Where do you think Jay Gruden and Greg Manusky rank?

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

If we were being honest and wanted to rank Gruden and Manusky compared to the other 31 head coaches and defensive coordinators, Gruden would be around the 16-20 mark out of 32, and Manusky would be around 25-32 out of 32.  

To pile on, my fear is that our special teams coach might be ranked forty-third best out of thirty-two.

[Spaceman Spiff]

11 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

Well, it's your job to scoop up that evidence, ain't it ? 😉

Pop your 10 Questions on Jay !

 

Yeah, I think they'd kick my ass out if I did that  

[Catatonic]

I think Jay would be more than servicable if there was a front office/owner who was competent. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think, in Ashburn, they are both top-10 coaches. 

[KDawg]

22 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I think, in Ashburn, they are both top-10 coaches. 

 

I don't know. Rob Ryan's ego is large enough to be 1-10.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Catatonic said:

I think Jay would be more than servicable if there was a front office/owner who was competent. 

I keep seeing people say this, but the FO is not responsible for game plans out of the 1930’s before the invention of the forward pass.

 

The FO is not responsible for a 5 year trend of just sucking in second halves and 3rd quarters in particular.  

 

The FO is not responsible for game management and knowing when to call TOs.

 

The FO is not responsible for giving up just about every 10 point+ lead in the last 5 years.  (Cooley went through the analysis of this last year. Almost every time we have a 10 point or greater lead, the opponent almost always at least tied if not takes the lead back...

 

I think we ALL can agree:

 

Problem 1: Dan.

Problem 2: Bruce

 

However that doesn’t absolve Jay and the coaching staff from the fundamentals of coaching the team on the field. 

 

If the coaching staff was creative and the team was prepared and well disciplined, and they still lost because there isn’t enough talent on the team, and they are bringing a knife to a gun fight, then I’d support Jay 100%.

 

But so far, and this might change, they haven’t been and they haven’t been.  My biggest frustration is that the coaching staff doesn’t Take care of their business and put the players in front of them in the best position to win, know how to make in-game adjustments, and put their foot on opponents when they have them down.  That’s in control of the coaching staff regardless of what the FO does...

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

21 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I keep seeing people say this, but the FO is not responsible for game plans out of the 1930’s before the invention of the forward pass.

 

The FO is not responsible for a 5 year trend of just sucking in second halves and 3rd quarters in particular.  

 

The FO is not responsible for game management and knowing when to call TOs.

 

The FO is not responsible for giving up just about every 10 point+ lead in the last 5 years.  (Cooley went through the analysis of this last year. Almost every time we have a 10 point or greater lead, the opponent almost always at least tied if not takes the lead back...

 

I think we ALL can agree:

 

Problem 1: Dan.

Problem 2: Bruce

 

However that doesn’t absolve Jay and the coaching staff from the fundamentals of coaching the team on the field. 

 

If the coaching staff was creative and the team was prepared and well disciplined, and they still lost because there isn’t enough talent on the team, and they are bringing a knife to a gun fight, then I’d support Jay 100%.

 

But so far, and this might change, they haven’t been and they haven’t been.  My biggest frustration is that the coaching staff doesn’t Take care of their business and put the players in front of them in the best position to win, know how to make in-game adjustments, and put their foot on opponents when they have them down.  That’s in control of the coaching staff regardless of what the FO does...

 

 

Well, if the players were better it's possible that Jay could be more aggressive with gameplanning? Maybe running the clock and relying on defense is his best bet for us to be in those close, ugly games due to personnel or injuries (neither of which are primarily on him). 

 

Not to mention, the post you quoted didn't say he'd be great...but serviceable. I'd argue he's already serviceable as a head coach. Minus year 1 with all the Griffin stuff, a roster in flux, etc. he's 31-32-1 which is pretty much the definition of serviceable to me. 

[50yrSKINSfan]

20 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I’m not bs’ing.  I’d feel terrible about what’s been accomplished if I was in Jay’s position.  He’s had enough talent to do much better.  I don’t know how much better.  But he never gets the most out of his talent.  But he picks up a paycheck no matter what so I guess that makes it alright.

