The case for firing Gruden ASAP

[codeorama]

Not saying it is the only reason to want to fire Jay, but those that want to do it because they think it will give Griffin a chance to stay here and be the QB...Well that is just crazy talk. No one not named Briles would take this job after seeing the Owner fire two coaches because they couldn't make it work with Griffin, especially considering the second coach only got one year. The only way you bring in a coach that is at all sought after is to get rid of Griffin as well. 

 

Great post.  I'm not a Gruden fan.  I gained some respect for him when he was as blunt as he was, knowing that he probably pissed off Snyder, but I agree, the people that want him fired are Griffin fans that want him at QB.

 

I just wish Snyder would sell the team.  Maybe someone could set him up to say some racial comments and we can get a Donald Sterling repeat.

[GoldSkinner]

Fire Gruden because he couldn't turn a dysfunctional team - 52 players and over a dozen assistant coaches - around in his 1st year as a head coach, but keep a QB who couldn't turn his game around in 3 years. Bob has regressed, he's unfamiliar not only with Gruden's system but any system resembling a pro-style offense.

 

Don't understand why fans cling on to Bob like he's a once-in-a-blue-moon talent in the NFL. He's not. Running quarterbacks with questionable pocket-passing skills are a dime a dozen in the NFL.

[ZRagone]

Not saying it is the only reason to want to fire Jay, but those that want to do it because they think it will give Griffin a chance to stay here and be the QB...Well that is just crazy talk. No one not named Briles would take this job after seeing the Owner fire two coaches because they couldn't make it work with Griffin, especially considering the second coach only got one year.

 

If you fire Gruden, the only way you bring in a coach that is at all sought after is to get rid of Griffin as well. 

 

Disagree entirely with you there.

 

There's 32 NFL head coaching positions, and only 4 to 6 open per year usually. Oppertunity and money talks.

 

IF we got rid of Gruden (not certain), and IF Griffin is in the plan going forward (not certain), it still quite possible that we could still land a good coach other than Briles. It basically rests on one factor...

 

Does that coach believe Robert Griffin IS "the guy" that he can win with.

 

That's it. That's all it really take. There's long been talk regarding football that most of your really good coaches have a fair bit of ego. They believe that they can make something out of a player they think have talent even if others couldn't. They trust in their system, they trust in their ability to coach, they trust in their ability to evaluate...they don't necessarily trust in group think or what everyone else is saying.

 

We simply flat out don't know what coaching prospects may be thinking as it relates to Robert Griffin. We do know there's been conflicting statements and beliefs by commentators, ex-coaches, ex-players, etc regarding whether or not Griffin does have the potential still to be a legit franchise guy. So it's not ridiculous or unreasonable to suggest that there may very well be potential coaching candidates that do believe that.

 

If a candidate thinks Griffin will be the guy, and approaches that from a Mike Holmgren style ("you make your choic and that's your guy, hell or high water"), it would be very easy for them to delude themselves that everything will be okay even with a bad first season by telling themselves the poor record isn't what did Gruden in...it was the chaos and the abandonment and lack of development of the suppoesed "franchise guy". And in their head, that part won't happen to them because this guy WILL be a success because they will make him one.

 

Are we as likely to attract a head coach as we would've been last year, or as we would if we had a slew of good young pro-bowl talent players like KC or the niners did at one point, or if we had a guy whose played numerous years as a top 10 QB like say San Diego? Probably not. But I think it's ridiculous to act like we'd have no shot outside of Briles.

 

Oakland and the Jets are the two other most likely teams to get a coach fired this year...neither should be significantly more attractive than Washington at this point, even if Griffin is forced on them.

 

It's fine sounding doom and gloom and fits into the narrative that some people want to push...but reality the football world has not 100% written off Robert Griffin and there's absolutely still the potential of a candidate who believes he can really be the guy with the right coaching taking the oppertunity.

 

Does that mean its the right way to go? Not necessarily. But I don't really think that alone is a reason NOT to do it, because I think the logic is ridiculously flawed.

