Jay Gruden: Buy or Sell

[SWFLSkins]

2 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

It is a problem.  I'm not saying it isn't.

 

Here is my last attempt...

 

The Washington Redskins are 4th in the NFL in points per drive.  We are 30th in the NFL in drives per game.  Which means we score on almost every drive.

 

If we had the ball MORE.  We would score MORE. 

 

It is unrealistic to expect a touchdown on every. stinkin. drive...

 

Yes... we could do better in the red zone.  But we could also do more with the ball if we saw it more.

 

Ok, as long as you are not saying that...... I honestly couldn't read ever back and forth you were having to ultimately see where you stood. 

 

 

So I put you down in the Buy then.......I am still at Hold, not enough progress on game Mgt. for me, and the Bruton over Duke still has me smdh. 

14 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

Um, I like how you removed his first year and put it into the 7-25 category.     he's 19-24-1.

 

The best thing and the only really good thing he's done is go to Kirk....and that's a big thing...the most important thing a coach can do....and I give him credit.

 

But everything else....mostly subpar...

 

1) Hiring D-Coordinator...fail

 

2) maximizing talent on offense/red zone into points....fail

 

3) playing the best players...fail

 

4) clock management...fail

 

Primary reasons for me to remain in the Hold and tilting to whatever Scot does is ok by me.

Adam ‏@DC9AdamW  4m4 minutes ago
#Redskins are 4th in the NFL in points per drive. We are 30th in the NFL in drives per game. Defense needs to get off the field.

[DC9]

[goskins10]

59 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

Ok, as long as you are not saying that...... I honestly couldn't read ever back and forth you were having to ultimately see where you stood. 

 

 

So I put you down in the Buy then.......I am still at Hold, not enough progress on game Mgt. for me, and the Bruton over Duke still has me smdh. 

 

While I dont entirely disagree, the time management thing is not just a Jay thing. If you eatch games around the NFL (mostly a rhetorical question) this is all over the place. 

 

Not sure there is a team i have seen that has notbhad some clock management issues. Not saying he coukd not get better. But it's a lot easier to sit home watching it and know exactly what to do ad opposed to actially doing it. 

 

Obviously I am a buy. Having said that my one majir concern is who gets playing time. But i think its not that he not that good or poor at talent evaluation. I believe he is giving his assistants too much leeway. Just a guess on my part.

 

While i agree the RZ issue has to gey better, he is building a very very good off. People just need to think about where we were just 2 years ago. 

 

Lets get a few playmakers on D to shore up that middle and this team could be scary good. 

 

Having said that, if at the end of next year we are still having some of these conversations - d is poor, RZ issues, more overall consistency then I would expect Scot to make a change.  

 

I really do not see that happening with Jay. He may decide to make a change at DC. The next 4 games will likely make that decision for him.  Play like the last 2 gms and we miss the POs and at least Joe is gone. Play well enough to win and he will get next year, along with some new toys. Just my guess. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

14 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

Um, I like how you removed his first year and put it into the 7-25 category.     he's 19-24-1.

 

The best thing and the only really good thing he's done is go to Kirk....and that's a big thing...the most important thing a coach can do....and I give him credit.

 

But everything else....mostly subpar...

 

1) Hiring D-Coordinator...fail

 

2) maximizing talent on offense/red zone into points....fail

 

3) playing the best players...fail

 

4) clock management...fail

It wasn't my intent not to include his first year. I am just trying to illustrate the progress. From not having a chance in year 1, to making a late-season run to a playoff berth in year 2, to actually having a little breathing room (at least in November) and being in the playoff hunt in year 3. We haven't see that type of consistent linear progress in 20 years. 

 

You can't really knock him for #3 when your primary compliment is that he benched the owner's favorite player to play Cousins. I'd agree with #1 and mostly with #4 (though I don't think that one is all that egregious when you watch games around the league). #2 is an incomplete considering he doesn't call the plays AND we were very good in the red zone last year. 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

46 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

It wasn't my intent not to include his first year. I am just trying to illustrate the progress. From not having a chance in year 1, to making a late-season run to a playoff berth in year 2, to actually having a little breathing room (at least in November) and being in the playoff hunt in year 3. We haven't see that type of consistent linear progress in 20 years. 

 

You can't really knock him for #3 when your primary compliment is that he benched the owner's favorite player to play Cousins. I'd agree with #1 and mostly with #4 (though I don't think that one is all that egregious when you watch games around the league). #2 is an incomplete considering he doesn't call the plays AND we were very good in the red zone last year. 

 

How can you disagree with #2?   He's made one personnel change in 3 years based on performance.....many many others should have been made much sooner....FAIL!!!!!!!

