same people hate Danny Boy :rofl89:

Yeah, he should never cut his losses and settle for mediocrity for the sake of continuity.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Yeah, he should never cut his losses and settle for mediocrity for the sake of continuity.

Saints should have pulled the plug on Payton after three straight 7-9 am i right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Saints should have pulled the plug on Payton after three straight 7-9 am i right?

 

I’m not talking about the head coach.  I’m talking about the guy calling all the shots that has roughly a 40% career win record, that has squandered numerous assets to fix the problem at quarterback, among other gaffes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

And with that last post, I’ve got to say my favorite posts and tweets lately are from the “move on” and “why are we still talking about him” crowd. 

 

Here, they say that, then proceed to give their two cents on him without a hint of irony. Yup, move on everyone, but before you do I’m going to say something antagonistic and likely to draw a response, trash the dude in the process based entirely on my narrative that has plenty out there to refute it or at least bring it into question, but hey! We all should move on after I finish because I don’t get why we’re still talking about him, thanks guys! :ols: 

 

Reminds me of maybe my personal favorite ironic theme on this board, post counts. Literally the only times I see anyone mentioning people's post counts is from people who accuse other people of being obsessed with them.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Saints should have pulled the plug on Payton after three straight 7-9 am i right?

Because, of course, Sean Payton has done nothing to show he's more capable of doing his job well than Bruce Allen has.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

You would be just like young Danny Boy, many people around here act and do as Snyder did in his early years. Very ironic considering those same people hate Danny Boy :rofl89:

What aspect of firing idiots more interested in saving their own jobs then the long term interests of the franchise has anything in common whatsoever to behaving like Snyder? We have two full decades now of Snyder to appraise and it's clear what he does. 

 

He hires and keeps one of two types of figures on the job long term:

 

1.) Loyal idiots that allow him to meddle (See Cerrato, Bruce Allen)

 

2..) Figures connected to past glory that make him think the fans will be appeased (see Gibbs II, Bruce Allen, Doug Williams)

 

There are only two types of figures Snyder is typically inclined to hire and fire quickly and they tend to fall into one of two groupings:

 

1.): Independent minded coaches and GM's used to doing things their way and w/little to no interference whatsoever (Schotty, Shanny and McCloughan)

 

2.) Total incompetents who have embarrassed even him w/their coaching (See Turner, Robiskie, Spurrier and Zorn)  

 

To laugh at the idea of s canning the entire F.O. that totally botched the Cousins decision and has produced all of two successful seasons since the spring of 2010 is what has me rolling. These guys have now trashed multiple coaches, starting QB's, and even a GM the second they were out the door, and the one common thread from 2010-2017 amidst all this failure beyond Snyder is Allen. 

 

And again what were Allen's credentials exactly? A nice rolodex because of his daddy and the coattails he's been chasing ever since he was a child and failing utterly to catch? 

 

It might do you some good to look outside of D.C. to find out what the rest of the league thinks of our F.O. (a joke and a laughing stock to the core), find out what the experts think of the talent of the team and upside of the roster heading into 2018 (subpar at best and non-existent), as well as 2017 when apparently Allen thought it was worthwhile to have zero plan in place to deal with Cousins inevitable departure preceding the 2017 draft and afterwards (Vegas and just about everyone everywhere pinned us at 7 to 7.5 wins and of course they nailed it). Expectations this year are sitting in the 6-7.5 win area. 

 

That strikes me as ambitious considering the conference we play in. We aren't in the weak AFC, we're in the NFC where only 2 teams are actually in rebuild mode (Arizona and Chicago), and everyone else either considers themselves a legit conference title contender (Philly, Dallas, Green Bay, Minnesota, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, LA) or does or doesn't realize they either aren't ready yet, or are past it (NYG, Detroit, Tampa Bay, San Francisco, Seattle, and us). 

 

We aren't in the running for squat and we weren't last year either and it was totally and completely inexcusable to waste the gigantic pile of picks McCloughan had provided us for the '17 class on that class entirely w/o building up the '18 class w/an understanding that we'd need trade up ammo to land a QB, or to acquire a QB via trade. Instead everything was just speckled together with the inevitable hope and prayers baseless in foundation, and hopes and dreams w/zero chance of becoming a reality. 

