Art

Members
  • Content Count

    27,079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Art

  1. Art

    Starting QB 2019???

    The front office has no say. ZERO say. Playing time is contractually run by Gruden. And he'll start the guy who he thinks most likely helps him KEEP coaching. This isn't to say he can't be made to feel pressure, but he ultimately has full control of playing time so long as he's coach. Unless you perceive Snyder/Allen would fire him to put Haskins on the field and promote someone else on the staff to head coach, or they'd guarantee him two more contractual seasons to start Haskins, we're set. I guarantee you Haskins isn't starting week 1 unless Keenum and Colt AND Smith are all out with injury. That's not even a guess really. I will not bet you the loss of ES account because you simply don't matter enough to warrant the loss of me and my greatness. I will bet you $10,000 that Haskins doesn't open the season as starter. We'll give @TK the money and he can pay it out. Game?
  2. Art

    Starting QB 2019???

    There's zero chance Colt is cut if he can walk and play. ZERO. He's the only QB on the roster who knows the system. Much more likely Keenum is cut than Colt. If Colt can't get on the field in training camp or the preseason, sure, he's likely gone, but he is the odds-on favorite to actually open the season as our starter IF healthy.
  3. One thing to consider here is the 2012 draft in which Luck was clearly the top prospect with RGIII right behind him. The league has changed a bit from that point in that if both came out, EXACTLY as they were then this year, RGIII would have been ahead of Luck. Why? Because every team wants the miracle feet. It should be understood Murray is no where close to the prospect in draft grade this year that RGIII was the year he came out. Haskins is OBVIOUSLY no where near the draft prospect that Luck was. But, if BOTH players stayed in school another year and got the benefit of more experience to augment their grade, two things would have happened. First, NEITHER would be as highly graded as either Luck or Griffin STILL, but the gap would have closed a bit. And, importantly, Haskins would have surpassed Murray as a prospect in overall grade. This all assumes both played great again with no major injury or slip. This can be said because none of Murray's major negatives would be solved with more time playing. If you read over his negatives list, the big ones aren't really as tied to his game experience as they are with Haskins. They are tied to his size and play style and mechanics. Haskins' major negatives are his inexperience with a sprinkle of being slow. He's slow. It's the total lack of athleticism with Haskins that would keep him from ever being a prospect like Luck, who was a good athlete too, regardless of game experience. And it's the simple size problem that would keep Murray from RGIII heights, even as the NFL adjusts to players smaller at that position who are athletes. It is almost a do-over from the 2012 draft though in which we weren't given the choice between the best two QBs in the draft, and in 2012 picked Griffin where we probably would have picked Luck. Here we picked Haskins and I do not perceive we would have picked Murray if we could have taken either given their draft grades were so close and Haskins has more upside with seasoning his game than Murray to the point Haskins would have remained the No. 2 QB in next year's draft, behind Tua, with Murray slipping. This time we got "Luck" which is to say the more traditional pocket passer. Which I remain fine with even as the league is undergoing a change here. Until those mobile QBs start winning Super Bowls, the big pocket passer remains king.
  4. Who was Carson Wentz behind for two years? The immortal Brock Jensen. Now, it's fair to say Haskins draft grade would have been significantly higher than Wentz had he played another year to shed the inexperience negatives, but Wentz was ok, right? Well, I mean, he played at NDSU so maybe not, but he BECAME ok, right? Eli Manning played behind Romaro Miller for a year, right? Who's that? The guy who started over Eli. Josh Allen sat behind Cameron Coffman. Hell, did Peyton even start RIGHT away. I seem to recall Todd Helton or someone there delaying his kingdom? Barrett was a four year starter and leader on a very good team. There's no shame sitting behind him and then getting a chance and being better than anyone, in college, in that conference, EVER.
  5. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    In the interest of space I'll just generally reply to the points that appear to be questions I can reply to @Skinsinparadise. Yes, I've said then, before ES even existed, since, now, and probably into the future if Haskins isn't the answer, the Redskins needed to nail the QB position at which point everyone in the organization becomes an unmistakable genius we adore and build statues to. Look at Belichick. This is an abject failure as a coach. Four seasons losing double digit games as a head coach. Owner in New England not thrilled with the team's direction when magic happens. Suddenly they are the best. Give the Redskins, or any team, anything like Brady and, bam, they are the model organization in sports. The NFL, for consistent winning and competition, requires a top level QB. I've repeatedly said you can win without a top level QB if you have something else great, but you can't win consistently. You can win without a top level QB who just happens to be playing at a top level for a stretch. But to be a solid, stable organization over a long period you need a QB you can win behind and with. As for Bruce, I'm just stating the man seems genuinely nice and deferential. He's not Marty forcing everyone on the roster to eat the ice cream he likes or cutting Centers because he wore a baseball cap. He's not a lordling as many are. He's clearly not done a good enough job for us since he took over full control in 2014 and has said as much. I fully supported moving on from Allen and the entire coaching staff at the end of this season. I agree with you time is running out for any possible benefit of the doubt to occur. I just know if Haskins is a Top 10 QB we'll be pretty happy with this team. If he's a Top 5 we'll think Bruce is the best Allen in organization history. It won't even be that difficult. But the franchise does need more than hope to get through the next few years with how the fans feel. And that only comes by winning. Which we've not done nearly enough of.
