• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Art

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame
  • Birthday 03/06/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    Wilbur Marshall
  • Location
    Frozen Tundra

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, I can say if we are counting on Haskins to box, we're toast. Thankfully we're not :).
  2. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Of course she did. It's total fiction. Total and complete. Before the draft it was mysteriously released the Redskins may move up, but not for Haskins, but for Jones. This was a ploy for the Giants to maximize us NOT having to move up for Haskins by goading the Giants into using their pick to better assure a fall. There was ZERO organization disagreement that Haskins was better than Jones. We clearly DID know their preference though. The Giants have a more leaky ship than we do. And that's why we did what we did. We wanted them to believe it was No. 6 for Jones or bust. And they did. Russini merely reveals the complete lack of sourcing she has left. There WAS some disagreement as to Rosen and Haskins though. They had almost precisely the same draft grade and for the cost of less than a first Rosen was both more NFL ready entering the NFL and had a year in. Ultimately Haskins has and had significantly more upside and the team went with him because if given another year in college he's a Pro Bowl rated prospect easily and Rosen simply wasn't and wouldn't have been. Think Darnold last year how he kind of went from a 6 to a 7 ranking by staying at USC. Very similar. There was also personnel disagreement about going Haskins over someone else on their board, but, well, Bruce immediately started working the phones calling everyone 16 and back to move up and got the guy the people wanted anyway. So, that WAS the "salve" for the personnel side who were largely split as to whether Sweat or Haskins at No. 15 was right. And, yeah, everyone is happy because both sides got exactly what they wanted at the cost of next year's No. 2. All good. This is a very good post. And right on all counts :).
  3. Reid is a chocolate chip cookie guy too, but that doesn't make them better than Oreos. They are, of course. I hope Reid's right about Haskins being the guy to bring in a new day for us at that position. I'm certainly not going to say he's wrong.
  4. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Well, given she was giving Scot hummers for insider info when Scot was here, what are the chances she's maintained inside sources with him gone? She has none. She's trying to buff her false story heading into the draft by lending itself credence. That's ALL she's doing. That's all she'll do until someone else agrees to get a hummer I suppose. I'm going to tell you right now, Gruden, who is the coach of the offense, was not upset the Redskins didn't take another defensive player at No. 15. That's one you can take to the bank. I am willing to say this as well. While Haskins was Gruden's favorite QB in this draft, Gruden didn't want him, though not in a negative way. Why? Because he feels he can win with Colt. If that sounds familiar, that may sound like Spurrier and Wuerffel, or Shanny and John Beck. Coaches love players. Sometimes more than anyone else can believe. And that's why personnel departments exist. Gruden knows he's likely done if we suck this year. He feels vets give him a better chance to win at QB than a rookie does. He's probably right about that.
  5. So, Trubinsky didn't start Week 1. As Haskins shouldn't and Week 5 would be fine presumably. Cam does fit that, though is a distinctly different player than Haskins in that he can move. And the Panthers were 2-14 with no one at all proven to be able to play starting QB in the NFL on the roster (Clausen and Moore). Sanchez is the very interesting one. Much more like our situation in which we are a reasonably competitive team, not a train wreck like the Panthers. They were 9-7 before adding Sanchez led by Favre. But, unlike us, they had no one on their roster who actually could play QB once Favre left. But, I'll agree this is very much like our situation, save we didn't change coaches and the Jets did, so everyone on the Jets was learning new, so everyone started at the same level. Here, Haskins is 5 years behind one guy we have and we have another guy who led his team to the NFC Championship two years ago.
  6. No. And, sure, yes, based on the criteria you set. What you've been saying the last few pages is if he's the best player he should start. And you have given yourself a perfect out by saying if his inexperience means he's not the best player he shouldn't start. The fact is, he IS our best player, AND he shouldn't start. The fact he needs time to learn his drops and timing and offense and gain more practice time and adjustment time doesn't negate from the fact he's our best player. He needs to develop, so he probably does need field time at some point, but the generalized lack of knowledge is what generally makes all rookies kind of struggle. It would be impossible for Haskins or Keenum to be our "best" player at QB assuming a healthy Colt by the criteria you listed of, "Best, again, being defined as overall quarterback to include grasp of playbook, personnel, protections, respect of peers, physical tools?" Keenum, having learned offenses and been in the league, could quickly take that from Colt. But, hell, based on your criteria, Colt should have started for us last year while Alex was growing into the offense. Haskins will be pretty far ahead on most physical tools, though not his legs, but so dramatically behind on knowledge of the system he'll never get caught up enough there to be anywhere near our best option the bulk of the season, if at all, given he also has to learn how to drop back and learn the vision required of that sort of play. Haskins is our most skillful QB overall right now, at least with Smith out. He's played, basically, one year of high level college football. Almost all of his real negatives aren't related to his physical ability, but his experience. My fear is he'll look so good in preseason we'll all want him in. But, I've said I believe he'll look kind of crappy in the preseason kind of on purpose. Jay can't give him