[Taylor703]

Fire Gruden because he couldn't turn a dysfunctional team - 52 players and over a dozen assistant coaches - around in his 1st year as a head coach, but keep a QB who couldn't turn his game around in 3 years. Bob has regressed, he's unfamiliar not only with Gruden's system but any system resembling a pro-style offense.

Don't understand why fans cling on to Bob like he's a once-in-a-blue-moon talent in the NFL. He's not. Running quarterbacks with questionable pocket-passing skills are a dime a dozen in the NFL.

No, you fire Gruden because he's added to the dysfunction. This idea that this team was going to be dysfunctional no matter what Gruden did this season is so far fetched. His players act like he's not even there. They just do whatever the hell they want. I mean come on dude, we've got guys making political statements while the balls rolling around on the ground.

[HogsOfWar]

No, you fire Gruden because he's added to the dysfunction. This idea that this team was going to be dysfunctional no matter what Gruden did this season is so far fetched. His players act like he's not even there. They just do whatever the hell they want. I mean come on dude, we've got guys making political statements while the balls rolling around on the ground.

 

When the owner emasculates the coach, then of course the players are going to act like he's not there. It's fine if you believe in the "blow it all up again and maybe Snyder will get lucky" school of thought, but at least have an honest analysis of why you want to blow it up.

[Taylor703]

When the owner emasculates the coach, then of course the players are going to act like he's not there. It's fine if you believe in the "blow it all up again and maybe Snyder will get lucky" school of thought, but at least have an honest analysis of why you want to blow it up.

He benched the owners favorite player and you think he's been emasculated...

[Ghost of]

 

• the 16 seasons that preceded Snyder’s ownership in Washington, from 1983-98, when the franchise had 11 winning seasons, eight double-digit win records, seven playoff berths, three Super Bowl trips, two Super Bowl titles and a 12-5 mark in the postseason. Pre-Snyder, Washington endured just five losing seasons in the previous 16 years, almost completely flipping the script.

Um, yeah, but the losing seasons we suffered in the previous 16 years before Snyder were almost all contained within the 93-98 seasons.  The first year of his ownership we won the division, the 2nd year we at least hit .500.  So at the start, at least, it was a turnaround but he's never been given any due for that and critics almost always pretend that 93-98 never happened or somehow include it in his record of failure as an owner.

[Ghost of]

When the owner emasculates the coach, then of course the players are going to act like he's not there. It's fine if you believe in the "blow it all up again and maybe Snyder will get lucky" school of thought, but at least have an honest analysis of why you want to blow it up.

What planet do you live on?  Will people stop blaming Snyder for every ****ing time someone ELSE messes up on this team.  When Andre Roberts drops a pass, I assure you, Snyder has nothing to do with it.

[War Paint]

So you think RG3 can potentially be a top 10 QB in the league, going forwards, given his injuries and lack of pocket fundamentals?

Yes, I think it's possible for him to do that because he pretty much did it before just two years ago.  I'm not saying he will going forward.  I'm saying it's possible.  If we're trying to make him into Drew Bledsoe, I think he will fail.  If we try to utilize his strengths, he can be more productive.  His injuries are a valid concern, just like Matthew Stafford's injuries were a concern to the Lions.  IMO, Gruden has never had any interest in trying to scheme around his strengths.  Gruden doesn't even call bootlegs for him.   I am done with Gruden.  Robert might not be the answer, but Gruden was a terrible hire and should be gone. 

 

A new coaching staff, hopefully assembled by someone more qualified than Allen, should make the decision about Robert.  Hypothetically, let's say we made a huge move to hire someone like Parcells as a GM and gave him full control of hiring coaches and finding players.  If someone like him and the new staff don't think Robert is the guy after getting inside the organization, then so be it.  I'll trust someone with Parcells' credibility over a clueless rookie head coach before we completely sever ties with Robert.

[GoldSkinner]

Um, yeah, but the losing seasons we suffered in the previous 16 years before Snyder were almost all contained within the 93-98 seasons.  The first year of his ownership we won the division, the 2nd year we at least hit .500.  So at the start, at least, it was a turnaround but he's never been given any due for that and critics almost always pretend that 93-98 never happened or somehow include it in his record of failure as an owner.

