Zoony Bin: The official '15 offseason Twitter thread, Whine room now open serving Francis Copious Speculation Cab, Lavar buffet Incl., tips included

[HapHaszard]

Just some early morning zoony bin trivia.  

 

 

 

Makes me wonder how I'm still here   Poor OM

[HapHaszard]

Dan Steinberg

@dcsportsbog

The Redskins helmet logos outside RFK have seen better days  pic.twitter.com/GPqcY0izNv

[TD Riggo]

It was the entire organization that crapped the bed last year, not just Gruden.  Hard to say it was all him when we've gotten very little out of the draft haven't done much to build a proper team.  The good thing is the team has taken steps to fix that.  Problem is, it isn't likely to be fixed next season.  You'd need to give your coach a couple of years to see if you are going in the right direction.

 

 

My view of Gruden (and keep in mind that I was actually happy when we hired him) is not so much based upon W/L's (although I thought we should have been at at least 5-6 wins) but upon the fact that he blew up the team with his damn mouth, and that one of the reasons he was hired was because he was supposedly a QB guru but he wound up all but destroying three quarterbacks and essentially gave up on all of them by week 7. Nothing Gruden did this last year inspires confidence!

[HapHaszard]

Ryan Clark ‏@Realrclark25 6m6 minutes ago

Hey guys!! I know we've all walked outside to ride out bikes and the tires are flat. It happens. I guess... Lol

 

 

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 57m57 minutes ago

Ravens announce their intent to terminate contract of Terrence Cody. No one hits on them all at the top of the draft

[Jumbo]

My view of Gruden (and keep in mind that I was actually happy when we hired him) is not so much based upon W/L's (although I thought we should have been at at least 5-6 wins) but upon the fact that he blew up the team with his damn mouth, and that one of the reasons he was hired was because he was supposedly a QB guru but he wound up all but destroying three quarterbacks and essentially gave up on all of them by week 7. Nothing Gruden did this last year inspires confidence!

  

 

Just realize that it's your (and others') views.  They're not established facts.

 

Plenty of smart people find a lot to disagree with in your take, but that doesn't mean they don't see a lot of serious issues with the team (or Gruden etc). 

[Bantu]

Why do people keep bringing up converting Trent Murphy to 3-4 DE? Completely change body types and position? I mean he was below average at best at OLB, there was nothing there that showed he could flip inside and do anything. Even with a herculean off season of HGH adding a bunch of muscle.

[TheLongshot]

My view of Gruden (and keep in mind that I was actually happy when we hired him) is not so much based upon W/L's (although I thought we should have been at at least 5-6 wins) but upon the fact that he blew up the team with his damn mouth, and that one of the reasons he was hired was because he was supposedly a QB guru but he wound up all but destroying three quarterbacks and essentially gave up on all of them by week 7. Nothing Gruden did this last year inspires confidence!

 

While his comments about RG3 were probably not wise to say publicly, he didn't say anything we couldn't have seen on the field.  Fact is, none of the QBs on the team performed very well and it is something Gruden needs to figure out next season.

[NewCliche21]

 

The thing is, when someone is labeled a SS, it is pretty much telling me that the player can't cover receivers.  To me, that isn't worth a top 10 pick.

 

I think that we just like labels.  Landry, love him or hate him, took over extremely well for Sean in that Cover 1 with the single high safety.  he was used as a strong safety (from what I remember) for a lot of his career, but whether by inspiration, coaching, or untapped talent, he was able to do it for at least four games.

 

Point being, I think that people will label someone as anything just because that is how the player was utilized, not necessarily based on their talents or yet-unseen natural position.  Most of the time it can be accurate, but it doesn't mean that it's always right.  That wasn't aimed at you specifically, just a thought that I've had regarding every pick up.

