Art

Members
  • Content Count

    27,079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Art


  1. 22 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

     

    Does no one else in that building appreciate hummers? 

     

    In all seriousness, I'm not at all saying she should be believed without question, but, again, it was an interesting listen. 

     

    She also said "the football people" would've preferred Jones to Haskins if they had the chance. "That's a fact," she added. 

     

    She DID also add, at the end, that despite the friction over the first pick, everyone is generally really happy about the overall draft results. 

     

    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.

     

    42 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

     

    Makes sense. "Redskins FO dysfunction" has become such a tired trope for NFL reporters, they trot it out even when it doesn't make sense. Who could have been so upset for not trading up for Dwayne Haskins with no long-term QB solution in the building?

     

    Your point about the team's fate living and dying by QB play is a good one. We've built our team enough to the point where we should be at least 8-8 this year, though I'm not sure we can go 10-6 with Colt/Case/rookie Dwayne under center. What do you think Gruden needs to accomplish to stick around -- a winning season or a playoff berth?

     

    Frustration with the D-coordinator aside, I like we've had 6 years of stability at HC (and thus Offense) and am optimistic about Haskins' potential with this staff. Would hate to see Jay (who I think is a fine coach, not great but give him the LA Rams roster and I wonder how much praise he'd get thrown on him vs. McVay) get cut just as he finally gets QB talent to work with.

     

    On the plus side, no HC candidate with options would pick a team that has no long-term solution at QB. Redskins now have more than enough pieces to be an attractive coaching destination should we decide to enter that market.

     

    This is a very good post.   And right on all counts :).

    • Like 3

  2. 6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

    I posted this elsewhere too.  Jason Reid, the same dude who couldn't scream loud enough post 2012 that RG3 can't play and the Redskins organization is doomed after every move -- is apparently a Haskins guy.  Wonder if that's a good omen? :ols:

     

     

     

     

    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.  

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  3. 45 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

     

    @Art does this sound like agenda-driven sensationalizing or accurate report of nasty internal dissent?

     

    All I know about Diana is Mrs. McCloughan's tweets, which themselves are of dubious credibility, so hard to contextualize her reporting effectively...

     

    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.  

    • Like 2

  4. Just now, Riggo#44 said:

     

    I believe the last three 1st round QBs with one year of starting experience are Cam Newton, Mark Sanchez, and Mitchell Trubinsky. Only Trubinsky sat, initially, getting his 1st start in Wk 5 of his rookie year.

     

     

     

    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.   

     

     


  5. 9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

     

    If your hypothesis is correct (I'm not sure and don't have time to look), wouldn't that fall into what I've been saying the last few pages?

     

    The QB who sat wasn't the best option for the team, and therefore sat? Best, again, being defined as overall quarterback to include grasp of playbook, personnel, protections, respect of peers, physical tools?

     

    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.

    • Like 3

  6. 23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

    As far as starting/not starting Haskins...

     

    I think everyone is over-complicating this...

     

    If he's ready week one, meaning has a good grasp on the playbook, doesn't trip on himself in the huddle, and has earned enough respect: He starts.

     

    If he doesn't have a good feel for the playbook, needs a few more weeks of learning, etc: He sits.

     

    I don't think either way is bad.

     

    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 :).


  7. 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 :).

    • Like 3

  8. 2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

     

    Cerrato was a buffoon who tried to trade 2 1st round picks for aging Chad Johnson. Those picks turned into Brian Orakpo and Trent Williams. Signed Haynesworth. I mean, the list can go on and on. He was an idiot. Snyder kept him around for 10 years.

     

    I can and will fault Snyder for his hires--because they haven't worked.  Hindsight 20/20, sure. But the common denominator is Snyder.

     

    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? :)

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  9. 1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

    Yeah, that 2007  team with Collins and Campbell really reminded people of Montana. Or how can we forget 35 year old Mark Brunell's incredible 23 TD season of 2004.

     

    Here's the thing, we've made the playoffs 4 times really since he's been owner (1999 doesn't count because the team was already set by the time he bought them). And there's NEVER been any sort of consistency. We make the playoffs once every 3-4 years and are 2-5 in that time frame. 

     

    Let's be clear about this, while it may seem that way, i'm actually NOT blaming Snyder for all this dysfunction, but i am blaming him for the very key times he's interjected and made massive football-related decisions either as a fan (wants to see certain players on his team) or as a businessman (merch sales). The fact is every time he's interjected it's never been a football-related decision in terms of what would be best for the franchise. 

