The Jay Gruden Curve (if there isn’t one, there should be)

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Jay Gruden is not figurehead material. Joe Gibbs could get away with that when he turned the playcalling duties over to Al Saunders (something he shouldn't have done). Not Jay Gruden. 

 

If you're a head coach who was hired based on your offensive knowledge but can't be trusted to call plays OR manage the clock ... why are you a head coach? I've never understood this argument. 

 

I think almost everyone would agree that Jay is the FAR lesser problem with this franchise. I would not throw a fit if they kept him AFTER firing/reassigning/ritually shunning Bruce Allen. I just don't think he's at all special and has far too many flaws on the intangibles side of things to make some huge effort to keep him around. 

 

But yeah, I'll settle for Bruce at this point. I gotsta have that BA scalp at LEAST. 

I agree. Joe Gibbs was a workaholic, sleep in the office, dot every I and cross every t kind of coach... so him being a CEO made sense. Gibbs could be both CEO and play caller, especially in his prime. Jay Gruden doesn't seem to have those kind of organizational skills or drive. He's not the manager he's the doer.

[Dissident2]

4 hours ago, Burgold said:

F) Gruden

 

Sort of agree with that, lol. 

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Sort of agree with that, lol. 

Not Nice, but funny.

[kleese]

5 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Ed, I understand that the volume of injuries have made the past two seasons difficult ones to really evaluate Jay.

 

But at the same time, I just get the sense that as long as we are somehow battling for that 6th playoff spot at 7-7 or so in December, that you are going to be fine with keeping Jay forever. 

 

And a lot of it is your own lack of confidence in the front office, whether its Bruce or someone else to find someone better. Again, understandable, to a point.

 

But what would it personally take for you to want to move on from him? 

 

First also needs to be said that I think teams in sports in general change coaches FAR too quickly. It's the easiest way to appease fans and build a sense of newness and hope, so I understand why teams do it. But i really don't like the idea of determining "who" someone is on a sample of a few years and deciding they can never get better or improve. 

 

To specifically answer your question, I think we'd need to have a year where I think things lined up very well for Jay, things kind of go their way, and he still fails to deliver. I certainly don't think you can wait around for a perfectly healthy team. That is unrealistic in pro football. There will be injuries. There will be obstacles to overcome. But in the case of the past two seasons, I think the injuries have passed a tipping point to where they ARE an excuse. At least enough of an excuse to say it will ultimately cost them 1-2 games. And if we go 8-8 then losing 1-2 games to injury is a pretty major deal. 

 

I totally agree that at 6-3 we were a shaky 6-3. A real grind to get there. But we WERE there. And I don't think we lose all four of the next games if Alex is playing... and probably don't lose all four if Colt is playing. And if even one of those go our way and we are 8-6 right now, the narrative of the season is quite different. 

 

I just don't get how you can say in on breath that Snyder/Allen is the worst combo in pro sports, see us hover around .500 with that in mind and then also say Jay sucks too? My point is if Jay is getting average results with buffoonery above him, what would he get if they had a far better system in place? My hope is that they find a way for Bruce to leave the building and turn it over to someone like Kyle Smith. Now, if Smith (or whoever it is) is adamant that Jay isn't the answer, then I'd defer to that as you'd have to empower whoever the new person is. But my hope would be that Gruden would get a least one more shot.  

[Vilandil Tasardur]

At the broadest level, I think that if you replace EVERYONE, then I'm okay replacing Gruden, but if we're keeping Williams and Allen, then I'd like to keep Gruden. I think his stability under tumultuous management makes him worth keeping, because anyone knew is going to tailspin trying to navigate this management. 

 

More importantly, I am in favor of keeping Gruden for one very important reason: I consider next year a lost year regardless, and I do not believe in trying to hire a coach for what will be a guaranteed lost first year. Consider the following:

~ Alex Smith isn't playing QB next year

~ Good QBs rarely hit the market, and the only one likely to hit is someone like Flacco

~ Alex Smith's contract prevents us from signing anyone that's any good, so we'll likely have someone like Fitzpatrick or Tyrod Taylor at best

~ At borderline .500, we're not drafting a stud

 

What exactly is your pitch a new coach? Sign up for a year of journeyman QB play while we cross our fingers and hope Alex Smith comes back healthy next year? Sign up for a wasted season while we tank for a rookie of your choice the following year? Sign up for a mid-first round rookie and hope they outperform their draft position on a team otherwise devoid of elite talent?