Same way I feel. From the start I never thought Jay was a championship coach. Seems like when you were in school and you were a nerd and you started dating the hottest babe in the school and you knew you were overmatched but you were going to milk it for all it was worth. Jay is overmatched and he is milking it for all it is worth as he knows like we know that he is not a big time NFL head coach but he keeps getting paid so he hangs on. GHA used to say that the talent is not much different from team to team, it is the coaching that makes the difference.  Cheers.

[Voice_of_Reason]

39 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Well, if the players were better it's possible that Jay could be more aggressive with gameplanning? Maybe running the clock and relying on defense is his best bet for us to be in those close, ugly games due to personnel or injuries (neither of which are primarily on him). 

 

Not to mention, the post you quoted didn't say he'd be great...but serviceable. I'd argue he's already serviceable as a head coach. Minus year 1 with all the Griffin stuff, a roster in flux, etc. he's 31-32-1 which is pretty much the definition of serviceable to me. 

Being unpredictable in play calling helps less talented players. 

 

I’ve always said he was an average to below average coach.  He can get the team about to it’s level of talent, win a game or two he shouldn’t, and lose a game or two he shouldn’t. If that’s serviceable, we’re in agreement. It’s still not good enough if you actually want to win anything though...

 

He just hasn’t shown anything to be qualified as “good.”

 

Again, that might change..

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

18 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Being unpredictable in play calling helps less talented players. 

 

I’ve always said he was an average to below average coach.  He can get the team about to it’s level of talent, win a game or two he shouldn’t, and lose a game or two he shouldn’t. If that’s serviceable, we’re in agreement. It’s still not good enough if you actually want to win anything though...

 

He just hasn’t shown anything to be qualified as “good.”

 

Again, that might change..

 

 

 

That's completely fair...nothing he's done could be classified as anything above an "average" status. I went ahead and defined serviceable as average, but maybe that's wrong hahaha

[Malapropismic Depository]

5 hours ago, Burgold said:

To pile on, my fear is that our special teams coach might be ranked forty-third best out of thirty-two.

 

There's a Nate Kaczor Ranking Thread for that

[hail2skins]

15 hours ago, kleese said:

The Redskins have not been a joke on the field under his stewardship. They’ve been middling. And middling here is above where the bar was previously set. 

Kind of poetic justice that after a dozen years of leading this organization through the wilderness with big name coaches (Zorn being the exception), Snyder has in Jay his own version of Norv Turner, who deserved to be fired, but not in the piss-poor way Dan handled it. 

[ntotoro]

Norval Gruden could take a lousy 'Skins team and finish 7-9 with it.

 

He could also take the greatest of the Pats teams ever and finish 8-8 with it.

 

He's just that kind of coach. Inspires nothing, has the absolute worse in-game body language I've ever seen, pushes his pet players to a fault (why is McCoy even on this roster and why did it take so long to get rid of Perine) and his in-game adjustments are simply woeful off-script. He just can't or won't do it.

 

Manusky seems like JAG so far. We'll know more this season.

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 9/4/2019 at 9:21 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

Strengths

 

A.  His receivers (even the Jag ones) get open.  Many offensive film geeks including Benoit said he is one of the best play designers in the league

 

Weaknesses

 

A.  The sequences of play calling.  When to call a run, when to call a pass.  Too predictable on that front IMO.  If all he did is stop running on first down, that would IMO fix 80% of this.  I've not become a fan of ANY HC calling plays.  I think they have enough on their plate on a given Sunday.  So I hope he helps design the plays but then lets O'Connell call them.

So here's the problem.  The weakness offsets the strength.  Let me give an analogy.  Several years ago, I was vising relatives in Mumbai, India.  Mumbai's traffic makes New York during rush-hour look like a drive down an open country road.  A guy in the same building bought a bright red, probably $150k Ferrari.  Beautiful car.