 

It's just disgusting to watch this team being lead nowhere by yet another totally incompetent F.O. in the Snyder era, and this one is nearly a decade into a grand plan that has already failed three freaking times and hasn't cost anyone their jobs other than Mike Shanahan. Meanwhile the few pieces worth a damn that we've actually put together during the Bruce Allen era all left to pursue conference titles elsewhere, namely, in LA (McVay), in SF (Shanahan) and in Minnesota (Cousins) and I'm sure I'm forgetting more. Kind of amusing to see us as per usual never notice our very own diamonds in the rough until their gone, while we continue to massage, and whisper sweet nothings to our "precious" in the form of Bruce Freaking Allen, and Vinny G-D Cerrato, w/of course, Snyder playing the very fitting lead role of Smeagol. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by The Consigliere
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XtremeFan55 said:

The above shows evidence of why Smith is a checkdown quarterback since 48% of the yards gained were after the catch therefore short passes that depended on the receiver being able to extend the yards.  Look at Kareem Hunt.  Almost all of his receiving yards were after the catch meaning the bulk were screen passes behind the line of scrimmage. 410 YAC leaves 45 total yds beyond the line of scrimmage. 

I would rather say he's throwing more to guys that are open and able to gain yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I think what it comes down to, is the FO thinks we have a good football team. And that injuries played a huge part in last season's shortcomings. There isn't a need or much value added beyond this year to go out and sign a bunch of guys that will only prevent us from signing and extending Preston Smith, Scherff, Crowder, etc. Sure we could have gone crazy and tried to sign a bunch of guys this year. Might look better on paper. But at the expense of future years and being able to retain our own coming up? The goal I would hope (and think) is to build a sustainable contender. Not one built for one year and then falls apart in salary cap hell and has to start over.

 

 

I presume this is in response to my point about Finlay suggesting that Jay seems frustrated to him about FA?  Because that's how I laid out the point.  If Finlay is correct, then I gather this means you agree with Bruce over Jay on this point.    If we are talking about me -- my take is its an incomplete right now and I suspect they have something else planned.  They've alluded to having something else planned.  If this off season ended now, I'd give them a C-.  But clearly the off season is on going.  We will see what they do.  As for extending the players in house -- we got no clue if that's their end goal.  This year clearly they let a lot of guys go.  Do they go the reverse course with the 2015 crop, maybe so.  But I am not banking on it. 

 

I recall a previous discussion we had about Bruce -- you said more or less you thought he did a bad job and you weren't a fan of his but you defend him on the Kirk contract because you think on that front he played that fine.  Reading some of your posts here, I gather you've warmed up to Bruce on more things beyond the Kirk contract?  I don't mean that sarcastically but you've seem to be expanding the things you like about him. 

 

14 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

How many years has it been since we've been able to say we only have 3-4 true needs? Running Back, Left Guard, Nose, and potentially slot corner (Though I like Hosley and think Scandrick could be passable). I have followed this team for the better part of the past 15 years and I can't ever remember feeling we were this complete across the board. Our roster used to be littered with Jason Fabini's, Golstons, Doughtys, Holdmans etc. starting. Not to mention the always gaping whole at Quarterback.

 Every team has holes, we wouldn't even have many to mask for.

 

The 4 needs are glaring though.  It's not like small items where you are adding icing to the cake.  You need the cake on 3 of those 4 especially D line and RB.  The D line as for stopping the run isn't mediocre but atrocious.   The running game isn't mediocre but atrocious.  I doubt they are going anywhere beyond the 8-8 mark if they don't seriously address both positions.  I don't mean by that one of Bruce's patch work flier FAs or using a 4th rounder in the draft.  They have to seriously address both spots.  And so far they haven't. 

 

The Eagles, Vikings and Rams who were already better teams have approached this off season thus far with a much higher level of desperation.  The Giants have been aggressive too.  The Redskins thus far IMO have approached the off season as if 8-8 is the playoffs.  "Thus Far" is the key term for me though.  Because I think their aggression is coming.  But since you seem to be plugging the status quo in present time -- to me the status quo in present time is "meh".  

 

I disagree with those who think the FO from a player personnel stand point is a joke.  I think the way they present the team to the public by how they handle their affairs are often a joke and dysfunctional.  But purely from a player acquistion stand point they are so so.  Some good moves.  Some bad moves.  They are mostly conservative and don't have a go for the jugular attitude.   8-8, 7-9 seems about right.  And I think they have it down as how to stay at that point.

