Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Evaluating Jay Gruden in 2018


Voice_of_Reason

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

@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. 

I don’t agree at all.  It’s the head coach’s job to set culture for the team, regardless of who the GM is.  And it’s really possible Jay is as much of an enabler of the culture than a victim of it.

 

People want to forget that Bruce hired Jay because he is like minded, won’t cause a ruckus, and is essentially a pushover.  To all those who hate Bruce but defend Jay, think WHY would Bruce hire Jay?  What qualities does Jay have that Bruce likes? What made it a good fit?  If Bruce hired Jay, and Jay has the qualities Bruce was looking for, maybe he’s more part of the problem than the solution?  Just saying...

 

Look, the team is generally good enough to be competitive, but they’re not consistent.  That points to coaching, scheme and preparation. That’s on Jay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

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. 

 

Jay is to you what Bruce is to me.  Even bringing up Bruce (and I get you don't like him either) lends to the hit from you of him hiring Jay 😀  So I understand the pent up grievances but I am coming at it from a different direction. 

 

I could argue some of those points but been there done that.  I am not going to be convinced he's a bad coach -- he does too many things well.  Conversely, I am not going to argue he's a great coach because he has his shares of faults, too.  I don't mind them moving on from him but yeah I am sticking to if he is a problem than at worst he is a sidebar as to the problem with this organization.  

 

I run my own business and have multiple people work for me.  And I've been part of teams albeit not in sports.  And my experience with that is when you deal with dysfunction -- in my case it would be via clients and ditto you have to serve multiple chefs above you -- much harder deal to focus among other things than it is to function in a smooth operation.  One high maintenance client can take more out of me than 10 regular clients combined. 

 

If you move the discussion away from Jay and focus on the next head coach --we can't underestimate that you need one who can handle a lot of crap and a high maintenance operation from above.   Some coaches aren't cut out for that.  I don't think its a coincidence that the typical coach who has come here has either flamed out or performed worse than his previous stints.

 

However, in the spirit of the holiday season, I won't argue any specific points about Jay and let you have the final airing of grievances of the year at least in terms of a debate from me. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don’t agree at all.  It’s the head coach’s job to set culture for the team, regardless of who the GM is.  And it’s really possible Jay is as much of an enabler of the culture than a victim of it.

 

People want to forget that Bruce hired Jay because he is like minded, won’t cause a ruckus, and is essentially a pushover.  To all those who hate Bruce but defend Jay, think WHY would Bruce hire Jay?  What qualities does Jay have that Bruce likes? What made it a good fit?  If Bruce hired Jay, and Jay has the qualities Bruce was looking for, maybe he’s more part of the problem than the solution?  Just saying...

 

Look, the team is generally good enough to be competitive, but they’re not consistent.  That points to coaching, scheme and preparation. That’s on Jay.  

 

I see your point, but mine isn't that I KNOW Jay would succeed with a better front office. It's that we DON'T KNOW what he'd do with better support from above. I like to think I'm a good manager at work...but there are limits to what I can do for my folks if policies and dysfunction trickles down above me. We all have a boss. That's my only point. 

 

I can fully admit that it's possible Jay would be worse with the Patriots or Steelers, but I doubt it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting mental exercise, TD. If we plugged Jay Gruden onto different teams which would he improve?

 

If we dumped Andy Reid would Kansas City improve? If they fired McVay and asked Jay to take over would the Rams do better? How about the other end of the spectrum? If we made Jay the head coach of the Jags or Browns are those teams better teams. 

 

Do we we feel confident that Jay would improve any team’s prospects if he replaced those currently installed?

 

would his play calling, organization, discipline, or ability to motivate immediately and dramatically upgrade any team? Conversely, how many teams would do worse under his steerage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Interesting mental exercise, TD. If we plugged Jay Gruden onto different teams which would he improve?

 

If we dumped Andy Reid would Kansas City improve? If they fired McVay and asked Jay to take over would the Rams do better? How about the other end of the spectrum? If we made Jay the head coach of the Jags or Browns are those teams better teams. 