comfortable stuff in game reps in the preseason. He can't give him the stuff he already knows. He has to give him the stuff he doesn't. And if he does that, as I suspect, you're going to see a pretty sucky player as he won't be playing at all, but thinking each play he plays. And that's all ok. So long as they drill into him the things he doesn't yet feel comfortable with so when he gets on the field when it matters it will suck just a hair less. So, sure, you're right, using your criteria, which means Haskins can't possibly start Day 1. I just don't think you realize it that way :). There's also a difference with us and almost each name above. We're not, not truly, rebuilding. We were 7-9 due largely to vast injuries. We ARE a competitive, average team. We aren't, or shouldn't, be expected to be 4-12, where you throw a rookie out there and hope he develops quickly. We are a team that has some ability to compete and maybe even surprise. On such a team you don't throw a guy to the wolves, even if he had multiple years starting in college. Because you don't have to.
  7. How many guys with one year starting experience in college have opened their NFL rookie year on the field as the starter? I really don't know. I suspect though that's a difference between Haskins and, well, each name I've seen mentioned as having started Game 1.
  8. I don't think it's quite that simple though. Haskins is a prospect with known negatives MOSTLY around his inexperience and around his inexperience picking up pressures and the like. I've said even if he seems to walk on water in the preseason and appears to be the best player we've ever seen at the position while Keenum and Colt look like John Beck, you still won't start Haskins Week 1. The primary reason for that is we're in Philly. You don't throw a player with primary negatives being inexperience and pressure into a road game against a division opponent in their stadium and expect it not to be brutal. You cater a young player's entry in a way that most lends itself to his success. I COULD see him as early as the home opener against Dallas, if he's our best player in the preseason by far. I can see no scenario barring Colt and Keenum both breaking legs in the final preseason game, where you throw him in against Philly at Philly. And even then I suspect we'd bring Josh Johnson back and let him get eaten there. I do think he'll get in during the year depending on general health of the offensive line. I'm thinking more the Lions later in the year or perhaps as early as the Niners. I do tend to agree he will get benefit playing some this year unless playing him is likely to set him back because the players around him can't keep him safe :).
  9. My answer here is not exactly linear. For the upcoming year, I'm still reasonably pessimistic. I believe our situation at the end of last year necessitated sweeping changes, but the fact no one knew what Alex would do, in terms of retiring or not or whether we'd cut him and eat the cap hit, combined with having no real future at the most important position on the roster led our team to being one few, if any, would seriously want to stake a career on. In a way, given the Smith situation, we are quite lucky to have retained a coaching staff, flawed as it is, with NFL experience who can coach an NFL team. Still, unless and until I see Manusky REALLY adapt his scheme to the players -- this means some bear fronts and forcing the opposition into hots and doing stuff off time -- and until I see Gruden actually lead an offense above the core personnel pieces, I think we'll generally be pretty rough. And as I doubt either guy can do that, barring exceptional good health and some surprising performances, we're a fairly average team at best with the capacity for much worse. However, the mere fact we have Haskins gives us a player who COULD be a future building block, I am much more optimistic for the future, beyond next year. We won't know much for at least a year and probably two as to whether he will be, and I fully expect some REALLY ugly moments as he learns standard NFL drops and the like, but that, alone, having someone who COULD possibly be the answer for 10 years is exciting for a fan and is exciting for me. And our situation now puts us in a much better situation should we need to make a coaching change after this year as we possibly have someone there to build around and the Smith cap issue is mitigated by eating a year of his contract this year. It is not improbable to me the Redskins could be quite good this year as there is talent, especially defensively, to be an interesting team. The offense lacks proven, productive weapons on the outside to be considered very good, but on the off chance a couple guys become legit 60-or-so catch receivers, we could even be interesting on offense, if healthy. Keenum is not good, but he did have a really good 2017 and a 2018 that was at least as good as we were going to have out of Smith. And ultimately I think he'll have the starting job after a couple weeks of Colt for the bulk of a season in which we're competitive. I just suspect we'll be 5-11 or 6-10 this year as we will have injuries, though hopefully less than last year, and Manusky won't actually lead a defense which HAS to lead the team. He'll continue to run a defense that compliments an offense, cause that's what he is and what Gruden wants. I will continue to hope for better, but expect it not :).
  10. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    So, Cerrato is terrible because he tried to (but didn't) trade two firsts for Chad Johnson, but NOT GOOD for making those picks Orakpo and Williams? Neat little universe you got there. Haynesworth is a bit of a special case certainly. That actually was mostly Snyder and remains Snyder's worst actual move because he misjudged both Haynesworth's character, and Greg Blache's adaptability. The point remains, if Haskins is the answer, suddenly taking us to great heights, will Gruden become a better hire than Gibbs? Nope. He'll just be here when the lotto ticket was bought is all. And that's not on Snyder unless you WANT Snyder to make that pick for us. And I suspect you don't. Of course, some think he just made this one, which is false, but if it were true, and it works, would you even say thanks?
  11. Art

