Evaluating Jay Gruden in 2018

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I guess it’s Jay’s fault he doesn’t have five seasons with Smith to get him comfortable enough to throw the football on time.

[CTskin]

On 11/6/2018 at 8:39 AM, dyst said:

This is why Jay should have been gone earlier. You promote McVay or bring in a new guy, but now the candidates are slim.

Hindsight is 20/20. I assume you were on these boards two years ago, sure we didn't want to lose McVay, but no one said "fire Jay and promote McVay."  Also remember, McVay only interviewed for this one job, it all escalated quickly and it was a shock to everyone, in and outside of DC that he was the Rams hire.

 

On 11/6/2018 at 8:34 AM, dyst said:

Great, injuries once again give this guy an excuse

You don't think it's valid? Most-injured team two years in a row doesn't impress you. If you recall, we were looking pretty good last year before the injury bug hit us. Then this year we were healthy, 5-2, and got decimated this past weekend. We certainly didn't lose because of injuries, but this will certainly hurt us moving forward.

 

Anyone who truly believes in "next man up" doesn't comprehend this sport.

[HardcoreZorn]

8 minutes ago, CTskin said:

Hindsight is 20/20. I assume you were on these boards two years ago, sure we didn't want to lose McVay, but no one said "fire Jay and promote McVay."  Also remember, McVay only interviewed for this one job, it all escalated quickly and it was a shock to everyone, in and outside of DC that he was the Rams hire.

 

You don't think it's valid? Most-injured team two years in a row doesn't impress you. If you recall, we were looking pretty good last year before the injury bug hit us. Then this year we were healthy, 5-2, and got decimated this past weekend. We certainly didn't lose because of injuries, but this will certainly hurt us moving forward.

 

Anyone who truly believes in "next man up" doesn't comprehend this sport.

 

I disagree with this. The Eagles lost their MVP QB last year and rumbled on their way to the superbowl. Not saying injuries don't hurt, especially how many OL injuries we suffered in a short span. But every team has them, it's a game of attrition.

[kingdaddy]

13 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I disagree with this. The Eagles lost their MVP QB last year and rumbled on their way to the superbowl. Not saying injuries don't hurt, especially how many OL injuries we suffered in a short span. But every team has them, it's a game of attrition.

Yep, in fact, the Packers won a SB a few years back and had something like 17 guys injured that season. It was a huge number.

[CTskin]

2 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I disagree with this. The Eagles lost their MVP QB last year and rumbled on their way to the superbowl. Not saying injuries don't hurt, especially how many OL injuries we suffered in a short span. But every team has them, it's a game of attrition.

 

And look what Nick Foles did as the replacement: 115 QBR in the playoffs. The rest of the team didn't need to overcome adversity, the continued to play their game. If you added 10 more guys to that injury list, I believe it may have been a different story.

 

Having "them" and having "the most in the league" are two different things. We're a good, not great, team when healthy. Losing one or two players is one thing, hell, even losing Alex Smith may not be a huge dropoff. But losing in mass, especially at one position leaves a gaping hole. 

[Sandy Monk]

12 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I disagree with this. The Eagles lost their MVP QB last year and rumbled on their way to the superbowl. Not saying injuries don't hurt, especially how many OL injuries we suffered in a short span. But every team has them, it's a game of attrition.

 

I think you're both right.. and wrong. Just depends on how strong the coaching is to overcome. Strong scheme can overcome quite a few injuries. The Philly situation was just a rare example of a good QB going down, having a very strong backup QB as depth, and a strong scheme to make it all work well enough anyway. 

Just now, kingdaddy said:

Yep, in fact, the Packers won a SB a few years back and had something like 17 guys injured that season. It was a huge number.

 

Really? had to be 2010. That's the only SB won lately, right? Aaron Rodgers had 3 HOF level wideouts and a top 5 defense. 

 

Am I remembering something wrong?