 

Do we we feel confident that Jay would improve any team’s prospects if he replaced those currently installed?

 

would his play calling, organization, discipline, or ability to motivate immediately and dramatically upgrade any team? Conversely, how many teams would do worse under his steerage?

 

 

To answer your question... I don't think Gruden would IMPROVE any team to the ultimate level.  If he was in Cleveland (pre-Hue firing) or Jacksonville, I think those teams would be marginally better than they are, and likely get similar results to what we have here.  If we were to pluck him out of here and plant him in KC or LA, I think they'd regress closer to the mean.  They have better playmakers that can offset some of the playcalling and schematics, but at some point there's going to be adversity.  One of the things that made New England so potent was how good they were at the end of a half, and the beginning of the following half.  A lot of times those 2 drives yielded 10 or 14 points... something that Jay struggles with mightily.  I don't think Jay can out-coach the top tier coaches in the league.  Belechick, Payton, McVay, the upper-tier of schematic coaches will beat him.  

 

If we had Tom Brady or Drew Brees at QB could he be more successful?  Absolutely, but that's because those guys control and run the offense that they excel at.  If we had Tyreek Hill, Robert Woods, Todd Gurley, would we be a better team?  Sure you could make the argument, but Jay wouldn't be the lynch pin imho.  I would seriously question whether Jay would be flexible enough to run the offense that these guys excel at.  We had Alex, and the entire time he was a healthy, a lot of us were wondering where the offense was that made him the most effective.  Roll outs, move the pocket, allow Alex to do what he does best.  We have Chris Thompson who is one of the best screen catching RBs we've ever had, and we run screens on 3rd and 25, not 2nd and 8 when the defense is lined up to blitz.  When we had Desean Jackson, we were throwing him the Fade, while Reed was lined up on the other side with his hand in the dirt at Pass Pro.  We have Adrian Peterson who is a HOF RB who made his bread running with the QB under center, yet we're forcing him to run out of Shotgun behind a busted and broken O-line.  

 

I'd venture to say Jay on the Rams would be a lot closer to the Jeff Fisher run Rams, than the Sean McVay run Rams.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Interesting mental exercise, TD. If we plugged Jay Gruden onto different teams which would he improve?

 

If we dumped Andy Reid would Kansas City improve? If they fired McVay and asked Jay to take over would the Rams do better? How about the other end of the spectrum? If we made Jay the head coach of the Jags or Browns are those teams better teams. 

 

Do we we feel confident that Jay would improve any team’s prospects if he replaced those currently installed?

 

would his play calling, organization, discipline, or ability to motivate immediately and dramatically upgrade any team? Conversely, how many teams would do worse under his steerage?

 

Yeah, I can't honestly say. My gut tells me that he certainly doesn't make the Chiefs, Patriots, or Rams any better. No way. But let's turn that on its head a bit. He replaced Shanahan and made the Redskins better. 

 

I don't mean to say that he's a top-5 guy. But I think Gruden is pretty far down the list of issues we have on this team. And, unless we have a change at the top, I don't trust the current FO to upgrade if they replace him. That's why I'd want to see him come back if the current group of guys is deciding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a test for Gruden.  

 

Reed - OUT

Davis - OUT

Harris - OUT

Doctson - Questionable

Nseke - OUT

 

 

 

My fear is that Gruden will not change his game plan going into this game.  I have NO confidence that we can drop Johnson back 30 times and win.  I'll be AMAZED if we drop him back and are effective.  That doesn't mean we do that and win 10-7... because that would mean it wasnt effective.  We NEED to run the football.  Craig Hoffman said go full on Lamar Jackson offense and live on the legs of Johnson, Peterson, Thompson, and Marshall.  He said we had 42 carries week 1 vs ARI and we should attempt to exceed that.   I have to agree with him.   If we're gonna pull this off, we need to shorten the game, keep the defense somewhat fresh, and try to control the LOS.  If we can have 45 rush attempts, I think it bodes very well for us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

Here is a test for Gruden.  

