Jay Gruden: Buy, Sell Or HOLD: 2017 edition

[markmills67]

38 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Unrelated at all.

You bring up the performance level of the Pats in the last five games, then I believe it is relevant to bring the level of the opponents they faced during that span. Because when they played better ones they got completly owned.

 

Let's stop with the Patriots' assistants hype, they all went nowhere after leaving NE as @Warhead36 pointed out.

So your saying there is absolutely no way that the Patriots D could have got better as the season has progressed?. 

 

HTTR 

[skinfan2k]

20 hours ago, SAli457180 said:

 

You seem to a die-hard supporter of Gruden.  I wonder what you'll be saying next year when Cousins is probably going to be somewhere else and they'll be starting over.  Gruden's offense has no identity.  There is no run game and it's more pass first which teams have game planned for.  He's not someone innovative like a Sean McVay.  He's not anywhere close to someone like Joe Gibbs who you mentioned in an earlier post.  He's average and will probably be here for a few more years since he recently signed that extension.  

Umm no. his time management is nothing to note.  Cousins is going nowhere.  He is going to get the transition tag for sure.  There is no run game because he doesnt have a running back.  GMSM failed drafting matt jones, and then last year we drafted the the guy who keeps getting injured and got rob kelley as a UDFA.  this year he has perine and i like what i see from him despite the mistakes

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, markmills67 said:

So your saying there is absolutely no way that the Patriots D could have got better as the season has progressed?. 

 

HTTR 

I'm sure it did, and I'm sure Patricia has something to do with that. But the D is Bellicheck's baby and track record shows that Pats assistants who leave New England end up sucking as Head Coaches.

 

Its a completely different skill set.

[Rufus T Firefly]

23 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

Let's stop with the Patriots' assistants hype, they all went nowhere after leaving NE as @Warhead36 pointed out.

The fact is the majority of new coach hires don't succeed. So, these kinds of statements about types of hires that don't work out or coaches from certain places are bad, all just hit on that high percentage.

 

You should never hire coaches from college, until Pete Carroll, Doug Marrone and Bill O'Brien had success. You shouldn't hire older coordinators, until Bruce Arians and Jim Caldwell. Defensive coaches don't work out, or is it offensive coaches at the moment? Young coaches are bad, oh wait, now it must be old guys.

 

If you can coach, you can coach. Personally, I would want a team that wouldn't close any doors based on some kind of narrow trend. Whether that means Patricia or not I don't know.

[campbellcooleyconnection]

Sell -same script every game-great opening series or two get a 10-0 lead & try too sit on it as opponents come roaring back.Commence desperate try too get back in game mode, no thanks getting bored watching same movie ? I know the ending.

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Possibly two of the worst in history. 

Haz being the other?  

 

Manusky it is a legit DC with a reasonably good resume.

 

Haz was a fool.  But probably not in the historically bad category...

[Rufus T Firefly]

19 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Haz being the other?  

 

Manusky it is a legit DC with a reasonably good resume.

 

Haz was a fool.  But probably not in the historically bad category...

Given Haslett's history, including here before Gruden came on board, I consider keeping him on to be an historically bad decision. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

I can see the reasoning behind it, and I might like it as well.

 

Still I can't help myself but think that doing such a thing would have had a terrible impact on McVay regarding loyalty, fairness, in this organisation. Here you still have the opportunity to get him back if Gruden ever leaves for any reason, and if he happens to be available at that time.

You rarely make a friend out of someone by sacking his friend, because the two are really close.

McVay might have protested.  But honestly you could have fired Gruden for cause: hiring Barry is a fireable offense.  

 

I completely see see your point.  But in a vacuum, I would have taken McVay 10 times out of 10.

4 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Given Haslett's history, including here before Gruden came on board, I consider keeping him on to be an historically bad decision. 

I think Alllen kinda made that decision for him.  But I’m not going to argue the point.  It was a total rookie “trust my friends” move.  

 

Barry was worse because Gruden had to go outside the organization to find the guy with the worst record of all time.  You can’t  make that **** up. 

[HapHaszard]

It looks like this article might belong here:

 

WP: Given Redskins’ lack of talent, Jay Gruden deserves high praise

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/11/14/given-redskins-lack-of-talent-jay-gruden-deserves-high-praise/

[Voice_of_Reason]

57 minutes ago, HapHaszard said:

It looks like this article might belong here:

 

WP: Given Redskins’ lack of talent, Jay Gruden deserves high praise

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/11/14/given-redskins-lack-of-talent-jay-gruden-deserves-high-praise/

This is a good and interesting article.

