Wyvern

Some of Magic Johnson's interview reinforced my opinion, that Washington is in more of a "rebuild" rather than a "reload.". So as for the more optimistic view that GM Peters hinted at (by not willing to call it a rebuild) earlier this season -- I think fans should be taking that with a grain of salt, as they develop their expectations for the team's results (W/L, playoffs, etc.) in 2024. Its still early, but from what I've seen there's been a well thought out approach to "retooling" the Washington product for the 2024 season, but even so, I'm only hoping for the franchise's 2024 results to be acknowledged as evidence that Washington was "fiercely competitive, and clearly showing great promise ahead of them." Perhaps you think my expectations were too low -- why not expect Washington to go deep into the playoffs? Perhaps it's because I feel Washington has so many unanswered questions going into the 2024 season, and unlike the Texans who made it into the playoffs with a new QB, Washington's situation is different. (Washington's coaching staff was only assembled a 40 days ago, there might be much turnover from Washington's 2023 roster, the team will need to get used to a new roles, and new systems, and frankly, the NFC-East is tougher division than Houston's division was in 2023.) Hey, I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised -- but considering this was a 4-13 team that underwent a huge amount of change -- and that even talented college rookies need time to adjust to the NFL level -- I'm not expecting any "deep into the playoffs" result in 2024. I'll be very happy, to stay the course during the early bumps while Washington starts to gel, and hoping that by the end of the 2024 season, it shows Washington as unified team of fiercely competitive fighters, with its rookies showing great promise, and that Washington fans and all NFL folks (especially the next wave of free agents) understand that the Washington franchise is now, ... for real! What are your expectations of the Washington franchise in 2024?

@SoCalSkins -- Nice list. Just notng that if you added in years 2006 and 2008, you have two more busts ..Jamarcus Russell (1st overall), and Vince Young (3rd overall). Even if you've got great evaluators, the draft results -- even when selecting in the top 5 -- are still a "roll of the dice." (One doesn't always make an easy point like eight or six.) So even if the '20-something' QB prospect Washington selects doesn't work out, I'd still support the new GM who has a proven track record, and will eventually succeed in obtaining a very good to franchise level QB, along with a good supporting cast. How he goes about is okay with me too, but I think until he upgrades the current Washington scouting and talent acquisition staff, he's probably going to avoid trading up and may even trade down in later rounds for more chances to find the hidden talents he's noted for being able to find.

I thought I would pose this question to my fellow ES'ers -- at least to offer up an alternative topic to the raging debate on which QB prospect Washington should draft and/or if they should trade up to #1 to guarantee their first choice. My question: It looks like Washington will be moving to a base 3-4 defense. Currently Washington has15 players on the depth chart listed at the DT's/DE's position and only 6 as LB'ers. It seems to me like Washington's 2023 defense was staffed more for a 4-3 or 5-2 alignment, and may need to retool the personnel to better fit Whitt's goals for the front seven. I know teams no longer stick solely to a 4-3 or 3-4 defense and do use lots of variations such as the 5-2 alignment, etc. However, it seemed to me that some of the '2023 Commanders' squad of starting linebackers weren't that great -- and a definite component of the weakness of Washington's defense last year. But, considering all of Washington's other needs (QB, O-line, TE, and maybe DBs and replacement WRs) how do you think Washington should try to remake their front seven? In addition to already being thin at linebacker, the team traded away their two starting DEs who were often tasked with duties similar to the OLBs in a 3-4. There also seems to be a glut on DTs on the depth chart. And considering the performance of the defense last year -- it might be tempting to make some big changes here. So what do you see as the approach here? == > Can one assume that all that's needed is better coaching for current line-backing crew to be decent, or do you feel some replacements need to be found, or new talent brought in for better depth? ==> Which current personnel of the defensive front four might be capable of supplementing the OLB ranks, or does new talent need to be brought in? ==> If new players are needed, are there some good candidates to acquire by free agency or by trade? Any good targets to acquire via the draft? I just wanted to offer up some topics for discussion related to Washington's defense. It would be great to hear your views and opinions on the matter and any suggestions on who else Washington might need to bring in to help. (Come to think of it, there's also the matter of D-line coaches and Linebacker coaches - who do you think might be retained or who do you think Washington should consider for new coaching talent to bring in?)

I thought Forbes tackling seemed very poor, some complete whiffs and a few soft tackles that his opponent easily broke through. But, Forbes has that 1st round draft-pick's contract, so I suspect he'll be on the roster for a season or two, with Washington coaches trying to develop his skill set as much as possible. But with that scrawny frame, and from what I saw from his Mississippi State games, he's going to have problems with RBs, TEs, and the burlier WRs headed around to his side. I also think he's going to rack up some unnecessary taunting fouls; he came close a few times this season, and when he really didn't have much to taunt about. I did like how Quan played -- seems like he'll turn out okay for Washington.