 

Reed - OUT

Davis - OUT

Harris - OUT

Doctson - Questionable

Nseke - OUT

 

 

 

My fear is that Gruden will not change his game plan going into this game.  I have NO confidence that we can drop Johnson back 30 times and win.  I'll be AMAZED if we drop him back and are effective.  That doesn't mean we do that and win 10-7... because that would mean it wasnt effective.  We NEED to run the football.  Craig Hoffman said go full on Lamar Jackson offense and live on the legs of Johnson, Peterson, Thompson, and Marshall.  He said we had 42 carries week 1 vs ARI and we should attempt to exceed that.   I have to agree with him.   If we're gonna pull this off, we need to shorten the game, keep the defense somewhat fresh, and try to control the LOS.  If we can have 45 rush attempts, I think it bodes very well for us.  

I’m not opposed to that idea, Tennessee’s got pretty good numbers against the pass...

 

Lot’s of R/O, have Marshall (at FB) and/or an extra lineman in and go for it. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Yeah, I can't honestly say. My gut tells me that he certainly doesn't make the Chiefs, Patriots, or Rams any better. No way. But let's turn that on its head a bit. He replaced Shanahan and made the Redskins better. 

 

I don't mean to say that he's a top-5 guy. But I think Gruden is pretty far down the list of issues we have on this team. And, unless we have a change at the top, I don't trust the current FO to upgrade if they replace him. That's why I'd want to see him come back if the current group of guys is deciding. 

To say that a team has a lot of problems, and that the head coach is far down the list, is basically to admit you have no idea what the responsibilities of a head coach are.  Either this team doesnt have many issues, or it does, and its primarily the head coaches fault.  You cant have your cake and eat it too, unless you are a Redskin fan wishing to be continually deluded by Snider that its all bad luck and  "next season" will be the one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what we're arguing here. The problem seems to me to be an "And" versus an "Or" Those who think Bruce is a problem are correct. Those who think Jay ain't good enough and has shown plenty of deficiencies are correct. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

It's both.

 

Bruce Allen is probably a D (He gets that because his teams got Snyder out of the perennial salary cap pit they were in and the last two drafts were actually pretty good. That said, the degree of dysfunction and number of horrible decisions make it impossible to give him a passing grade.)

 

Gruden is probably a C/C+ at his best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I'm not sure what we're arguing here. The problem seems to me to be an "And" versus an "Or" Those who think Bruce is a problem are correct. Those who think Jay ain't good enough and has shown plenty of deficiencies are correct. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

It's both.

 

Bruce Allen is probably a D (He gets that because his teams got Snyder out of the perennial salary cap pit they were in and the last two drafts were actually pretty good. That said, the degree of dysfunction and number of horrible decisions make it impossible to give him a passing grade.)

 

Gruden is probably a C/C+ at his best.

 

If i could make this my sig i would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Peregrine said:

To say that a team has a lot of problems, and that the head coach is far down the list, is basically to admit you have no idea what the responsibilities of a head coach are.  Either this team doesnt have many issues, or it does, and its primarily the head coaches fault.  You cant have your cake and eat it too, unless you are a Redskin fan wishing to be continually deluded by Snider that its all bad luck and  "next season" will be the one.

 

Well, I just think that when a head coach is part of a hierarchy with at least 3 layers above him (2 layers who have PROVEN to lose consistently in the league over a couple decades), then it's tough to really assign what he is responsible for. 

 

They all have a hand in this for sure, I would just not be surprised to see Gruden thrive with a better FO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Well, I just think that when a head coach is part of a hierarchy with at least 3 layers above him (2 layers who have PROVEN to lose consistently in the league over a couple decades), then it's tough to really assign what he is responsible for. 

 

They all have a hand in this for sure, I would just not be surprised to see Gruden thrive with a better FO. 

 

 

My issues with Gruden are 100% involved with what he's directly in control of.  Playcalling, time management, locker room management, and constantly falling flat on our faces when we have an opportunity.  Even if we win the next 2 games and some how sneak our way into the playoffs, as borderline miraculous as that is, I can't forget about 3 other seasons where we controlled our own destiny (2 of which we were much healthier) and we just did not show up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been after Jaybirds head for years now so here we are, with a chance to win our next 2 games and make the playoffs. Will Jaybird come through? If he does, with all the injuries, it would be quite a achievement and worth of a 2 year extension that he already has but I would not hold my breath as in the past has he ever delivered? Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think we’ll win today and I won’t hold that against Jay.