 

As it turned out, he and I were both going across town at the same time.  I hailed a cab, which was a fiat which probably dated back to the Nixon administration.  No-joke.  Top speed is typically 40 KpH, which translates to 24 mph.  

 

So we set off on our jaunt across the city.  Maybe about 3-4 miles.  When we went our separate way, my cabbie was slightly ahead of the Ferrari.  

 

So, to bring this back to Jay, he can be the best play designer in the world, if the play calling stinks, which it has since McVay left (a stat on that in a minute), then it just doesn't matter.  Just like it didn't matter the Ferrari guy had a top speed of 180 mph.  When you can't break 20 mph because there are goats, elephants, cows, people and other cars on the road, it just doesn't matter.  

 

So, this stat came up on Galdi's show this morning.  In 2016, which was the besst offense since Jay took over as coach, they ran the ball ~45% of the time on first down in the first halves of games.  Over the last 2, it's been MUCH higher.  Also, the 'Skins had 8.6 yards to go on second down in the second half.

 

As you note, the running on first down thing is a serious issue.  If they can fix that, then they could take advantage of some of the play design.  With the receivers they have, they need the element of surprise.  And they can't get behind the sticks.  If they get behind in down and distance, they're going to be sunk.  

 

It's possible they come out with a very different philosophy.  We'll find out on Sunday.  I'm going to be looking at the early drives VERY carefully to see if they learned anything.  

 

On 9/4/2019 at 9:21 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

So to me I gather its O'Connell or bust because i doubt it would be a big name that's in demand.  

I have a sneaky suspicion there are 2 people who might take a HC job, who would be moderate names, apart from O'Connell.  Todd Bowles or Gregg Williams.  Dan talked to both of them this off-season, probably about the DC job.  However, it's entirely possible either could be hired as the HC.  And I'm pretty sure either would take it.

 

They COULD, unless KO got a HC gig elsewhere, bring in either guy as the HC and leave KO as he OC, IF he and Dwayne have a good relationship. 

 

Much to all of our dismay, that might mean Bruce keeps his job.  But we'll see.  Maybe not.  I kinda think if they go completely belly up there's only so much Bruce can deflect to Jay before some of the schmutz rubs off on him.  Ultimately, he's the guy who hired and supported Jay, so if Jay fails, it's at least partially Bruce's responsibility for both hiring him and not making a change earlier.  At least, if I was Dan, that's how I would see it...

 

Remember, that's why Vinny got fired.  Dan said that he fired Vinny because Vinny allowed him to hire Zorn.  Jay is miles better than Zorn, but after 6 years of support, I could see Dan saying, "look Bruce, you had free reign to do anything, you stuck with this guy, convinced me to stick with this guy, and that's going to cost you your job.  

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it's possible.  

[petey hodge]

Q: How does Gruden Andy and Manusky tank?

 

A: Remember that bull that Norman jumped over??  Maybe one notch below him.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So here's the problem.  The weakness offsets the strength.  Let me give an analogy.  Several years ago, I was vising relatives in Mumbai, India.  Mumbai's traffic makes New York during rush-hour look like a drive down an open country road.  A guy in the same building bought a bright red, probably $150k Ferrari.  Beautiful car.

 

As it turned out, he and I were both going across town at the same time.  I hailed a cab, which was a fiat which probably dated back to the Nixon administration.  No-joke.  Top speed is typically 40 KpH, which translates to 24 mph.  

 

So we set off on our jaunt across the city.  Maybe about 3-4 miles.  When we went our separate way, my cabbie was slightly ahead of the Ferrari.  

 

So, to bring this back to Jay, he can be the best play designer in the world, if the play calling stinks, which it has since McVay left (a stat on that in a minute), then it just doesn't matter.  Just like it didn't matter the Ferrari guy had a top speed of 180 mph.  When you can't break 20 mph because there are goats, elephants, cows, people and other cars on the road, it just doesn't matter.  

