Is this Norv Turner 2.0?

[NoCalMike]

I think the difference between Norv and Jay is that Norv proved to everyone long after his tenure with the 'Skins that he was meant to be a coordinator and not a head coach.  He took over very talented teams after and could not get them over the hump.  Jay took over a team that was on the decline and suffering from the RG3 decline/debacle and it was a huge task in itself just to get that situation taken care of.

Until this team puts more resources into the defense and they are considered to have the talent up and down the roster on both sides of the ball to not just compete, but beat the best teams in the league, I don't see why they should fire all the coaches and start over again. 

[pjfootballer]

Ball inside the 10.  Bengals are tired and Kelley was fresh.  Run it until you can't run it in and then kick. Too many things can go more wrong on a FG then a regular handoff. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

13 minutes ago, pjfootballer said:

Ball inside the 10.  Bengals are tired and Kelley was fresh.  Run it until you can't run it in and then kick. Too many things can go more wrong on a FG then a regular handoff. 

Obviously in hindsight you would choose to do that. The ball was never inside the 10 though, it was around the 16 or 17. It was 2nd and 4 so let's assume you run it two more times. Maybe you score...I'm not saying that's not feasible. 

But, let's say you get another holding call (we had JUST had one earlier that drive) or something even worse, like a fumble. Do you trust Kelley there or do you trust your automatic (to that point) FG kicker? 

I'll say this. If we had a shot at a 34-yard FG and somehow got pushed back 10 yards for another holding penalty only to see Hopkins miss THAT kick, the narrative would have been how foolish Gruden was for not taking the win when he had it rather than pushing his luck. We are letting the result determine how we feel about the decision. 

Bottom line, your FG kicker should make a PAT-length FG when called upon. 

[Cliffmark1]

4 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

Lol didn't Scot pick Mike Singletary in San Fran?

Ridiculous at this point to give up on the coaching staff.  I could maybe see replacing the defensive coordinator but barring a complete disaster in the second half of the season you stay the course.

 

You stay the course next year?  That's a waste of talent. 

[pjfootballer]

17 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Obviously in hindsight you would choose to do that. The ball was never inside the 10 though, it was around the 16 or 17. It was 2nd and 4 so let's assume you run it two more times. Maybe you score...I'm not saying that's not feasible. 

But, let's say you get another holding call (we had JUST had one earlier that drive) or something even worse, like a fumble. Do you trust Kelley there or do you trust your automatic (to that point) FG kicker? 

I'll say this. If we had a shot at a 34-yard FG and somehow got pushed back 10 yards for another holding penalty only to see Hopkins miss THAT kick, the narrative would have been how foolish Gruden was for not taking the win when he had it rather than pushing his luck. We are letting the result determine how we feel about the decision. 

Bottom line, your FG kicker should make a PAT-length FG when called upon. 

True (to the last line you posted).  I didn't see the game.  I was driving back from NJ to SC and listened on the radio.  I guess I'm thinking that Gruden got too conservative.  It was on the 13 I think when Garcon was called for the PI (I think).  But then again, PAT's aren't automatic and neither is a 34 yarder.  It was first down and would have run Kelley twice more to see if he could punch it in. I guess also in hindsight, they weren't calling many holding penalties on either line, so I'm not sure that would have been called.  But, who knows.  At least we didn't lose.  LOL.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 minutes ago, pjfootballer said:

True (to the last line you posted).  I didn't see the game.  I was driving back from NJ to SC and listened on the radio.  I guess I'm thinking that Gruden got too conservative.  It was on the 13 I think when Garcon was called for the PI (I think).  But then again, PAT's aren't automatic and neither is a 34 yarder.  It was first down and would have run Kelley twice more to see if he could punch it in. I guess also in hindsight, they weren't calling many holding penalties on either line, so I'm not sure that would have been called.  But, who knows.  At least we didn't lose.  LOL.

It was two different drives. Garcon's penalty was on the ensuing drive after Dalton fumbled the ball back to us. He got to the Cincy 33 but was flagged for OPI. We didn't cross midfield again on that drive until Reed got us to the 48. 