 

But I will hold it against Gruden if the defense flops, and is we just try the same old run up the middle on 90% of first downs with backup OL and a really stout Tenn front.  Gruden has to find a way to manufacture some offense through smoke and mirrors.  I don’t even care if it’s nit enough to win.  I just want to see something that shows he can try and steal a game when they team is clearly overmatched.  If it doesn’t work, fine.  But at least try something.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don’t think we’ll win today and I won’t hold that against Jay.

 

But I will hold it against Gruden if the defense flops, and is we just try the same old run up the middle on 90% of first downs with backup OL and a really stout Tenn front.  Gruden has to find a way to manufacture some offense through smoke and mirrors.  I don’t even care if it’s nit enough to win.  I just want to see something that shows he can try and steal a game when they team is clearly overmatched.  If it doesn’t work, fine.  But at least try something.

 

 

 

I see our point, but we're so far down the string list that I'm wondering what are our guys good at?

 

Being fancy or whatever might be even worse and get a few guys injured also.  If those guys are bad at doing basic, regular stuff, do you really think they'd be better doing some fancy stuff?

 

I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Burgold said:

 

Bruce Allen is probably a D (He gets that because his teams got Snyder out of the perennial salary cap pit they were in and the last two drafts were actually pretty good. That said, the degree of dysfunction and number of horrible decisions make it impossible to give him a passing grade.)

 

Gruden is probably a C/C+ at his best.

While I completely see where you’re coming from... how does an average coach take a roster assembled by a D GM and consistently hover around .500?

And then, how does a coach like Peyton stay at 7-9 for 3 straight years with (presumably) a better GM than Allen?  

I’m not saying this because I believe Gruden is necessarily better than you suggest, but it raises questions/doubts for me.  

 

BTW, I agree about the drafts, which makes me hope a new GM (starting to feel like wishful thinking that we get one) would evaluate the scouts before making changes there.  

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Well, I just think that when a head coach is part of a hierarchy with at least 3 layers above him (2 layers who have PROVEN to lose consistently in the league over a couple decades), then it's tough to really assign what he is responsible for. 

 

They all have a hand in this for sure, I would just not be surprised to see Gruden thrive with a better FO. 

Especially when one of those layers assembles a roster with injury histories, and a lack of blue chip players.  Sabotages (or, at the least, inadequately replaces) team strengths - wr, corner, and qb, seemingly fosters a toxic environment, and struggles with free agency.  

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

My issues with Gruden are 100% involved with what he's directly in control of.  Playcalling, time management, locker room management, and constantly falling flat on our faces when we have an opportunity.  Even if we win the next 2 games and some how sneak our way into the playoffs, as borderline miraculous as that is, I can't forget about 3 other seasons where we controlled our own destiny (2 of which we were much healthier) and we just did not show up.  

See, now this is where I have my doubts/concerns about Gruden.  Yes, he occasionally wins games we don’t seem to have any business winning, but I feel like that’s far outweighed by the number of times we’ve come out flat, gotten destroyed unexpectedly, and by our abysmal prime time record.  

 

I’m less concerned with playcalling (better - and healthier - players are more likely to execute), and time management (every coach has issues here to somebody extent).  

 

Another area of concern for me is complexity.  A wide variety of plays makes it harder for everyone to be on the same page.  It makes it harder to get enough reps of each play to master them.  It can make it harder for new players (like injury replacements) to fit in more seamlessly.   The run game is a good example IMO.  Asking linemen off the street to run inside and outside zone, man blocking, etc. seems like a tougher ask.  There are other examples of course.  