[CTskin]

6 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Yep, in fact, the Packers won a SB a few years back and had something like 17 guys injured that season. It was a huge number.

 

Aaron Rodgers...

 

EDIT- they were one of the most injured teams, but having Aaron Rodgers helps. That's someone who we've never had.

[TheBlueIndian]

I think all you cats wanting Jay gone after this year are nuts.....

 

He may not be the best clock manager, he can get better at that.

 

He may get tight at times calling dumb (only when they fail otherwise they are "bold and genius" ) plays but the guy has held the team together, and you could argue improved, in spite of a mountain of BS from the front office, see RG3, KC contract, Scottie Mcdrunkendude.

 

There is no infighting, leaks, players showing their arse. No, Jay has kept things moving forward and showed real promise of better times ahead. I cant help but think that the utter S show that this franchise has been for the last 20+ years is a thing of the past. This is a meat grinder that dispatched of the likes of Marty, Mike S, and proved to be too much our big toe Joe G 2.0

 

You simply cannot lay this at Jays feet. This guy is wired just right for this town and he will succeed here or elsewhere. Damn, these five years of futility have prepared him so that anything else will seem like a walk in the park. Did I mention that he is also quite an evaluator of talent. Look at what he did with Dunbar, Scottie Mac credits Jay with the Matt Ion98s pick. All this discussion about Mcvay, well who promoted him to OC ?? for the love of God Kirk would have been a career backup or journeyman QB if not for Jay. This never ending obsession with the quick fix is toxic and all the finger pointing is fruitless unless your intent is to rile up our owner to the point that he sets the franchise back another 10 years.

that is all

[CTskin]

For kicks I went back five years and looked at the Adjusted Games Lost stats. Almost every team that was in the bottom 5 in injuries that wasn't led by Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady (Luck also defied this stat, but remember that was a dumpster fire of a division in 2014), not only missed the playoffs, but didn't exceed .500. 

 

It boils down to this- if you have a great QB, a generational talent, or you have no divisional competition, you can overcome being killed by the injury bug. If your team isn't a beneficiary of this, which most aren't, your ceiling gets lowered. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, CTskin said:

Hindsight is 20/20. I assume you were on these boards two years ago, sure we didn't want to lose McVay, but no one said "fire Jay and promote McVay.

That’s not true. Not nobody.  I said it.  Loudly.  Hiring Barry was a fireable offense and having the trash defense in 2016 cost us over and over was on Jay.  That team should have won no less than 11 games with that offense.  

 

I knew then Jay was never going to amount to anything and letting McVay go was a huge mistake.  I was right.

 

Would McVay have had the same success here? Probably not.   But he’s alreay a better HC than Jay and it’s not hard to see why 

3 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I disagree with this. The Eagles lost their MVP QB last year and rumbled on their way to the superbowl. Not saying injuries don't hurt, especially how many OL injuries we suffered in a short span. But every team has them, it's a game of attrition.

To ad to this, the Eagles also lost their starting RB, HOF LT, and a few folks on defense.

 

And last week the Flacons were down 2 starting guards and their best defensive players and roasted us.

 

At this point, I just don’t care.  Go win games.  It’s year 5 of this, there are no more excuses.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 hours ago, CTskin said:

For kicks I went back five years and looked at the Adjusted Games Lost stats. Almost every team that was in the bottom 5 in injuries that wasn't led by Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady (Luck also defied this stat, but remember that was a dumpster fire of a division in 2014), not only missed the playoffs, but didn't exceed .500. 

 

It boils down to this- if you have a great QB, a generational talent, or you have no divisional competition, you can overcome being killed by the injury bug. If your team isn't a beneficiary of this, which most aren't, your ceiling gets lowered. 

 

Aaron Rodgers also had the #2 defense in the league the year he won that Super Bowl.  Not trying to tarnish his legacy, but more make a point that even the chose ones need a lot of help.