    Starting QB 2019???

    You must not remember the 2007 team well then. They were a pretty tough defensive team with a bad offense. They made the playoffs after falling to 5-7 because Todd Collins came in and played GREAT. The whole Saunders offense worked with Collins completing 64 percent of his passes for around 900 yards with 5 TDs, 0 INTs and a 106 rating, opening up everything and making us a complete team. Neither Cousins nor Griffin played great all of their playoff runs either. They did get hot for the stretches that mattered and the team became more. We're the classic definition of a team that's largely average or a bit below that sometimes has everything come together with great QB play over a late stretch to get into the playoffs. In Cousins year there were 7 games he didn't throw a pass I couldn't throw. Then he caught fire. In any case, the point remains. QB is where we have lacked for 20 years, except with an occasional good stretch. Until that's fixed it won't matter much else that happens. We'd have made the playoffs last year with Smith all year because THAT is what he does. And that would have been the first time with pretty ****ty QB play we'd have made that happen. Importantly though, Snyder has only been involved in a couple of decisions here. One was with Spurrier essentially giving up on Wuerffel and Ceretto and Snyder basically having to pick the players for him. And the other was Haynesworth if that can be believed. Otherwise he's never intervened. I'm not counting Norv. There was stuff there :). The fact remains, if Haskins suddenly leads us to 10 straight playoffs, three Super Bowls and glory, Snyder won't be better or worse. He'll just be here. And deserves NONE of the credit. As he deserves none of the blame. UNLESS you WANT him making the choices you seem to think he's made that he hasn't. Then you can blame him. But you really don't want that. He is impetuous.
  12. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    The Zorn hire was his most ludicrous hire by far. I can't argue there. Cerrato, for your dislike, was ideal for Gibbs as he worked how Gibbs wanted and Gibbs talked highly of him. Snyder has hired Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs and Shanny as pretty top level hires at the time made. None worked out largely because none found a QB -- and well, because Marty was a lunatic. Gruden was a "normal" NFL hire who has been given more patience than most would think acceptable. Really, only Zorn was a completely off the wall hiring and I know the team felt Gibbs kind of hung them out on that with the timing of his departure and not having provided them advance time to start the process earlier. But that wasn't because Gibbs was upset with anyone, it was because he knew he couldn't do that job anymore. Generally though you can't fault Snyder's hires. I know exactly what happened with the RGIII thing because Shanny's contract was lord of all things. That's not a guess. The league knows this as well, which is why Shanny was never given another sniff. He can't go out and say, "Gosh and golly, this guy made me...." when the NFL office has his contract on file expressly saying HE had the only say in the organization. He tried to salvage his poor handling and thankfully it didn't work. He's the classic definition of a worm. Marty, for his flaws, was more Robert Baretheon. Shanny was Littlefinger. Gibbs, part 2, was Tommen I think :). Maybe that's Gruden :). If Haskins works out I'll join you in not crediting Snyder, but will credit Allen and the personnel side who set the board and made the pick. Gruden is super fine with Haskins, but does not really control that element of the organization so would not get a ton of credit for it.
  13. Art

    Starting QB 2019???

