• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kfrankie

  • Rank
    The Waterboy

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
  • Location
    Potomac, Maryland
  • Zip Code
  • Interests
    Football, movies, kicking stuff
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be good to bring him back as a starter. If it makes sense to cut him this offseason, the team should do that. But I think it would be a good thing to bring him back as a backup, at a renegotiated rate, if he (and competent medical professionals) can demonstrate that's he's at or near full strength.
  2. Sheehan was talking about this on the radio this morning. Apparently Alex is intent on trying to play. He was even on the field last week (not during practice) throw some passes, and (tentatively) taking some drops. You also had a report come out that Alex informed a speaking audience recently that he had to undergo 17 separate surgeries on the leg. What that ultimately means is left to conjecture (some might describe a rather simple procedure without full anesthetic to be a "surgery"). At any rate, there has been a ton of speculation from various people in the medical field that Alex may not ever be able to play again. To that, I would say the only people who truly know at this point are Alex and his physicians, who have access to all of his records and are closely monitoring his healing process. He could surprise us. And to the point that Alex is only putting on a show because he needs to demonstrate an intention to play to get paid, that's simply not true. If the Redskins want to cut him, that's up to them. He'll get his guaranteed money either way. There is no reason why Alex would be putting on a show for the organization. He wants to play, and it'll be interesting to see how what happens, regardless of whether he ends up with the Redskins.
  3. 49ers: 82 Redskins: 3
  4. Billy Joe Roubideux
  5. So Haskins' coach while at Bullis was Pat Cilento. Cilento was an excellent High School quarterback and went on to play at division I-AA I believe after taking a hiatus or transfer. He probably received better coaching than the vast majority of HS quarterbacks, but who knows how much time Cilento really dedicated to this type of work. Again, you need more than one coach to implement a "pro style" passing offense, plus time, plus the horses. And its not necessary to win in HS. Big passing numbers in HS are often the result of speed at the split end and RB positions. Short passes end up going 40 yards. I can't say that's what happened with Haskins, but I doubt his HS experience provides much of a benefit at this level.
  6. I can tell you based on (some) experience that the only fundamentals taught to quarterbacks prior to high school relate to (1) throwing motion, (2) calling plays in a huddle, and (3) some footwork relating to meshing with running backs. There is no such thing as coaching a kid to read a defense at that age, there no coaching on how to properly do a 3 step, 5 step, or 7 step drop because there are very few coaches who understand that, and it wouldn't be useful anyway at that level. Once High School comes, most programs focus on footwork as it relates to where a quarterback needs to be at a particular moment to mesh with your running backs, or to set up to throw on some play action types plays. Each step in the backfield is choreographed. This may get a QB's mind attuned to the importance of footwork, but other than that it is not helpful in a college level passing offense. There are some coaches at the HS level that understand and will try to teach a proper 3, 5, and 7 step drop, but the focus on drops is still more toward getting just getting back there (assuming its a straight drop). Reading of defenses in HS is simplified, maybe one read and then go to your second receiver. More complicated passing offenses are rare in HS for the same reason-- lack of coaches with real knowledge on how to design a passing offense that incorporates those principals. You need multiple coaches that understand these principals. And then they must be able to actually coach-- not just receivers and quarterbacks, but all 11 guys need to understand their role, and its difficult enough to get a 16 year old kid to understand an HS offense. There simply is not enough time in HS to work this all out, which is why college level players will tell you that the biggest difference between HS and college is that college football feels like a job. It is-- even at smaller schools, they'll manage your class schedule, set you up for summer courses to take the burden off during the school year, etc. Once in college, there are many different schemes being employed. You have quarterback coaches that are paid to understand the 3, 5, and 7 step drop, reading both at the line and in the drop, progressions (speed reads), coverage reads, and there's a ton of film work. Everyone can throw at this level, so footwork and reads become paramount. Verbiage is more complicated. Even the top tier quarterbacks coming out of HS are likely to redshirt, so they get a year to watch, learn, and understand under constant supervision. However, college level offenses typically don't run pro style drop back offenses because the pressure to win is constant, and you lose about 1/3 of your starters every year. It's easier to go with what works (shotgun is used by the vast majority of programs because it gives the QB a head start on his reads and drop), and even then its maybe two progressions and improvise. The QBs that can run get out of the traditional pocket as soon at the first sign of trouble. The most difficult thing to understand is when to step up in the pocket to continue your progressions. It's counter-intuitive because it feels like you're stepping towards pressure, but the real pressure comes from the edges, so stepping up gives you relief and let's you see the field. If you continue to drop and try to go around the edge, you lose sight of the downfield and into the edge rusher (or your own offense tackle), and then your receiver have to go off schedule. Some guys can sense the pressure, so stepping up feels a bit more natural and they can just do it. There are certain college programs that are exceptions and will employ traditional pro style offenses, but the trend has been that they are less successful. Take Duke for instance, with their quarterback guru. Duke has had moderate success over the past several years with average talent, but Daniel Jones was drilled for four years in a pro style offense which teaches all of these fundamentals repeatedly. You look at his numbers and they are not particularly impressive because he does not have the elite level talent around him. And you heard during the senior, the combine, and leading up to the draft that he physical talents were good but not great. His stock was supposed to be falling. But he's NFL ready, so he taken before the other guys (i.e. Haskins) that may be physically superior but do not have same type of drilling in an NFL style offense. There's a good bit of discuss these days about the early success of some of these recent quarterbacks (Watson comes to mind, and now Jackson). But those guys (particularly Jackson) are running offenses that have been modified to their skills sets. Perhaps the plan is to slowly introduce the pro style as the years go on, but when has type of progression really worked... These guys will run until their wheels fall off, but they don't tend to stick around for the long haul or result in sustained success. I guess Russell Wilson is the exception, but even he is settling in to a more traditional pocket passer type role. Then again, I can't say i've really paid much attention to any of this in a while because i actually have a real job that i just ignored for 30 minutes to write this. So most of what I just said is probably wrong.
  7. kfrankie