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I knew then Jay was never going to amount to anything and letting McVay go was a huge mistake.  I was right.

 

Would McVay have had the same success here? Probably not.   But he’s alreay a better HC than Jay and it’s not hard to see why 

To ad to this, the Eagles also lost their starting RB, HOF LT, and a few folks on defense.

 

What makes you think McVay would have taken the job?  I know if my boss promoted me at a young age to a position and helped put me on the map and he was a close friend of mine, I wouldn't take a job if the owner offered it to me at my mentor's expense. 

[Wildbunny]

34 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Would McVay have had the same success here? Probably not.   But he’s alreay a better HC than Jay and it’s not hard to see why 

 

Same succes as the one he's having in LA, or same success as the one Jay's having around here?

Jay is a HC wih a boatload of ship on his back due to this crappy FO. McVay doesn't have to deal with that in LA.

 

You're usually a smart guy VoR, but your hatred of Jay is anything but Voice of Reason...

Which is sad.

[Est.1974]

In Sunday's game it was 4th and 7 just inside out own 40, early days in the 4th quarter down 28-14. Whilst you'd normally think punt, I just can't believe we punted the ball away. We were hanging on in the game and simply had to keep attacking having just got back to 14 points down.

 

We punted, they chewed the clock and got 3 points. If our 4th down had failed, they'd have run the ball and good odds are we'd have been able to hold them to 3 anyway.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but Gruden's in game awareness in that situation was hopeless. We basically mailed the game in with that punt.

 

[CTskin]

32 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That’s not true. Not nobody.  I said it.  Loudly.  Hiring Barry was a fireable offense and having the trash defense in 2016 cost us over and over was on Jay.  That team should have won no less than 11 games with that offense.  

 

I knew then Jay was never going to amount to anything and letting McVay go was a huge mistake.  I was right.

 

Would McVay have had the same success here? Probably not.   But he’s alreay a better HC than Jay and it’s not hard to see why 

To ad to this, the Eagles also lost their starting RB, HOF LT, and a few folks on defense.

 

 

I won't ask you to prove it, that would be digging back a bit too far. I recall everyone upset to see him go, including myself, but most people didn't think he was ready to be a head coach. 

 

You also need to remember the situation and the politics of it. I don't think that you're understanding. I assume that your take was that the second that the Skins heard about McVay interviewing in LA, the should have fired Gruden and tried to hire McVay. What if McVay said no? What if the FO wanted to keep Gruden to give them a better chance of retaining Cousins? There is so much more to this than "Fire Gruden, Hire McVay" and the way that you're presenting it is extremely naive. 

[Wildbunny]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

We punted, they chewed the clock and got 3 points. If our 4th down had failed, they'd have run the ball and good odds are we'd have been able to hold them to 3 anyway.

Good odds to hold them to 3?

You sure you've seen the game?

 

They scored 4 TDs on their first 5 drives. Game was over way before that.

[Est.1974]

Just now, Wildbunny said:

Good odds to hold them to 3?

You sure you've seen the game?

 

They scored 4 TDs on their first 5 drives. Game was over way before that.

 

Yes I watched the game. Fair enough. Even more reason not to punt. The point is Gruden was gutless and essentially gave the game up with 14 minutes left to play.

 

Game would have been better set at 28-21 mid way through the 4th. We'll never know now, the L is in the book.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Game would have been better set at 28-21 mid way through the 4th. We'll never know now, the L is in the book.

That would require another one of those difficult to obtain touchdowns there in your scenario. 

[Wildbunny]

11 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Yes I watched the game. Fair enough. Even more reason not to punt. The point is Gruden was gutless and essentially gave the game up with 14 minutes left to play.

 

The OL was in shambles, running game wasn't working... D was porous to say the least... And with injuries piling on, it was probably smarter to end the game as quick as possible and use the remaining times as reps for the guys...

