skinny21

Members
  • Content Count

    6,244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skinny21

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/28/1977

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
    7/28/1977
  • Redskins Fan Since
    Lifelong
  • Favorite Redskin
    Baugh
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    0
  • Location
    TX (via Cabin John, MD)
  • Zip Code
    78633

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Totally get your POV, but as others have alluded to, that’s just not how you deal with things from a coaching perspective. I mean, maybe the smart move was to start Haskins 2 weeks ago, or maybe after the bye week is the best option - we’ll never really know. Bottom line though, you don’t intimate that your qb is on a short leash because you don’t want them to take a lot more risks or play ultra conservative; you want them to play within the bounds of your system/game plan.
  2. I do find this concerning, but I could see him wanting Keenum to feel comfortable. Exactly. I’m not going to assume anything, but from a franchise standpoint, it would be pretty idiotic to not play Haskins at all this year. OTOH... this is the Redskins. God help us if the plan is to finish the year with Keenum, and then turn to Alex Smith next year.
  3. I would think the draft pick(s) you net from trading Williams would be a lot more attractive to a new coach than having a disgruntled player to deal with... Thing is, I just can’t assume that Allen’s mind even reaches that conclusion, let alone considers it. Sigh.
  4. Kevin O’Connell, Matt Cavanaugh, Tim Rattay. I expect Gruden, Keenum, McCoy and Alex Smith have had some varying degree of input as well.
  5. Pretty much, though it seems as though the bust crowd is basing it far more on 1) how they interpret reports/quotes, 2) interpret body language, and 3) the fact he isn’t already starting, rather than his 1 half of play. Theorize, absolutely. Definitively declare him a bust... different story.
  6. With the caveat that 1) it’s been just two games and 2) they were both far from ‘normal’ games (horrendous Fins team that switched to Fitz and got momentum, and a weather crazy game against the Niners)... If Callahan is making a difference in the culture at Ashburn - less lackadaisical practices, practicing on short weeks, bringing in refs to help players avoid penalties, etc. - that is something that can carry over. Doesn’t mean it will of course. The next coach and/or the FO could undermine it. However, I think it’s beneficial to the younger guys and other players that have only had Gruden as a coach to experience some of these differences. @Gibbs Hog Heaven I think you did a better job in your last post of highlighting that yes, there are major issues with the team, but that the little positive changes you talk about are simply a silver lining to a poor season (and the HC change).
  7. @Voice_of_Reason Obviously I agree with your facts, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say that running on second down (when Gruden was only picking up 2-ish yards on 1st down) would lead to 3rd and 6-8. Ditto calling a 2nd down run ‘insanity’ because it’s doing the same thing for different results. Given Gruden’s tendency to run, pass, pass, running on 2nd was likely to be at least marginally more successful. In other words we should avg 3rd and less than 6 (not 6-8). We would have had to run for an even worse average on 2nd downs to hit your stated numbers. Obviously I agree though that Gruden ran way too much on first down. If Callahan sticks to that tendency and runs regularly on 2nd, I’m not sure that’s going to help us much. If he switches things up while still leaning more heavily toward the run, it could help a bit. Not a big fan of skewing toward the run game in this day and age, but for this team, as currently constructed, it might be the better way to go. 1) Allow the defense to rest more (maybe - more 3 and outs could mitigate this gain). 2) Help the qbs by cutting down on the 3rd and long situations. 3) fewer passes thrown - ideally leading to fewer chances of INTs 4) fewer drop backs - less chance of sacks/fumbles. 5) by taking pressure off the qbs (theoretically - not inherently), it ups the chances we get to put Haskins in the game. 6) maybe fewer offensive penalties (holding and false starts). To your point though, good teams (heck, maybe even decent ones) might build quick leads and blow this whole thing out of the water. Don’t see this method working very well against the next few D’s we face. Of course, I’m not sure any method we try will work against them.
  8. It’s a valid point, but I guess I’m just trying to formulate a reason Snyder would stick with Allen given 1) the team’s track record, and 2) the fan apathy/lack of support. The only thing that makes some sense to me is Allen preaching that they’re close/unlucky and that the fans will come back as they get closer. But the only way (IMO) that Snyder truly buys that is if he’s insulated from other viewpoints/opinions. I could definitely see him muting telecasts when they start talking about the ‘Skins (“they’re just trashing my team because we’ve been unlucky. Just wait until we start getting to the playoffs regularly, then they’ll start praising us”). Or not reading the articles after seeing the headlines.
  9. I’m with you that Whitner’s anecdote seemed really mild. In fact, I hope he didn’t hear what Gruden said (second hand) and then use that as justification to tell all the players that Gruden was two-faced. I’d hate to think story lead to guys not buying into Gruden as a coach. Heck, even the point about Fewell not talking to guys after losses... could just be how the guy rolls. Kind of over the top to let that be your guide on the type of man you think someone is. Of course, there could be other examples that weren’t shared, so I’m not gonna totally discount Whitner’s take. With all that said, I do buy that Gruden (and Fewell) is not really a ‘leader of men’ type. And also to your earlier point BFS, the stuff about knowledge of schemes and disguises was much more concerning to me... albeit a bit unsurprising. Ditto the hiring friends angle, though I honestly can’t recall who was friends with who in terms of coaches/hires.
  10. I think part of the problem is Dan may be too insulated to see the need for a change. I mean, it’s good to avoid some of the feedback you might get from social media, etc, but it has its benefits too, particularly if you’re surrounded by yes men or those out for themselves. Essentially, I’m afraid that Allen is Snyder’s Wormtongue and I don’t know that there’s a Gandalf out there to intervene.
  11. And/or does it really have to involve a rhyme, or play on his name? ‘Sweetness’ is one the best nicknames ever IMO. (ES would have nicknamed him ‘Payload’ or something.) Uhhh...... no offense guys
  12. Not if Trent reports though, then he only has one year left on his deal (and either way, he’s a year older next year ...).
  13. skinny21

