PCS

Welcome to the Redskins Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

To be fair, and for those unaware, he does this every year for all of the NFCE teams, even his own Eagles. He did the Cowboys yesterday, us today, and will likely do the Giants tomorrow (Eagles are always last). 

 

It’s a humorous look at how a beat writer of a rival team sees the other teams within the division, and most of his criticisms are spot-on, though he’s not 100% accurate in some cases - or I guess I should say he lacks nuance in some cases - but it’s supposed to be a fun piece in the most dead period of the offseason. 

 

Sure, he knocked Bruce even harder I recall last year.  I just listened to him talk about the article on 106.7, and he didn't come off like he thought any of it was hyperbole on his end.  In other words, he meant every word or so he came off to me.   He joked that Redskins fans give him the least pushback among the NFC East fans and accept his criticism for the most part -- saying we are all good sports.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 

I agree with him on Flowers being a problem at LG much less LT.  I didn’t want him here.  He’s always been a project.  A failed project.  But this guy doesn’t have a clue about what we drafted at receiver and our potential there.  We also should have one of the better backfields out there with AD and Thompson, and I’m predicting a very solid year from Guice.

 

You probably won't find a bigger fan here of both Harmon and McLaurin.  I touted them both on the draft thread before we even took them.  Having said that I am not counting on either for being a #1 type receiver especially in year 1.  It's tough for receivers to make their mark right away.  My gut is both might end up solid #2 receivers over time.  I doubt either one develops into a #1 type.  Having said that, having a solid #2 type receiver would be an improvement to what we have IMO.  I think our veteran receivers are all really #3 types.

 

As for the Redskins running backs, I agree we got good ones.  Hopefully the O line can stay healthy enough though to block for them.  The article though wasn't about giving a balanced view of the team.   The article was about giving 10 reasons why the Redskins could stink this year.  He's doing the same rap on every team in the  NFC East.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a #1 option?  Someone who can reliably be targeted at all levels on key downs?  I'd argue most teams don't have one.  I'd argue we didn't have one in 2015 with Garcon and DJax, although Reed was getting close.

 

Patriots had one in Gronk.  Browns now have one in Odell.  Cowboys sort of had one in Dez.  Eagles haven't in awhile.  Our last WR that was close was Santana.

 

It's not necessary to have that and be a good team (or elite) team.  I'd argue the two best years for Packers offenses they had no #1 but loads of #2's.  Saints have never had one, but scheme, volume, and Brees makes that not matter.

 

How many teams with true #1's, and paid top tier money, have won a super bowl?  Falcons came close with Julio.  Antonio Brown never made it to the SB.  Calvin Johnson never won a playoff game.  Prime Larry Fitzgerald came close.  Did Andre Johnson win a playoff game either?  Terrell Owens and Randy Moss came close.  Chad Johnson never did.  Jerry Rice won a bunch...but that was pre-Free Agency, and then in early Free Agency.  Different era.

 

Gronk is the only #1 option to win (and multiple times) because he was mistakenly paid only top tier TE money, and his blocking was far more useful than what WR's do on a run play.

 

Having a #1 is awesome, exciting, and a great Jersey to wear.  But it's ultimately not good value for team construction.  I'd rather have a load of #2 caliber players than pay #1 money.  Now if we had zero #2's, then the #1 is better than nothing.  That's the current Giants situation, lost Odell and all their remaining guys are solid slot types.  #3's.

 

We have nobody on the roster with potential to be a #1.   But I don't think that matters.  We currently have several #3's, and maybe a #2 in Reed.  If McLaurin, Sims, Doctson, etc can figure out how to reliably make it hard for defenders at more than one level. Then this offense can be good enough (as long as the run game is there). 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sure, he knocked Bruce even harder I recall last year.  I just listened to him talk about the article on 106.7, and he didn't come off like he thought any of it was hyperbole on his end.  In other words, he meant every word or so he came off to me.   He joked that Redskins fans give him the least pushback among the NFC East fans and accept his criticism for the most part -- saying we are all good sports.

 

 

 

Looks like Gettleman gets it even worse than Bruce, lol. They both deserve it, but I have to say, Gettleman is probably worse. 

 

When I started writing this, my first bullet point was how awful Dave Gettleman has been in absolutely destroying this roster. By the time bullet point No. 1 was over, I was about 3,000 words deep, and points 2-10 were pretty much already covered. And that's when I realized that Gettleman has ruined the Giants at literally every position on the roster.

 

I think we can all agree -- Giants fans included -- that this team is an absolute train wreck joke, right? So instead of merely listing all the ways they're bad, which is already obvious, let's instead take a walk through each positional group and look at how Gettleman has dropped this franchise into the dumpster and set it ablaze, shall we?

 

1) Quarterback

Over the last six seasons, Eli Manning has a record of 38-57 in 95 starts, and was one-and-done in a blowout loss the one year during that span in which the Giants made the playoffs. He was never a great quarterback, but at one time he was at least a top-half-of-the-league starter, with two improbable Super Bowl runs under his belt. 