[Est.1974]

6 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

The OL was in shambles, running game wasn't working... D was porous to say the least... And with injuries piling on, it was probably smarter to end the game as quick as possible and use the remaining times as reps for the guys...

Our D spent 10 of the last 14 minutes on the field. Think I'd rather have the O on the field for reps. Anyway, I think we disagree. I think Gruden folded at home with a qtr to go. Can't say I agree with that mindset.

[Wildbunny]

48 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Our D spent 10 of the last 14 minutes on the field. Think I'd rather have the O on the field for reps. Anyway, I think we disagree. I think Gruden folded at home with a qtr to go. Can't say I agree with that mindset.

I see your point, and it's common thinking around.

 

Though I do believe that considering the situation it would have taken a huge miracle to get the W.

We already got CT and AP injured against the Saints in similar situation. With Scherff, Lauvao out and that patchwork OL, trying anything to maybe hope that maybe on a miracle you win, and get another injury or two on Payne or Allen wasn't worth it.

 

Last Q was about Julio Jones scoring a TD and that's it.

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 11/7/2018 at 3:17 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

What makes you think McVay would have taken the job?  I know if my boss promoted me at a young age to a position and helped put me on the map and he was a close friend of mine, I wouldn't take a job if the owner offered it to me at my mentor's expense. 

You have to do it delicately, for sure, and maybe he doesn't accept the job.  But if I understand the rules correctly, they could have essentially stopped him from becoming a free agent by promoting him. They could have promoted him and he could have resigned, I think that would have been about all of his options.  Also, I think if you are offered the HC of an NFL team, and again, I'm saying to do this the day after the season ending loss to the Giants, so nobody had been calling him yet.  There are 32 HC jobs in the NFL.  If the team you're on thinks enough of you to promote you, and you like the team, and we know he liked Kirk, but you think you can do better...  In life, people get promoted because their boss is asked to leave all the time.  Very few turn down the opportunity unless they think they're being put in a position to fail. 

 

I would have fired Jay after 2016 regardless.  The Joe Barry hire and the subsequent defense which ended up historically bad, the blown games and no-shows down the stretch were enough of a reason to make a change.  We knew what we had in Gruden the day after the 2016 Giants loss and the failure to get his most talented team, especially offensively, into the playoffs.  Nothing since then has changed the narrative one bit. He is now exactly who he was then. 

 

On 11/7/2018 at 3:27 PM, Wildbunny said:

 

Same succes as the one he's having in LA, or same success as the one Jay's having around here?

Jay is a HC wih a boatload of ship on his back due to this crappy FO. McVay doesn't have to deal with that in LA.

 

You're usually a smart guy VoR, but your hatred of Jay is anything but Voice of Reason...

Which is sad.

What I meant was it's probable that Sean would not have had the same success here as he has had in LA.  That said, I think that if he had stayed, the much greater likelihood is Cousins stays also.  It's possible that Bruce still screws it up, but Cousins was close to McVay, not Jay. And that's not a knock on Jay. McVay worked much closer with Cousins than Jay did when both were here, and the two were comfortable with each other.  And if he was the HC, that probably would have helped. Not saying Bruce couldn't have screwed it up, he could have, and probably would have, but it would have helped.

 

That said, I DO think Sean would do better here than Jay has done here, because he demands attention to detail, is much more creative offensively, and a better play caller.  He also probably brings in Wade to be the DC, and the defensive coaching staff is better as well. 

 

Jay has a lot on his back here, sure.  But the underlying traits of what makes a good HC don't change. And he doesn't have them.   

 

And I don't hate Jay.  I think he's an awful HC. He seems like a great guy, and he's a very good pass offense designer.  There are things he does well, and on occation he can pull a rabbit out of the hat.  He's not the worst HC in the league. But he's bottom 1/4 for sure.  He would probably do better as an OC, though his play calling really is questionable. 

