Why Gruden got no honeymoon--

[Wildbunny]

Yea, Gruden had no say about benching a healthy Cousins after 5 starts.  Had no say about benching a healthy Griffin after 3 starts. Then McCoy after two starts.

 

And just because McVay was seen as a promising coach doesn't mean you give him his shot with a rookie HC.  I don't care about his career more than I care about the Redskins winning.  Between Gruden wearing the hats of HC, quasi-OC and QBs coach, how did anyone expect him to do any or all of it successfully?  My one sliver of optimism is that he'll get better because he'll be able to focus on doing his job...and not what should be 3 peoples' jobs.  

 

What improved about RGIII?  His footwork?  Accuracy?  Understanding of the offense?  He isn't going into this season as the undisputed starter, so any improvements were minimal at best.  He hasn't been developed into a viable starter...he could be off the team in a calendar year.    

 

 

The most important thing was he looked to be in over his head.  Game planning for Colt McCoy to throw the ball 47 times is not a path to winning a football game.  We started that game off abandoning the run.  In the first quarter, we ran 3 times and passed 9 times.  1st quarter ended with us down 3-7.  2nd quarter, 3 runs, 14 passes...we ended the half down 10-21.  Luck didn't start bombs away until the 2nd half.  

 

Is that thought process from the Gruden school of logic?  Game planning for the Rams:  "We're facing a good defensive line...so I won't make their jobs difficult by running the ball.  I'll let them pin their ears back and pass rush every down.  Despite the fact that my O-Line is trash at pass blocking and I have a very limited QB under center..."  How much sense does that make?  

 

I suppose you could find some kind of silver lining in the stinker we played against the Bucs also. To me it's a systemic pattern of our team not looking ready, not executing, and therefore not winning.  They aren't losing games despite some stellar coaching.  And I totally disagree about penalties...when you have guys lining up on the wrong side of formations, and looking confused as to where they should be lining up, that means the coaches didn't prepare the players to run those looks.  When guys are constantly making mental mistakes all over the team, you have to look at the people preparing them to play.  

 

We can talk about how Gruden's offense only went for 30+ twice (against terrible defenses)...or how we single-handedly made the Giants' season look a lot better than what it was by providing them with 33% of their wins.  Or how even when our QBs had 'good' statistical games and his offense is 'working', we were still losing.  

 

- What did you wanted Gruden to do with "Coaching Carousel"? Playing Griffin with a dislocated ankle? Play Cousins while everyone was scremaing for its head (first and foremost almost everyone at ES)? Stick with McCoy after this gloating win over Dallas when everyone knew he's no starting material...

 

- If he's a genius give him a try. Don't hold him back.

 

- Griffin was actually moving the offense way better than prior to the benching, and shows more confident (see run vs Giants).

 

- 3 runs, 9 passes, that's 12 plays in a quarter. Means offense is not moving, neither running nor passing. We weren't effective at running the ball. (4, 1, 21 and 1 yds in the 1st quarter, along with 1 fumble, 2 sacks for -5 and -9 and 1 false start for TW). Then you open your first drive in the second with a -4 yds run...

 

- So after that pathetic games against the Colts where you just can't run the ball but managed to get 392 yds through the air, you're facing the Rams DL and think you're gonna run it through them? Plan was to beat them through the air so you can play ground. You don't need arm strenght to play dink and dunk passes.

 

- I'll repeat myself regarding penalties, but people making mental mistakes may as well be due to players not getting enough grasp on the O or D, not caring about much, no matter how hard the coaches tried to teach them. Still, we went on a full change of regime on the D side of the ball, and canned our OL coach to get one of the most respected at it. But we're still having the same crappy players that we had for years. That's a known commodity around here, they sucks from top to bottom with two or three exceptions. Best coaches in the world won't turn donkeys into GOAT. They'll do with what they have, and I wish you luck to find out if what we had on field this year wasn't the best the players could do. Remember, they sucks.

 

- Finally, he's the Head Coach. He's not here to play buddies with players. If that's what players are expecting from their coaches, then they have to find something else to do as work. If they suck on field, I expect the coach to call for them privately, and in public. If they have some kind of honor or whatever they'll put on a show next time just to show the coach was wrong. If they don't like it and don't put on a show, they have nothing to do on my team because they are the one over their head regarding their value on the field. Lots of guys in the NFL thinks they're demigods and don't accept critics, while they just plain sucks except for a good play now and then.

[skinny21]

Small point Wildbunny... are you sure you have your numbers right? - 4, 1, 21, 1 is 4 runs, not 3. And 4 runs for 27 yds = just under 7 yds/carry. Wish our run game had been that ineffective all year

[Skinsinparadise]

I called my draft on this with SIP going in the first 3 and he was exactly #3 - (just having fun), but I also called redkins55 to go in the top 5 and he dropped to #7. 

 

 

 

 

 

#3?  The top spot keeps alluding me when you do your counts.   If someone starts a thread about why did it take Danny (who supposedly just wants to win) about 15 years to hire a real GM, I bet I'd grab the #1 post spot. 

[Jumbo]

 If someone starts a thread about why did it take Danny (who supposedly just wants to win) about 15 years to hire a real GM, I bet I'd grab the #1 post spot. 

 

 

I'd arm wrestle you for it. You'd have a theoretical age advantage but I'm, let's say, "scrappy." 

 

It's sunny and beautiful at the mouth of the Columbia River and I'm headed out. Have a great Sunday, amigo. And I hope everyone else here gets in some R & R. 

[TSO]

I think most opinions are just that opinions. No rights or wrongs. But I think when it comes to just about anyone on this board, agree or disagree with their take, their opinions about a head coach are colored by lots of variables. This isn't like we are trying to assess what kind of guy EJ Biggers is, that's an issue where we aren't working with much info. With this one, we've had plenty to observe and encode on multiple fronts.

For Jay, I doubt with most of his critics, its simply well they lost so its Jay's fault, enough said. Or I like RG3, Jay doesn't and that's the whole story. With Jay or any head coach for that matter we are working with lots of information, lots of variables that we are observing, lots of moving parts, and we've all been around the block where we can factor in context, too. Now is there more to a story sure. We aren't privy to what's going behind the scenes so instead we got to trust or not trust the media insiders who talk about it. And they can be wrong.

We've read about Jay in Cincy. We've likely seen Jay speak a few hundred times or so. We watched all the games and sometimes more than once. We've read hundreds of articles about Jay. We've listened to tons of people who cover the team talk about what they've observed about Jay. And from that soup of information we form an opinion. Not to mention all the observations we've made about prior Redskins coaches and other coaches we've witnessed for some of us for over 20 years of watching football -- as a contrast.

If only that's how everyone so reasonably came to their opinion on Gruden, lol. Yeaaahhh, lots of variables everyone takes into account. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

If what you're claiming is true, things would be a lot different in terms of how a rookie HC is perceived with no legit GM, no first round pick, a starting QB injured after only one game into the season, an organization filled with failures at every level who played the blame game right to keep their jobs, etc...

Instead of calling those issues "variables" as well you seek to undermine their legitimacy by labeling them as excuses for his criticisms. Only variables that speak negatively about him must be considered, essentially. Otherwise they're just "excuses". Right.

