thesubmittedone

Official 2018 Redskins Training Camp/Preseason Thread

Recommended Posts

If the national media or whoever you are referring @Skinsinparadise thinks Matt I, Jonathan Allen, Preston Smith, and Ryan Kerrigan and now Payne isn’t a formidable pass rush off the DL then I want whatever they are smoking. We saw it last year so that’s not even projection on my part. We could get after the QB last year, and that’s huge. We’ve only added to that. I appreciate that you seem to listen to a lot of media outlets and bring a lot of good information to the table, but you seem to lean too heavily on their takes in my opinion. I don’t see how you look at our DL and edge and see it any other way.

  • Like 11

Share this post


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

 

I’m glad to see Gruden not running practice this season as he did in the past four..He’s showing the ability of switching things up and trying a different approach to get better results out of his players-Our tackling has sucked(especially in short yards and red zone stops)but turning our players loose and letting them “clang and bang” is a slight risk to injury but I truly think it helps build the players bodies tougher to absorb the actual contact to withstand a full season,a tougher skin if that makes sense??..I really believe we have players/pieces on the roster now to do some damage this year(And I’m SOOOOO sick of hearing-“and IF the team can stay healthy,or return from last years injury!!”””)..Coach & build em up,let the players “ACTUALLY” play in practice without bubble wrap or kids gloves on and(Fingers TOTALLY crossed??)hopefully it translates to more of our guys making it thru the full 16 this year..I always pull for us each and every year with high hopes of us being a legitimate contender..but this year it feels a little different,it feels like we got something brewing now-It’s feeling like our guys are really hungry and I think that Coach G. is really doing things different and it’ll show up on game day!!!...HTTR!!!!!!!!!!

Man I cant WAIT for Thursday Night!!!!!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

How many CB's and safeties did we keep on the roster last year?

 

Norman is 30 and is going to be expensive to retain. Scandrick is 31. I would hate to see us let our young CB's with potential go. I think Stroman has a ton of potential as a nickel CB and could easily see our starting CB's moving forward as Dunbar, Moreau, and Stroman at the nickel. I would also like to see us hold onto Holsey, who might be fated for IR this year and Danny Johnson, who has looked good. 

 

I'd rather see us keep only 5 WR's and keep more DB's. Our 6th WR is going to essentially see no time anyway and our WR's at the bottom of the roster are lesss likely to be grabbed off the PS by another team, than are our CB's, IMHO. 

 

we kept ten last year.  We may keep that many this year, in fact we probably will.  But while there's some focus on next year it can't be total.  As it stands right now if we're in a position where we have to chose two of three of Davis, Quinn and Stroman, the Skins should pick Davis and Quinn from what these guys have offered so far.  If the Skins cuts loose Norman because of the expense of the end his contract there will be someone cheaper because it'll be the beginning of the contract, and there's Scandricks and Stroman's every year.  We've got one in Josh Holsey in the Non football injury list and he may be back next year.  We used to sign a Scandrick type every year, like Justin Rogers and Greg Toler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

If the national media or whoever you are referring @Skinsinparadise thinks Matt I, Jonathan Allen, Preston Smith, and Ryan Kerrigan and now Payne isn’t a formidable pass rush off the DL then I want whatever they are smoking. We saw it last year so that’s not even projection on my part. We could get after the QB last year, and that’s huge. We’ve only added to that. I appreciate that you seem to listen to a lot of media outlets and bring a lot of good information to the table, but you seem to lean too heavily on their takes in my opinion. I don’t see how you look at our DL and edge and see it any other way.

I thought @Skinsinparadiseconsistently referenced the DL’s problems with stopping the run, not rushing the passer.  Did I miss something?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

I thought @Skinsinparadiseconsistently referenced the DL’s problems with stopping the run, not rushing the passer.  Did I miss something?

