Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Bruce Allen/GM Thread


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I dunno.  I’m as big a Jay critic as there is out there and I’m all for piling on, but I’m not sure it’s really true In this case.  I think the defense is still poorly coached they’re just on the field less. They still can’t get stops when it matters and the opposing teams know all they have to do is get to 17 points to win.  

 

Fitzpatrick would have killed them if he started the entire game.  San Fran was played under Niagara Falls.   Buffalo is challenged offensively.

 

And Zimmer goes into a game knowing the number of points he needs and is super conservative most of the time.

 

While I think they’re playing with a little bit more toughness, I’m not sure they’re remotely creative or maximizing their potential. 

 

And i was a supporter of Jay. I am not sure it was even Jay as far cas keeping Manusky back. I could see the team not playing as hard.

 

Also, you have some myths or at least wishes there: You do not know that fitz would have won it - he looked good for a few drives as he does then he coughed the ball up. SF still had plenty of yds and opportunity. The redskins were only scoring 14 pts a game before so the 17 pts is not valid. Last but not least since this is the one thing that could have been valid - the D is on the field almost exactly the same amount of time so that is not valid either: 

TOP 1st 5 - 26:47 

last 4 - 26:34. 

 

I know it's really hard to see any positive from a 1-8 team. I get it. But despite efforts to explain it away, the D is playing much better. Everything there is shows that to be true. Why? Probably lot's of things. But they are playing significantly better. 

 

Anyway, Manusky is likely gone. And should be. I just find it interesting the turn around. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

I know it's really hard to see any positive from a 1-8 team. I get it. But despite efforts to explain it away, the D is playing much better. Everything there is shows that to be true. Why? Probably lot's of things. But they are playing significantly better. 

 

Anyway, Manusky is likely gone. And should be. I just find it interesting the turn around. 

 

The defense looks like its playing better because our offense can't score. 

 

If we were putting up some points the defense would look like it did in the first 3 weeks. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

The defense looks like its playing better because our offense can't score. 

 

If we were putting up some points the defense would look like it did in the first 3 weeks. 

 

This makes no sense what so ever. So since the offense can't score, putting the defense in poor positions and never being able to pin it's ears back and go after teams and never having a lead, it just appears to be playing better?  You will need some data and a lot of explanation to get there. Fact is you cannot. The data does not support that logic defying take.

 

And before you say it, time of possession is virtually identical between the first 5 gms and the last 4 gms. Literally within 10 secs/gm. And again, all numbers - actual data - show that in every meaningful metric, the D is performing better despite the offense not only not scoring but not even keeping the ball longer.   

 

I am not a huge Manusky fan. I wanted his ass fired after gm 2. Said so in here repeatedly. But that does not change the fact that the D is in fact playing considerably better since Jay was fired. All meaningful metrics support that.

 

BTW: Better does not mean top 5 or great, It simply means exactly what it is - better than the first 5 gms, period. Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

This makes no sense what so ever. So since the offense can't score, putting the defense in poor positions and never being able to pin it's ears back and go after teams and never having a lead, it just appears to be playing better?  You will need some data and a lot of explanation to get there. Fact is you cannot. The data does not support that logic defying take.

 

And before you say it, time of possession is virtually identical between the first 5 gms and the last 4 gms. Literally within 10 secs/gm. And again, all numbers - actual data - show that in every meaningful metric, the D is performing better despite the offense not only not scoring but not even keeping the ball longer.   

 

I am not a huge Manusky fan. I wanted his ass fired after gm 2. Said so in here repeatedly. But that does not change the fact that the D is in fact playing considerably better since Jay was fired. All meaningful metrics support that.

 

BTW: Better does not mean top 5 or great, It simply means exactly what it is - better than the first 5 gms, period. Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

 

 I think the d-line has played a little better, but opposing coaches still find how to get around the pressure; the secondary, however, has really deteriorated.