Gibbs 2.0 had a losing record and only one playoff win. He left the team old and declining personnel-wise. Yet, almost everyone acknowledges he was a great coach, managing two nice playoff runs at the end of two seasons even though he had a 6-10 and 5-11 season sprinkled in between with plenty of controversy in one of them.

Why? Because we know the environment he was placed in wasn't anywhere near conducive to success. We blame Vinny and Dan for it while acknowledging he should've never been given final say on the roster himself.

Yet, Gruden in only one year as a first time HC with arguably more issues to deal with is hardly granted any of this understanding. Let alone patience. This, from a fan base who has trashed Dan's impatience for years and constantly insist a coach should be given at least three years.

Anyone who has been here long enough can even point to EXACTLY when this mentality took root. And it doesn't take a genius to see the correlation between the most adamant Gruden disbelievers and their affinity for Robert (as Jumbo has pointed out with evidence of post counts a hundred times).

So, yeah, I can't take your word for it here, SIP, that these opinions we're constantly hearing are based on objective observations taking in all the variables. Honestly, I just cracked up saying that, lol. It's a preposterous notion all things considered.

I wish it were so. I wish we saw more constructive criticism shaped with an understanding of context. I don't think an acknowledgment of being unsure about Gruden is at all a sign of weakness or an inability to assess properly. Quite the opposite, really.

I think we're getting closer to this type of discussion now, hopefully. And I hope the fact that I avoided speaking in generalities as much as possible will generate an understanding from folks that I know there are exceptions to the issue I'm presenting here. 

[megared]

- What did you wanted Gruden to do with "Coaching Carousel"? Playing Griffin with a dislocated ankle? Play Cousins while everyone was scremaing for its head (first and foremost almost everyone at ES)? Stick with McCoy after this gloating win over Dallas when everyone knew he's no starting material...

 

- 3 runs, 9 passes, that's 12 plays in a quarter. Means offense is not moving, neither running nor passing. We weren't effective at running the ball. (4, 1, 21 and 1 yds in the 1st quarter, along with 1 fumble, 2 sacks for -5 and -9 and 1 false start for TW). Then you open your first drive in the second with a -4 yds run...

 

- So after that pathetic games against the Colts where you just can't run the ball but managed to get 392 yds through the air, you're facing the Rams DL and think you're gonna run it through them? Plan was to beat them through the air so you can play ground. You don't need arm strenght to play dink and dunk passes.

 

I surely hope Gruden didn't bench Cousins because of feedback.  I don't think it's too much to ask of a coach to identify your depth chart before the season begins.  And it's one thing to say 'Griffin isn't playing good' and bench him...it's another thing for nobody on your roster to be capable of playing QB the way you want them to.  Perhaps, its a lack of coaching, or a misunderstanding about what your expectations are...or bad plays, etc.  We went Griffin, Cousins, Colt, Griffin, Colt, Griffin.  Only one of those changes were due to injury (unless you want to argue Colt deserved to keep the job after the Rams massacre).  

 

You don't stop running the ball immediately because it's ineffective.  Especially when you're facing a soft run defense that you just got a 20 yard run on (which by the way was one of the ONLY first downs we got in the first half).  Funny that the Patriots, two weeks prior gave their 3rd string, no-name RB 30+ carries and didn't force their HOF QB into a showdown through the air with Luck.  

 

And who cares about how many passing yards a QB is getting?  It's not an indicator of anything.  Especially when defenses are playing soft in the second half, because the game is already over.  

 

- I'll repeat myself regarding penalties, but people making mental mistakes may as well be due to players not getting enough grasp on the O or D, not caring about much, no matter how hard the coaches tried to teach them. Still, we went on a full change of regime on the D side of the ball, and canned our OL coach to get one of the most respected at it. But we're still having the same crappy players that we had for years. That's a known commodity around here, they sucks from top to bottom with two or three exceptions. Best coaches in the world won't turn donkeys into GOAT. They'll do with what they have, and I wish you luck to find out if what we had on field this year wasn't the best the players could do. Remember, they sucks.

 

- Finally, he's the Head Coach. He's not here to play buddies with players. If that's what players are expecting from their coaches, then they have to find something else to do as work. If they suck on field, I expect the coach to call for them privately, and in public. If they have some kind of honor or whatever they'll put on a show next time just to show the coach was wrong. If they don't like it and don't put on a show, they have nothing to do on my team because they are the one over their head regarding their value on the field. Lots of guys in the NFL thinks they're demigods and don't accept critics, while they just plain sucks except for a good play now and then.

 

Don't agree.  Penalties are a part of the discipline a coach instills.  When you're among the worst in the league and therefore an outlier from everyone else, it isn't unreasonable to question preparation.

 

And I'll ask again...what did Gruden do at even a mediocre level last season?  Can't say discipline, not game-planning or preparation...nothing notable about in game adjustments.  Offense was pedestrian at best. QB development was nothing to write home about.  Run game regressed.  Near the bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions.  3rd worst in turnover differentials.  

[TSO]

And I'll ask again...what did Gruden do at even a mediocre level last season? Can't say discipline, not game-planning or preparation...nothing notable about in game adjustments. Offense was pedestrian at best. QB development was nothing to write home about. Run game regressed. Near the bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions. 3rd worst in turnover differentials.

Yeah, it obviously wasn't a good year and he did a poor job overall, but why are you omitting the yards per game offensive output? "QB development" is once again mentioned without even the slightest consideration given to the fact that the guy who took majority of reps and developmental time the entire offseason got hurt for an extended period. How about the slight improvement in ST play, even with all those injuries to the unit?

Some things do, unfortunately, take time to improve. He inherited a 3-13 team where the organizational heads assumed one guy was the main issue and had an "addition by subtraction" philosophy going into the offseason.

Bruce Allen openly stated his belief the team is closer to its 2012 version rather than its 2013 one. Cerrato, someone who knows Snyder well and how he operates, stated right before Shanny was fired that he believes Dan will try to keep as many coaches as possible so as not to eat all of those contracts up. We saw the organizational leaks about Haslett being handcuffed. The scouts being ignored by the evil tyrant Shanny. It was a friggin joke.

And since there's a discussion about the Oline going on in another thread, let's not forget what that Oline was built for and how one-dimensional it is (good at zone-blocking in the run game and little else). And some are even willing to argue about whether or not they're good at that one thing, lol.

Yet, we still moved the ball. We were poor at scoring, but so was Kyle Shanahan's offense. I have a tough time believing those guys just both stink when all they've done is be successful with their offense's everywhere they've been. The struggles come in the red zone and in short yardage situations and, surprise surprise, that lines up EXACTLY with the Oline's weaknesses. Which also happened to be a strength of Gruden's with the Bengals.

So what's more likely? He's just totally inept, couldn't improve anything, and will continue to be a huge failure? Or is it at all possible that the environment he was in was simply too much to overcome, as it has been for virtually every coach we've had here no matter their pedigree, and though he could've done plenty better, it wouldn't have made a huge difference, anyway?

I mean, I just don't know. I do know that I'm entirely too tired of seeing successful people come here and suddenly turn into utter failures. It's annoying.

Moving forward, he's hired a QB coach. Upgraded the Oline coaching. Entire defensive staff is new outside of the consensus best positional coach on the team in Olivadotti. He's stated a desire to get the Oline bigger and stronger, so that they can anchor better when pass-blocking and so that the running game isn't entirely zone-blocking based, which in turn makes the PA game one-dimensional as well. Drafting Long and Moses were a part of that, and we'll see how this draft goes as well.