More of a question for this thread's discussions than a comment on particular candidate for HC A,lot of the top candidates for Washington's next HC seem to be OCs who's offenses have well-designed schemes and putting up points, as well as some DCs whose defenses play with great passion and seem to be able to adjust effectively to the whatever their opponent's offense is trying to do. Also, it seems like the top-tier of candidates can show how they have buy-in from their players on the quality of the tactical leadership of the coordinator, as well as to the value of coordinator's play-schemes. My question is whether an OC or DC's tactical smarts and innovative design ability plus their group's player buy-in of them, is all that's needed for being a great head coach. My sense is it seems like head coaches have a wider range of important responsibilities, with different duties than those covered by an OC or DC. If so, it got me wondering about the following: -> Can an HC be able to dedicate as much time to the granular detailed work involved with the tactical level of running an offense or defense? -> Are there other things an HC has to be good at, such as managing the front office, media relations, etc -- that an OC or DC didn't usually have to deal with? -> If the DC or OC was really hands-on in his approach to working with his particular group, what happens when they as an HC has to rely on an intermediary coach? (It seems like the higher up you go in a business, the more you have to loosen the reins on things you handled personally, and manage others to do it, in your p!ace. And sometimes managing middle- managers is different than managing rank and file.) These are just questions I'm wondering about and whether these kinds of issues might play a role in the criteria used by the front office's committee seeking to bring in an HC. and so, I'm curious on what other ES''ers' might have as thoughts/opinions on this topic. One additional issue that might also,come into play: There have been some instances where HCs decide to directly take on OC or DC responsibilities, in addition to their HC duties. What are your thoughts on that approach? Wouldn't this detract from the HC performing due diligence on some important HC responsibilities? Is such an approach effective or viable for an HC to do for a,long time, or do things get dropped?

I wasn't impressed by either Paul or Charles (BTW, who's a FA in 2024, with his history of inability to stay healthy, and unimpressive performance, may not be re-signed at all). So LG seems like an issue. Maybe Gates could fill in better at LG than he did at C? And who knows how well Stromberg might be able to step in for O-line starting duty, much less where he'd be on that O-line. (Would it be at LG ? ...at C?) If the plan is to rebuild the O-line, I think Washington may need to consider bringing in a veteran FA center to help guide/coordinate the rookies on the O-line as they develop to the level of the NFL. Depending on the offensive scheme the new coach brings in, maybe someone like Lloyd Cushenberry III. (26 years old) might be a good fit, or someone like that. (He'd probably cheaper than Miami's Connor Williams). I bring this up because Gates didn't seem like good of a center to me, and Stromberg would still be learning the position in 2024, along with the other rookies. (Stromberg didn't even win the center role coming out of training camp.). As for Washington's other backup Center, Tyler Larsen, he's basically a short-term fill-in, and not very durable. Otherwise Washington has to hope Gates can play better under 2024 management, or that Stromberg is ready to step in to a fulltime starting role at center.

In spite of how things turned out, I'd hope we could at least acknowledge the good qualities of Ron Rivera's 40 years of involvement with the NFL. While I'm sure Ron and all Washington fans had hoped for greater success during Rivera's tenure with Washington, I think he can justifiably look back with pride on his accomplishments in the NFL and the acknowledgements he received. As a player, Ron won a Superbowl XX champion ring and for his off-the-field efforts, he was acknowledged with his team's Ed Block Courage Award. As a coach, he has two AP Coach of the Year awards, and while in Washington, he received the George Halas award for successfully battling cancer, while taking on very demanding roles with the Washington franchise. It seems there are many in the NFL who will good things about his character and how he always tried to handle things with professionalism and class. Ron is likely been viewed as a setting a good example of the few Hispanic head-coaches in the NFL, and showing that those heights can be reached. Lastly, Rivera did help to lift up the reputation of the Washington front office at least somewhat from toxic levels fostered by Dan Snyder's practices. So I can sincerely wish Ron Rivera all the best for the future, and if/when the day has come when he decided to completely move on from coaching, I'm sure he have prepared well for that day, and will be able to spend quality time with his family, friends and his wife of 40 years. (I suspect he'll also find some way to continue to give back to the community as well.)