 

However, I said when he hired Barry that if it didn't work, that he should be fired for that move alone because it was SUCH a stretch to hire a guy he's familiar with who had had NO success, rather than looking at guys who he might not know but who had a lot of success.  By itself, that move doomed his team.  The talent on defense wasn't great, but it wasn't nearly as bad as people want to make it out to be.  The reason I know this is they DID force opponents into 3rd and long enough they became HISTORIC because they couldn't figure out how to get off the field on 3rd and 8+.  Worst defense in the SB era on 3rd and long.  That's not just players, that's coaching. And if they were just average in that department, they could probably have won 2-3 more games in 2016.  That 2016 team was a playoff team.  It was probably a SB caliber offense.

 

Jay's teams are up and down. The fact that they are "up" at times means that there is some talent, but they are not consistently put in the right situations to utilize that talent. 

 

He's not aggressive, doesn't manage or call a game well, doesn't delegate or hold his coaching staff or team accountable for the same mistakes over and over, and the results, regardless of situation, are that he ends up with an inconsistent average team.

 

Bum Phillips had a great quote about Bear Bryant, way back in the day: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n." That describes a great coach.  It means they can figure out how to maximize the talent they have and exploit the weaknesses of the opponent.  There's no way Jay fits into any of that mold. How many times have we seen team "get well" against the Jay Gruden Redskins?  They have a perceived weakness, and BAM! it's fixed. Atlanta couldn't run the ball worth a lick coming into last week's game.  They had lost both of their starting guards and starting RB.  What do they do?  Rush for 3,568 yards.  This is not an exception, this is a pattern.   He can take his guys and sometimes get the most out of them, or he could take somebody else's guys and get them to their level of competency most of the time.

 

He's just not a good HC.  I guess I feel like I've been the only one (or one of the only ones) who has been able to see this for 2 years, what I believe is at this point blatantly obvious: Bruce stinks.  Jay stinks.  The two are not mutually exclusive, and Bruce nor injuries are an excuse for the things that Jay stinks at.  And if he was better at those things, the team would be better.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Wanted to point something else out...this will either be a damning parallel to a former coach who couldn't quite get it done (Turner) or a bright spot and source of optimism. For me, it's the latter. 

 

It looks like a near lock that we will be playing meaningful football into at least mid-December. I think even winning one of the next three would mean that we would likely get to Christmas with a shot at the post-season. Therefore, when it comes to Gruden, he will have us in that position for the third time over a four-year span (last year we basically missed this by one day as our 12th game was on 11/30 and we lost in Dallas to fall to 5-7...had we won that game though we had a shot). The last time we did that was from 1996-2000 (Turner actually had us relevant into December four out of five years - all except 1998 - before he was fired at 7-6 in 2000). 

 

I know this will be met with a "hang a banner" the same way the bid for three straight non-losing seasons was. But to me this is progress. It's been a very long time since we could even be counted as a team that would be playing for something later in the season. Outside of his first season and last year's injury-riddled season, Gruden's Redskins have that reputation. Sure, we've only cashed in on the post-season once (hopefully twice here in 6-7 weeks), but we're there fighting for something. As a fan, that's important to me. I had way too many stretched of being 4-8 or 3-9 as we turned the corner into the final month of the year to turn my nose up on this...

[Cooleyfan1993]

@TD_washingtonredskins i agree with almost all of that, except for one thing. We didn’t have 3 straight non-losing seasons in a row, did we? 9-7, then 8-7-1, before going 7-9 last year. How is 7-9 viewed at as a non-losing season? 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

@TD_washingtonredskins i agree with almost all of that, except for one thing. We didn’t have 3 straight non-losing seasons in a row, did we? 9-7, then 8-7-1, before going 7-9 last year. How is 7-9 viewed at as a non-losing season? 

 

Oh, I wasn't clear...I didn't mean that we accomplished it, but it was a topic of conversation when it was possible going into the final game against the Giants.