 

Nope. he's been talking about how bad we've been at stopping the run for about as long as I have. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, carex said:

 

we kept ten last year.  We may keep that many this year, in fact we probably will.  But while there's some focus on next year it can't be total.  As it stands right now if we're in a position where we have to chose two of three of Davis, Quinn and Stroman, the Skins should pick Davis and Quinn from what these guys have offered so far.  If the Skins cuts loose Norman because of the expense of the end his contract there will be someone cheaper because it'll be the beginning of the contract, and there's Scandricks and Stroman's every year.  We've got one in Josh Holsey in the Non football injury list and he may be back next year.  We used to sign a Scandrick type every year, like Justin Rogers and Greg Toler

 

If we aren't focused on next year, that's even less reason to keep a 6th receiver. That guy just isn't going to see the field minus a slew of injuries. Unless he's a stud special teams player, which Davis has never been and Stroman has, the only reason to keep him on the squad is to keep another team from grabbing him off the PS. 

 

I do have a soft spot for Stroman. He was super productive in college and was also graded very highly by PFF. His only reported downside is his size. I think he could be close to what Fuller was as our third corner. There are a million Davis' in the world. Guys with fantastic measureables but little production. I'd love to see him be an outlier and make it. Maybe he's looked better in camp than I know. 


My point about the 6th WR however isn't tied just to an attachment to Stroman, who might make it anyway. I just don't think that any of the guys vying for our 6th WR spot are going to get any burn this year, or are every going to be enormous difference makers. I'd rather keep an extra DB, OL, or DL. 


Also, this is the first year in a while I've found the topic of who makes the 53 very interesting. Gruden seemed to imply that Kelly is definitely making the squad. Guice and Thompson are definitely on. Gruden has said that he wants a backup that can fill Thompson's role as a backup, which makes sense. Are we really going to keep 5 RB's? Unless one really distinguishes themselves on special teams, I think we keep 4 and Perrine could be out, which wouldn't upset me at all. He was drafted as a guy that might lack burst, but would be a hard nosed runner that breaks tackles. Only the former assertion has looked to be true. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

Also, this is the first year in a while I've found the topic of who makes the 53 very interesting. Gruden seemed to imply that Kelly is definitely making the squad. Guice and Thompson are definitely on. Gruden has said that he wants a backup that can fill Thompson's role as a backup, which makes sense. Are we really going to keep 5 RB's? Unless one really distinguishes themselves on special teams, I think we keep 4 and Perrine could be out, which wouldn't upset me at all. He was drafted as a guy that might lack burst, but would be a hard nosed runner that breaks tackles. Only the former assertion has looked to be true. 

 

 

Yeah man, we just gotta let them fight this out in the preseason. I hope to God we arent just giving Kelley a spot. I dont care if he has a year under his belt, and I dont care if he's slimmed down. I need to see a strong showing from him and anyone else fighting for a spot. Based off of last season, I DEFINITELY would not lose a second of sleep if he does not make the squad. But Im open to him getting a fair shot. 

Edited by LetMeSeeYourWarFace21
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of how othe defense looked pre injuries to Allen and Ioannidis, I think you could look a it two ways.  

1.  We stuffed the run against the Eagles, held Gurley under 100 yds, stuffed the Raiders and then 49ers (especially if you discount the one run each by the qb and a wr), and then struggled a bit against the Chiefs.  Hunt barely broke 100, but Smith torched us.  

2.  Wentz tore us apart, Goff and the Rams offend wasn’t humming yet, the Raiders weren’t nearly the offense of the year before, we caught the 49ers at a bad time for them, and we got handled by the Chiefs.  

 

Obviously, the truth is probably somewhere in between those stances.  It’s going to be interesting to see how health they’ll be, and what the trade offs will be losing Breeland, Fuller and Galette, vs adding Payne, Scandrick, Settle and McPhee.  

 

I think the D has a few major things going for them beyond that change in personnel.  One is coaching, another is the number of guys entering their 2nd year (in the league or with the team) - Allen, Brown, Swearinger, Nicholson, DHC, Moreau, McGee, Anderson, Robinson, and Vigil.  A third would be the (continued) building of/focus on the dline.  A fourth would be the blend of youth/potential and vets (with most of those in their prime).  The last (IMO), is the potential for the offense to make life easier on the defense, particularly if the ground game gets going.  

 

I didn't factor ST because I don’t see any real change there.  Maybe one or two less muffs, but as of now, I have no real reason to feel any differently about them from last year.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I thought @Skinsinparadiseconsistently referenced the DL’s problems with stopping the run, not rushing the passer.  Did I miss something?