We may have been lulled into them playing better because of the Bills and Dolphins not being what one would consider a strong offense, and the next few weeks will be more of the same, with the Lions and Panthers coming up.

 

They do seem to play decent at first, but once the scripted plays are over, that's when things go downhill.

Edited by skins island connection
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 I think the d-line has played a little better, but opposing coaches still find how to get around the pressure; the secondary, however, has really deteriorated.

We may have been lulled into them playing better because of the Bills and Dolphins not being what one would consider a strong offense, and the next few weeks will be more of the same, with the Lions and Panthers coming up.

 

They do seem to play decent at first, but once the scripted plays are over, that's when things go downhill.

 

I mean this as an honest question - did you even look at the data? You guys keep making excuses for the D playing better when that's really all they are - excuses. 

 

There is zero denying they are actually playing better - not sure how that is even in debate. The question I have is why. It's too easy to say Jay is gone so they got better. Quality of opponent is not really valid as only NE is really that good a team. Giants and CHi are bad. Dallas and Philly are jsut OK.   Better than us but not any better than Buff and certainly not better the 49ers rain or not. 

 

Again, they are playing better - it's not a mirage or something fake. The question is why. This could go to us getting better for the next coach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

Again, they are playing better - it's not a mirage or something fake. The question is why. This could go to us getting better for the next coach. 

They are playing better, but at the same time, they were playing so terribly that eventually they had to return to the mean somewhat.

 

Also, while playing better, not ever do I think they'll get an actual stop when it's needed.  While the stats looks better, we're still seeing much of the same.  It should be interesting when they have to play the Cowboys, Packers, even the Panthers (McCaffrey) and Lions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

When your opponent knows that you aren't scoring points and bring out the preseason game plan to not show anything new against you, and you still lose, the take away isn't that your defense is playing well.

 

If we somehow put up 24 on a team they'll be scoring 34, why even try to fool yourself otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

When your opponent knows that you aren't scoring points and bring out the preseason game plan to not show anything new against you, and you still lose, the take away isn't that your defense is playing well.

 

If we somehow put up 24 on a team they'll be scoring 34, why even try to fool yourself otherwise?

 

If/When that happens then fine. Until then it's just conjecture. The whole - "well we all know" is not valid without data to support it. 

 

43 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

They are playing better, but at the same time, they were playing so terribly that eventually they had to return to the mean somewhat.

 

Also, while playing better, not ever do I think they'll get an actual stop when it's needed.  While the stats looks better, we're still seeing much of the same.  It should be interesting when they have to play the Cowboys, Packers, even the Panthers (McCaffrey) and Lions.  

 

SO again, I never said they were playing great or even good. I specifically said "better" only. There is another stat that is in their favor - but only barely - 3rd Dn % has gone from 56.4% to 40.2% - nothing to brag about but statistically significantly better. In this case i would agree that they were so bad they really could only go up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

If/When that happens then fine. Until then it's just conjecture. The whole - "well we all know" is not valid without data to support it. 

 

 

SO again, I never said they were playing great or even good. I specifically said "better" only. There is another stat that is in their favor - but only barely - 3rd Dn % has gone from 56.4% to 40.2% - nothing to brag about but statistically significantly better. In this case i would agree that they were so bad they really could only go up.

 

 

I think the answer is hidden somewhere in O'Connell saying not so long ago rearding if this was his Offense or Callahan's?

He said it was Callahan's Offense first and foremost. So I believe the same can be true for the D and Manusky. Manusky is coordinating Callahan's Offense, not his Defense. Maybe Manusky got free under Jay or Callahan or neither in both case. We don't know. But the change of HC obviously changed a few things.

 

Now, we shouldn't fool ourselves, we aren't that great either on D. For some reason, I think teams are playing it easy on us. The Bills seemingly did against Haskins. They went light, maybe because they did not know what to expect from him or from Callahan's gameplan, but I expected more fancy looks from them to confuse the young guy. Didn't happen.