  6. I'm not sure what that means. I suspect we'd have taken Luck over RGIII if given either as an option but only RGIII was an option in 2012 and was the obvious selection as led by Shanny, who believed he could win with RGII, and, frankly DID. There were stretches where the league was unsure how it would ever stop THAT offense. The reality was injury would and when Shanny ran RGIII into the ground, he didn't fully believe RGIII was a different kind of QB. Our coaches don't have any doubt that Haskins can play in a passing system. None at all. There were BASIC concerns RGIII couldn't. Unlike Haskins RGIII not only played only shotgun, but also was a single read offensive system. Haskins actually had to read the field and progress. No one would here is worried he can't do that. He's a pure pocket passer, as is Jones, with the difference being one guy played well and one guy didn't.
  7. I'm not sure it's a huge surprise though. Jones was coached in a purely pro-style offense by a pro-style coach who had generated pro QBs. The Ohio State offense was uniquely different this year to past years with Day and the mesh and a more sideline-to-sideline attack with a lot of pro-style passing complexity, reads and protections, but when you live in shotgun you have to learn drops and Jay had direct experience with RGIII and the difficulty of that with such a QB. Haskins won't have problems with progressions and protections and the passing tree so much as he will the timing of when his back foot hits at which step and the like, at least very early on. It would not be surprising of coaches would prefer a guy they'd have to coach less on the very basics. That said, I would not anticipate MANY feeling that way given the vast differential in all other apparent aspects of the game Jones was not as good at as Haskins. But, hell, you saw an entire organization prefer Jones to Haskins and how scared the Giants fans actually get to be by that reality. I wouldn't spend time worried about the possibility someone in our organization liked Jones more than Haskins as we don't have to deal with it because we have Haskins.
  8. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Local reporters ask for Bruce all the time, yeah. There was no Reuben Foster incident I'm aware of. There was an organization taking a no-risk shot at a talented player with potential baggage. Doug's job is to speak to the local media on moves of that sort as the player personnel leader. What Doug said at the time kind of made it worse as while he was right that what Foster was accused of was small potatoes in the world of issues, saying that led to scrutiny unnecessary for such a smart football move at the time that has panned out in our favor especially well. Bruce has spoken to the media on the Foster situation. As an example, at the Senior Bowl. https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/bruce-allen-does-not-know-why-redskins-would-expect-suspension-reuben-foster He spoke before then as well as reported by Lisa Salters as summarized by JP Finaly. https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/bruce-allen-discusses-decision-sign-reuben-foster-espns-lisa-salters Bruce does not make himself out as the face of the organization so he doesn't give a lot of media availability. That's by design you can be sure. He was very uncomfortable having to face the organization when the Scot McClouhan situation was happening as it was an uncomfortable time all around and he prefers people in those roles to handle those roles. Bruce doesn't speak after games either as that's Jay's job. He wasn't up with the top picks on the memorial steps either as that's Tony's job. He'll be there for signings and stuff as he's the Pres. But I wouldn't read especially much into it. Doug gets paid to talk to the media about personnel choices within the personnel department. It's ok if he does it.
  9. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    First take asked for Bruce. Tony Wylie had to give them some basic ground rules, which you saw Smith allude to. Those rules were, "You can talk about the draft and draft picks and anything surrounding the draft, but control your other ****." And Smith followed it. Which is kind of a miracle.
  10. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    @Skinsinparadise I've met Bruce behind the curtain. When he didn't have to be political or savvy or concerned with public appearances. i've met a lot of the Redskins people past and present in that way and I can tell you Bruce is somewhat unique in NOT being a raging dick. Hell, I still recall from when we were negotiating with the team to take over ES the VPs in that room said, "We're a billion dollar organization and you are four guys in the back of a truck." And we giggled, responding, "Who have somehow surpassed anything you would or could do in this venue, right?" We really should have sold T-Shirts with that slogan :). One problem the Redskins have had -- and I can't speak if this is uniform or not -- is the general dickishness of the people at high levels when they can reveal who they really are. The team really hasn't taken quality of character as seriously in business folks as they have with their draft picks this year :). At least in the past. I'm further and further from any connection so all that could be different. I can say Bruce is one of the genuinely nice people, when he didn't have to be, I've encountered with the group. Snyder is the biggest prick on planet, though. Can't argue there. The point remains how you conduct yourself personally in your public persona also matters. And Bruce is actually quite deferential there. If anyone cares to look. And that matters.