Quote

I made the point that for example some on the board discount the Giants O line in spite of their upgrades because hey its the Giants O line and it stinks until we see otherwise.   That's how some outsiders seem to see the Redskins D line, too. 

 

I was referring to this. Maybe he was talking just against the run I dunno. But then I would have to agree with @HTTRDynasty in stopping the run, while important, is way less important than pressuring the QB. And if that much weight is placed on stopping the run, why not be thrilled they selected someone who already appears to have the run defense thing down at 20 years old?

 

Matt I and Jonathan Allen are going to be monsters in my opinion, I don’t just “like” them and they are only going to grow under Tomsula’s tutelage. That’s 2 of your 3 downlinemen which we only play a fraction of the time anyway. When you include our OLB’s I don’t see how you could conceivably think the Redskins DL stinks which SIP says some outsiders think. That reeks of lazy analysis on their part. That’s different than thinking a team who has had a shoddy offensive line for years will all of a sudden be good with 4-5  either being new players playing or playing a new position. Vastly different IMO.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

@Skinsinparadise I think our arguing back and forth on this issue comes down to a fundamental difference on how we view the importance of the pass game vs. the run game (on both offense and defense).  I tend to view the pass game as by far the most important metric in determining a team's success, and by extension, in determining how good a unit (DL,OL) really is as a whole.  On the other hand, it seems like you give closer to a 50/50 weight between run vs. pass game importance (I know you still view the pass game as being more important though) and can see a DL as being "good" even if they are bad against the pass and an OL as being good even if almost all of their players are below average in pass blocking (TBD on Hernandez).  I'm sorry if I'm exaggerating your position, but this is just the vibe I get from your posts.  At this point, I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other poster one way or the other.  At the end of the day, we're both rooting for the same thing: for the Redskins to be successful and for the Giants to stink up the joint.  That's all that matters in my book :).

 

Close.  Just to refine that a little I think when healthy the Giants D line might just be the best run stuffing D line in the league -- Vernon is arguably the best run stuffing DE.  Harrison most think is the best NT.  And Tomlison has the makings of a Harrison type.  Tough for me to see what I think is an elite run stuffing D line as being on the aggregate below average.  And they got IMO got depth now, too.  If they were just a good D line against the run, I'd see your point.

 

As for their O line.  I really got no idea if it will be good or not.  I suspect if anything it won't be good.  But don't love the idea of Barkley running behind Hernandez and Solder.  And I think Flowers was an absolute disaster at LT and Solder while isn't great is a marked improvement.

 

But agree, lets root for misery for the NY Giants -- I might even hate them more than Dallas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I was referring to this. Maybe he was talking just against the run I dunno. But then I would have to agree with @HTTRDynasty in stopping the run, while important, is way less important than pressuring the QB. And if that much weight is placed on stopping the run, why not be thrilled they selected someone who already appears to have the run defense thing down at 20 years old?

 

If you are good at one thing and really really terrible at something else.  Other teams will exploit the really really terrible thing.   We heard to death in the off season from beat guys they were told (Doug said the same thing) from their sources at the FO that their mission is to improve the run game and improve their ability to stop the run.  And it was a really really big deal to them.  So clearly they saw some value in it.

 

Case in point, some might forget but the game that eliminated us in the 2016 season the Giants controlled the clock, about 11 minute time of possession advantage.  We couldn't stop their running backs.  And we couldn't run against them.  Last year in our big win against the Rams, we had an almost 13 minute time of possession advantage. 

 

The problem when you can't stop the run as we know goes beyond pass-run ratios.  If you can run the ball you control the clock.  Dallas isn't loaded on defense -- their trick is to keep their defense off the field

 

As for why am I not thrilled they selected Payne.  I've made the point before --its a gray discussion which isn't easy to make here at times because the points got swung in a polarized way where its an A versus B thing.  I like Payne.  I bet I watched him more than most here.  Payne was the first college player I mentioned on the draft thread way back in September 2017, page 1 if I recall of that draft thread.   Guice came after.  Find it ironic that we ended up with both.

 

I've explained my take on Payne plenty of times including to you.  For the other people who read this who haven't read my take previously.  There were some really good run stuffing D lineman in FA who didn't go for a kings ransom.  There were 2 other players I preferred at that pick.  You could have ended up with a twofer. Also, I think you could have traded down and still gotten Payne. 