 

But it doesn't take into consideration that he's one of the people in charge of putting together the roster, so if he is the guy who says it's ok to go into the season with Grant and Kelley as starters, does he get a pass as a coach because he's good at making the best of the bad situation he put himself in? That example isn't the only one, and there are plenty of other examples from previous years. 

 

Allen really let's Gruden pick the players.  SM had some input, but it has always been Gruden's decision, at least on the 53, since he's been here.

 

 

 

 

[Wildbunny]

6 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This is a good and interesting article.

 

But it doesn't take into consideration that he's one of the people in charge of putting together the roster, so if he is the guy who says it's ok to go into the season with Grant and Kelley as starters, does he get a pass as a coach because he's good at making the best of the bad situation he put himself in? That example isn't the only one, and there are plenty of other examples from previous years. 

 

Allen really let's Gruden pick the players.  SM had some input, but it has always been Gruden's decision, at least on the 53, since he's been here.

True enough,

But that article, another great gems from Hap, once again, states that we where mostly down due to our crappy defense until this year, which have been relatively true.

 

What I think is positive from this is that he knows how to get out of the hole.

He's taking part of creating the hole he dug himself in, but at the same you still like you HC to be involved in the player department. Otherwise, it's weird...

[Reaper Skins]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Allen really let's Gruden pick the players.  SM had some input, but it has always been Gruden's decision, at least on the 53, since he's been here.

 

 

 

 

Where is the evidence for this?  Not saying its not true, but I've never gotten the impression that Gruden has ever had more say in draft picks or roster management than other coaches around the league.  Certainly when McCloughan was here , our offseason moves and free agency picks seemed to come from talent he was familiar with, not Gruden.  (Culliver, Francios, McGee, McClain, etc.)  Scott's drafts didnt seem to need to be approved by Gruden either, didn't they have a whole article about how Gruden didnt want Crowder? 

 

And the whole press conference with Gruden complaining that his two first round picks were a guard and a wide receiver who couldn't get on  the field don't seem to suggest that he is in control of stocking the roster however he sees fit..... just the other day he deferred questions about Pryor to Doug Williams, saying he was the one to ask about those things..

 

I'm sure he has some input on which 53 make it on the roster and active on gameday, but i'm not sure where the idea of him being the number 1 in charge of personnel comes from? 

[Voice_of_Reason]

19 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

True enough,

But that article, another great gems from Hap, once again, states that we where mostly down due to our crappy defense until this year, which have been relatively true.

 

What I think is positive from this is that he knows how to get out of the hole.

He's taking part of creating the hole he dug himself in, but at the same you still like you HC to be involved in the player department. Otherwise, it's weird...

I'd like him to not be allowed to dig the hole, and then he doesn't have to get out of it.  

 

Yes, you absolutely want your HC part of the process.  100%.  It's got to be a team effort.  However, coaches will almost always retreat to the players they trust the most NOW, because they have a mentality that they have to win NOW.  This is not bad or uncommon.  

 

The GM has the luxury of taking a longer look, and sometimes has to force the coach to take a player they might not be comfortable with now, but down the road might be better for the organization.  This was the big debate beween Ryan Grant and that other guy who's name I can't remember.  Gruden wanted Grant, who was MUCH more physically limited, but a good, smart, try-hard guy.  GM wanted the other guy, who was a better athlete, but more raw.  Gruden won because Allen supports Gruden.  That was, in my opinion, probably the wrong choice in the long run.

 

Would choosing the other guy have presented Gruden with a challenge?  Would it have made Gruden uncomfortable? Yep, sure would have.  Would that have been a bad thing?  Nope, probably not.  

 

That's why you have a GM who has the final say, and a coach that has input rather than the coach who has the final say.

 

 

19 hours ago, Reaper Skins said:

I'm sure he has some input on which 53 make it on the roster and active on gameday, but i'm not sure where the idea of him being the number 1 in charge of personnel comes from? 

That's actually pretty close to what I'm saying.  I'm sure he has input on draft and FAs, but I think that's more of the scouting department/Allen/Williams.  

 

But when it comes to cuts, I think it's all Gruden.  Others might have input, but he makes the final call.  It's felt that way from the beginning.  SM mentioned that he was just a GM in title only, really just the head scout, they wouldn't hire a true GM after he left, and Cooley has said often that he believes the team really likes Gruden's ability to be part of the scouting process.