  11. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    How many people here have actually met Bruce Allen in a non-public environment, shook his hand, chatted with him? I have. He's not smug. He's jovial and engaging and interesting and funny as hell. I can say only people who have never met him would consider him smug. So it would make sense the media says that as they have never talked to him :). And listen to his answer in the clip above. About how OTHER PEOPLE, not him, are around to help Haskins be all he can. Smug guys don't do that. They say, "I've created an environment," not "We have an environment." The "we" versus "I" usage tells you almost everything about a person. It's all you really need to know honestly about who that person is. Here's the whole of it:
  12. @The Consigliere brother, Diggs isn't even the most productive, go-to receiver on his own team. He's surpassed 1000 yards once, last year, JUST BARELY, on 102 catches. He's never had more than 9 TDs. He's a good player, but he's Pierre Garcon good, not No. 1 receiver good. At least not to this point in his career. He'd be our best receiver by far though :).
  13. @The ConsigliereI am grateful for the list and it's a good one. I'm not entirely sure the bulk of that list qualify as legit No. 1s, which was the comment I kind of thought might be a bit hopeful (like Diggs is no where close to a No. 1). What I'm struck by is the bulk of that list who have had success is success predicated more on quickness than size generally. We'd be happy if he had as good a career as most of those guys I'm sure. The Thielen one is interesting in that he's certainly emerged and has the size to be a big receiver who kind of fits the mold of legit top target. I'm hopeful that'll be Harmon in a few years.
  14. I think Michael Thomas is right on the cusp of it and may already be there but, again, the Saints are so good on offense and he's still pretty young. I probably judge the Saints receivers with a curve that is not fair to them in that he should be at 110 catches, 1400 yards and 10 TDs every year given that offensive production and QB to be a legit No. 1. Hell, Hopkins puts up better numbers and he's it over there in Houston on a ****ty offense by comparison. But, yeah, Thomas is probably in there already. I totally agree with the rest of your post as well. It would be tremendous to see him as a solid 60-catch guy. Really awesome if that's his top end we got very lucky.
  15. Almost perfectly stated. There are some guys who have more ins than others. Right now Finlay is ahead on points. Keim is a wonderful and respectful guy, and, frankly covers the team almost like an old timer sports journo in that he's writing, not trying to tell you how stupid everyone is but him. The Sheehan who does that podcast has "some" insight in that he's Cooley's old partner and they are friends and Cooley is an insider who may be known to hint at stuff to friends. Cooley doesn't like Haskins. So, don't be surprised if Sheehan is getting some "insider" stuff from Cooley. I like Paulson, but, golly, he got played or outright fabricated his nonsense last week. My guess is fabricated as no one currently in the organization would tell him that as it's pretty far from the known and shared reality. On the national side, there are no "Redskins insiders". Russini literally made stuff up. As for the Shefter thing on Guice, what happened there was simple. We got Love. Shefter doesn't follow college football or scout it. He's not Kiper. He saw we got Love so he essentially speculated Guice was slow to recover. He didn't realize Love is unlikely to even be on the roster this year. And Twitter doesn't allow him to write the extra characters of "speculation" in his tweets apparently so people forget ALL OF THEM ARE. Randy. That happened in August. It took local media until December to even report on it. Guice is not delayed on his recovery for playing in 2019. No one has said he was. Even that Post article. Shefter simply didn't realize Love wasn't likely to play this year -- though Love says otherwise -- and figured we drafted him because Guice must be slow. So he wrote a short Tweet that people took as NEW reporting. When it was just a guy who doesn't follow college football speculating.
  16. Most reporting is fiction, yes, and as sports reporters have decided to report sports like news, they also generate more fiction. Traditional sports writing remains pretty straightforward and hard to get wrong though. I'm not sure how to answer the question about why I was watching the NFL draft during the NFL draft other than to say I watched the NFL draft cause I enjoy it. It doesn't mean I sit there presuming every word they come up with is factual. Or that I agree they need a 10 minute segment on a draft pick who hit a girl in high school and why that's ok/not ok. But the draft is fun to watch. So are sports. I'm just blessed not to think each utterance is true as I appreciate people who are never in D.C. don't actually have a ton of contacts in D.C. Exchange city as you wish.
  17. So it would be great if Harmon had the career of either guy. But I don't consider either guy a legit No. 1. Garcon only had one year that could be considered No. 1 material in his career. Colston is a bit harder to discuss because he was so consistently productive, but I'd still say he only had one year, his second, in which his numbers fully qualified as true No. 1 material. But the Saints had so many weapons and spread the ball he actually might qualify and he's a lot like this pick for sure. Again, if Harmon has any sort of career like those two he'll probably be the best pick of this draft for us, so I hope that happens. I just see No. 1 receivers a bit differently, especially in the pass happy league we're in. They are around 100 catches. Over 1250 yards. Routinely. Antonio Brown, Deandre Hopkins, Julio Jones. Maybe Mike Evans sneaks in there based on body of work. Michael Thomas may be entering that. In any case, I'd love to see Harmon be one of those guys too :).
  18. Did you really wonder out loud why a pundit would say something untrue? Uh, almost everything they say is untrue. Shefter lost his Redskins contacts when Shanny left. You think anyone on the team is calling him telling him anything about anyone on the team, much less Guice? Lawd. People really need to understand just become someone writes a thing doesn't make it so. Presume what you're seeing is false. Until it's clear it is not. And you'll be better for it.
  19. I saw this yesterday and can say if Haskins doesn't throw deep, if he just throws deep as often as that video, we'll be awesome.
  20. Art