     

    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. 

     

     


  10. 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.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 2

  11. 1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

    It's an easy argument when you can cherry pick what to use to prove your point. If you honestly believe the team doesn't or hasn't had its fair share of "wtf" moments pertaining to questionable decisions then there really doesn't seem to be a point for anyone to argue with you. All i know is throughout Snyder's tenure there have been a plethora of GMs, coaches, upper management types of all kinds and the team hasn't ever shown signs of serious sustained potential for over a year or two. There is really only one common factor and as long as he's there, questionable decision making will continue to be made. 

     

    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.


  12. 5 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

    If you know anything about the Redskins is that doing the right thing and taking our time hasn't really been our gameplan since Snyder took over. I can see arguments both good and bad for why Case will probably be the starter and the same applies to Haskins and Colt. It's not my bet, but if it were I wouldn't be relying on what somebody else thinks will happen. I honestly don't know anymore what the team's intentions are. I don't disagree that Haskins shouldn't start game 1, but to say it won't happen simply because it would make the least amount of sense even AFTER every dysfunctional thing this team has done is ludicrous. 

     

    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 :).

    • Like 2

  13. 1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

     

     

    Yeah, but, there are of couple better QBs in next years draft. Maybe drafting an WR with are first round would have been a better choice, we could have suffered through this year in prime position to pick in the top 2-3 next year....  If we don't make it to the playoffs this year, (i doubt we will) Gruden is likely gone... Allen might be gone..... It makes since to let the next HC/GM pick their QB.... 

     

    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 NFL.com 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.   

    • Like 4

  14. 1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

    This is the type of tone-deaf **** that drives me crazy. Yes, there is more to the article than just the one line--but he's literally the worst owner in the NFL, and one of the worst in all of sports.

     

    I understand people have met him and he wasn't a d-bag at that moment--but this is the arrogance that is just annoying. We are the only team to not win more than 10 games in 26 years--almost 27. How about you do it on the field.

     

     

    Well, it's well understood I believe Snyder is among the best owners in any league because he does what I believe an owner is supposed to do.   Provide whatever his people tell them they need.   There are the nice stories few hear about him about providing the plane for someone to go to a sick relative, or visiting in the hospital, and it is fair to say Snyder is a players owner in that he does do his fair share of jockey sniffing.   As our owner, Snyder's sole responsibility is to do what he's asked to do by the people he's hired to try to win on the field.   In that he's apparently quite good.   I do not blame him that Spurrier failed.   I blame Spurrier.   I don't blame him Gibbs didn't rekindle more magic.   I blame Gibbs.  I don't blame him that Shanny sucked.    I blame Shanny.   I do blame him for Zorn as that was ridiculous, but for the most part, he's hired competent people and let them do their work.   We have mostly been a coach-run organization under his ownership, though that's changed in the Gruden years to be more a personnel driven organization.    If Haskins is a top 5 player, you'll think Snyder walks on water.   If he's not you'll continue to hate him.   I like him either way as I think he does what an owner is supposed to do.   Hire and get out the way other than to provide what they want of him.

    Now, I'm also on the record as saying Snyder is a total prick, so I would say Bruce saying he cares about the fans is just a white lie.   Snyder cares about the fans such that he wants them to like the team he owns, but he's an ass.   He doesn't like us as people.   He's an elitist tool.   It's his biggest personal failing.   But I still think he owns how an owner should.   Hire and provide.

     


  15. @Coach Janky Spanky To be a spin master one must, by definition, spin.   If one never speaks, one can't be a spin master.   Two 7 minute interviews later does not alter that fact, though as I continued in the response, it's possible he becomes an attention whore if we do better and that would be a negative sign.   As for the media wanting to talk to him for a while now, that's not really true.   The national media has had minimal interest.   The local media wants to talk to him, but he hasn't really embraced them, which you can expect, as they've misrepresented so much.    I do agree with you he would have been wise to speak and take credit for the Foster move as it was so good at the time and has worked out as he expected.   That was a mistake for sure.