    There's another common factor. QB. We've made the playoffs when we've had good QB play. Have not when we have not. Snyder owns the team. We've had a number of people try to find this spot. None have. Unless you're asking Snyder to be Jerry Jones and officially be our GM, you're not really blaming him. I know you want to. But the blame is on the people who actually made the choices and coached the teams that didn't work, not on the owner who let them do what they felt was right. We've been wrong a while. Maybe Haskins is the one we get right. And, just so you know, that won't be Snyder either. The owner provides. If he does less or much more he's screwing up. I don't want Snyder picking players. I do hope he allowed a football organization to be put together that gets Haskins right. While it'll make many think he did good, it won't change what he's done. It'll just mean we got one right finally.
  14. Art

    Starting QB 2019???

    We likely differ on the dysfunctional things the team has reportedly done. Likely they aren't at all dysfunctional, in spite of reports desperate to convince some they were, and it worked on you. It wasn't dysfunctional to fire a drunk who stopped answering calls from other teams leading into the draft...and winning the grievance...though we were told it was. It wasn't dysfunctional to take a no-risk flyer on a first-round talent like Foster who didn't do anything wrong...which proved to be exactly right...though we were told it was. It wasn't even dysfunctional to fire the business team who tried to strong arm the football side over which side wags the dog, wanting all decisions run through them before any football decision is made, though we were told it was. It wasn't dysfunctional (though it was probably stupid) to cut D.J. because he wouldn't stop being a mouthy ****, and may actually be the sole act that gets the team to stop thinking Gruden is Mr. Buddy finally, but we were sure told it was. The most dysfunction we've had with him as an owner was when he gave TOTAL control to lordling coaches like Marty and Shanny. Gibbs was given full power, but he worked differently. It was dysfunctional when Marty tried to teach Darrell Green how to field a punt, and cut Centers for wearing a baseball cap. It was dysfunctional for Shanny to move up for Griffin, take all the credit, then say, "Hey, wasn't me," when it went south, BECAUSE OF HIM, even though we saw him on the bathroom counter. It wasn't dysfunction that led the Redskins to trade up for Haskins in this year's draft. We were told they were going to. I'd just believe less about the spin you are told and actually judge the actual thing. I'll be the first here screaming if they throw him to the wolves in Philly, though. Fortunately, that won't happen barring everyone getting hurt the final week of the preseason :).
  15. Who? Tua, yes. Tua will have the experience, athleticism, accuracy, production and all that and he'll certainly be THE MAN. Who else? Haskins was graded by as a 6.2 with the bulk of his flaws related to inexperience. If he has a year very similar to what he had this year in college again, he's over 7.0 and if he bumps his 40 time to 4.8, he's 7.5. There isn't another college QB not named Tua who is ahead of him NEXT year IF he stays in college another year and does anything similar to this year. As it was he already had a higher draft grade than Rosen or Allen last year and would easily have topped Darnold without the inexperience demerits. Justin Herbert is generally considered the No. 2 QB for next year's draft right now and he's not even close to what Haskins was rated this year despite playing time. He's a big boy though. Fromm's the only other and, again, in spite of already being a two-year starter didn't project as well as Haskins this year and would not have surpassed him if the two played similarly for another year. In fact if Murray and Haskins both came back next year's class would likely be Tua, Haskins as Haskins negative marks are mostly related to inexperience, which improve with experience, where Murray's relatively low prospect grade is hurt by being small, which doesn't change. Next year Haskins is the No. 2 pick in the draft. If he stayed and did anything like he did this year. Your point about Gruden being gone is right. And, yeah, that does create an issue in that we're not going to hire, say, Lincoln Riley from OU as our coach with Haskins as his QB. Like how Arizona didn't sit with Rosen, who, like Haskins, had almost the same draft grade as Murray. That's a real thing to watch for. But we are much more attractive as an organization having Haskins here for most systems and coaches if Gruden is gone, so that likely is a selling point, more than a detriment.