    Starting QB 2019???

    This is a more thoughtful and reasonable statement than the one I replied to and I have no serious issues with it though I'll say it's unlikely Haskins moves in regardless of whether we're an ok offense or ****ty one. The only way I see Haskins in is if he's OVERWHELMINGLY our best player in the preseason and we really can't hold him back ONCE things start to decline in any way. More likely I presume he'll actually look pretty iffy in the preseason as we will be working a ton on his footwork, drops and mechanics instead of encouraging him to just play and he's not an athlete who's going to make plays regardless. And it will be pretty clear he needs a little seasoning and we won't risk him if the team starts to get hurt again and drops out of any contention. I do hold out hope we see him and just know he's our best and that will help it be easier for me to see him start playing at some point in the season.
  21. RGIII's tweet on Haskins was not one bit cryptic. He's saying, "You draft a guy, believe in him and give him time to develop for you." He felt, because he's on the record saying so, that he didn't have that here and he clearly didn't. The botching was that Shanahan, realizing he'd broken his best player, then decides to save his reputation from leading a team to horrendous results by leaking that a player demanded he stop making him run when he had torn ****ing ligaments and he used language the owner would use and people think that's weird. RGIII was trying to save his career. Shanahan was trying to save his next job. It didn't really work for either, but there's a reason Shanny isn't in the league and RGIII still is. I will ever find it amusing in spite of reams of quotes from Shanahan taking credit for the move for RGIII that when Jason Reid gets him to say something else we all forget what Shanahan said, time, time, time and time again before, when it was going well. Shanny is a guy looking to save face and it didn't work for a very simple reason. The league knew HE had full control of the team when here and that Snyder didn't get in his way. Else he'd be coaching. Cause he wants to, or did want to. Some of you just need a Snyder is a meanie bed time story to sleep at night and never realize you're getting played. Anything Shanahan says is generally untrue. And anything Reid writes is from a lens of being pwned by Snyder. Take with a grain of salt. Hell, even Reid's old buddy at the Post shredded his article. But we don't even seem to remember that happened.
  22. What fiasco from 2012? When Shanahan started a rookie QB and ran him to his demise forcing the QB to challenge the coach on his playcalling after shredding his knee? How is that Snyder exactly? Haskins won't start for us Week 1 even if he is leaps and bounds ahead of all competition. You've no fear. Snyder doesn't pick the lineup. Actually never has. So all good.
  23. So your suggestion is in other years we could have lost those games but not last year, thus your opinion is last year, when what you said not only didn't happen, but we won easily in four of six, pretty easily in one and more than the score in the last, that there's some influence. Bro, that's not opinion. That's delusion. If you're ok with it, that's cool. But you're only fooling you on that. If it helps, though, we could have lost all those games, or won them all if those games were nothing like they actually were. In fiction we could have been 16-0 or 0-16. True. In reality we were as solid a 6-3 as one gets. We weren't going to win the three we lost. We weren't going to lose the six we won. But that's only based on the actual games. I can maybe give you the Cowboys as a possible. That still ain't three.
  24. Art