 

And its tough to have a nuanced conversation about it because when you talk about being more aggressive it turns to Vinny Cerrato.  Where the only solution is one wild extreme or the other -- no middle ground.  Howie Roseman, Bill Belichick, etc are VERY aggressive.  They are just not stupid.  Aggressive doesn't have to be stupid.  You can be aggressive and smart.  To use a QB analogy to this FO, it feels like they are comfortable throwing 5 yard hitches but they don't have the confidence in their ability to throw it down the field without being picked off.  And for me there is so much I am going to celebrate 5 yard hitches as for being "smart".  To me its not that smart its just being conservative and playing within your comfort zone.

 

Like I said I think these guys are OK, so so, mediocre.  It feels like you got no shot to compete with the big boys in the NFL as for the big dance.  But you aren't the Cleveland Browns either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Allen even thinks himself should be fired..he said it during the owners meeting when interviewed..what a ****ing moron!!!..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Taylorcooley1 said:

Bruce Allen even thinks himself should be fired..he said it during the owners meeting when interviewed..what a ****ing moron!!!..

He knows he's not accountable for this, "Allen — called by Snyder “the personification of an NFL winner”". Vinnie 2.0 in charge of the stadium deal pissing on the fans shoes and not even bothering telling them it's raining.

Gruden lying about Cravens and pretending we're better at QB, while Smith didn't even played a down for us, c'mon. I wish they would at least give us the favor to STFU.

Edited by FrFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The 4 needs are glaring though.  It's not like small items where you are adding icing to the cake.  You need the cake on 3 of those 4 especially D line and RB.  The D line as for stopping the run isn't mediocre but atrocious.   The running game isn't mediocre but atrocious.  I doubt they are going anywhere beyond the 8-8 mark if they don't seriously address both positions.  I don't mean by that one of Bruce's patch work flier FAs or using a 4th rounder in the draft.  They have to seriously address both spots.  And so far they haven't. 

I get that this is your opinion, but its just that (your opinion). It doesn't mean that you're right or that Bruce is right. There are examples of teams like the Falsons signing Poe and improving from 25th in defense (17 against the run) to 9th in defense (9th against the run). But there are also examples of teams like KC signing Logan and finishing 28th in defense (25th against the run), down from 24th the year before (26th against the run).

 

Does that mean Logan wasn't a big enough name? It can be argued that he had his best year last year (PFR's AV gives you this). Some rankings had Chris Baker as a top tier DT. The Chargers were said to have one of the best defensive lines in the league at the start of last year (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/07/12/ranking-defensive-linemen-tackles-ends-team-texans-giants/464850001/), but wound up finishing 31st against the run.

 

If you look at the bottom of the league in terms of rankings against the run you'll see some big names (Kyle Williams, Brandon Mebane, Geno Atkins, Aaron Donald, Damon Harrison, Johnathan Hankins, etc.). So if the big name player approcah is all we need, why did these teams finish so poorly against the run?

 

I know that the narrative is that we were horrible against the run because we don't have a NT, but (a) we didn't have a NT in the first 4 weeks of the season when we were doing well against the run (b) is that truly the reason? How many times was it missed tackles down the field, or missed tackles in the backfield? Those type of problems are ones that a new NT could fix, but also better tackling technique would help on, as well as a swarm approach. (c) how much of the reason can be blamed on injuries and lack of depth.

 

And that's just one area, but the main reason why the FA approach was heralded in Philadelphia / GB / Pitt / Baltimore just to name a few was because it allowed them to build depth. So that when they lost a starter it wasn't ride or die with a guy on a rookie deal. It was the ability to have a mid tier or unproven guy step in and try to keep the team on solid ground.

 

If the cap is 180 mil, you want to leave about 5-10 mil for incidentals and injuries, and you've got lets say 170 mil for a roster of 53 men. Some of these guys will be rookies (say 10), so they'll have a lower impact, assume that's about 5 mil. So we've got about 165 mil to spend on 43 players, just under 4 mil per player. How skewed is that when you've got half the starters making 8+ mil? That'd be about 88 mil gone from the salary cap, so we're talking about 77 mil remaining for 32 players, which is just under 2.5 mil per player. Thats with 11 guys averaging the 8 mil mark. If that number drops to 10, suddenly we've got 85 for those 33 players, a few hundred thousand more per player.