 

 

I get your point but I think you take the analogy too far.  You tend to discount for example the FO's role in Jay's struggles.  But I'll give an example if it in play.  Jay's offense runs from the inside-out.  D. Jax was a godsend for that because he opened things up for the inside routes -- slants-digs, etc.  Heck I recall D. Jax himself talking about it once by saying that he was bracketed in the playoff clinching game in Philly and that's what helped Jordan Reed destroy the Eagles that day.   

 

Jay according to many (including D. Jax himself) wanted to keep D. Jax.  I recall like yesterday Bruce grinning in an interview about yeah we lost Garcon and D. Jax but yet we got Pryor and Quick with similar production on the cheap.  I am not exactly alone on a hill saying the passing game supporting cast post Garcon-D Jax has been one of the weakest in the NFL -- same say its the weakest in the NFL.   And that you add on top of that killer O line injuries 2 years in a row.  That's a lot to overcome. 

 

And as for guys getting open it does help make the passing game work.  Benoit in particular gushes about it.  I posted clip after clip on it and my intention with those clips had nothing to do with Jay but I was looking at WR and Qb play and just kept stumbling on it. 

 

So let's say teams are geared up to when the team is going to pass.  So what if they are geared up to it if Jay still gets the receivers open?  In my view, Jay's issue with play calling is the run game.  When to call runs and how it meshes with the passing game.  Though supposedly Callahan is all over this department.

 

I think where people hit Jay unfairly is when they accuse him of not being innovative.  Like I've seen in different threads that Jay for a change should line up Reed wide past the numbers like a receiver.  Well, if you go through his plays.  He indeeds does that.  He has some funky stuff going on at times if you isolate pays.  He used a lot of sweeps and I spotted a play that looked like a triple option without even digging that hard.  He did 2 back sets.  He mixed it up.  

 

I think his weakness is the run game and how to incorporate it and when.   I don't think as for Jay or any coach there is an easy all or nothing explanation that lands on good or bad.  But IMO you got to piecemeal it all. 

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

As you note, the running on first down thing is a serious issue.  If they can fix that, then they could take advantage of some of the play design.  With the receivers they have, they need the element of surprise.  And they can't get behind the sticks.  If they get behind in down and distance, they're going to be sunk.  

 

It's possible they come out with a very different philosophy.  We'll find out on Sunday.  I'm going to be looking at the early drives VERY carefully to see if they learned anything.  

 

 

If you and I had a meeting of the minds on two criticisms of Jay its the running on first down.  And clock management.  I am a little more forgiving on clock management because Shanny and Gibbs on his return stunk at it, too.   I recall reading something about them trying to be less predictable in particular on first downs so I have some hope that they will fix it.  But yeah I can't stand the propensity to run on first down. 

 

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I have a sneaky suspicion there are 2 people who might take a HC job, who would be moderate names, apart from O'Connell.  Todd Bowles or Gregg Williams.  Dan talked to both of them this off-season, probably about the DC job.  However, it's entirely possible either could be hired as the HC.  And I'm pretty sure either would take it.

 

They COULD, unless KO got a HC gig elsewhere, bring in either guy as the HC and leave KO as he OC, IF he and Dwayne have a good relationship. 

 

Much to all of our dismay, that might mean Bruce keeps his job.  But we'll see.  Maybe not.  I kinda think if they go completely belly up there's only so much Bruce can deflect to Jay before some of the schmutz rubs off on him.  Ultimately, he's the guy who hired and supported Jay, so if Jay fails, it's at least partially Bruce's responsibility for both hiring him and not making a change earlier.  At least, if I was Dan, that's how I would see it...

 

Remember, that's why Vinny got fired.  Dan said that he fired Vinny because Vinny allowed him to hire Zorn.  Jay is miles better than Zorn, but after 6 years of support, I could see Dan saying, "look Bruce, you had free reign to do anything, you stuck with this guy, convinced me to stick with this guy, and that's going to cost you your job.  

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it's possible.  

 

I agree with some of this and on some of it I don't.  I get the impression listening to different narratives that Dan likes Jay.  I think Jay's longevity is somewhat tied to that so I don't think he'd give Bruce a hard time or take the reins from him just for that reason.  Though I can see him taking the reins perhaps. 