 

But I said originally that I would give him another year if he fired Barry

[NewCliche21]

Just a note that while Gruden went with Barry, Fangiano decided to go with the Bears instead of us.  Understandable since they seemed closer to having it together (Cutler wasn't THIS bad/injured).  It's not that Barry was his first choice.  Also saw a PFT article that the Bears may be considering a massive overhaul that could include letting Fangiano go.

[mistertim]

Deleted

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

It is a problem.  I'm not saying it isn't.

 

Here is my last attempt...

 

The Washington Redskins are 4th in the NFL in points per drive.  We are 30th in the NFL in drives per game.  Which means we score on almost every drive.

 

If we had the ball MORE.  We would score MORE. 

 

It is unrealistic to expect a touchdown on every. stinkin. drive...

 

Yes... we could do better in the red zone.  But we could also do more with the ball if we saw it more.

Jesus. NOBODY is expecting a TD "every stinkin drive". What we're expecting is for an offense that seems to move the ball at will between the 20s to not be bottom of the league dreadful at getting TDs once they get into the red zone. Regardless of the number of drives per game, our red zone TD percentage is terrible. Look at the stats that have been posted...the important numbers are times per game in the red zone and TD % in the red zone. The number of overall drives per game is not even a factor there. Same number of trips as other top offenses, vastly different results than most. We've lost enough games by a small number of points that if we just got ONE more red zone TD instead of settling for a FG after failing to punch it in we would have won the game. REGARDLESS of how awful the defense was.

[DC9]

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Jesus. NOBODY is expecting a TD "every stinkin drive". What we're expecting is for an offense that seems to move the ball at will between the 20s to not be bottom of the league dreadful at getting TDs once they get into the red zone. Regardless of the number of drives per game, our red zone TD percentage is terrible. Look at the stats that have been posted...the important numbers are times per game in the red zone and TD % in the red zone. The number of overall drives per game is not even a factor there. Same number of trips as other top offenses, vastly different results than most. We've lost enough games by a small number of points that if we just got ONE more red zone TD instead of settling for a FG after failing to punch it in we would have won the game. REGARDLESS of how awful the defense was.

 

I understand that. 

 

Say the mistertim family is challenging the DC9 family to a good ole' thanksgiving eat a thon.

 

Your family eats more per plate, but you only get two plates.

 

My family eats less per plate, but we get 4 plates and at the end we win.

 

If we got more opportunities with the ball, our redzone offense would improve both based on the math and based on refining what works down there.

 

[Warhead36]

You know what's worse than our red zone offense? Our red zone DEFENSE. Do we ever hold teams to FGs inside the 10-15? I believe we're 31st in red zone D. That coupled with our 3rd down D is why we suck so much defensively because we're actually not bad on 1st/2nd down and we've gotten a decent # of sacks.

[jpage520]

1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

How can you disagree with #2?   He's made one personnel change in 3 years based on performance.....many many others should have been made much sooner....FAIL!!!!!!!

 

But I said originally that I would give him another year if he fired Barry

 

To be fair, he didn't say he disagreed. Just that it was incomplete.

 

But I personally would say that it's fair to create SOME separation in #2 especially since that's such a huge topic in the thread as of late. It's absolutely fair to criticize some of the RZ decisions all around, personnel/on field talent included. For the love of all things good, please make the executive call to take the fade route out of the playbook and kill it with fire.

 

But with that the offensive success in general that this team has seen can't go without acknowledgement in that discussion. Part of that can absolutely be attributed to Jay and his decisions. With that though, you can absolutely question the way some talent is utilized and more importantly, under utilized. Jackson being a significant discussion point there.

 

I've tried real hard to give Barry any benefit of the doubt that I could. There were cases to make in some instances when you'd note the stretches where his bend not break style seemed to allot for one player to have themselves a day, yet limit points from the teams as a whole. The Minnesota game being a prime example. Diggs has a great game, yet the Vikes were scoreless in three of four quarters. Stuff like that. But it's getting to the point where the games in which his unit plays the biggest role in the outcome of games and is failing. That right there is why I want to see a change. So I agree with your #1 I'd like to see how Jay does with a top flight DC running things and allow him, McVay, and Callahan to focus wholly on creating an offensive juggernaut.

 

I agree with #4. I think we've seen some real headscratchers in that department. Although I think he is and will get better. But based on the current body of work you certainly can't call it a success.

 

I chalk #3 up to him still trying to plug things into the right place. Trying to put things together. Certainly fair to question some calls. But I personally don't want to make a definitive call on that yet.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

4 hours ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

I don't think either the O or the D are completely responsible for winning or losing games, but they both have done there parts this year in losing winnable games. The D sucks, the O is like dancing with your Hot cousin, impressive from afar, but accomplishes nothing. 