    • Like 1

  16. The easy answer here is no.   And you're right.   We get out game planned on the regular.    We get out adjusted at halftime as a norm.   We are a "system" team.   I do think Gruden's system is fine and we can win with it if we are healthy-ish.   But there will be games other teams just roll us because they prep a specific thing we don't prep a specific answer to.   Defensively I have great fear.   The defensive personnel we have means we have to be better than Manusky will ultimately coach them to be.   But maybe there's enough ability to accidentally make Top 10 in spite of coaching.   I just suspect if we're like 18 or 19 overall on defense that will be like No. 1 or No. 2 for a real coach :).   I have no faith in Manusky at all.   If Rob Ryan can get him to call some aggressive plays we'll at least be exciting and the personnel does lend itself to a number of bear fronts and pressure.

     

    Which of course means we'll play none of that and wonder why it's not working.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  17. 15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

    Are there examples of pocket QBs who turned into franchise guys (Manning, Brady, Wilson, rodgers) whose main knock was they couldn’t handle pressure up the gut? 

     

    The main knock nick against Wilson was that he was short,  and Brady’s knock was that he had a weak arm if I remember correctly... 

     

    A qb who can’t handle center blitzes hurts the run game as defenses load the box to get into the qbs head... if he can’t pass to slow down the run, it’s a little concerning to me.

     

    It's perfectly valid to be concerned Haskins won't become an elite QB in the NFL.   Most QBs don't.   It's far more likely than not Haskins won't be the answer for us, or may slip in and be an ok answer for us (say like Flacco) and we have other pieces that make us good at times or bad at times.   This is a trait that could kill Haskins.   Absolutely.   But until he was on our team we had no one who could become an elite QB.   He COULD, even if that's not as likely as he won't.   Which makes today better than last week.   As some have said, even if he sucks, we don't really get set back any more than Doctson sucking.   Bad first rounders happen.   We lost nothing to take Haskins in our slot and added the slim chance he's a great potential player.   There are signs he won't be that.   And some he will.   I won't be holding my breath for the positive outcome, but I'll hope it works out until it's clear it won't.   Which means at least two years from now before I begin to make an assessment.

    • Like 7

  18. 1 minute ago, dballer said:

    I am not a betting man...

     

    ...but no way Colt is the starter.

    Gruden had at least some influence in bringing Case in. I don't care how well Colt knows the system, he is the third most talented QB on the team. And that's an indictment on Colt not an endorsement of Case. I know Jay loves Colt, but if HE is a betting man, and the wager is his job, I just can not imagine him starting Colt. I think Case will pick up the system just fine. They traded for Alex Smith last year, supposedly without Gruden's input, and he was the starter. I am not going to say that Alex is on the same level of Case, but lets just say I was never a fan of Alex. And i believe Case fits better for Gruden's system than Alex. I think Case is the starter unless Haskins really picks everything up at light speed. Not sure where that will leave Colt.

     

    Also, this is as much me thinking logically as it is me thinking about what I want. Colt McCoy starting the year, in my opinion, means the year is over before it begins and everyone is going to be fired.    

     

     

    Actually, no.   Colt is clearly our third most "talented" QB only when you factor Alex in.   Case was undrafted and not considered a very good NFL prospect and wouldn't easily be said to be more "talented" than Colt from an evaluation process.   Colt was considered a pretty good prospect and was drafted and started probably too early in the NFL.   Colt has plenty of talent.   The comfort with Case is he's been a regular starter more recently and had one really good season as the starter with the Vikings, where Colt hasn't really started since 2014 and while that was with us and he actually played well, that doesn't really help him much.   What does is his complete knowledge of the offense and fact Jay loves his little butt.    I certainly won't be surprised if Case does start given Colt is slow on the leg recovery, but if both are there every day, I just can't see Case winning to open the year.   But I've been wrong before.


  19. 1 minute ago, KDawg said:

     

    Actually, no. I don't believe it to be.

     

    He speaks when the spin is in his favor and doesn't when it's not. 

     

    What his motive is I won't pretend to know. Because, quite frankly, I'm not there daily. But he stays quiet in times where the fanbase needs him to speak and shows his face, like the example above, when things are good. It's a smart play on his part, really.

     

    The two national interviews he's done since the draft likely have more to do with the fact the Redskins have generally been regarded as having the best draft in the NFL this year, which is a first I believe.   As such NFL media want to talk to the team.   I'm perfectly fine with him talking or sending out Doug or Jay too.   I haven't really read much into this other than he was asked to talk as he is the guy who ultimately decides our picks and the leader of the war room and draft day stuff.   I suppose I don't care if he talks or when he does enough to hold it against him he took a couple of post-draft talks.   I'll say if we suddenly start to get real good and he's out there chatty every week it's clearly a sign of happy to chat when good, not when bad syndrome.   I just don't think we're there yet.   He basically doesn't talk.   I suspect that'll be basically who he is until he's not here any longer.