    Next Coach?

    Does the fact that Callahan been appointed as interim HC mean that there will not a new hire during the season? I wonder why there has not been more discussion about Kevin O'Connell. Have I missed something here? Trying to find a silver lining here, the team has a unique opportunity to promote a guy midseason that is highly regarded and let him and the young quarterback work together with absolutely no pressure to win. I don't know how O'Connell's system varies from Jay's system, but this would be his chance to experiment with different looks, theories, etc. that he would otherwise be unable to test. All with a view toward the future, a good young core on offense (yes, Scherrf, McLaurin, Wes Martin, Rullier, Guice, Sims = a good start), and adding more young talent with some high picks next year.
  8. kfrankie

    Gruden announces Colt McCoy starting vs NE

    Haskins warming up to enter game in the 2nd quarter this Sunday vs. Haskins at his post game interview
  9. kfrankie

    Gruden announces Colt McCoy starting vs NE

    Colt McCoy coming off the practice field today after learning he'll be the starter against the Patriots: Colt McCoy walking to his car 1 hour after the game on Sunday:
  10. kfrankie

    Gruden announces Colt McCoy starting vs NE

    So, maybe we can help him out by giving him a slogan, like "The Colt Revolt." So once we win 4 in a row, the Post's headline could be "Colt Revolt Jolts D.C."
  11. I appreciate the back and forth. Problem with this forum in general is that there are not enough thoughtful conservative voices. I simply don't have the time to continue to hold down the fort. Then again, its my fault for entering the fray but I though I could bring some balance to the discussion based on the perspectives I have gained. Here's my point on socialism vs. capitalism, and perhaps its a selfish one-- I can say with confidence that I have worked incredibly hard over the course of the past 20 years to achieve a certain level of success in my profession, against nearly insurmountable odds, and having to pay for most of it on my own. I like to think of myself as being generous, but I simply cannot get on board with a socialist platform. With that Tailgate, I'm out... I might venture into some of the movie threads though. See some of you in the Stadium!!
  12. Well, there are some who would say that there's never really been a true communist government employed anywhere at any time. Which is why a litany of countries kept trying it, only to repeatedly fail, after years of violent collectivism, famine, and the destruction of religious institutions. In China, there is no private ownership of land, the State controls all media, and freedom of religion means that you're free to practice in one of the state-created religious organizations. Otherwise, you'll be arrested, hunted down, harassed, maybe killed. Which is a big reason why we're seeing the persecution of these people in Xinjiiang. Sounds pretty Marxist to me, even if those in control have condoned a level of free enterprise (capitalism!! ahhh!!!!) in order to develop infrastructure and economic power. But capitalism is nothing more than a power tool to CCP, and the pendulum will swing back to Marxism. The communist economic model, by its very nature, requires an authoritarian government designed to control every aspect of life and suppress opposing viewpoints. Otherwise, it would be impossible to successfully maintain the model because it stands in direct opposition to the natural human desire for freedom.
  13. I'm wondering when Mongolia is going to step up to the plate and start reigning in their neighbor. Perhaps a Mongolian airlift is the solution. Talk about an opportunity to finally break through on the international stage. Seriously, is Mongolia to China as Mexico is to the United States? The best neighbor is a weak but stable one? I guess if they were stronger or less stable, China would have already taken them over. To reunite the ethnic groups, at least at first.
