Evaluating Jay Gruden in 2018

[Est.1974]

19 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Yeah. I am ready for a change as well. But this win was a HUGE win for him to make a point about keeping his job. I mean the guy is playing his 4th QB and no guards. he gets strapped with penalties on offense constantly and still find s away to win the game. 

 

Agree it was a massive win for him. He deserves recognition for that. Not sure it should change the bigger picture, but overall for yesterday credit is due. 

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don't think Gruden is here another 5 years. So drafting a young QB for him to develop is a mistake. But if the ultimate mistake of keeping Allen comes through, then I think getting a new HC may only compound that mistake. I 100% believe those two should be tied together.

 

I understand this, but i think if we do what we normally do and just hire from within, assuming Brucey iz done, then we'll probably just appoint Kyle Smith, who knows Gruden and so it should probably be his decision. 

 

I think Gruden can develop a QB so i  wouldn't totally relieve him of that. I look at Dalton and our last QB as examples of that. 

 

Question is who would we bring in? I'd favor a young guy who can develop under Gruden, but who could we get? We probably can't afford Teddy, I'd want a young guy off somebody's practice squad or preseason star, or even somebody like Lauletta but we're unlikely to be able to get him. 

 

But i wonder who Jay likes in this draft and what he thinks about grading a qb, how high is athleticism, intelligence, arm strength, etc and how flexible is his system towards different qbs? 

[KDawg]

@Thinking Skins

 

It's not that I don't think Jay can develop a QB. It's that I don't think a QB should be drafted and taught by a guy who may not be there in a year or two. When you draft a QB, you have to have someone in place that you're comfortable with for a minimum of three seasons in my opinion. Can the QB STILL be successful if **** happens and you need to can the guy?  Sure. But I think a three year minimum development is a good plan. It's one of the many reasons I don't think we should keep Allen around (which, by my thought process means we don't keep Jay around)

[Veryoldschool]

I like Jay, I want to keep Jay.  Somehow Jay manages to get his teams to compete when all seems lost.  Jay wasn't responsible for the tsunami of injuries the Skins suffered in 2017 and 2018, if not bad luck it is on the FO for their personnel management choices and perhaps the conditioning staff.  Jay has managed to keep the team competing despite it all.

 

Consider that Jay lost a quality QB, well suited to his offense and made 49 consecutive starts.  The FO lost the starter whatever the reason and made the choice to go with Smith.  Jay made do with Smith, then McCoy, then Sanchez and now Johnson.  The team won a road game with a 4 string QB behind a line of ad hoc OL of 3rd stringers and bus station guys without any real skill of talent in the WR corps.  They continue to compete just like they did last year.  I gave credit Cousins credit for their tenacity last year but Jay deserves the credit because Jay and his player continue to fight despite all the injuries, I like Jay.

 

I'd like to see Snyder jettison Bruce Allen and Doug Williams in favor of a new president and GM but I want Jay retained.  I'd like to see how Jay would do with a better front office.   

[Thinking Skins]

 

[Veryoldschool]

19 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Yeah. I am ready for a change as well. But this win was a HUGE win for him to make a point about keeping his job. I mean the guy is playing his 4th QB and no guards. he gets strapped with penalties on offense constantly and still find s away to win the game. 

Yeah, there is no quit in Jay and I think considerable talent.  I would like to improve the FO to support him. 

[BayouBrave86]

How about we come out unprepared every time we have a chance to make a significant leap forward? When is the last time we won a game like that? Who have we beaten this year worth a ****? Gruden sucks and we always sputter in the second half, whether we have a healthy team or injured team. He lets players talk **** about our fanbase with no consequences. Mason didn’t even have to sit out a half. Gruden sucks and I can’t wait until he is fired. He’d be a good QB or OC somewhere. He’s not head coach material. We beat a terrible Jaguars team yesterday. 

[Thinking Skins]

@KDawg
for me, the question is more about what we do next season. I want a young qb in here for dev purposed. In my opinion we should ALWAYS have a young qb in here. So I'm in favor of bringing somebody in for that reason.

 

That said, there are a lot of questions about drafting a qb high next year. Is this the draft for that? Do we do that with a coach on the hot seat? And is this the front office to do it? How much would he pay next year?

 

But i think that's more of a question of do we spend a first or a 5th on a qb. We still need some youth there and i would have preferred signing a young qb instead of Sanchez and Johnson but that's in the past now.

[Est.1974]

We should draft a QB in both 2019 and 2020. Invest in the position via the draft and develop a long term starter irrespective of who is running the show.