I mean... there are things to look at and say "okay, we're progressing". Granted, it's mostly on paper, but the offense last year wasn't a total failure, even with the huge issues at QB. Some teams don't overcome issues at that position at all. Yet:

• The Redskins finished the season with a completion percentage of 66.5 percent, breaking the team record of 65.8 percent set in 2012.
• The Redskins finished the season with 364 completions, breaking the team record for completions in a season set in 2013 (355).
• The Redskins accumulated 4,461 gross passing yards (passing yards unadjusted for sacks) in 2014, second-most in team history behind the 1987 Redskins (4,476).
• The Redskins led the league in yards after catch (2,633) for the first time in records available dating back to 1995.
• The Redskins averaged 6.03 yards on first down, second-best in the NFC and fourth-best in the NFL. Washington has finished in the Top 5 in the category in two of the last three years (No. 1 in 2012 — 6.54).
• The Redskins posted a team passer rating of 88.8, the eighth-best figure in team history.
• The Redskins finished 13th overall in yards per game output in 2014.

So, it's not entirely bad. There are some things to build on. You can look at those bullet points, knowing all the team issues that existed before and during the season, and go so far as to say that he did actually overcome things. Still, the team only won 4 games. That's failure at every level.

I'm just unwilling to write him off that fast. I'm also unwilling to criticize some of the things that people are too willing to get on him about (namely the QBs "regressing" and press conferences/interviews).

The former I think is untrue and the latter simply way overblown.

I want to see how the guy looks with a better supporting cast and, most importantly, a Front Office that has a structure that makes sense.

My main criticism of Gruden is one that rarely gets mentioned. It was something I was skeptical about before the season started and as soon as the hire was made. When everyone was trashing Shanny's "doghouse" and "cold culture" and so excited about Gruden instilling a "friendlier" environment where coaches are happy to come to work and players have "more control"... I worried that he was being too trusting of our personnel and not understanding the task at hand. That it'd get out of control fast.

I remember being particularly frustrated after the Eagles game in week 3 where he and the team just seemed entirely too confident, even though they lost, like they had accomplished something. And then we saw how that turned out against the Giants.

But Gruden was brought here in large part because of that type of attitude. That "player's coach" and "open and honest" guy. All offseason Robert was telling us about how much more control he has in this offense and how nice it is to know everyone has "each other's backs". I was worried this would backfire if the players weren't doing well with it or couldn't handle it, even had a discussion with VOR about it.

I think this often gets overlooked when people discuss the way things went and the frustration Gruden had in the end. Things lead into each other. It all started with the overall organizational philosophy that was incorrect, and it didn't happen in a vacuum. Yet, it more often than not is discussed like it did.

[Skinsinparadise]

If only that's how everyone so reasonably came to their opinion on Gruden, lol. Yeaaahhh, lots of variables everyone takes into account. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

If what you're claiming is true, things would be a lot different in terms of how a rookie HC is perceived with no legit GM, no first round pick, a starting QB injured after only one game into the season, an organization filled with failures at every level who played the blame game right to keep their jobs, etc...

 

 

Your rationale for giving Jay a break is about context.  Look at all the junk from all corners he had to deal with.  And if we all complain about the same junk, how can we have an issue with him since he had to deal with it?  Now where we depart.  Is I take that as your position on Jay.   Your position is all that junk bothers you and you give Jay a break based on it.    Furthermore, it seems like you don't get how others who are bothered by that same junk (Allen-Danny), etc don't see this the same way as you do.  That's fair but my point is that's a position-opinion.

 

Counter position to that:  we can observe a coach in that sea of dysfunction and on things that have nothing to do with that dysfunction. Game preparation, half-time adjustments, what you hear about how Jay runs practices, what you hear about Jay's work ethic, what you here about how Jay conducts the locker room, Jay's press conferences, just the general vibe of Jay's competence.  I think I elaborated pretty well on some of those points among others.  And none of those variables have anything to do with Dan and Bruce.  Don't get me wrong as you know I enjoy taking shots at both Dan and Bruce but I can't blame them for everything.    

[megared]

Yeah, it obviously wasn't a good year and he did a poor job overall, but why are you omitting the yards per game offensive output? "QB development" is once again mentioned without even the slightest consideration given to the fact that the guy who took majority of reps and developmental time the entire offseason got hurt for an extended period. How about the slight improvement in ST play, even with all those injuries to the unit?

So what's more likely? He's just totally inept, couldn't improve anything, and will continue to be a huge failure? Or is it at all possible that the environment he was in was simply too much to overcome, as it has been for virtually every coach we've had here no matter their pedigree, and though he could've done plenty better, it wouldn't have made a huge difference, anyway?

So, it's not entirely bad. There are some things to build on. You can look at those bullet points, knowing all the team issues that existed before and during the season, and go so far as to say that he did actually overcome things. Still, the team only won 4 games. That's failure at every level.

But Gruden was brought here in large part because of that type of attitude. That "player's coach" and "open and honest" guy. All offseason Robert was telling us about how much more control he has in this offense and how nice it is to know everyone has "each other's backs". I was worried this would backfire if the players weren't doing well with it or couldn't handle it, even had a discussion with VOR about it.

I think this often gets overlooked when people discuss the way things went and the frustration Gruden had in the end. Things lead into each other. It all started with the overall organizational philosophy that was incorrect, and it didn't happen in a vacuum. Yet, it more often than not is discussed like it did.

 

Yards/game is a terrible indicator of how effective an offense is.  It throws out all context and treats every yard the same...whether it's 1st & 10 0-0 or 3rd and 6 down 0-28 in the fourth.  It assumes that defenses' number one job is to stop an offense from gaining yards.  Anyone that suffered through last season can tell you the yards were not flowing when it mattered.  During crucial portions of the game, we couldn't buy yardage to convert a first down.  Two things that makes our yardage look better than what it was: always playing from behind, and Desean Jackson.  

 

No one is absolving Bruce Allen of any blame...but Gruden wasn't blameless.  He wasn't someone that did a stellar job in spite of the FO.  How much influence he had concerning the acquisition of personnel, I'm not going to speculate on, because there's no way to know.  I will say that if Gruden watched film of our team and thought our O-Line was acceptable, I'm worried.  If he thought Lauvao would solve our problems, he's worse than I thought.  Assuming he looked at our O-Line and decided he has to work with what he has, the logic that lends itself to thinking we need to be a pass happy team truly escapes me.  The one thing the O-Line was acceptable at was run blocking...

 

I've tried to pretty much limit my criticism of him to coaching responsibilities.  Had he come in, set expectations, and implemented his own program, great, that warrants a little patience.  But now we're entering year 2, and he's just now deciding to get the big linemen we knew he'd need to successfully run his power scheme, IF he decides to run the ball.  We have a hodge-podge of the worst of Shanahan's stretch zone and the worst of a west coast offense that is dink and dunk because our guys can't hold protection long enough for intermediate routes to develop.  

 

Along the coaching lines, I hope we never see games like Tampa or St. Louis while he's here again (or ever).  Our guys looked unprepared and overmatched.  If Gruden wants to establish an identity for the offense and dare teams to stop it, we have to at least be good at running it, lol.  Otherwise he might want to start to develop game plans based upon taking away things that our opponents do well.  