[fearlessNelms]

Halftime adjustments are non existent, he looks overwhelmed at times on the sideline and I'm just not convinced he's a good leader of men, which probably should be your HC's strongest trait. But one of his biggest fails is that he keeps missing on his DC hires. He kept Haslett his first year as HC here. Then after doing right and getting rid of him, for some unknown reason he hired Joe Barry as our DC, who was the DC for an 0 and 16 Lions team. After firing Barry, he promotes Manusky from LB's coach to DC, a guy that's been fired from all 3 of his previous DC jobs. Would anyone on here want us to hire a HC that's been fired from three previous head coaching jobs? I know I wouldn't. Your DC is your most important assistant and why you would hire a guy to run your defense that's been fired from 3 previous DC jobs is beyond me. 

 

If Gruden stays, I'd like to see him go get Todd Bowles to run our D. He will be fired by the Jets and will be available. Team Gruden up with a top tier DC for the first time since he's been here, hope the offense can stay healthy and give him another year that way to see what he can do. That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the people that want him out of here after the season, just might be willing to give him another year with some changes to his staff.

[Rufus T Firefly]

6 hours ago, KDawg said:

How many would be okay with Bruce Allen here and Jay gone? Do you feel that's a good move?

No, that would be the worst scenario. It would mean either this team is locked into keeping Bruce long term (terrible), or a new GM in a year or whenever would be stuck with whomever Bruce picks as the new coach (terrible) or said new GM would be able to fire the next coach and we'd eat several years of his contract (the least terrible, but still really dumb).

6 hours ago, KDawg said:

How about Bruce gone and Jay here? Is that a good move?

I would let the next GM make his call on it, but I would wonder about prospective GMs who would decide to stick with Gruden for the long haul. There is a scenario, I've discussed it in another thread, where I could see a new GM decide to undergo a rebuilding project and just let Gruden stick around for another year to take the Ls and save the extra coach's salary for a year. This would allow some of the younger coach candidates to marinate for another year, and some of our current staff (in particular Callahan, Tomsula) are decent teachers so it would be OK to have them around for a year of rebuilding. 

[SprintBomb]

Don't take this wrong but I'm so done with the Jay Gruden threads. It does not matter who our coach is. Any coach picked by Bruce and Dan is doomed to fail. Mediocre at best. Let's hire a real GM then I'll be happy to talk about coaches. 

[zCommander]

In the last 50 years the Steelers have had 3 coaches. They didn't even have a GM until 2011 and that was their head of football operations how got the GM title with the pay bump. How are they hitting SB winning coaches without a GM? This should answer the real questions here. I think a new GM is not going to make a difference, unfortunately.

[Peregrine]

Serious question, whats the difference between winning 7 games, and winning 5 games?

[joeken24]

Skitzo!! Last week was a totally different dialogue regarding Gruden. The Redskins beat a 4-9 team with a last second field goal and all the sudden Gruden is wanted again.  I'll pass.

The facts are:

1. He's predictable on offense. Runs on first down. Even on the opposing side of the field after a momentum swinging turnover he'll run the ball for a loss of yards and kill the momentum.

2. He's apparently unwilling to look in the mirror like he implores his players.

3. He plays a lot of players because he likes them (David Bruton, Matt Jones, Pryor, should I name more?)

4. He doesn't instill discipline or strive for perfection (as evident in leading the league in penalties and the numerous mental errors on just about every play)

5. His offense does not score points in a offense driven league

6. He's not going to become a winning coach all the sudden based on history. Name a modern day coach that over a five year span had a losing record, then all the sudden became a winning coach?