The previous drive we had gotten backed up on a holding call to have 1st-and-20 from the 29. Kelley ripped off a 16-yard run so we were around the 13 and it was 2nd-and-4. So, unless you get the first down (certainly possible, but not a given) you probably run one more time and kick on third down since you're close enough and you can mitigate a bad snap. I wouldn't have been against a real run there as opposed to having Cousins just position the ball, but I didn't have a huge issue with what we did. 

Keep in mind, the missed kick was simply that. We weren't dealing with bad conditions or anything. In fact, right after Lewis called TO to freeze Hopkins, we snapped, held, and kicked the ball through perfectly. There was really no reason to think you needed to get closer or better positioned for this kick. 

[Wildbunny]

2 hours ago, Hal2856 said:

Well... To be fair... Belicheck didn't win in Celeveland...

I'm not saying get rid of him... Just nervous that I see some really stark similarities between the two. 

It took him five years to get another coaching gig.

And while the guy is 250-123 W/L with 4 SB trophies and highly regarded as one of the best HC of all-time he went 41-55 pre Tom Brady. (And I'm only counting seasons where Brady didn't play at all). That's something to think about

2 hours ago, Darth Tater said:

Stability does not make you good, it is an outcome of being good.  If the Redskins screw the pooch ala Shanahan, it is time to move on.

Stability does not make you good. I agree.

But stability allows you to be good. Otherwise, you're just starting over and over again without seeing the results of the politics you're putting in place, regarding players acquisitions (Draft/FA), overall identity of the team, and so on. And the more you keep on starting over and over and over, the more you're about to alienate your players. Early in his career, Jason Campbell had to deal with what? 4 different OC in 4 years? That's a good way to develop your guys. And the more you do this, the more you'll only attract mercenaries that are here to collect a paycheck, because they know they won't earn any trophy in such kind of environment.

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Also, the players paly their ass off for him.

Paly? As in Paloffs is Now?

1 hour ago, Hal2856 said:

Yeah. To be honest I've been talking about with some friends for a fo weeks and I am not a huge Gruden fan.

We guessed that.

[Heisenberg]

32 minutes ago, Cliffmark1 said:

You stay the course next year?  That's a waste of talent. 

Like I said, barring a huge collapse in the second half of the season I'm as optimistic as I've been about the direction the franchise is heading in my lifetime.  I think Gruden is growing as a coach and his positives far outweigh his negatives thus far.

[goskins10]

8 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Edit..

Paly? As in Paloffs is Now?

 

 

I am the king of typos I believe. It seems no matter how hard I try I always miss some. For those playing at home I fixed that one - smarty... 

[Heisenberg]

1 hour ago, pjfootballer said:

Ball inside the 10.  Bengals are tired and Kelley was fresh.  Run it until you can't run it in and then kick. Too many things can go more wrong on a FG then a regular handoff. 

Pretty sure the stats would say more can go wrong trying to keep moving the ball than taking the ~94% league-wide average of hitting from that distance.  Fumble, holding call, other penalty, etc. are all possibilities.

I'll take 94% odds with Hopkins all day.  The only reason people are raising it as an issue is the fact that he missed.  It was the right play.

[BleedBNG]

The difference between Gruden's team and the ones we had with Turner is that with Turner, you pretty much knew we were going to lose games 80% of our weeks. It was the only times I ever fell asleep during Redskins games... Zzzzz... boring. Now it's more like (with exception of the Steelers game)... you don't really know. I would say for the rest of the year the only lock for a loss (as with the Steelers game) would be against the Packers. A couple of friends at work are Patriots fans. I was kidding around and asked them... it must be boring being a Patriots fan. They asked why, and I told them that there is no wondering from week to week if your going to win or lose because the results are usually obvious. I know... we'll take that kind of boring anytime. In the mean time this is for me a more of a kick back and enjoy year knowing that our player personnel will just get better as we go along. 

[Wildbunny]

Ask your Patriots friends what they'll do the year both Bellichick and Brady will retire? Because I believe they will retire at the same time

[campbellcooleyconnection]

So jealous of Pats,Pack,Broncos,Seahags,Steelers etc fans.Look forward to one day feeling confident my team will win on Sunday instead of expecting worst & Hoping for best.Yes when I was young during the glory days but last 25 years not so much.

[TSO]

What I've learned throughout all these years of paying close attention to the NFL in general and extremely close attention to the Redskins, is that you've got to give a front office (including GM, HC, and scouting department) a MINIMUM OF 3 years. 