Before we all rush to judgement that Howell absolutely needs to be jettisoned, and as justification pointing to his December fade and his record of 21 passing TD's / 21 INT's and 4-13 W/L record, let's recall that Peyton Manning's first season (1998) wasn't very good either. Manning had 26 passing TD's / 28 INT's and a 3-13 record with Indy that year, bit the next full year he halved those INT numbers and helped Indy make the playoffs. Check out the passing stats of Manning's first year with Indy -- there are a lot of similarities to the yards per attempt, ratings, etc to what Howell had in his first year. Some QBs -- especially ones working with lower-tier teams -- may not have great first years. I'm not saying that Howell is going to be the next Peyton Manning; maybe what we're seeing from him in 2023 was actually something close to his ceiling -- maybe he'll just turn out to be an average journeyman backup QB, or maybe something better than that. Or perhaps Howell has already been too damaged by Rivera/Bieniemy's approach to player development, O-line, play-schemes, etc. ... Or, just maybe he'll learn from the hard lessons of his 2023 experience and bounce back into a better QB performance (even as a backup) in 2024. If he does look better in 2024, but Washington doesn't want to undermine the confidence their new 1st round QB -- they might still be able to get a better trade value for Howell to a team in need during the 2024 season, than if they simply unloaded him during this off-season. Assuming the new coaches/FO do decide Howell is best slotted just as a backup or #3 emergency QB, he'd probably be a cheaper QB option than trying to re-sign Brissett or signing some other "veteran" QB journeyman during free-agency. And who knows, maybe Howell might look a little better ( or at least more reliable) in a different offensive scheme than Bieniemy's, especially if he's only brought in as a backup, during a point in the game when there's less pressure on him to have to play 'hero-ball'. And if he looked good in those scenarios, then he'd become a good trading chip for some team needing depth at their QB position because their starting QB went down. Right now, there's a lot of folks who strongly feel it's best for Washington to clean house and start everything anew -- which means tossing out or trading a lot of the players from the existing roster. But even if the new front office decides to take that approach, they wouldn't be dropping everyone -- and I suspect they'd be careful to be very sure that those they did release/trade really had no value in their plans for the franchise in 2024 and beyond.

Just so I'm clear, does the position "Head of Football Operations" equate to what we'd call GM? I didn't get the sense that Myers was actually the new GM, rather he seems to be the coordinator (or co-coordinator") of the advisory committee that will eventually bring in a Head of Football Operations and a Head Coach. I ask, because even the Snyder/Rivera front office had Mayhew as GM, and Hurney as Executive Vice-President of Football Players/Personnel, and others with given similar sounding titles. Maybe this advisory committee will also be overhauling the franchise's organizational structure -- but it seems to me you need some role like the traditional GM, rather than the multi-headed structure that evolved under Snyder/Rivera.

VoR, you weren't alone. As you see, over 50% of the ES'ers who responded to the poll felt Washington would have a winning record (9-8 or better). I'd thought we'd be right around .500 either one game over or one game under. I never thought the season would bring 13 losses.

Thanks zCommander for setting up this game day thread. I understand you were not feeling that well, and so I do appreciate you still taking the time to set it up for the ES'ers.

Maybe you shouldn't include Trevor Lawrence in that list. In his first full season, Lawrence had 12 TD's 17 INT's and 3641 passing yards. In this season after 16 games, Howell has 20 TD's, 19 INT's and 3973 yards. .