 

I get your point here (and agree about the importance of redzone O) but let's not exaggerate too much about the O. The Skins are #10 in scoring O in the NFL. These are the teams that rank lower:

 

#11. GB

#12. PIT 

#15. KC 

#16. TB 

#17. ARZ

#18. DET 

#23. NYG 

 

The general consensus is that these teams have pretty good to very good Os.  So why is the team that scores more than them (with little to no help from their D) considered "impressive from afar, but accomplishes nothing"?

[skinny21]

I'm not sure the disconnect here, lol.

 

The offense needs to perform better in the red zone.  If they had been better (not even great, just average) this season, we'd likely have more wins.

 

The defense needs to get the ball back to the offense more often.  If they had, we'd likely score more points (even if just FGs) and we'd likely have more wins.

 

 

The bright side is that the defense getting off the field (particularly on 3rd and longs), and the redzone woes (even turnovers, to an extent) are things that could improve organically through these next few weeks.  Not that I think they're likely to, but if they do (even if just one of them improves), then we could still see a successful season/postseason.

 

 

[mistertim]

12 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

I understand that. 

 

Say the mistertim family is challenging the DC9 family to a good ole' thanksgiving eat a thon.

 

Your family eats more per plate, but you only get two plates.

 

My family eats less per plate, but we get 4 plates and at the end we win.

 

If we got more opportunities with the ball, our redzone offense would improve both based on the math and based on refining what works down there.

 

So instead of actually figuring out what our problem is in the red zone we just say "well, lets just have more drives and then that will inevitably lead to more points, even if lots of the scores are FGs"? The issue with that is that it doesn't deal with reality. The reality of the situation right now is that our defense sucks and because of that we're likely not going to have as many drives per game as other teams who have good Ds. Because our defense sucks we NEED our offense to score more TDs when they get the chances in the red zone; they aren't doing that right now as evidenced by their TD % when in the red zone. We keep settling for field goals and it keeps biting us in the ass because we know our D is going to give up points.

[DC9]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

So instead of actually figuring out what our problem is in the red zone we just say "well, lets just have more drives and then that will inevitably lead to more points, even if lots of the scores are FGs"? The issue with that is that it doesn't deal with reality. The reality of the situation right now is that our defense sucks and because of that we're likely not going to have as many drives per game as other teams who have good Ds. Because our defense sucks we NEED our offense to score more TDs when they get the chances in the red zone; they aren't doing that right now as evidenced by their TD % when in the red zone. We keep settling for field goals and it keeps biting us in the ass because we know our D is going to give up points.

 

No.  We need to figure it out.

 

But what will help you figure it out more than opportunities?

 

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

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

5 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I'm not sure the disconnect here, lol.

 

The offense needs to perform better in the red zone.  If they had been better (not even great, just average) this season, we'd likely have more wins.

 

The defense needs to get the ball back to the offense more often.  If they had, we'd likely score more points (even if just FGs) and we'd likely have more wins.

 

 

The bright side is that the defense getting off the field (particularly on 3rd and longs), and the redzone woes (even turnovers, to an extent) are things that could improve organically through these next few weeks.  Not that I think they're likely to, but if they do (even if just one of them improves), then we could still see a successful season/postseason.

 

 

 

That wasn't so hard was it?  Where the hell have you been the last few pages? 

 

[DC9]

10 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

The bright side is that the defense getting off the field (particularly on 3rd and longs), and the redzone woes (even turnovers, to an extent) are things that could improve organically through these next few weeks.  Not that I think they're likely to, but if they do (even if just one of them improves), then we could still see a successful season/postseason.

 

 

 

Cooley brought up some interesting stats this morning.  One of the most interesting that most of us probably didn't know is that we don't have a player on the defense that has more than one interception.

 

That is crazy.

[CBass1724]

We need to do better in the Red Zone AND our defense needs to get the ball back to the offense quicker, while not giving up so many points.

 

Our offense is good at scoring points on a per drive basis, because we score often when we have the ball.  If we could score more TD's then our average points per drive would be through the roof.  While we need to improve that part, our defense needs to give our offense more opportunities.  It's two separate issues that go hand in hand.

 

We score points most of the time when we have the ball.  Granted, not enough of these scores are of the 6-7 point variety.  If we have more drives during a game, we are going to score more points.  You know, because...math.   

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

No.  We need to figure it out.

 

But what will help you figure it out more than opportunities?