 

 

With all of this said, I have to give credit for Gruden’s success while contending with massive roster/injury issues and a dysfunctional hierarchy above him.  So, as @TD_washingtonredskins said, I’d be curious to see him without some of the handicaps imposed by the FO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

See, now this is where I have my doubts/concerns about Gruden.  Yes, he occasionally wins games we don’t seem to have any business winning, but I feel like that’s far outweighed by the number of times we’ve come out flat, gotten destroyed unexpectedly, and by our abysmal prime time record.  

 

I’m less concerned with playcalling (better - and healthier - players are more likely to execute), and time management (every coach has issues here to somebody extent).  

 

Another area of concern for me is complexity.  A wide variety of plays makes it harder for everyone to be on the same page.  It makes it harder to get enough reps of each play to master them.  It can make it harder for new players (like injury replacements) to fit in more seamlessly.   The run game is a good example IMO.  Asking linemen off the street to run inside and outside zone, man blocking, etc. seems like a tougher ask.  There are other example a of course.  

 

 

With all of this said, I have to give credit for Gruden’s success while contending with massive roster/injury issues and a dysfunctional hierarchy above him.  So, as @TD_washingtonredskins said, I’d be curious to see him without some of the handicaps imposed by the FO.  

 

 

Ok but that falls on the coach understanding his players limitations and calling plays accordingly

 

Running RPO with Mark Sanchez on 2nd and 10 from your own 1 yard line is a bad playcall... i'm sorry.  Especially when we were in THE EXACT same position the week before and Gruden called the perfect play action bootleg where Sanchez hit Davis for 8 yards allowing Tress Way to punt the ball away.  

 

Running a WR screen to Mo Harris, not Thompson or Crowder. 

 

NOT running a screen to Chris Thompson on anything other than 3rd and a mile. 

 

Running Chris Thompson up the middle on 3rd and 2 when Adrian Peterson is on the sideline

 

Running a jet sweep to Chesson, not Crowder or Thompson

 

Running a double reverse to Crowder when we're getting our doors blown off

 

 

Those are just the ones I remember from the Giants game.  Asking players to do things that they're not good at doesn't give you a pass because of injuries when you have HEALTHY options who ARE better at doing those things and not using them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

My issues with Gruden are 100% involved with what he's directly in control of.  Playcalling, time management, locker room management, and constantly falling flat on our faces when we have an opportunity.  Even if we win the next 2 games and some how sneak our way into the playoffs, as borderline miraculous as that is, I can't forget about 3 other seasons where we controlled our own destiny (2 of which we were much healthier) and we just did not show up.  

 

 Very good point.

Remembering back a few years ago, we controlled our own destiny, all we had to do was beat a Giants team that had nothing to play for.

We had momentum, we had the offense, we had Garcon, Reed, DJax, Cousins, a fairly healthy o-line, and BAM, ****-slapped and embarrassed, got wiped all over the field.

 

Its one thing when a team has weapons, but if you do not know how and when to use those weapons, they become useless. Then after the loss[es] its the same ol' same ol' at press conferences. He seems to recognize the problems but he has no idea how to correct them.

One other thing, Gruden isn't what one would call a 'motivator' type coach. He's a guidelines, follow the routine, inside the box coach, and when a team loses a player, the coach has to realize his offense isn't plug-and-play, so it has to be revamped and re-calibrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

I see our point, but we're so far down the string list that I'm wondering what are our guys good at?

 

Being fancy or whatever might be even worse and get a few guys injured also.  If those guys are bad at doing basic, regular stuff, do you really think they'd be better doing some fancy stuff?

 

I'm not.

Not suggesting fancy.  Just different.  For example, pass on first down and run on second. 

 

Don’t try and run up the middle with AP all the time, try some outside zone type runs with CT or Marshall. 

 

Try anythjbg that breaks the trends, even if it’s rhe same basic plays just in a different order.

 

Im not asking Jay to turn water into wine, just not being predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

 

I see our point, but we're so far down the string list that I'm wondering what are our guys good at?

 

Being fancy or whatever might be even worse and get a few guys injured also.  If those guys are bad at doing basic, regular stuff, do you really think they'd be better doing some fancy stuff?

 

I'm not.

 

We saw that in the Giants game with Sanchez. 