  14. I was being factious about the tariffs suggestion. My ultimate point here is that if there is any country to is capable of withstanding "harsh," "severe," "long-lasting," and "over-punitive" economic sanctions it would be China. The government has demonstrated a disregard for its own citizens in favor of political idealism, and an ability to isolate its population from the type of communication that is an every day part of our life. China probably makes Putin jealous. There is no good solution here, and the United States cannot fix this problem. In fact, the best solution might be to allow China to fade back into isolationism, while providing some sort of covert funding for the purpose of getting the potential victims that are not yet locked away out of the country. But how do we identify "potential" victims, who gets them out, how would they leave (the Western, Northern, Eastern, and Southern routes are not good options), and where would they ultimately go. They can't all come here, and good luck convincing Europe to take any more Muslim refugees.... The ironic thing here is, if we could gain the support of Russia, a military solution might be plausible. But no one wants to team up with Russia again, and assuming military action was successful Putin would be left with extensive additional leverage in that region. But I'm sure China's communist regime would be fine with the idea of increased isolation.
  15. The 20th century taught us many things in hindsight, including the following: (1) We didn't go in hard enough or quickly enough in World War II, and if had we would have discovered and liberated the death camps sooner. (2) We went in too hard in Vietnam, and after the dust settled many people believe we never should have been there. (3) Communist governments inevitably result in a starving population, and many of those people also mysteriously disappear. (4) Fascist governments inevitably lead to starving neighbors, many of which are killed in wars due to imperialist aggression. (5) Democratic nations are capable of electing really bad leaders, some of whom take on traits of the fascist or communist governments we've seen in the past 100 years. (6) America has free elections, which means we can throw out the bad leaders every 4 years or so. We can also elect new bad leaders, but generally our citizens have been pretty responsible (at least with regard to the Presidency). (7) Many fascist and communist regimes also hold free elections which are not free, but instead fixed (see October 2002 Iraq election where Saddam received 100% of the votes cast by the 11,445,638 eligible voters. And all of the eligible voters actually cast votes, so 100% turn-out to boot! Talk about getting out the vote) (8) In june of 1989, soldiers in China's People's Liberation Army military mowed down hundreds (maybe thousands??) of pro-democracy protesters with machine guns, and steamrolled a few of them with tanks. Its hard to tell how many, because all reporting of the incident was suppressed. Not just by taking away cameras, but by shooting people with cameras. This was done at the behest of the Communist Party of China. The same political party remains in complete control of China, with Xi Jinping being installed as the General Secretary in 2012 and leader of the Central Military Commission, which also made him the "Paramount Leader" of China (i.e. Captain Crunch). (9) The Communist Party of China is the same government that instituted the infamous "one child policy" which was was enforced through forced sterilization and abortion (Talk about "keep the government off of my body" but for the opposite reason people here use that slogan), and stiff financial penalties (with exceptions). Of course, this policy resulted in thousands of cases of infanticide, particularly of baby girls. It was officially ended in 2015-- not 1915. Imagine that for a moment... (10) At times and for various reasons, our government must meet with and/or negotiate with the leaders of communist/fascist regimes such as China's. Whenever we do so, criticism is sure to follow (perhaps rightly so). But hey, keep the lines of communication open. (11) China would rather allow its people to starve than give in to political reforms encouraged by the West. Sanctions through the U.N. would be a non-starter because China is a permanent member of the security council, which holds veto power over any resolution for sanctions. Even if sanctions were imposed, its not clear what effect they would have. China has shown the ability to self sustain, because at the end of the day the government will allow the population to starve and they still want to reduce their population by about 500 million people (mostly the ones that would be most susceptible to starvation). The military will remain well fed and well supplied, and their R&D departments are on top of things by virtue of an extensive network of espionage. (12) That leaves the United States as the only nation with any sort of economic leverage over China, due to the extensive trade relationship. So, tariffs anyone??