 

Everyone's personality is a double edge sword.  Being stubborn for example is both good or bad depending on context.  Someone being a drill sergeant can be good or bad depending on context.  Ditto being likable.  Jay according to most is very likable and most see that as a good thing.   My point is I doubt Dan feels towards Bruce anywhere near how he felt about Vinny relating to Zorn because Jay I gather is much better at connecting with Dan and Jay was more successful.

 

https://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/38953/redskins-jay-gruden-back-in-familiar-spot-coaching-for-his-job

"He's been the same for the most part," said Thompson, who is entering his sixth season. "We can feel more how bad he wants this, how bad he wants to win year in and year out. I'm sure it sucks to hear every year that your job is on the line. ... That's one reason why I try to go out and play as hard as I can for him. He's a great coach; he's a great human being. He deserves to be that head coach that changes this program around."

 

Long-snapper Nick Sundberg, entering his 10th season, said he hasn't seen a change in Gruden, either.

"He's trying to do his best to get the best out of every one of us," Sundberg said. "Not to say he hasn't done that in the past, but maybe he's holding himself to a different standard in the way he holds us to a different standard. It's not necessarily different. But when we have team meetings there is more accountability on guys.'"

 

 

As for Todd Bowles -- yawn.  I'd take Jay over Bowles any day of the week.   My #1 thing about any head coach is their personality.  And I am not into subdued low energy types like Bowles.  I do like Gregg. 

 

[TSO]

On 9/5/2019 at 11:44 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

Being unpredictable in play calling helps less talented players.

 

You need talented players who are multi dimensional to be less predictable.

 

You need players who aren’t only talented but also fit within each other’s positional groups that add to the skill sets versus being redundant.

 

And you need to do this at the majority of positions (or the most important ones at the same

time) instead of one or two here and there while regressing horribly at another one or two. 

 

Essentially, you need be very good at resource management. Bruce sucks at it. 

 

But, don’t worry, you’ll get to do as most fans do and target the coaches when said personnel remains a major problem. And you’ll, of course, look right and think you’re a genius based on the results. Because, hey, we’re “talented” here or there. 

 

Only for another coach to come in here and stink it up (so long as this organizational structure remains as is).

 

I really hope the next poor soul we hire at HC is someone you wanted yourself. That way maybe, just maybe, you’d realize you have next to no idea how to evaluate coaching in the pro ranks (not a knock, it’s damn near impossible to do so with the limited info we have as fans and just how much their environment factors into it). 

 

But what I hope for the most is that Jay gets a healthy team this year, elevates them more than he ever has before (which he’s been a big part of doing, hence our consistently mediocre record even under horrendous resource managing), and then gets to have a legit GM help him with resource managing. 

 

That’s unlikely, of course. So the next best thing is we hire a good coach and do the above. Maybe one day we’ll all sit and laugh about these arguments while we praise our brilliant and innovative FO exec/s for their foresight and resource management that continually one ups most teams around the league. Maybe one day, God willing. 

 

And then, of course, there will be plenty who will remain surface oriented and simply assume the coaches we’ve got are simply the greatest ever, even as they get plucked and go elsewhere and fail because their FO isn’t at our level. Or they don’t have Tom Brady. 

 

But, yeah. Fans gonna fan and the NFL is going to be the NFL. It’s been nice to see just how much  emphasis more and more smart people are placing on executives versus the over-emphasis on coaching at the pro level these days. 

[Peregrine]

For Manusky, I think hes a bottom 5 coordinator.  For Jay, I think hes maybe 20th-25th in the NFL.  Hes one of the 5-10 worst of the coaches that manage to not get fired every year.  I dont think a franchise can go anywhere meaningful with either of them, though I think if there was a really good DC, he could do just enough to cover for Jay and get some mediocre 9-7 just-barely-make-the-playoff seasons.  But the fact Jay has wrongly picked his DC 3 times already is a massive indictment, as real leaders are good judges of people.