And I mean minimum. So long as it's not a total disaster or the team shows zero progress throughout the entire process, that's the minimum. 

Furthermore, the titles and roles given within that FO must never be undermined in any way. You can have the same group of guys for 5 years, but if anyone is being undermined; their roles aren't defined and/or get mixed up; or the heirarchy is corrupted in any way, then that stability means nothing. 

But most of all, you have to have a solid enough hiring process to find the right guys in the first place. If your hiring process allows you to bring in a Vinny Cerrato, no amount of stability will work.

Still, stability is important because the benefits of this stability is not only about these men working together for a long enough time - therefore getting to the point where they're so comfortable with what each other wants and is looking for they can find and develop players within the system like it's nothing - but it's also about what it means for your hiring process moving forward. 

We've seen it first hand. There may have never been as big of a joke throughout NFL history as the search for a new HC after Gibbs retired for a second time. It even took Zorn a ton of convincing to get Sherman Smith to come here, who literally stated afterwards that he had heard bad things about this place so he didn't want to come, and then after the staff was let go he said that all the things he heard were true. 

If we're that naive to think that has no effect, or think that it's okay because "coaches will come here and won't care once they get paid"... well, that's terrible. We shouldn't want men who are only willing to come here because they're getting paid an exorbitant amount of money. It means that, from the start, there's a lack of trust and they need to be compensated accordingly. That's just a terrible environment to initially walk into. 

Mike Shanahan needed final say written into his contract and he was adamant about removing Vinny while installing Allen as GM as preconditions to signing. You think that happens if we're not an embarrassment organizationally? 

People forget, but Scot McCloughan himself took a while to sign because of the same worries.  

Those are the tangible effects of a lack of stability and an organization that has become known to be circus-like and unprofessional. I believe one of the reasons Gruden didn't want Wade Phillips was because he was asking for too much based on the fear of instability here, but that's not confirmed. I think TK dropped that nugget, but I don't recall exactly so don't take my word for it. 

It fits though. 

For me, I absolutely don't mind stability for the sake of it right now. We need to make this place attractive again. Even if they fail, I want people to leave here saying good things about their time here, how they had every opportunity to succeed, and simply understanding that it was ultimately their own fault for their lack of success. 

I don't think I can stand another era that ends the way Zorn or Shanahan's did. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

14 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Watching this offense makes me feel like someone made me mashed potatoes, but didn't use anything but potatoes and water, while in a really nicely stocked pantry.

Potatoes AND water in the same meal?!  I thought that was a feast for you!? 

I see no justification for getting rid of Jay this year.  I'd like to get rid of Barry and bring in Todd Bowles after he gets canned.

Seriously though, unless our team totally falls apart and goes 2-6 or worse, I just can't see firing Jay as an option.  We still need more talent on this team to compete for a title.  Give Jay another run to prove himself while SM goes out and drafts some studs.  

[hail2skins]

20 hours ago, kleese said:

As always, I have a VERY different take on the end of the Norv era. He 100% and without question should have been fired after 1998. We started that season 0-7 and finished 6-10. This coming on the heels of two seasons in 96 and 97 where we choked down the stretch. After five seasons, that should have been it for Norv. 

But the Cooke's loved him and that off season the team was being sold. By the time Snyder took over it was really too late to make a coaching change. Then 1999 comes along and we make what I maintain was a bad trade for Brad Johnson when we could have just keep and equal or superior player in Trent Green.

Ed, I agree that Norv should've been fired in 1998, heck probably sometime during the 0-7 start. And not sure how much the ownership swirl influenced Trent Green's decision to leave.

Its way too early to see how the Gruden story is going to play out here. However, I do think that Norv and Jay will tend to be evaluated under different standards by fans, as one followed 20 years of relative success, while the other is following 20 years of relative crap (some of which, admittedly, Norv had a hand in). 

[TimmySmith]

Actually Norv 4.0 is happening in Minnesota.

Norv couldn't finish, so that is about the only comparison that fits.  Norv designed really good plays, then couldn't figure out how to call them.  Norv abandoned the run when he got down by 3, even in the 1st.  Norv had about the worst time/timeout management in the league.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

You said that Norv Turner's tenure here shows that the stability argument is BS. All I'm saying is that one guy not being worthy of patience doesn't disprove that there are benefits to stability. Unless you KNOW the coach you have is the wrong guy, it's better to stay the course than to change things. There is nothing indicating after 2.5 seasons that Gruden isn't the guy to take us to the next level. 