 

Somehow, Gettleman and the Giants as an organization continue to make excuses for him.

 

"I’ve really been thinking about this: The narrative around Eli for the past four years, five years, since I was gone, was really negative," Gettleman said at the Combine. "The narrative’s been negative. There’s an old saying, ‘tell a lie enough, you believe it.’ The narrative is so negative that when you take that position, most people struggle getting off that spot, most people struggle saying, ‘I’m going to look at this with fresh eyes.’ So for example, when you evaluate pro players, every year’s a new year. When you evaluate him, it’s a new year. Yes, before he was at this level, but that doesn’t mean when you look at him that he’s automatically at this level or at this level. You’ve got to take everything for what it’s worth at that time and I think that the narrative has been negative, and I don’t think it’s been fair."

 

Narrative, lol.

 

Over the last six years, 36 quarterbacks have at least 1,`000 passing attempts. Manning has been one of the worst among those 36 quarterbacks over that period. Here's where he ranks:

 

The rest is here: https://www.phillyvoice.com/10-reasons-giants-will-be-dumpster-fire-season-2019/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 He joked that Redskins fans give him the least pushback among the NFC East fans and accept his criticism for the most part -- saying we are all good sports.

 

 

 

Complacency mistaken for sportsmanship... how far we have fallen. I never thought our fan base would become what it has, and then there was Snyder. Youngsters wouldn’t believe the way the Redskins used to be the talk of DC... it was glorious.

2 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

they had no #1 but loads of #2's.  Saints have never had one

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

 

 

 

Brandin Cooks was the first guy the Saints had that lined up outwide with over 1,000 receiving yards.  Marques Colston and Jimmy Graham are all really good receiving threats, but they were all big slot guys thriving in the short and intermediate.

 

I definitely goofed though, and Michael Thomas is more than just a big slot guy.  He does well when lined up everywhere.  He can't keep up his insane efficiency, but maybe it's balanced out with a longer depth of target.  Who knows, I'm curious to see where he and the Saints go.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of what Doug said and knowing how Dan and Bruce operate, I’ve always expected Haskins to start week 1. If he isn’t, it means disaster because he isn’t even close to being ready. The front office needs to sell tickets and in this case I can’t even fault Dan for really wanting Haskins to start week 1 after what fedex looked like week 17 last year. If Haskins is even close to being ready, I expect him week 1 whether Jay likes it or not. I really hope they hold out and start him at least after the tough opening to our schedule, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

What's a #1 option?  Someone who can reliably be targeted at all levels on key downs?  I'd argue most teams don't have one.  I'd argue we didn't have one in 2015 with Garcon and DJax, although Reed was getting close.

 

Patriots had one in Gronk.  Browns now have one in Odell.  Cowboys sort of had one in Dez.  Eagles haven't in awhile.  Our last WR that was close was Santana.

 

It's not necessary to have that and be a good team (or elite) team.  I'd argue the two best years for Packers offenses they had no #1 but loads of #2's.  Saints have never had one, but scheme, volume, and Brees makes that not matter.

 

 

I mostly agree with your point.  My response had nothing to do with a semantics discussion about can you succeed with #2 type of receivers.  And even if I ran with that point, I was saying McLaurin and Harmon are potentially #2 type receivers over time as opposed to right out of the gun this season. 

 

I don't think this team right now has a legitimate #2 receiver let alone a #1.   so in my book the discussion relating to this team would be can you thrive in a passing game with no legitimate #1 OR #2 receiver.

 

I was probably the biggest McLaurin fan on the draft thread.  Still I see his ceiling at best as a #2 (which would make him the best receiver on the team) but I doubt he's that from the start of the season.  But yeah if my most rosy optimistic take about both McLaurin and Harmon come true and they both end up legit #2 types -- yes they can win with that arrangement without having a Beckham.  I agree.  But that hasn't happened yet.  Right now all we know is how our veterans play.   And, I don't think you can win in a passing game with Doctson as your #1 guy unless you got a Brady type at QB. 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zazzaro703 said:

I can’t even fault Dan for really wanting Haskins to start week 1 after what fedex looked like week 17 last year. 

 

You have to fault him for being the reason the stadium has become a neutral ground for the home team.

*Dallas improved a bit when they got a #1.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

You have to fault him for being the reason the stadium has become a neutral ground for the home team.

*Dallas improved a bit when they got a #1.

 

It's a great point about Cooper.  It changed Dallas' offense dramatically.  He arguably changed their season.   Heck we couldn't stop the dude. I think you can do fine with #2 type receivers.  But a #1 type can change a game.    I think neither argument pertains to us right now.  It's possible that one of our young receivers emerge but until that happens IMO we have a bunch of #3's.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Williams doesn’t sound all there if ima be honest. 

 

No problem with Bruce and Dan being voices in the room. My worry is who breaks the tie. To me is should be the coach (cause I don’t really trust anyone else right now)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision of who starts at QB should be made by Jay and his coaches not Dan Snyder and his management team.  This is a prime example of why Snyder hasn't produced a winner, he can't let go and let his coaches run the show.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Williams doesn’t sound all there if ima be honest. 