 

There's probably more but who's counting? I say cut your losses (literally) and move on to Eric Bieniemy as the new Head Coach/Offensive Coordinator. Fly Redskins One out to KC and get that man!! Also see if you can lure Brian Flores over as the Defensive/Assistant Head coach position. Not a lat move with asst. title. Oh yea, fire the **** out of Allen first.

Get A&GTFO!

 

[joeken24]

11 hours ago, kleese said:

 

First also needs to be said that I think teams in sports in general change coaches FAR too quickly. It's the easiest way to appease fans and build a sense of newness and hope, so I understand why teams do it. But i really don't like the idea of determining "who" someone is on a sample of a few years and deciding they can never get better or improve. 

 

To specifically answer your question, I think we'd need to have a year where I think things lined up very well for Jay, things kind of go their way, and he still fails to deliver. I certainly don't think you can wait around for a perfectly healthy team. That is unrealistic in pro football. There will be injuries. There will be obstacles to overcome. But in the case of the past two seasons, I think the injuries have passed a tipping point to where they ARE an excuse. At least enough of an excuse to say it will ultimately cost them 1-2 games. And if we go 8-8 then losing 1-2 games to injury is a pretty major deal. 

 

I totally agree that at 6-3 we were a shaky 6-3. A real grind to get there. But we WERE there. And I don't think we lose all four of the next games if Alex is playing... and probably don't lose all four if Colt is playing. And if even one of those go our way and we are 8-6 right now, the narrative of the season is quite different. 

 

I just don't get how you can say in on breath that Snyder/Allen is the worst combo in pro sports, see us hover around .500 with that in mind and then also say Jay sucks too? My point is if Jay is getting average results with buffoonery above him, what would he get if they had a far better system in place? My hope is that they find a way for Bruce to leave the building and turn it over to someone like Kyle Smith. Now, if Smith (or whoever it is) is adamant that Jay isn't the answer, then I'd defer to that as you'd have to empower whoever the new person is. But my hope would be that Gruden would get a least one more shot.  

So Kyle Smith has been the director of college scouts for the past 2 years. He's been with the organization for 9 years. He's been involved or at the forefront of our draft picks. He's also institutionalize to the Redskins way IMO. Now tell me how it makes since to promote him to GM? Isn't that be pretty much status quo? This has to be blown up. The only person that should be left is the one you can't get rid of. I will say this, I do believe Dan has stepped away from the day to day and has calmed down. So hire McCarthy as GM and bring in a good young energetic group of new coaches with winnable ideas and the ability to galvanize players to reach for perfection. We have players that come from good winning organizations (Alabama). Don't allow these guys to fall into mediocre mindsets. Find you a good play making QB (if Alex doesn't make it back), **** the measurable(s) and start winning on the goddamn football field.   

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Serious question, whats the difference between winning 7 games, and winning 5 games?

 

2 wins?

 

 

[skinsmania123]

6 hours ago, joeken24 said:

So Kyle Smith has been the director of college scouts for the past 2 years. He's been with the organization for 9 years. He's been involved or at the forefront of our draft picks. He's also institutionalize to the Redskins way IMO. Now tell me how it makes since to promote him to GM? Isn't that be pretty much status quo? This has to be blown up. The only person that should be left is the one you can't get rid of. I will say this, I do believe Dan has stepped away from the day to day and has calmed down. So hire McCarthy as GM and bring in a good young energetic group of new coaches with winnable ideas and the ability to galvanize players to reach for perfection. We have players that come from good winning organizations (Alabama). Don't allow these guys to fall into mediocre mindsets. Find you a good play making QB (if Alex doesn't make it back), **** the measurable(s) and start winning on the goddamn football field.   

And to add to this point Kyle Smith was part of the brain trust that brought us Ha Ha.  He is part of institutional that is the Washington Redskins.   I believe you have to be a "yes" guy or a go along guy to stay in the building.  That is the main reason SM was let go.  He went toe to toe with BA.  