 

Its a math exercise, but the main point is that the fewer players you've got at that high end of the salary spectrum, the more money you've got to fill the middle of your roster with talent, which builds depth on this team. Depth is something we need as arguably the most injured team last year. Its a tribute to our scouts that they were able to bring in guys off the street (Vigil, Francis, Kalis, Kouandjio, Rose, etc) and still compete and perform well. But what if the problem isn't with the front line, what if its with finding somebody in the rotation to replace McClain or Francis or Hood at the back end of the roster? That wouldn't necessarily a big move, but the right person could have a huge impact. Heck, just going from Hood to Francis I think would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Saints should have pulled the plug on Payton after three straight 7-9 am i right?

 

Yes. I think they should have.

 

I would probably fire Tomlin too at this point. Eventually, I think players just get tired of the same coach's voice.

 

And those guys have actually had success at one point. What has Bruce Allen ever achieved in the NFL?

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I presume this is in response to my point about Finlay suggesting that Jay seems frustrated to him about FA?  Because that's how I laid out the point.  If Finlay is correct, then I gather this means you agree with Bruce over Jay on this point.    If we are talking about me -- my take is its an incomplete right now and I suspect they have something else planned.  They've alluded to having something else planned.  If this off season ended now, I'd give them a C-.  But clearly the off season is on going.  We will see what they do.  As for extending the players in house -- we got no clue if that's their end goal.  This year clearly they let a lot of guys go.  Do they go the reverse course with the 2015 crop, maybe so.  But I am not banking on it. 

Some of my position is speculation on my part, I'll grant you that. But yes, if the goal is to not absorb all of our cap space on free agents this year so that we have enough to extend Scherff, Smith, and Crowder, I agree with Bruce/Schaeffer over Jay. None of the guys we lost this off season fit in that category for me (not referencing Cousins, no need to go down that rabbit hole). Breeland, Grant, Murphy, Long they're good players but probably not worth the money they are receiving on the open market. Smith, Scherff, and Crowder are undoubtedly going to be expensive, but those are guys that fit the mold of re upping on second contracts. So we'll have to see, but have a hard time believing they let those three walk.

 

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I recall a previous discussion we had about Bruce -- you said more or less you thought he did a bad job and you weren't a fan of his but you defend him on the Kirk contract because you think on that front he played that fine.  Reading some of your posts here, I gather you've warmed up to Bruce on more things beyond the Kirk contract?  I don't mean that sarcastically but you've seem to be expanding the things you like about him. 

I made a post the other day about this, but I am very happy with how this off season has been handled. I don't think we've had a comp pick since I became a fan, and now we have 4 slotted for next year. It's what good organizations do, so that has me excited to be sure. I really love the Richardson signing because for one, I think he compliments what our current receivers do very well. But also, he's 25, and seems poised to play his best football going forward. Similar to Garcon, and Moss back in the day, I think we'll look back very favorably on that move.

 

If what you said is true about Bruce holding onto Kirk last year because they wanted to go all in, that is absolutely unacceptable to me. The most important facet of being an NFL GM/President is forward thinking. So that's a huge no no for me. I don't at all like how the Scott situation was handled. Huge bungle. Signing the Mcs last year and subsequently cancelling out comp picks was no bueno. Overall, I don't love what I hear about his personality which I'm sure does trickle down the organization. There's plenty to not love about Bruce.

 

But, with that said, I DO love and appreciate the strategy of placing a value on a player and sticking to that number. I think that shows vision, eliminates the potential for players just collecting paychecks here like they used to, and fosters a culture that the very best organizations have. I like the Cravens trade, sends a message to the team that if you don't want to be here, adios. As I mentioned, I like the strategy to collect comp picks to constantly restock and reload with young cheap talent. Bruce does some good things IMO, certainly worlds better than Vinny. And I think our last three seasons and roster are indicative of a program that is growing. I still think we can do better than Bruce, but after the debacles I've witnessed since the early 2000's this is far more palatable. And for better or worse, Bruce owns all of this now. I'm really glad Dan didn't pull the plug on everything after last year. It's put up or shut up this year. If they fail this year, we'll be in pretty good shape going forward for a new GM and that GM will have some sort of assurance that Danny won't pull the plug after one or two bad years. I think that's healthy and only helps going forward as well.