 

First of all, Snyder's purchase of the team was finalized in May or June of '99. This was after the NFL draft that year and 3 months after the start of free agency, when all of the big free agents were off the market. There was no tangible evidence of Snyder's influence on the organization on a TEAM level. Snyder was on evaluation mode that season; he did virtually nothing. So, no, he doesn't get credit for 1999. His second year was a complete disaster, as we suffered a worse record despite increasing the Redskins payroll exponentially. The risk vs. reward that season was so lopsided that calling it a "winning season, " despite its technical soundness, is ridiculous in light of the record level diminishing returns.

 

No one forgets 93-98, but there were factors during that period that were both uncontrollable (JKC's failing health, salary cap) and controllable (Super Bowl hangover period, new head coach) that affected the individual teams from those years. Plus, that was only 6 seasons, a forgivable amount of time to demonstrate mediocrity compared to the 15 seasons represented by Snyder's ownership period.

 

What's Snyder's excuse?

[HogsOfWar]

What planet do you live on?  Will people stop blaming Snyder for every ****ing time someone ELSE messes up on this team.  When Andre Roberts drops a pass, I assure you, Snyder has nothing to do with it.

 

The context of the discussion is that Gruden has lost the team. I pointed out that this happens when the owner chooses star players over the coach.

[StephenDavis]

I knew when we hired Gruden he wasn't gonna all of a sudden start winning consistently. But I at least wanted to see a new fire in the players. They have none. This team is worse than last year. So if he couldn't even accomplish that, there's no way he'll lead this team to wins on a consistent basis. Ax, and try again.

[HogsOfWar]

Yes, I think it's possible for him to do that because he pretty much did it before just two years ago.  

 

1. Two years ago he was playing read-option in the pistol and defenses were unprepared. Now the league has caught up to that offensive innovation. 

2. Two years ago he was faster and healthier

[Shortcut21]

I knew when we hired Gruden he wasn't gonna all of a sudden start winning consistently. But I at least wanted to see a new fire in the players. They have none. This team is worse than last year. So if he couldn't even accomplish that, there's no way he'll lead this team to wins on a consistent basis. Ax, and try again.

 

Would it be safe to say, that he inherited another coaches infrastructure ?  A poor comparison would be a new president... inheriting the last presidents mess.

 

Now I personally may not agree with everything Gruden is doing, he is learning on the job.... all he has been used to is just "coaching" not all the other outside influences/media.

 

In any event things do need to change, Let Dan S. figure the front office out (lol), let Gruden continue to grow and pick the players that will be on board with his philosphy....

 

As i watch the Redskins there are a lot of players in my opinion that are not pro/nfl ready players.  A lot of no names and a lot of retreads....

 

anywho my .02  cents i suppose.

[War Paint]

1. Two years ago he was playing read-option in the pistol and defenses were unprepared. Now the league has caught up to that offensive innovation. 

2. Two years ago he was faster and healthier

So what?  Teams are still utilizing the read-option and having some success with it.  Wilson isn't a great pocket passer.  Our offense in 2012 was still Mike Shanahan's system, with some pistol and read-option incorporated into it.  You are trying to make it sound like we were in full Tim Tebow mode.  We weren't.

I knew when we hired Gruden he wasn't gonna all of a sudden start winning consistently. But I at least wanted to see a new fire in the players. They have none. This team is worse than last year. So if he couldn't even accomplish that, there's no way he'll lead this team to wins on a consistent basis. Ax, and try again.

I was a Bevell guy, but I was happy with the hire of Gruden.  I also felt that we would struggle at times because of him being a rookie head coach.  What we are seeing now isn't rookie head coach growing pains.  We are seeing a coach who is in way over his head.  We are seeing a team with zero discipline.  We are seeing a team who aren't prepared each week.  We see a head coach who is clueless on how to handle our QB situation. 

 

I can't see one thing, not ONE area where I feel like he has us going in the right direction.

[Red_dawg_one]

The only reason we want to keep Jay Gruden is due to contract, appearance (it looks bad) and appearance of stability.