 

Watching Minnesota and Buffalo, you really had the impression that opposing teams were playing at 70/80% but could push the gas pedal anytime if needed be. After all in 9 games played we haven't scored double digit in 5 games...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn Springs was on 980 this morning and he said the roster has no significant talent.  A total reflection of the front office poor performance. 

Now Doc and Galdi are yelling and screaming about it on the radio.   The fans have known the lack of talent but it can be news when ex-Redskins

are willing to say it on the radio then Al Gadi is taking notice of it.  Doc Walker is challenging why the Skins renewed Gruden's contract.   I think

Allen new the roster was bad so he wanted to pay him.  So Doug Williams gets paid too.  All the Tampa Bay connections with Allen get paid.

 

Springs is saying the roster has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

Edited by veteranskinsfan
clarifying with last sentence
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

This makes no sense what so ever. So since the offense can't score, putting the defense in poor positions and never being able to pin it's ears back and go after teams and never having a lead, it just appears to be playing better?  You will need some data and a lot of explanation to get there. Fact is you cannot. The data does not support that logic defying take.

 

And before you say it, time of possession is virtually identical between the first 5 gms and the last 4 gms. Literally within 10 secs/gm. And again, all numbers - actual data - show that in every meaningful metric, the D is performing better despite the offense not only not scoring but not even keeping the ball longer.   

 

I am not a huge Manusky fan. I wanted his ass fired after gm 2. Said so in here repeatedly. But that does not change the fact that the D is in fact playing considerably better since Jay was fired. All meaningful metrics support that.

 

BTW: Better does not mean top 5 or great, It simply means exactly what it is - better than the first 5 gms, period. Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

 

Football is a team game. (Offense/Defense/Teams)

 

You're waaaaaaaaaaay out there in Moneyball-land wondering why the Browns still suck. 


e.g.

"...offense can't score, putting the defense in poor positions..." right there you're already off track. 

 

The offense hasn't been putting the defense in as many poor situations under Callahan's offense, we've only turned it over 4 times in the last 4 games. (compared to 9 in the first 4) And we have one of the best punters in football.   (football is a team game)

 

What I'm saying isn't based off of Data because I'm projecting. 

 

What I'm saying is that if our offense put up 27 points against the Bills, then our defense doesn't still hold them to 24. If you want to argue that, then go ahead. I know what I see on the field. We're not stopping anyone when it matters. (not even the Miami Dolphins) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Football is a team game. (Offense/Defense/Teams)

 

You're waaaaaaaaaaay out there in Moneyball-land wondering why the Browns still suck. 


e.g.

"...offense can't score, putting the defense in poor positions..." right there you're already off track. 

 

The offense hasn't been putting the defense in as many poor situations under Callahan's offense, we've only turned it over 4 times in the last 4 games. (compared to 9 in the first 4) And we have one of the best punters in football.   (football is a team game)

 

What I'm saying isn't based off of Data because I'm projecting. 

 

What I'm saying is that if our offense put up 27 points against the Bills, then our defense doesn't still hold them to 24. If you want to argue that, then go ahead. I know what I see on the field. We're not stopping anyone when it matters. (not even the Miami Dolphins) 

 

 

So even with the snark about it being a team game, nothing you said at all justifies why a poor offense makes for a good defense. The mental gymnastics are just not working. 

 

So you ignore the 3 and outs but clearly data is not your strong point. So no need to go any further. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

 

So even with the snark about it being a team game, nothing you said at all justifies why a poor offense makes for a good defense. The mental gymnastics are just not working. 

  

So you ignore the 3 and outs but clearly data is not your strong point. So no need to go any further. 

 

A 3 and out puts the defense in a bad situation with Tress Way on the roster? 

 

Bad situation = turnover

 

 

If we score 27 against the Bills, they score more then 24 against us, simple as that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mooka said:

 

A 3 and out puts the defense in a bad situation with Tress Way on the roster? 

 

Bad situation = turnover

 

 

If we score 27 against the Bills, they score more then 24 against us, simple as that. 

