Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

DJHJR86

Members
  • Content Count

    1,504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by DJHJR86

  1. 13 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

    Could we have a defense that's as good as the '17 Vikings defense?

     

    Possibly 

     

    And I truly believe we have enough on offense to make some plays.

     

    Case Keenum has always been Case Keenum except for that outlier season in 2017.  He's never thrown for over 4,000 yards and averages double digit interceptions with lowly (by today's standards) touchdown numbers.  He's Alex Smith with more turnovers.  

  2. 16 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

    We’ve seen what happened with Campbell and Ramsey and Rg3, why do we want a repeat of any of their careers??


    I 100% think that this organization is run by people who couldn't organize a trip to the toilet let alone run a football organization, but this myth that Griffin, Campbell, and Ramsey were ruined by this organization doesn't make any sense to me.  Campbell was given chance after chance after chance with this team and it never clicked.  Guess what happened when he went to a different organization?  Benched for Bruce Gradkowski.  Same with Griffin.  He's with a much better ran organization now, and he's relegated to being a backup.  And Ramsey was never going to be a good NFL QB no matter what line we had at the time.  

  3. On 8/25/2019 at 2:33 AM, Veryoldschool said:

    Luck is so beat up he is going to retire when he's 29 and should be in his prime as a QB.  I don't want Haskins rushed on the field before he's ready and have his career cut short like Luck's.

     

    So what do you propose they do when Keenum stinks up the joint in a game and McCoy is still injured?  Sign another veteran and start them?

  4. 9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

    I figure Case to play himself out of the position by week 5, and unless Colt is healthy enough to play, we'll probably see Haskins at that point.  I'd rather Haskins earn his stripes as the next man up in a lost season vs. throw him to the wolves week 1, for an extra 5 games of reps with the season being on his shoulders.  Haskins may very well be able to take the heat of the season resting on his shoulders, I just don't see the need to push it.  

     

    I'm going off of what I've heard locally, and yesterday was the first time that I've heard a beat guy (in this case Keim) act incredulous when Sheehan brought up the QB competition.  Keim was adamant that Haskins wasn't ready and everyone in the building was on the same page.  But Sheehan's point, which I happen to agree with, was that if they are grading out Keenum at a 70 out of a possible 100, and Haskins is say around 65 out of 100, why wouldn't you go with the rookie with upside?

  5. 48 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

    You've got to earn the job to earn respect.  I know it's still a touchy subject around here, but remember 2015?  When Robert was annointed the starter begrudgingly by Jay in the offseason.  Camp comes around and it's clear as day that Kirk is the best QB on the roster.  Jay and Scot had to plead their case to Dan that they were going with Kirk, because they had to or risk losing the locker room.

     

    The entire premise of starting Haskins week 1, for me anyway, rests on the fact that as of right now, if there is minimal separation between him and Keenum with regards to who has looked better all offseason, then what is the point in waiting for Keenum to inevitably play himself out of the position instead of getting Haskins the much needed experience?  

    • Thanks 1
  6. 2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

    Just to reiterate, your plan would play out:

     

    1 - Draft a QB in the first round

    2 - Set him up for failure in his rookie year

    3 - When he fails, draft another QB in the first round next year

     

    That would be a demonstration of systemic incompetence.  No young QB would succeed for an organization like that.

     

    I'm running out of interest in arguing against this terrible idea that's not going to happen.  Either you eventually see how terrible the idea is or I can't help you.

     

    This is the real reason for everyone who is arguing to start him week one.  Good on you for being honest and self-aware enough to admit it.  But it'd be bad for both him and the team and it's not going to happen.

     

    Do you honestly think I want to draft another QB based off of one year of Haskins struggling?  I said, by your fantasy about how if Haskins was benched it would somehow ruin his career, that we should draft another QB anyway because he's obviously not mentally tough enough to handle the position.  In reality, I don't think Haskins is as soft as you perceive him to be.  Regardless, if and when they start Haskins, he isn't getting benched for poor performance.  