 

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

The 4 needs are glaring though.  It's not like small items where you are adding icing to the cake.  You need the cake on 3 of those 4 especially D line and RB.  The D line as for stopping the run isn't mediocre but atrocious.   The running game isn't mediocre but atrocious.  I doubt they are going anywhere beyond the 8-8 mark if they don't seriously address both positions.  I don't mean by that one of Bruce's patch work flier FAs or using a 4th rounder in the draft.  They have to seriously address both spots.  And so far they haven't. 

It just seems premature to say this though since the draft hasn't happened yet. Vea and a second round RB would presumably seriously address two of our major weaknesses.

 

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The Eagles, Vikings and Rams who were already better teams have approached this off season thus far with a much higher level of desperation.  The Giants have been aggressive too.  The Redskins thus far IMO have approached the off season as if 8-8 is the playoffs.  "Thus Far" is the key term for me though.  Because I think their aggression is coming.  But since you seem to be plugging the status quo in present time -- to me the status quo in present time is "meh".  

We've seen time and time again this strategy isn't always a winner. Denver a few years back is the one time I recall it working. I think the Ravens, Steelers, Patriots are much better examples of organizations with long term success. That's the model we seem to be following for the most part, and I respect that. What the Eagles, Vikings, and Rams are doing is exciting on paper. Seen this movie before too many times to want the Redskins to act with more "desperation."

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I disagree with those who think the FO from a player personnel stand point is a joke.  I think the way they present the team to the public by how they handle their affairs are often a joke and dysfunctional.  But purely from a player acquistion stand point they are so so.  Some good moves.  Some bad moves.  They are mostly conservative and don't have a go for the jugular attitude.   8-8, 7-9 seems about right.  And I think they have it down as how to stay at that point.

Do you really think we were a 7-9 team last year without the injuries? Serious question.

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

And its tough to have a nuanced conversation about it because when you talk about being more aggressive it turns to Vinny Cerrato.  Where the only solution is one wild extreme or the other -- no middle ground.  Howie Roseman, Bill Belichick, etc are VERY aggressive.  They are just not stupid.  Aggressive doesn't have to be stupid.  You can be aggressive and smart.  To use a QB analogy to this FO, it feels like they are comfortable throwing 5 yard hitches but they don't have the confidence in their ability to throw it down the field without being picked off.  And for me there is so much I am going to celebrate 5 yard hitches as for being "smart".  To me its not that smart its just being conservative and playing within your comfort zone.

 

Like I said I think these guys are OK, so so, mediocre.  It feels like you got no shot to compete with the big boys in the NFL as for the big dance.  But you aren't the Cleveland Browns either. 

Like I said, we'll see. I think we have a very talented roster capable of being a playoff contender this year. If we're not, then I'm sure Danny will pull the plug, as he should. Maybe I was seeing something different than most last year, but prior to getting decimated by injuries I saw a team capable of competing with anyone. You see 7-9 and come to the conclusion we are just stuck in mediocrity. I see 7-9 with the context of what happened last season, and see a team that can go places if they avoid the injury bug. Only time will tell who's correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I get that this is your opinion, but its just that (your opinion). It doesn't mean that you're right or that Bruce is right.

 

Yeah of course its my opinion. I say "IMO" probably more than anyone on the board. :)  But the idea that they can't run the ball or stop the run isn't some funky obscure opinion of mine.  The stats and eye test sing the song big time. 

 

11 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

IThere are examples of teams like the Falsons signing Poe and improving from 25th in defense (17 against the run) to 9th in defense (9th against the run). But there are also examples of teams like KC signing Logan and finishing 28th in defense (25th against the run), down from 24th the year before (26th against the run).

 

 

I explained this in the FA thread.  It's not any team signs a big name DT and its over.  In fact I've suggested the opposite.  My point on D line is that position perhaps above all requires multiple studs. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I know that the narrative is that we were horrible against the run because we don't have a NT, but (a) we didn't have a NT in the first 4 weeks of the season when we were doing well against the run (b) is that truly the reason? How many times was it missed tackles down the field, or missed tackles in the backfield? Those type of problems are ones that a new NT could fix, but also better tackling technique would help on, as well as a swarm approach. (c) how much of the reason can be blamed on injuries and lack of depth.