[Jumbo]

My view of Gruden (and keep in mind that I was actually happy when we hired him) is not so much based upon W/L's (although I thought we should have been at at least 5-6 wins) <edit>

 

 

Forgot this part---so I assume you expected those 5-6 wins with a hopefully healthy returning RG3. The guy gets injured again, and then one of our back-ups seems to collapse. Even forgetting that "collapse" angle, and just sticking with the starting QB re-injury, the guy misses your 5-win-limit by one game. I'm not defending Jay's year <cough>, just pointing out matters of fact that should be related to developing the views. Back to speculation/interpretation/spin, maybe if the starting QB went uninjured, he'd have another win or two. maybe not. Again, not a defense, just shining some light on different lines of thoughts and the hows and whys  we choose (for whatever reasons) which ones we follow at times.

[TheLongshot]

I think that we just like labels.  Landry, love him or hate him, took over extremely well for Sean in that Cover 1 with the single high safety.  he was used as a strong safety (from what I remember) for a lot of his career, but whether by inspiration, coaching, or untapped talent, he was able to do it for at least four games.

 

Point being, I think that people will label someone as anything just because that is how the player was utilized, not necessarily based on their talents or yet-unseen natural position.  Most of the time it can be accurate, but it doesn't mean that it's always right.  That wasn't aimed at you specifically, just a thought that I've had regarding every pick up.

 

I can't really agree that "he took over really well", when it was decided at the end of Blache's tenure that he needed to be moved back to SS. While he had the talent to play back there, I don't think he had the instincts and often had problems taking the right angles to make tackles.

[NewCliche21]

I can't really agree that "he took over really well", when it was decided at the end of Blache's tenure that he needed to be moved back to SS. While he had the talent to play back there, I don't think he had the instincts and often had problems taking the right angles to make tackles.

 

Like I said, he did it for four games and maybe part of that was Williams and emotion.  He was pretty outstanding if you go back and look at how he did, making the rest of his career even more disappointing.  The point basically was that a person's given position isn't necessarily their best position.  He was just the only strong safety I could think of at the moment.

[NewCliche21]

Forgot this part---so I assume you expected those 5-6 wins with a hopefully healthy returning RG3. The guy gets injured again, and then one of our back-ups seems to collapse. Even forgetting that "collapse" angle, and just sticking with the starting QB re-injury, the guy misses your 5-win-limit by one game. I'm not defending Jay's year <cough>, just pointing out matters of fact that should be related to developing the views. Back to speculation/interpretation/spin, maybe if the starting QB went uninjured, he'd have another win or two. maybe not. Again, not a defense, just shining some light on different lines of thoughts and the hows and whys  we choose (for whatever reasons) which ones we follow at times.

 

I think that it can be hard to argue the point that TD Riggo was saying because there's a certain amount of "X" factor.  I can't find the article, but when Shanahan was signed, there was at least one person who I considered credible at the time who said that he "should be worth a couple of wins on his own", paraphrasing as best I can.  I think that McNabb got that benefit of the doubt, too.

 

Why would Shanahan at the time argued to be worth a couple of wins?  I can't tell you with stats or specific incidents, but I feel like coaches can have things that they just get and produce in terms of responses to adversity, such as, but not limited to, injuries to quarterbacks.  It's grossly unfair to say that I would have liked a couple of more wins, though 4-12/5-11 is what I expected, simply because of what Gruden brought to the table despite any injury.  It's something that lots of teams deal with, like in Arizona.  Granted he didn't inherit that team, but that staff did a hell of a job going through four starting quarterbacks and still nearing the top of the conference in a very tough division.  

 

What did Arians do exactly?  No clue, can't put my finger on it, but that's what coaches do.  I can't have a KDawg or PFF tell me to look at his footwork, recognizing the screen and reacting to it, or having fluid hips.  There's no All  22 for that.  I would have liked to see a little bit more of whatever "that" is, or at least a Jay Gruden imprint on the team somewhat like how Harbaugh, Kansas City Reid, and Kelly got their teams really far in their first year without a perfect roster/quarterback situation.  Expected?  Nah, but I can't explain what the aforementioned coaches did that Gruden didn't because it's just not obvious empirically and quantifiably.  I can't tell you what Gruden did well, and I can only see the press conferences or the apparent lack of commitment to using what he has instead of trying to fit the Redskin peg in the Bengal hole (that sounded disgusting, but you know what I meant by that).