 

The player evaluator I trust the most associated with the team is Jay and we got some indications that he agreed Payne wasn't the best choice at their pick.  Doug flat out said there wasn't consensus in the room about that pick -- so I don't think I am on some wild leap that he might not have been the best pick considering at least some of the people in that room saw it that way.  However, I do think he's a good player.  And I've put on clip after clip on the Payne thread about how I think he can improve the run defense.

 

In addition to that if their new approach to FA is who cares -- let other teams play that game and lets fill needs in the draft -- then the pick was brilliant because no doubt that was a major need.  

 

I am not a scout, I am never doubling down on player evaluations.  In retrospect sometimes I've ended up right, sometimes wrong about players.  Heck Parcells likes to say the best personnel evaluators are wrong 50% of the time.  So for me who isn't even remotely a professional at it, I'd look like a fool to say my take on any college player is slam dunk.  Among our top 2 picks, I loved Guice, liked Payne.  And I spent plenty of energy on both players way before we took them.  So if I just abandoned my opinion just like that before they even played -- what fun would that be? 

 

I got no doubt Payne is an improvement over McGee, Hood, McClain (now gone), etc.  And if they don't want to sign marquee D lineman like the Vikings, Jax in FA anymore then yeah they had no choice.

 

9 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Matt I and Jonathan Allen are going to be monsters in my opinion, I don’t just “like” them and they are only going to grow under Tomsula’s tutelage. That’s 2 of your 3 downlinemen which we only play a fraction of the time anyway. When you include our OLB’s I don’t see how you could conceivably think the Redskins DL stinks which SIP says some outsiders think. That reeks of lazy analysis on their part. That’s different than thinking a team who has had a shoddy offensive line for years will all of a sudden be good with 4-5  either being new players playing or playing a new position. Vastly different IMO.

 

Yeah but Matt Ionnaidis who I think is good maybe very good but not sure about a monster is still a bit of a below the radar player nationally -- I do think Allen if healthy can be a monster.  But yeah the Redskins defense has really been different versions of bad since Shanny took over long time ago -- sometimes the bad has been interrupted by mediocre but its mostly been bad.  The D line was a big part of that. 


There is a we will believe it when we see it sentiment about the Redskins by many (not all) nationally.  To some degree the same with the Giants but if anything there seems to be many more believers in the Giants.  It made me cringe when even Cooley-Sheehan got into it weeks ago saying their roster is better than the Redskins and they expect the Giants to make the playoffs.   Maybe I am overly sensitive because I hate that team with a passion -- but yeah a lot of weird love out there for the Giants.

 

As for their O line, my point isn't that I think it will be good.  I do think it will be better though than last year.  But I think it has a TBD status. If I had to guess, I'd say mediocre to bad.  But sadly I think Hernandez ends up a pro bowl guard. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skinsinparadise Interestingly if you take your first statement - If you are good at one thing and really really terrible at something else then people focus on the bad thing ... could also be applied to the Giants D line because they were appalling rushing the passer in 2017 - and every one of the guys you have mentioned so far on their stud D line is a run stuffer. - They are also shifting from the traditional 4-3 to a 3-4 config new coaches, new slate yes but similar problems with Apple getting into a fight with Engram - (i know fights happen in every training camp but given 2017 you would think Eli would be on better behavior) ... 

 

Their offensive line seems to be on paper improved - But the issues Flowers had on the left (lack of bend) are not simply going to go away - Herndez is most likley going to be a good LG but on an offensive line LG is the least of your problems - that said Patrick Omeneh looks to be a decent RG - but Pugh was a decent G (better G than T) and they didn't even call him to offer a deal (although injuries could play into that) - but as i say - while the OL is better on paper the only guy they kept was their worst starter ..... 

 

The thing is the NYG team always gets the benefit of the doubt because well they tend to prove doubters wrong . The strengh of their team though is at the skill positions - but i kind of still see them as being a bottom feeder this year simply because there are simply too many moving parts and OJB has yet to get this contract situation sorted ..... if they are off to a bad start like last year - and OJB is still in contract limbo you can see a scenario where he plays the Randy Moss hand and gets traded to a contender ... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

@Skinsinparadise Interestingly if you take your first statement - If you are good at one thing and really really terrible at something else then people focus on the bad thing ... could also be applied to the Giants D line because they were appalling rushing the passer in 2017 - and every one of the guys you have mentioned so far on their stud D line is a run stuffer. 