  7. Going back to 2019 (and not counting last year's draft) the following QB's were taken in the first round and also saw significant (8+ starts) play time in their rookie year:

    -Stafford

    -Sanchez

    -Bradford

    -Gabbert

    -Freeman

    -Ponder

    -Newton

    -Luck

    -Griffin

    -Tannehill

    -Weeden

    -Manuel

    -Bortles

    -Bridgewater

    -Winston

    -Mariota 

    -Wentz

    -Trubisky

     

    There really is no set formula to predict the whole "sit and learn" theory that keeps getting thrown around.  Does anyone really think that if Weeden would have sat out for a year he'd be some elite level talent still in the league?  Or if Newton didn't start week 1 as a rookie that he would be out of the league by now?  You either have it or you don't.  

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  8. 21 minutes ago, KDawg said:

    And the whole, "if he starts then gets benched and it ruins his career, he was a terrible pick and we need to take another QB" mindset is straight poison.

     

    So if getting benched ruins both his confidence and his career it was a great pick and we need to not worry about the position?  That makes no sense.  My point was that if Haskins is that fragile (and I don't think he is) to completely shut down after being benched, he's not the future anyway.  

    • Like 1
  9. 29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

    Here's a question: what if Case gets hurt, does it matter if Haskins is ready at that point?  Hes going out there anyway, right?

     

    Another question: what if Case completely sucks and Gruden is in danger of losing the locker room?  The offensive line is going to be the same (assuming health) regardless of whether or not it's week 1 or whatever week Keenum gets inevitably benched.  Which makes sitting Haskins crazy to me.  

  10. 1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

    And the Extremeskins braintrust demonstrates their team building savvy once again.

     

    You keep saying Case Keenum and Colt McCoy are "breathing down" Haskins' neck.  If the competition is close between a raw rookie quarterback with no NFL experience and 2 veterans with multiple games of NFL experience, what does that say about those 2 veterans?  They should start Haskins, but they won't.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  11. 33 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

    Start Haskins week one with two vets breathing down his neck and he struggles early and gets benched in favor of said vets and now you've wrecked Haskins's confidence and ****ed up his development.

     

    Then you draft another QB, because if that's all it takes is being benched to wreck his confidence, we shouldn't have drafted him to be the future.

    • Like 3
  12. Maybe I'm watching a different game, but outside of his arm strength and touch on the ball, he looks extremely raw to me.  Keenum did not impress me at all last night.  I don't see the harm in starting Haskins week 1 as opposed to week 4 or 5 when Keenum has already thrown double digit interceptions.  The line isn't changing come week 4 or 5.  

  13. On 7/14/2019 at 5:25 PM, Hogs 1991 said:

    One thing that is a possibility that I think might be overlooked here. Hypothetical question here. Say we sit Dewayne Haskins for a year. Then when next year comes around, Alex Smith is fully recovered and ready to go. What do you do or who do you start then ?

     

    You cut Alex Smith next year and start Haskins.

  14. 10 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

    I think his odds for bust/success are not in his favor.  We all know environment in the NFL matters for development.  But if the right personnel, scheme, etc gets put around him, it'll flip the odds back in his favor.  I just don't know how easy or hard it'll be to get that. 

     

    About a month or so ago, Cooley said the complete opposite on Kevin Sheehan's podcast.  He said that Haskins' ceiling was much higher than Jones, but the potential floor/bust potential was greater for Haskins than Jones.  

  15. 13 hours ago, Califan007 said:

    Allen didn't explain jack **** in that quote from him, unless you're one of about 3 people on earth who thought he did NOT know what Williams' issues were about. Not to mention, my post that you quoted said nobody from the team needed to argue or discuss the issues between Williams and the team in the press, and that nobody from the team should be breaking out press conferences whenever some twitter "report" starts getting bounced around. Allen didn't do either one. So you wasted a perfectly good "welp" lol...

     

    "So chalk me up as one who does NOT believe Dan/Bruce/Trent needs to come out and 'splain things in any fashion. What they need is to work this out far away from the public eyes, and only approach the press once it's solved."

     

    This is literally what Bruce Allen did last Friday, and I actually was glad that he at least commented on the situation.  Since you didn't want Bruce commenting on the issue publicly, and since most GM's don't discuss Twitter reports in the press (unlike Seattle's GM who quickly shot down the rumors of Wilson to NY) I would have thought this would have angered you.  This wasn't some random twitter report.  This was a report involving your team's best player and how shoddy the team's medical staff's reputation was.  For some reason, you don't think the GM should have came out and commented on it.  You would have rather had Gruden, yet again, take the brunt of the questions and heat.  Or Doug Williams.  BTW, where was Bruce after the Reuben Foster signing?  