    The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

    Oh, I agree. It's an absolute tragedy that anyone thinks people in a draft room disagreeing over a pick is in any way unique to the Redskins or a sign of any instability. It happens, probably, on EVERY pick in EVERY draft that SOMEONE thinks another guy is better. The draft isn't science. It's subjective. Someone will ALWAYS have a different view. In our draft, for example, Kyle clearly weighed speed and "character/captaincy" a bit higher than maybe some other things. Some other guys may have wanted something else. Size. Whatever. It's NORMAL. It's ALSO normal that someone in charge of the organization breaks the tie in a discussion where, commonly, coaches and scouts disagree. It is OFTEN an uber powerful coach, like Gibbs was here, or Shanahan here, or Belichick now in New England. It is often the personnel side, like in New York, Arizona and most places and Washington now. It is even, sometimes, the owner who breaks a personnel vs coaching staff tie, as it was under Cooke and in some years under Snyder (not Marty, not Gibbs, not Shanahan and, surprisingly, not Gruden), as well as places like Buffalo, Houston, Indy, Atlanta. Disagreement is the absolute norm in every draft room on every team in every season for all time. Only here do fans think it's weird or even news.
  25. It's really not an opinion. Could we have lost the Cowboy game, sure. That's the only one in that batch. You said we could have lost 3. The fact that we were up 13 with like 5 minutes left against the Cowboys negates even the real danger of losing that, but it would have been a FLUKE loss, not one on merit. We were a very stable and solid, if utterly boring and depressing, 6-3. To suggest we were in close games and eeking things out is fiction. It's not opinion. It's a fact we won four games very easily, one game pretty easily and only a fluke made one game close of the six. We weren't at all pretty, mind you, so perhaps you confuse the ugly nature of our offense with competitive games, but that really wasn't the case. And the fact we were stoned three times did take the shine off any good feeling. All that's true. But we weren't a nearly 3-6 team by any stretch, thought, imagination or factual discussion. At all. You can say a lot against where we were at 6-3. You just can't, truthfully, say what you said.