 

 Vernon isn't just a run stuffer.  He's a good pass rusher.  As for Barwin and I presume Carter on the other side, won't be hot but will see.  For me personally, especially if I am going 3-4 like the Giants are doing -- I want at least 2 gap filling monsters on the D line -- Harrison is certainly that, Tomlinson likely is that too.  I think Hill who they drafted is another.  Do they have the OLBs to bring pass rush on the edges, I suspect not. 

 

I watched the Giants coaches tape versus us multiple times especially focusing on the d line versus o line battle on both sides.  I even posted some clips months back.  If the Giants have a questionable d line, not sure what that says about our O line then.  Harrison in particular handles our O line easily.  Tomlinson was a beast in that game, too.  In the last game, Redskins stopped for the most part even trying running the ball up the middle and went outside zone. 

 

1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

 

Their offensive line seems to be on paper improved - But the issues Flowers had on the left (lack of bend) are not simply going to go away 

 

Every team gets beat even us on occasion on the left side.  So if you mean it in a strict sense, sure.  If you mean their problems on the left side will be similar to last year -- I wish that would be the case but I don't think so not even close.  Maybe the right side, yes.

 

1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

 

The thing is the NYG team always gets the benefit of the doubt because well they tend to prove doubters wrong . The strengh of their team though is at the skill positions 

 

The Giants like to tout themselves as the team that wins when they are counted out -- seemed like a mantra under Coughlin.  Not so sure that has carried to this day.  Reading some of the praise about the Giants -- a lot of it centers on their aggressive off season and wondering about the combination of Barkley and OBJ. I think the wildest thing about the perception about the Giants is their defense stunk for years then they turned it around just like that after 3 marquee FA signings in 2016.  They slid back in 2017 though in part because of injuries.  But many seem to think that the 2016 Giants defense is the real one -- not the 2017 version or 2015, etc.  As to that, I really don't know.  I can see the argument either way.    

 

1 hour ago, bedlamVR said:

 The strengh of their team though is at the skill positions - but i kind of still see them as being a bottom feeder this year simply because there are simply too many moving parts and OJB has yet to get this contract situation sorted ..... if they are off to a bad start like last year - and OJB is still in contract limbo you can see a scenario where he plays the Randy Moss hand and gets traded to a contender ... 

 

I get the point.  But I don't think OBJ will be their problem -- if anything with the contract on the line it should spark his performance IMO.  Their problem IMO is Eli. If he's not done he's pretty close to it.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez - was looking for the TC thread and must have stumbled onto  a Gnats message board.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PortisBetts said:

Seriously, the long messages on this thread are really derailing the camp tweets.

 

Well then log on to twitter?  This is a discussion forum

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Well then log on to twitter?  This is a discussion forum

Fair enough. Ive seen other twitter threads that had the discussions moved out of them, so just going off precedent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

8 hours ago, skinny21 said:

2.  Wentz tore us apart, Goff and the Rams offend wasn’t humming yet, the Raiders weren’t nearly the offense of the year before, we caught the 49ers at a bad time for them, and we got handled by the Chiefs.  

 

Wentz did hurt us but he was not the reason they won. He definitely didn't tear us up in game 1.  In fact, if our offense had done its job, he would have been the reason we had won. In game 2, injuries were becoming an issue and one of his the biggest plays was due to a missed holding call.

 

All of the Rams worse offensive performances came after we played them. Any conclusion you have is simply personal opinion.

 

You could argue about the Raiders but we held them to just 128 yards while their next worse offensive showing was 245.

 

49ers were just not good but the offense does work. In any case, had our offense done its job, we'd have won going away.

 

The Chiefs were just a good offense.

 

Further, you do realize that NO put up over 130 more yards on us because the offense fails? At this time, or defense does appear to go brain-dead at times (or maybe the opponents just call the right play against the right defense) and often can't seem to pick-up offensive or teams fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.