[TSO]

You could even say coaching ruined Ramsey's career. Which makes it pretty important. Which means there is some value in coaching. WHICH MEANS THIS TALENT vs. COACHING CONVO CAN END NOW! YAY!

 

I may have missed it, but I'm not sure anyone said there is no value in coaching. The discussion, at least for me, is/was revolving completely around just how much one affects the other and an attempt at quantifying it, as difficult as that may be.

 

I was certainly enjoying it and thought it was a legit discussion, but oh well. Guess not.    

[Boss_Hogg]

John Keim ‏@john_keim  now

last experts' take up soon. this one's from yesterday... On coaches, GMs and RG III #Redskins http://es.pn/15fTr2C 

 

TheHogs.net ‏@TheHogsdotNet  2m2 minutes ago

Hail to all those bleeding that #Redskins burgundy & gold. Follow me & I'll #followback - promise! #httr #RedskinsNation #dailytweet

 

Washington Redskins ‏@Redskins  49m49 minutes ago

Check out @1stladiesoffb cheerleader @charobishop at a #ProBowl photo shoot in Arizona! http://oak.ctx.ly/r/2davn 

[KDawg]

I may have missed it, but I'm not sure anyone said there is no value in coaching. The discussion, at least for me, is/was revolving completely around just how much one affects the other and an attempt at quantifying it, as difficult as that may be.

 

I was certainly enjoying it and thought it was a legit discussion, but oh well. Guess not.    

 

I'm not saying it wasn't a legit discussion in some ways. But in others, people are clueless about what coaches (and for that matter, players) really do on a day to day basis. There's a lot that goes into both that no one sees. And to anyone with any kind of experience in the field it's obvious that one doesn't do well at the highest levels without the others. I don't think you can quantify it. It's different for different situations.

 

Sometimes a coach rated in your eyes as a 73 overall fits a situation's characters so well that even though they are only a 73, their fit with the team and their bond with the team turns them into a 96 overall. Sometimes a 99 overall coach goes into a situation so bad that they're a 45 overall.

 

It's just not quantifiable in my opinion.

 

I'd say that it's best to say that both players and coaches rely on one another and leave it there.

 

Having said that, no one is preventing you from continuing on that with that convo. I don't have that kind of stroke, and even if I did, that wasn't a conversation that would need to have the plug officially pulled from it. My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek to begin with.

[DogofWar1]

Mike Jones ‏@MikeJonesWaPo  4m4 minutes ago

McCloughan doesn't buy into theory of weak or strong draft classes http://wapo.st/1EC2Jm8 

 

John Keim ‏@john_keim  2m2 minutes ago

 

Experts' take: Looking at the Redskins' under-25 talent: In the final installment of Experts' take (... http://es.pn/1CuV8H9  #Redskins

[Jumbo]

Mike Jones ‏@MikeJonesWaPo  4m4 minutes ago

McCloughan doesn't buy into theory of weak or strong draft classes http://wapo.st/1EC2Jm8 

 

 

 

Now that's interesting, as it's surely not the way most of our resident draftniks (and most of the ones I know of "out there") usually frame it. I suspect there's more nuance to his position, but I will have to go read.

[HapHaszard]

Judy Battista ‏@judybattista 3m3 minutes ago

NFL releases statement on its investigation. Jeff Pash and Ted Wells leading the inquiry. And it will continue.