 

 I have mixed thoughts about McCarthy as the GM.  I think he has a high emotional I.Q. and probably evaluates talent well but will BA and Danny allow it.  I don't think so.  They like the "selection by committee" so they can stay involved in the football operations.  I don't believe for one minute Dan has stepped away.  He lurks somewhere in background and filters his opinions through Bruce who does  his bidding.    And  the "selection by committee" here picked up Ha Ha who was a  pro bowler in 2014 with a decline in his production since.  The packers were delighted to unload him on us.  Clearly you need a D Coordinator that can develop talent. Do we  have that?  Do the Packers?     Getting the most out of players and developing them is essential.  Isn't that on the HC?  I think  so.  Which brings us back to McCarthy.  Looking at the Packer's roster on the both sides of the ball they have talent but they have not produced this year.   In a quest to understand why the Packers have failed this year, a few of the "sports analysts" have taken to throwing Rodgers under the bus a bit, saying he is throwing inaccurately when there is clearly a lack of execution on both sides of the ball IMO.   When any QB starts pressing to make something happen it does not work well, even if you are Aaron Rodgers IMO.  You throw some pics.

 

Eric Bieniemy as the new Head Coach is a great idea.  Man he has done a great job developing Mahommes there along with Reid. I think he would be great here but I think he is going to get a HC somewhere else.  He won't come to this train wreck.

 

 

[kingdaddy]

On 12/17/2018 at 2:02 AM, rabidskin said:

We won't beat Tenn or Phila. with our O-line....We just pulled one out in the last minutes after never leading the entire game...and that team is 4-10....not 8-6 Tenn or the 7-7 Eagles that just beat the Rams.  Our OL is a mixture of injured players and players that couldn't make it on any other team roster.  Jay has to go too!.  McVay's promotion to be our new HC was the move that should have transpired last year.

It's easy to say "fire Jay" and I'm in that camp...however, I'm trying to be careful and asking myself who else is out there that would be better and do we trust Bruce to find that person? For me the answer to this question is "no". Giving Jay the benefit of doubt with the disastrous injuries we suffered I'd have to say getting 7 wins is a pretty good feat. HOWEVER, getting embarrassed at home by the NYG with their 1st year coach is unacceptable and someone has to pay for that. With all of the talent we have on defense and considering how healthy we are on that side of the ball, the regression there in the 2nd half of the season has to be addressed. We need to find the right guy to lead our young Bama boys and make the defense a top 10 defense while we weed our way through the issues we have on offense. Offseason move #1: Fire Manusky and upgrade the defensive coordinator position.

Offensively we have several challenges ahead of us this offseason. The first thing I would do is re-sign AP. The heart and desire he ran with this past Sunday vs. Jacksonville led our team to the win. How many times did he stick his body into the line where there were no holes? Bring him back. Next, cut or trade Jordan Reed and let Crowder walk in free agency. Go with Quinn as the slot, give Harris a long look as a starter, Richardson should return healthy and hopefully Robert Davis and Cam Sims do as well.  Move on from Doctson if the coaches feel he'll never pan out. Sign a free agent TE, WR and any potential linemen that might come free. Draft O-line and grab a QB in round 2. We MUST address the offensive line. At QB, it's Colt, Josh Johnson and whatever rookie we draft. That's the way it'll have to be next year. 

As for Jay.....I'm ready to fire him for many reasons but mostly based on his record within the division during his 5 year run. We are losing too frequently to Dallas, Philly and NYG and it's time to fix that. Everyone needs a fresh approach with new ideas and a different way to do things. DJ Swearinger's complaints about soft practices say enough for me. Bring in McCarthy or someone who has won in the league....If they really love Jay then put him in the front office, I could live with that. 

 

[Peregrine]

12 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

 

2 wins?

 

 

Thats about what I figure.  So then, for those in favor of keeping Gruden because he can get us to 7 wins, and in the past we've won 5, whats the point of winning 2 extra games a year, with no hope of the playoffs, no hope of competing for a super bowl, etc?

 

Seems utterly pointless to me, to retain a coach and hire a coach based solely on his ability to just be bad, instead of very bad.