Those are silly reasons. The reasons to fire him is that he doesn't possess the skills to be a HC in the NFL. His team is overmatched and under coached. Theyre undisciplined and don't have a clue what to do. He is a drama queen who adds to the sense of instability by switching QBs every few games. He bashes RG3, but then he benches him and the team looks worse. This guy is Arena League. Time to get an NFL calibre coach.

[repo_4]

Nobody is saying RGIII played well but I'm getting sick and tired of a guy who's played in 4 games this season getting the bulk of the blame. It's stupid. It's like people have run out of excuses for Gruden and are grasping at straws.

Amen.

 

As a rookie RG3 threw for 3200 yards, ran for 815, threw 20 TD's with 5 int.

Last year he was on pace for 3942 yards, 602 on the ground, 20 TD's and 15 ints (if he played 16 games)

This year he was on pace for 2405 yards, 267 on the ground, 5 TD's and 8 ints. (if he played 16 games)

 

Gruden was supposed to be the QB whisperer and RG3 has fallen off of a cliff. I am NOT advocating firing Gruden but to say it isn't partly on him is just keeping your head in the sand. He hasn't been able to have success with ANY of the 3 young QB's we have. If he can't figure out how to make one of them work after next year maybe then he will need to go...

[HogsOfWar]

So what?  Teams are still utilizing the read-option and having some success with it.  Wilson isn't a great pocket passer.  Our offense in 2012 was still Mike Shanahan's system, with some pistol and read-option incorporated into it.  You are trying to make it sound like we were in full Tim Tebow mode.  We weren't.

 

Here is Grantland looking at the read-option in 2012 vs 2013: "In 2012, read-option plays averaged a whopping 6.2 yards per carry,  ... In 2013, those figures are down; even after the Pryor run, read-option plays are averaging 4.7 yards per carry ..."

 

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barnwell-read-option-scheme/

 

In 2012 the read-option was exploiting a Moneyball-esque defensive inefficiency. Teams are still using it and having success, but that inefficiency isn't there. The read-option is fairly accurately "priced", if you will. So we can't expect RG3 to benefit from it as much going forwards as he did in 2012. And that's assuming he has the same speed. He does not. So defenses don't have to respect his running as much as they used to. 

[Red_dawg_one]

This is the most accurate aND logical reasoning and the honest reality to why we must terminate Jay Gruden

[Brokenstriker]

Gruden doesn't get the leeway that Joe Gibbs gets.

Gruden year one is more qualified than Gibbs year one was.  Gibbs went on to be great and then kinda blah in phase II ... Gruden is still in year one.  Gibbs career earns leeway but Gibbs year one didn't deserve any more than Gruden does now

[dballer]

Disagree entirely with you there.

 

There's 32 NFL head coaching positions, and only 4 to 6 open per year usually. Oppertunity and money talks.

 

IF we got rid of Gruden (not certain), and IF Griffin is in the plan going forward (not certain), it still quite possible that we could still land a good coach other than Briles. It basically rests on one factor...

 

Does that coach believe Robert Griffin IS "the guy" that he can win with.

 

That's it. That's all it really take. There's long been talk regarding football that most of your really good coaches have a fair bit of ego. They believe that they can make something out of a player they think have talent even if others couldn't. They trust in their system, they trust in their ability to coach, they trust in their ability to evaluate...they don't necessarily trust in group think or what everyone else is saying.

 

We simply flat out don't know what coaching prospects may be thinking as it relates to Robert Griffin. We do know there's been conflicting statements and beliefs by commentators, ex-coaches, ex-players, etc regarding whether or not Griffin does have the potential still to be a legit franchise guy. So it's not ridiculous or unreasonable to suggest that there may very well be potential coaching candidates that do believe that.

 

If a candidate thinks Griffin will be the guy, and approaches that from a Mike Holmgren style ("you make your choic and that's your guy, hell or high water"), it would be very easy for them to delude themselves that everything will be okay even with a bad first season by telling themselves the poor record isn't what did Gruden in...it was the chaos and the abandonment and lack of development of the suppoesed "franchise guy". And in their head, that part won't happen to them because this guy WILL be a success because they will make him one.