Okay we're now seeing lots of PFF 'gurus' and Twitter analysts piling on Howell -- offering up their select PFF stats (which I don't think always capture the completely accurate picture) in support of their pronouncement that Howell is one of the worst QBs in the league. Sorry, but even PFF stats need to be balanced within the context of other factors. Here are a few factors influencing those stats for your consideration. 1. The offensive line's pass protection is not very good and maybe passing from a clean pocket means Howell was having to pass within 1-2 seconds which may not give much time for his primary and second targets to get open. (That coupled with Bieniemy's insistence that Howell be decisive, may have led to Howell having to make 'bullet passes' to a receiver blanketed with several defenders around him, which does not always yield a good outcome.). Also, unless Howell successfully scrambles a bit, I don't see the O-line giving him enough time for attempting the longer throws which, if completed, probably would improve his PFF stats. 2. The receiving corps has a role in Howell's performance as well. Since the O-line can only support quick passing plays, that puts a lot of pressure on them to get separation quickly, usually against a defense that's prepared for the shorter pass, since that's a tendency of the Bieniemy offense. Assuming Washington's receivers can get slightly open, they are then challenged with having to catch and hang onto those passes Howell had to put pace on, in order to beat the defender to the spot. Another problem is the absence of big-bodied WRs, who might be able to win on contested receptions that Howell attempts; this season, the TE group has really just been Thomas. 3. The defense hasn't been helping Howell much. Everyone knows it's only a matter of time before they give up a bunch of points, and consequently Howell feels the pressure to play "Hero-Ball" to try to keep his team close. That usually doesn't end well, which means the opponents get even more points, and now they can really pin their ears back and blitz Howell even more. 4. The last eight games of Washington's schedule were against tougher defenses, and a time that Washington had more injuries at running back and offensive line -- which resulted in contests in which even more pressure would be on Howell to be able to, somehow, put up some gaudy passing numbers against these tough defenses. Even so, between Halloween and Thanksgiving, Howell was averaging over 300 yards of passing; however in December things really fell off the cliff for Howell Maybe, it was due to the stronger defenses figuring out how to best defend against the Howell-led Bieniemy offensive schemes, and that Bieniemy had run out of adjustments to make? Or maybe all the sacks Howell took coupled with the extra games over the typical college schedule were taking their toll on Howell? 5. Bieniemy certainly cannot be absolved of blame -- opponents appear to have figured out his offense, and I really haven't seen that many effective adjustments from Bieniemy. Moreover, it's amazing how he stubbornly keeps going so heavily back to the passing game. Considering how good Robinson is, I'd noted with surprise that no Washington RB has had a 100 yard rushing game this season. And even when the running game is working, such as against the 49'ers, Bieniemy abandons it in the second half to go back to his one-dimensional passing attack. I'd also note that in much of his play design, Bieniemy seems intent on making Howell fit his system, rather than consider ways to adjust his play schemes to maximize Howell's skill-set and mitigate Sam's height limitations. (And maybe Bieniemy could consider more use of motion to help Howell better identify the defense's intentions; after all most NFL innovative offenses are doing that these days) Lastly, as far as supporting Howell during these last few weeks, it seems neither Bieniemy, Rivera, nor even Tavita Richards have done much in December in reaction to Howell's slide. Look, I'm not trying to absolve Howell -- he's still got a lot to learn, and maybe his ceiling will wind up just being a journeyman backup. His height is a concern when playing from within the pocket. Its not clear how well he's doing on his pre-snap reads, or going though his progressions. Like many rookie QBs, (and Rex Grossman?) he still has that "Hero-Ball" mindset -- often at the wrong times. He's tough and willing to take the hits, but I suspect he's now playing through some injuries/aches that might be impacting his throwing mechanics. But while Howell is probably weary of the constant pressure of trying to execute Bieniemy's offense with a suspect supporting cast -- I don't think he's permanently "broken" and will forever be seeing 'ghosts.'. He seems to have a toughness and resilience to him, and I expect he'll bounce back and learn from his full first season of as an NFL starter. Sorry, PFF and other social media analysts -- I don't think Howell's the worst QB in the league -- look around, you'll quickly see lots of other starters and 'wannabe-starters' who looked a lot worse than him. IMHO, Howell just happened to be the starter, in essentially his rookie season, for a badly-run Rivera-led Washington team. And since he wasn't able to carry the team to a winning season, and he's wearing down late in the season against night ranked defenses, he is now being made the scapegoat for the team's losing season. And as I mentioned above, there's plenty of blame to go around. Lastly, I apologize for my long post. I just wanted to take the time to type it all out to offer up my thoughts on this matter for fellow ES'ers to read, consider, and/or comment. These are just my own views and I don't plan to react to those seeking to debate with me on what I'd typed out above. However, I do value reading other peoples thoughts on this matter -- after all, most ES'ers are better dialed in on this issue than many of the media pundits!

SIP, thanks for the clip with Jahan Dotson's comments about team culture. It kind of answers the question I raised in an earlier post. ( https://es.redskins.com/topic/451322-5-days-until-ron-is-fired-😀😀😀/page/106/#comment-12614395 ) At the end of the post, I'd wondered if Ron could claim he fostered a "winning" team culture or had it devolved into a team culture that kind of accepted losing, with the idea that next week might be better. Dotson's remarks make me think that all these losses under Ron's tenure had an impact, and maybe big changes might be needed to rebuild Washington towards a "winning" team culture.

I really don't want to predict. While I can understand that a Dallas victory is the lesser of the two evils -- predicting (or even hoping for) a Dallas victory really grinds my gears. Emotionally, after seeing those swaggering Cowboys players on Thanksgiving with that little "celebratory" stunt they pull with the turkey legs, it really makes me want to see Washington pull the upset and ruin Dallas' day. And then --still while on TV -- celebrate Washington's victory with its own pre-planned turkey celebration ,and finish by tossing the bones at the down-trodden Cowboys. It'd feel so great and I'm sure I'd save the You-Tube replay , but I suspect I'd eventually regret the consequences, come draft day. However, when I do rein in my emotions, I don't see how I could reasonably anticipate any kind of Washington upset. And I can really see all the benefits for Washington's draft position, should Ron lose one last time. (Ron closing out with another loss would be kind of another little perk for losing.) Bottom line: I'm too torn between these two possible outcomes -- so no prediction from me this week.