 

One last response - you are addressing only one of several reasons I gave - not to mention - all the actual data!  And you still have not said anything that justifies how bad offence makes for good defense. There is no logic to it. So you should really stop while you are behind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah this is the same football discussion we've been having for decades. Just 2 different guys.  (lies, damn lies and statistics)

 

Its the same discussion we had the first 3 weeks wondering why the defense was so terrible. 

 

I didn't say anything about good, anywhere, btw. Hellllllll no.

 

What I said, is the defense isn't playing better. It only appears that way on paper because our offense is scoring less. (which creates less stats for the opposing offense) 1 extra 2 minute drive at the end of the Vikings game vs a kneel down heavily skews the statistics. Let alone a team running the clock out vs them airing the ball out trying to score. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

The defense looks like its playing better because our offense can't score. 

 

If we were putting up some points the defense would look like it did in the first 3 weeks. 

 

Unlike the offense the defense has moments where they are very good.  However they almost always also have lapses where they give up plays or can't make big stops.  This is not simply due to the inept offense.  Unlike the offense the D does have some talent (not across the bd & in need of improvement but a nucleus of some good players). 

 

Perhaps Manusky is doing a bit better, but the results are inconsistent.  Hopefully he is out next season.  If they were to find decent defensive coaches & pickup a few keep players in the secondary and LB they may be halfway decent.  The offense will need considerably more (starting with wholesale O line changes).

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

I mean this as an honest question - did you even look at the data? You guys keep making excuses for the D playing better when that's really all they are - excuses. 

 

There is zero denying they are actually playing better - not sure how that is even in debate. The question I have is why. It's too easy to say Jay is gone so they got better. Quality of opponent is not really valid as only NE is really that good a team. Giants and CHi are bad. Dallas and Philly are jsut OK.   Better than us but not any better than Buff and certainly not better the 49ers rain or not. 

 

Again, they are playing better - it's not a mirage or something fake. The question is why. This could go to us getting better for the next coach. 

 

 Data ??   I don't need no stinkin' data !  lol..

Did you even bother reading what I typed? Obviously not, because if you did, you would have seen right off the bat that I acknowledged the defense seemingly playing better, but that's mostly from the d-line.

Maybe the data sheets are blocking your view...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Just heard on the radio the Skins are sending a representative (probably Doug Williams) to Colin Kapernick's workout this Saturday.

For the Prince of Darkness desperate times call for desperate measures.

Never mind the fact that we are going to have a top 3 pick and be in position to draft a potential franchise quarterback if that's the direction we decide to go if Haskins craps the bed.  This front office never ceases to amaze me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 Data ??   I don't need no stinkin' data !  lol..

Did you even bother reading what I typed? Obviously not, because if you did, you would have seen right off the bat that I acknowledged the defense seemingly playing better, but that's mostly from the d-line.

Maybe the data sheets are blocking your view...

 

Another one with no substance so they respond with snark. Well the snark doesn't make you more right.

 

I did read your response and you did start out saying the Dline was playing slightly better but then trashed the rest of D as still playing like ****, to the point of negating anything positive you started out with. Hence my reminding you of the statistics that show you are only looking at this through emotional glasses, not with data.

 

I would prefer to have my view blocked by data than to remain ignorant just to because I want to ****. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Another one with no substance so they respond with snark. Well the snark doesn't make you more right.

 

I did read your response and you did start out saying the Dline was playing slightly better but then trashed the rest of D as still playing like ****, to the point of negating anything positive you started out with. Hence my reminding you of the statistics that show you are only looking at this through emotional glasses, not with data.

 

I would prefer to have my view blocked by data than to remain ignorant just to because I want to ****. 

 

 Ignorant?  Wow, resorting to name-calling? C'mon, darrellgreenie, this is beneath you.

 I don't know what your problem is, but to start calling people names should be a good way to get you off the board for a week or so.

Edited by skins island connection
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TK locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...