    Are we just gonna ignore how terrible tre Quinn is

    @Thinking Skins I think the answer is yes... relatively speaking. Harmon took about 20% of the snaps, and we also ran a lot of 2 TE sets... presumably to get our best blockers on the field. Richardson dropped down to 56% (season avg is ~80), while Cunningham and Hentges had 32 and 31% respectively and Sprinkle was at 92% against the Fins. So Harmon might not see the field a bunch, but I expect he’ll at least hover at around 20%. Would be cool to see him take over the Z spot though, even if it means leaving our priciest receiver on the bench.
  14. This is very true of course. I think it needs to be a mix of things to solve this problem. One, you can’t/shouldn’t bring in a coach who’s scheme is based on power running to a team with a zone blocking line (like we did with Gruden I believe), you should avoid a bringing in ball control type coach to a team with a gunslinger of a qb. A defensive coach that relies on long, physical corners shouldn’t be hired to a team with a smaller, quicker secondary. Personnel fit has to be a consideration. Two, players can be traded, upgraded from (with guys that are a better fit), etc., or coaches may have run or been around different schemes and be able to adapt to their players. Don’t think this FO/owner have had much success marrying the different elements of personnel to coaches (and vice versa). Just in recent history: RGIII and Smith for Gruden, Gruden brought in to a zone blocking line, losing (and not adequately replacing) Fuller and Breeland for Manusky, not adequately replacing Garçon/Jackson/Cousins for Gruden, AP not fitting for Gruden’s offense, sticking Gruden with Haskins (and soon with a new coach)*, etc. *Haskins actually may have been a good fit for Gruden down the road, we’ll never know.
  15. @carex It just fits a pattern of behavior with him though... lowballing players, dealings with Scott and LaFemina, the Kirk situation, trading Fuller, the way we acquired Smith, player extensions, acquiring injury prone players and then using injuries as an excuse for losses, and more (much more). Rumors of ego driven issues, reports from those who’ve had dealings with or inside info on those dealings with Allen; it all paints a picture. I do think that @KDawg is right in that he’s trying to improve the team, but the pattern also points to a guy that lets his desire for job security interfere with team dealings. Bottom line for me is that I just can’t trust the guy. Even if he were to step back into the Team President role (solely) and hire a good GM, I can’t trust that he will let that guy make all of the football/personnel decisions, nor can I trust that he won’t backstab the guy for power/personality reasons. Allen hasn’t been all bad, he’s done a number of good things for the team - drafting dlinemen, acquiring additional draft picks, not signing old FAs (and being fairly judicious with FA in general), etc. But his role, his personality, and the structural hierarchy has meant that many business decisions are made poorly and we lack a cohesive plan for marrying players to scheme (among other things). To wrap it back into the current situation, Allen may well pull something off in terms of dealing Trent. It’s quite possible we’ll all be happy with the outcome. I just can’t hold my breath about it given his ego (refusing to let Williams ‘bully’ him), list of unintelligent moves, and need to ‘win’ the deal.