[JSSkinz]

Concerning blowing up the team, why wouldn't you?  We are set at the interior D line, after that we have a bunch of LB's and safety's who don't want to be here and an offense full of Jags with a highly overpaid RT, a stud RG who is starting to become injury prone, and a LT who is not getting any younger or healthier.

 

Use the assets we have to get draft picks, just like everyone wanted to do with Kirk, if we're not going to be a contender within the next 2 years there's is no reason to keep Trent and Kerrigan, they are good players that we can leverage into high picks that will be on rookie deals.

 

After the 2020 draft, we could have 10+ legitimate starters (possibly more) under rookie deals if we make the right decisions.

[OVCChairman]

10+ after 2020?  We better have 10+ this April.

 

Payne

Allen

Ioannidis

Guice

Anderson

Quinn

Nicholson

Fabian

Roullier

 

 

This is why its so important to blow it up now... because we have very few major contracts that we have the space to get out of.  Once we start having to pay these big boys, its gonna get a lot harder to manage.  Much better to rip the bandaid, get out from under smith, norman, brown, and others and build.

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Concerning blowing up the team, why wouldn't you?  We are set at the interior D line, after that we have a bunch of LB's and safety's who don't want to be here and an offense full of Jags with a highly overpaid RT, a stud RG who is starting to become injury prone, and a LT who is not getting any younger or healthier.

 

As far as foundational pieces, I'd say the 3 DL and Scherff. And Scherff and Matt I need extensions this offseason. You could argue Moses, but he's paid a whole lot for a RT and is having trouble staying healthy these days. I wouldn't mind seeing what he was worth in the tase market, though I wouldn't argue anyone who thought he should be considered a building block.

 

Apart from that, we have those too old, expensive and/or injury-prone to be desirable long-term (Williams, Kerrigan, Reed, Norman, Thompson), players who are, or potentially are, solid starter/role player types but not near star level players (Dunbar, Moreau, Anderson, Richardson, Swearinger- but he's a FA next year) and a couple of guys with some good potential but are major question marks right now (Guice, Christian). And then we have JAGs and guys who can maybe hit that second group if they show some more.

 

That's my kind of snapshot assessment of the current roster.

[Warhead36]

We won't blow up the roster. We SHOULD, that's what a smart ownership/FO would do, but this franchise is run by geriatric dinosaurs who don't know how to run a team in the modern era.

[Burgold]

I think the term "blowing up" the roster is wrong. I think rosters are never blown up, but they are sometimes pruned aggressively. Every team needs those solid grinders/blue collar non-superstars, up and coming potential guys, and stars. There's also incredible value in having a gray beard to show the pups how to be a pro. In some respects, I'm hoping that is the real value of us getting Adrian Peterson and it made me happy to hear that Guice is in his ear a bit.

 

You need a few aging stars that the pups can model themselves after and who can keep order... otherwise, you get a Wizards situation where immaturity and bad chemistry/lazy habits wind up wrecking the team. I think the gray beard is even more important when you have a lax, player friendly go easy guy like Gruden. You need a player who says... I don't care if we only have to do this... this is what we're doing.

[skinny21]

We’re getting away from the OP here, but 

1) I would essentially avoid FA this offseason, aside from some cheap, younger, back of the roster/competition types.  

2) I’d move on from Norman and Reed, quite possibly McCoy and Thompson.  Maybe Davis.  Also let Crowder and Smith walk.  

3) extend Scherff and Ioannidis - should have the money given #1 and #2.  

4) keep Kerrigan - he’s a pro’s pro, a very good player, a great example to others and never injured.  I don’t think it’s wrong to have a sliver of sentimentality for him.  

5) strongly consider keeping Trent.  However, I pretty much want the FO to approach the next draft(s) as if he’s not a factor.  He’s gonna be a help to the next tackle we bring in and to a young qb.  

 

As for Gruden, I’m a bit contrarian about the play calling and the run on first down mentality.  

Play calling - a coach looks like a genius when his play calls work.  Having playmakers helps (we don’t).  Having an oline that can hold up in pass pro helps (we don’t).  Having an oline that can run block helps (we don’t).  Having a qb that can something out of nothing helps (we have seen glimmers of this at best, and that’s much harder behind a porous oline).  

The closest we’ve had to playmakers were 1) Thompson early on getting tons of YAC (made Gruden look good), 2) AP when our line was healthy (Gruden subsequently ran a ground and pound offense that teams struggled with), Johnson in the 2nd half - running for his life converting 1st downs (I wonder if Gruden suggested he take off more as nothing else was working... I don’t know).  

All I do know is Gruden has never had units he could truly rely on.  Poor olines and backs, poor defenses, and poor receiving units this year and last.  