 

 

I bolded and highlighted from your post the key point for me.  We've covered it in other exchanges with you.  I don't see a season where injuries or depth aren't in play especially for D line.  I don't want to turn this into the FA thread but Jonathan Allen primarily played DE-on the right side.   Ionnaidis typically played especially early in the season on the left side DE. 

 

Yeah if you have the lowest ranked PFF NT up the middle -- Allen alone isn't going to fix it.   But man if you turn a below average 0-1 technique spot to an above average version of it -- when you also got above average run stoppers on the edges -- I think it will be night and day.  As for stopping the run IMO the weakness can't be straight up the gut, maybe you can get away with it if your edge guys are really good, but eventually someone is going to get hurt and you need to rotate, regardless.  I started re-watching some games with coaches film and I noticed that even when Allen was healthy we had some Hood-McGee, McClain rotations.   

 

As for it might be on tackling. Zach and Mason IMO are good tacklers.  Maybe when Compton played I agree.  Cooley made a good point the other day saying weakness with the nose might be part of what's the cause of all these MLB injuries in that they (the MLBs) have to take on too many guards who are breaking through up the middle.

 

11 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Depth is something we need as arguably the most injured team last year. Its a tribute to our scouts that they were able to bring in guys off the street (Vigil, Francis, Kalis, Kouandjio, Rose, etc) and still compete and perform well. But what if the problem isn't with the front line, what if its with finding somebody in the rotation to replace McClain or Francis or Hood at the back end of the roster? That wouldn't necessarily a big move, but the right person could have a huge impact. Heck, just going from Hood to Francis I think would be huge.

 

Depth is something needed very specific to the D line IMO.  And we've gone over multiple times why I think so.  That position more than most is a rotational spot. The big guys tend to get hurt.  I think they can find more Ziggy Hood types off of the street.  But I like where you are going with this discussion because its a substance driven debate.

 

Your point:

A. Maybe the need is for more back end types in the D line to complete the roster

 

My point

A.  You need another front line guy in particular to stop the run.  You'll find the Ziggy Hood, Francis types on the street without much trouble.

 

Correct me if I am wrong about the point above -- I am trying to find a direct debate here.  My point isn't about signing some indiscriminate big name or one signing is the be all and end all.  I framed my point specific to what we have going with the D line.  I got into my specific philosophy about the value of D line.  I've hit both points with a ton of detail in the FA thread with some of those posts directed to you. 

 

 Yes, its my opinion.  And as I've said on the FA thread, the FO if anything is coming across like they agree with my position here versus yours. So you being on the side of Bruce and I am presenting the other side.  I think you got it backwards.  Will see.  Keim wrote today they are still interested in Hankins.  Every beat guy, Doug, etc talked about how they want D line and if it doesn't happen they are drafting D line early.

 

So I think there is a better chance you have the anti-Bruce position on this not me at least as for real time-this year.  My point on the subject was if the off season stops NOW -- I am not satisfied but I also said I don't think the off season is over.  I'd be surprised if they don't make a major move at DT versus looking for the next AJ Francis, Ziggy type.  Will see. :)

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I explained this in the FA thread.  It's not any team signs a big name DT and its over.  In fact I've suggested the opposite.  My point on D line is that position perhaps above all requires multiple studs. 

 

But it goes against the "big name" splash you keep calling for. Multiple studs is one thing, but at what cost. This is less about "FA" and more about Bruce's "strategy". He openly admitted to looking at the waiver wire for cuts. History shows that he, Gruden and the coaches are into developing players. Sure there are the examples of Jackson, Garcon and Norman, but most of the rest of our team, including most of our big money contracts, are guys we developed.

 

The comment about your opinion was about how you would grade the offseason (or the front office). You repeatedly say how you think they're average and give tentative grades on the offseason based on the activity. But my point is that opinion means little from this point of view. Just like right now we can look up and see which moves from 2017 were good vs bad (Pryor was seen by most as an A+ signing, now not so much), we will be able to do that next year. So the point is that Bruce's goal shouldn't be to convince you or the radio hosts or the general fan, it should be to win games.

 

12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Depth is something needed very specific to the D line IMO.  And we've gone over multiple times why I think so.  That position more than most is a rotational spot. You guys big guys who get hurt.  I think they can find more Ziggy Hood types off of the street.  But I like where you are going with this discussion because its a substance driven debate.