[HapHaszard]

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 10m10 minutes ago

Here's the NFL's Friday afternoon statement on Deflategate http://wp.me/p14QSB-9H3a

Washington Redskins ‏@Redskins 29m29 minutes ago

Top photos from the third day of @seniorbowl practice. Check it out: http://oak.ctx.ly/r/2dbgf 

John Keim ‏@john_keim 42m42 minutes ago

also from Thur: took a look at talent on JB's '08 D in Detroit. Yes, good coaching always helps. Yes, dreadful stats. http://es.pn/15f7p4J

John Keim ‏@john_keim 44m44 minutes ago

last experts' take up soon. this one's from yesterday... On coaches, GMs and RG III #Redskins http://es.pn/15fTr2C

Keenan Robinson ‏@KeenanRobinson1 46m46 minutes ago

U can't keep doing the same things and expect to see different results. To get something uve never had u gotta do something uve never done

Silas Redd Jr. ‏@ThirdEyeSi_ 7m7 minutes ago

that east coast pizza

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 1m1 minute ago

For those not inclined to read that length statement from the NFL, it basically says they really care about this and they're really trying!

[wilco_holland]

Mike Jones ‏@MikeJonesWaPo 4m4 minutes ago

McCloughan doesn't buy into theory of weak or strong draft classes http://wapo.st/1EC2Jm8

Now that's interesting, as it's surely not the way most of our resident draftniks (and most of the ones I know of "out there") usually frame it. I suspect there's more nuance to his position, but I will have to go read.

I love it. Every draft has good football players. You just need to find them. No excuses.

[skinsfan4128]

 

Mike Jones ‏@MikeJonesWaPo  4m4 minutes ago

McCloughan doesn't buy into theory of weak or strong draft classes http://wapo.st/1EC2Jm8 

 

 

 

Now that's interesting, as it's surely not the way most of our resident draftniks (and most of the ones I know of "out there") usually frame it. I suspect there's more nuance to his position, but I will have to go read.

 

 

 

 

 

I kinda like this approach by SM. Honestly, I believe the draft is what you make it. There are honestly very few sure-fire players. It's more of a crap-shoot. 

 

This is where a good scouting department, comprehensive studying, and a guy that is willing to put getting the best possible player on the board vs. taking a guy for need (even if said player isn't ranked that high) can pay off.

 

Got to think that SM's approach will pay dividends. 

[Fan since a Fetus]

This seems to fit here:
 

 

Players importance is rated at 75% and the coaches are 80%.  Just my 2%

[skinsfan4128]

^{Honestly, why are we still having the back and forth with the coaches vs. players? There is an equilibrium here. Coaches coach, players play.}  

 

^{Coaches can coach their hearts out, but if the talent is poor they have no chance. If the coach is inept, then you can have all the talent in the world and still fail to execute.}

 

^{Truth is, they both work hand in hand. Some coaches can elevate their players' talent level, and likewise some players' talent can mask a coaches' deficiencies.}

 

^{You have to have that balance between the two. And honestly, we haven't for a multitude of reasons for a number of years.}  

 

^{However, arguing over which is important is, quite honestly, ridiculous when you look at the bigger picture IMHO.}  

[TSO]

I'm not saying it wasn't a legit discussion in some ways. But in others, people are clueless about what coaches (and for that matter, players) really do on a day to day basis. There's a lot that goes into both that no one sees. And to anyone with any kind of experience in the field it's obvious that one doesn't do well at the highest levels without the others. I don't think you can quantify it. It's different for different situations.

Sometimes a coach rated in your eyes as a 73 overall fits a situation's characters so well that even though they are only a 73, their fit with the team and their bond with the team turns them into a 96 overall. Sometimes a 99 overall coach goes into a situation so bad that they're a 45 overall.

It's just not quantifiable in my opinion.

I'd say that it's best to say that both players and coaches rely on one another and leave it there.

Yeah I agree for the most part. It's next to impossible to quantify, but I think it's funny you were actually putting numbers there to explain while saying you just can't quantify it.

But I get it, I'm just poking fun.

As for closing the conversation, I was just surprised you mentioned it and it seemed like a lot of people "liked it", lol. I honestly thought it was really interesting and something to continue.

But then I saw that it was being discussed in an annoying manner in the thread you created so I see why... I wasn't really keeping tabs with that discussion there.

[KDawg]

This seems to fit here:

 

 

Players importance is rated at 75% and the coaches are 80%.  Just my 2%

But that adds to 157%!!