 

I thought he got hired because of how he was given credit for developing a 'limited' Andy Dalton, and therefore has the potential to do the same here.  I agree with your criticism, but I wonder whether that is because of limited competence or whether it's just the learning curve of a rookie head coach.  I know in Philly, they had no such issues with Chip (admittedly different situation though).  It worries me to be a year in and not have something to point to, to say Gruden does well.  Spurrier at least had the optimism of Fun n Gun, Zorn had the 6-2 start to 2008.  

[skinny21]

Megared, I think that's an interesting point about understanding our oline and how best to call plays accordingly. It was so strange to see the run game struggle so much even though the lineup was mostly the same, but even more odd to see how often we (Jay) didn't seem inclined to commit to the run. It was also odd that all of that followed Jay's offseason comments about not changing the run game much, and that the run game would be one of the strengths (or was it "the strength"?) of the team.

I will say though that 1) Gruden wasn't in charge of personnel, and 2) if you take the stance that he was, then you see Long, Moses (and retaining LeRibeus) as signs he was moving toward the big boys he wanted/needed.

TSO - I'm projecting here, but in terms of the coach I would want to hire (were I in Allen's shoes), a "players coach" would be far down my checklist, whereas "has developed a young QB" would be near the top. Now it may be he was brought in based (in part) on both merits, but the latter seems far more important given where we stood with Griffin (and Cousins).

Also TSO, in your "what's more likely" scenario, hyperbole makes that an easy decision, but taking it out muddies the water for me. The flip side would be something like, what's more likely - he is a genius coach that wasn't allowed to shine (like all of the coaches before him) due to a poor situation, or that while he may turn into a decent coach, his track record points to him not ever reaching the upper echelon of coaches.

Personally, I like some things about Jay. I also saw some things that drove me nuts - new embarrassing things that helped take me to a new low as a fan. Things that pained me worse than all of our other coaching failures. As such (and I've said it before), he didn't seem like the type of coach that would overcome the FO issues.

Now I've throttled back to "wait and see" mode because I have a lot of faith in Scot (as well as recognizing the mitigating circumstances surrounding last year). So, while I believe he needs to improve on a bunch of things - many of them can be helped by a competent FO and better personnel (including Cavanaugh/Callahan/Barry).

[TSO]

Your rationale for giving Jay a break is about context.  Look at all the junk from all corners he had to deal with.  And if we all complain about the same junk, how can we have an issue with him since he had to deal with it?  Now where we depart.  Is I take that as your position on Jay.   Your position is all that junk bothers you and you give Jay a break based on it.    Furthermore, it seems like you don't get how others who are bothered by that same junk (Allen-Danny), etc don't see this the same way as you do.  That's fair but my point is that's a position-opinion.

 

Counter position to that:  we can observe a coach in that sea of dysfunction and on things that have nothing to do with that dysfunction. Game preparation, half-time adjustments, what you hear about how Jay runs practices, what you hear about Jay's work ethic, what you here about how Jay conducts the locker room, Jay's press conferences, just the general vibe of Jay's competence.  I think I elaborated pretty well on some of those points among others.  And none of those variables have anything to do with Dan and Bruce.  Don't get me wrong as you know I enjoy taking shots at both Dan and Bruce but I can't blame them for everything.

 

I don't think my position is "let's just give him a break"...  it's more about acknowledging the significance of one's environment when discussing his failures. And he clearly failed. No doubt about that. I don't dress up a 4-12 season as anything other than a massive failure on all levels, from the top of the organization with Snyder and Allen, to Gruden as HC and finally to the players.

 

And I have to disagree with your counter-position that there are things that "don't have anything to do with that dysfunction". You see, this is my entire thesis. Everything is connected.

 

It's so much easier to handle "game preparation, half-time adjustments, practices, etc..." when you have a level of competence above you hand-selecting for you the men you will be preparing, adjusting with during half-time, and setting up practices for.

 

Silly things like the obsessive interpretation of every word at every press conference actually become silly things when you have a group of guys assembled properly with an overall vision that seeks to harmonize their skill sets, and the natural effect of that harmony - winning - occurs.   

 

  Things can snowball very quickly without basic discipline at the top of any organization, let alone one in a league as competitive as the NFL. There is a reason that sayings like "success starts at the top" are as cliche as they are.

 

And as Skin fans, we've seen time after time successful coaches/players/execs come here and find their weaknesses exposed and targeted while their strengths become marginalized. It. Starts. Up. Top. 

 

Once again, my original point here was that it is altogether a contradictory stance to acknowledge the significance of a hire like Scot's while simultaneously criticizing Gruden without that being a huge part of the context.

 

If you think Scot's hire was huge, that means Gruden's first year was missing something huge. It really is basic logic.

 

It doesn't mean that Gruden is absolved for his part in the failure that was last season. It doesn't mean he won't go on to be a massive failure, either.

 

It's simply about establishing an understanding that there is a level of uncertainty about the degree with which Gruden was affected and swept up by the inherent negatives within this organization, as so many others in the past have been as well.      

 

Yards/game is a terrible indicator of how effective an offense is.  It throws out all context and treats every yard the same...whether it's 1st & 10 0-0 or 3rd and 6 down 0-28 in the fourth.  It assumes that defenses' number one job is to stop an offense from gaining yards.  Anyone that suffered through last season can tell you the yards were not flowing when it mattered.  During crucial portions of the game, we couldn't buy yardage to convert a first down.  Two things that makes our yardage look better than what it was: always playing from behind, and Desean Jackson.

 

I didn't tell you to only look at yards per game. I asked why you were omitting it when you asked the question about Gruden doing nothing "above mediocre".

So, I'm sorry, but you just went into that for nothing there. But I agree, yards per game should always be placed in its context.

Still, clearly, you'd rather have more yards than less. It isn't totally meaningless, even without context.

And Gruden is hardly the first coach to benefit from a play-maker at WR. Let's just take out all yards from every coach who has one and see where the numbers line up, I guess. Can't just pick and choose what to ignore, which is what you're doing here.

Oh, and two of the games we had some of our highest yardage outputs? Versus the Jags and Eagles in weeks 2 and 3 respectively. That's two teams we weren't ever really "playing from behind" against. So there goes that argument as well.

 

No one is absolving Bruce Allen of any blame...but Gruden wasn't blameless.  He wasn't someone that did a stellar job in spite of the FO.  How much influence he had concerning the acquisition of personnel, I'm not going to speculate on, because there's no way to know.  I will say that if Gruden watched film of our team and thought our O-Line was acceptable, I'm worried.  If he thought Lauvao would solve our problems, he's worse than I thought.  Assuming he looked at our O-Line and decided he has to work with what he has, the logic that lends itself to thinking we need to be a pass happy team truly escapes me.  The one thing the O-Line was acceptable at was run blocking...

Again, not the point I was making. It's not about absolving anyone of blame, it's about acknowledging how important proper organizational structure is and how difficult it is to otherwise operate in a poor environment.

 

I've tried to pretty much limit my criticism of him to coaching responsibilities.  Had he come in, set expectations, and implemented his own program, great, that warrants a little patience.  But now we're entering year 2, and he's just now deciding to get the big linemen we knew he'd need to successfully run his power scheme, IF he decides to run the ball.  We have a hodge-podge of the worst of Shanahan's stretch zone and the worst of a west coast offense that is dink and dunk because our guys can't hold protection long enough for intermediate routes to develop.