At least bring back the stripes down the sides of the red pant legs. Otherwise it looks like the team is wearing some kind of red-flannel 'long-john ' underwear.

Honestly, what else could Ron be proud of? ... Finding a solution at QB? ...Building a top-tier defense? ...Having great success in the draft or in free agent acquisition? ... His team's win-loss record trending up after 4 years at the helm? ...Stabilizing the offensive line into a great unit, and better than what he'd inherited? ...Obtaining a state-of-the-art facilities for his team and big improvements to the stadium? ...The wide acceptance and approval by the fan base, for the name change, brand change, and new uniforms? ...The franchise's classy celebration for Sean Taylor as well as other Redskin greats? ...Being proud of having to fire/release 4 of his coaches over the last two seasons? ...His skillful bargaining in the trade for Carson Wentz? Nope! So I guess Ron can only point to being proud that his team's "culture is good" ... And to be fair, that's partly true. After all, Snyder sold the team. Ron did claim to emphasize 'character' as a big factor his drafting. And I'm certain there probably has a certain amount of team-bonding that has been fostered. My only question about Ron's view that the culture is good: with so many losses by the team --especially this season -- can one claim that the culture Ron has fostered is a "winning culture," or is there a danger that it devolved into a culture that has kind of gotten used to losing?

I'm curious on how Washington might want to address its question-mark at center. 1. Larsen was intended as more of a backup to Gates and had to fill in because Gates wasn't performing well enough, and Stromberg was injured. Also, Larsen's injury history make me wonder if he can be available as a starter for a full season. 2. The coaches finally came to the realization that Gates performs 'better' at Guard than Center, but could at least fill in at center again, after Larsen and Stromberg both went out with knee injuries. His contract seems to indicate he might be around in 2024 (unless Washington is okay with a $5.1 million dead cap hit) but probably not the best answer for starting Center. 3. Stromberg wasn't really being considered as a starting center in 2023, and in fact seemed to be tested more at the guard position along with some backup center practice. He did get in 4 games as a fill in Center before his knee injury vs the Giants ended his season, so that's something to build on However, there may still be a lot of unanswered questions about him in a full-time role as center, plus one more -- how well does he come back from his knee injury in 2024? Considering the importance of having a decent center for a well-performing O-line, I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion on who Washington might try to obtain, either by the draft, free agency, or trade. Perhaps members of this message board might have some candidates (or off-season tactics) in mind? Or do you believe Washington already has its answer for starting center on the current roster?

Granted the number of games being played is different now, but Rivera never really did anything effective to improve his O-lines over his 4 years. Also, I don't see why some folks think S. Charles was all that good. From what I saw of his games, he looked like a C- level player, with the inability to stay healthy. He probably does his best at LG, but even so, not that great. I think he'll be a free agent this off-season, so it'll be interesting if the new FO is even interested in re-signing him.

What an example of how badly Rivera developed the offensive line, during his tenure. Three of his O-lines are in the top 9 worst Washington O-lines.

Please recheck the Board's birthday list. Rivera's birthday is January 7th, not January 6th. So I'm not certain if that changes the timetable you'd proposed for Harris. Frankly, I suspect Rivera gets fired on "Black Monday" along with some other head-coaches, rather than giving the media the opportunity to portray Harris negatively for firing a 'longtime well-respected NFL coach' on his birthday..

San Francisco 38 Washington. 20

Adding on to my comments -- I see Drake Maye skipped his teams bowl game too. Granted the "Duke Mayo Bowl" is not on a par with the Holiday Bowl -- but it's a bad look for Maye too. PS: Rex Tomb got his post out faster than I did.

Sorry, but as I discover more news emerging about Caleb Williams, the less I'd want him being the face of the franchise. The latest one I discovered --- he ducked out of his team's Holiday Bowl game -- not a great sign for someone who's supposed to be a team leader. Ironically, his backup led USC to a solid win! I get the fact that Williams doesn't want to get injured before he declares for the draft, but his decision to skip the game doesn't say much to how he valued his teammates, the USC fans, and even the Bowl organizers who selected a 7-5 USC team, assuming Williams would be a big draw.

Just noticed that Rivera's birthday is Jan. 7. Do you think the new ownership would fire him on his birthday? Maybe they could at least wait until the 8th?