Evaluating Jay Gruden in 2018

[NickyJ]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am not among those who are into canning Jay but not living and dying with it one way or another either.  For those that like Gregg (and I know some on the board don't) best case scenario might be hiring him as a D coordinator.  I think this coming season is likely going south and with Gregg on the staff I'd put money he then becomes HC for 2020.   

 

I thought him and Dan are on the outs but I read from an insider type they patched things up so who knows. 

Gregggggg is a pipe dream, but I would absolutely smoke that pipe.

[joeken24]

20 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

 

We once had a staff with OC Kyle Shanahan (Head Coach 49ers), Sean McVay (HC Rams) and Matt LaFleur (HC Packers). Ugh 

Amazing ain't it. This one is definitely on Dan for having Bruce's stubborn, sabotage havin ass in here.

 

Could you imagine what QB we'd have right now? How dynamic our offense would be. What kind of playmakers we'd have? Hell, who knows, we may have even had Wade in here as DC. A good solid team to be reckoned with. But alas......

 

Just **** this team.

[NoVaSkins21]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I thought him and Dan are on the outs but I read from an insider type they patched things up so who knows. 

 

I would love to see that happen as well but that bridge is burned beyond recognition 

[joeken24]

So the Browns, Bears, Rams and Colts have hired new coaches. They've turned their teams around with some minor adjustments but nothing extreme. For the most part, they've coached up existing players and improved the team. This organization does blockbuster FA deals in the off -season and what (??????)

Not a goddamn thing accept more losing seasons with a **** load of excuses.

 

A good GM with a football eye (preferably played the ****ing game). Hopefully that GM has some compromising photos of Dan for leverage to make football decisions. Hire a young innovative motivator to head coach the team. 

 

 

 

[joeken24]

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

Gregggggg is a pipe dream, but I would absolutely smoke that pipe.

Yea. Browns would be the, well the Browns if they didn't hire Gregg as HC. But fact is, this **** is too toxic for a seasoned coach to want to coach this ****.

If they do, you know its for the money. Nobody's ego is that big to think they can come here and make a diff. Think of all the championship coaches that have come here and left with their heads between their legs. This is the NFL's Arkham.

[Peregrine]

Sad to see this organization continue to prove me right with the sick joke it is.  Much like the "We brought in Fangio but didnt make an offer because he might turn us down", we bring in Bowles for a 'chat', with no intention of hiring him for any job?  How incompetent can you be?  Im not saying Bowles was the best candidate, but Ive never seen an NFl team bring in a guy who is about to be signed to a 3-4 year deal by some other team, just to "touch base" and not with an actual job in mind.

 

Because its a PR move to pretend they tried I guess...  At this point, the only thing that saves Gruden from being fired in 2021 after another couple of failed seasons is a top DC, and there are actually 1-2 of them out there I think.  But we will probably bring in the LBers coach from the Raiders or something.

15 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

That team went 3-13 so forgive us for not realizing we had some gems on the staff. 

That team also went 10-6, with RG3 at the helm, basically meaning anyone smart in the FO would have realized they were geniuses.  That staff also produced the best offensive season for the Redskins in the past 20 years, and the only back to back top 10 scoring seasons since 1992, so, yeah, was pretty obvious they were good.

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 1/5/2019 at 1:28 AM, Rdskns2000 said:

Time to close the thread. Jay passed his evaluation for 2018, since he's coming back.

I kinda agree.  I will starts the 2019 Jay Gruden evaluation thread after the SB when it looks like the staff is settled.

 

 

12 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

I think all this proves is that Mike Shanahan knew how to find offensive coaches. He had Gary Kubiak and Alex Gibbs in Denver as well.

But he couldn’t find a DC to save his job.  Ironic...

[Voice_of_Reason]

53 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

So the Browns, Bears, Rams and Colts have hired new coaches. They've turned their teams around with some minor adjustments but nothing extreme. For the most part, they've coached up existing players and improved the team. This organization does blockbuster FA deals in the off -season and what (??????)