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

You need talented players who are multi dimensional to be less predictable.

 

You need players who aren’t only talented but also fit within each other’s positional groups that add to the skill sets versus being redundant.

 

And you need to do this at the majority of positions (or the most important ones at the same

time) instead of one or two here and there while regressing horribly at another one or two. 

On the other hand, there are things you can do to make you less predictable. For example, you can not line up in shotgun formation every damn time you are trying to convert third and inches.

[profusion]

Looking around the league, there are a *lot* of questionable head coaches. Gruden seems sort of in the middle of the group--just about like his record.

 

It's also hard to evaluate someone like Gruden (who sorts through the players he's given) against a Belichick or Carroll, who has almost total control of the operation.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Burgold said:

On the other hand, there are things you can do to make you less predictable. For example, you can not line up in shotgun formation every damn time you are trying to convert third and inches.

 

Shotgun?  Talk about breaking NFL tendencies if he ran 3rd and inches out of shot gun all the time versus under center.  Have you seen that statistically? 

 

I got both Sharp's breakdown of plays and Football Outsiders from last year. I'll dig both up to check that one out to see if they break 3rd and inches and down.    

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Shotgun?  Talk about breaking NFL tendencies if he ran 3rd and inches out of shot gun all the time versus under center.  Have you seen that statistically? 

 

I got both Sharp's breakdown of plays and Football Outsiders from last year. I'll dig both up to check that one out to see if they break 3rd and inches and down.    

It's predictable in the sense that the defense knows what we are going to do. Sorry Sip, but it drives me nuts that they go shotgun almost every time they face a third or fourth and one.

 

I don't mind the idea of passing, but why do it from shotgun? Why make it easier on the D? Why make it so that they don't have to honor the run first?

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Burgold said:

It's predictable in the sense that the defense knows what we are going to do. Sorry Sip, but it drives me nuts that they go shotgun almost every time they face a third or fourth and one.

 

I don't mind the idea of passing, but why do it from shotgun? Why make it easier on the D? Why make it so that they don't have to honor the run first?

 

OK, you got me curious so I looked. 

 

3rd and short (1-3 yards_

56% passes, 44% runs.  Strong success rate in those downs, just short of 70%

On 3rd down and short their more successful play was a run, Adrian Peterson specifically, 80% success rate

Their most frequent play on 3rd and short was a hand off to Adrian Peterson

They are under center 63% and shot gun 37%.  That's also the exact league average.

They ran the ball 73% times out of center, 27% out of shot gun.   

3rd and short is often with the Qb under center I'd gather because teams run heavily in short distance, especially less than a yard. 

On 4th down and short they run 57% of the time and pass 43% of the time. 

 

If Jay is in shot gun on 3rd and inches, that actually strikes me as pretty funky and off beat.  I don't see specifically stats for 3rd and inches but if they run typically out of center and 3rd and inches of all things makes them change their approach from that tendency, I'd find that strange.   I guess you could say 3rd and 3 isn't the same as 3rd and inches but if anything the 3rd and 3 should dilute the 3rd and inches stats since the shorter the number of yards to go the more inclined teams are to run.   And if you are running most teams (including the Redskins) run from under center not shot gun.

 

[Burgold]

I'm working off anecdotal memory, but I'm not making it up. And I'm talking about a tactic he has used for quite a few years and not just last year. I guess part of it was he lost faith in his team's ability to convert third and inches. For the longest time, we had no back who was good at short yardage.

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I'm working off anecdotal memory, but I'm not making it up. And I'm talking about a tactic he has used for quite a few years and not just last year. I guess part of it was he lost faith in his team's ability to convert third and inches. For the longest time, we had no back who was good at short yardage.

 

Not saying you are making it up.  All in good spirits on my end, I think though you are misremembering.   I just pulled the first two games from last season.  6 plays like this.  5 out 6 they were out of under center as you can see.  These are all their 3rd and 1 or less in those games.  1 of them was a 4th and 1.  I can keep digging further but I'd presume the trend would have just continued.