 

Oh, we'll show them that we aren't predictable when backed up...pick 6. And I'd bet that half the guys out there who complain about predictability hated that play-call too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Ok but that falls on the coach understanding his players limitations and calling plays accordingly

True, and this is another area I’m not sold on with Gruden - consistently utilizing players to their strengths.  

Quote

 

Running RPO with Mark Sanchez on 2nd and 10 from your own 1 yard line is a bad playcall... i'm sorry.  Especially when we were in THE EXACT same position the week before and Gruden called the perfect play action bootleg where Sanchez hit Davis for 8 yards allowing Tress Way to punt the ball away.  

I hear you, but he had a guy in his face immediately on that bootleg IIRC.  I think the thought of putting a turnover prone qb in that position again (significant potential for a pick 6) scared him.  I think Gruden just hoped to pick up a few yards to open up the playbook.  It was a fairly conservative call, but backed up, with a new, turnover prone qb... 

BTW, it was conservative from the standpoint of yards, but at the same time surprising/unexpected given the qb.  

Also have to factor in - was Gruden hoping to take the end out of the play to try to manufacture rushing yards (something we’ve struggled with)?  Was it partially a test to see how the end would respond to a boot later?  I don’t know, and that’s part of what makes play calling so difficult to judge.  

Quote

 

Running a WR screen to Mo Harris, not Thompson or Crowder. 

 

NOT running a screen to Chris Thompson on anything other than 3rd and a mile. 

Our blocking on screens has been poor for much of the year, perhaps he thought a longer, bigger body could at least get a handful of yards to avoid the 3rd and long.  I agree about Thompson, but again, the blocking has been lacking.  What happens when we call a screen to Thompson and we lose yards?  Potential for criticism no matter what you call if it doesn’t work (which, in a nutshell, is my broader point).  

Quote

 

Running Chris Thompson up the middle on 3rd and 2 when Adrian Peterson is on the sideline

Gruden tried the unexpected and it didn’t work.  If he’d done the expected (AP up the gut for no gain or a loss, or an outside run with Thompson for a loss), wouldn’t you have had the same issues, but added a criticism of the predictability?  

Quote

 

Running a jet sweep to Chesson, not Crowder or Thompson

 

Running a double reverse to Crowder when we're getting our doors blown off

The reverse - again, trying something new to manufacture yards.  If it works, he looks like a genius, right?

Quote

 

 

Those are just the ones I remember from the Giants game.  Asking players to do things that they're not good at doesn't give you a pass because of injuries when you have HEALTHY options who ARE better at doing those things and not using them.  

I don’t generally disagree, and frankly, all of the above is just me BSing.  There is a balance though.  One example - using AP in shotgun.  That’s not using him to his strengths, right?  But... if you don’t trust your interior oline to pass block, or if your qb is struggling making quick decisions, you now have to weigh the strengths of one player against the strengths of another.  Thompson running screens is another example.  He generally excels at them, but if your new guards can’t sell/execute the screen plays, do you still call it?  It’s not as cut and dry as I’m making it, but it’s also an issue with numerous variables that makes easy to get wrong.  Even more so when you’re dealing with players you hardly know.  

 

 

Overall, I feel stronger about things like running AP between the tackles on 8/10 first downs and getting less than 3 yards every time.  That stubbornness is more concerning to me.  I’ve defended the stubbornness of running on first down, but you have to make the change earlier than 8/10... like after the third, fourth or fifth attempt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

With all of this said, I have to give credit for Gruden’s success while contending with massive roster/injury issues and a dysfunctional hierarchy above him.  So, as @TD_washingtonredskins said, I’d be curious to see him without some of the handicaps imposed by the FO.  

 

And that's really all I'm saying. I am not sticking my neck out and insisting that he'd be a top-5 coach. I'd just like to see him with stability...not one year of Cousins with Garcon and DJax, then another year of Cousins with those guys shipped off, then the next year with a new QB. And, a front office that is professional and well-run. 

 

Would it matter or change things? I don't know...but I'd like to see it. I guess I just wouldn't be surprised to see him have more success somewhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jumbo locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...