Snagletooth

I was thinking it would be a move up for QB scenario. So not really a validation of Chase's value. A line with Q. Nelson and Scherff and maybe a Wills/Wirfs and maybe Biadasz too. Very tempting.

Players aren't often involved in draft day trades. But would you give up #2 for: #3 + Hockenson? #6 + Derwin? #13 + Q. Nelson and our 2nd back?

I had all the nervous emotional energy that I would normally have in a nail biter like the the Giants game. Except in reverse.

Its a small sample size. Maybe an illusion. But whomever is responsible for the success, of our rookie quartet, I would like to keep that dynamic in place.

"Redskins getting some push back from potential coaching candidates about structure of the organization." I'm having troubling envisioning this. The Redskins reaching out to potential candidates. I imagine that would be Bruce, with Dan, in an office on conference call with an agent. And the agent says, "My client is not interested in the Redskins job so long as Bruce is in charge?" Then Bruce hangs up and chugs a Coors?

Maybe AB is humbled? He just might prove to be a HOF type vet presence to lead our young WR group much like AP has been with Guice.

Didn't chart this, just the eyeball test, but it looks to me like we are running a lot less zone under Callahan. We were plagued with negative rushing attempts under Gruden and it appears that a philisophical change has given us competent rushing attack. It hasn't translated to points on the scorebaord but seems to be a step in the right direction.

I'm sure Shanahan will give his endorsement.

Turf Camal Toe is no joke.

I'm curious how many coaching vacancies their will actually be for 2020? Could be fewer than normal. Unless there are some one and dones. Maybe Carolina or Atlanta if they don't rebound. Could bode well for us.

Haskins 14 yard scramble is our longest run of the season. We only have 3 runs on the season of 10+ yards.

It wonder if this is a function of the defense, schematically, being asked to essentially stop everything? Instead of attacking a weakness or stopping a best player it is reactive at all levels. Your D line is asked to "Stop the run on the way to the QB." Secondary plays off coverage so they can read the QB, jump routes, get turnovers, and at the same time don't let anyone over the top, and drive on anything underneath. Lb's cover and make plays sideline to sideline. Defense give me the same feel as the offensive running attack in that they play a little bit of everything and do it all poorly. Zone, Man, press, bail, off. About the only thing not mixed in are stunts on the DL and I don't ever recall seeing CB blitz. Not sure what they have to lose by simplifying.

The game plan was to get the ball in McLaurin's hands via swinging gate. Then McLaurin tweeked the hamstring and Roullier's knee tightend up. The game plan had to be scrapped midweek!

I would be pretty happy with Matt Eberflus or Kris Richard especially if we kept OCKOC.

Running backs carried the ball 19 times with zero negative rushing plays. I will take that as a positive. Maybe the game plan called for the more simplified approach many of us have been calling for? To my eyes there was less zone, we got down hill more. 67 yards rushing against a strong Bear defense despite getting way down on the scoreboard. Case had a terrible game with the turnovers obviously. Made some bad decisions too and held the ball too long but I'm looking at Gruden for putting Case in difficult situations. Should have featured the quick game more extensively and you can't allow Mack to win the game all by himself. Defensively It looked to me that we played a lot more man and bump and run. Overall a lot less passive defensively. I'm not sure if that is a function of desperation, save our jobs, or just disrespect for Trubisky? I expect we will go back to default Gruden defense next week.