     

    13 hours ago, Califan007 said:

    And for the record--can't believe anyone still thinks this--but Allen wasn't the one who said Scot's grandmother dying is why he was absent from the combine...Scot (or his wife) did. Scot has/had connections with the local press and when they contacted him he said the reason he was absent was he was dealing with issues concerning his grandmother's death. Allen only said he was taking care of personal issues, which could cover a lot of stuff including drinking and infidelity.  It was only later during an interview when Allen was asked about it that he echoed what Scot had said, possibly in order to not contradict him. So that wasn't Allen's "version of the truth", it was Scot's.

     

    So when is Scot returning to the Skins "just as soon as things are handled"?  Or how Scot was fired less than a week after this interview?  

     

    https://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/redskins-bruce-allen-addresses-scot-mccloughan-reports-kirk-cousins/

     

    Weird how Bruce talked about issues publicly after some "twitter reports" started saying that Scot was sent home from the combine for drinking.  I have no idea why you continue to defend Allen and this front office at just about every turn.  This wasn't just some Jason Reid level of hatred for the team.  Multiple people who have covered this team have all echoed the same things about Allen over and over again.  

    • Like 1
  16. 38 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

    Many quoted only the "I know what is true." part as some nefarious attempt by Bruce. They left the part out that he talked to Trent and he was leaving their private conversation private. 

     

    Man I hate defending Bruce as I loathe him. It makes me throw up a little. But facts are facts. You have to quote the entire quote not just the part that looks bad. The bottom line is the two sides are talking to each other and not making it public. I get someone did, but it does not mean it was either Trent, Bruce or Trent's agent. Could even be a disgruntled ex player. We have a few of those out there - Looking at you DJ and Zach! 

     

    I don't even blame Bruce for making a statement.  He should have done it earlier, nipped it in the bud, and then moved on.  The Seahawks GM did something just like that when the Russell Wilson rumors to New York started.  And I'm not saying Bruce should have gone into specifics, just a generic "we are speaking with Trent and are glad to have him on our team" response.  That's it.  That was my original complaint in the first place; he can't go around and do victory laps on TV and radio after getting good press for a "good draft", and then when negative PR hits (about your best player no less) stay completely silent.  I'm actually glad that he addressed it.  

    • Like 1
  17. 8 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

    At the end of the day I think Haskins starts week 1. I think the pressure from above will force Haskins in week 1. I hope if it is Haskins it's because he actually beat the other guys out. Not just because of Snyder. 

     

    I agree with you.  We'll definitely see come preseason as to who looks better.  If it's Keenum by a decent margin and Haskins is still named the starter you'll know it was a Snyder move.  

  18. 16 hours ago, Califan007 said:

    What did he explain, exactly? I'll wait.

     

    That he knows "the truth", a very clear implication that these reports about being upset with the team's medical staff is false.  Like that time Scot was away visiting his sick grandmother.  You know, Bruce Allen's version of the truth.  

     

    15 hours ago, Xameil said:

    I think he explained that this is being handled internally...I guess that's welp worthy for the chicken littles and front office haters....

     

    You are aware of this team's track record for the last 20 years?  There's a reason why there are more and more "chicken littles" and less and less harvest festers.  

     

    12 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

    This is from June 7.  Why are people acting like this is new?

     

    I had no idea about this until yesterday.  Didn't see it posted in either thread, so I posted it.  

    • Like 1
  19. On 6/6/2019 at 2:31 PM, Califan007 said:

     

    In this specific instance, absolutely NO explanation is needed or warranted at this time. None. And that is pretty much standard operating procedure with all teams in the NFL. You don't argue/explain in-house issues in the press, and you don't feel the need to clarify every twitter "report" simply because fans are getting antsy. Doing the first part could make matters worse between the FO and the player, and doing the second part will have you running your franchise like a reactionary chihuahua. 


    Welp...

     

    https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/bruce-allen-trent-williams-holdout-i-know-what-truth

    USATSI_9645808.jpg?AwhyoUmEeLTKu8Bb8DvL6

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...