 

I want him to be involved, but I want somebody else with the final say over the 53.  So we don't end up with Ryan Grant and Rob Kelley as starting WR and RB as "the plan."  

[Wildbunny]

34 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I'd like him to not be allowed to dig the hole, and then he doesn't have to get out of it.  

 

Yes, you absolutely want your HC part of the process.  100%.  It's got to be a team effort.  However, coaches will almost always retreat to the players they trust the most NOW, because they have a mentality that they have to win NOW.  This is not bad or uncommon.  

Sure you don't want him to dig the hole, obviously, but as he has some input regarding players, he's participating in it. Does he do a lot or not, that remains to be seen...

 

Now, coaches are always in "Win now mode", except maybe guys like McVay and Kyle that probably have some longer leash than any non firmly established coach. Otherwise, every coach know that they are to get fired any time if the results aren't great. Coaches do have a contract but they also know that they are more likely to get fired than reach the end of their contract in the NFL.

Let's have a look at McAdoo-doo. Last year some here thought he was the savior of the coaching, and this year there's rumblings in NY, players saying he lost the roster, and he'll get lucky if he makes it until the end of the season.

That's a coaches' life... Some of those GMs, Owners are not gonna accept "losing" for a long time. Us as Redskins fans know this probably more than any other fan in the NFL, but Cleveland's ones.

 

So they are merely force to win now, which often creates problems between coaches and GMs because you have GMs that supply coaches with players that they think will be great in 2/3 year while at the same time asking the coach to cook chicken out of **** chicken... Not providing him players he wants, trading players he doesn't want because he had a nice offer... I doubt coaches liked to be sacrificed by their GM because they'll know they'll get fired at the end of the season due to lack of success and that somebody else will get the benefits of their job.

 

There's only 32 HC gig in the NFL, they don't come easily and if you miss an opportunity it might not come anytime soon...

 

I'm still not sure there's a better system that could work. Some coaches are great as GM as well, but those are really rare to find. Some are in safe mode right now, like McCarthy, Bellichick, Tomlin and they can work mid term, but that will probably stop quite fast once their beloved QB retires.

[BurgundyBooger]

Sell.

 

Not buying Jay. In fact, I'm not impressed with the Gruden clan in general as both brothers promote this facade of being hard-nosed, edgy leaders but in reality are your typical players' coaches with neither the instinct, insight, or ability to crystallize their relationship with the players into leadership conducive to team success. Reminds me of the Ryans. Chirpy, blunt, often-times crude but no bite or strong follow-through.

 

Doesn't matter at this point. We'll finish below .500 and it'll be the end of Jay.

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at the notion that coaches need to be hard nose and military like in their approach to players to win football games.  These players are grown ass men.  I think it's pretty obvious that Jay gets the most out of his players without taking that approach.  He's also built a damn good staff underneath him. 

[sebestian]

If you want to watch a real coach operate, simply watch the last two minutes of the first half of this Steelers v Titans game.  Mike Tomlin used his timeouts to perfection and he did it with conviction.  

 

Simply amazing how incompetent Gruden is when you see a real coach operate.  

 

[skins island connection]

A coach can be anyone; players in the game are in a way coaches, because they communicate with rookies or FA players and get them to see what they see in-game and what/how to execute their strategy.  A vet WR might tell a rookie that the QB will be looking for him on the 2nd read after him and to be ready, or how to juke a defender that he's already faced against.

 

But IMO, mostly a coach has to keep his players focused in the game. Some players lax if they're up or down a lot on the scoreboard, and may think to themselves

' this game is over '. He has to keep his focus on the game as well, so it seems like they must have a split personality. Gruden looks too mentally involved in a game, especially near the 2 minute warning, and gets lost on what play to call. We've seen Cousins looking to the sidelines numerous times waiting to hear the play called in, and in situations like that, he has to have scenarios already designed and ready to call so it doesn't let the seconds tic off the clock.  To me, that says he needs to detach himself and be automatic.

 

Innovation can be a Christmas present to a coach; going about calling a play based on a situation repeatedly ends up being predictable, and we've seen that in him already.

[TheCoach22]

On 11/15/2017 at 11:24 AM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at the notion that coaches need to be hard nose and military like in their approach to players to win football games.  These players are grown ass men.  I think it's pretty obvious that Jay gets the most out of his players without taking that approach.  He's also built a damn good staff underneath him. 

Do you really think he's gotten the most out of his players? I'm not sold on that. 