False. He was stating from the beginning that he wanted to get bigger with the Oline. He asked Lich to move to center and gain weight. We drafted bigger linemen in Moses and Long to develop. We brought in a bigger guy in Lauvao.

So, no, he didn't "just now" decide to "get the big linemen". He did, however, inherit a team built for the ZBS for 4 years prior to him coming. Not easy to change right away.

And your last statement would make one think we had the worst offense in the NFL, lol. The worse of Shanny's stretch zone and the worst of a west coast offense? Yeesh.

 

Along the coaching lines, I hope we never see games like Tampa or St. Louis while he's here again (or ever).  Our guys looked unprepared and overmatched.  If Gruden wants to establish an identity for the offense and dare teams to stop it, we have to at least be good at running it, lol.  Otherwise he might want to start to develop game plans based upon taking away things that our opponents do well.

I agree. That was awful. To his credit, though, we came back after the Rams game and fought a little against our division rivals, at least offensively.

 

I thought he got hired because of how he was given credit for developing a 'limited' Andy Dalton, and therefore has the potential to do the same here.  I agree with your criticism, but I wonder whether that is because of limited competence or whether it's just the learning curve of a rookie head coach.  I know in Philly, they had no such issues with Chip (admittedly different situation though).  It worries me to be a year in and not have something to point to, to say Gruden does well.  Spurrier at least had the optimism of Fun n Gun, Zorn had the 6-2 start to 2008.

Of course, the one possibility rarely, if ever, mentioned is that Dalton is better than any of our QBs, lol.

I think there are things to point to, but it's definitely subjective.

For instance, I like how the offense did move the ball at times pretty well, as discussed. I liked that he was able to use Desean properly (how often do we bring in a guy with a particular skill set like Desean's and fail to maximize it?)

I liked how he disciplined Amerson late in the year. I liked how after every loss it seemed like it affected him deeply. The losing clearly mattered and made him sick, which is more than you can say about a lot of the coaches who've come here and just "checked out" once it got to be too much.

I liked how he established his title of HC and, even when it seemed like he may be undermined when it came to Robert, he took control.

I personally liked what happened with Robert's benching and wasn't angry about the public comments, because it'd been something that I had felt Robert needed since late 2012 (for his own sake). I believe a big part of why Robert came back and did some good things at the end of the year was because of that.

So, yeah, there are things. But, again, it's entirely subjective and hard to discern whether or not they're legitimate. I certainly think they are.

[skinny21]

Ironically, I kind of feel that (although they're only somewhat parallel situations) people that say "let's give Griffin a chance given all the crap he's had to deal with" should empathize with Gruden's situation (and vice versa). Instead it's frequently one "camp" vs the other. What a complicated, nuanced situation.

For the record, I was excited to see Griffin in Gruden's offense... and then I was excited to see what Cousins could do... and then Colt. Now I've got a slight margin of hope for Gruden, and a slightly larger bit for Griffin/Cousins (less so Colt simply because I believe we've seen his ceiling). Unfortunately (for me) Griffin/Cousins seem less likely to stick around than Gruden... so I'm pinning my hopes on.... Scot, lol

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 it's more about acknowledging the significance of one's environment when discussing his failures. And he clearly failed. No doubt about that. I don't dress up a 4-12 season as anything other than a massive failure on all levels, from the top of the organization with Snyder and Allen, to Gruden as HC and finally to the players.

 

And I have to disagree with your counter-position that there are things that "don't have anything to do with that dysfunction". You see, this is my entire thesis. Everything is connected.

 

It's so much easier to handle "game preparation, half-time adjustments, practices, etc..." when you have a level of competence above you hand-selecting for you the men you will be preparing, adjusting with during half-time, and setting up practices for.

 

 

 

I often can remember specifics when I go back to recalling reports but sometimes I just recall the vibe based on the reports.  In this case its the vibe I was left with in the short week against the Giants, and based on the reports about game preparation it came off as if Jay wasn't really sure what to do and the upshot was they decided not to practice much or run much in game planning.  I have the odd habit of sometimes reading the opposing newspapers the week before we play especially when its the NY Giants because my wife likes them -- and Coughlin came off as a guy who had his team ready.  

 

It's not just that one incident, there was just too much for my taste of Jay coming off a bit too much ad hoc and not as methodical as I'd like.  And no I don't put that on Bruce or Danny outside of Bruce some for hiring him.  Yeah I get you have other obstacles to deal with because of them but to me your personality-approach to life is pretty consistent.    Like Joe Gibbs or don't like Joe Gibbs, he has a distinct personality and style and manner of going at things especially in his first tenure.  

 

Gibbs came off very eager to succeed-workaholic.  He was careful in what he said.  He came off as a guy with a thoughout method to most of what he did.  And the media covered him that way -- sleeping at RFK, relentless game planner, nervous to fail, players saw him as a leader, etc.  Jay on the other hand, comes off to me as a cool guy to hang out with and have a few beers.  He's funny.  He's straightforward.   But he just doesn't come off to me as a guy I want running my business if I had other good options.  I think he would do a decent job with it.  But he doesn't come across to me as a guy that is burning to be the best.  

 

He comes off to me B level ability, B level drive -- which is good to be successful in many things but not in my view the guy to outwit and outwork all the A level ability, A level drive head coaches out there.  And I admit, I am making a personality assessment that could be completely wrong.  It's just how I feel from observing, watching, and reading about him.  And on that count on a scale of 0-100, I put it as a zero as to how much Dan or Bruce impacts that.  I just think that's just how Jay is.     

 

People talk about how the best QB's live and die with the position, are the first to arrive, last to leave, etc.   To use that analogy, I don't think Jay is that guy.  I don't think he's lazy at all but I don't think he's the Peyton Manning of coaches as to his work ethic.  And even he admits such as least in terms of work hours, saying in the past he has no desire to do what his brother Jon did where he'd show up to the park in the wee hours of the morning everything day.  Jason Reid who if anything defended Jay quite a bit also said in one of his articles that the team to a fault likes to unwind and have a good time after practice and Jay himself is the same way.  After practice, we would read the Gibbs would launch into extra game planning nevermind find ways to have a good time.

 

I am not saying Jay should work himself to the ground and be Joe Gibbs round 1-- but just reading about the stuff sort of plays into the casual, run with the moment in hand vibe Jay gives off personality wise.    Bill Belichick for example in contrast his personality comes across every bit as measured as he is as a coach.  

[TSO]

I often can remember specifics when I go back to recalling reports but sometimes I just recall the vibe based on the reports.  In this case its the vibe I was left with in the short week against the Giants, and based on the reports about game preparation it came off as if Jay wasn't really sure what to do and the upshot was they decided not to practice much or run much in game planning.  I have the odd habit of sometimes reading the opposing newspapers the week before we play especially when its the NY Giants because my wife likes them -- and Coughlin came off as a guy who had his team ready.  

 

It's not just that one incident.....................

<EDIT>

I am not saying Jay should work himself to the ground and be Joe Gibbs round 1-- but just reading about the stuff sort of plays into the casual, run with the moment in hand vibe Jay gives off personality wise.    Bill Belichick for example in contrast his personality comes across every bit as measured as he is as a coach.