     


  20. 3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

     

    Shouldn't shock you. The guy is a spin master for better or worse.

     

    Except the quote you're responding to resolutely disproves the notion.   In fact Bruce rarely speaks.   Didn't the post have an article where they listed it being like 577 days since he had a presser or something?   In fact he doesn't spin at all.    No one hears him say anything.    The presser he took last was when he promoted Doug and said, "Here's your guy," basically.   Allen is kind of known as being generally unavailable to the media and is one of the least chatty execs in the NFL.   How does that make him a spin master?   I'd argue one of our biggest issues is how little they bother to explain moves.   It's the lack of transparency, not the spin, that has typically bothered fans.   Isn't that right?


  21. 8 minutes ago, TK said:

     

    IF he were smart he’d have learned the first time. :silly:

     

    #backinthetruck

     

    This is a remarkably accurate statement :).

     

    1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

    Anyone who is that confident they know who the week 1 starter is I trust the least. No one knows. No one knows what will happen between now and week 1. This is a dumb argument.

     

    Good.   Then take the bet.   You trust me least.   And you're wrong.   There a LOTS of folks on the team who know precisely what they want to happen and what they expect to happen.   Plans dissolve upon contact with reality obviously, so all things remain possible, but if anyone actually thinks the team is going to put a rookie QB with the major knock as inexperience and pressure handling due to inexperience in for the opener in Philly that person lacks any ability to think.   While true all things are possible, what's the LEAST possible thing there is?   Yeah.   THAT.   Don't trust me.   Trust yourself cause you already know.


  22. 1 minute ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

    I'm not giving TK anything, I don't have 10 grand to wager on colt mccoys future, when i said name the terms and anything i was thinking a case beer. Christ there are some real high rollers on this board, learned my lesson. 10 grand lmao My wife would leave me

     

    I've gotten rid of two wives.   That's largely why I have 10K to piss away.   Are you sure her depature would suck? :)

    • Like 1
    • Haha 4

  23. 9 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

    I don't have 10,000 dollars to wager unfortunately 😟 But i it is interesting your E.S. account is held in higher regards than 10 grand  😂  Wealthy or just really like posting here ? 

     

    I rarely post here any longer and probably won't post again until August after another day or so.

     

    If I perceived you were a regular enough poster of idiocy I'd probably take you up on that piece as you'd be gone then, but I haven't seen you overly ignorant and you don't have the post count to be that irritating, so it's pointless.   Thus the wager has to be something that stings.   I am fortunate to have a lot of money so we can lower it to a pain point you can accept.

     

    Or, you can just take my word on this.   There is almost NO way Haskins starts the season.   It is conceivable if he looks so stupendous in camp and preseason that the swell of FAN pressure, through the media and talk shows, will lead to a quickening of Haskins' ascension.   In that case, where he's just so good, while everyone else is John Beck, it is plausible Gruden would even start him to open the year.   But even then, Gruden won't want his opener in Philly, so he'd pick the Cowboys, at home so he'd actually have a home-field advantage maybe in Week 2.   He'd actually probably sign Josh Johnson and let him get destroyed in Philly if it was starting Haskins there or ANYONE else.

     

    I do think Haskins will see the field this year as I suspect we won't be so good as to keep him off, but likely the Niners game is your natural entry point on the early side and Lions on the late.   Unless we are quite competitive and competent he will probably have to see the field, though I'd rather him NOT to if we are not competitive and competent as that exposes him to unnecessary suck around him.

    I perceive, though don't know, it'll bounce between Colt and Case a bit before Haskins gets a run.   I do know the chances of him starting the season are as close to zero as chances close to zero get.

    You also have to remember, Gruden is going to make sure he looks mostly ****ty in preseason games.   He's going to force him under center constantly and work exclusively on the things his lack of experience dictate need work.   He's not going to put him out there like Osaka.   It's going to be a slog and we're likely to be depressed by how he looks.   Except that has to be done to get him those reps in a safe space when it doesn't matter, than simply putting him in the gun and letting him be comfy in preseason.

    • Haha 1