[kleese]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Thats about what I figure.  So then, for those in favor of keeping Gruden because he can get us to 7 wins, and in the past we've won 5, whats the point of winning 2 extra games a year, with no hope of the playoffs, no hope of competing for a super bowl, etc?

 

Seems utterly pointless to me, to retain a coach and hire a coach based solely on his ability to just be bad, instead of very bad.

 

For me it isn’t just a matter of “well he can get us to be average and that’s better than bad so let’s keep him forever.” 

 

I see a coach that can obviously get us in the 7-9 win range despite FO and off field fiascos and a bevy of injuries, almost at a comical level the last two years. So I think it’s reasonable at this point to think Jay is capable of delivering MORE than 7-9 wins if he can catch some breaks and get a little better leadership from those above him. 

 

It’s not that I am just fine to always be 7-9 because that’s better than 4-12. It’s that I still believe he’s capable of delivering more and has shown enough to get another year to prove it. 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Thats about what I figure.  So then, for those in favor of keeping Gruden because he can get us to 7 wins, and in the past we've won 5, whats the point of winning 2 extra games a year, with no hope of the playoffs, no hope of competing for a super bowl, etc?

 

Seems utterly pointless to me, to retain a coach and hire a coach based solely on his ability to just be bad, instead of very bad.

Pretty sure we’ve had playoff hopes under Gruden (including this year).  A playoff appearance even.  I’m assuming that’s not what you meant though.  

 

I think you’re leaving off the 2nd half of the statement/though - no one wants to keep Gruden because he can get us to 7 wins, it’s that he can get us to 7 wins with this FO, and with this amount of injuries.  And by ‘with this FO’ (not that it needs to spelled out), I mean a FO that lets two 1,000 yard receivers walk without adequately replacing them, lets 2 of our top corners walk, lets our franchise qb leave, relies on injury prone players, etc.  

 

To be clear, I’m posting this less as a defense of Gruden, and more as a defense of those that are ok with keeping him.  

[Burgold]

The worst argument I'm hearing for keeping Gruden is... He's okay. Well, he's not very good, he doesn't seem to be improving much, and we'll never reach a Super Bowl with him, but we should settle for mediocrity because we could hire worse.

 

I think I've read twenty variations of that sentiment.

[Rufus T Firefly]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The worst argument I'm hearing for keeping Gruden is... He's okay. Well, he's not very good, he doesn't seem to be improving much, and we'll never reach a Super Bowl with him, but we should settle for mediocrity because we could hire worse.

 

I think I've read twenty variations of that sentiment.

Yeah, no one is really making the case that he's a great coach or that he's likely to elevate a team and be a key reason a team could make a run at a title. It's really all about the (well founded) fear that this team would end up hiring someone worse.

 

On one hand, that's a sign of how beaten down this fanbase is. On the other, it kind of hints at how complicit that fanbase often is in the incompetence by accepting, and occasionally celebrating, the mediocrity that has been our ceiling for two decades. 

[JSSkinz]

I go back and forth on Jay, on one hand, I agree with the harshest comments made against him and I can't really argue against them. What happened in the Giants game really bugged me, that wasn't about talent or X's and O's and I think it was as bad of a loss as you can have under those circumstances regardless of the injuries.

 

But on the other hand, I look at a guy who's never had a decent run game, hasn't had any real weapons in the passing game for the past 2 years, a boatload of injuries, and a GM who is trying to sabotage the team and I wonder what he could do if we start adding young talent on the offense.

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, Burgold said:

The worst argument I'm hearing for keeping Gruden is... He's okay. Well, he's not very good, he doesn't seem to be improving much, and we'll never reach a Super Bowl with him, but we should settle for mediocrity because we could hire worse.

 

I think I've read twenty variations of that sentiment.

 

 

Id rather there be some hope as opposed to no hope. You can’t give up on gruden this year, of all the years.

[joeken24]

On 12/17/2018 at 11:27 PM, Peregrine said:

Serious question, whats the difference between winning 7 games, and winning 5 games?

Yea, don't ask that question no more dude.

[Chelsea_Phil]

Hi, everyone.  This is my first post, and I am sorry that it has to be a negative one, but I cannot help myself given what I saw on Sunday.