 

I didn't even care for Jay after year 1 but back then still didn't want him fired.    The Steelers in particular pride themselves on stability.   When Portis and Moss were asked why has this franchise struggled so much they both cite changes -- too many changes.  New coach, new philosophy -- rinse and repeat. New offense, new defense, new coach, new players.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

A Norv Turner team would be 1-7 right now.  This team is resilient, and mentally tough.  2 things that have never been said about any team Norv was the HC of.  

[Tsailand]

On 10/31/2016 at 11:30 AM, Heisenberg said:

Zorn peaked early before the league figured him out

He wasn't even good then.  That 6-2 start came on wins by 5,7,2,6,3,and 8 points.  When you see numbers like that, you know that you are looking at a mediocre team that has gotten a lot of lucky breaks to win close games.  This came in the middle of the Jason Campbell experiment, so it's not like we ever had a chance.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

9 hours ago, Tsailand said:

He wasn't even good then.  That 6-2 start came on wins by 5,7,2,6,3,and 8 points.  When you see numbers like that, you know that you are looking at a mediocre team that has gotten a lot of lucky breaks to win close games.  This came in the middle of the Jason Campbell experiment, so it's not like we ever had a chance.

 

You also knew because if you watched the games, you could see that they had exactly 5 offensive plays.  4 were runs.  The passing game consisted of the worst coordinated WCO I've ever seen.  It was like the same 2 short In's in front of a slant EVERY SINGLE play.  And JC would get heated up and check the ball down to the turf.  

I know JC gets a lot of heat, but I honestly wonder what his career would have been like if he had an honest to God good OC early in his career.  He had Gibbs II (ok but dated), Al Saunders (doofus) and Zorn (moron), and that's leaving out the bingo caller.  Gibbs was probably the best of the lot.  If he had a solid OC early, I'm not sure he would have ever been great, but he might have been serviceable. 

Same with Ramsey.  He had an uninterested Spurrier (wacko) and then Gibbs II coming off a 12 year hiatus. 

Contrast that to Griffin, who had an amazing HC/OC for him, and he nuked the relationship because of person feelings.  

Grumble.  

[Darth Tater]

If I've learned anything about the NFL, it usually takes a maximum of 3 years to develop a good team and often just 1 or two.  If year 3 is not good, the coach will not succeed.  There are exceptions but not many.  Noll did take 4 years before his Steelers finally got to the playoffs but remember he took over a team that had just 4 winning seasons (and only 1 playoff appearance) in 44 years!  The Steelers were also decent in 1970 and 1971 although it had yet to show up in the win column. The other exception is Tom Landry who took 6 years but that was with an expansion team.  There have been guys who bought a year or two to rebuild because they took an aging core on one more big run.  Relatively sudden success is the norm.  Lombardi took over a 1 win team and turned them into winners his first year George Allen took the Redskins to the playoffs in his first year.  Joe Gibbs took the team to the SB in his second year.  Johnson took the Cowboys to the playoffs in his third year but had a team that you needed to play hard to beat in his second year.  Holmgren took over a 4 win Pack and was just outside the playoffs in his first year! More recently. Pete Caroll bought himself a year by taking the Seahags to the playoffs in year 1, missed them the next but took them to elite status in year 3. Coaches with more than 3 years of average to below average teams rarely do anything more than pounce when the good teams in the division age out (Norv in 1999 is a good example).  Gruden may buy a year 4 but only because of year 2 or because he has a winning season this year.  Evidence suggest that if we don't have at least 9 wins, we likely need to look for a new HC.  Less than 7 and we almost certainly need to bring one in.

Gruden took over a team with no talent?  Lets see...Trent Williams, Pierre Garcon, Jordon Reed. Alfred Morris, Chris Thompson, Kirk Cousins, Ryan Kerrigan, Chris Baker, DeAngelo Hall.  Key players on the team last year and many are still around.  There are several others who were important to the team though you could argue their talent such as Will Compton, Kedric Golston, Trent Robinson, Josh Leribeus, Kory Licht and a couple others.