 

12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Your point:

A. Maybe the need is for more back end types in the D line to complete the roster

 

My point

A.  You need another front line guy in particular to stop the run.  You'll find the Ziggy Hood, Francis types on the street without much trouble.

 

Well, I wouldn't put it so simple. Guys get better. Our coaching staff has the ability to develop guys. So why not let them work their way up the roster like most other teams do, like we did at other positions? We get a guy like Matt I or Lanier who are barely on the roster initially, but through their own grit and grind and our coaches, they have become productive parts of our rotation. Look at Smith who was a high (but not first round) draft pick who is looking good. I highly doubt that we were going to go after Allen last year. I think we had all intentions of drafting a NT instead, but when he dropped, things changed.

 

12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Yes, its my opinion.  And as I've said on the FA thread, the FO if anything is coming across like they agree with my position here versus yours. So you being on the side of Bruce and I am presenting the other side.  I think you got it backwards.  Will see.  Keim wrote today they are still interested in Hankins.  Every beat guy, Doug, etc talked about how they want D line and if it doesn't happen they are drafting D line early.

 

So I think there is a better chance you have the anti-Bruce position on this not me at least as for real time-this year.  My point on the subject was if the off season stops NOW -- I am not satisfied but I also said I don't think the off season is over.  I'd be surprised if they don't make a major move at DT versus looking for the next AJ Francis, Ziggy type.  Will see. :)

This is easy to say, but until they actually sign somebody they're not really agreeing with you. If they sign a Hankins or Logan or somebody like that to a big contract then its more up your alley, but if they bring in another McPhee or Scandric type, then is that really your point? Its not mine either, but its not front end players.

 

My whole thing (in a lot of these conversations we've had, be it Kirk, Scot or this Bruce philosophy stuff) is that there is a lot of stuff that we (as fans) do not know. We don't know how much Hosley practicing well influenced them thinking they could get by without Fuller (Hoffman did suggest it though). Francis played 11, 25, 26, 29, 26 and 44 snaps in each of the last 6 games. How impressed were coaches with his play? What about Mbu or Scandrick? They've seen these guys in practice and have more insight on whether they can improve the roster. Could one be a future plug up the middle? How long did it take Chris Baker to make a roster? Denver in 2009, Miami in 2010, Redskins in 2011, didn't make a roster until 2012. He was supposed to be a NT, something Chris Cooley was upset about them not doing until when they finally did it and it wasn't his position.

 

I think we had the same idea for Matt I when we drafted him, but he's lined up more over the end. Does it mean he can't line up over the nose? He has the strength but we'll see. What about Francis and the other NTs we have on the roster? Do they belong in the NFL and can they develop? What's their work ethic?

 

We know the Skins are going to have the guys on the roster, because they're under contract. We know they're going to sign cheap UDFAs and  possibly draft picks because they do every year. What we don't know is if they'll sign a guy to play on the front end of the line because as of yet they haven't .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Smith, Scherff, and Crowder are undoubtedly going to be expensive, but those are guys that fit the mold of re upping on second contracts. So we'll have to see, but have a hard time believing they let those three walk.

 

Hard to tell one way or another.  Personally, I think if Crowder ends up expensive on the open market, you can let him go.  I don't see him deserving of big money.  But specific to your point, Jay and Bruce at the moment aren't telegraphing that they are done in FA.  They are suggesting the opposite.  Bruce just about directly said he's holding on to his cash and looking for a score once a player he likes gets cut.  Jay specifically said they are unlikely done.   Keim today said the interest in Hankins remains.  Will see. 

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I made a post the other day about this, but I am very happy with how this off season has been handled. I don't think we've had a comp pick since I became a fan, and now we have 4 slotted for next year. It's what good organizations do, so that has me excited to be sure. I really love the Richardson signing because for one, I think he compliments what our current receivers do very well. But also, he's 25, and seems poised to play his best football going forward. Similar to Garcon, and Moss back in the day, I think we'll look back very favorably on that move.

 

 

Only thing making this a C for me thus far versus a D is Richardson.  I touted him as hard as anyone in the FA thread before the signing.   Having said that, I don't think they are done.  So I am not really feeling critical about the off season.  But if the point is the verdict is in now -- what do you think?  I think they've doubled down on an 8-8 type season.  Them getting a 3rd round comp pick for Kirk -- to me is a failure versus a job well done.  And its looking like a 5th for Murphy and two 6th rounders?  I like that but I don't love it.  If they got a 4th for Grant, I'd dig it more -- too bad what happened with Baltimore. I got my doubts if they go 8-8 Jay and Bruce will be here to benefit from the extra picks.  But I am with you on the theory that more picks is better.