 

Are we as likely to attract a head coach as we would've been last year, or as we would if we had a slew of good young pro-bowl talent players like KC or the niners did at one point, or if we had a guy whose played numerous years as a top 10 QB like say San Diego? Probably not. But I think it's ridiculous to act like we'd have no shot outside of Briles.

 

Oakland and the Jets are the two other most likely teams to get a coach fired this year...neither should be significantly more attractive than Washington at this point, even if Griffin is forced on them.

 

It's fine sounding doom and gloom and fits into the narrative that some people want to push...but reality the football world has not 100% written off Robert Griffin and there's absolutely still the potential of a candidate who believes he can really be the guy with the right coaching taking the oppertunity.

 

Does that mean its the right way to go? Not necessarily. But I don't really think that alone is a reason NOT to do it, because I think the logic is ridiculously flawed.

 

I really couldn't disagree more. Like you said, there are 4-6 openings every year. There are not a ton of valued potential head coaches out there. I am sure you could find another Jim Zorn. No doubt.

 

Money talks? EVERYONE has money. Just what we need, though, another money chaser. 

 

And you are right, we don't know what coaching prospects are thinking of Griffin. Though, what he has put on tape since his rookie year isn't anything to get someone excited about. But sure someone may think he could be good. On the other hand, we do KNOW what people think about Dan Snyder. If he fires another coach without giving him a chance, just because he didn't bang that square piece into his round hole (which by keeping Griffin would suggest that is the reason he was fired), I don't even want the kind of coach that would come here under that situation.

 

And oh my, Oakland is MUCH more attractive. Good looking young QB who has shown the ability to be effective in a pro style offense even with a lack of weapons...A good looking young RB...Some nice pieces on defense including a stud in Mack, what looks to be a top 3 pick in the draft...and oh yeh, no where near the DRAMA that is in Washington. The Jets are probably the only situation in the NFL that is worse off, and at least there the Coach knows the Owner won't up and fire him after one bad season. Is it not possible that a coach out there believes he could win with Geno Smith? 

 

I don't know what doom and gloom narrative you think I am trying to push? I am simply saying that if Gruden goes the whole situation needs to be blown up, from Griffin to Allen. To me, firing another head coach after one season is the doom and gloom part of this. I guess you mean doom or gloom about Griffin? Yeh I am pretty gloomy about his prospects right now. But in my opinion, his best chance is if they both stay, Griffin is able to figure out what Gruden wants him to do, and he out right wins the job next year.

 

If you think Griffin will be successful trying to learn another offensive system, which will basically be his 4th in 4 years (because what he ran his second year was very different than his first year), and do it in less than ONE year, because that's how long he will have before a decision about a new contract is made...I find those some VERY long odds. 

[War Paint]

Gruden year one is more qualified than Gibbs year one was.  Gibbs went on to be great and then kinda blah in phase II ... Gruden is still in year one.  Gibbs career earns leeway but Gibbs year one didn't deserve any more than Gruden does now

What?  No he wasn't.  Also, Gibbs got the team to rally and finish 8-8 after an 0-5 start. 

 

Here's what Gibbs career looked like before becoming our HC.

 

• San Diego State University (1964–1966)

  (offensive line coach)

• Florida State University (1967–1968)

  (offensive line coach)

• University of Southern California (1969-1970)

  (offensive line coach)

• University of Arkansas (1971–1972)

  (running backs coach)

• St. Louis Cardinals (1973-1977)

  (running backs coach)

• Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1978)

  (offensive coordinator)

• San Diego Chargers (1979–1980)

  (offensive coordinator)

 

 

[Brokenstriker]

Amen.

 

As a rookie RG3 threw for 3200 yards, ran for 815, threw 20 TD's with 5 int.