 

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

I agree with you that more opportunities would be great and would probably help. Unfortunately with the state of our D that isn't likely, so the only hope at the moment is for them to become more efficient and improve on their poor red zone TD %. The frustrating thing for me is that it seems that nobody is ever truly taking responsibility for the crapfest in the red zone. Jay always just says the same old general nonsense about it and basically seems to just shrug it off. If it is a play calling issue (and that certainly seems to be a part of it) then whoever is calling those idiotic plays needs to be held accountable and it seems like that isn't happening.

[wit33]

The offense is above average, not good enough consistently rely on them to win. The offense still requires solid to good play from the defense in some games. Not saying this isn't the way it should be (defense and offense complimenting one another) but right now the resources and talent is on offense and they need to do more. 

 

The defense is bad and lacks talent.

 

This is why I hold the offense to a much higher standard and don't really even care to focus on the defense, they are what they are. It's a bonus if they have a good game, which they have had in a few games. 

[skinny21]

24 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Cooley brought up some interesting stats this morning.  One of the most interesting that most of us probably didn't know is that we don't have a player on the defense that has more than one interception.

 

That is crazy.

Crazy indeed.  Yeesh.

 

19 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I agree with you that more opportunities would be great and would probably help. Unfortunately with the state of our D that isn't likely, so the only hope at the moment is for them to become more efficient and improve on their poor red zone TD %. The frustrating thing for me is that it seems that nobody is ever truly taking responsibility for the crapfest in the red zone. Jay always just says the same old general nonsense about it and basically seems to just shrug it off. If it is a play calling issue (and that certainly seems to be a part of it) then whoever is calling those idiotic plays needs to be held accountable and it seems like that isn't happening.

I don't know man.  I mean I agree with your thoughts on the offense, but I think this D can do some things to marginally improve on 3rd downs, for instance.  Barry could be more aggressive, players could play more disciplined, etc.

 

 

9 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The offense is above average, not good enough consistently rely on them to win. The offense still requires solid to good play from the defense in some games. Not saying this isn't the way it should be (defense and offense complimenting one another) but right now the resources and talent is on offense and they need to do more. 

 

The defense is bad and lacks talent.

 

This is why I hold the offense to a much higher standard and don't really even care to focus on the defense, they are what they are. It's a bonus if they have a good game, which they have had in a few games. 

Well said.  The offense is one metric shy of awesome/elite.  I just cannot for the life of me understand the red zone playcalling.  Calling for the fade repeatedly is just insanity.  Refusing to run the ball, no TE leaks, screens, etc., I mean, c'mon!  Nothing is guaranteed to work, but it would be a damn site better than another fade.  

 

Wildcat?  Are you freakin' kidding me?

 

I almost never rant on here, but this crap is really ticking me off.

[Warhead36]

32 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The offense is above average, not good enough consistently rely on them to win. The offense still requires solid to good play from the defense in some games. Not saying this isn't the way it should be (defense and offense complimenting one another) but right now the resources and talent is on offense and they need to do more. 

 

The defense is bad and lacks talent.

 

This is why I hold the offense to a much higher standard and don't really even care to focus on the defense, they are what they are. It's a bonus if they have a good game, which they have had in a few games. 

The offense isn't just above average, its elite. 2nd in yards per game, 5th in 1st downs per game, 3rd in 3rd down %, and 8th in TOP.

 

10th in points per game, which may not be elite, but remember points also factors in D/ST returns and also scoring off short fields which we never get.

 

The offense is championship caliber. Too bad the defense couldn't stop an ACC team.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

How can you disagree with #2?   He's made one personnel change in 3 years based on performance.....many many others should have been made much sooner....FAIL!!!!!!!

 

But I said originally that I would give him another year if he fired Barry

What does this mean? He didn't make changes or didn't make them soon enough? We've had a lot of changes during his tenure. 

[Wildbunny]

10 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Too bad the defense couldn't stop an ACC team.

 

Not every offense can put Fitzgerald in the slot or David Johnson at WR. And Carson Palmer even if old, is still good. Not everyone have a Ezekiel Elliott or Dez Bryant to put against us.

Mike Zimmer said it best when discussing our O with Jay Gruden, "it's a pain in the ass".

I believe something like that happened to our D, sometimes there's not much you can do besides hoping for a miracle.

 

Sure performance wasn't great the last two weeks, but the offenses left on our schedule aren't great either, so we can expect or lacking talent D to be somewhat up to par with those O.

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

24 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

What does this mean? He didn't make changes or didn't make them soon enough? We've had a lot of changes during his tenure. 

 

He does not bench players unless a player gets hurt......Kory, Matt Jones, Bruton, Phillips, etc...