 

Staff, I agree... though that took getting rid of some bad selections first.

 

Special Team execution says a lot about how teams are coached in my opinion. We've been really awful under Gruden, when he's had a deeper roster than Shanny or Gibbs 2.0 had. Keystone cop bloopers this year and his first two seasons.... were  good last year only.

 

I also look at overall team identity. He seems to be fumbling around in the dark for one. Is he aggressive or conservative? He doesn't know.

 

Offense he can scheme, but he can't playcall after the scripted plays.

 

He mismanages timeouts horribly.

 

Pryor and Doctson have ability, Jay doesn't know how to involve guys like that early.

 

Predictable too often. Run on first down. When he does PA on first down and it doesn't work, run draw on second down. Third and 8, throw short of the sticks.

 

Can't counter adjust. I feel after the half he should just go Costanza and go the opposite of his first impulse.

 

He's a .500 football coach. Nothing special.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 hours ago, sebestian said:

If you want to watch a real coach operate, simply watch the last two minutes of the first half of this Steelers v Titans game.  Mike Tomlin used his timeouts to perfection and he did it with conviction.  

 

Simply amazing how incompetent Gruden is when you see a real coach operate.  

 

 

The same Mike Tomlin that Steelers fans constantly complain sucks at clock management (among other things) since pretty much forever?

 

It's the nature of the common fan to constantly second guess head coaches on pretty much everything that doesn't end up working....even if their teams historically win a lot of games.

[Wildbunny]

5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The same Mike Tomlin that Steelers fans constantly complain sucks at clock management (among other things) since pretty much forever?

 

It's the nature of the common fan to constantly second guess head coaches on pretty much everything that doesn't end up working....even if their teams historically win a lot of games.

 

And Mike Tomlin has only been a HC for 11 years now...

[TheCoach22]

8 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

 

And Mike Tomlin has only been a HC for 11 years now...

Dude is a great coach. Has his quirks, such as the go for two thing but he's one of the best. He has a confidence and an identify that are clear and consistent. I'd trade Jay and a pick or two for Tomlin in heartbeat.

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, TheCoach22 said:

Dude is a great coach. Has his quirks, such as the go for two thing but he's one of the best. He has a confidence and an identify that are clear and consistent. I'd trade Jay and a pick or two for Tomlin in heartbeat.

Then you absolutely missed my point.

I was adding to @BatteredFanSyndrome comment, that even Steelers' fans regularly complain about Tomlin with clock management. And that he have been in the league for 11 years now.

Which is nearly thrice as long as Gruden... Which is a lot in the actual NFL.

 

[And Gruden didn't have Big Ben as a QB when he took the job. Finally Gruden didn't step in a team where the owner is patient as well. Tomlin is the 3rd HC for the Steelers since... 1969... (Chuck Noll started 1-13, 5-9, 6-8, that would have gotten him fired from our actual FO) - But that's not the point here]

 

So, the point was that, in the end, fans always complain about the same thing with their coaches. Doesn't matter if they've been in the league for 1, 2, 4 or 11 years...

[BurgundyBooger]

On 11/15/2017 at 2:24 PM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at the notion that coaches need to be hard nose and military like in their approach to players to win football games. 

 

Laugh all you want but when players say they'd "run through a wall" for a head coach who's given them little in terms of on-the-field results it begs the question of what is motivating them to feel that way? His locker room jokes? The fact he calls each one of them on their birthdays to wish them well? It's the players' job to be productive and it's the head coach's job to make sure they are, so what's prompting them to vouch for a head coach who's not getting them to where they need to be?

[TheCoach22]

26 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

Laugh all you want but when players say they'd "run through a wall" for a head coach who's given them little in terms of on-the-field results it begs the question of what is motivating them to feel that way? His locker room jokes? The fact he calls each one of them on their birthdays to wish them well? It's the players' job to be productive and it's the head coach's job to make sure they are, so what's prompting them to vouch for a head coach who's not getting them to where they need to be?

I agree with you, but will point out that several Redskins have said they'd "run through a wall for Jay." I don't believe it, but they say it. I think they're comfortable and like him, and that there is a big difference.

 

Robert Woods with the LAR was basically calling McVay a mastermind and a savant one step ahead of the rest of the world. Nobody has ever said this about Jay. Daddy meant to name him JAG, but the nurse had sloppy cursive and JAY stuck instead.

 

He knows his players on the other side of the ball better than a Spurrier... but I doubt a guy like Josh Norman would lose any sleep if this team went another direction.