Not a goddamn thing accept more losing seasons with a **** load of excuses.

 

A good GM with a football eye (preferably played the ****ing game). Hopefully that GM has some compromising photos of Dan for leverage to make football decisions. Hire a young innovative motivator to head coach the team. 

 

 

 

When was the last blockbuster FA deal the Skins did in the off season?

 

I’ll give you a hint: it was 2009. 

 

This overspend narrative from 10 years ago will never die, even though Bruce Allen is a bargain basement cheap ass shopper.

[KDawg]

7 hours ago, joeken24 said:

 

A good GM with a football eye (preferably played the ****ing game). Hopefully that GM has some compromising photos of Dan for leverage to make football decisions. Hire a young innovative motivator to head coach the team. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think a good talent evaluator needs to have played the game at the NFL level, or college level... I think that's putting your search in too narrow of terms and likely to net you a poor fit.

 

The guy you want to hire should be the guy who is best at his job. Fans like to see the guy that they recognize. "Oh snap! I know him! And he was a good player! He must be good!" It works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't. The team needs to look at someone with experience in the game... I agree with that part. Don't care if it's coaching, playing, scouting, front office, etc... It needs to be someone that has been around the game and can see talent. Not the obvious stuff that any schmoe can see... but can recognize intangibles.

 

There are certain players that you can just get the sense have this extra "it" about them when you're around enough. They may not blow you away physically, but the things they do make you look at them and say, "yup".

 

There are some guys who have all the physical tools but just don't have "it" at all. 

 

And there are times where you need those guys with the tools to fill roles on the team, but not the primary roles. That's an important distinction that a good evaluator also needs o be able to make. 

 

I will say this, though... I've said it before... I don't think our current talent evaluation staff is as bad as people make them out to be. And trust me, I don't want to say anything positive about the FO given the franchise's current state. I think Allen/Payne were absolutely foundation altering moves talent wise. Same with Ion. Reuben Foster, talent wise, was an incredible get. Guice, talent wise, unbelievable get. Thompson, Peterson, Reed, Scherff, even a guy like Roullier, Richardson, Crowder, Dunbar... The list goes on.

 

The problem with this current regime isn't talent evaluation in my opinion. It's organization and team building. And we are severely lacking in those departments. Big time. That's the problem. How do the pieces fit together? How is depth? Are injuries a concern? (yes!). What's the accountability structure? Does the FO make changes based on mistakes they make? Does the FO see their own issues? Are the people responsible for specific areas allowed to control their own areas and therefore accountable for their actions/rewarded for their decisions? What is the hierarchy? What's the vibe around the team?

 

Those are the problems.

 

That's what needs to be fixed.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

8 hours ago, Peregrine said:

That team also went 10-6, with RG3 at the helm, basically meaning anyone smart in the FO would have realized they were geniuses.  That staff also produced the best offensive season for the Redskins in the past 20 years, and the only back to back top 10 scoring seasons since 1992, so, yeah, was pretty obvious they were good.

 

How do you assign credit and blame? 

 

If you're the GM or owner, how do you determine that McVay and not Foerster or LaFleur and not Shanahan contributed more to the success and creativity of the offense? I'm not really defending the Redskins so much as illustrating that ALL teams get it wrong a lot. Hell, everyone believes the Eagles are the gold standard...well they spent 2-3 years allowing Chip Kelly to tear apart their roster. How many coaches have the Bears, another team we all envy, cycled through over the past 10-12 years? 

[Reaper Skins]

20 hours ago, NickyJ said:

I'm not entirely sold on LaFleur being THE next McVay. It seems more like desperation to sign anything McVay sneezes on in hopes it works.

[goskins10]

7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

When was the last blockbuster FA deal the Skins did in the off season?

 

I’ll give you a hint: it was 2009. 

 

This overspend narrative from 10 years ago will never die, even though Bruce Allen is a bargain basement cheap ass shopper.