When he did have good receivers, the offense was fairly explosive.  When the defense and olines were playing well earlier this year, the team was 6-3 (with subpar qb play) and playing complementary football.  

 

He ain’t a great coach, but he’s had the deck stacked against him in a lot of different ways.  The FO weakened his receiving corp, ‘let’ his qb walk, weakened his secondary, ignored the interior oline and it’s depth, etc.  So maybe @kleese is onto something in terms of grading him on a curve.  

 

I get it though... the conservative ball, the up and down games, the clock management, the nationally televised games, etc.... it’s painful to watch as a fan.  

 

Last thing, and I’ve talked about it before - running on first down.  Nothing new or surprising here, but this is my take...

Keep in mind 1) he got a lot of flak early on here for getting away from the run, and 2) he knows the oline like to push people around rather than sitting back in pass pro all day, and 3) he knows the stats about how often the team wins if they gain 100 or run 30+ times.  

If he runs on first and gets little or no gain, he’s got two downs to pass for the first.  He can still call 2 of the 4-6 yard outs and such or two deeper pass plays.  

If he opts to throw on 1st, he has to worry about an incomplete, followed by little to no gain on a 2nd down run, leaving the team in 3rd and long.  He also has to worry about TOP and how the defense responds to a 3 and out, particularly with little rest, so pass, pass, pass is a risk.  

If he runs on first down and gets 3+, he now has the option to run again.  Full play book kind of deal.  

Now it’s easy to say just run PA on first down.  You need to buy the qb time if you’re going deep (something we’ve struggled with oftentimes), or you can run quick hitters or bootlegs/rollouts.  Problem there is you need 1) receivers that can get separation quickly, and 2) a qb that can get it there.  I think we saw more success with this with Cousins (throwing to Jackson, Crowder and Garçon) once he’d gained experience.  Didn’t see it much with our qbs/receivers since.  

 

Now, with that all said, there’s some things I’d like to see changed here.

First, if you are gaining less than 3 yards (particularly less than 2) a few/several first downs in a row, he needs to be quicker to adjust.  Secondly, I hate the run of first down after a turnover.  Occasionally, sure, but as a habit, you risk killing any momentum you gained through the turnover.   

 

Anyway, I’m not attached to Gruden, but I do feel like our ‘average’ record the last several years is a turnaround for the team.  Quite possible we can find a coach that can lead this team to the next step.  Quite possible we wind up relegated to what came before him.  I will be a bit bummed to lose Tomsula and Gray if we ditch Gruden, and I do worry that a new GM butchers the scouting dept, etc (I think they’ve done some good things there), but I’m absolutely ready to be done with Allen.  If a new GM wants to maintain some of the staff for a minute, I’m cool with that.  If not, well... I’ll be hoping it works out.  

[OVCChairman]

10 hours ago, skinny21 said:

We’re getting away from the OP here, but 

 

 

You realize this is the 'Evaluating Jay Gruden" thread and not the "Fix It" thread right?

 

[dyst]

Imagine if we were smart enough to trade Kirk for a 1st round pick rather than just let him walk. We could have had 2 first rounders this year. Could have gone a long way to rebuild. All signs point to...”its time to move on”

[OVCChairman]

NM , i misread that

[TD_washingtonredskins]

20 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Yeah, there is no quit in Jay and I think considerable talent.  I would like to improve the FO to support him. 

 

I think ideally you would shake up the FO immediately and let the new/promoted guys decide on Jay. I would be fine if those guys opted to give him another year to truly evaluate him. 

 

The biggest issue for us is (and always has been) the levels above the head coach. Hell, we had Joe Gibbs for four years and were sub-500. 

[Dancing Bear]

For what it's worth, the team technically exceeded my expectations. I thought they would go 6-10. 

Gruden may end up getting one more year. Mediocre City continues.

[Skinsinparadise]

40 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think ideally you would shake up the FO immediately and let the new/promoted guys decide on Jay. I would be fine if those guys opted to give him another year to truly evaluate him. 

 

The biggest issue for us is (and always has been) the levels above the head coach. Hell, we had Joe Gibbs for four years and were sub-500. 

 

I agree.  For anyone interested listen to Sheehan's podcast yesterday where he and Finlay talk about how Bruce is heavily involved in roster decisions and even the lineups that Jay puts out.  If I recall Finlay's quote -- Bruce is "heavily involved" in it.  The FO is the biggest problem IMO what happens or not with Jay IMO is a side issue. 

 

 

 

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

You realize this is the 'Evaluating Jay Gruden" thread and not the "Fix It" thread right?