Last year he was on pace for 3942 yards, 602 on the ground, 20 TD's and 15 ints (if he played 16 games)

This year he was on pace for 2405 yards, 267 on the ground, 5 TD's and 8 ints. (if he played 16 games)

 

Gruden was supposed to be the QB whisperer and RG3 has fallen off of a cliff. I am NOT advocating firing Gruden but to say it isn't partly on him is just keeping your head in the sand. He hasn't been able to have success with ANY of the 3 young QB's we have. If he can't figure out how to make one of them work after next year maybe then he will need to go...

re: his development and ability ...

he was trending down 2012 - 2013, the total yards increase sounds great but not in context of pass attempts and completions and there was considerably more garbage time in 2013 than there was in 2012 that inflated passing yards and maintained TDs.  TDs no improvement, rushing yards notable regression, INTs dramatic regression ... Negative trends continues in 2014 looks like across the board.

What?  No he wasn't.  Also, Gibbs got the team to rally and finish 8-8 after an 0-5 start. 

 

Here's what Gibbs career looked like before becoming our HC.

Gruden has HC experience ... Gibbs never was a head coach prior to being the Skins HC ... minor leagues  included.  They both had 3 years as NFL OC ... I think Gruden's 10 years of work as a professional if not NFL head coach trumps Gibbs resume of being a college assistant and position coach.  And .. Gruden has an impressive resume as a QB ... relative to Gibbs which goes to a likely better understanding of how to play the position and how to coach the position ... AND ... Gruden had just spent the previous 3 years developing a project rookie QB ... something the Redskins were particularly interested in.  Gibbs also had more than a few future pro bowl players to work with and Richie Petitbon ... haven't seen many players of that caliber this season and there's no Richie Petitbon caliber coach on D or anyone qualifed to carry his headphone wire around.

[nfl guru]

Yeah, that Gibbs unqualified line is straight bs.  Gibbs learned he had to adjust to his players strengths and pay more attention to detail, thus you saw an IMPROVEMENT and they finished strong.  Gruden just plays media games while the ship is sinking, hoping it will light a fire under these guys asses.

 

One guy adjusted to his qb's and won 3 rings. The other basically derides his qb's and flexes his system upon them.

 

Please don't compare these 2 ever again.

 

 

Case in point: When bombastic Philadelphia Eagles coach Buddy Ryan said a few days before a playoff game in January 1991 that Washington running back Earnest Byner would fumble three times, reporters pressed Gibbs for a response. The Redskins' coach refused to take Ryan's bait. Gibbs' silence spoke volumes about his disregard for triviality. "Joe was every bit as competitive as Buddy if not more, but he just never let it show because he understood that the whole circus act during the week didn't matter," Ray Didinger, a sportswriter at the time for the Philadelphia Daily News, told IBD. "All that mattered was what you did once the ball was kicked off. That was the way he prepared his team and that was the way they played against the Eagles." 

 

 

Gibbs considered his options: pass and lose, run and win? He downshifted fast, implementing a balanced attack with a one-back, two-tight-end alignment featuring Riggins and Joe Washington alternating as the backs. Gibbs had learned about that alignment from Coryell. He also welcomed a suggestion from offensive coordinator Joe Bugel to put more stock in the running game."Joe didn't let his ego get in the way of making a change," said George Starke, an offensive tackle on that team. "Bugel said, 'Look, we're all

going to get fired. You've got a big fullback in Riggins; you need to run the ball.' The thing that made Joe Gibbs great is he said, 'OK.' A lot of guys would have gone down in flames saying, 'This is my system.'" His willingness to listen to others also surfaced in his deft halftime adjustments. He'd huddle in the locker room with his assistants and pinpoint his opponent's weaknesses overlooked in the first half. "Teams would come out with the same approach offensively or defensively, while the Redskins would come out and, boom, they'd win the ballgame," said former Redskins radio announcer Frank Herzog. "It got to where you'd think at halftime what they were going to do to second-guess and adjust." 

[dballer]

What?  No he wasn't.  Also, Gibbs got the team to rally and finish 8-8 after an 0-5 start. 

 

Here's what Gibbs career looked like before becoming our HC.

 

Yeh, um, I would say Gruden was at least no more less qualified coming in?

 

But yes, he showed some immediate coaching ability.