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

If what you said is true about Bruce holding onto Kirk last year because they wanted to go all in, that is absolutely unacceptable to me.

 

 

Bruce said it in an interview to Finlay.  Finlay talked about it too multiple times afterwards.

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

But, with that said, I DO love and appreciate the strategy of placing a value on a player and sticking to that number. I think that shows vision, eliminates the potential for players just collecting paychecks here like they used to, and fosters a culture that the very best organizations have. 

 

The best analogy I can come up with is salad is healthy.  So lets eat salad.    We can add something extravagant to the meal but heck that's going to be $15 overpriced so lets just stick to the salad.  Yeah you are going to get value for your money and its healthy but you aren't going to have a special meal.  (using hyperbole some to make a point)  IMO the idea of scoring in FA is sometimes "overpaying" for a key position to get over the hump especially at a priority position.  Calais Campbell and Malik Jacksons were both overpays by Jax but I doubt they regret it.

 

So I hate (you aren't doing it here so this isn't directed to you) the Vinny versus the Bruce's way debate as if there are only two ways to slice it.  I don't think it has to be one extreme way to another extreme way.  IMO Vinny's extreme way leads to failure.  Bruce's extreme way leads to mediocrity.

 

For me if I summed up Bruce's approach its having good QB play and a passing game -- and that alone will make you competitive.  I am sure in theory he wants to build up the other units but he hasn't shown he's good at it.  The playoff teams aren't JUST about the passing game.  So that's my point about them competiting with the big boys. 

 

Vinny didn't have the passing game but at times could build the other units.  Bruce's teams are ironically the reverse of that.

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

It just seems premature to say this though since the draft hasn't happened yet. Vea and a second round RB would presumably seriously address two of our major weaknesses.

 

 

I flat out said the chapter isn't closed, I even said I think they will do it.  My point was would I be satisfied if they stopped now.

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

What the Eagles, Vikings, and Rams are doing is exciting on paper. Seen this movie before too many times to want the Redskins to act with more "desperation."

 

 

I've seen Vinny's way, I've seen it Bruce's way.  Vinny to me is a D in FA.  He had some good signings among the many bad -- the 2005 FA crop helped turnaround the defense.   As it was posted on the FA thread, Bruce's hit rate in FA is 19%.  To me he's "meh" in FA.  A lot of busts with his bargain basement shopping.  Neither approach is a winning one to me.  But I agree Bruce is better at playing the contracts by far over Vinny.  If Bruce was also good at getting good players in FA -- I'd love it.    In the scheme of things, just because he got Scandrick lets say at a better deal than whoever pays for example DRC -- isn't the bottom line.  I'd take DRC overpaid by 2 million than Scandrick at a bargain if DRC plays well and Scandrick plays like a scrub.  I am not saying that's how it goes down, just using an example to make a point.

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Do you really think we were a 7-9 team last year without the injuries? Serious question.

 

 

9-7 without injuries.  I think the roster as its currently constructed is anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7 depending on luck-injuries.  I am just not a believer in a roster that has essentially one good unit.  I guess the pass defense was good, too.  But you can't be last or close to that against the run and close to last running the ball and have a bad special teams, too.    That's a lot of bad to make up for by one strong unit or two.

 

And I just don't buy for example the premise of lets talk about the D line if they had hardly any injuries or what if that guy emerges or this guy.  What if Perine explodes, etc.  I've seen the movie too often that I don't on reflex trust they will elevate the run stopping unit, running game and special teams.  I am not saying they can't elevate those units but they IMO haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. 

 

A lot of the conversation about the D line and the running game for example -- you can take these posts and compare it to what was said last year and previous years -- and its the same stuff --- and each year there is a new explanation for why even though they didn't do anything dramatic in FA to fix it, just sit back and trust the process. 

 

Having said that, I strongly suspect the FO is at the same point at least judging by their rhetoric where its enough is enough.  Doug more or less made the enough is enough point pretty directly as to running the ball and stopping the run.   So I am chilled, I think its coming.  Will see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.