I think you may have missed this from one of my earlier posts here:

 

My main criticism of Gruden is one that rarely gets mentioned. It was something I was skeptical about before the season started and as soon as the hire was made. When everyone was trashing Shanny's "doghouse" and "cold culture" and so excited about Gruden instilling a "friendlier" environment where coaches are happy to come to work and players have "more control"... I worried that he was being too trusting of our personnel and not understanding the task at hand. That it'd get out of control fast. 

 

I remember being particularly frustrated after the Eagles game in week 3 where he and the team just seemed entirely too confident, even though they lost, like they had accomplished something. And then we saw how that turned out against the Giants.

 

So, yeah, I'm with you there. But, again, my overall point remains. The over-arching faulty FO philosophy is what led to these things. Gruden probably has a completely different outlook about this team now than he did then, much of it due to the belief that was instilled at the top. Now we're hearing from Scot a completely different message, and Gruden is following. 

 

As for the work ethic part... I think you're being too subjective here and ignoring what you'd like to ignore to fit into your perception of him.

 

I remember an article from the WT about how hard Gruden is working and you quoting it saying it's essentially just a fluff piece to make people believe he's working hard. I mean, we really can't discuss anything if things just get thrown out like that on the basis of it not fitting one's previous perceptions.

 

Ok, took me forever but I found it: 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/4/jay-gruden-frustrated-redskins-failures-first-seas/?page=3

 

There are times when Jay Gruden wakes up at 2 a.m. with a million different thoughts racing through his head. He’s tried to stay in bed, ignore those thoughts, push it all off until morning. But at this point, he knows better.

 

Now, when Gruden wakes up at 2 a.m., he hops into his white Mercedes and drives to Redskins Park. “Come on in, put it to paper and watch some tape,” he says.

 

Sometimes, he never makes it to bed in the first place. Sleeping in the office is not out of the question. It doesn’t happen very often, but it happens.

 

“It hurts you about 4 o’clock that afternoon,” Gruden says with a laugh. “You’re ready to die.”

 

In 22 seasons of coaching, Gruden has always tried to stay even-keel, never over-celebrating wins or beating himself up after losses. But this year, he has learned that some things can gnaw at you. Some things can keep you up at night. It’s Week 14, and the losses are beginning to take a toll — emotionally, and even physically.

 

“I’m getting fatter,” Gruden says, laughing again.

 

....................................

 

On most days, especially early in the week, Gruden rolls up to the gate at Redskins Park around 5 a.m. Offensive coordinator Sean McVay and defensive coordinator Jim Haslett often beat him there.

 

.........................................

 

“I think it does tire you out, it wears you out. Jay just happens to show his emotions a little bit more than a lot of guys. So you’re probably going to see. He wears them on his sleeve. Some guys don’t. A lot of guys don’t. He’s different that way.”

 

Tight end Logan Paulsen said Gruden has dealt with different losses, and the various mistakes within them, in different ways. Sometimes he is affirming and nurturing, Paulsen said. In other instances, however, he is not afraid to make his frustration known.

 

“It’s difficult to stay positive and optimistic when you lose a whole bunch of football games,” Paulsen said. “He’s been really good about keeping himself professional and everything, but you can tell it weighs on him. He does a good job of hiding it from the team.”

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/4/jay-gruden-frustrated-redskins-failures-first-seas/?page=1#ixzz3WYenSYyt 

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Want to see most of your response? 

 

 

One of things discussed on the radio today, post Jason Reid article was that Jay and his camp fed him that story.  It makes sense.  I'd presume likewise, they are feeding the Washington Times this article: its really the first one I've read where Jay elaborates on why he deserves some blame, in his conferences it struck me as a throwaway PR line he'd use, right before he does his blasting of units, players, etc. 

 

If I wanted to be a skeptic it almost reads like a slick self promotional piece.   The theme of the article is it really really really bothers them and they are really really really working hard -- Haslett and McVay, too are literally working tirelessly to fix it.    As fans what more can we ask for than that?  So I'd take it as a positive Jay article.

 

In different interviews in the past, Jay has said he didn't like to put in the long hours that his brother does.  In a Jason Reid artlce not that long ago, it was said that Jay likes to unwind after the day and have fun and Reid suggested the players have followed suit and its lent to too much of a loose locker room.

 

What's the reality?  you got me.   But I don't take that article as a total indictment.  Clearly, Jay went out of his way to make it clear that he really really works very very hard and he and Haslett and McVay really really really care a lot. 

 

 

(Bold emphasis mine)

 

You then proceeded to post as if that article never happened, and all that matters is the "past interviews" where he doesn't like to put in the long hours that his brother does. You're still posting in that way right now. 

 

You can't just ignore what you want, SIP. This is where it becomes an issue of agendas. Where it's legitimate to question the objectivity involved here... why is it that you are so willing to throw that out and just continue to focus on "past interviews"? Why do you put more weight in one over the other? How do you know how much time Jay is putting in and why was that article not enough to change your position?

 

I remember reading an article about how much Jay had changed from his days in Tampa with his brother. Where, back then, he was more of an easy-going guy who didn't care to put in the time. But that the change in work ethic lead to his success with the Bengals. Yet, you seem to omit any of that and focus on what you want to believe, instead.  

 

Don't take this as an attack on who you are, or anything. I think you try to maintain a level of objectivity even when you're as entrenched in your position as anyone else. I also think you're more self-aware than most when it comes to that and so you're not an ass about it, and that is to be commended. But I can't help but see that and assume you're observing and evaluating Gruden properly. 

[TSO]

Also TSO, in your "what's more likely" scenario, hyperbole makes that an easy decision, but taking it out muddies the water for me. The flip side would be something like, what's more likely - he is a genius coach that wasn't allowed to shine (like all of the coaches before him) due to a poor situation, or that while he may turn into a decent coach, his track record points to him not ever reaching the upper echelon of coaches.

 

 

I think this is a good point, and if you look back a page here in this thread you'll find that, while I agreed with thomasroane's overall points on Gruden, when he said he's willing to bet Gruden succeeds from here on out... I was unwilling to go that far.

 

I just don't know. If a gun was put to my head and I had to choose, I'd say it's more likely he'd fail. And that's not an indictment on him. It's more of just knowing how things usually go with this franchise, lol. I've seen way too many people come here and get churned out as massive failures.

 

But, yeah. He has a lot to overcome now. Having Scot here is huge, but it may be too late. We'll see. The likeliest scenario in my mind is that Gruden ends up being a decent coach who gets us to 7-9 or 8-8 more often than not while Scot surrounds him with better talent... but I'm hoping his qualities can be maximized right away and he proves that all he needed was a better FO to be a great coach.     

[Jumbo]

SIP--as I've stated over the last year and a half, I do agree with more than a few sentences you've written on Jay. I think you're up to two gazillion words  (or a handful of words repeated beyond ken) now on the matters of Bob & Jay, and here I am asking for more     (and even bringing up Robert  ) because you again mentioned Jay in the same frame as Gibbs & Belichick.

 

I do like your high standards for comparison.

 

Given that, I'm sure that even if Robert hadn't mentioned Brady and Manning in reference to matters in his own situation, as he has more than once, that you would also hold Brady and Peyton as similar high standards for Robert---so how's that going? 

 

And I do wonder of your reaction if Jay mentioned those two HCs in reference to his situation, no matter how he did it or what he'd say as to what he meant later (because, as Ricky said to Lucy, I'm sure there'd be "some 'splainin' to do" ).