 

This.   The problem is the pendulum has now swung too far the other way - with as you say "bargain basement" shopping. I get not spending crazy money of free agency. But how much more flexibility would they have had in the draft if they sign Hankins? Just that single move changes the entire draft. I really like Payne but they could have had Hankins, drafted Settle later as a future replacement, and drafted Derwin James, one of the few studs in the draft. That's just one example. 

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

How do you assign credit and blame? 

 

 

 

You listen.

 

What are the players saying about the coach? "He's a good dude"? "He's a piece of **** and I don't care what he says"? "This guy knows his stuff and holds us accountable"?

 

What are the coaches saying?

 

Is the coach prepared and well spoken when faced with meetings with executives? 

 

Is he confident in his abilities?

 

What's the atmosphere in the building?

 

Will people rally around that person?

 

There will always be outliers in those groups, but a good executive has his hand on the pulse of the team without also being the heart beat.

 

You know who is influential and who isn't. You just do. 

 

Personal example: When I coached HS ball, the players loved me. I was hard on them, but I listened. I taught them football. They loved it. They came to me for help with real life situations. I had a good reputation that enabled me to get a job coaching in D3. People KNEW that. 

 

Our head coach had been there for 20 seasons. His message was "stale" so to speak. He didn't have the relationship that myself and others had with the kids. But, I'll tell you this... that man was the reason that the team had any new equipment. He fundraised his ass off. He spent countless hours at camps and clinics. He worked very, very hard. The players didn't see that side of it... but every person on the coaching staff, to a man, even if they didn't agree with his methods went into meetings with the athletic department and trumpeted the man's ability to keep the program afloat monetarily. And I always found time to point out that without him, I couldn't do what I did. I benefited from his role astronomically. I owe my successes in coaching to that man. His hard work and dedication let me focus on football and teaching. And that's what made him a head coach that I absolutely admired. And he never cared. He didn't care that his assistants were more "liked" than he was. He cared about the kids and the team. And that's what let him stick around for years after the program started struggling... When push came to shove, people saw the man he was and saw what he brought to the table. Ultimately, his message became dated due to his longevity and the program moved on. But he was able to keep that spot because of what he did bring.

 

 

[Birdlives]

36 minutes ago, KDawg said:

The problem with this current regime isn't talent evaluation in my opinion. It's organization and team building. And we are severely lacking in those departments. Big time. That's the problem. How do the pieces fit together? How is depth? Are injuries a concern? (yes!). What's the accountability structure? Does the FO make changes based on mistakes they make? Does the FO see their own issues? Are the people responsible for specific areas allowed to control their own areas and therefore accountable for their actions/rewarded for their decisions? What is the hierarchy? What's the vibe around the team?

 

Those are the problems.

 

That's what needs to be fixed.

 

 

This problem will always exist because Dan Snyder has no formal education in business management and has shown over the years his lack of understanding for these things in particular.

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, Birdlives said:

 

 

This problem will always exist because Dan Snyder has no formal education in business management and has shown over the years his lack of understanding for these things in particular.

 

I’m not stating that it will be fixed... just stating what needs to be. Unfortunately, history has proven you’re probably correct here.

[OVCChairman]

21 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

This.   The problem is the pendulum has now swung too far the other way - with as you say "bargain basement" shopping. I get not spending crazy money of free agency. But how much more flexibility would they have had in the draft if they sign Hankins? Just that single move changes the entire draft. I really like Payne but they could have had Hankins, drafted Settle later as a future replacement, and drafted Derwin James, one of the few studs in the draft. That's just one example. 

 

 

While I agree with you... we have been bargain basement shopping regarding the massive FA deals... but we've still continued to spend recklessly.

 

Josh Norman, Zack Brown, Stacy McGee... contracts that are written well that we can get out of, but players that are playing under their salary value.  I was on board with Norman and Brown when we did them, but the inflated contracts are now forcing us to move on from them because they're not playing to their cost.  That's spending recklessly.  It's a short sided mentality that we're not looking for the next guy that can be here for 2 contracts, it's that were looking for a guy to come here, play a few years, and be able to get out.  That means were recycling $$ and constantly playing this hole filling game.  Looking back now, how much better could we have spent that Josh Norman money?  Where did it get us? 