 

I like Jay as a person, but like many on this forum, he lacks many of the skills needed to be a good HC.  

 

There are some things that are lumped under Head Coaching 101, things that any good HC does as a matter of course.   Jay must have failed his HC 101 course, and here is a prime example:

 

We are driving for the winning field goal at the end of the Jaguars game, and are well in field goal range.  We have one time out (maybe two, I forget), and it is not fourth down.  There is less than a minute left in the game.  What does a normal HC do?  He brings out the field goal team, and lets the clock go down to about 12 seconds, and then has the center hike the ball to start the field goal attempt.   Why?  Because, if the center happens to make a bad snap, such as with a new center like we had on Sunday, the ball holder, Tress Way, can grab the bad snap, and instead of having the kicker make a kick with his timing all off, can instead call a time out, and then have sufficient time left on the clock (e.g., one second or more) to have another field goal attempt.

 

So, what does Jay do?  He lets the clock go down to what, 4 seconds, so if a bad snap occurred, there would be no time for the holder to call a time out before the clock goes to zero.

 

To me, this is inexcusable.

 

I think no one mentioned this bone-head decision to Jay at the after-game press conference and at the press conference the day after, but someone should have done so.

 

He makes plenty of bad time management decisions, as we all know, and this one just compounds his inability to do the simple HC 101 things that mostly all Head Coaches will do in their sleep.

 

No one mentioned this because the snap was OK and the field goal was attempted and made, but as a "what if", it really makes my blood boil.  Though I do recall that Trevor Matich did mention it on the post-game show on MASN, and kudos to him for doing so.

 

[goskins10]

38 minutes ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

Hi, everyone.  This is my first post, and I am sorry that it has to be a negative one, but I cannot help myself given what I saw on Sunday.

 

I like Jay as a person, but like many on this forum, he lacks many of the skills needed to be a good HC.  

 

There are some things that are lumped under Head Coaching 101, things that any good HC does as a matter of course.   Jay must have failed his HC 101 course, and here is a prime example:

 

We are driving for the winning field goal at the end of the Jaguars game, and are well in field goal range.  We have one time out (maybe two, I forget), and it is not fourth down.  There is less than a minute left in the game.  What does a normal HC do?  He brings out the field goal team, and lets the clock go down to about 12 seconds, and then has the center hike the ball to start the field goal attempt.   Why?  Because, if the center happens to make a bad snap, such as with a new center like we had on Sunday, the ball holder, Tress Way, can grab the bad snap, and instead of having the kicker make a kick with his timing all off, can instead call a time out, and then have sufficient time left on the clock (e.g., one second or more) to have another field goal attempt.

 

So, what does Jay do?  He lets the clock go down to what, 4 seconds, so if a bad snap occurred, there would be no time for the holder to call a time out before the clock goes to zero.

 

To me, this is inexcusable.

 

I think no one mentioned this bone-head decision to Jay at the after-game press conference and at the press conference the day after, but someone should have done so.

 

He makes plenty of bad time management decisions, as we all know, and this one just compounds his inability to do the simple HC 101 things that mostly all Head Coaches will do in their sleep.

 

No one mentioned this because the snap was OK and the field goal was attempted and made, but as a "what if", it really makes my blood boil.  Though I do recall that Trevor Matich did mention it on the post-game show on MASN, and kudos to him for doing so.

 

 

Welcome to the board. But I think you may have picked a wrong time. No HC in the NFL would have done what you said. It is absolutely the wrong move. There had been no problems with the center/holder exchange. If you do what you suggest, if you miss the FG - a much higher likelihood than a botched snap - then you leave time on the clock for the Jags to get their own FG attempt. Even if you make it, you have to either kick it out of the EZ and give them a play - PI, a long completion to FG range and other maladies all come into play, just by leaving a few seconds on the clock - all on the off chance their may be a botched snap. You run the clock down to nothing just as Jay did. The worst that happens, even on a botched snap or missed FG is you go to OT. Jay made the exact right call.