 

As in skinny's post above and in many of mine, the challenges there go to seeking and identifying whether there's hypocrisy and deeply-held bias (common human traits for most everyone--not insults) in play that's inhibiting more accurate analysis and more efficacious judgment. 

 

BTW---even in the most extreme forms of bias, a person can also, of course, be "right for the wrong reasons." An example I use: I had an uncle who was a flat out racist. In my first profession I hired a man as a store manager he'd seen a few times but never talked to and didn't know from anywhere. My uncle said "He's a <> and he'll steal from you. That's what they do." And the guy did. As far as my uncle was concerned, of course, he was "proved right" and I was shown to be "wrong."

 

Ah, and I see you and sub are engaged, so let me echo him and repeat myself so there's no mistake---there is much about your posting that I have complimented  more than thrice, and that I appreciate as an ES'er, regardless of any level of agreement we do or don't share. Fwiw, we do seem to agree on a fair amount of stuff as far as I can tell.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

As in skinny's post above and in many of mine, the challenges there go to seeking and identifying whether there's hypocrisy and deeply-held bias (common human traits for most everyone--not insults) in play that's inhibiting more accurate analysis and more efficacious judgment. 

 

 

 

Good post and am with the psychological thought process (and quite zen) that believing is seeing.  But had no predisposition against Jay.    I wasn't in love but far from hated the hire.   Generally, am supportive of the head coaches and if anything I am predisposed to liking them.  Zorn was the quickest I turned against, towards the end of year #1 he lost me.

 

One of the benefits or banes of working from home, is it gives me an opportunity when I have downtime to watch the interviews from Redskins.com, read and listen to the radio all day long, and from multiple insiders (as most of us do).  Some I trust more than others.  John Keim for example doesn't seem to have an ax to grind and if he spills a negative slant about a player or coach, I pay attention.  Chris Russell likes to elaborate on what he sees in the locker room, practices, etc.    You take everything with a grain of salt but when you got really different personalities like Keim, Russell, and Reid coverging on common points about Jay, I pay attention.   And like most of us, I can't help but make personality assessments on people when I watch them speak hundreds of times, not to mention hear what other people think of them.

 

On a scale of 0-100.  Am at a 0 to say my opinion about Jay is truth.  You got me what the truth is.  I am just making my own assessment like we all do on people.  And in Jay's case, I think everyone on the board can make a reasonable assessment about Jay that factors in context and all the other stuff that's been thrown out to defend him.  As for the idea of being biased NOW, no doubt.  If you go to a restaurant 50 times and decide you don't like the food there, one good meal doesn't change that opinion much, it has to be a bunch of meals to turn me around. 

 

And to Sub, yeah I recall the article about Jay coming in during the wee hours of the night and recall my comments on it, I almost threw it in my last post but I figured my post was too long already.  But yeah to me that article, which is clearly coming from Jay comes off as a self-progaganda piece.  When it came to Joe Gibbs, he wasn't talking about it (others did), and saying heck you know loses kill me here's what I do, I come in... and heck even running with that actual article it says "at times"and implied he didn't do it previously.  Jon's brother did it routinely.  Gibbs did it routinely.  And again my main source for him not being a workaholic in terms of putting in hours, is Jay himself, I am not sure how easy I can find it but it was in a TV interview where he joked about Jon is a maniac in terms of putting in hours but not him, he needs his sleep.

 

Back to Jumbo, by comparing him to Gibbs I agree my standards are high.   But it sickens me (until now) that this team has not had an A level GM during Danny's tenure, he went with C-D level people for 15 years and somehow he was shocked we got C-D level results.  I don't think Jay stinks as a head coach, I think he's OK (so so) but why can't we do better than OK?  Bruce Allen going with the "OK" guy he knows and by extension flows with Bruce's comfort zone -- hits a trigger in me that I don't like about how this team has been run.   I think a big part of the problem with this team as to the FO is internal office politics and people working within their own comfort zones supersede winning.   And I get there is a certain extent of that in most organizations but with that front office they have taken it IMO to a sad art form.

[megared]

I didn't tell you to only look at yards per game. I asked why you were omitting it when you asked the question about Gruden doing nothing "above mediocre".

So, I'm sorry, but you just went into that for nothing there. But I agree, yards per game should always be placed in its context.

Still, clearly, you'd rather have more yards than less. It isn't totally meaningless, even without context.

And Gruden is hardly the first coach to benefit from a play-maker at WR. Let's just take out all yards from every coach who has one and see where the numbers line up, I guess. Can't just pick and choose what to ignore, which is what you're doing here.

Oh, and two of the games we had some of our highest yardage outputs? Versus the Jags and Eagles in weeks 2 and 3 respectively. That's two teams we weren't ever really "playing from behind" against. So there goes that argument as well.

 

It's meaning is less as a standalone measure of offensive effectiveness.  Having a bunch of yards doesn’t mean you can score, and it doesn’t mean you can move the ball when needed (3^rd downs, redzone).  It doesn’t mean you can control time of possession.   And I wouldn’t mind having less yards if it meant our defense is setting our offense up with great field position, or our special teams consistently flip the field.  But there needs to be a balance of being able to move the ball situationally as well as in general.  You can argue that having a defense incapable of stopping anyone also gave us the advantage of being able to move the offense up and down the field in more situations of less consequence.     We were pretty much always at a disadvantage concerning field position, whether it was being pinned deep in our own territory, or starting at the 20.   

 

Jacksonville and Philly were exceptions, not the norm.  And considering the only team we played with a worse defense than either of them was the Giants, I tend to view those games as outliers.  

 

Again, not the point I was making. It's not about absolving anyone of blame, it's about acknowledging how important proper organizational structure is and how difficult it is to otherwise operate in a poor environment.

 

False. He was stating from the beginning that he wanted to get bigger with the Oline. He asked Lich to move to center and gain weight. We drafted bigger linemen in Moses and Long to develop. We brought in a bigger guy in Lauvao.

So, no, he didn't "just now" decide to "get the big linemen". He did, however, inherit a team built for the ZBS for 4 years prior to him coming. Not easy to change right away.

And your last statement would make one think we had the worst offense in the NFL, lol. The worse of Shanny's stretch zone and the worst of a west coast offense? Yeesh.

 

It seems like you're perfectly happy to adopt the position that because we didn't have the ideal FO, Gruden shouldn't be accountable for anything that happened on Sundays.  Game planning, scheming, teaching deficiencies be damned.  

 

If Gruden wanted a bigger line how exactly were we going to run a zone scheme?  Why not change the scheme from year 1?  Further why did he choose to stick with that scheme if he had no knowledge of executing it?  Why stick with it if he had little inclination to use it?  Those are decisions a head coach makes, and is accountable for.  I find it hard to believe Bruce Allen twisted Jay's arm and told him 'you will run this zone run scheme.'   You don’t generally see coaches go somewhere and not implement the system they want to have in place.  Maybe a full commitment to his own system would have accidentally yielded some offensive lineman that could pass block.