 

I actually think it goes more toward talent evaluation and mentality, and that's is where the problem truly lies.  No we're not out being Free Agent sharks, but we're also not spending well, or with any real value.  We're overpaying people who dont necessarily warrant it, at the sacrifice of other areas of the roster.  

[skinny21]

@KDawg- Regarding your second to last post - absolutely.  I’ve been happy with the drafts (for the most part), and I give Allen a modicum of credit there - whether or not he’s has any talent as an evaluator (I don’t know), he’s at least listening to his scouts and others.  It’s for this reason that I’ve mentioned that I would hope a new GM would evaluate the scouts before making wholesale changes there.  Allen’s put more emphasis on the draft too, which has been refreshing.  There are still other roster issues of course - injured players, ‘safer’ picks, lack of blue chip players, etc.  

 

The bigger problem, as you allude to, comes more from the less obvious side of things - the accountability, the cohesion, the vision, etc, - things we (as fans) mostly glean from hints along the way.  Those hints have stood out more and more and seem to be snowballing.  

 

Edit: I was too slow... now it’s your 3rd to last post, lol.  

[Skinsinparadise]

Grant Paulsen said the other day he talked to agents of coaches and asked them what's the key for them as for wanting a job, he said the common thread was these three things:

 

1. who is the GM -- they ideally wanted a GM who is easy to work with and good at finding the groceries

2. QB situation

3.  Are there any left over coaches that the owner is pushing for the new hire to take on (ala Haslett) and what do they think of said coaches.

 

Am cool with Jay but regardless I think he's a lame duck coach.  I think their 8-8 luck is about to run out.  So as for the next guy, its clearly imperative that Bruce is gone before that hire goes down if we want to attract a halfway decent coach.  The left over coach narrative is interesting and I've learned more about it over time and that is some owners (Dan clearly one of them) would badly not want to eat contracts from coaches in house and prospective head coaches interviewing for the job in order to come off more attractive in the interview will say hey I like your guy that's in house, etc.

[Est.1974]

4 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

This.   The problem is the pendulum has now swung too far the other way - with as you say "bargain basement" shopping. I get not spending crazy money of free agency. But how much more flexibility would they have had in the draft if they sign Hankins? Just that single move changes the entire draft. I really like Payne but they could have had Hankins, drafted Settle later as a future replacement, and drafted Derwin James, one of the few studs in the draft. That's just one example. 

 

I agree in principle, although it transpires we did well to avoid Hankins early in FA. In the end he washed up for a vet min deal much further down the line.

[goskins10]

4 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I agree in principle, although it transpires we did well to avoid Hankins early in FA. In the end he washed up for a vet min deal much further down the line.

 

Agreed. And again I like Payne. And in fairness I have liked the last few drafts. My main point was that they miss opportunities to provide themselves additional flexibility by being, let's call it what it is - cheap. As good as Payne is, I still wonder how that D looks with Derwin James in the secondary. But no matter. Payne is a great player and he and Allen will only get better together. Maybe we start seeing Settle get some more time. He looked pretty good when he played. 

 

 

[Est.1974]

Out of interest, Gruden was hired five years ago today.

[skinzplay]

14 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Out of interest, Gruden was hired five years ago today.

And 5 years is long enough to show whether you're HC caliber or not. Decision-making and leadership are key, not how well you can design plays, on either side of the ball. Time for us to move on was 3 years ago when this was clear.

[HigSkin]

Good point by Galdi -

 

 

[skinfan2k]

Gibbs didn't have a toxic culture around the park.  Snyder and Allen turn everything into trash

[Wildbunny]

10 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

Gibbs didn't have a toxic culture around the park.  Snyder and Allen turn everything into trash

I think you misunderstood's Galdi's point.

 

How many coaches camed out of Joe Gibb's 1.0 coaching staff? Basically none.

While Shanahan had 3 futures HC in his team.

 

So yeah, that is weird as Gibbs 1.0 didn't had Dan and Bruce above...