 

No problem with Bruce and Dan being voices in the room. My worry is who breaks the tie. To me is should be the coach (cause I don’t really trust anyone else right now)

 

I see it as Dan breaking any tie.  Or saying "screw you all, this is what YOU ARE DOING."  

 

I wonder how much say-so Jay has, actually.

Share this post


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

Williams doesn’t sound all there if ima be honest. 

 

No problem with Bruce and Dan being voices in the room. My worry is who breaks the tie. To me is should be the coach (cause I don’t really trust anyone else right now)

Williams rarely sounds all there and usually sounds in over his head.  I forget who it was, but somebody made it out that those of us that feel that way are racist or against “country” people and the way they speak.  Ummm no, dude just doesn’t sound all that bright.

 

The head coach should always be the one who decides the starting QB.  It should never be group think amongst the top brass.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I mostly agree with your point.  My response had nothing to do with a semantics discussion about can you succeed with #2 type of receivers. 

 

I don't think this team right now has a legitimate #2 receiver let alone a #1.   so in my book the discussion relating to this team would be can you thrive in a passing game with no legitimate #1 OR #2 receiver.

 

 

For sure, my post was a lot of rambling in general instead of responding directly to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The head coach should always be the one who decides the starting QB.  It should never be group think amongst the top brass.  

 

Andy Benoit was talking about this today on 106.7, going on about how it should be 100% the coach's decision and also saying when have we ever heard a team being successful that's all about decisions made by "committee".

 

To me the decisions by "committee" here is code word for Dan wants the final say.  I got no idea of that's what ends up going down.  But I am not a fan of the decision by committee concept when the people with the final say are Bruce and Dan.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to emphasize my point about Jay Gruden’s decision making.  He’s not a very good decision maker, and probably worse at making adjustments.  The fact that his decision making privileges have been tempered is clear evidence.  The decision to start Haskins will be determined collectively by Jay, Doug, Bruce, and probably Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Williams rarely sounds all there and usually sounds in over his head

 

I don’t think I ever heard him sound that bad before. But I don’t listen to him a lot either 

 

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The head coach should always be the one who decides the starting QB.  It should never be group think amongst the top brass.  

 

I would prefer that yea. But that’s not gonna happen with Dan (and other owners too) so I might as well get group think and hope he’s learning over the decades. 

 

He will outlive me I’m sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn’t say it’s ultimately up to Jay and coaches? Terrible. Hoping I get a different message after listening. 

 

I can understand a rookie 1st round pick being discussed amongst all, but the individual with the biggest piece of pie has to be Jay and coaches, and this definitely shouldn’t be shared in the media. The players must be confident the coach has the power.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Williams rarely sounds all there and usually sounds in over his head.  I forget who it was, but somebody made it out that those of us that feel that way are racist or against “country” people and the way they speak.  Ummm no, dude just doesn’t sound all that bright. 

 

Doug’s body of work; being a Super Bowl quarterback, his handling of this years draft, and his eye for talent, is indicative of how well he knows football.  How he sounds is pretty irrelevant.

Edited by Vanguard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Williams rarely sounds all there and usually sounds in over his head.  I forget who it was, but somebody made it out that those of us that feel that way are racist or against “country” people and the way they speak.  Ummm no, dude just doesn’t sound all that bright.

 

 

I could never find anything to support this, but I always figured, based on his facial thing goin on, that he had a stroke.

Which might also explain the possible effects to his brain function.

Just speculating though. I don't know if it was a stroke, or Bell's Palsy.

 

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 

Doug’s body of work; being a Super Bowl quarterback, his handling of this years draft, and his eye for talent, is indicative of how well he knows football.  How he sounds is pretty irrelevant.

 

 

I think it's relevant to his job if it involves some degree of public relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

I think it's relevant to his job if it involves some degree of public relations.

 

Well ill just have to speak for myself and say it doesn’t bother me.  If his contributions get us to the playoffs, I’m fine with it.  All I care about is winning, and doing it the right way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Andy Benoit was talking about this today on 106.7, going on about how it should be 100% the coach's decision and also saying when have we ever heard a team being successful that's all about decisions made by "committee".

 

To me the decisions by "committee" here is code word for Dan wants the final say.  I got no idea of that's what ends up going down.  But I am not a fan of the decision by committee concept when the people with the final say are Bruce and Dan.  

 

The only good news here is Williams publicly acknowledged that it won't be Jay's decision so no one here can be deluded about it.  For years we debated who made the call to continue to start Griffin in 2013 and 2014 when the answer was always obvious, it Dan's football team and he makes the decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 

Doug’s body of work; being a Super Bowl quarterback, his handling of this years draft, and his eye for talent, is indicative of how well he knows football.  How he sounds is pretty irrelevant.

So you’re under the impression that he “handled” this years draft and has an eye for talent?  Just out of curiosity, what leads you to believe that?

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.