 

As far as everything else, concerning the media/benchings/etc., it really doesn't mean much to me.  I'm hoping that Jay is not just looking the part by doing the things people can rally behind.  At the end of the day, we can have the best personnel, most obedient guys, but if he isn't able to apply critical thinking towards Sunday preparations, exploit match ups, perform in game adjustments, etc., it'll all be for naught.  I want to see a guy that isn't getting outcoached during the week, then outschemed, outmaneuvered and out-gameplanned on Sundays.  I'd like to see him hold his own against the Lovie Smiths, Jeff Fishers, Tom Coughlins, etc.  It seemed hypocritical for Gruden to sit up and criticize players publicly like his **** don't stink....like we'd be 16-0 if the players could just execute the way he wants them to.  

 

Decent to good (and even sometimes bad) teams were able to take away our run game and Desean Jackson simultaneously for long stretches of the game...there wasn't any trickery involved because we beat ourselves pretty often with mental mistakes, penalties and lack of execution.   Is that Dan Snyder's or Bruce Allen's faults?  Are they tasked with preparing players to compete every week?  

[Jumbo]

 

It seems like you're perfectly happy to adopt the position that because we didn't have the ideal FO, Gruden shouldn't be accountable for anything that happened on Sundays.  Game planning, scheming, teaching deficiencies be damned.  

 

 

 

What a stupid paragraph. You're lucky you're saying that to sub. I'd flat out ban you for a month right now if you were saying it anyone else, or at least anyone who hadn't gone well out of their way to merit it. That is exactly the kind of gratuitous, exaggerated, and unjustified insulting/trolling remark we've been warning against, and that, as rule 12 describes, is fundamentally inflammatory, or of little substantive content, or of some broadly insulting nature that serves primarily to incite.

 

 

 

 

You dance up to that line a lot in your posting history in both the tailgate and the stadium.

 

Two things:

 

 

1. Continue your dialogue as you wish, but do not reply to this post. Don't PM me either, unless it's a mea culpa.

 

2. You better make sure you learn some new dance moves. 

 

 

Just fyi, board-wise, the rest of the post was ordinary enough (I'm using that as a neutral word, rather than give my opinion on how you argue some of what you argue from a topical standpoint).

[TSO]

It's meaning is less as a standalone measure of offensive effectiveness.  Having a bunch of yards doesn’t mean you can score, and it doesn’t mean you can move the ball when needed (3^rd downs, redzone).  It doesn’t mean you can control time of possession.   And I wouldn’t mind having less yards if it meant our defense is setting our offense up with great field position, or our special teams consistently flip the field.  But there needs to be a balance of being able to move the ball situationally as well as in general.  You can argue that having a defense incapable of stopping anyone also gave us the advantage of being able to move the offense up and down the field in more situations of less consequence.     We were pretty much always at a disadvantage concerning field position, whether it was being pinned deep in our own territory, or starting at the 20.   

 

Jacksonville and Philly were exceptions, not the norm.  And considering the only team we played with a worse defense than either of them was the Giants, I tend to view those games as outliers.

Again, you asked a question about what Gruden did that could even be considered mediocre. I gave you numerous bullet points to ponder, yards per game output being one of them.

You're only showing your inability to be objective right now. Anything positive is meaningless. Only negatives can be acknowledged.

 

 

 

It seems like you're perfectly happy to adopt the position that because we didn't have the ideal FO, Gruden shouldn't be accountable for anything that happened on Sundays.  Game planning, scheming, teaching deficiencies be damned.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for summarizing my viewpoints so succinctly.

[Jumbo]

According to this, as of a few weeks ago, Prisco sees no joy in Mudville, but gives Jay an out rather than writing him off.

 

But far as Dave Dameshek is concerned, screw the honeymoon, we need a divorce lawyer.

 

(Dave's comments in the piece are both current and refer to his notable dislike at original hiring)

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/06/jay-gruden-ranks-among-worst-nfl-coaches/

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Weeks ago, Jay Gruden was ranked among the worst coaches in the NFL by Pete Prisco of CBS Sports — 29th, to be precise — on a list which had all first-year guys who have yet to coach a gamein a three-way tie for 30th.

“He is fighting an uphill battle coaching the Redskins with a quarterback situation that isn’t good and a roster that doesn’t have a ton of talent,” Prisco wrote of Gruden. “He was 4-12 in his first season. I think he will be better in his next job.”

 

 

 

 

Consider NFL.com’s Dave Dameshek in Prisco’s camp. He took a similar stance on the latest episode of his podcast, “Dave Dameshek FootballProgram,” in which he and a guest co-host identified as ‘Handsome Dan’ debated which NFL teams had the best chance of going from last to first in their respective divisions in 2015.

The Redskins, who finished in last place in the NFC East with a 4-12 record in 2014, qualified for this conversation.

“How about the Skins?” Handsome Dan asked around the 23-minute mark, of Washington’s chances to be a first place team.

“Not with Jay Gruden,” Dameshek said.

“Just not with Jay Gruden?” Handsome Dan sought to clarify.

“I think he is the absolute worst,” Dameshek said, going on to explain how he and NFL.com colleague Bucky Brooks had created a Final Four of the best coaches in the league the week before. “I think if you rated the worst coaches, I think Jay Gruden would be the worst.”

Dameshek didn’t appear to be a fan of the Gruden hire from the early going, and continued trumpeting that thought throughout last year.

 

 

 

 

 

I have to confess I can not place Dave in my sea of media football-talkers by his name, and apparently "Handsome Dan" is nobody, but I'm not sure. 

 

more (inc. some of dave's old tweets on jay) at link

[TSO]

Dameshek's tweets are worse than some of the most vitriolic posts we have here about Jay, lol. My goodness.

[rick7423]

Dameshek's tweets are worse than some of the most vitriolic posts we have here about Jay, lol. My goodness.

 

But, unfortunately, true.

[Stefanskins]

"Gibbs came off very eager to succeed-workaholic.  He was careful in what he said.  He came off as a guy with a thoughout method to most of what he did.  And the media covered him that way -- sleeping at RFK, relentless game planner, nervous to fail, players saw him as a leader, etc."

 

seems to me most greats, in any field, have these attributes.. they live, sleep and breathe it.. einstien to churchill to da vinci to caesar..the energy you put into something etc..

[ThomasRoane]

His being candid to the media was a zero sum game.  I don't believe it lost us games, but it also probably didn't make him friends in the locker room, nor was it professional.  It just seemed petty.  To invite a media storm over stuff coaches usually say in private to their players...just seemed unnecessary.

 

 

The revisionist history on Robert's public butt chewing really irritates me.  Even B-Mitch and Doc Walker felt Robert had it coming.  He had just finished throwing his team under the bus!  D-Jax had just rallied behind him the week prior and yet Robert specifically referred to a remark D-Jax made about being on track for a Pro-Bowl season.  Robert pointed out the fact that there were no pro-bowlers on that team.  Which caused a twitter blast (Epic ****) from the receiver (who was ballin out) to QB the next day.  Everyone knew that it was Robert who struggled and for him to dime out his team mates is something you can never do as a QB.  Even if it is true you shut your mouth.  You'd have thought that he would have learned from the previous year when he pissed off his O-line and Santana in the Philly game.  (The next game being the one where Daddy came storming into the locker room to chew out linemen for not helping RG III off the ground). 

 

Jay needed to put Robert in his place.  The ONLY problem I had with it is devaluing a potential trade asset.  Jay probably saved Robert a whuppin from one of his team mates after that nonsense.  Especially after comparing himself to Manning and Rodgers.