 

Yeah, I was addressing the roster discussion that came before my post (and that I continued).  

 

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 12/18/2018 at 9:42 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

I agree.  For anyone interested listen to Sheehan's podcast yesterday where he and Finlay talk about how Bruce is heavily involved in roster decisions and even the lineups that Jay puts out.  If I recall Finlay's quote -- Bruce is "heavily involved" in it.  The FO is the biggest problem IMO what happens or not with Jay IMO is a side issue. 

Water is wet.

 

The sky is blue.

 

Both things can be true at the same time. Neither one of them being true diminishes the legitimacy of the other being true.

 

Bruce is a big problem.

 

Jay is a big problem.

 

Both are big problems.  It's not surprising because Bruce, who's a no nothing idiot hired Jay, mostly because it's all in the family.

 

Jay is so bad at so many things that are in his control that even with a first rate, outstanding, fantastic, Superbowl quality FO, he would find ways to sub-optimize the talent on the team. 

 

He's not a bad dude.  He's a bad head coach.  He's a horrible play caller.  His teams are undisciplined and inconsistent.  His teams completely lack adjustments. Since 2017, they had gone 17 times in a row losing when they trailed at the half.  They went something like 17 games without a 3rd quarter TD.  

 

The pile of statistical evidence is there for anybody to see.

 

Btw, if Bruce is forcing Jay to play players Jay thinks aren't good enough, that's on both of them. But it's  a reflection of a bad leader in Jay. Jay, as the HC, has to say to Bruce, "My job is to coach the team you give me and get wins.  If you aren't going to let me do that, then fire me.  You can't hold me responsible for performance if you're making decisions.  If you want me to win games, you have to let me play who I want to."

 

If he's not capable of doing that, he's weak. I personally don't see anything in his personality, coaching or otherwise, which shows he has that kind of back bone.  And FWIW, I basically had that same conversation with my boss 3 weeks ago, and I don't make 4 million a year, so if I was fired, it wouldn't have worked out so well for me.  My boss, a top executive, was trying to force me to use a particular guy to project manage a project in my practice.  I have worked with this guy before, and I knew that wasn't going to go well.  So at first I said that was a bad idea, and gave reasons why.  He wanted to give him another shot, which I appreciated, however I told him I'd already given him 3 chances, and it was time for him to get another chance with somebody else.  Maybe it just wasn't a good fit between the two of us, however there was no way we could be successful with this guy in an important role on the project.  And first, we would be dooming ourselves to failure, and second, I coudln't be held responsible for the project failing, and I had no desire to personally do the heroic effort to save it once he had failed. (Which I'd had to do the previous 3 times.)  After all of that, there was still a question, and I said bluntly that I couldn't deliver the project successfully under that situation, and they would have to find somebody else to own the project if they wanted the guy to be the PM.

 

At the end of the day, I got my way because I stood up for what I believed was the right thing. It's a risk standing up to your boss.  But if you know what you're doing, you do it or you get stuck in bad situations that you don't control. 

 

If you're a leader, you've got to manage up.  Sometimes that means putting your foot down.  The side effect is if you're wrong, you're done.  That said, if you just go with the flow, and it doesn't work, you're done anyway, so you might as well control your own fate.  At least that's my opinion. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

@Voice_of_Reason though you certainly might be right about Gruden, my point has always been that it's really tough to know how well he could do if he didn't have a bad FO over top of him. Would that impact a specific play-call here and there or when he uses a timeout in the 4th quarter? No.

 

But it could impact a lot of things like team discipline (which if you've been keeping track has sucked under every coach we've had with Snyder), injuries, etc. Those are more a function of a team culture that starts far above the head coach. When the FO rolls out the red carper for players and empowers them, they don't HAVE to listen to the coach. When the FO has hitched its wagon to injury-prone players, we can't be shocked when they land on the IR or miss 5-6 games per season. 

[Peregrine]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:27 AM, Veryoldschool said:

I like Jay, I want to keep Jay.  Somehow Jay manages to get his teams to compete when all seems lost.  Jay wasn't responsible for the tsunami of injuries the Skins suffered in 2017 and 2018, if not bad luck it is on the FO for their personnel management choices and perhaps the conditioning staff.  Jay has managed to keep the team competing despite it all.

Yes, the HC isnt responsible for the bad luck of suffering league leading injuries in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.  4 years in a row isnt a trend, its just bad luck, and not a reflection of the HC, his philosophy, practice strategy, and decision to hire a Florida Tuskers man with no NFL experience as the head of the training staff.

 

Maybe Jay just broke a mirror, and hes got 3 more years of bad luck left with these "random" injury issues every year.